Ironduke

Not being given a job because of his race. Not being allowed into a school, being forced to sit in the back of the bus. Being called a n*gger to his face.

He's likely only experienced aversive racism.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

FibrillatorD

Go on

gunnut

That would be unconstitutional.

The "seperation of church and state" doctrine specifically states that "government shall make no laws regarding religion" or words to that effect. It was meant to keep government out of religious meddling.

Personally, I think it should be amended to say that government shall make no laws regarding religion for as long as the religion stays out of politics. Any church/temple/house of worship that advocates a political doctrine should be taxed to play the game.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Ironduke

Look it up if you want a definition.

FibrillatorD

You opened this can of worms. If you follow this train of thought maybe you'd understand how wrong and absurd it is. But since you won't do that, let me help you. Here's what you've done (as a white 24 year old from the iron range, I might add):

1. assign different grades to racism, 2. assign a certain grade of racism predominately to a certain group (liberals), and 3. presume that its "likely" you know what form racism has taken in Barack Obama's lifetime.

On second thought, I'm not going to waste my breath. You're an ignoramus. How's that

glyn

Seems fair to me.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Ironduke

My formative years (ages 5-19) were spent south of the river, not on the Iron Range.
Aversive racism is a type of racism that was first defined a few decades ago to describe the more subtle types of racism as the more overt variety has gone into steep decline. It is not necessarily conscious, it can exist at the sub-conscious level and people may be unaware of it.

Among liberals who are racist, it is the overwhelmingly predominant variety, and it is actually rather common. I didn't assign it, it's assigned by social scientists in fields such as psychology and sociology who have performed research and have empirical evidence on the matter.

So you can rest assured, this isn't something I, as some kind of ignoramus, pulled out of thin air, some term I invented, it is a social psychological concept, and there's near universal consensus in that realm of academia that it exists.

If you'd bothered to do a modicum of research on the matter (as I encouraged), you would have found that you did indeed waste your breath, but for an entirely different reason than you'd initially thought.
Nothing in Barack Obama's biography, whether self-written or written by others, makes claims of him having suffered from overt racism, such as segregation, employment discrimination, or otherwise. The type described above would more fit the bill.

Since the definition of "true" racism can be a matter of dispute, substitute that with "overt" racism.

FibrillatorD

I have no idea which river you're talking about. But it doesn't matter so much

Assuming your "study" kept samples randomized, categorized everyone accurately, standardized the testing environment, etc. I don't know why you'd pull something so stinky into a conversation. Google "aversive racism" and you'll find the first return from the reputed urbandictionary.com. Your statement: liberals who are racist are predominately aversive racists, is a load of crock. Liberals who are racist, are racist. End of story. As bigfella said, Jim Crow is dead. Why are you judging racism in 2008 against the 1950s? Is it so you can say both "liberals are racist" and "aversive racism is racism light and therefore Barack not dropping Rev. Wright like a box of frogs is inexcusable?"

You're so ignorant

Ironduke

You're the one who brought up where I'm "from". South of the river refers to the suburbs south of the river.
It's not my study, it's Dovidio and Gaertner's. The first of which was conducted ten years before I was born. It's a social psychological concept and it's in the textbooks. Dovidio and Gaertner's study has been replicated numerous times. If the study and those that have replicated their findings were non-scientific I'm sure they would have never been published or made their way into textbooks and lectures at the University of Minnesota.

It seems you don't like the concept and the implications of it. That's your problem.

Here's some more definition on the concept from Rich Lee, an associate professor of psychology at the U of M:
Perhaps you could actually make a point, then illustrate it. Perhaps you're of the opinion that aversive racism doesn't exist? That it's pointless to recognize there are different degrees or types of racism? That the racism of KKK members lynching a black man in the Deep South is no different than that of a liberal white college student who feels uncomfortable upon seeing a black man at night?

Perhaps you could actually make an argument, rather than some ad hominem attack.

I'm not going to try and draw JAD into the argument between you and I, but I think he made a rather good point a few posts back:

Bella

Ironduke! I fully agree with you!!

FibrillatorD, at least have an educated answer to someones rebuttal, before calling them ignorant!
Just because someone has a educated opinion on a subject does not make them ignorant!
WOW!!................

Herodotus

The third return from Google was the Dovidio and Garetner study. I think Ironduke has a point. Just some anecdotal evidence; I had a history professor once that taught Civil War history and stated that there were two types of racisim prevalent in America then.

Southerners were friendly with blacks on a personal level but thought the race as a whole was inferior to whites. Northerners believed in principle that the races should be equal but most abolitionists did not personally associate with blacks. Blacks were essentially segegrated in the North. Fast-foward to the 1970s and you have the bussing riots in "liberal" Boston, and race riots in other Northern cities etc.

It wasn't as bad or as obvious as the South, but this soft "aversive racism" existed, and most likely still exists today Obama, as a black man going to predominately white and liberal institutions like Columbia and Harvard in large cities like New York and Boston, it would be surprising if he did not experience at least some of this aversive racism. I don't know how much he would experience growing up in Hawaii though maybe he did.

JAD_333

Ironduke:

I am half drawn into the argument.

If we cut to the chase, racism is simply the practice of discriminating on the basis of race. It doesn't make any difference whether whether it's practiced overtly or covertly.

But not every negative interaction between a person of one race and a person of another race is racism. For example there are parts of Washington where I will not go at night because they are all-black. I don't consider that racist on my part. I consider it prudent because the chances of being mugged, hijacked or killed in those areas are known to be statistically high. I also have a pretty good idea that if I hire 5 blacks, 5 hispanics and 5 whites, the blacks as a group will be less productive, less cooperative, and more resentful of authority than the others. That is a sociological problem, not a racial one.

I am not a racist but I am a realist. If you release your slave you have to wonder, will he kill you, rob you or thank you. That's where a majority of whites stand in relation to blacks today. It's not unusuall to be wary of the people you free after you denied them freedom for years. That's not racism. If the people you freed were white Italians, you wouldn't call it racism. You'd call it fear of retribution. It's good to keep that in mind when you speak of today's situation.

I believe we'll eventually get past all this. The enforced community we created by virtue of years of Jim Crow laws, rigid segregation and white attitudes of racial superiority will take time to disintegrate and blend in with other Americans. At one time all blacks regardless of skill, intellect, or moral standing were forced to live within that community whether they wanted to or not, and in time it became a true community. But when the legal and moral basis of segregation vanished, the community did not, at least not entirely--not yet. That means the same resentments, hatreds and suspicions that thrived in it before the end of segregation continue to thrive in it. This surprises many whites who believed that once the bonds of segregation were removed, blacks would be undyingly grateful and immediately take up the role of "responsible" citizens, i.e. like whites.

Obama has, no doubt, experienced true racism, that moment when you realize the white person standing across from you regards you as inferior becasue you're black, and lets you know in subtle, but unmistakeable ways. Your ideas, your profession, your accomplishments mean nothing to a racist. Only your color does.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Ironduke

JAD, aversive racism is not covert racism. Covert racists are intentionally racist, they just try to hide it.

Chunder

Do you actually think it matters? One might be more able to overlook than the other but its still there.

Whether your Picked last because your the ugly one, the unpopular one, or a white American/Canadian applying for a job alongside Greeks/Serbians in a greek or Serbian Business, its largely aversive racism, and it still downright depressing.

But more to the point, who actually cares. The mere fact that it's being talked about more than ever before is a damned good thing. The Whole Wright thing has long since subsided in international news, It's a passover, people have either lost interest or find it tiresome. The only people seemingly interested in it's potential are republican strategists, and even then it's being backed away from by Mc Cain.

Did you know that the Governators father was an active member of the Waffen SS. Did you know that Geoge bush liked getting high during his academic Carreer. All the hype became irrevelant so early in the campaign. The Fact Obama has made his statement and moved on was a wise one. People grow to resent someone saying 'woe is me'. And he has steerred well clear of it.

All that matters now is whether or not the Republican Party keep on reverting to the speech, because they are likely to loose black votes over it, because at least they can be mature enough to see that elements like that exist in society, but lobbing everyone in the same basket, actually subversively makes the GOP draw a parrellel of unfairness of the label in their mind which resonates, and so it should.

I don't doubt that many predominantly black churches speak about their experiences and hurts of the past, and there is resentment from it. But, if it's politically acceptable for the Jewish Community to talk about things 60 years ago with resentment, well it's okay in my book for some of the black community to talk about their experiences 10-20 years ago

JAD_333

What I was trying to tell you is that there is no such thing as "aversive racism." Racism is illogical and all encompassing. Race is the decider, not behavior. Aversion, avoiding, and so on isn't illogical even if the data is wrong, A white grandmother who fears black men isn't necessarily a racist.

Why make a point of the difference? Because racism and wariness of a race cannot be dealt with in the same way.

Have a good day...