Contact
We have to talk about race if we want a more equitable economy
Marjorie Childress
Jeez.
As I settled in to write this column, all of a sudden I had one of those, “oh, wait” moments. I’ve already written this before. “This” being a column I wrote last October about racism that a lot of us saw bubbling up on the campaign trail as Barack Obama increasingly emerged as the front runner to win the presidency.
Substitute “economic news” in that column from last year with “health care reform,” and I could just run the darn thing again.
Because as it turns out, some people still think President Obama is a Muslim, which is proxy for “foreign,” or even worse, “terrorist.” Presidential candidate John McCain urged people to stop with this nonsense last year, but they haven’t.
Some of these same folks also believe Obama was born in Kenya so therefore isn’t eligible to be president. This is a man whose mother is a white woman from Kansas. Can anyone even doubt that had she married a white South African instead of a black Kenyan that this would never have come up?
There’s also the charge that he’s socialist, or more stridently, a communist — and, believe it or not, a Nazi too. As if those things have ever gone together.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. But they make their point: “He’s not only not like us, he’s the enemy.”
If you don’t believe me, I’ve included a photo I took just last month in Albuquerque at Congressman Martin Heinrich’s health care town hall that seems to suggest just that.
Then there are those who call him a racist for suggesting — on a very rare occasion — that racism actually exists.
‘Reverse racism’ is a ploy used to divide people
Sign showing Obama as a foreigner at a town hall in Albuquerque, August 2009. (Photo by Marjorie Childress)
A favorite canard of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh is to continually attack Obama as a reverse racist who hates white people. In essence, if Obama or anyone else points to institutional racism, they must have it out for white people. This is the primary activity — the drawing of attention to institutional racism — that forced Obama’s green jobs advisor, Van Jones, to resign after Beck went after him relentlessly.
Something tells me that South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson was drunk on this flavor of the Limbaugh/Beck Kool-Aid when he very noticeably interrupted Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress. Wilson — who also happens to have a love for the Confederate flag — shouted out for all to hear that the president is a liar.
Maureen Dowd said in her New York Times column shortly afterward that she could just hear that word “boy” tacked on at the end, lingering unspoken in the air.
… maybe so.
But, OK, I have to admit, I thought George W. Bush was a big liar on more than one occasion. Does that make me a racist? Considering the color of his skin and the accent he likes to sport — which bears some similarity to my own — probably not.
And, Obama himself says while obviously his race is a big factor for some people when they consider whether to support his policies or not, for the great majority of Americans the intense debate of the current moment is simply part and parcel of a historic debate we have in this country about the role of government.
When he made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows this past weekend, Obama basically dismissed the issue of race. As though to say, we should have no truck with such a diversion. We have more important things to discuss. And he pinged the media for focusing in on such a divisive issue. Everyone loves a conflict, he said.
He may be right.
Some people think to respond to the racism at play in the political environment is to acquiesce to a strategic ploy to further inflame a particularly agitated sector of the electorate.
It’s all a ploy — this line of thinking goes — of the likes of Limbaugh and Beck, to cynically exploit the anxiety and fear threading its way through the populace due to the economic uncertainty our country is currently experiencing.
I can see this argument, and the desire to not play into it all. It’s undeniable that race and ethnicity have always been an incredibly effective divide and conquer tool. So, keep your eye on the prize instead, right?
But we have to include race in our discussion
In fact, the subject of race is incredibly relevant to how we fix both the tax code and our health care system.
For instance, we need to include the subject of race when we grapple with the budget crisis right here in New Mexico. We have a situation in which those in power say we’re going to have to cut our state Medicaid budget to some degree in order to plug our looming deficit. These same leaders also say, with their very next breath, that we will not raise taxes, not one penny.
Medicaid, of course, is the program that provides health care to the poorest of the poor. In New Mexico, that group is disproportionately composed of people of color. It’s off the charts, in fact.
This is what people refer to as institutional racism: a correlation between poverty and race that is no accident. Instead it’s the outcome of history, of decisions made in times past that have ordered our society in a way that makes access to wealth and educational success much more likely for white people. And the unequal legacy of that history will continually perpetuate itself without proper intervention.
One of the most effective interventions is an investment in health care. That’s because it’s very difficult for unhealthy people to effectively focus on their education or participate in the economy.
To acknowledge this is not racist. It doesn’t make you a communist or a Nazi, or un-American. Nor does wanting to remedy it.
Frankly, I think most people understand exactly what I’m saying. Most people want to change the trajectory of that legacy. Most politicians — both Democrat and Republican – -want to create laws that provide equity and opportunity, because doing so is not only moral, but pragmatic as well.
The problem is, we can’t include the subject of race in the discussion if we let demoguagues who would brand us as racists for doing so have their way. Which is to shut us up.
That’s why pushing back on them is important, as much as we may agree with Obama that we have bigger fish to fry.
8 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not everyone who does not agree with Obama is racist. Or the like…think that accusation needs to be dropped just as much as some of the negative remarks on the other side.
tomas99 said: ” People of color (oppressed people) don’t have power so we can’t be racist.” Really? Interesting definition. Like Barney Frank said, “it is like arguing with a dining room table”.
It is easy to preach tolerance when yours is the dominant race/class. Part of the rabid rants we are hearing these days, whether they are using the word n—–r, racist, socialist, muslim, communist (“card carrying communist” in a recent letter to the Alamogordo Daily News) is, IMHO, a reaction to the loss of power and control that Republicans experienced in the last election.
And I’ll add one more oppressed class to the post by tomas555–the Chinese (and other Asians). They made up much of the labor that built our railroads. In our movies they used to consistently have subservient status, and the ‘Charlie Chan’ series used an Anglo actor to portray the Chinese detective. I do disagree with his statement, ” People of color (oppressed people) don’t have power so we can’t be racist.” That is not true of Hispanics in New Mexico, and it is that Hispanic power that brings with it the responsibility to be aware of, and to guard against, any racism on the part of Hispanics toward African Americans, Anglos, Chinese, Jews, etc.
Simón (right-on, for the linguistically challenged) Marjorie!
Race is such a fundamental factor in every aspect of American society, it is silly to even attempt to claim anything to the contrary. Class and gender also share this notorious distinction with race. We must address it head on, along with class and gender. If we don’t we will never experience true equality and justice in America. But the question is what does it mean when we say ‘race’, cause some people still think it means being prejudice or discriminatory towards someone else. NO, that is not racism, racism in America is white supremacy. Power + race prejudice/privilege = racism. People of color (oppressed people) don’t have power so we can’t be racist. So, who does that leave? The power part of that equation is the thing that is conviently forgotten. (Kanye was not racist when he took the mic from Taylor Swift, he may have been stupid but he was and can never be racist). Power means Institutional, just like Marjorie lays out in this article. Let us not forget how we got here. white people are not naturally smarter/superior/more powerful than people of color. America is what we call a white settler nation. The “founding fathers” murdered millions of Native Americans to steal their land, then imported millions of African slaves to build the “foundations” of this “Republic”. Then they stole half of Mexico through war, displacing millions of indigenous Mexicanos. This is just to name of few of the atrocities that were so fundamental in forming this “great” nation. So, you see we started off this process not as equal partners is the “pursuit of happiness”, but as institutionally oppressed people with material and legal set backs that still exist today. So, yes Barack this IS about race, the quicker you admit it the quicker we will be able to push policies that address all social oppressions in America: Race, Class & Gender. We can overcome our history, but only with our eyes wide open.
True jivaro99. And I am so impressed by Obama’s refusal to pander to the racist elements in his base and keep himself “presidential” and a president for all of us, not just his supporters by speaking the truth for the reasons behind the critiques of him. Prejudice and discrimination is not just on race, it can involve social status and jealousy ( frat boy and rich boy remarks about Bush), or about economic status (people in poverty of all colors are subject to it), or most anything that is “different” about anybody. It has no place in schools, and it is interesting that the recent trend is to force applicants to colleges (for instance) to answer the race question on th applications or void the applications as incomplete. Since this question is used for discrimination (one way or the other), it has usually been optional, that seems to have changed.
Race is really not an issue in politics and shouldn’t be in our schools or any place in our society. It is sad to say that this is not the case; the issues are what a person believes in and what the cornerstone of this society in the USA was built on.
Our government and elected officials have taken us down a road toward socialism and this was not what the founding fathers wanted in this country. The US was founded on Christian religious beliefs, but with a tolerance for all religions. It was founded as a Republic and should not have strayed from those lines. If someone wants socialism then they should migrate to a country that espouses it. If they want a government that is founded on any other than that of a Republic, again they should migrate to another country.
Tolerance used to be a way of life in these United States, but somewhere along the way we have turned away from all that was given to us by the founding fathers. That being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with freedom to worship, live our lives as we see fit, without physically or mentally treading on others.
Our President, Congress and Senate are not being judged on his race or his religion, but by what he and the other elected officials are doing. It was not meant for government to assist, compete or become involved in private enterprise, yet it has been done. It was not meant for government to interfere in our private lives, overtax us, dictate what they think is good for us. They are supposed to listen to the people and try to reach a medium point about what is good for them and what they cry out for.
When a government dictates what is good for the people and government becomes so big that it is unwieldy, then you have what is known as socialism or a dictatorship. I don’t think that the men and women who fought for this country fought for bigger government or socialism, or dictatorship. What is needed is less government, less bureaucracy and less interference in our lives.
It’s interesting that you included Van Jones in your essay.
Jones was, of course, a ‘Truther’ which is so phonetically similar to ‘Birther’.
Truthers and Birthers are also similar in their adherence to unfounded beliefs.
Sadly, we may deserve the government we get.
on institutional racism- i see it everyday at school. i know many people would see it differently- but i wish all schools were created equal- regardless of property tax in the area.