Support NeoGAF

[Claude Augario]

My skin is raw from all the hot fire he's spitting.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Good points. I don't know if it's true necessarily, but I don't know that it even matters. What matters is that he won because of his ethnicity and the base that swelled behind him because of what he promised and what they see in him.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

This essay is important because it reveals that even people who are interested in the subversion of a part or whole of the capitalist hegemony still have racial prejudices, and personal privileges, that prevents the attainment of justice in this country.

You cannot attack these institutions while also putting whites before others, because these institutions inherently thrive on whiteness. This is what Bernie missed, this is what that wing of liberalism consistently overlooks. You cannot have a revolution without "identity politics."

Agreed. The 2 have to come packaged as one in order for equality of opportunity to be effectively enforced.

And I agree that Bernie missed this in the marketing of his political platform, though I think his actual platform once enacted world be the most likely platform to have these considerations actually baked in to it, given the option of candidates.

 

[Vyer]

That is probably the most detailed and complete deconstruction of the 'economic anxiety' excuse I've ever seen.

 

[wutwutwut]

Some good takes from R.L. Stephens on the article

No, you don't get to co-opt someone else's writings for your own economic ideology. Paraphrasing, "If you aren't a revolutionary in exactly the way I want you to be, you're just trolling" is a terrible take. Accept that he agrees with you on some things but disagrees on others, and move on.

 

[chekhonte]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...irst-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/



Long article but there is also an audio version. Pretty nifty. Some evisceration from Coates.

whoo wee. I can't wait to sink my teeth into this.

 

[wutwutwut]

The movement against white supremacy in America is much stronger and more popular than the movement against capitalism. The closest you can find to this in mainstream politics was the Bernie Sanders campaign, which critiqued capitalism without offering a truly revolutionary replacement. His campaign also lacked a visible articulation of the relationship between race and class, leaving many black people with the impression that their specific concerns were secondary, and many whites with the impression that fighting racism isn't so important as fighting poverty.

Currently, most advocacy against white supremacy exists within our capitalist framework. Some forms of this advocacy, like affirmative action and diversity in representation, are explicitly capitalist. These strategies, which I do not believe have made serious gains for black people at large, are meant to fight white supremacy while leaving every other hierarchy intact. Rather than do-away with the boys' clubs that run America, this kind of praxis seeks to allow some black individuals to gain membership.

What America needs is a new movement that's seriously against capitalism and seriously against white supremacy. So much of the power white people hold over black people comes from their superior economic position. A poorer race is easier to oppress. But beyond this, reformist or technocratic racial struggles exist through the organs of white supremacy. Because many of the powerful people who hold the levers of power in America do not trust or respect black people, attempts to inject black individuals into these circles is rarely effective. Even when people like Barack Obama or Coates himself find themselves with this kind of influence, politicians and intellectuals alone cannot revolutionize society. Mass participation is necessary, through forms of democracy that avoid bourgois and white supremacist organs like Silicon Valley or the US congress and accordingly subvert these hierarchies.

...

From your point of view, is it possible for somebody — an individual — to be broadly for capitalism with a robust welfare state, and against white supremacy?

 

[Figboy79]

I'm at work, and it took me a few hours squeezing in reading here and there, but I finally finished the article. Amazing piece, and I feel like everyone should read it. Everyone.

 

[Black Republican]

I'm at work, and it took me a few hours squeezing in reading here and there, but I finally finished the article. Amazing piece, and I feel like everyone should read it. Everyone.

facebook is gonna have fun with this

 

[Aizo]

Coates is such an amazing writer. His diction and style flow so well. I'm in awe.

 

[Barzul]

I just read his Case for Reparations and I'm so angry I'm almost shaking at the price black people have had to pay just to have something close to a decent life in this country.

 

[Deepwater]

Guess you should have written it then.

Don't get so defensive, I didn't say it was a bad essay, just opining I'm probably not the target audience.

I think you should realize that a large percentage of the potential audience for this article probably aren't like "yup, of course, duh" and that this could be quite educating for them.

I'm pretty sure you could gather that from my post.

 

[Inquisitive_Ghost]

I've seen some quotes from Coates around GAF before, but I've never sat down and read one of his pieces. Goddamn, that man is a fantastic writer. As an outsider to American culture, it really seems like it cuts to the unspoken heart of why America still has such a severe problem with racism.

Spoiler

Also, I read a ton of books as a kid and have an above-average vocabulary and still had to look up like ten words in that essay, lmao.

 

[kyser73]

Yep, all the shit that been said before and after the election. The rebranding the working class as White Only is so true. Whats so sad about it is how ready people on the left was so ready to buy into that.

If someone is saying this, they aren't left-wing.

...

From your point of view, is it possible for somebody — an individual — to be broadly for capitalism with a robust welfare state, and against white supremacy?

At an individual level of belief, sure. You can believe that capitalism can solve climate change too. Doesn't mean it will in practice

You have to remember what capitalism is: a system predicated on hierarchy, oppression and exploitation of the worker class by the seizure of their surplus labour value (i.e. the profits workers generate for companies). It maintains this system by ensuring that worker class never realises it's shared enemy, using legislative methods (at its most simple, anti-union or collectivisation policies), alienation of people from their work and communities and so on.

Racism in this context is the reason whenever there's a discussion of white privilege people say 'What about poor whites?' - moreso than many other comparable countries, racism in the US has driven a deep, deep wedge between white and black w/c people, with the essential message (as written in the article) that 'You might be white and poor, but at least you aren't black, so don't bitch about it.'

 

[MercuryLS3]

That is probably the most detailed and complete deconstruction of the 'economic anxiety' excuse I've ever seen.

Yep, spectacular article.

 

[RustyNails]

👀

This is incredibly hard read, but something very well worth reading. It needed to be said and there's no one in journalism with the power of pen than this writer.

 

[wutwutwut]

You have to remember what capitalism is: a system predicated on hierarchy, oppression and exploitation of the worker class by the seizure of their surplus labour value (i.e. the profits workers generate for companies).

Not everyone on this board is a Marxist, my friend. No, that's not how I remember capitalism at all.

The way I frame this world is completely different. I look at it in terms of power struggles, not in terms of class struggles. All politics (and by extension, economics) is about power. Any side having too much power is a bad thing.

I do believe capital has too much power over labor at the moment, but I believe that's in large part due to trade being free but immigration not, so I advocate for open borders.

See how the framing changes things entirely?

It maintains this system by ensuring that worker class never realises it's shared enemy, using legislative methods (at its most simple, anti-union or collectivisation policies), alienation of people from their work and communities and so on.

There is such a thing as unions having too much power.

Racism in this context is the reason whenever there's a discussion of white privilege people say 'What about poor whites?' - moreso than many other comparable countries, racism in the US has driven a deep, deep wedge between white and black w/c people, with the essential message (as written in the article) that 'You might be white and poor, but at least you aren't black, so don't bitch about it.'

Of course. Agreed.

 

[nynt9]

Don't have much to add, article is brutally correct. And fantastically written.

 

[Figboy79]

I admit I'm a little sad this thread is only 6 pages. There should be more discussion on the subjects presented in this article. There is a ton to chew on, mull over, and discuss with one another.

 

[Deepwater]

I admit I'm a little sad this thread is only 6 pages. There should be more discussion on the subjects presented in this article. There is a ton to chew on, mull over, and discuss with one another.

you know people don't read OP articles. Especially this one that's basically 30 printed pages

 

[Blader]

Finished reading the article this morning, fucking incredible.

 

[Eidan]

I know I said another excerpt was my favorite, but I now think this one is. It succinctly explains the white left's response to Trump's election.

The left would much rather have a discussion about class struggles, which might entice the white working masses, instead of about the racist struggles that those same masses have historically been the agents and beneficiaries of. Moreover, to accept that whiteness brought us Donald Trump is to accept whiteness as an existential danger to the country and the world.

 

[LegendofLex]

The movement against white supremacy in America is much stronger and more popular than the movement against capitalism. The closest you can find to this in mainstream politics was the Bernie Sanders campaign, which critiqued capitalism without offering a truly revolutionary replacement. His campaign also lacked a visible articulation of the relationship between race and class, leaving many black people with the impression that their specific concerns were secondary, and many whites with the impression that fighting racism isn't so important as fighting poverty.

Currently, most advocacy against white supremacy exists within our capitalist framework. Some forms of this advocacy, like affirmative action and diversity in representation, are explicitly capitalist. These strategies, which I do not believe have made serious gains for black people at large, are meant to fight white supremacy while leaving every other hierarchy intact. Rather than do-away with the boys' clubs that run America, this kind of praxis seeks to allow some black individuals to gain membership.

Are you trying to suggest that these kinds of advocacy wouldn't be necessary under a non-capitalist system brought about by broad-based economic progressive movements - that black people would suddenly have an equal place at the table and not continue to be subjected to disproportionate levels of violence, discrimination, and socioeconomic insecurity in such a setting?

Because it sounds like that's what you're suggesting.

The organs of white supremacy may be historically bound up in capitalism, but they are not all essentially capitalist. You can have a violent police state that isn't capitalist. You can have racist prejudice in a non-capitalist system. You can have inequality in a system that isn't capitalist.

 

[JeTmAn81]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

 

[RastaMentality]

Surprised more people aren't talking about the section concerning Bernie. That was some fire too.

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

How does voting Romney not make you racist? Did you mean Obama?

 

[Vyer]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

Can you back any of this up with reasons why?

Because the article pretty much supports the reasoning behind both these points, and why your 'call outs' are wrong.

 

[Socreges]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

Yeah. That's my only problem with the article. You can tell he fell in love with that line the moment he thought of it, but instead of removing it he made it the centrepiece.

 

[sphagnum]

I dont think the fact that many elements of "the left" (which is a very broad term) would rather discuss class than race means it's subsequently correct to try to separate the race struggle analytically from the class struggle as if they aren't intertwined.

 

[Deepwater]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

Your first point has merit, I agree that it's definitely headline bait.

But you seemed to miss the trees for the forest by reducing his argument to "because racism" (especially when he was so thorough to support his rhetoric). The GOP for decades have been the party of white folk, and their implicit, sometimes explicit platforming around that is not something that's new or should be downplayed. Going all the way back to Nixon and his dogwhistling campaign rhetoric.

Like Coates said, even if you explicitly believe yourself (and I'm referring to a GOP voter) to be a non racist and moderately abreast of your party's politics for any of the last 40 years, you're willfully putting your head in the sand to see where the lines are drawn. And with Trump, it's even harder to claim that you aren't given how explicit his rhetoric is.

 

[JeTmAn81]

How does voting Romney not make you racist? Did you mean Obama?

Can you back any of this up with reasons why?

Because the article pretty much supports the reasoning behind both these points, and why your 'call outs' are wrong.

There's nothing racist about Romney, and nothing to suggest voting for him aligns with racist views. But almost the exact same group of people voted for Trump, showing that they were not simply motivated by racism. If anything, it suggests that they were not dissuaded by Trump's problems with race and other issues. That's an indictment in itself, but it's not the same as holding racist attitudes.


"Drumpf truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president. And so it will not suffice to say that Drumpf is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America's first white president."

This is pure conjecture. We don't know what would've happened with Trump without an Obama presidency. Coates tries to say that Trump's political existence is owed solely to Obama but Trump had been considering presidential runs for decades before. He very nearly ran in the late 80's, and was considered a real possibility.

Here are what I think the possible interpretations of the phrase "first white president" might be:

1. He's the first person to become president who is white. Obviously that's not it.
2. He's the first person who only became president because he is white. That's not it either. If that was enough, the race would've ended in a tie between Trump and his white opponent.
3. He's the first president to represent "whiteness", whatever that may mean. I infer Coates's definition to mean racism and white supremacy. Whatever "whiteness" is, it's not that. And Trump doesn't represent white people as a group.

 

[Leonadar]

Great article. I wish he would have also touched on Native American genocide in the country.

 

[Deepwater]

There's nothing racist about Romney, and nothing to suggest voting for him aligns with racist views. But almost the exact same group of people voted for Trump, showing that they were not simply motivated by racism. If anything, it suggests that they were not dissuaded by Trump's problems with race and other issues. That's an indictment in itself, but it's not the same as holding racist attitudes.

Yes it is.

 

[JeTmAn81]

Your first point has merit, I agree that it's definitely headline bait.

But you seemed to miss the trees for the forest by reducing his argument to "because racism" (especially when he was so thorough to support his rhetoric). The GOP for decades have been the party of white folk, and their implicit, sometimes explicit platforming around that is not something that's new or should be downplayed. Going all the way back to Nixon and his dogwhistling campaign rhetoric.

Like Coates said, even if you explicitly believe yourself (and I'm referring to a GOP voter) to be a non racist and moderately abreast of your party's politics for any of the last 40 years, you're willfully putting your head in the sand to see where the lines are drawn. And with Drumpf, it's even harder to claim that you aren't given how explicit his rhetoric is.

Perhaps I'm approaching this too anecdotally. I'm neither a Republican nor a Trump voter, but I know plenty of people who voted for him and don't fit the image of someone complicit in sending a white supremacist agenda to the White House.

I can buy the idea of a white bloc of voters being trojan horsed into supporting this garbage, but believing that they knew this would happen...it's a bridge too far. I suppose my belief will be tested in 2020, assuming Trump makes it that far.

 

[Eidan]

There's nothing racist about Romney, and nothing to suggest voting for him aligns with racist views. But almost the exact same group of people voted for Trump, showing that they were not simply motivated by racism. If anything, it suggests that they were not dissuaded by Trump's problems with race and other issues. That's an indictment in itself, but it's not the same as holding racist attitudes.

The article says as much:

But it matched a broader defense of Trump voters. ”Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and just deplorable folks," Sanders said later. ”I don't agree." This is not exculpatory. Certainly not every Trump voter is a white supremacist, just as not every white person in the Jim Crow South was a white supremacist. But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one.

"Drumpf truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president. And so it will not suffice to say that Drumpf is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America's first white president."

This is pure conjecture. We don't know what would've happened with Trump without an Obama presidency. Coates tries to say that Trump's political existence is owed solely to Obama but Trump had been considering presidential runs for decades before. He very nearly ran in the late 80's, and was considered a real possibility.

Here are what I think the possible interpretations of the phrase "first white president" might be:

1. He's the first person to become president who is white. Obviously that's not it.
2. He's the first person who only became president because he is white. That's not it either. If that was enough, the race would've ended in a tie between Trump and his white opponent.
3. He's the first president to represent "whiteness", whatever that may mean. I infer Coates's definition to mean racism and white supremacy. Whatever "whiteness" is, it's not that. And Trump doesn't represent white people as a group.

Well we know that racism was a primary motivator for Trump voters. And that views on race mattered more in determining a person's vote in Trump's election than Obama's.

The point of calling Trump the "first white president" is clear. Trump's election is a white supremacist response to the first black president. His "whiteness" in itself isn't what got him elected, but it was his overtures to white supremacy that did.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Yes it is.

This.

And what's more, let's not act like the GOP center of gravity isn't white nationalism. There's a lot of overlap to be found between trump and other Republicans, Trump is just that more egregious about his.

 

[Blader]

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line.

If anything, it suggests that they were not dissuaded by Trump's problems with race and other issues.

So you don't buy that all Trump supporters, if not themselves are racist, are not intentionally supporting a racist but also believe that these same voters were not dissuaded by Trump's racism? That's the same thing: not being personally racist, but ultimately supporting someone who is. More to that point, I think the distinction between what you consider a racist person and someone who isn't racist but supportive of someone who is is completely meaningless. It makes no difference to the targets and victims of racist behavior. A lynched man doesn't draw any distinction between his executioner and the one who just happened to provide the rope; both are complicit in the lynching.

Perhaps I'm approaching this too anecdotally. I'm neither a Republican nor a Trump voter, but I know plenty of people who voted for him and don't fit the image of someone complicit in sending a white supremacist agenda to the White House.

This is like the core argument of his entire piece: refusing to accept that white supremacy exists to the degree that it does, both as an element of Trump's support but also broadly in American society today, because it makes you personally uncomfortable to think of people in your life holding those views.

Republican presidents and presidential candidates have been trading in racist dog whistles for decades. But nobody since George Wallace (who wasn't even a Republican) has made racism so explicitly and overtly a centerpiece of their campaign. Birtherism was Trump's political breakthrough; denouncing Mexicans as criminals and rapists, where only "some" were "good people," was literally the first thing he said as a presidential candidate. The Trump train has been by racism and white supremacy from day one. You cannot excuse racism from the equation for any Trump voter.

 

[EdibleKnife]

There's nothing racist about Romney, and nothing to suggest voting for him aligns with racist views. But almost the exact same group of people voted for Trump, showing that they were not simply motivated by racism. If anything, it suggests that they were not dissuaded by Trump's problems with race and other issues. That's an indictment in itself, but it's not the same as holding racist attitudes.

That's fine but doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things when the policy enacted by the person they voted for distinctly targets people of color for disenfranchisement. If people want to convince themselves that they're better for not overtly thinking black people should be hung from trees just because like some other Trump voters, they're free to. I just don't find much value in that exercise when too many people seek to comfort themselves with the idea that "I'm not like those racists" yet do zero self-reflection as to why they thought voting for such a person was appropriate and how they could help reverse the damage caused by the person they voted for. OK. So someone voted for Trump but they don't wear a hood or worship the Confederacy. Congratulations. What now? Where is their next vote going in the future now that they know what kind of people and party they threw in with now that their true colors and motives are as clear as day? That's the important part.

 

[ChuckHoneywood]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

I agree for the most part. Nearly all of Trump's voters would have voted for whomever was at the top of the GOP ticket.

 

[Blader]

I agree for the most part. Nearly all of Trump's voters would have voted for whomever was at the top of the GOP ticket.

If nearly all of Trump's voters would have voted for the Republican nominee, regardless of who that person ended up being, then that means Trump's blatant racism was not a deal breaker in the slightest for these voters. In which case, all of these non-racist voters still find a racist presidential nominee perfectly acceptable for them. Which is functionally the same as being racist themselves.

 

[ChuckHoneywood]

If nearly all of Trump's voters would have voted for the Republican nominee, regardless of who that person ended up being, then that means Trump's blatant racism was not a deal breaker in the slightest for these voters. In which case, all of these non-racist voters still find a racist presidential nominee perfectly acceptable for them. Which is functionally the same as being racist themselves.

For a lot of these voters, it's not racism until someone is yelling Nigger and/or burning crosses on your lawn. Institutional racism isn't something that exists in their world.

 

[JeTmAn81]

If nearly all of Drumpf's voters would have voted for the Republican nominee, regardless of who that person ended up being, then that means Drumpf's blatant racism was not a deal breaker in the slightest for these voters. In which case, all of these non-racist voters still find a racist presidential nominee perfectly acceptable for them. Which is functionally the same as being racist themselves.

Or they didn't view him as overtly racist. And did he actually say anything overtly racist? There were plenty of dogwhistles, but that's the tricky thing about them. Not everything that is interpreted as a dogwhistles actually is a dogwhistles, so it makes it very difficult to prove the intention to someone who's already made up their mind.

 

[EdibleKnife]

Or they didn't view him as overtly racist. And did he actually say anything overtly racist? There were plenty of dogwhistles, but that's the tricky thing about them. Not everything that is interpreted as a dogwhistles actually is a dogwhistles, so it makes it very difficult to prove the intention to someone who's already made up their mind.

Mexico sending over "rapists and criminals" is overtly racist. His birtherism crusade against Obama was overtly racist. Pre and post election, through words and behavior, he has made it clear that people of color have zero value to him unless they can be pawns. And this is just on race. He has also been overtly sexist/misogynistic and homo/transphobic. Which the people who voted for him also enabled.

 

[Blader]

For a lot of these voters, it's not racism until someone is yelling Nigger and/or burning crosses on your lawn. Institutional racism isn't something that exists in their world.

An inability to acknowledge racism is still a part of white supremacy! This is a major part of the article: that whiteness allows a white person to blissfully dismiss the existence of racism in their world just because they don't see harshest possible examples of racism don't exist in their world.

Or they didn't view him as overtly racist. And did he actually say anything overtly racist? There were plenty of dogwhistles, but that's the tricky thing about them. Not everything that is interpreted as a dogwhistles actually is a dogwhistles, so it makes it very difficult to prove the intention to someone who's already made up their mind.

How many Republican candidates in 2015 were endorsed by David Duke? How many had been sued for racist discriminatory housing practices? How many had explicitly Mexicans over their Mexican heritage? How many accused the first black president of being illegitimate because he must have not been born in the United States (and how many previous white presidents had their citizenship and place of birth questioned)? The only way you could support Trump and not consider his racism in the process is if you went to the ballot box without knowing who Donald Trump was.

Again, this is part of the whole point of the article: a culture of white supremacy persists in this country because enough of the white 'moderates' condition themselves not to see something as racist unless they're confronted by, say, a mob of white hoods hanging black bodies from trees.

 

[TAJ]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the appeal of the Republican party.

 

[LegendofLex]

This is pure conjecture. We don't know what would've happened with Trump without an Obama presidency. Coates tries to say that Trump's political existence is owed solely to Obama but Trump had been considering presidential runs for decades before. He very nearly ran in the late 80's, and was considered a real possibility.

The way the real-life Donald J. Trump campaign was conducted was definitely a response to the Obama presidency. The article isn't saying "Trump couldn't have been a political force without white outrage against Obama"; it's saying "appealing to white outrage against Obama was Trump's political strategy, and it allowed/enabled him to be elected."

Or they didn't view him as overtly racist. And did he actually say anything overtly racist? There were plenty of dogwhistles, but that's the tricky thing about them. Not everything that is interpreted as a dogwhistles actually is a dogwhistles, so it makes it very difficult to prove the intention to someone who's already made up their mind.

Needing someone to say something overtly racist to recognize racism is an example of white supremacy, so

1) failing to notice racism
2) failing to acknowledge racism
3) failing to take meaningful steps to defeat racism when it is noticed and acknowledged

all fall in the bucket of "perpetuating white supremacy."

The sooner white folks en masse stop trying to avoid responsibility for this and instead acknowledge where they're personally responsible for it and take steps to correct their behavior, the better.

And I'd say basically any line of argument that resembles trying to excuse people from personal responsibility only entrenches this problem more deeply. It's never okay to do anything that perpetuates white supremacy.

 

[Blader]

The history of the modern Republican Party is built on racism and appeals to white supremacy. This has been the case for 50 years now. It is not a coincidence that whites flocked en masse from the Democratic Party to the GOP after Johnson signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts into law, and that the GOP has won the majority of the white vote in every presidential election ever since. That's our history. Refusing to acknowledge this because people in your life are Republicans and/or Trump supporters is dangerous because that's what enables this kind of thinking to continue!

 

[theignoramus]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

I thought the article had multiple passages that addressed this: racism wasnt the only reason, but it was the common denominator.

the politics of race are, themselves, never attributable “just to the politics of race.” The history of slavery is also about the growth of international capitalism; the history of lynching must be seen in light of anxiety over the growing independence of women; the civil-rights movement can’t be disentangled from the Cold War. Thus, to say that the rise of Donald Trump is about more than race is to make an empty statement, one that is small comfort to the people—black, Muslim, immigrant—who live under racism’s boot.

Part of Trump’s dominance among whites resulted from his running as a Republican, the party that has long cultivated white voters. Trump’s share of the white vote was similar to Mitt Romney’s in 2012. But unlike Romney, Trump secured this support by running against his party’s leadership, against accepted campaign orthodoxy, and against all notions of decency. By his sixth month in office, embroiled in scandal after scandal, a Pew Research Center poll found Trump’s approval rating underwater with every single demographic group. Every demographic group, that is, except one: people who identified as white.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense to me, but I have to call out a couple of things.

1. Calling Trump the "first white president" is some grade-A provocatory claptrap.

2. No, I still don't buy the "all Trump supporters are racist and/or intentionally supporting a racist" line. Coates lists a barrage of white demographics that supported Trump but those same people supported Romney (he even admits this), so obviously they weren't just voting for Trump "because racism".

Wait, why does their also having voted for Romney clear them of being racist and that being the biggest factor that got them to vote for Trump?

 

[Blader]

Wait, why does their also having voted for Romney clear them of being racist and that being the biggest factor that got them to vote for Trump?

I think he's arguing that if a white person voted for Romney and also voted for Trump, then Trump's racism isn't what guided them to their vote; their political identity did. But that ignores that the GOP's brand as a political identity is historically built on racism, nor does it at all disprove the idea that Republicans who may not be personally racist still found Trump's racism acceptable enough to vote for him for president. If anything it proves that point!


IMO, the most damning parts of the piece are Coates' "imagine if Obama was this person." Not only would a black Donald Trump never win the presidency, never win the presidential nomination, never be a viable candidate in a primary campaign -- that person wouldn't even exist as a member of the Republican Party! No black businessman with a history of sexual abuse, sexist remarks, racist behavior (toward whites, in this comparison, I guess) would even be allowed in the fucking building, much less be on the debate stage.

 

[theignoramus]

Or they didn't view him as overtly racist. And did he actually say anything overtly racist? There were plenty of dogwhistles, but that's the tricky thing about them. Not everything that is interpreted as a dogwhistles actually is a dogwhistles, so it makes it very difficult to prove the intention to someone who's already made up their mind.

Oh come on!
He retweeted fake Black crime statistics from neo-Nazis.

He retweeted anti-semitic attacks on Hillary Clinton.

He said he was going to ban Muslims from entering America.

He attacked a Muslim Gold star family by wondering aloud if the husband permitted his wife to speak in public.


Paul Ryan, the leader of the GOP, had to condemn Trump for the racist comments he made about the Mexican American judge presiding over the Trump U case.
In fact, every major name in his party had to condemn him at one point or another for race-baiting, inflammatory remarks.

Nobody gets to plead ignorance about candidate Trump. Everyone who voted for him knew full well what he was. Were they all White supremacists? No, but every single one of them was able to rationalise a vote in support of an open bigot.