On Racism in Politics

Alric Knebel 

4/22/01

Not long ago, I was listening to two men talk politics in the shop I work in. My shop (I'm a temporary civil servant in a pavement section on an air force base) is hard-right conservative, down to the last man, with the exception of me. They are unabashed racists. One of the men espoused exactly the very argument you discredited below, the one that proposes that blacks vote Democrat because the Democrats provide them with easy welfare. I knew this was absurd, but I had no numbers with which to counter the argument. Not only was the lack of accurate data an excuse to remain mum, everything I say becomes something to ridicule later in a larger group. Ridiculing me in a group is one of the means they use to make themselves feel superior. This is necessary because my presence convicts them, and one-on-one discussions will end with a rhetorical victory for my side. Their racism will be exposed, their lack of regard for social and economic justice revealed. But I have to be selective of my battles. 

However, when I hear a man say what I heard this man saying on that particular day, I know his ideas are so entrenched and deeply rooted in racism, I'd be wasting my time and exposing myself to ridicule for no reason. 

Besides, I would have needed something concrete to come at the man with. And, sometimes, I'm just too weary to mess with it.  

I've had a particularly trying week. My state (Mississippi) this Tuesday had a vote on whether or not to change the state flag. The referendum for changing it failed by an almost two-to-one margin. I was disappointed: I thought for sure the vote would be closer than that. Reports of the vote, however, are in error, which supposes that it came down along racial lines, whites against changing the flag, blacks for it. This is not so. There were many people of all colors interested in changing that flag, including our moderate ex-governor, William Winter, who campaigned to change it. The vote wasn't really along race lines; it was a conflict between enlightened and benighted forces. The reason the referendum failed is simple (and it's an idea I know you're familiar with): People supporting hateful ideologies are always more activist than people supporting general progress. Hate is a strong emotion, a primal and savage expression. 

Therefore it easily builds momentum, and the more the idea is expressed, the more confident adherents feel about expressing it, which accrues further toward the momentum. Because so many people go through life never examining the real source of their anger, they wallow in that negativity, seeking a target for their anger. Anything that subtlety reinforces racism without overtly expressing it becomes a
channel for that anger, receiving wide approval. On the other hand, the hope for general progress is an impersonal concern for the most part, therefore doing little to stir the passions. If I were in the mood, I could probably produce an even more cogent analysis of the impulses at work. For now, let it suffice that when the vote came down in favor of keeping a racist icon as the flag, the racists in the shop were smug with empowerment. And I was again an outsider, the vote proving to them that I am in fact insignificant in the Southern scheme of things.