Comments

1. BSK wrote:

   I think there are several issues at play here. Is it possible to oppose Obama, or otherwise make criticism of him, without racial motivation? Absolutely. I was an ardent Obama supporter, who is currently frustrated and dissatisfied with what I have seen from him thus far. I recognize he still has ample time in office to achieve the goals that I believe in and which led to my support of him but, at current time, I’m a bit disappointed. Now, I don’t think this puts me in the same category as the people interviewed here, but I think it does demonstrate that it’s possible to have a thinking, non-race-influenced objection to Obama.

   It is also entirely possible that people who oppose him ARE racist, or are influenced by racist viewpoints and perspectives, but would likely oppose him regardless of his skin color. I think this shows up in the level of vitriol that permeates these critics’ statements. They likely would have opposed any attempt at offering a public option in health care, for instance, but the claims of, “Give us back our country,” likely would not have been made.

   As we’ve talked about before, privilege and racism are not badges worn proudly on the sleeves of those who behold these things. Very few people own their privilege, and even fewer own their racism. So it is hard to draw a direct causal relationship between the presence of racist influences and criticism or opposition to the president. A myriad of factors goes into how we perceive others and ultimately what we conclude about them. One’s views on race certainly do factor in, but how exactly do we tease it out? Absent someone saying, “I just plum don’t like black folks,” it is hard to prove such claims, especially when those being examined are no consciously or explicitly aware of how their views on race impact their views on everything.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:20 am ¶

2. Lyle wrote:

   There’s not identifying as racist but there’s also the rationalization that when they use racialized imagery, it’s okay and people who complain are either “oversensitive” or “playing the race card”. Since some Bush-opponents made monkey jokes, it’s okay to make monkey jokes about Obama (and you’re just making it up about the history of those kind of comments) and since an African-American guy wrote an op-ed column about the media fitting Obama into the “magical negro” stereotype, “Barack the Magic Negro” is okay, even though that “parody” song shows no understanding of the column.

   And considering how the GOP has spent the past few decades cultivating code words, you’d think the study would at least consider examining if any race-based opposition might reveal itself that way.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:22 am ¶

3. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

   No, you’re pretty much right. Racist people will insist and scream that they are NOT racist, while making ignorant remarks about President Obama.

   See, if you want to criticize Obama, by all means, go ahead. Just be sure you don’t throw in

   -”Socialist,” “Commie,” or “Marxist”
   -”secret Muslim/secret Arab/secret terrorist/whatever”
   -”hates white people”
   -”elitist” (what’s wrong with being an elitist, anyway?)
   -”out to destroy American values”

   because we all know what that really means.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:30 am ¶

4. atlasien wrote:

   That study is good for a laugh.

   I live in a totally different kind of Atlanta suburb (the one that kept electing Cynthia McKinney, if that gives you an indicator) but I’m definitely familiar with the white conservative mentality quoted in that group.

   Of course those people don’t think they’re racists!

   They go through life holding up a mirror to a mirror world, and thinking the reflection of the reflection constitutes reality. They believe things like “black people are the REAL racists” and “Christianity is an embattled oppressed religion” and “the Democrat party is the plantation and the black people are slaves in it”. They enact racism through an imaginative set of code words. I’ll list one particularly weird example… someone complaining to my mother that the neighborhood they lived in was starting to “get cloudy”. She didn’t figure out what he meant until hours later… at the time, she just looked up at the clear sky with slight confusion.

   They can believe in old-fashioned racism and colorblind racism simultaneously. For example, their often-repeated complaint is that intown Atlanta is dominated by the unholy trinity of blacks, gays and liberals. Which is old-fashioned racism and bigotry. But when anyone points out that the racism of such statements, they immediately switch modes to colorblind racism, and complain that noticing race is the real racism.

   I believe they are sincere in their illogical mentality. That is, they actually believe they are fulfilling some kind of anti-racist obligation in complaining about the racism of people who point out their own racism.

   I think it’s important to establish that point. These people are not Machiavellian. Their bizarre viewpoints are based on stupidity, not deviousness. It’s just a form of stupidity that doubles back on itself and tangles back into itself, so that from the inside it actually simulates a complicated and coherent thought structure.

   However, the people who conducted and promulgated that study really don’t even have an excuse. I don’t know what James Carville’s problem is. If he believes that study, he’s a complete dolt, otherwise he could be pretending to believe it for political gain as a mealy-mouthed centrist. It’s hard to believe he can say the things he said in that interview with a straight face.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:33 am ¶

5. Jadey wrote:

   Which is, of course, why researchers have spent the last twenty years developing implicit measures of racism… Because it’s not something people just tell you! Either because they don’t realize its influence or because they know its not socially desirable to admit to. The idea of doing that kind of investigation relying solely on self-report measures with big obvious questions about race and racism is laughable.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:37 am ¶

6. Queen B wrote:

   I believe a good percentage of the people who are against Obama are doing so because of race.

   Now, I am a Democrat and Obama has done many things that I disagree with but when I see those “tea baggers” on TV, I see a group of people in fear because they feel they country is fundamentally changing and they want to stop it and they want to go back to another- a time perhaps when black people and other minorities had no political or economic power.
   Bottom line is that a certain group of people are upset ultimately because a black man and not a white man is running the country; these white people know they are losing power.

   I have heard some of these people say ” I want to go back to the way Founding Fathers ran this country” and I’m thinking “Oh, Really” that was also the time when blacks were slaves and considered personal property.

   Also, what about those people who still think Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan citizen and a socialist- all those beliefs have some kind of racial element to it.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:38 am ¶

7. Penni Brown wrote:

   What gets me is that these people who claim to never have participated in a racist experience and don’t think racism exists anymore are constantly being asked to identify this situation as racist. How can they?

   Yet, a POC who has witnessed and been subject to racism is not seen as a credible subject matter expert. WTF? We are in Bizzaro World!

   Most people that dislike Obama’s policies are NOT a racists. Those that hate Obama but have never actually read any of his policy but go on what limbaugh and beck interpret for them, probably are. I think alot of people that voted for him even, are racist. I don’t buy the argument that, I voted for him so, I can’t be racist.

   I think alot of people voted for him but expected him to get in office and play by their rules, maintain the status quo. Change to them meant, I will vote for you, but I want everything else to be the same. Obama clearly had a different idea when it came to change.

   It’s all just a cluster and I don’t see how we can win this argument when people aren’t even starting on the same foundation.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:39 am ¶

8. atlasien wrote:

   @Jadey: Yes, and this study brought to mind a parallel… it would be sort of like gathering a group of men who harass women by yelling sexual comments at them in public, then asking the group members “are you a misogynist?”, writing down their answers — “of course not, I LOVE women!” — and then publishing the result as a serious finding.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 10:52 am ¶

9. Slush wrote:

   It’s really hard to parse out.

   What I do think is that Joe Wilson wouldn’t have shouted out “you lie” at a white president.
   Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think the racism comes in at a very gut level, far from the intellectual opposition of policy ideas or any “ideas” at all, but more about ingrained reactions to people.
   We are all very accustomed to having white men at the top of the power chain and responding to them as subordinates, but we are much less (especially in Congress, near the top of the political power pyramid) accustomed to responding to black men that way.

   Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:03 am ¶

10. nathan wrote:

    Any study that denies racism as an element of the opposition to Obama is simply a faulty study. I’m left of Ralph Nader politically, and have never really been an Obama supporter, and yet think it’s obvious that there are plenty of people out there who are motivated to oppose Obama either partly or primarily because he’s not a white guy.

    I think it’s important to be very wary of any abs0lutist talk. Anyone who says that all opposition to Obama is racist is wrong. And anyone who says there is no racism occurring in the opposition to Obama is also wrong.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:28 am ¶

11. karen wrote:

    What Penni said! Yes! What gets me is that these people who claim to never have participated in a racist experience and don’t think racism exists anymore are constantly being asked to identify this situation as racist. How can they? Yet, a POC who has witnessed and been subject to racism is not seen as a credible subject matter expert. WTF? We are in Bizzaro World!

    i was thinking the same thing. for me, as a white woman who came to critical race and critical whiteness studies by reading critiques of feminism by women of color, i’d be willing to bet that my racism would be more likely to show up in just about any kind of questionnaire than someone like Joe Wilson’s would. because only by reading what people of color have to say about whiteness and by believing them have i been able to identify many of my behaviors as racist. those behaviors are and always have been racist, i just wasn’t aware or interested in calling it that…

    and i’m not saying i’m better than the Joe Wilsons out there… just there’s something wrong when white folks can deny our way out of racism by funding crazy studies just for that purpose.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:38 am ¶

12. atlasien wrote:

    I think the “is opposition to Obama racist” question is a red herring.

    Of course it’s not necessarily racist.

    The study didn’t ask that or answer that question. Instead, it asked, are “conservative voters in suburban Atlanta” racist?

    Based on my experience, hell yes they are.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:42 am ¶

13. AmberJ wrote:

    My problem with this phenomenon is the lack of opportunity to really define what racism is. Many white people feel personally offended when you even mention the word and think that being racist also means you do not have any other legitimate concerns. This is not true. I can entertain the idea that a person may legitimately oppose Obama’s policies and still be impacted by his race. Optimistically, I would like to believe that a majority of Obama dissenters have issues with his policy and unconsciously voice those concerns with racial overtones. In other words disagreeing with his health policy legitimately but communicating your views by making a “Bamacare” poster with Obama as a tribal medicine man.

    I am very concerned with certain phrases that people have adopted like “white culture” and “founding principles.” I do not know if people who use these terms consciously recognize they are invoking the idea of “white supremacy.” Afterall, our country was founded on principles that favored white upper class men and ignored everyone else and for the most part we have stuck to those core “values”. I, like BSK, have been disappointed in some of the lack of action associated with the Obama administration. However, I own the fact that my disappointment stems from my underlining belief that his election would in some ways destroy our founding principles. I would like to keep all the principles concerning freedom, self responsibility, and democracy, and lose some of the parts that have led to the denial of those things to specific groups of people.

    The bottom line is, I trust people; even conservatives (with only a few exceptions). I trust people to be able to form criticisms absent of racial implications. However, I understand that these racial themes and dichotomies are deeply embedded in our culture. Some people may not recognize the racial implications of their comments because it has never been fully exorcised from American dialogue.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:46 am ¶

14. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    It is important to keep in mind what this study is and is not. From what I can tell (very little information is provided about the specific methodology) these were a series of focus groups. As such, this is qualitative data.

    Nothing against qualitative data–much of my data analysis experience has been with qualitative data. But this means that statements such as “75% of respondents…” are likely based on very small samples that were not drawn at random. Further, this means that we cannot make any inferences about the larger population based on these results.

    There are many difficulties with focus groups as a methodology–particularly when participants are drawn so as to be ideologically similar to each other. Often focus groups are used as an early, more exploratory step in the research process–for example, to develop questionnaires and other instruments that can be used to collect quantitative data from which inferences can be made to the larger population.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:50 am ¶

15. Cindy wrote:

    It is clear that the far right wing of the Repubs have the singular objective to make Obama fail even if this causes harm to their own constituency. That in of itself is not racist but dirty low brow politics.

    That being said, if the rallying point is a common racist belief system, then all discussions from that point forward are fully clothed in racism.

    It’s the equivalent of saying the Rebubs can prove they are focused on the policies of the Obama administration and not race because they would let him and any member of his staff use the restroom in their house.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶

16. Mia wrote:

    I’m with Karen and Penni- just by performing the study they are making implications about race; and who funded this study. Shouldn’t this study be about the policies and not Obama himself? Are the people opposed to his policies capable of answering simple questions about his policies?

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 12:15 pm ¶

17. RJG wrote:

    The motivation isn’t racist, but the means to accomplish the goals created by that motivation sure as fuck are at times.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶

18. Kate wrote:

    I think people who want Obama to fail, whether they realize it or not, are motivated by racial prejudice. Racism doesn’t only manifest itself as overt and self-conscious, but is codified into language and ideology. People who claim that Obama is a threat to “american values” or “founding principles” are expressing an anxiety over the ability of previously marginalized groups to gain political and cultural power. He is a threat to the middle-class white value structure that places white supremacy and cultural control at the top of the political hierarchy.

    There are valid criticisms to make of Obama and I, for one, have many (i didn’t vote for obama to begin with, but for cynthia mckinney). But Obama is not a threat to american political values, in fact, he is as neoliberal pro-market as anyone else in Washington. Those who fear him, fear his otherness and perceive his rise to power as a threat to the-way-things-are/were, in which middle-class whites are the ones who hold power and direct social norms. They may not admit it, they may not even realize it, but that is most definitely the subtext.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 1:04 pm ¶

19. Invasian wrote:

    I agree with those who say that not all hate is race-motivated, but it would be foolish to totally dismiss racism, since that has obviously become part of the issue.
    It all depends on where you lie on the political spectrum. Those on the right may be more motivated to dislike Obama because of his race, and to them a black man doing things that they disagree with is much worse than if it were a white man.
    On the other hand, I know many socialists who never supported him from Day 1. Why? Because Obama is a mainstream Democrat, and at the end of the day, the Democrat’s corporate interests aren’t much different from the Republicans.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 1:09 pm ¶

20. in a land w/o sea wrote:

    as a research methodologist with a survey research background, i cosign with the folks who observed that asking people who have never experienced racism are being asked to judge whether an act or utterance is racist is just bad design. there is all sorts of literature about social desirability bias in survey interviewing, but somehow, studies like these tend to try to explain social desirability away (much like someone trying to explain why his/her own racist statements aren’t so) rather than deal head on with the potential for bias.

    moreover, nearly all the racism scales with the exception of the implicit attitudes test (the modern racist scale, etc.) 1) focus exclusively on white people’s SELF REPORTED behavior; 2) do not include complementary scales that attempt to measure how POC interpret and respond to racist statements and acts; 3) tend to focus on interpersonal acts of discrimination and prejudice and NOT on structural inequality.

    in fact, i would be so bold as to say that most research that deal with “race” as a variable is suspect, particularly studies that attempt to explicate “the effects of race.” race (and racism, when even discussed) are usually treated as if they are immutable (like a biological trait) , ahistorical and devoid of social context.

    recommended reading, for those so inclined:

    bonilla-silva, e. & zuberi, t. (eds.) (2008). white logic, white methods: racism and methodology. lanham, md: rowan & littlefield.

    zuberi, tukufu. (2001). thicker than water: how racial statistics lie. minneapolis: u of mn press.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 1:17 pm ¶

21. Persephone wrote:

    I gotta admit, I LOLed when I saw this headline. Racists Not Racist, say Racists!

    I mean, of course there are tons of reasons to dislike Obama. I’m not crazy about all of his policies. But the tone of so much of the criticism has been so obviously different from the tone of discussion of any other president — the Joe Wilson thing being a crowning example.

    I gotta say, it’s making me regret eight years of comparing George W Bush to monkeys, because some people will never get tired of using that one as ammunition for the “you did it too!” defense…

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 4:00 pm ¶

22. Lisa J wrote:

    The people who did this study and it seems the majority of those who participated, need to get a grip. THe fact that this study was done in the first place and the responders immediately saying without prompting that they aren’t racist seems to be a case of “me thinkest thou protesteth too much.” They wouldn’t go there in the first place if that weren’t first and foremost on their minds. If they stated the exact political points that they disagree with him on or cite the specific policies or campaign promises that they had an issue with, that would be one thing, I don’t agree with the President on anything, but the way these people have made their arguments by and large are tinged with racist.

    Basically these people need to sit down somewhere and stop lying to themselves. I’d like for them to STFU but freedom of speech and all that.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 4:27 pm ¶

23. Lisa J wrote:

    Oh and in my 30 something years of life, and in my mother’s 60 something years of life we both concurred that we have never ever seen any one in any political party right or left who was an elected official or any journalist say publically and explicitly that they wanted a President of the United States to fail. We’ve also never seen a former VP going around publicaly undermining the current administration. Never

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 4:35 pm ¶

24. jen* wrote:

    As a scientist, this study came across as complete bunk to me. Probably because there was no scientific method employed for conducting the study.

    Looks more to me like this is just one big excuse – “race isn’t the issue, I love black people! they use my bathroom!” – when folks certainly don’t go to the kinds of extremes that they have this year when organizing against white dudes with similar platforms.

    And cosign everything atlasien said. You tell ‘em! [esp the "blacks are the real racists", "noticing race is the REAL racism" colorblind crap. that's the stuff I deal with every single day at work.]

    Oh, and Latoya, color me surprised to see a link to my old hometown newspaper [the Chronicle]. I actually *lived* there then, and missed that tidbit.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 4:59 pm ¶

25. Penni Brown wrote:

    @ Cindy – “It is clear that the far right wing of the Repubs have the singular objective to make Obama fail even if this causes harm to their own constituency. That in of itself is not racist but dirty low brow politics.”

    This IS called racism when they want him to fail because he identifies as a black man. There’s something called the benefit of the doubt that is afforded generally to white men in positions similar to Obama. Part of identifying racism is recognizing that the absence of the benefit of the doubt, is a by product of racism.

    The vocal majority didn’t even want Bush to fail, they kept holding out hope (benefit of the doubt) that things would work out for him. Even when they had facts – EVIDENCE – that did not support some of Bush’s claims, there was still a ‘Well…maybe…’ approach. They made jokes about his ineptitude but no one ever questioned his right to get in office (birthers) and fail.

    @Mia – I’d be willing to bet a paycheck that the majority of those opposed to the policies have never read one of them or gone to Obama’s website (or googled the objective cliff notes versions) for the laymen’s interpretation.

    But that would make too much sense…and this isn’t about making sense is it?

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶

26. Lyle wrote:

    The one thing I’m not sure about is the “would a white man deal with this kind of criticism?” argument. The Republicans have played to voters’ racism since Nixon and looking at things like Beck calling health care reform reparations, there’s a part of me that thinks Edwards would have faced some of this name-calling. He probably wouldn’t have faced the monkey, witch doctor and watermelon patch imagery, but I think health care reform would have faced the same kind of “he’s trying to steal stuff that rightfully belongs to white people and give it to undeserving minorities!” rhetoric, as well as the claims of trying to deliberately destroy the country (accusations the GOP has flirted with since 2002).

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 6:26 pm ¶

27. chicagorose wrote:

    My thoughts are first dear God the presidency has aged Obama tenfold. Beyond that, the main fear of the right and a lot of middle Americans has always been that African Americans would hitch our scary agendas to Barack’s star. How do you prevent that from happening? Easy. You make the mere mention of race taboo. And be sure to lay on thick how passe blackness is anyhow, after all us mono racials (a term I hate with the passion of a thousand suns) are the old frigging model, we’re descended from slaves, our minds are fried from all that one drop rule conditioning. That efficiently renders the black community moot. And all I can say is well played America! Meh. I’m so disenchanted with Obama over a multitude of issues far removed from race that am finding it harder to care these days. And that’s a form of racial burnout right there.

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 7:45 pm ¶

28. Paul wrote:

    It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).

    Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. He is reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, “palin and simple” like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 11:29 pm ¶

29. TheGoriWife wrote:

    Oh my god, I wish I could print this out, along with every single hyperlink, stuff it into an intricately tabbed binder, and give it to my Glenn Beck loving Grandmother.

    Posted 20 Oct 2009 at 2:37 am ¶

30. Alex wrote:

    In her extensive study of hiring outcomes in Milwaukee, Boston, and Chicago, Devah Pager finds that white applicants with a criminal record were just as likely to receive a callback as a black applicant WITHOUT any criminal history. Despite the fact that white applicants revealed evidence of felony drug conviction and reported having returned from one and a half years in prison, employers viewed them as no more risky than a young black male with NO criminal record. And the kicker in this study is that employers claimed to hold views of racial equality! See Devah Pager’s “Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration.” Also, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s “Racism without Racists: Colorblind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States” goes into far greater depth about the complex ways colorblind racism works through his extensive interviews and other data sources. Bonilla-Silva demonstrates how colorblind racism utilizes rhetorical strategies that appear to avoid the absolutism of Jim Crow and embrace abstract ideals of equality yet will not support any practical policy to alleviate persistence racial inequality in U.S. society. Bonilla-Silva concludes that the emerging racial order “will serve as formidable fortress for white supremacy.” I hope Racialicious will continue to help us take up the complexity of resisting these ideological walls. peace, alex

    Posted 20 Oct 2009 at 11:18 am ¶

31. Moira wrote:

    “But here’s why I think the study was doomed before it began – no one self-identifies as a racist. Not even racists! They have different terms that they like to use…”

    No doubt, no doubt. And that applies to ALL races…

    Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 12:25 pm ¶

32. octogalore wrote:

    I think you’ve got good reason to be skeptical. The study as outlined seems to give subjects ample opportunity to adjust responses. I think much racism these days is subconscious — although certainly some is conscious — but a study like this only measures the latter.

    RE your examples of people who aren’t fans of Obama for reasons other than race — hopefully I am reading correctly that you are not drawing an equivalence between small government principles (which can be compatible with safety nets) and a plutocracy? Per your definition, the latter is rule by a small cadre of the wealthy with low social mobility. However, one can argue that regulated capitalism is the best way of allowing social mobility, and that an expanded government, definitionally, moves away from capitalism which requires a low-to-moderate government-ownership percentage of GDP. Small businesspeople and entrepreneurs springing up from the lower brackets would be a very difficult phenomenon to achieve without capitalism. (I recall reading a wonderful essay on this topic that I would love to quote, but cannot find it online at the moment).

    Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 12:32 am ¶

33. Jean Pe wrote:

    Funny how people in this country use all kind of tactic to hide racism.

    How conducted a poll or scientist can proved whether or not those people who oppose President Obama are not motivated by racism? Did they contact me, or any of my friends to find out if any of us were racism? No!..So, how did they concluded that those people who scream at Obama are not motivated by racist??

    Ha ha ha:), this country is built on fascist; fake rules an policies…rules to condemn those who wrong the laws and policies to defend them again.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 12:44 am ¶