I was on Facebook this morning and saw that my wife, the Lovely Kim, had posted something last night about the Trayvon Martin case (this is what life has come to nowadays: rather than talking to her, I'm reading her FB posts while she sits in a chair not 3 feet from me. Anyway...). What caught my attention the most, though, was a response from one of her "friends" (some guy she knew in high school, lo these many decades ago, and who, she assures me, was--and still is--something of a d-bag). (Why she remains friends with such people is beyond me. But, hey.) This wonderful gentleman basically spent a few words agreeing that, yes, this was a terrible tragedy, yada, yada, yada. And then, he went on to complain about the "selective outrage" of the murder. Then he went on to tell of some white guy who had been killed by a group of black teens. Then he asked where were all the "civil rights groups" (his quotation marks--probably an attempt at insulting them) protesting THAT killing?
Now, I could have pointed out that the black teens were probably arrested. That they were probably convicted. I could have asked him, what, exactly, did he expect to be protested? I could have informed him that we as a society have a police force, and that we have laws, and that we expect those laws and those police to protect us all equally. And that when those laws, and those police forces, fail, someone has to step in to ensure justice is performed.
That would have been the mature and civilized thing to do. After all, how are we to end such ignorance without confronting it?
But if life has taught me anything over these 48 long years, it's that there are a lot of people who are on "the other side", as I call it. They have their bigoted beliefs, and there ain't nothing you or I are gonna do to change 'em. No amount of reasoning, no appeal to their "better natures" will change that. And I will not waste my energy on such people. You don't try to explain to a clan member why he is wrong; you just rip off his hood and slap on some cuffs. Likewise, you don't argue with someone who is only concerned with how "his race" is portrayed in the media, not with justice or equality. Such a person is already lost. This is more true than ever, I believe, when such people can turn on Fox News and find legitimacy in their bigotry.
So, for a moment, I entertained the idea of just calling him a racist d-bag. Which would have been fun, since he would have written back something like "Oh, yeah? You're the d-bag!" Then I could have written "I know you are, but what am I?" and so on. But that's how wars start, so I decided not to.
But I felt like I had to do something. The sheer ignorance of this comment, the indignation when he wrote of the white gentleman's murder, in such juxtaposition to his terse, emotionless comments about Trayvon Martin's death, has been bothering me all morning. So I have decided to write this, my first DailyKos diary on the "new" racism.
The "new" racist is more subtle than the in-your-face, cross-burning, n-word-dropping racist of days gone by. The "new" racist knows racism is considered bad. He might even believe racism is bad. This is not to say the good-old-fashioned racists don't exist in droves. Just read the comments re: this murder on Fox's website if you don't believe me. The new racist hides his racism behind other attacks, and, thus, feels he has a way to deny his racism.
Hell, even George Zimmerman's dad knows this. He made sure to let the world know his son is Spanish-speaking, grew up in a multi-cultural family and had black friends. (I use the past tense, because I can't help but wonder just how many black friends he has now). Of course, the crime here isn't being a racist. The crime is killing an unarmed kid.
Charles Blow was on Maher last night and talked about the new racist. The new racism, according to Blow, is the denial of racism: "For you to see race in this, makes you a racist!" This, of course, is what Gingrich pulled the other day on The Sean Hannity Radio Hate-Fest (TM) by calling Pres. Obama's comment on the shooting "disgraceful". According to Newt "It's not a question of who that young man looked like." Except, if he had looked differently, he never would've been shot. And if you doubt that, notice Zimmerman's friend Frank Taaffe on Anderson Cooper when he used recent break-ins by black teenagers to justify Zimmerman's actions.
What Gingrich did next, though, goes beyond the simple denial of racism that Mr. Blow spoke of. He then deploys what I call the "yes, but" strategy of the new racism. The Lovely Kim's friend used it after he raced through his insincere words about Trayvon's unjust killing, and got to the meat of his comment: his indignation over the death of the white gentleman, and the lack of any protest. Gingrich did it when he asked "Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn't look like him?"
This "yes, but" throws the charges of racism back onto the victim and all those who stand for the victim. It goes beyond "if you see racism there, you must be racist." It suggests that any black person who looks for justice for a black victim only cares about their race: they protest Trayvon Martin, but not the unnamed white man; they relate to Trayvon's parents because they have a black son too (or would have a black son had they a son), so they don't care about white sons. Gingrich is swift enough to not just mention would-be white sons, but Puerto Rican, Cuban, Asian-American, and Native American sons. By adding in these categories, the new racist is further able to "prove" his non-bias. (And, mercifully, the new racist seems to have moved past his old technique of adding in made-up races: the purple or green victims they used to add to the end of these lists).
(Check out how that wily pro Newt uses the "yes, but" technique to attack another one of his bugaboos while on Piers Morgan's show. First, notice when Morgan asks him about the killing, and how he emotionlessly recites his platitudes about it being a tragedy and seeking justice, blah, blah, blah. He almost sounds bored! Then, when Morgan brings up--and criticizes--the Stand Your Ground law, Newt comes to life, laughing at Morgan's naivety, and quickly attacking some strawman in the form of unnamed cities that don't allow you to protect yourself against people who have broken into your house. What cities these are, Gingrich never says. But, note, they are cities, not states. This is because, as all Gingrich supporters know, cities are full of elitist subway riders who want to let blacks rob you. States are okay because that's where Gingrich voters live.)
Expect to see this new racism play a huge role when Zimmerman's case comes before the grand jury. Zimmerman's proxies are already using this strategy. The aforementioned Frank Taaffe claims that Martin wasn't killed because of his race, but because he wasn't "upfront and truthful". In other words, yes it was a tragedy, but he should have obeyed Zimmerman. Zimmerman's lawyer (sort of), Craig Sonner, was on Anderson Cooper claiming Trayvon broke Zimmerman's nose: yes, it was a tragedy, but he had no right to hit Zimmerman. The implication, of course, being that a black kid can't defend himself--with his fists!--if he feels threatened. But a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain has a right to shoot that black kid in the chest if he feels threatened. Even if the cops had just told him to leave the kid alone.
In the end, this new racism may sound nicer. It may use prettier language. It may even sound non-racist if you aren't paying attention, or don't want to hear the truth behind the words. But, just like the old racism, it's nothing more than a justification for inequality. It deflects blame by calling victims of racism the true racists. And, in the end, it aims for a world in which any white man with a gun has the power of life and death over any person of color.
