How Breitbart Won and Why We Must Rethink "Racism"
Friday 23 July 2010

Andrew Breitbart. (Photo: shalf)
We've trod a familiar path in the past week. It started with credulous acceptance of Andrew Breitbart's latest round of lies, moved to the subsequent debate about who's a racist and then on to the expected round of apologies. Now it culminates with calls for Obama to lead a national racial healing project. This is just the road the right wants us traveling along, because it leads nowhere.
Everybody from President Obama to Glenn Back has offered a lesson to be learned from the frenzy surrounding Shirley Sherrod. But just about all of them have reinforced the notion that racism is nothing more than personal prejudice, as plausibly found among blacks as it is among whites. In that, Breitbart has succeeded in shaping our conversation about race.
What the right wants us to forget is that race relations are rooted in systems, and that not all racism is individual, intentional and overt. Individual bias plays a role, to be sure, but it's the institutional rules, written and unwritten, that enable such racism, not the other way around. You can't "heal" a system; you have to rebuild it.
This is where the left often loses its way on race. I was surprised, for instance, to read the following in Joan Walsh's Salon.com column on Wednesday: "People are spending a lot of energy to get folks like the Spooners and Sherrod to think they should be enemies, when the real issue is class." Walsh, who has a solid history of responsible reporting on race issues, goes on to say that's what the left should remember from this debacle, because the right wants us to forget it.
I take the opposite lesson: The intersection of race and class is a complicated thing, deserving of more attention, not less. Treating class as the "real issue" means treating race only as a function of it, which amounts to colorblindness for leftists. It's a highly limited answer to working-class white resentment of working-class black people. Progressives' over-reliance on the "same boat" argument doesn't help keep multiracial alliances together. Rather, it stumps us when we need to explain exactly how racism works, not just in the economy, but also in education, prison, health and, yes, agriculture. Liberal silence on race is what allows Breitbart to distort the definition of racism, to strip it of all discussions of power, history, policy or collective responsibility such that the notion of reverse racism has enough merit to be taken seriously in the first place.
Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates.
There was a lot of bad to this situation, and apologies are definitely appropriate. But setting up competing points of focus between personal prejudice and class indicates to me that leftists--and not just white leftists--think of classism as systemic but racism as individual. The depth and consistency of racial disparities in every arena, even when well-intentioned people make and implement the rules, suggests that individual intention is only a small part of this story. The left understands that about class, so why not about race? When was the last time we heard progressives call for projects that heal the class divide? No, on class we get it.
There's much to gain from getting it. In my book The Accidental American, I wrote about the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York (ROC-NY), which has expanded nationwide. In the aftermath of September 11, the group organized immigrant workers of color who occupy the low-wage, dangerous back-of-the-house jobs in high-end restaurants. Five years later, when white waiters asked for help because managers were stealing their tips, ROC-NY had its own Shirley Sherrod moment of hesitation.
Rather than turning the white workers away, however, organizers insisted that they reach out to the back-of-the-house. Together, they won ROC-NY's biggest victory to date--millions of dollars in back wages and damages, and a whole lot of new rules, including some addressing racial discrimination explicitly. The organization successfully addresses the economic, racial and gender hierarchies embedded in the industry, even though everyone doesn't occupy the same rung on the ladder. That's what real solidarity looks like.
Both the Obama administration and news media should be looking for the same sort of systemic, rather than interpersonal, review--like, say, a thorough racial impact assessment of federal regulations, practices and proposals. When we focus on all the things that cause inequality, true reconciliation can begin. Otherwise, it's just talk therapy.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!




Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Yes, like the railroad
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 15:57 β Anonarcmous (not verified)Yes, like the railroad tracks, the freeways, the bridges to cross over the river to get to certain neighborhoods...in which stores & businesses do not cross over to develop, in which public transportation declines, etc.
Breitbart didn't win. He
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 16:10 β radline9 (not verified)Breitbart didn't win. He managed to subvert the news cycle for a couple of days, but I thought in this case, reason won for a change. If you watched CNN, there was a real challenge to tell the truth. It's not often the truth comes out so clean in the main stream media. Breitbart should win the "Burning down the house" award.
Breitbart coordinates with
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:09 β Gus W (not verified)Breitbart coordinates with GOP strategists, providing the propaganda to justify their partisan activism, for example the Defund ACORN Act.
This wasted a ton of taxpayers money, informing a Congressional vote that had to be rescinded. The videographer was arrested, convicted and sued for his tactics and no real investigation of actual voting integrity anomalies was ever undertaken.
more at http://obrag.org/?p=22257
I like the idea of
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:41 β Carl (not verified)I like the idea of addressing "...the economic, racial and gender hierarchies..." embedded in various parts of our society as a single phenomenon rather as separate problems.
Isn't the real issue one of discrimination based on any or all factors that don't relate to how the individual is measuring up as an individual? Such discrimination is dysfunctional, as opposed to discrimination that is based on performance, which, when objectively applied, is the essential lubricant that makes the wheels go around.
Begin with this attitude toward discrimination, season with a bit of altruism and compassion, and you have a society that works.
The manipulative hucksterism
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:43 β Underground Sanity 2 (not verified)The manipulative hucksterism or "prank" by Beitbart was able to capture the news cycle BECAUSE it was a right wing gambit. A leftist or progressive action like that would never have gained mainstream media attention. As should be done in all responsible media, the sources and content would have been scrutinized and the intent of the offering challenged. [In the present day, however, it would just be ignored.] The point being that we are being fed a stream of biased media information driven primarily by entertainment value and secondarily by so-called conservative agendas.
However, the author's main argument is correct, if not clearly stated. "Racism" engenders and is defined by a systemic power to disadvantage a target group because of race or ethnicity. If the system or the policymakers lack the power to impose and enforce rules and policies of a system, it is simply NOT racism. It is prejudice and bigotry. This is why the "reverse racism" argument is a fallacy.
In the unlikely event that Barack Obama exercised the audacity to wrest control of his own administration and then decided to enact policies to exclude whites from position of power or access to employment opportunities, THEN we would have an example of true reverse racism because a Black man would be in a position of power and control over a system that deliberately and systematically disadvantaged whites because of race. And a White dominated Supreme Court would annul such policies before they ever became effective.
Thus to state an example, extreme and absurd as it sounds, demonstrates the specious nature of the "reverse racism" argument. An individual cannot exercise racism unless he or she controls the means of power to adopt and enforce systemic discrimination. Confusing bigotry and racism is often a sophist ploy because, for some reason, it seems less inflammatory to identify an action as racist than to properly label it bigoted.
However, the distinction does make a difference. If a person's actions are bigoted and prejudiced, then he or she can be held accountable for those actions. Calling behavior racist allows for accountability to be lost in some nebulous cloak of "society."
It is perhaps a sad commentary that the NAACP, after more than one half century still lacks the systemic power to be racist, even if it chose to be such, which it clearly does not. It is an inescapable contradiction. If racism [white privilege used to disadvantage people of color] were ended, the reason and purpose for the NAACP would be accomplished, completed and the organization ended.
This incident explains why
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 19:33 β Anonymous (not verified)This incident explains why Obamas ratings are so low. He really does not care about his base, Instead of a strong attack on fox he moved to fire a fine person. It will be hard to support him again
Many environmentalists lose
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 20:54 β Brian (not verified)Many environmentalists lose their way on the problem of global warming in a similar way. They emphasize personal actions and grassroots movements as the best way or sometimes the only way to solve the problem. Some talk in terms of personal greed and overconsumption, as if that is the root of the problem. All these things are very important, but as long as the entire system is designed to use harmful sources of energy, the problem won't be solved, ever.
Rinku, thanks as always.
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 22:17 β Larry Yates (not verified)Rinku, thanks as always.
Another small piece of the race puzzle of the last week was the outrageous Wall Street Journal piece by Sen. Webb of Virginia, a genuinely mavericky Dem, stating that white privilege was over and that affirmative action was now only hurting whites. I give Webb the credit of believing that this article came from his passion for his Appalachian white roots, and he believes to defend them he must deny the ongoing racism towards African-Americans, and even deny (in explicit language) discrimination towards immigrant families, including that of his Vietnamese-American wife.
As I wrote to him, it is simply ahistorical to see anti-racist action as the opponent to the interests of white working people. Usually, people of color are the most likely to collectively act to "unstick" our injustices, not because of some innate quality but because they have less illusions and fewer other options.
So the best chance whites have is to ally ourselves with them. We are very slow to learn how to actually do this, but it is the road to survival. Similarly, Brian, with environmentalism, our best bet is to genuinely support indigenous and people of color environmentalists, the most likely to break the current system.
It seems Global Corporate
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 04:10 β Anonymous (not verified)It seems Global Corporate CONservative Media always has WE The People either at each other's throats or running around chasing Our tails while they continue to bring us Less Government (of Ourselves) through Less Regulation and Taxation(of everything Corporate) and consolidate and tighten their grip on Our Government and EVERYTHING else in the WORLD...
THEY now very narrowly own all of The Media.
THEY now almost completely fund Our Elections
THEY now almost completely run Our Government
THEY now use US and Our Government as Cash Cows to squeeze, drain and manipulate for all WE are worth---- LITERALLY..!
WE are no longer WE THE PEOPLE (if we ever were).
WE are now certainly little more than WE THE CONSUMERS living under the thumb of a Rightwing-CONservative-inflicted Corporatacracy of, by and for the Corporate that is masquerading as a Democratic Republic suffering from 'far too much' Regulation and Taxation of the The Wealthy Global Corporate Class by the Mythical, Evil Liberal, Socialist Conspiracy.
And so the Big Ass CONservative Flim Flam Circle Jerk Continues...
Freedom, Liberty and Customer Service..?.... or Consumer Slavery...?.... LOL..!!!!
How about fighting him
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 05:45 β Anonymous (not verified)How about fighting him back?
http://tinyurl.com/2g5bjxt
Andrew Breitbart is "the boy
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 10:02 β K.G. Smith (not verified)Andrew Breitbart is "the boy who cried, 'Wolf!'" Yet each time he makes a new pronouncement, we take him at his word. What does it take for the media to stop listening to a serial liar?
None of this would have
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:41 β sharonsj (not verified)None of this would have happened if ACORN had fought back immediately and taken Breitbart and his minions to court. Only now do you hear of a single ACORN employee suing the videographer. You've got a national organization that was completely destroyed by lies and Congress (which jumped to conclusions too), and it just lies down and says "fuck me more."
Thank you for an insightful
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:40 β Jb (not verified)Thank you for an insightful analysis of last week's events.
Sometimes, sharonsj, you say
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 18:53 β Frances in California (not verified)Sometimes, sharonsj, you say insightful things; things one could learn from. Not this time. Surely even you know better than to assume ACORN had the resources to fight back. Did not Congress - who is supposed to represent all those newly registered minority voters - just roll over them? How much could you pay a lawyer to fight entities that have you overmatched financially, to attempt such a fight? Are you a lawyer who would've offered your services pro bono except, oops, you had "other priorities"?