THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

More double-standards:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/80253

White people cannot possibly know whether and to what extent racism (against blacks) exists.

I have always thought that the “opinions” of white people with regard to racism should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

That is not to say that historically oppressed people don’t sometimes have an ax to grind or don’t sometimes exaggerate the extent to which racism exists. 

But if I want to know about racism against blacks, I am going to ask a black person, not a white one.  That is for sure.

It is incredible how much the “oppressor” has a different view on their oppression compared to an “oppressee”.  They can justify every single one of their actions, and as the victor, they get to write the history book.  Whether it is an oppression, aggression, or other action that the receiver doesn’t want to receive is irrelevant.  The guy with the hammer will pound that nail.

#1, that was a good little article.  Sometimes we have no idea whether something is due to “racism” any more than we have no idea the influence of “chemistry” or “veteran leadership” or even of a manager in baseball.  Unless something is overtly racist, we can only speculate, with little confidence. 

As well, racism can be completely subconscious and thus there is no way to tell whether something is due to subconscious racist tendencies or feelings, or something else.

The author of the above-mentioned article contradicts himself a little bit though. He says that one of the reasons “we” are outraged over Wright’s comments and not those of these other “nut cases,” is that Wright said bad things about America and these other guys said bad things about minorities.  I agree with that.  That may be the reason for the disparity. It may have little or nothing to do with race.  Again, I don’t think we can ever know.

I don’t buy the argument that the media has created this disparity for racist reasons.  Isn’t the media, by and large, supposed to be liberal?  If that is the case, shouldn’t they go out of their way to make sure they are not racist or at least perceived as racist?  I believe both of these things are true, although I don’t believe the media in general is THAT liberal - I just believe that they are typically educated and “worldly,” and thus don’t have a “southern, uneducated, good-ole-boy, racist,” slant (I have nothing against the south).

I don’t really follow the election so much, so excuse my ignorance, but.... has there been anything about Clinton’s preacher or priest (not sure which, I’m not of that religion)? The article discusses Giuliani, McCain, Obama, and Romney, but doesn’t mention Clinton.

Let me say that I agree that it’s stupid to assume racism isn’t a problem without asking the people most likely to be affected.

But I wonder if this article isn’t attacking a straw man.  I’ve never heard anyone, black or white, argue that racism is suddenly no longer a problem.  I HAVE heard arguments that *institutional* racism is *declining*. 

And to find out, you have to investigate.  You can look at hiring practices, you can look at the frequency of want-ads asking (explicitly or otherwise) for white candidates.  You can examine explicit affermative action policies.  You can run studies, like the one that sent identical resumes, one with a white-sounding name and one with a black-sounding name, to see if there’s a difference in callbacks (there was).  You can ask groups of black people the same questions, 20 years apart, and compare the results.

Do you just want to know if racism still exists?  Yes, ask its victims, and you will quickly find the answer is yes.  Do you want to measure it?  Then you have to study the issue.  And whites are just as capable of studying racism as blacks are, even if they admittedly do not have to live with its injustices.

Even though I have probably never experienced black/white racism, I think I have good reason to believe that there’s a lot less of it than 50 years ago.  And while it is completely appropriate and necessary to look to personal histories to better understand the effects of racism, the *measurement* of racism should be independent of who’s doing the measuring.

"But I wonder if this article isn’t attacking a straw man.  I’ve never heard anyone, black or white, argue that racism is suddenly no longer a problem.  I HAVE heard arguments that *institutional* racism is *declining*. “

Here in Texas, I hear (white) people insist all the time that racism is no longer a problem in America.  Bizarre, but true.  There really are people who believe that, just be grateful you don’t know them.

I think even a cursory examination of American culture is enough to confidently assert that institutional racism has declined over the past 40 years; I think you could even make the argument that legal or governmental racism is no longer a major problem in the US.  Unfortunately, even granting that, there remains the not to be underestimated force of cultural and social racism.

You know, like the kind that gets offended when a black preacher says mean things about America but not when a white one does.

I’m also pretty confident that *social* racism is on the decline.  I mean, is there any doubt that today is the best time in US history to be a black American?

I agree that cultural and social racism is “not to be underestimated,” but the way to not underestimate it is to properly estimate it.

I believe that institutional racism is much less prevalent than 40 or 50 years ago. There are still racist individuals, of all races. If a racist is a cop, he can use his position of influence to opress others, but these days the system will almost never back him up if his actions become known.

People should be treated as individuals. Don’t hold someone back just because they’re black, but also don’t automatically claim opression just because you’re black.

Jeremiah Wright can say whatever he wants, it’s his right to free specch. However, when I go to church every Sunday, I hear from the pastor what’s wrong with me, but along with that, a path to my salvation that will set me right with God. What I hear from Rev. Wright is what’s wrong with everyone else, and how God will have vengeance on them. If Obama attends for 20 years without looking for another church, does this mean he shares Wright’s outlook?

I want to vote for people who share my values and visions, and who a candidate chooses to mentor him and associate with will help me judge that candidate’s values and visions.

Phil:  while there’s no doubt that social racism has declined, I fear you may underestimate it.  Read this article for a sampling of what Obama volunteers (black and white) often face from whites:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html.  Or consider that 21% of white DEMOCRATS voting in yesterday’s Kentucky primary admitted in the exit poll that the candidates’ race played a role in deciding their vote, and that only 9% (!) of these people voted for Obama.

And the article is definitely not taking on a straw man.  Opinion polls consistently show that most white Americans (but not blacks) now believe that blacks no longer face discrimination today.

There is little doubt that racism at all levels and in all contexts has declined.

There is also little doubt in my mind that the only way for the average person (without being involved in research) to experience racism is to be at the receiving end of it.

About 20 years ago, I had a female friend and roommate who was black.  Where I was living and in my everyday contacts with people, I do not recall ever coming in personal contact with anything or anyone even remotely racist.  My roommate was an ordinary person - very nice.  Definitely not an activist or anything like that. No chip on her shoulder.  She never got into any conversations, at least with me, about race.  She was also not one to make things up or even exaggerate.

One day she was talking to my mother and me, and I forgot how it came up, but she told us, rather matter-of-factly, and with no anger or bitterness that I could discern, “Not a day goes by that someone, either inadvertantly or intentionally, does not remind me that I am black.”

I took that to heart and never forgot it.  I took that to mean that you cannot possibly know what it is like to be an oppressed minority unless you walk in one’s shoes.

At the same time, I agree that white or black, you should be able to measure it to some extent.  SOME extent.  Some things just can’t be measured all that accurately.  And let’s also not pretend that there can’t or won’t be researcher bias when measuring something like this.

I want to vote for people who share my values and visions, and who a candidate chooses to mentor him and associate with will help me judge that candidate’s values and visions.

Your problem is that Jesus Christ is not running for President!

***

To think that this is the trump card that will seal his fate, and that McCain doesn’t having anything even close to poor personal associations seems awfully unfair.

This is the equivalent of not voting for someone the MVP because his team didn’t make the playoffs.  But, he’s good enough to be voted second best player in the league.

To give the preponderance of the weight to this issue (your perception of the personal relationships; playoff team) seems imbalanced.

But, that’s why we (or rather you guys) all get a vote.

Any white person who has applied to any university since the Bakke decision has been a victim of racism. It comes in the guise of the grotesque euphemism of affirmative action. Furthermore, unlike most forms of white v. black racism, there is an obvious, tangible and provable effect of this racism. And the policy extends way beyond colleges. Michelle Obama was paid $317,000 a year to hold a job called a “diversity coordinator” at a hospital.

I’m not arguing that whites have it harder than blacks, or that it’s even close to equal. Nor am I necessarily arguing that affirmative action is wrong here. (Racism is not necessarily bad, a policy to cast only a white man to play George Washington in a play is racist). But it’s flat out incorrect to not acknowledge racism against white in today’s society.

>“Phil:  while there’s no doubt that social racism has declined, I fear you may underestimate it...”

Well, how do you know I’m underestimating it when I went out of my way NOT to estimate it? 

All I’m saying is:

-- racism exists

-- there’s a lot less of it than there used to be

-- the idea that only black people are qualified to talk about racism is just wrong, like saying only baseball players are allowed to talk about clutch hitting.

-- with the exception that, if you want to know what racism *feels like*, or you want to understand some of the subtle ways in which it manifests itself, well, then, of course you have look to those who have experienced it.

-- I agree that if anyone is saying that there is NO racism, and means that literally, they are obviously wrong.  (If it’s not a straw man, then I’d argue that the Tim Wise excerpt above is shooting fish in a barrel.  I mean, OF COURSE there’s still racial discrimination, how can anyone think otherwise?)

That’s all I’m saying.  For now, anyway. 

I think an interesting group to study racism in regards to are real African/Black-Caribbean immigrants. I think that perception is valuable, of course, but that there’s so much history and baggage for many people who have been alive in times of worse racism that perception can be distorted in unforeseen ways if you take the ‘feeling’ at face value.

Of course you’d run into problems with comparing what racism (if existing) was like in the countries those people emigrated from, but at least they likely wouldn’t have the experience that so many black Americans have had who lived through the civil rights movement.

I’ve been living in Japan for 5 years now, and there is certainly racism here. Much like MGL’s former friend/roommate said, “Not a day goes by where I’m not reminded I’m white.” However, if I ever try to bring this up to a black American as a shared experience, I get shouted down as not understanding.

Even measuring racism through statistical methods won’t get a feel on how separate people feel even if they are treated equally by measurable standards. And feeling is highly subjective…

#14 - Well put

#15 - I get where you’re coming from. I’m Korean-American, and from my visits to Korea and my interactions with fellow Asians and Asian-Americans, I can fully attest that Asians, like the rest of the world, tend to be very racist, both against other Asians and those of other ethnicities.
Nevertheless, your situation is a bit different from a black American’s. White people don’t have a history of being transported against their will to Japan by the millions, (mostly) being made property for hundreds of years, then having to wait another century to get legislation passed that extended full rights of citizenship to you and that struck down (unconstitutional) laws that restricted your rights, livelihood, and lifestyle, and after all that, still facing abject oppression in many parts of the country.

Determining racism individually is difficult, mainly because it’s a personal/internal issue and there is no law that’s going to force someone to change what he or she feels in his/her heart. In regard to larger society, however, it’s clear to see that, to borrow the oft-used phrase, there has been much progress but there’s much work to do.
Hiring practices have gotten better, and most businesses are Equal-Opportunity Employers that use diversity training and stuff like that, but what about fairness in pay, benefits, and promotions? We’ve got people clamoring to end affirmative action for undergraduate admissions at public universities while many people use personal connections to “backdoor” their kids into schools from which they would have otherwise gotten rejected. In his book Serenity, Ralph Wiley talked about how he, as a black man, had to work twice as much to go half as far. His numbers might be a little off, but his idea and sentiment ring true.

Though idealistically I hope for the day where societal racism is no more, I don’t realistically think that will ever happen.

Aaron B.

I was born in 1980. Black Americans who were born at the same time (barring the potential black immigrant from a country where slavery is still practiced who then became a naturalized US citizen) were not subjected to slavery. They were not transported against their will. They were not made property or denied citizenship rights.

Yes, there is racism, but saying that I can’t compare being treated differently from the people around me to a black American of the same age boggles my mind.

When a black person complains of being reminded about their race, I understand it. When a black person complains about being viewed as a race rather than a person, I understand that. When a black person complains about being denied service, I understand that.

No, you’re right, my great great grandparents weren’t brought over to Japan as slaves and didn’t have to suffer horrible racism as a result. That doesn’t make a lick of difference to my personal experience, however. Does it?

A black person, reading the (very recent) history of how black people were treated as property, likely always has an underlying feeling that a white person may have underlying feelings that whites are a superior race to blacks.

If all of history were wiped from the books, and if all children were not a product of their environment, then racism doesn’t exist, and there are no underlying feelings to contend with.  But, that’s not the reality that blacks live with.  Maybe in 50 years, when the last of those blacks subjected to being treated as an inferior race dies, maybe we can move on a bit more.

Sal, I didn’t mean what you said and feel is wrong or unjustified, and it’s unfortunate that you face racism in everyday life simply because you look different than those around you. I was just saying that it cuts a little deeper for black Americans because of their overall history of subjugation and oppression.

White Americans should know that they are certainly not unique, from a world perspective.  A quick glance at the news concerning the treatment of the Roma in Italy, among other places, would make pretty clear that racism is alive and well in the Western world and in some cases, is in a more virulent form than as currently experienced in America. 

The support for Obama among young people of all races is a hopeful sign, and this is noticed not only in America.

If all of history were wiped from the books, and if all children were not a product of their environment, then racism doesn’t exist, and there are no underlying feelings to contend with.  But, that’s not the reality that blacks live with.  Maybe in 50 years, when the last of those blacks subjected to being treated as an inferior race dies, maybe we can move on a bit more.

Woah, nellie!  Are you saying that the dynamics that created racism in the first place (it must have started somewhere and sometime before children were a product of their environment and before people could read about it in history books) does not exist anymore?

I would say that although society gets more enlightened all the time (perhaps there are times when it regresses - I don’t know), there will always be friction between people who are different in color, beliefs, way of life, etc.

In other words, if we could wipe out history, and start with a clean slate, I am certain that racism would still develop.  Not to the extent that it has in years past, but certainly to some extent.

It appears to be human nature (perhaps someday it won’t, but that will take a very long time, if it ever does) to fear/dislike people who don’t look or act like you do.

One of the sad things is that we look at racism in years past (like blacks having to sit in the back of the bus, or the Japanese being interned) and think, “How could we have tolerated that in the 20th century?” I am certain that someday we will say the same thing about the way we look at Muslims in the world and the way we treat gays.  For example, I am certain that in 20-50 years, we will be saying, “Can you believe that the government used to tell us who we can and cannot marry?” or “Can you believe that in order to stay in the military, you had to keep your sexual orientation a secret?” (Not that it is ANYONE’S business or should be, but you certainly have a right to be open about it.)

In recent news, the principal of a high school resigned because the district allowed the school to have a gay/straight club/alliance, or something like that.  While I have no animosity towards the principal, as he is a product of his upbringing, like all of us are, I think that is just sad.  Anything that deeply (actually, it doesn’t have to be deep) hurts someone else with no tangible value of its own is a “crime.”

Clearly, if Obama loses the election this November, it will be because of racism. You can devise all sorts of other reasons, which may or may not be valid, but this will be the case. Undoubtedly, it will be a close race no matter who wins, but if Obama loses, whatever that percentage is, you can be sure more people than that voted against him simply because he is black.

or that he’s a condescending liberal who reminds me a whole lot of Hugo Chavez...and that has nothing to do with his skin color

#22

Nonsense. There maybe some portion of the electorate that won’t vote for him solely because of his race, but his race is also a HUGE reason he even has a chance at the presidency. That is, there are far more people voting for him because he is (half-)black than voting against him for that reason. If a white guy with minimal experience and no significant accomplishment to his name ran for the Democratic nomination and relied entirely on his charisma and populist rhetoric, he might get a decent chunk of support but he would never be a front runner. Just ask John Edwards.

Aaron/24: To me personally, Edwards has less than zero charisma.  And regardless, comparing any two politicians to each other is almost certainly apples and oranges.

Do you have any source for your claim about the number of people voting for/against Obama because of his ethnicity?

"To me personally, Edwards has less than zero charisma.”

I would whole heartily disagree, and am positive that you are among a tiny minority in this belief. Not only do I say that because of my judgment of him, but also because he was a very successful lawyer (where persuading jurors is paramount) and political reporters have mentioned how good is speaking to crowds. There is certainly no way that he is less charisma than John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.

Honest question: Is there anyone else who thinks he isn’t great when it comes to stirring up crowds? Of all the areas to hold him in low regard, I’m truly stunned that this would be one of them.

“comparing any two politicians to each other is almost certainly apples and oranges.”

To some degree this is true, but it’s a lot better than nothing. I also would argue that the comparison in this case is very valid. What difference between them is greater (in the eyes of voters) than their race? The only thing I can think of is that Edwards’ voted for the Iraq war, but so did Kerry which means Edwards’ was on equal footing with his main opponent in that regard in 2004. And by the time 2008 came, he had become furiously against the war to the point that his vote was no longer a big drag.

“Do you have any source for your claim about the number of people voting for/against Obama because of his ethnicity?”

I was responding to your assertion. It seems only fair that you would provide substantiation for your claim first before demanding others to do so, especially when you couch it as an undeniable fact.

"his race is also a HUGE reason he even has a chance at the presidency.”

Do you really truly believe this, as Geraldine Ferraro does, to be the case? That being black has helped his political career? If being (half) black helps political careers, we would’ve had a black president a long time ago; Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson (who ran a compelling but ultimately failing campaign twenty years ago), and others would’ve already been president or at least a viable candidate.

Forget the presidency for a moment. There have been three black senators in the modern era, Obama being the only one currently serving. That’s one out of a hundred. When Brooke and Braun were serving, they too were the only ones. Surely blacks (as well as other minority groups) are statistically underrepresented in government. Being a minority simply doesn’t help you in politics. That Obama can be this close to the presidency is in spite of the fact that he’s black, not because of it.

Sharpton and Jackson were not serious candidates - they had never held any lower office, and were seen as camera chasing shake down artists. With Obama, it goes back to what Joe Biden said about “clean and articulate”. He speaks about issues that are not race based. He gets support from blacks, the young, the intellectual left, and the poor, preaching that the system is totally broken and will never work for them. The part of the Democratic coalition where he has trailed far behind Mrs. Clinton is the blue collar union workers. Some of this may be racism, but this group is the most conservative of Democrats, who go with the marty mostly on labor issues. They voted for Reagan and then Mr. Clinton. They went somewhat for Gore, and less so for Kerry. Obama is rated the most liberal senator currently in Congress, and the most liberal presumtive nominee since McGovern.Obama said these people were bitter that government had not come through for them after losing jobs 25 years ago, and in their bitterness clung to their guns, their religion, and their dislike for people who didn’t look like them. Is this supposed to mean that once Obama has the government fix what ails them, they won’t need their guns and religion anymore?

MGL: “does not exist anymore?”

I said no such thing.  I said in 50 years from now, if the dynamics didn’t exist anymore from when children are young, then racism can begin its death.

And to follow, no, I don’t think racism were to develop, if it never existed.  As long as we are not segregated based on race and racism had never existed, then blacks and whites would live in harmony.

30 - Tom, I don’t agree. I do believe racism is taught, but all around the world, in ethnic enclaves like Kosovo and Abkhazia, like the English telling the Welsh they weren’t allowed to speak their own language, Koreans shunning mixed children, to tribes in Africa segregating themselves based on how dark their skin is - people throughout history have strived for self determination, having their own culture etc, and not wanting their affairs determined by someone not a member of their group

"The part of the Democratic coalition where he has trailed far behind Mrs. Clinton is the blue collar union workers.”

It is true these are probably the most conservative of the Democrats. And sure, maybe many of these voters will go McCain based on Obama’s liberalness. But surely you must believe that if Obama were white, he would get more votes from this group than if he were black.

Another group that Obama has also trailed far behind Clinton are Latinos, which while not traditional white/black racism, is still racism.

I am not saying that white voters who don’t vote for Obama are all racist, or don’t have other rationale for not voting for him. I am saying there is a significant number of people who won’t vote for him (whether they admit it publicly, or even to themselves) because of race, and that this number of people will negatively impact him (despite all the voters who will vote for him because he’s black.) The 2008 presidential election should really be a cakewalk for the Democrats. That it won’t be says volumes.

Brian/31:

I said:
“As long as we are not segregated based on race and racism had never existed,”

Those are two strong preconditions.  Non-segregation and no preconceptions.  Your examples either have one or both.

Show me an environment where neither exists, and then show me one where some bias was formed based on race.

***

In Canada, we had a mix of everything.  And none, not a single kid in any of my schools, cared at all about race.  We didn’t know any “better”.  All we cared about is having fun, playing sports, cheating off each other, and trying to get girls.  Race knows no bounds in those endeavours.

Ask Jackie Robinson what he thought of Montreal.  And that was 60 years ago.

Tom, I will agree on that.

I don’t think my father is racist, but if he tells a story that has a black person in it, he has to tell you that the person was black even if it had nothing at all to do with the story.

I never met any black people until I played baseball in the city sponsored summer league, and then at college. To us minorities were Serbs and Slovaks. Now I work with people from all over the world, Jamaica, Colombia, Ecuador, Finland, Iran, Korea, etc.

I have always believed in treating every peoson as an individual, and that is what I made sure I tought my children. They went to school in the Virginia suburbs of DC, so their classmates were from every continent. I am proud that both of my children are about as color blind as possible. They are both very opinionated, but they will argue with whoever on the merits of what that person has said or done. They don’t give a crap what someone looks like or where they’re from.

Aaron/26, we disagree on Edwards’ charisma, and factually neither one of us can be sure we’re “correct”, as it’s a matter of opinion.  That’s why I say comparing politicians is apples and oranges.  As far as whether I’m in the minority or majority with my feelings towards Edwards’ charisma… well, there has to be *some* reason he’s never won the nomination, and I don’t think it’s because Clinton and Kerry are black, right?

I never made any assertion about Obama; I’m genuinely curious as I have no idea how many votes he’s gained or lost due to his race.  Regardless, I would guess based on your classic playground defense of “you first” that you’ve got nothing to back up your guess, so it looks like I’m still back where I started… not knowing anything about what race has gained/lost him.

"we disagree on Edwards’ charisma, and factually neither one of us can be sure we’re “correct”, as it’s a matter of opinion.  That’s why I say comparing politicians is apples and oranges.”

There are an infinite number of factors that effect how a candidate will do, but again, I’d like to do my best to find comparable politicians when talking about these sorts of things because doing so can be illuminating.

“As far as whether I’m in the minority or majority with my feelings towards Edwards’ charisma… well, there has to be *some* reason he’s never won the nomination, and I don’t think it’s because Clinton and Kerry are black, right?”

I think Edwards came up short against those two for several reasons that had nothing to do with his charisma:
a) he had minimal governing experience
b) he had no major accomplishments to his name
c) his form of demagoguery inherently has limited appeal except in the worst economic times
d) in 2004, the Dem base opted for Kerry because they felt they needed a candidate with military credibility to go against Bush
e) in 2007/08, Hillary was the juggernaut establishment candidate

“I never made any assertion about Obama”

Sorry, I foolishly assumed that your post was by Andy. My apologies. I will explain my rationale a bit.

I feel that there is a very strong desire among many Americans to elect a black president. This isn’t something I can prove because it’s not really a conscious thing. That is, non-blacks don’t look at him and think “I’m voting for him just because he’s black”, rather it’s a much more visceral desire to see him succeed and think the best of him. If you ask people point blank if race is important to them (like an exit poller would do), most people are going to answer ‘no’, but it still influences their decision. I think this is why his particular message resonates so much. It is much more powerful for a black person to talk about uniting the country and healing divisions than a “typical white person”.

I’ll give an example of what I’m talking about. I live in Boise, Idaho which is one of the whitest places in the country (there are certainly very few blacks). However, when Barack Obama came here to give a speech, it was like a rock star came to town. The energy and excitement was palpable. The college basketball arena where the speech was held was packed and people waited in line hours ahead of time in the early morning in the freezing winter cold to see him. He then won the caucuses with something like over 70% of the vote.

Now, plenty of white politicians have come to Boise to give talks, but I’ve never seen anything close to this kind of response. This is not a guy that people grudgingly vote for because their heads say that he is the best choice. No, he is someone that people instinctively want to enthusiastically support almost irrespective of what he says. And why is that? There are two and only two things that really standout about him: his speaking ability, and his race. Most people had not even heard of Obama 18 months ago, so if his race was truly a net negative, then he would not have been able to get his campaign off the ground.

As I conceded, I can’t prove that this is the case and I can not provide any numbers that demonstrates more people are voting for him because of his race than against him. All I have is anecdotal evidence, but I think it is highly suggestive that racism is not the only thing holding him back.

"As far as whether I’m in the minority or majority with my feelings towards Edwards’ charisma… well, there has to be *some* reason he’s never won the nomination”

Saying Edwards has no charisma for this reason is like saying Paul Konerko has no power, because he’s never hit 50 and is clearly inferior to David Ortiz and Ryan Howard.

I’m quite sure Edwards has an 18 charisma, which he’s used to amass quite a fortune and serve as a senator.  He just doesn’t have the charisma of Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Obama.  These guys rolled 3 six sided dice for charisma and came up with 19’s.

And to follow, no, I don’t think racism were to develop, if it never existed.

That makes no sense.  Then how did it develop in the first place?

And in any case, my point was that while a history of racism helps to perpetuate it, it is by no means necessary.  I agree with Brian.  As I said, it is human nature to have some sort of negative feeling towards people who are not like you, regardless of whether you are already segregated from them.  You can put together a society any way you want Tango, and I say that there will eventually be racism.

As far as the “kids in your school” are concerned, there are lots of things that do not exist until people become grown-ups.  And it is not just because kids have not learned prejudices yet.  It has to do with biology and evolution.  Kids trust and play with everyone (regardless of race, creed, etc.) because it is biologically advantageous to them.  When they get older, those are no longer their primary functions (play, learn, and be taken care of), and they start to develop more complex interpersonal feelings and thoughts, including hatred, fear, jealousy, etc.

I think it is naive to think that if people did not “learn” to be racist (from some state of racism either in the present or the past) that racism would not exist.

I think it is a legitimate argument whether Obama is helped or hurt by his race.  I follow all of the campaigns pretty closely, and I have no idea.  My guess is that if there were a candidate who was equal in every way but race, that they would win hands down against any Repub candidate, but because Obama is black, the race will be close.

Blacks obviously will vote for Obama overwhelmingly (90+%).  But most (80%?) are Democrats anyway.  So he will take a few black votes away from the Repubs. 

On the other side of the coin, as you can clearly see from the Obama/Clinton results in the working class, white states and counties, there are LOTS of white people that will NOT vote for a black person, no matter what their political persuasion is.  Whether they admit that or not is another story.

So my guess is that his race will significantly hurt him more than it helps him.  But I am not sure.  Polls and stats will help answer the question, but I think by and large, the question will forever be unanswered.  Polls are unreliable when it comes to things like racism, since most people will not admit to it.  Not to mention the fact that to separate a person from his race (or anything else about him) is impossible.

"Then how did it develop in the first place?”

Segregation.

“it is human nature to have some sort of negative feeling towards people who are not like you, regardless of whether you are already segregated from them”

I think we have a basic disagreement.

Then who’s to say segregation wouldn’t occur again?

I said one of the two preconditions to remove racism is to not have segregation.

That does not mean that de-segregation would preclude re-segregation.

If you live in a desegregated world, and then you are confronted with resegregation, then you are on the path toward racism.

Rally, I get it.  And when I say Cesar Crespo sucks at baseball, yes I realize he is far better than I ever could be.  But my point is, compared to his peers, I think Edwards has less charisma than them.  When I say “less than zero”, I’m not talking about your D&D scale (and PS - Buzz Bissinger says go back to your basement)… What I mean is that it actively bothers me (and others I’ve chatted with) and makes me less likely to vote for him.  Clinton, for example, isn’t terribly charismatic as far as I’m concerned, but it doesn’t make me less likely to vote for her.

Aaron… interesting point.  I just assumed you were talking about black people voting for him because he was black.  Reminds me of the stats about asking white people how many black friends they have, and asking black people how many white friends they have, and the numbers not remotely lining up.  I can see how some white people could want to vote for Obama because they want to feel they’re progressive, “doing the right thing”, etc.

At the same time, I can see a lot of white people not voting for Obama because of some of the ridiculous nonsense you see in chain emails about him.  Chain emails that were likely started by someone with racist tendencies.

Here’s my question though… if white people want to inaugurate a black president, and Obama gets these raucous cheers because he’s black, why is he losing states to Clinton?  Do people from Idaho want to elect a black president much more than people from Virginia?

I think I need to calrify an earlier point of mine - self-determination is not the same as racism.

Racism is if I treat someone another better or worse than normal because of the color of their skin. This is always wrong. I detest that the Left in this country insists on grouping people before they deal with them. “Identity Politics” Obama’s website lists what he will do for blacks, gays, women, hispanics, etc...what will he do for Americans?

Self-determination is when cultural groups perceive a need to be governed by someone of their own group. This is historical and world wide that people have a fear of someone from another group telling them how to run their lives.

It does not need to be racism for a white person not to vote for a black candidate, it can be a vote of self-determination. Blacks will vote for blacks or women will vote for women because “they understand my needs”. It has been difficult for blacks to get elected to state wide office, but Virginia and Massachusetts have elected black governors, New York a lieutenat governor who is nor governor, and Illinois two consecutive senators. Enough whites have shown that they trust a black politician to represent them.

Personally, I vote for those who share my political philosophy, and couldn’t care less about the race or gender of the candidate, unless the candidate makes it a point, and then I guess they wouldn’t be sharing my philosophy.

It does not need to be racism for a white person not to vote for a black candidate...

I wholeheartedly agree.  I think that Obama will lose a ton of votes from white people who are racist and from white people who are not racist but won’t vote for a black candidate or at least not this one. 

There is definitely not a bright line that separates these two groups.  In fact, it is probably a continuum.

Kudos for bringing up a subject that needs to be talked about, but is taboo in polite, white society.

Human beings seem to be hard-wired to distinguish between “us” and “them.” If “them” is defined by race, you have racism. If it’s defined by religion, ethnicity, gender, etc, it gets a different label. The problem is that there’s a biological urge to separate from “them.” To me, the point is, that it’s an urge that can be easily overcome, but you have to acknowledge it first and want to overcome it.

I live in one of the whitest states in the union (Oregon), so racism doesn’t come up among whites much. They figure it’s all gone and mostly, they don’t deal with the 2% African-American population in the state. Of course, they also don’t know that we had the one of the strongest KKK influences in the 1920s (mostly directed against Catholics). Or that we’re one of the biggest recruiting areas for skinhead, American Nazi, etc. groups.

My Mexican-American in-laws have a completely different outlook on the “tolerance” of Oregonians, however. And the African-American friends I made when I lived in the midwest uniformly hated Oregon. The general tenor of their comments was that there are a lot of truly nonracist, generous, just plain good people here. But they can’t be quickly or easily distinguished from the racists who don’t get up your face, but undermine you behind your back. It was easier for all of them who’d spent time here to be in a place like Georgia or Mississippi where everybody knows the rules and you know when you’re being discounted or can expect some kind of (verbal) attack.

I disagree that I have to be in the minority group to understand the scope of the problem. All I have to be is sensitive enough to know it’s a problem, then keep my eyes open for data, for personal experiences of friends, for parallels to my own life.