Prof. Ann Althouse, whose work I often agree with, writes:
Is Harry Reid a racist? It depends on what the meaning of racist is.“It was all in the context of saying positive things about Senator Obama. It definitely was in the context of recognizing in Senator Obama a great candidate and future president.” So said Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, about Harry Reid saying that Obama would be a fine candidate because he’s “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Is Harry Reid a racist? It depends on what the meaning of racist is:
If by “racist,” you mean somebody who feels antagonism toward black people, then Harry Reid isn’t a racist. Harry Reid thinks we are racists.
If by “racist” you mean somebody who would use other people’s feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power, then Harry Reid is a racist.
My question: Does the term “racist” indeed normally mean “somebody who would use other people’s feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power”? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used this way; and while I certainly recognize that words can have multiple standard meanings, I’m skeptical that the second meaning Prof. Althouse suggests is indeed standard. And if I’m right about this, then it seems to me a bad idea to try to redefine “racist” this way, because of the substantial possibility that (1) listeners will misunderstand, and (2) will misunderstand in a way that is unfair to Sen. Reid, because it might lead listeners to think that Reid is actually being called a definition-one racist (a normal meaning of “racist”), since that’s a more standard definition.
Finally, I think Sen. Reid’s statement (“the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one’”) asserts not that American voters generally are racist, but that enough American voters are racist to make a difference. If even a small but significant minority of the public is hostile to a dark-skinned black candidate, but open to a lighter-skinned black candidate, that might well be enough to make a difference in a close primary race or a close general election. Reid might well have been correct in his assessment, or he might have been mistaken; but in any case, the assessment turned not on general racism among the public at large, but on sufficient racism (albeit of a mild enough kind that would accept light-skinned blacks while rejecting darker-skinned ones) among a minority that would cast the swing votes.
AndyinNc says:
Whose work you often agree with? Work? You mean concern trolling and epic fits over minor squabbles?
January 11, 2010, 1:26 pmMartinned says:
I remember seeing a map of the difference between Obama’s vote in 2008 and Kerry’s in 2004 by Congressional district. It had this whole orange/red band running from the Carolinas west…
January 11, 2010, 1:27 pmcaliforniamom says:
A racist is someone who considers a person’s race to be important.
January 11, 2010, 1:30 pmcaliforniamom says:
Or perhaps I should say “A racist is someone who considers a person’s race”. At all.
January 11, 2010, 1:31 pmMartinned says:
While googling for it, I came across this study, which has such a map on page 11 of the pdf. The study’s overall conclusion was as follows:
January 11, 2010, 1:32 pmMartinned says:
Yes, I know, all those poor suffering middle class white men suffering under opressive racism…
January 11, 2010, 1:33 pmAndyinNc says:
That’s certainly one of the more useless tautologies I’ve heard in a while.
January 11, 2010, 1:33 pmlucia says:
californiamom
Oh? If so, then if you think consider a person race (at al) when estimating the possible negative effects of racism on that person, then you are a racism.
Clearly, you mean “consider a person’s race” in some, but not all, contexts.
January 11, 2010, 1:40 pmCrunchy Frog says:
What a shock. People whos livelihood depends upon convincing others of the reality of pervasive racism (especially of their political opponents) miraculously discover evidence of pervasive racism. Gimme a break.
Besides, the persuasive value of studies conducted out of Berkeley has been demonstrated here previously as a net negative.
January 11, 2010, 1:43 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
A racist is someone who thinks that race/ethnicity is a characteristic that would enable someone to make wiser judicial decisions than he or she would otherwise make.
January 11, 2010, 1:44 pmjimM47 says:
I know it is difficult to tell from her blog, but Althouse is also a professor of law. She does produce scholarly work.
January 11, 2010, 1:45 pmRedman says:
Look at the opinion polls done of blacks when they are asked to pick who are the most attractive among blacks. The top ranked are generally more light skinned.
It is beyond doubt true that among blacks themselves, they consider lighter skin to be a desireable trait. This has been true for a very long time. Go back and read “Black Like Me”.
Is that racist?
Only if the black is a republican.
January 11, 2010, 1:49 pmShelbyC says:
It has a similar definition to discrimination, which often means “conduct of a racial nature that I disapprove of”
January 11, 2010, 1:49 pmMartinned says:
If you’d read to the very next line, you would have read that they found no evidence of racism affecting Obama specifically, i.e. no difference between the likelihood of voting Democractic in the House election and the likelihood of voting for Obama in these “tolerant parts of the country”, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.
January 11, 2010, 1:53 pmDaniel Charlies says:
asserts not that American voters generally are racist, but that enough American voters are racist to make a difference
Exactly how are you qualified to make that determination, Professor? You hardly seem all that well travelled throughout America, and as a Russian Jewish immigrant, I don’t think you’ve been Americanized long enough to judge us.
And…
if your assumptions and Mr. Reid’s are indeed wrong, in underestimating Americans who WOULD vote for a qualified black candidate with the traditional kinky (unstraightened) hair, larger nose, fuller lips and darker skin…
then aren’t YOU the racist by eliminating these types from political contention, all because YOU think the racists out there will hold this blacker black person back?
Stop judging by skin color, and start judging a person on the content of their character and the quality of their opinions.
Sorry EV — you fail on this topic. (and I only wish you could sit before a classroom of dark African-American students and explain how those limiting comments and the acknowledgement of their “honesty”, are not racist or in any way holding those African-Americans back.)
January 11, 2010, 1:55 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » ANN ALTHOUSE: Is Harry Reid a Racist? It Depends On What The Meaning of “Racist” Is. If by “rac… says:
[...] Comments from Eugene Volokh, and the Crack Emcee. Plus, Ed [...]
January 11, 2010, 2:00 pmDangerMouse says:
The meaning of “racist”? Give me a frigging break.
Everyone knows that, even if you treat all people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, you’re still a racist if you’re a conservative or a Republican. Because only racists oppose Obama and liberal social goals.
/msm, professorate, libs, etc.
January 11, 2010, 2:02 pmBrian says:
Justice Thomas is a dark-skinned black American, who speaks with more of a “Negro dialect” than President Obama, and – as Mr. Volokh notes above – Reid indulged in false statements denigrating his intelligence and erudition, as compared with Justice Scalia, whose only difference from Justice Thomas in the context in which Reid was speaking was that Justice Scalia was white.
Reid’s false statements about Justice Thomas, plus this latest episode, suggest that Reid was attributing to the American people racial attitudes that reside within his own sub-standard mind.
January 11, 2010, 2:04 pmChris Travers says:
So Ursula LeGuin’s novel “The Lathe of Heaven” is a great piece of racist propaganda? Who knew?
January 11, 2010, 2:05 pmDennis N says:
I’m not sure the whole concept of racism is all that useful, particularly as it has been politicized. But racism is essentially ubiquitous. It’s how we react to it that matters.
FTMP, racism is another label, with which to beat the opposition.
January 11, 2010, 2:06 pmShelbyC says:
What a maroon.
January 11, 2010, 2:06 pmTwirip says:
That is the standard understanding of the word “racist” in America, as irrational and useless a definition as it is.
January 11, 2010, 2:08 pmdearieme says:
In late 2007 a citizen of the PRC asked me who I thought would be the next US President. I said that if I were a betting man my money would be on Obama. He replied, in astonishment, “But he’s black”.
January 11, 2010, 2:12 pmWas he a racist? Am I a racist for mentioning that he was Chinese? Is Obama a racist for obsessing about race in his autobiographies? Is there no end to this fruitless bloody obsession?
Steve says:
So the argument is that if you express an opinion about the extent to which racism exists in America, you are a racist. Yeah, that does sound like a worthless definition of racism to me.
January 11, 2010, 2:15 pmTwirip says:
I’m sure you have heard it used this way, even right here on this blog. A standard trope of Democrats is to insist that it was “racist” for Republicans to enage in a “southern strategy” in order to amass political power.
January 11, 2010, 2:15 pmAndyinNc says:
Useless? It fairly characterizes the majority of racism, the most severe racism, and most persistent racism in our country’s history. More importantly, it captures the racism that has had the most actual detrimental effects in the real world.
Is there racism against white people? Sure, there’s a little. Has it had much effect? Not compared to racism against blacks.
January 11, 2010, 2:15 pmTwirip says:
[Note from EV: I deleted the original comment on grounds that it was a largely unsubstantive insult, but now I see there were follow-up comments before I had a chance to delete it -- sorry for the confusion this has caused.]
People sure have a keen eye for racism when it suits them to.
January 11, 2010, 2:17 pmDaniel Charlies says:
I am sure Russian Jewish immigrant may have an idea about what racism is, you moron
Nope. Not anti semitic racism.
Racism that qualifies you to evaluate the political chances of dark-skinned American negroes, with frizzy unstraightened hair, thick lips and nasal passages, and traditional stocky build.
In short, while I am sure Russian Jewish immigrant have hard time learning language but not to comment on negro dialect and skin tone — not equals an expert because of Jewish victimhood, no translation.
January 11, 2010, 2:18 pmKazinski says:
As Bush pointed out “the soft bigotry of low expectations” is just as racist as other forms of predjudice.
In fact you might argue that affirmative action and lowered standards for blacks is a more contemptuous racism than many traditional types such as refusing to hire blacks. In many cases the reason for not hiring blacks wasn’t because of the perception that they weren’t qualified, but because whites feared the competition for jobs, i.e. in a fair market that blacks would get a larger share of the jobs. While that is certainly excreble treatment, it at least shows a greater respect than the attitude that blacks can’t meet standards set for the general population and they have to be lowered. While one may be a “benevolent” racism, it is racism nonetheless.
There are many kinds of racism.
January 11, 2010, 2:19 pmInsufficiently Sensitive says:
I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used this way; and while I certainly recognize that words can have multiple standard meanings, I’m skeptical that the second meaning Prof. Althouse suggests is indeed standard.
It’s been clear on the street since at least the 80s that members of ‘victim’ or ‘minority’ or ‘unpowered’ classes are excused from being labeled ‘racist’, however viciously they behave toward members of races other than theirs. In this definition, the street includes the academy.
I’d not have commented, except that Professor Volokh hasn’t furnished the standard definition of ‘racist’ that he compares other definitions with. Blokes like myself can waste vast amounts of time parsing definitions of ‘racism’, since they seem to vary to suit the antagonisms of those who are using them at convenient moments – e.g. they change minute by minute.
January 11, 2010, 2:20 pmKazinski says:
EV:
That may be true, but I think a lot higher percentage of black Americans vote based on race, than white Americans do. It may well balance out in the end.
January 11, 2010, 2:23 pmSteve says:
A standard trope of Democrats is to insist that it was “racist” for Republicans to enage in a “southern strategy” in order to amass political power.
I’m pretty sure the Southern Strategy involved more than just the Republicans discussing amongst themselves whether voters were too racist to support a black candidate.
January 11, 2010, 2:23 pmChris Travers says:
I will offer a better definition:
A racist is someone who either engages in racial bigotry (for example believing that members of various racial groups are substandard in some inherent way) or believes in racial supremacy (believing that members of at least one racial group are superstandard in some inherent way).
Unfortunately I doubt anyone will endorse such a practical, no-nonsense definition :-(
January 11, 2010, 2:27 pmTwirip says:
Even if we assume that all of this is correct, and I could easily argue to the contrary, it remains an irrational and useles definition.
What, should we insist that the word “genocide” really means “the mass killing of Jews”? That “famine” means “the mass starvation of Irish people”? That “stupidity” means “the mindset of Poles”? (Ok, I’m joking there.)
If we use the word “racism” to mean “antagonism toward black people”, what word do we use to descibe “antagonism towards Koreans/Jews/Hispanics/others by black people”? What word do we use to describe antagonism towards Japanese by Chinese?
January 11, 2010, 2:27 pmAndyinNc says:
I read that as fairly obvious satire, although with some of these comments, it’s a bit hard to tell.
January 11, 2010, 2:28 pmEugene Volokh says:
Here’s an analogy:
Thinking that immigrants who came to the country at age 7, and spent the next 34 years in the U.S., aren’t Americanized long enough to judge other Americans — anti-immigrant bigotry.
Thinking, when speculating about which candidate is more likely to be successful, that a substantial number of voters will prefer the native-born over the immigrant — not anti-immigrant bigotry, and might in fact be perfectly sensible.
January 11, 2010, 2:29 pmJMA says:
Sorry, californiamom, but race *is* important these days simply because so many people are–by your definition, at the very least–racists.
For instance, I can be fairly certain that I won’t make it into school as one of the invisible bottom quintile/quartile/floortile so many people were discussing last week simply because of my race. ;)
January 11, 2010, 2:30 pmTwirip says:
I appreciate it that you felt the need to illustrate my point.
January 11, 2010, 2:30 pmcaliforniamom says:
As long as we consider race as a factor in how we conduct our lives, racism will persist. We have to look at skin color the way we do freckles, as not important at all.
January 11, 2010, 2:31 pmThe Truth Is Out There HAHA says:
Yes, Kazinksi, you are so right. Benevolent racism (think: the rationale for justifying affirmative action) is way worse than non-benevolent racism (think: the rationale for justifying not hiring people of a certain race and/or the rationale for justifying slavery). Way worse. Not even close.
Btw, the only American who is truly not racist is Stephen Colbert. He can’t even see race. “For all he knows, he’s black and/or purple.” http://wikiality.wikia.com/Stephen_Colbert .
January 11, 2010, 2:31 pmBrendan says:
I think the most charitable reading that Reid (very cynically) thinks Media and Democratic machine are racist. My understanding is this was during the democratic primary?
January 11, 2010, 2:32 pmRoyLitmus says:
Sign me up for the “this whole thing is stupid” category. I said the same thing when Trent Lott got railroaded and I’ll say it now.
Let’s stop trying to skewer people with “gotcha” politics and get down to the bare bones issue. Reid should step down, not because he said “Negro” but because he is an idiot socialist who should realize that he isn’t representing the interests of his state at all.
January 11, 2010, 2:36 pmMartinned says:
That would be particularly true in the primaries. I highly doubt that many black Americans switched from the Republicans to the Democrats because of Obama. (Though they may have switched from abstaining.)
P.S. This is the map I originally had in mind.
January 11, 2010, 2:36 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
(Copy-and-pasted from my blog)
I’ve been struggling to find a definition of racism that works for me. What I’ve come up with so far can also apply to sexism, ageism, etc.
1 – A group of people is identified. This can be an arbitrary group, like “old folks”, or a well-defined group, like “people over 65″. So far we are OK.
2 – Attributes are assigned to the group. Now we are not OK, because –
3 – These attributes are now assumed to apply to members of the group without checking to see if they are appropriate or not.
And the attributes do not have to be negative. It is not negative, for instance, to have a sense of rhythm. Tell a black person that you are not surprised he is a good dancer b/c black people have rhythm, and see where that gets you. No one likes to be pigeonholed.
You can also be that way about a group of which you are a member; either because you think you are an exception, or because you label yourself too.
January 11, 2010, 2:38 pmTwirip says:
Those are both examples of benevolent racism. And both are examples of non-benevolent racism as well. It all depends on which people you think government should be “benevolent” towards. The correct answer is that government is not supposed to be “benevolent” towards any racial subset of Americans at all.
January 11, 2010, 2:39 pmDaniel Charlies says:
Thinking that immigrants who came to the country at age 7, and spent the next 34 years in the U.S., aren’t Americanized long enough to judge other Americans — anti-immigrant bigotry.
How much travelling or contact do you have with Americans across the country, across the spectrum?
You may be an “expert” in many scholastic things. I bet you also read a lot.
But an expert on how racist Americans are, and what they use to determine how to vote or distinguish between candidates?
Sorry, but your “newcomer” status, and relatively isolated career position, don’t convince me that you have any special talents to comment on the inherent racism of the American people.
Way to play that victim card though! Must be in the blood …
January 11, 2010, 2:43 pmDaniel Charlies says:
(Heck, being a protege, EV, you didn’t even go to regular American high school or matriculate into undergrad with your generational peers. Honestly, you don’t think that puts you at just a bit of disadvantage in measuring the biases and prejudices of the majority of regular American folk?)
January 11, 2010, 2:45 pmBrendan says:
My understanding of the definition of racist/racism from 7th grade Social Studies is that racist/racism != bigot/bigotry. Checking webster it does have an emphasis on drawing a conclusion that differences lead to superiority of a race or not; so I guess I’m wrong. I do agree there is a general usage where racism is negative in connotation.
For Reid in particular, I think his use of Negro dialect is really what’s causing the stir. It sounds creepy. If he had said it in a better way, it wouldn’t be an issue at all.
January 11, 2010, 2:45 pmAndyinNc says:
Uh, in the context of those societies, yes, those phrases probably mean those things. If you’re in Ireland talking to an Irishman about “the famine”, he’ll certainly understand that you’re talking about potatoes in the 19th century. If you want to refer to a different famine, you’ll specify which one you’re talking about. Same with genocide in Germany. And the same with racism in the U.S.
Then you’ll specify that they’re racist against whatever specific race. However, if you just say that some guy is racist, assuming that it’s a white guy who’s racist toward black people is a reasonable assumption because it covers the majority of racism in our country.
On the other hand, if you’re talking about reverse discrimination, it’s clearly understood to refer to discrimination against white people.
January 11, 2010, 2:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
How much do most home-grown Americans have? Answer: Not a heck of a lot.
January 11, 2010, 2:49 pmDaniel Charlies says:
[Note from EV: I deleted the original comment on grounds that it was a largely unsubstantive insult, but now I see there were follow-up comments before I had a chance to delete it — sorry for the confusion this has caused.]
People sure have a keen eye for racism when it suits them to.
It’s your blog.
But it sure seems a shame that if what I wrote was so “wrong”, then perhaps you might have served your readers better in leaving it up — and letting them decide who had the more persuasive argument?
Your expertise doesn’t carry over, and I strongly think your personal background hinders your assumptions of the prejudices of the majority of Americans, as described by Reid.
Is that non-offensive enough Professor, or am I taking up too much bandwidth disagreeing with you here?
(Wouldn’t it be a hoot if indeed I was a dark-skinned black person, and EV was deleting my comments questioning his qualifications to opine about everyone else’s voting standards?)
[EV writes: The comment I deleted was one by someone else, who quoted you and called you a "moron."]
January 11, 2010, 2:49 pmTwirip says:
Viewed in conjunction with his remarks about Clarence Thomas, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Reid takes a dim view of African-Americans. And taking a dim view of African-Americans is defined as racist. Therefore …
January 11, 2010, 2:50 pmVader says:
When I was in graduate school in Pasadena, some of the undergraduates held an orgy in the atrium of one of the student residences, which was technically public space. This was a fourth-degree sex offense, even in California. The dean of students walked in as one of the girls was engaged in an enthusiastic threesome with two of the boys.
The campus was outraged, but it took a couple of weeks to focus the outrage on something that could be spoken out loud in academia’s politically correct climate: It turns out the girl had not quite turned 17 yet. Sexual harrassment!
No, I couldn’t quite follow the logic either, but it had something to do with her being too young to make the decision to engage in that kind of conduct unless she was being pressured. I think they had the law on sexual harrassment, date rape, statutory rape, and age of consent a bit mixed up, but then I’m not a lawyer either.
No one wanted to speak the truth, which was that having sexual intercourse, particularly unconventional sexual intercourse, in public, in the 1980s, transgressed even the broad moral boundaries of academics.
My point? The uproar here is not over Reid being overtly racist. It’s not even over Reid being condescending in a subtly racist way. Nor is it about Reid imputing racism to so many others, which after all has been part of his modus operandi for a long time.
It’s over the accusation that Obama speaks with a distinctive ethnic dialect only when it’s politically convenient. You can accuse Hillary Clinton of speaking with a Southern dialect when politically convenient, but then she’s a northern White. Northern blacks are really off-limits to such accusations.
How come no one else sees this?
January 11, 2010, 2:51 pmCato The Elder says:
A racist is someone who talks about the world or reality-as-it-as in a way that liberals don’t like. They’ve corrupted the word so utterly that the only consistent definition I can possibly offer is “of or relating to race, particularly in a political context.”
January 11, 2010, 2:51 pmToby says:
I have known people who despise folks with freckles.
January 11, 2010, 2:51 pmDaniel Charlies says:
Thinking, when speculating about which candidate is more likely to be successful, that a substantial number of voters will prefer the native-born over the immigrant — not anti-immigrant bigotry, and might in fact be perfectly sensible.
If the party politician evaluating Arnold Schwartzenegger’s candidacy had thought like Harry Reid, maybe Professor Volokh (clearer dialect, more passable as a mainstream American) would seem a shoo in over the current guv.
Damn shame if you would have judged wrongly though, in limiting one candidate over the other based solely on dialect and physical characteristics.
January 11, 2010, 2:53 pmSteve says:
I think the most charitable reading that Reid (very cynically) thinks Media and Democratic machine are racist. My understanding is this was during the democratic primary?
One of the things Democrats talk about during a Democratic primary is whether a given candidate has a good chance to win the general election. In fact, it wouldn’t make much sense for Reid to say “I’m supporting this candidate in the Democratic primary, because I think he can win the Democratic primary.”
But it sure seems a shame that if what I wrote was so “wrong”, then perhaps you might have served your readers better in leaving it up — and letting them decide who had the more persuasive argument?
This is a reasonable point. Arguing that someone who came to this country at the age of 7 is less qualified to opine due to his “newcomer status” is the sort of claim that should be left out in the open for everyone to evaluate. But maybe deleting such comments could be seen as a favor to the commentor.
January 11, 2010, 2:55 pmShelbyC says:
Er, the comment he is refering to is the one calling you a moron (although calling you a “maroon” a la bugs bunny seems to be OK). I don’t think he deleted any of yours, did he?
January 11, 2010, 2:56 pmSteve says:
It’s over the accusation that Obama speaks with a distinctive ethnic dialect only when it’s politically convenient. You can accuse Hillary Clinton of speaking with a Southern dialect when politically convenient, but then she’s a northern White. Northern blacks are really off-limits to such accusations. How come no one else sees this?
Yeah, I’m sure that’s exactly why the entire Republican Party has chosen to take offense, they’re outraged that anyone would accuse President Obama of code-switching. Good analysis there.
January 11, 2010, 2:57 pmTwirip says:
Re “People sure have a keen eye for racism when it suits them to.”
I was just just pointing out that racism is frequently in the eye of the beholder, and that people tend to spy it in their political adversaries a lot more readly than in their friends. Or in themselves, for that matter.
As for the Daniel Charlies spat with EV, there’s something on each side.
Anti-immigrant bigotry does exist, and is sometimes to be deplored. An exception to the deploring would be when the immigrants themselves are bigoted against Americans.
I’m not saying that EV is so bigoted, just making the logical argument that immigrants are not good and beyond criticism by defintion.
January 11, 2010, 3:01 pmDaniel Charlies says:
For the record:
Neither am I saying that EV is bigoted, whether or not he is an immigrant.
I’m saying, I’m not willing to accept — unquestioned — his expertise to judge Harry Reid’s assessments of the political chances of a dark skinned, qualified political candidate with a “negro dialect”, based on his knowledge of the American electorate’s sophistication in electing black candidates.
And I think his sons, because of their next-generation upbringing, hopefully will know more of America than their father so yes, the immigrant/newcomer background does directly relate to the issue at hand.
January 11, 2010, 3:15 pmDaniel Charlies says:
Er, the comment he is refering to is the one calling you a moron (although calling you a “maroon” a la bugs bunny seems to be OK). I don’t think he deleted any of yours, did he?
And are you subtly referring us to your insider knowledge of the Jamaican Maroons — many of whom would be in that dark, dark skinned category on the “outs”, I think.
(Or did you really think it was an intellectual peak to cite Bugs Bunny while apparently insulting me? *boo hoo, now I’m a victim of namecalling too!*)
January 11, 2010, 3:19 pmHouston Lawyer says:
As was said earlier, Ried was only guilty of ascribing his racial views to others. Clearly he believes that others are prejudiced against darker skinned and ethnic sounding Blacks.
Reminds me of a SNL skit from decades ago with Garret Morris where two Black guys were going to debate the color issue and the lighter-colored man said that the reason white people believed lighter-skinned Blacks were smarter was because it was obviously true.
My experience with this issue is that Blacks care far more about the pigmentation issue than Whites do. My wife had Black a co-worker who was excluded from a group in college because he wasn’t dark enough. Kind of took him by surprise too.
January 11, 2010, 3:23 pmDaniel Charlies says:
Steve,
You really think Prof. Volokh has his thumb on the pulse of the American people? Across the whole country, all regions?
And you don’t think his … dialect, and first-generation status might just be a disadvantage in evaluating the propensities of more established Americans?
Or you just don’t like my noting that because you’re smart in one area, you’re well qualified to presume you’ve observed enough of how the American people act, and why they vote the way they do?
I don’t think he has, though. I don’t think he’s qualified to speak on whether Harry Reid was correct in his assumptions or not. And yes, I do think his own personal background — cmon, admit it was sheltered and not very catholic — influences his opions of how the majority acts and votes.
Nothing wrong with that. Being exceptional sometimes makes you a minority. And people judge minorities: sometimes their evaluations are spot on, sometimes you miss subtle things evaluating from above like that, from the majority perspective.
January 11, 2010, 3:24 pmDaniel Charlies says:
Arguing that someone who came to this country at the age of 7 is less qualified to opine due to his “newcomer status” is the sort of claim that should be left out in the open for everyone to evaluate. But maybe deleting such comments could be seen as a favor to the commentor.
Please. Don’t do me any special favors. That kind of thinking is what’s running the country into the ground already: “protecting” us from contrary thoughts, and not questioning the qualifications of our “experts”.
January 11, 2010, 3:27 pmMark Field says:
And Potemkin produced villages.
January 11, 2010, 3:30 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Can you name a single person who has their thumb on the pulse of the American people?
I met a woman in the neighborhood back in Memphis who was a kindergarten teacher in an inner-city school. She took maternity leave, and afterward brought her baby in to show the class. They were stunned to see that her baby was white – “Her baby white!” “How you have a white baby?” because even though she herself was a blue-eyed, light-brown-haired white person, it had never occurred to those children that a white person might intersect their lives in a meaningful way.
But I suppose that those children will grow up with a broader overview of the varieties inherent in the American experience than EV could ever have.
January 11, 2010, 3:31 pmDaniel Charlies says:
[EV writes: The comment I deleted was one by someone else, who quoted you and called you a “moron.”]
Ah — just reading this now.
In the future, please professor, for the sake of a clean thread — leave it up.
I’m no so weak to run and hide at a little namecalling as you might have me pegged, for whatever reason.
And sometimes in trying to “protect”, you actually just justify your lesser evaluation, forming the assumption that the person needs your help…
How can minorities ever advance if you intellectuals keep protecting us this way, and underestimating what we actually can do alone in pushing back and overcoming prejudices and dated assumptions?
*Out*
January 11, 2010, 3:33 pmChris Travers says:
Does benevolence exist only in the minds of the individuals?
For example, there were plenty of slave owners who felt it was much better for slaves to be brought out of the horrid savagery of Africa, introduced to Christianity (and thus have their souls saved) and provided for by benevolent slave owners than to have been allowed to continue their traditional ways of life. We might react with horror today, but that hardly makes it less benevolent in the eyes of those at the time.
January 11, 2010, 3:33 pmCato The Elder says:
Martinned intends this to be a witty sarcasm. Perhaps in his own mind, it qualifies. But the very fact that such a quip should come out of the mouth of an affluent, white person in a educated milieu actually informs the thinking man that the liberal narrative is completely wrong! We know they like to draw a picture of a monolithic WHITE bloc oppressing a monolithic BLACK bloc through time up till today — so the question arises, why then in this similarly white & affluent arena, is Martinned quipping as he is? We know the reason: Martinned, and white liberals everywhere, gain status amongst themselves, not lose it, by feigning concern for Black people to advance their political preferences — and that markedly different from any other point in our past history. Indeed, there once was a time in America where one lost social status for speaking up for the civil rights and entitlements of Blacks, but now, clearly, we can observe even amongst the most reactionary of conservatives and Republicans, that that time has long past. The “in-group/out-group” mechanism of our minds is incredibly flexible — and after all, it must be, to allow a Scottish Presbyterian and an English Puritan and a French Catholic to eventually come to conceive of themselves as “WHITE” — so we know that when they pretend that “racism”, as just one more manifestation of that lamentable ability, continues unabated to this day, they are simply manipulating our emotional levers. Bigotry continues to exist of course; if I had to hazard a guess at the next “-ism” that social scientists of the future will identify, I would guess “intellectualism”, an ideology that they will characterize as holding only the preferences of high-IQ urbanites — hailing only from the proper schools and holding only the proper views — as paramount.
January 11, 2010, 3:37 pmSukieTawdry says:
In an episode of Homicide: Life on the Streets, Lt. Giardella (Yaphet Kotto) goes on a blind date with a white colleague’s black friend. The white colleague is quite surprised the next day when her friend says she has no interest in seeing him again. Giardella explains that many black women are not attracted to nor interested in dating a man whose skin is as black as his. The Rwandan genocide was fueled in part by the racial and ethnic animus the Hutu felt towards the Tutsi who were taller, more slender and light skinned with “European” features. So, do you suppose that even a small but significant minority of the African-American public would be hostile to a dark-skinned black candidate, but open to a lighter-skinned black candidate? If so, would that make them racists?
Is there no end to this fruitless bloody obsession?
Amen.
January 11, 2010, 3:40 pmMartinned says:
@Cato the Elder: Yes, that was indeed my attempt at sarcasm. As to what kinds of policies I support, I don’t know. It would seem like something I’d like to think about one suggestion at a time. I would like to note, though, that it is hard for me as a European to “get” the American issues with race.
(It was a fascinating wakeup call when I read a book review recently – one that I don’t seem to be able to find again at the moment – about a book that argues that most of the statistics that make America look bad relative to Europe, like crime and poverty, end up within the range of European Member States once you take out urban blacks. I didn’t realise that so many decades after the civil rights movement, the difference between black Americans and the rest is still so big.)
Incidentally, the reason for my snark is quite simple. Cases like Ricci v. DeStefano, or rather conservative reaction to such cases, only deserve one response: Cry Me A River…
January 11, 2010, 3:45 pmleo marvin says:
If every liberal was Daniel Charlies, you’d have a point, but most liberals have as much in common with Daniel as conservatives have with Danger Mouse.
January 11, 2010, 3:57 pmShelbyC says:
Are you suggesting it’s not?
January 11, 2010, 4:16 pmDaniel Charlies says:
{ I’m gonna wait until enough of you gather to mount an effective challenge, rather than respond to your little personal digs now that you’ve conceded you’ve no response to me on the merits of the argument…
Funny how so many get their backs up when you gently question their own assertions of one reality — especially when they know best exactly what you’re thinking and why. Strrrrrraw-Man! }
January 11, 2010, 4:20 pmRoscoe says:
I don’t know about the “light skinned” part, but as for the “negro dialect,” I think Reid (whom I generally despise) was making an important and completely correct point. In another context, Tom Wolfe wrote an essay on the profound impact that dialect has one’s perceived intelligence. This was also the major point of Shaw’s Pygmalion, that people tend to see us differently depending on whether we spoke “proper” English.
January 11, 2010, 4:30 pmG says:
“A racist is someone who considers a person’s race”. At all.
And a sexist, is someone who…at all. An ageist, someone who…at all.
Kyrie Eleison!
January 11, 2010, 4:33 pmSteve says:
You really think Prof. Volokh has his thumb on the pulse of the American people? Across the whole country, all regions?
I don’t think anyone at all has their thumb on said pulse, but I certainly don’t think the fact that someone came here as a child has any relevance to the question. An awful lot of Americans are immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants, after all, and someone whose family tree goes back to the Mayflower may have a tough time relating to those folks.
More to the point, Prof. Volokh didn’t claim Harry Reid was right or wrong, and in fact he explicitly said he didn’t know one way or the other, so whether his immigrant status disqualifies him from knowing whether Harry Reid was right or wrong is beside the point. You’ve spent all this time attacking his capacity to make a claim he never made.
January 11, 2010, 4:33 pmAnon21 says:
What? African-American voters overwhelmingly vote based on party affiliation. Are you new to this country or something? For decades, African-Americans have been supporting Democratic candidates in overwhelming numbers, and the vast majority of those Democratic candidates have been white.
January 11, 2010, 4:51 pmYankev says:
Lenny Bruce made the same point in his bit “The Southern Sound.” It’s also one reason Sarah Palin was dismissed out of hand by certain parts of the urban electorate.
January 11, 2010, 4:56 pmYankev says:
I prefer Harlan.
January 11, 2010, 4:57 pmChris Travers says:
I wonder if that comment would be considered racist ;-) After all, I am assuming you know another use of the term ;-)
January 11, 2010, 5:34 pmChris Travers says:
For all his hocus pocus, Harlan would also win in a debate against Ms. Agnus Dei as well….
Good thing I don’t live in Ireland….
January 11, 2010, 5:43 pmShelbyC says:
In fact, I did not :-(.
January 11, 2010, 6:04 pmRoscoe says:
Chris Travers:
You aren’t saying that Bugs Bunny was a racist, are you? (Of course, there is some support for this in the original ending of “Fresh Hare.”)
January 11, 2010, 6:09 pmEugene Volokh says:
Daniel Charlies: I didn’t delete the “moron” comment to protect you. I deleted it because I think insults and vulgarities tend to alienate many readers and would-be commenters, and diminish the quality of discussion among those who remain.
January 11, 2010, 6:11 pmShelbyC says:
Well, unfortunately if you use google correctly you can find some (no longer aired) cartoons of him singing and dancing in blackface :-(.
January 11, 2010, 6:25 pmDavid Sucher says:
That Reid’s statement could even be considered racist — as opposed to simply being commentary on the reality of American attitudes — is a contrivance of the right-wing to change the conversation.
Ideally Obama would have responded to Reid’s apology with something “No need to apologize, Harry. What you said was pretty-much accurate.”
January 11, 2010, 6:31 pmDave 72 says:
Sukie – I have a good friend who is a skilled accountant, and very well-to-do, with very dark skin. After his divorce at age 35 or so, he sadly told me that most of the black women in the singles pool (limited in suburban MN) would not consider even a first date with him. His conclusion: they were looking to marry “up”, not economically or educationally, but racially. He is now re-married to a lovely woman of similar color.
BTW, what “race” are Tiger’s beautiful little kids? Every time the gummint census people ask for my race, I respond “American.” Anything else is none of their business.
January 11, 2010, 6:43 pmerp says:
californiamom took the words right out of my keyboard.
A racist is someone who votes for or against candidates because of their race.
A racist is someone who hires or doesn’t hire people because of their race.
A racist is an admissions officer who admits or denies students on the basis of their race.
…
January 11, 2010, 6:43 pmBill Harshaw says:
When I think of racists, I think of people like Faubus, Wallace, Barnett (if you don’t recognize the names, you’re young), Eastland, Byrd (Harry), Thurmond. When I think of Nazis I think of Hitler, Himmler, Goering. I suppose there’s some rationale to applying the word “racist” to Reid, just as there’s some rationale to applying “Nazi” to whomever, but I can’t agree with either.
January 11, 2010, 6:56 pmRyan Waxx says:
No, its a contrivance of the right-wing to hoist the left by its own petard. It appears the right didn’t learn from when feminists rallied behind Bill Clinton… it isn’t what you do that matters, it’s who you are.
P.S. Thank you Bill, for indroducing us to the “Who Bill Harshaw thinks of when he thinks of X” standard. Should anyone feel motivated to use that standard in future discussions, they’ll call you.
January 11, 2010, 7:13 pmDavid Sucher says:
The things you read on-line:
“My experience with this issue is that Blacks care far more about the pigmentation issue than Whites do.”
And of course they are more concerned with gradations in color and why do you think that is so? Do you think it might just a little bit have to do with the history of blacks and whites in this country? And that the whiter you were the easier you could pass out of slavery?
It seems like a fairly obvious historical and sociological fact.
It seems to me that the fairest way to discuss Reid’s statement is to ask whether or not it is true. Truth comes close to being an absolute defense to accusations of racism.
January 11, 2010, 7:23 pmSteve says:
I suppose there’s some rationale to applying the word “racist” to Reid, just as there’s some rationale to applying “Nazi” to whomever, but I can’t agree with either.
You mean it doesn’t make any sense to you to describe Martin Luther King as a “racist” because he supported affirmative action? I tend to agree. But the answer to your question is that because the “racist” charge carries political heft, it is advantageous to redefine the term so as to include one’s political opponents. Thus the supporters of civil rights are re-educated to understand that they are the “real” racists.
January 11, 2010, 7:31 pmDavid Schwartz says:
All well and good, but this will mean that it will take a racist to identify a racist. For example, the only way to tell if an admissions officer is admitting or denying students on the basis of race will be to look at his admission rates for comparably-qualified black and white candidates. But tabulating admissions by race is, by this definition, racism.
I suppose that’s fine, the only problem is that we’ll need a new word for the bad kind of racism.
January 11, 2010, 7:34 pmerp says:
To answer David Schwartz: it’s really simple. Leave off the hyphen and don’t categorize people by race.
January 11, 2010, 7:45 pmCato The Elder says:
You must be joking. If anyone asked Bruce Lahn in private about the veracity of that statement I very much doubt he’d agree.
January 11, 2010, 7:57 pmRyan Waxx says:
No, the term you are looking for is “race-baiter”. Being a racist isn’t a necessary prerequisite, but it helps.
January 11, 2010, 8:02 pmjccamp says:
As much as I dislike Harry Reid, I tend to think that he was merely making a political (and cynical) observation in this statement, as David Sucher said. There is a well known human tendency to unconsciously ascribe your own personal morality and values to others, so perhaps Harry did so in this instance. But again, maybe not.
I can’t believe he was sufficiently stupid to say this to a writer, though.
All in all, I’d say “Big deal.” But, then, it evidently is a big deal to many.
And I hope that Reid is defeated for re-election, and if this helps in that, then it’s a gift. But it’s hardly fair.
January 11, 2010, 8:16 pmMike S. says:
I am somewhat puzzled by the “light-skinned” portion of the remark. In my (admittedly limited) experience, racists are disparaging of all Blacks, and not particularly sensitive to gradations of skin tone. Thus, whether Senator Reid’s comments reflect his own racism or his perception of that of the electorate I have a hard time fitting that portion in.
January 11, 2010, 8:26 pmwlpeak says:
Gack, this is worse than an Apple vs. M$ debate.
Not long ago redheads were known by all educated persons to be evil. There was a consensus and everything. And don’t get me started about how just wrong southpaws are! They are just, wrong.
We make up these fables to promote our status over others. Slave owners came to see slaves as enfeebled blacks better off in the whites care. Now liberals seem to see blacks as enfeebled by the bad whites and needing the good whites care. Man that game hasn’t really changed much over the years has it?
Anyway, Race is one of those magic words that imbue meaning onto essentially meaningless physiology. It has no scientific basis other than the trivial observation that different gene frequencies exist. Duh.
Sure Racism affects people. But it is founded on an illusion of difference and maintained by centuries of acting to confirm that illusion. The only true differences arising out of it are artifacts of the very thing itself.
Now sexism, there’s a bias with some teeth. At least it’s based on something real.
January 11, 2010, 8:31 pmjccamp says:
BTW, an interesting take from Slate…link
January 11, 2010, 8:35 pmDaniel Charlies says:
I didn’t delete the “moron” comment to protect you. I deleted it because I think insults and vulgarities tend to alienate many readers and would-be commenters, and diminish the quality of discussion among those who remain.
Yeah, but since you don’t enforce that regularly, it looks bad when you start protectively deleting here and there.
(I’ve been on the other side of the delete button, when your fellow conspirators pull a comment because it hit a bit too close to home, and they were selectively “offended”.)
You should either be consistent, or just stop selectively removing things from the thread when it benefits certain strands.
As you yourself note today, one man’s insult is another man’s casual observation. So leave the open threads open already?
January 11, 2010, 8:41 pmEli Rabett says:
So soon you forget
January 11, 2010, 10:12 pmChris Travers says:
They’re not just wrong. They’re sinister….
(queue evil laugh)
January 11, 2010, 10:17 pmrpt says:
Another slap at Italian American Justice Alito.
January 11, 2010, 10:35 pmAnn Althouse says:
Hi, Eugene. I responded to your post in an update. Basically, I’m not relying on standard or dictionary definitions but trying to inspire a discussion about how bad what Reid actually did was. My second definition, proposed in a clause that begins with “if,” is simply a statement of what Reid actually did (in my view). So: if what Reid did is racist, Reid is racist.
January 11, 2010, 10:59 pmleo marvin says:
It only looks bad if you’re prone to question people’s motives without evidence of anything untoward.
What enables you to read their minds if Harry Reid can’t read the electorate’s?
“Should?” Why? Whose blog is it?
January 11, 2010, 11:01 pmArthurKirkland says:
Might this be ascribed to the belief, among the whites in the relevant experience, a single drop of non-white blood settles the issue entirely, rendering consideration of pigmentation shades superfluous?
January 11, 2010, 11:14 pmleo marvin says:
Did you choose it to express a meaning or to spice up a word salad? Because if the former, the question remains, “Why?” What’s the normative principle?
January 11, 2010, 11:50 pmwlpeak says:
Bar none.
January 12, 2010, 2:05 amChem_geek says:
What fools. Freckles are a plus.
January 12, 2010, 2:08 amleo marvin says:
Daniel Charlies, I know what “should” means, so again, why should EV edit comments more consistently than you think he does now? It’s a simple question. If you don’t want to answer it, don’t. But asking it doesn’t edit you any more than interpreting Reid’s words endorses them.
January 12, 2010, 4:32 amRicardo says:
That’s a bit surprising. The other side is that black man-white woman married couples are much more common than white man-black woman couples. I’ve noticed in my time in various Asian countries that skin-whitening products are very popular among women — the common perception is that fair-skinned women are prettier than dark-skinned ones. There is much less emphasis on this for men. I have heard it is similar in African countries. I wonder if what you describe above is a peculiar feature of upper-middle-class black America.
January 12, 2010, 5:22 amjccamp says:
wlpeak -
Thats a legitimate qualifier.
January 12, 2010, 7:18 amerp says:
jccamp says: … I can’t believe he [Reid] was sufficiently stupid to say this to a writer, though. …
Lefties can say and do whatever they like in the full knowledge that they will be protected by the media. That this comment was published is an aberration and indicates to me that Reid is being tossed under that now 20 foot high bus.
January 12, 2010, 8:09 amAultimer says:
You sir are a Freckleist. For shame.
Seriously – erp and californiamom go too far. There are legitimate (or non-bigoted) reasons and ways to consider race – many people find certain races (whether their own, or others’) to be more or less attractive, and doctors consider race in dealing with race-biased medical conditions. Those aren’t “racist” approaches. Similarly, “discrimination” isn’t bad – doctors discriminate in testing Caucasians for certain diseases and we all discriminate in choosing friends with similar interests to our own. “Unfair discrimintion” or “bigotry” is bad.
January 12, 2010, 10:51 amShelbyC says:
Cartman.
January 12, 2010, 11:28 amChris Travers says:
So now, not only are southpaws quite sinister but they are protected by the media too.
We better do our best to root out the leftie menace once and for all. Loyalty tests will include testing which hand you can throw a ball better with….
January 12, 2010, 12:34 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
“Turn the brain off” discrimination is bad too. For instance, the mutation that causes sickle cell trait can occur in anyone. There are those in the medical profession who think it can’t happen to a white kid. If they thought it through, they’d realize that couldn’t be the case.
January 12, 2010, 12:55 pmChris Travers says:
It would certainly be less likely to happen to a white kid.
When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras. That doesn’t mean it ISN’T a zebra, but a zebra probably shouldn’t be your first guess.
January 12, 2010, 1:16 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
No, Chris.
The mutation isn’t less likely to happen. It’s less likely that a white kid would inherit it, that’s all.
January 12, 2010, 3:20 pmleo marvin says:
I’m counting on it.
January 12, 2010, 6:56 pmChris Travers says:
I meant, that the mutation would be less likely to be found generally in white folks.
January 12, 2010, 7:07 pmChris Travers says:
So, after some time in deliberations, we have been unable to establish that Sen. Reid is a racist, but we have convicted Bugs Bunny…
January 12, 2010, 7:08 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Agreed. But you can’t extrapolate from that, that a specific white kid can’t have it.
January 13, 2010, 10:49 am