THE RACIST-IN-CHIEF AND OTHER S***HOLES
Jan. 17th, 2018 03:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogDonald Trump’s “shithole countries” comment about other countries that are not Norway appears to have been the last straw for the NYT, who has finally declared in a couple of op-eds that Donald Trump really is, yes, a racist.
I agree with that statement.
Some people believe that this description also applies to everyone who either defends Trump or doesn’t actively denounce his comments from this point on (if not previously).
I personally don't agree with that – not unconditionally, anyway.
Certainly if yr one of the Trump defenders who also support/defend white supremacist/nationalist groups and/or Nazis, then yes, yr a racist. However, Trump defenders and silent Repubs also come in two additional flavors: (1) those who are technically racist but they don’t know that they are, and don’t understand why Trump’s comments and actions are racist or (2) they’re not racist but they believe that any news item claiming Trump said/did something racist is fake news.
For me it’s the same scenario regarding the debate over Confederate flags. A lot of white people honestly don’t see them as symbols of racism. That doesn’t mean they aren’t symbols of racism. But many white Southerners don’t see it as one – they’re also more than likely to have grown up being taught in school that the Civil War was about states rights and economic freedom, not slavery. They were taught wrong, of course. But again, they don’t know that.
The same applies to their attitudes towards Trump, and racism in general. They may agree that racism is wrong, but their idea of racism is narrowly defined by things like lynchings, separate washrooms, KKK cross burnings and using the N-Word. They have no concept of institutional racism, white privilege and power dynamics. So they don't see why Trump’s comments count as racism, because it’s not blatantly obvious and in many cases could be dismissed as coincidence. For example, you could say MAYBE that Trump’s antagonism towards kneeling NFL players is about patriotism and their color was a coincidence. Or some people will argue, “But they ARE shithole countries, why is it racist to say so?”
But, as has been pointed out, all these individual incidents add up to a clear and consistent pattern once you connect the dots: Trump only ever says this stuff about non-white people.
The problem is that many white people haven’t connected those dots yet – and the current state of media and political discourse doesn’t exactly encourage them to.
Which is why I think it’s unrealistic to say, “Hey, after all that’s been reported, there’s no WAY you can still pretend he’s not racist!” That presumes they all have equal access to the exact same information from the exact same sources as you (news sites, TV channels, people on Twitter, etc), have seen the same info as you and that there’s only one possible way to interpret it. Which simply isn’t true in the Social Media Reality Bubble age.
Which presents a serious conundrum in repairing race relations in the US. I do think the majority of white genuinely don't want to be racist – and that many if not all of them could be brought onside with patience and education showing them why they're wrong and what needs to change. Writing them off as racists no different from the KKK and the Nazis is unconstructive and potentially dangerous – not least because we’ve reached a point where some people think it’s not only acceptable but a patriotic duty to beat up Nazis. If the criteria for “Nazi” expands to “anyone who doesn’t actively denounce every racist thing Trump says”, well, that’s a lot of people to beat up, and I can guarantee that every non-Nazi who gets beat up on the premise that they are a Nazi is not going to have a sudden epiphany that they were wrong about racism and join your cause. They’re probably going to reorganize and beat you up right back. Or worse. Which is why I prefer unfashionable tactics like education and reason.
However, as I said, we live in an age where people live in alt-reality media bubbles that urge them to dismiss information that contradicts their worldview (or potentially labels them in a negative way) as “fake news”. And so much for education and reason. So I’ll admit the previous paragraph is unrealistic as things stand.
Also, I realized awhile back that it’s not up to me to define what does or does not count as racist. I also realize that functionally speaking, from the POV of minorities there’s no meaningful difference between intent and action. It’s possible to say racist things and commit acts of racism without realizing it – but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable, nor does it minimize the impact on victims of racism – not least because it emboldens and encourages actual honest-to-Pete racists, the results of which have already been deadly.
And as long as there are people who celebrate Trump’s racism – or, in the case of many Republican politicians, intentionally ignore it, dismiss it or excuse it for the sake of having someone crazy enough to sign their cockamamie bills while he still can – America’s racism problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
So I’ll admit that while I think non-racists who defend Trump or don’t call him out may not be part of the problem directly, they’re certainly not part of the solution, either. And I don't really know what can be done about that. What I am sure of is that dividing the world into “Nazis” and “Not Nazis” is an oversimplistic and lazy non-solution. Logically it's right up there with Dubya’s “Yr either us or a terrorist” (paraphrased).
One thing I’ll add:
Some people have been complaining that the NYT and mainstream media are really late to the “Trump Is A Racist” party and why couldn’t they have said that when it mattered – like, before Election Day 2016.
Personally, I don’t hold that against them because I’m old enough to remember that the MSM is hamstrung by the journalistic tradition of objectivity. A news outlet’s reputation for reliability and integrity hinged on fair, unbiased and accurate reporting – which is not the same thing as reporters not having biases. Of course they do. But they don’t editorialize in their copy.
This has always pissed off people who think “objective truth” is whatever hyperpartisan beliefs they subscribe to, which is why there’s always been an audience for yellow journalism and the tabloid press. And thanks to conspiracy-theory talk radio and blogs, people now naturally expect all media to explicitly and exclusively take their side and denounce the Other Side in the strongest possible terms – i.e. if yr not describing Trump in every sentence as “that evil greedy racist pussygrabbing motherfucker” verbatim, yr clearly pro-Trump.
But the MSM has its roots in a different era where – at least in recent decades – objectivity was seen as a virtue for journalism. And it’s hard to objectively label someone a racist in print unless they come right out and say obviously racist things (George Wallace, Richard Spencer, etc). Otherwise it’s a subjective call, which grates against the spirit of objectivity.
Perhaps a bigger reason the MSM has to be careful about slapping a racist label on a major public figure is libel and slander laws – racism is a serious enough charge that you’d better be prepared to back it up with facts unless you want to get sued. That’s hard when people say/do things that aren’t explicitly racist.
Okay, I’m sure some of it is also fear of alienating advertisers too. But overall I don't blame the MSM for holding off up to now. If anything, they're guilty of trying to stick to journalistic values that – thanks to blogs and social media – aren’t as fashionable as they used to be. But then I’m not convinced that shifting away from those values is necessarily a good thing, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
And again, Trump’s brand of racism is most evident when you connect all the dots. I couldn’t tell you why “shithole countries” specifically was the tipping point (or "shithouse" or whatever, like that makes a difference). But it was, and here we are. Perhaps we could have reached this point earlier. I don’t know. But better late than never, I guess?
The white zone is for loading and unloading only,
This is dF
I agree with that statement.
Some people believe that this description also applies to everyone who either defends Trump or doesn’t actively denounce his comments from this point on (if not previously).
I personally don't agree with that – not unconditionally, anyway.
Certainly if yr one of the Trump defenders who also support/defend white supremacist/nationalist groups and/or Nazis, then yes, yr a racist. However, Trump defenders and silent Repubs also come in two additional flavors: (1) those who are technically racist but they don’t know that they are, and don’t understand why Trump’s comments and actions are racist or (2) they’re not racist but they believe that any news item claiming Trump said/did something racist is fake news.
For me it’s the same scenario regarding the debate over Confederate flags. A lot of white people honestly don’t see them as symbols of racism. That doesn’t mean they aren’t symbols of racism. But many white Southerners don’t see it as one – they’re also more than likely to have grown up being taught in school that the Civil War was about states rights and economic freedom, not slavery. They were taught wrong, of course. But again, they don’t know that.
The same applies to their attitudes towards Trump, and racism in general. They may agree that racism is wrong, but their idea of racism is narrowly defined by things like lynchings, separate washrooms, KKK cross burnings and using the N-Word. They have no concept of institutional racism, white privilege and power dynamics. So they don't see why Trump’s comments count as racism, because it’s not blatantly obvious and in many cases could be dismissed as coincidence. For example, you could say MAYBE that Trump’s antagonism towards kneeling NFL players is about patriotism and their color was a coincidence. Or some people will argue, “But they ARE shithole countries, why is it racist to say so?”
But, as has been pointed out, all these individual incidents add up to a clear and consistent pattern once you connect the dots: Trump only ever says this stuff about non-white people.
The problem is that many white people haven’t connected those dots yet – and the current state of media and political discourse doesn’t exactly encourage them to.
Which is why I think it’s unrealistic to say, “Hey, after all that’s been reported, there’s no WAY you can still pretend he’s not racist!” That presumes they all have equal access to the exact same information from the exact same sources as you (news sites, TV channels, people on Twitter, etc), have seen the same info as you and that there’s only one possible way to interpret it. Which simply isn’t true in the Social Media Reality Bubble age.
Which presents a serious conundrum in repairing race relations in the US. I do think the majority of white genuinely don't want to be racist – and that many if not all of them could be brought onside with patience and education showing them why they're wrong and what needs to change. Writing them off as racists no different from the KKK and the Nazis is unconstructive and potentially dangerous – not least because we’ve reached a point where some people think it’s not only acceptable but a patriotic duty to beat up Nazis. If the criteria for “Nazi” expands to “anyone who doesn’t actively denounce every racist thing Trump says”, well, that’s a lot of people to beat up, and I can guarantee that every non-Nazi who gets beat up on the premise that they are a Nazi is not going to have a sudden epiphany that they were wrong about racism and join your cause. They’re probably going to reorganize and beat you up right back. Or worse. Which is why I prefer unfashionable tactics like education and reason.
However, as I said, we live in an age where people live in alt-reality media bubbles that urge them to dismiss information that contradicts their worldview (or potentially labels them in a negative way) as “fake news”. And so much for education and reason. So I’ll admit the previous paragraph is unrealistic as things stand.
Also, I realized awhile back that it’s not up to me to define what does or does not count as racist. I also realize that functionally speaking, from the POV of minorities there’s no meaningful difference between intent and action. It’s possible to say racist things and commit acts of racism without realizing it – but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable, nor does it minimize the impact on victims of racism – not least because it emboldens and encourages actual honest-to-Pete racists, the results of which have already been deadly.
And as long as there are people who celebrate Trump’s racism – or, in the case of many Republican politicians, intentionally ignore it, dismiss it or excuse it for the sake of having someone crazy enough to sign their cockamamie bills while he still can – America’s racism problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
So I’ll admit that while I think non-racists who defend Trump or don’t call him out may not be part of the problem directly, they’re certainly not part of the solution, either. And I don't really know what can be done about that. What I am sure of is that dividing the world into “Nazis” and “Not Nazis” is an oversimplistic and lazy non-solution. Logically it's right up there with Dubya’s “Yr either us or a terrorist” (paraphrased).
One thing I’ll add:
Some people have been complaining that the NYT and mainstream media are really late to the “Trump Is A Racist” party and why couldn’t they have said that when it mattered – like, before Election Day 2016.
Personally, I don’t hold that against them because I’m old enough to remember that the MSM is hamstrung by the journalistic tradition of objectivity. A news outlet’s reputation for reliability and integrity hinged on fair, unbiased and accurate reporting – which is not the same thing as reporters not having biases. Of course they do. But they don’t editorialize in their copy.
This has always pissed off people who think “objective truth” is whatever hyperpartisan beliefs they subscribe to, which is why there’s always been an audience for yellow journalism and the tabloid press. And thanks to conspiracy-theory talk radio and blogs, people now naturally expect all media to explicitly and exclusively take their side and denounce the Other Side in the strongest possible terms – i.e. if yr not describing Trump in every sentence as “that evil greedy racist pussygrabbing motherfucker” verbatim, yr clearly pro-Trump.
But the MSM has its roots in a different era where – at least in recent decades – objectivity was seen as a virtue for journalism. And it’s hard to objectively label someone a racist in print unless they come right out and say obviously racist things (George Wallace, Richard Spencer, etc). Otherwise it’s a subjective call, which grates against the spirit of objectivity.
Perhaps a bigger reason the MSM has to be careful about slapping a racist label on a major public figure is libel and slander laws – racism is a serious enough charge that you’d better be prepared to back it up with facts unless you want to get sued. That’s hard when people say/do things that aren’t explicitly racist.
Okay, I’m sure some of it is also fear of alienating advertisers too. But overall I don't blame the MSM for holding off up to now. If anything, they're guilty of trying to stick to journalistic values that – thanks to blogs and social media – aren’t as fashionable as they used to be. But then I’m not convinced that shifting away from those values is necessarily a good thing, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
And again, Trump’s brand of racism is most evident when you connect all the dots. I couldn’t tell you why “shithole countries” specifically was the tipping point (or "shithouse" or whatever, like that makes a difference). But it was, and here we are. Perhaps we could have reached this point earlier. I don’t know. But better late than never, I guess?
The white zone is for loading and unloading only,
This is dF
no subject
on 2018-01-19 07:05 am (UTC)You sure there's not a third flavor - "technically racist and know that they are and don’t care if Trump’s comments and actions are racist" (because they don't have to be a Nazi or alt-whatever to feel this way, and of course they would approve) and a fourth - "technically racist and know that they are, but they still believe that any news item claiming Trump said/did something racist is fake news because duh, no one's stupid enough to sound racist these days, snowflakes man...the things they dream up."
Because there are; though both such specimens are in my past, I've known at least two of them personally ("Outrageous! Shocking!" Yes; try living with them: "Insane! Impossible to reason with!" All that and a bag of chips - when they're not spitting up on themselves over Oh Bummer and sneering every epithet they can with big wide eyes boring into you because it makes them think they look or sound so un-PC and ballsy.)
What I am sure of is that dividing the world into “Nazis” and “Not Nazis” is an oversimplistic and lazy non-solution.
Yes, you're right (my thoughts got mangled on first pass, apologies).
There are more flavors on the spectrum than most people not exposed to lower middle class white people's private, daily lives might think or know. And it's not fixable for a few reasons (born/raised that way, feel/know they're right/superior so nothing to worry about should someone complain or "try to reason with them", have "good" (mostly fake news-supplied) reasons for (outdated but still-common) opinions or positions, source or twist "science" or "research" to support "arguments" ie, hate speech or posture).
– i.e. if yr not describing Trump in every sentence as “that evil greedy racist pussygrabbing motherfucker” verbatim, yr clearly pro-Trump.
True, but kind of an interesting dilemma. Before the election I felt a lot of internal/external pressure to describe him that way so people wouldn't vote for him. After the election I was so pissed I described him that way just for the sheer, spiteful pleasure of it being the truth. Eventually I talked about him more like a person (mostly under lock, but still, more like a person, even if he's one I can never stand on principle).
I don't feel comfortable with any of it, which inspired some of my under-lock posts (though apparently I have an overall tone that makes more lefty readers blanch because "not anti-Trump enough"... *shrug*). But the truth is he's human and a recognizable human and the left does push the bs a bit too far with the guy. He's a bit empty-headed so he gets more credit than deserved for three-dimensional chess when the likeliest truth is if he can get through a two-dimensional box of french fries without dribbling on his chin he's probably having a great day!
I grew up with guys like him (my mom was born right across the highway that divided his neighborhood from hers in Jamaica just a few years before he was). I grew up with him, for God's sake...he was in every tabloid, every magazine, every newspaper and on every TV I read or watched almost every day or week of my life for over 20 years. People get way too excited over what they think he is. He's almost none of that.
Nowadays he's a puppet for the right - yet even that role he's played none too convincingly (and if not for this idea he's had since he ran that he has to attract/please an R base, my guess is he'd make Bush look not compassionately conservative enough).
That's what should scare people: not that he's inflexibly R (he isn't, never will be) but that those closest to him with the most leverage to pull his strings are inflexibly R, and that he's just ideologically unmoored enough to keep leaning into - rather than moving away from - those that pull his strings the hardest - because it pleases the base, and he's put the base ahead of his own apparent thoughts on anything almost every single time.
And again, Trump’s brand of racism is most evident when you connect all the dots.
Yeah, like these (from https://gwydion.dreamwidth.org/1967001.html):
After all, would a racist person refuse to let black people rent housing from them, call all Mexicans rapists, insist everyone from Haiti has AIDS, brand a whole continent plus Haiti shitholes, attempt to ban all Muslims from the country, try to build a border wall we don't need to keep brown people out, deport Dreamers who are first responders and veterans, call KKK and NAZIs 'good people' while siding with thugs and terrorist against the innocent people they injured and killed, put literal Neo-NAZIs in the White House, etc.? What more can he do to prove he's "the least racist person you've ever interviewed?"
I couldn’t tell you why “shithole countries” specifically was the tipping point (or "shithouse" or whatever, like that makes a difference).
Got into this with someone on my reading list (he hasn't and doesn't seem likely to respond) after he flat-out inferred the word "shithole" was racist in saying it was meant as a descriptor of brown people (because they're the same color). So I flat-out looked it up in Merriam-Webster, other dictionaries, and even on Urban Dictionary and told him it's not a racist word (here's what I didn't say but actually thought: "It's a bit of a stretch to infer TRex actually meant those places are shitholes because that's the color of the people living in them...seriously, wtf?").
It's the context the word "shithole" was used in that makes the word racist - not the word itself - but again, people are giving TRex waaaaay too much credit for loading it up with other meanings I don't think he had in mind when he (verbally) puked it up.