Letters to the Editor
-
Racial animus
Conason writes:
"The tragedy is that neither Clinton carries even the slightest racial animus, as their many African-American friends and colleagues would testify..."
First of all, I'm not sure why it matters in the slightest whether or not the Clintons harbor "racial animus."
This is the entire point about why racism is so insidious: It doesn't matter where one's heart is. At least, not ultimately.
What ultimately matters is how one reinforces and replicates social patterns of racism. When Clinton says, "Farakkhan, Farakkhan, Farakkhan," this is what she's doing, whatever is in her heart.
And what's more, if she is as smart as people give her credit for, she knows this. Or perhaps her knowledge of racism is outdated as she relies upon decades-old understandings of what racism is all about. Either way, what's in her heart is really neither here nor there. Her replication of racist patterns, wittingly or not, is what matters.
Conason also writes:
"So the Clintons probably understand the essential evil of racism better than most white politicians.
Unless I'm misunderstanding Conason's point about the Clintons' political troubles, all this anecdote demonstrates is that the Clintons understand the political ramifications of racism. Not sure if that's the same as understanding "the essential evil" of racism.
More than most white politicians?
Perhaps, but if that's the best white politicians can do, God help us all. (Ftr, I don't think it is.)
"They have certainly done more than most of today's white politicians to combat that evil. That is why, as they contemplate the conclusion of this campaign, they deserve better from themselves than to encourage doubt about their decency and character."
Again, the real question is whether they've aptly diagnosed the problem of "racism" and offered consequential redress.
I don't have the answer for that, but I'd warn anyone from answering this question before seriously deliberating over all the metrics involved.
They may same self-evident, but as Clinton is demonstrating, one can work against racism before one works for it.
I guess my basic question is why we (Joe) are surprised, as if there's some paradox demanding resolution.
I think a person who really understands racism recognizes there is no paradox.
Until there is universal recognition of this basic fact, we will continue to talk past one another arguing about who is and is not a racist, as if the answer involves some mystical penetration of a person's heart or cold assessment of their deeds.
The reality is we are all racists, in a very profound sense, inasmuch as we struggle with its legacy.
Basically, I think Conason's whole article rests on a false premise, and one that serves to perpetuate unproductive binary thinking on the subject of racism.