What Price Prejudice?

The Republican attack machine has begun its attack on Barack Obama. Using the Reverand Wright quotes and other clips out of context, they try to paint Mr. Obama as part of the radical left and unable to understand middle class America.

By the way Republicans use Reverend Wright at Mr. Obama's quotes, they paint their party as a racist party. But that is no surprise to those who already consider it homophobic and intolerant of difference of any kind.

I've not been a supporter of Barack Obama. His actions don't match his rhetoric or policies where the gay community is concerned (he vociferously has avoided photos with gay people or those who are known for supporting us, has granted very few interviews with gay media, and appeared to have had to be convinced by Senator Kennedy to include gay prejudice in a speech after Kennedy's endorsement).

We're still living with someone whose words don't match his actions. I'm a little gun-shy.

I really have disliked the Obama campaign's attack machine that claimed that anyone who says anything that can be taken wrong is a racist. It smacked of racism against non-African Americans in the way that it was levied. Even worse it diluted the impact of the word by its casual use in the charges.

It was poetic justice when the tactic backfired on Mr. Obama when his own words were taken out of context and miscast as prejudiced against middle-class white Americans.

In truth, Mr. Obama is no more a racist than Bill Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro is. He spoke ineloquently about why some middle-class white Americans are affixed on certain issues to their own detriment, but he did not intend to express prejudice against those middle-class white Americans. He was trying to help others understand them better.

Just taking something out of context or exploiting a misspoke word does not a racist make. Words like those from Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro may originate from residual or unseen prejudice in them. But we don't know that.

We know that their actions are more important than their words and they have both been active in fighting prejudice against African Americans. We should give them the benefit of the doubt.

We all harbor the prejudices of the culture in which we are raised. It is recognizing that prejudice and continually trying to improve it that elevates us from our baser instincts.

We should distinguish comments made without malice from actions and words purposely chosen to exploit our inherent prejudices. The term, "racist" should be reserved for those who purposely exploit base prejudice for their own purposes.

Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro spoke ineloquently in a way that could be taken as racial. I don't believe that either of them intended to make racial remarks or exploit the inherent racism in non-African Americans.

Certainly, from the African American point of view, both remarks were insensitive and might have resulted from each person's own inherent residual prejudice, but neither deserved the label, "Racist".

We are all works in progress. We have to cut others some slack sometimes. We have to turn the biblical cheek sometimes.

It isn't that Mr. Obama can't be criticized for his own actions or views. He deserves criticism for allowing his campaign to paint anyone who misspoke on Clinton's behalf as racist.

Ms. Clinton deserves criticism for starting the "elitist" campaign that sounds too similar to "uppity" for comfort. She also deserves criticism for exploiting the Reverend Wright quote. She has strayed dangerously close to being racist in her campaign, but has just fallen short of it thus far. Still, she should immediately back off and apologize for it.

I think she was trying to make an economic distinction, but because it was aimed at a particular racial economic group, it was easily turned into a racist ploy when used by the Republicans. Now she will be painted with the same racist brush. She should have known better.

But the Republicans are purposely, willfully, trying to exploit the inherent racial prejudice in white Americans and other non-African American minorities. In the same way that they abused inherent homophobia in Americans, they are now purposefully using American's inherent racism for political gain.



The North Carolina Republican Party knows that "too extreme" will play on their audience's inherent racial prejudice. It is their code word for "not white like us". They hope that others outside North Carolina will think it means "too liberal", but in historical context of the state, it cannot be taken any other way but as racist propaganda.

We understand the context and what it means. Even more important, we know what it says about the people who used it.

It's like when someone who routinely uses the "N" word decries his prejudice and tries to make it a racial-socioeconomic label. Never mind that the stereotyping they use to defend themselves only proves the point that they are racist all the more.

Within days of Obama's comment in San Francisco, the Republican attack machine geared up and started using "elitist" and "far left" to stoke the flames of prejudice in their constituency. Meanwhile, the RNC sat back and pretended to distance itself from the ads in North Carolina and what the pundits were saying. If the RNC wasn't a racist party at its heart and core, it would be doing more to stop what it knows is racist activity in its ranks.

It is an evil tactic designed to deny African Americans their right to fully participate in political life in the same vein that Jim Crow laws of the past tried to deny African Americans (and other minorities) the right to vote.

Implicit in the tactic and the commercials are that if you are black and rise too high, those in power will cut you down to make an example of you. It is the same racism as when white people used to call African Americans "uppity" if they didn't act in the way that white Americans prescribed.

The Republican words are coded, but the meaning is clear if you look closely. Obama doesn't respect or understand real (read "white") middle-class Americans. Obama is from the "far left" and "elitist". Read that as too educated for a minority and uppity. It plays on white prejudice against African Americans by appealing to white fear.

Jon Stewart's question to Barack Obama on the Daily Show last week was poignant. "The Rev. Wright controversy, the flag pin controversy... Will you pull a bait-and-switch, sir, and enslave the white race? Is that your plan?" It was a pointed nod at the Republican use of racial fear against Mr. Obama.

The flag pen controversy. How convenient that American patriotism, made in China, can be purchased for $4.99 at WalMart. But I digress.

Most white and some minority Americans blithely accept the Republican assertions without understanding why. They fail to see that Republicans (and Clinton to a lesser degree) are playing on their base prejudices. They can't see the tactic if they can't see their own prejudice.

The problem is that white Americans and occasionally some minorities, where their nationality or race is not at issue, take an ostrich approach to American history. They are self-blinded to the prejudice and racist actions, which still occur in this country. They refuse to see the wrong in their actions or support of actions that harm others even when confronted with the ugly truth.

Up to the point of their prejudice being exposed, their actions are merely racial. But refusal to stop the prejudiced actions makes the actions racist.

None of us wants to believe badly of ourselves. It takes a self-aware and brave person who will accept his personal failings and act on it.

For instance, how many people still support sports team names that continue the stereotypes of American Indians? The Washington Redskins and its fans have argued that the racial epithet has acquired "second meaning", a technical legal concept in trademark law, to justify their continue using a team name that they know is racist.

What is even worse is that younger Indians have taken to using the team caps and jerseys, supposedly as a way to show racial pride. It speaks to subconscious self-loathing, similar to African American girls choosing white dolls instead of black dolls in the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case.

At some point the prejudice saturates the community to the point that the minority group accepts that they are not equal or as good as the majority group. Then people wonder why American Indians have problems with depression, alcoholism and suicide.

I lived for years in Kansas City where the Kansas City Chiefs are worshiped by even the Fundamentalist Christians. They do tomahawk chops and paint their faces to support professional sports business.

I didn't go out of my way to say anything. If asked, I would always say that I didn't support the team as it continued using a stereotype that is offensive to American Indians.

The reactions were almost always defensive. "Its just for fun." Or, "The name, 'Chiefs', was chosen because Mayor Bartle was called, 'The Chief', not for Indians."

Really? Then why paint your faces, wear feathers and do tomahawk chops? Why is the stadium called "Arrowhead Stadium"? Even if the team originally was named for Bartle, it is the offensive actions today that continue to perpetuate the stereotype.

They would just shrug off any logic or worse, become indignant and angry that I would question their right to ridicule and blasphemize Indian culture and religion.

My response was polite, but essentially conveyed: "I didn't bring up the subject. I've told you why it is wrong. If you refuse to change, then that is your choice. But, I'm not going to be complicit in your racism, whether you see it or not."

The actions might be benignly racial up to the point of exposure of the truth of the prejudice. Once exposed, it is the failure to act to stop the prejudice that makes it racist. Now they are purposefully performing acts that they know are racist.

When sports enthusiasts treat Indian paint sacrilegiously, they don't care what it does to American Indians who believe that paint is something that God gives a person and can only be used by their family. Implicit in the act is the belief that traditional Indian religious beliefs are not Christian, and therefore are irrelevant and unworthy of respect. All the sports fans care about is supporting their team by committing sacrilege against a people that they have wronged so long that they no longer see their actions as wrong.

Also implicit in the tomahawk chops and racist caricature logos, is that it doesn't matter what we Indians think or feel because we will never be as human as a white person or worthy of respect. The prejudice is so ingrained through history books, fiction, movies, television shows and the culture itself that we can't see it as prejudice or harmful anymore.

Now it fuels anti-Indian resentment against tribes who have gaming and are, for the first time in history, becoming wealthy enough to fully take care of their people. Some tribes can even help their people become rich.

But a rich Indian is a sacrilege against God himself it would seem. It is as though some feel that Indians should be kept in our place. No one likes an uppity Indian.

The same ingrained prejudice against African Americans exists in America today, as it does against Indians. It has been a part of our culture so long that it is difficult to even see it for what it is anymore.

For example, why is there even a need for black churches if prejudice doesn't still exist against African Americans? Why are churches still largely segregated?

It is not mere chance that Reverend Falwell fought against desegregation in churches then fought against gay rights. Those who are susceptible to one type of prejudice are more easily susceptible to another. It is in the person's character to discriminate against those she sees as lesser than herself.

So I understand why Reverend Wright rhetorically cursed America as part of his sermon. There is justification for the anti-white-America prejudice, even if it is as ugly as prejudice against African Americans or Native Americans.

The part of America that acts on its prejudice has to stop committing the wrongs before it can ask for forgiveness. It certainly has no standing to ask minorities to stop their prejudice against the majority.

You have to stop punching me in the face before asking me to forgive you, or else making me forgive you is just another form of the same abuse. Only when the actions stop, can African Americans or American Indians be expected to work on resolving their prejudice against those who wrong them.

I understand how white Americans and some non-African American minorities don't see how the Republican ads are racist. But each of us is culpable for refusing to see the prejudice in ourselves or the groups with whom we affiliate when confronted with the truth.

None of us is immune to prejudice. We are all racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and innumerable other things that make us human. It is what we do with the knowledge of our failings that makes the difference.

If we see the error of our ways and change, then it raises us up a notch in our journey of enlightenment. If we see our actions and refuse to change, then we impose our own prison of ignorance and darkness on ourselves. We also force others who are enlightened to form negative opinions about us when we refuse to see or change our prejudice.

When the Republicans use the clips of Reverend Wright, it isn't an attempt at honest political discourse. They are appealing to the base prejudice that exists in the minds of non-African Americans. They are trivializing the pain of slavery, segregation and prejudice that African Americans have endured and continue to experience.

They are whispering in our ears that African Americans cannot be fully human like us. They whisper that we should fear a black man as president.

Get behind me Satan. Prejudiced people may be good people. However, people who capitalize on that prejudice for their own gain are truly evil.