Tag Archives: skin color
This is a funny example of how people like Matthews will witness something and interpret it as if it means conservatives are racist. At one convention “black folk are hang’n together” collected in groups, and at the other convention black folks are dispersed and spread out, hanging out with different people almost as if skin color didn’t matter. Matthews interprets this as “being told [not to] bunch up” because it might frighten whites.
And here’s another example of Matthews looking for race in places that don’t have anything to do with race (the definition of racialism).
There could be a whole website dedicated to documenting all the insane hatred towards Clarence Thomas. It is as clear an example as there ever will be of which side in America is hate filled. If half the things said about Clarence Thomas were said about Barack Obama it would be a national outrage.
Here is a great example:
The Root posted a list of 21 “Black folks [they would] remove from history.” The list is composed of mass murderers, notorious criminals, moronic celebrities, and Clarence Thomas. It is sad that some people who share Clarence Thomas’s skin color want him removed from their history. Since ideas are more important than skin color, I’m proud to have him as a part of my history.
In the last few years people who are paid to interpret events in terms of race have struck out against the idea of colorblindness, from Tim Wise’s Colorblind to Michelle Alexander’s most recent book. Oddly enough there hasn’t been a substantial amount of work in support of colorblindness. Instead the racialists have defined colorblindness based on their vague interpretations of an unspoken belief by most Americans. Like most intellectual light weights, they are sure to define an opposing position so that it is easily defeated. So part of defending colorblindness will be a constant effort to explain what is meant when I use the term.
Among those who are waging a war against colorblindness, it has become a social virtue to talk about race. This is especially true on college campuses where race awareness clubs are formed, and racialist events are held. If you find yourself in one of these events, you will most likely listen to a guest speaker or sit around in a circle and discuss race in America in very abstract terms. Not everything will be abstract; they will give hard facts about disparities between races, (all of which will be either wrong or misleading) and they will make clear accusations against white America, but in terms of solutions, things will become vague. The whole time there will be a sense that those who choose to come to these events are the select few with the courage to talk about race. This makes talking about race a kind of virtue in and of itself. There are two main problems with this: 1. People become so pleased with themselves for talking about race that they convince themselves they’ve actually done something 2. Most of the issues they attribute to race (which is nearly every issue), don’t in fact have to do with race.
Sociologists routinely divide people on the basis of one characteristic and then observe the different outcomes when comparing each group. This is problematic because rarely does one single characteristic reveal relevant differences in groups of people. For example if you divide people by skin color and see that whites and blacks show a different result in terms of income, this by itself doesn’t reveal very much about the role of skin color. It is likely that there are other determining factors that account for the difference in income, but it appears the disparity is caused by skin color simply because that is the only characteristic that was taken into account. To accurately demonstrate the role of skin color, one should be able to account for as many variables as possible when making a comparison; so in other words, comparing whites with blacks whose parents earned the same amount, who are in the same age group, who received the same education level, who both had the same family structure growing up, who live in the same type of region, etc. If skin color truly is a determining factor in peoples lives than the gap between their incomes should remain. But the gap almost disappears after accounting for only a few of those variables. At the very least not accounting for a few important variables paints an exaggerated picture, that may shock people, but doesn’t come close to illustrating the true role of race in our society.
Typically when one reads a book on a controversial topic, the author devotes a good amount of time dealing with counter arguments. For racialists this is rare, and when they do attempt to address counter arguments, it is done in such a laughably unfair way that they shouldn’t even get any points for effort. Instead they will have chapters about people being defensive, with titles like “Denial and Resistance” or simply “White Denial.” Racialists view themselves as educators, who are simply teaching the ignorant. Anyone who disputes their gospel must have something wrong with them. This unfounded arrogance is a problem that feeds itself. Racialists gain more confidence by viewing themselves as having no legitimate counter and thus are comfortable with more extreme claims, driving even more people into defensiveness.
The first problem with racialists is that their conclusions are factually untrue. Most people don’t make their decisions based on race unconsciously or otherwise. Most opposition to President Obama isn’t due to racism as they claim, nor was Hurricane Katrina large scale “ethnic cleansing”, as Tim Wise has written. Disparities among racial groups in education, housing, wealth, employment, health, and the justice system largely can’t be explained by discrimination and racism (all of this will be argued for in great detail).