One of the goals of Progressive Soup is to allow people with differing viewpoints on a variety of issues to share them here. Last week, I came across a blog post (Which Group is Most Identified With Being More Racist Than Others? The Answer May Surprise You) about a recent Rasmussen poll on race. When I contacted the blogger (Teresa) to see if I could use it as a guest post here, she gave her consent. For a wording of the Rasmussen poll's survey questions, click here.
This was posted by Teresa on her blog on July 6, 2013:
According to a poll more citizens believe blacks are more racist than whites or Hispanics. The poll revealed that a person's political affiliation played much more of a role in feelings towards various races rather than a person's ethnicity.
The poll's findings: "Overall, 37 percent of Americans feel that black Americans are the most racist among the three ethnic groups, 15 percent feel that whites are and 18 percent think Hispanics are."
Do you think this poll is accurate? And accurately reflects the feelings and perceptions of the various groups of Americans? The only thing I'll say is if blacks are brought up to believe they are a victim then they are buying into the false notion that they're not as good or can't be as good as people of other ethnicities. If blacks accept victim status then jealousy could breed resentment, which could ultimately lead to hatred and misconceptions about other races. But being taught to hate can happen within any ethnicity or race. From my perspective I see a majority of the mob violence and hate coming from blacks and gang members which consist of a variety of races.
24 comments:
No, I don't think the poll is accurate. Shocker, right? However, it's not because I necessarily think another ethnic group is more racist than blacks. I just don't think a poll is ever going to provide an accurate answer to such a question.
In regards to Teresa's title of the post, I wasn't surprised that a poll conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen Reports would find blacks to be more racist than any other ethnic group.
Also, as I alluded to earlier, I don't take a whole lot of stock in these types of polls. This is because who you ask, the number of people polled, and how you word the question(s) can influence the results.
I also have to question what the point was in doing the poll in the first place. Just to be clear, this isn't a knock against Teresa. All she did was write a post about the poll.
Because the term "racist" has been inaccurately used so much over the last decade or so, it's come to mean different things to different people. These days, you can be called racist simply for disagreeing with someone's politics, using the N-word in rap lyrics or just talking about race! As a result, I think the poll as a whole is null and void.
I agree with Malcolm, in part, that a poll isn't an accurate measure of racial attitudes. But I'm also not a big subscriber of social sciences. They're inherently manipulative. I don't need to mention one of the minds behind the implementation of social science.
And then there's also the question of what's defined as racism.
Some people truly believe that "racism" is defined to mean explicitly a white person against a minority in some way, and that anything else is this invented "reverse" racism. Some people believe that racism is only something which is negative, and that stereotyping people, as long as it's for a perceived positive, doesn't qualify as racism.
It's one thing to ask someone for whom their vote is going to, in a decision between a couple of candidates. That's objective. It's another topic entirely to brush on issues of racism, as racism itself is something that's often incredibly subjective.
These types of polls, like those loaded questions asked to TPers a few years back, are rubbish for headlines.
White Conservatives are the most racist.
Malcolm and Josh summed it up quite nicely. I do not believe a poll can quantify racist attitudes any more than I believe an I.Q. test can measure intelligence.
I tend to agree with Malcolm and Josh. Although, even though the poll may not be accurate it may be indicative of beliefs at least to a degree.
Thank you for guest posting my post Malcolm.
I don't believe accuracy is the question. I believe people do tend to answer as truthfully as they can or is allowed. And it's long been established that samplings (if they're fair samplings, at least) do tend to hold over a margin of error.
These social questionnaires can be effective. But most cancel themselves out with manipulative, meaningless and/or misguided questions.
Questions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 are bad questions.
1-3 should be replaced with one flat question of race, not giving people an option but making them choose. One infers from options that one of those races must be the most racist, while the wording of the questions is quite confusing. How is a yes or no even taken when someone is asked if most of race X are racist?
7: The choices are okay; it's a broad enough range, but better than what point? Better than what? When? Where? "Overall"? 1v1?
I wouldn't say it's manipulative, but it's allowing something already subjective to become even more so with no qualification, and it doesn't really tie in with the first questions.
9: I understand the intent here, and that's the problem. There's intent outside of the initial questions. Plus it's assuming those are the only political sides one may align themselves with; it's boxing people in.
I personally wouldn't fill it out after reading question #1. It would have lost me completely to its intended point.
I don't care much about such polls in general, as they tend to further racial stereotypes and generalizations by their very nature.
Josh: It's possible to put together a good survey on racism. Unfortunately, the Rasmussen one isn't it.
By the way, I'm not a fan of the term "reverse racism" either.
Dervish: I don't know. I think it all depends on how one defines racism.
Pjazzy: I think essay-style questions would yield better results.
Teresa: You're welcome and thanks again for allowing me to use this post.
dmarks: About the only good thing I can think of that came from this poll is that it has people like us talking.
Malcolm said: " These days, you can be called racist simply for disagreeing with someone's politics, using the N-word in rap lyrics or just talking about race! "
For this I will accept your argument that a rapper merely using the N word isn't racist: unless it is being used as a pejorative. Agree?
That being said, even if it is not racist, it certainly does not help matters if a low-life moronic rapper uses the N-word all the time.
As for the rest, disagreeing with politics and talking about race is fine, and not racist. Certain modern policies which explicitly punish people for their skin color, of course, are most definitely racist.
dmarks: No, I don't agree that a rapper using the N word as a pejorative is racist. In that context, it's basically like calling someone a fool. By the way, who is this so-called "low life moronic rapper" you're referring to... is it Common?
There wasn't much point in you linking to that Affirmative Action case. You and I have gone back and forth on the merits of AA and it's a dead end. The same goes for my disagreement with your defense of the Southern Strategy.
What is dmarks defense of the Southern strategy? Does it have anything to do with dmarks wanting to vote for a party that goes after the racist vote with gusto?
Dervish: Below are comments in which dmarks defended the Southern Strategy. They were made on May 5, 2013 at 4:53 PM in the comments section of a 4/30/13 post at the conservative blog My Daily Trek.
"The Southern Strategy? Quite defensible. When the Dems became racist, favoring "affirmative action" policies which tilted the playing field in favor of blacks and instead of whites, people who wanted a fair, level playing field were understandably disenchanted with the Dems. A ripe time for the GOP, which then and now pushes for a level playing field to come in.
Jesse Helms was not being racist for his "black hand" ad. He was merely accurately describing and condemning a racist policy. The Dems are ultimately to blame, for not insisting on equal rights.
I don't blame Republicans at all for "capitalizing" on the fact that they speak for equal rights and that the explicitly racist part of the Dems' platform turns a lot of people off."
Yes, I said all that. It has nothing to do with the racist vote.
No, it did not, Dervish. And who would think that leveling the playing field is "nonsense" ? You make no sense.
" AA programs are meant to push back against generations of slavery and racism."
How can they be, when there is no evidence that they are. And in cases where AA demands different treatment of people due to their skin color, the program fight to increase racism.
"Also, AGAIN with the Whites being discriminated against because the Dems "tilted the playing field in favor of blacks"..."
A fair point, but the real problem is that the Dems insisted on racist policies in this instance, while the GOP insisted on racial equality.
"Secondly, this is the only kind of "discrimination" dmarks ever speaks against (I wonder why?)."
It's not. I have spoken against many forms of racism... including against Jim Crow and any modern form of racial profiling. I consistently oppose all of it. You defend some of it. There's the difference. You aren't consistent.
"Next dmarks will be speak about "White guilt" and "race hustlers" (translation: blame White Liberals and blame Black people)."
Why? I've never used the first term (not wanting to psycho-analyze racist whites who favor AA), and I don't like the second and rarely have used it. And even if I used the second, I would be blaming a few very bad individuals (i.e. Sharpton), and not 'black people'
None of your comments made any sense, and they are divorced from reality.
What is so wrong, Dervish, about giving everyone a fair shake?
Level the playing field:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Re reading Malcolm... now you are claiming that the use of racist hate speech specifically to insult/condemn is not racist at all? Wow...
dmarks: I'm not claiming any such thing. You are the one who is saying that a black calling another black that word is racist hate speech. Sorry, but it's not.
Malcolm: I was talking about "the use of racist hate speech specifically to insult/condemn" being racist.
Are you giving a free pass for Blacks to do this sort of thing?
And if it is OK for a Black to spew racist slurs at someone, is it also OK for a Jewish person to bash other Jews as "f***ing kikes", Latinos to bash wetbecks, and the like?
Note, I am referring to specific racial slurs used as racial slurs, as opposed to the supposed friendly use of "n*gga" which in the context of those who use it, is not used to condemn.
Dervish: The forms of AA which I oppose, which have quotas and number systems (a la UMich), are explicitly racist, and directly contradict MLK.
There ARE ways to do AA which don't do this.
There is also the fact that MLK was not some sort of God on high who left us a perfect Bible. There are indeed contradictions in his statements.
In the mean time, why not just treat everyone fairly?
Malcolm said: "dmarks: A black person may say "fuck that nigga" in reference to another black person. That's not racist hate speech to me. "
I could be wrong, but I get the impression you never call people this, yourself. Why defend it?
dmarks: In the mean time, why not just treat everyone fairly?
dmarks presents a false choice. We aren't living in a post-racial society, yet dmarks says "let's just pretend we are". Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Question is, does dmarks care? I'm thinking no. What he says above sounds good, but he also defends the Southern Strategy... calling it a reaction to Dems going "racist". Unbelievable. I wouldn't trust dmarks as far as I could throw him.
why not just treat everyone fairly = let's keep things the way they are because I like the current system of White privilege just fine.
I don't know if this is true of dmarks, but it is of others peddling this deceptive rhetoric.
The "contradictions" you perceive are contradictions between what MLK meant and what you imagine he meant (Conservatives often attempt to co opt him to further their agenda).
I present a real choice, not a false one. The choice is between racism, and equal justice/equal rights. I choose the former.
"We aren't living in a post-racial society, yet dmarks says "let's just pretend we are"."
You have fabricated a quotation that not only I never said, but does not represent any of my views ever stated. We don't live in a post-racial society. We need less racism. That is why I am opposed to it in all of its forms.
"Unfortunately it doesn't work that way."
Whatever. The post racial society thing is a straw-man argument. Take it up with whomever believes we are in that. It is certainly not me.
"but he also defends the Southern Strategy... calling it a reaction to Dems going "racist".
That is a correct statement. The Dems moved away from equal rights, leaving their political opponents a space to rush into.
"Unbelievable. I wouldn't trust dmarks as far as I could throw him."
You may have quite a bromance with Will, but sorry, I don't want you to touch me.
"why not just treat everyone fairly"
Exactly! Yet, you oppose this.
" = let's keep things the way they are because I like the current system of White privilege just fine."
1) White Privilege is a purely racist concept, no different from the idea that all blacks are criminal.
2) We need to eliminate all forms of racism, not keep things "the way we are". That means shutting bigots who believe that all blacks are criminals and who believe in concepts such as "white privilege" from the public sphere. It means vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in hiring, housing, and accomodations (including red-line stings). It means eliminating racial profiling completely from law-enforcement and related spheres. And yes, it includes making sure that skin color is never given consideration in a negative or positive way when hiring anyone.
-----------
The "contradictions" you perceive are contradictions between what MLK meant and what you imagine he meant"
Not at all. I am looking at what he really said. Not what I imagine he did. And what he said in his "I Have a Dream" speech (hardly obscure at all!) addresses exactly that part of Affirmative Action which should be eliminated.
dmarks: I present a real choice, not a false one.
The choice you present is ENTIRELY false, as you say that by doing away with AA we'll also be doing away with the reason why we need it. Racism will still exist. Throwing out the tools needed to combat a problem before the problem has been solved won't fix the problem... yet you illogically claim it will!
dmarks: The choice is between racism, and equal justice/equal rights. I choose the former.
You might choose it (although I don't believe you on that), but others will not. dmarks' solution? Ignore that problem. Pretend it doesn't exist.
dmarks: You have fabricated a quotation that not only I never said, but does not represent any of my views ever stated.
I did not fabricate a quotation. I didn't say those were your EXACT words. I was saying that this represents your thinking.
dmarks: That is why I am opposed to it in all of its forms.
A tool used to combat racism isn't a "form" of racism.
dmarks: Whatever. The post racial society thing is a straw-man argument. Take it up with whomever believes we are in that. It is certainly not me.
This is dmarks' pro-racism argument... he acknowledges racism exists but says we should throw out one of the tools we need to deal with it.
dmarks: The Dems moved away from equal rights, leaving their political opponents a space to rush into.
The space their political opponents rushed into was appealing to the racists for their votes. You actually defend this! Proof that dmarks lies when he says he "chooses" equal justice & equal rights. He embraces the idea that the Republican party (a party he votes for) should appeal to racists for their votes.
dmarks: You may have quite a bromance with Will, but sorry, I don't want you to touch me.
Of course dmarks knows I didn't mean that literally... just an opportunity for him to repeat his "joke" (again, on a site where knows WTF he's talking about... or cares).
dmarks: Exactly! Yet, you oppose this.
dmarks opposes this. We haven't evolved to this point and dmarks wants to throw out the tools we need to get there... a position that is akin to defending racism.
dmarks: White Privilege is a purely racist concept, no different from the idea that all blacks are criminal.
White privilege says Whites benefit from living in a society where racism exists. Racism and White privilege go hand-in-hand. You acknowledged racism exists so ipso facto White privilege exists.
Finally, another untruth from earlier that slipped by me...
dmarks: I've never used the first term (not wanting to psycho-analyze racist whites who favor AA...
You can't psychoanalyze a group of people who do not exist.
dmarks: Your impression is wrong. I do use the term sometimes. Even if I didn't, I'd still defend the use of it in the context I illustrated on August 6, 2013 at 11:08 PM.
Post a Comment