I think people who WON’T vote for a category of people because of their race/sex are sexist/racist but people who consider race/sex in the decision are not necessarily racist. No one is going around saying “well, I would never vote for a white man for president” or “I just can’t bring myself to vote for a white man for president” or “would America really elect a white man as President” or “is a white man really capable of fulfilling the job of President.” If they were, then you could call them racist/sexist.

This was considered to be “race baiting.” And maybe it was. I wasn’t impressed by any of it, but I see where the people who were offended were coming from.

But it also sounds a lot like something Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper might be found saying in hour 7 of coverage of the South Carolina primaries. If statements like these (which everyone can agree are objectively “true” before we consider what the speaker meant when he or she said it) can get the Clintons into trouble, I certainly understand why news analysts get nervous.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=qIu&defl=en&q=define:Racism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Although JBP (being human) is probably going to be an idiot with similar frequency as a white, we can’t even agree on a word to define what JBP did.

Sure we can; “racist”.

The word doesn’t appear to be agreed.

We are less comfortable saying that the black guy doing the same thing to vote for a black candidate is being “racist.”

Maybe you are. I’m not. Neither are a lot of people.

Didn’t we learn somewhere that racism = prejudice power?

I didn’t when I was first taught the concept some 50 years ago. And I have yet to see where the idea has caught with the general public. Thankfully.

Now, some people have been taught that. Others have been taught correctly. Tell me, who’s “we”?

Sailorman said:

Although JBP (being human) is probably going to be an idiot with similar frequency as a white, we can’t even agree on a word to define what JBP did.

Sure we can; “racist”.

Emily said:

I mean, the black people voting for Obama and/or the women voting for Clinton, even if they are doing so in part because of their identity affinity, surely (if it’s not their first election as eligible voters) have voted for white men in the past. They are not communicating that they would not consider a white man for president because of his race/sex, which seems to me at least potentially racist.

But there’s a difference between past elections and this one for many people; this is the first election where their choice was “vote for a white person vs. vote for a black person”, as opposed to “vote for a white person vs. don’t vote”. I say “most people” because back in 1972 Rep. Shirley Chisolm (D-NY, IIRC) was on the Democratic primary ballot in Massachusetts; I don’t know if she was on ballots nationwide or not in that year.

If Joe White Person is talking about race and says something idiotic or anti-POC, JWP has committed a social foul. A fairly major one, depending on circumstance: the “racist” brand can be pretty serious. To use an Alas example, I am fairly certain that folks have been banned for too many negative “_____ are _____” statements, when made against POC.

If Joe Black Person is talking about race and says something idiotic or anti-white, JBP has also committed a social foul. But it’s generally considered to be much more minor. Although JBP (being human) is probably going to be an idiot with similar frequency as a white, we can’t even agree on a word to define what JBP did. To continue with the Alas examples, I don’t think people usually get banned (and I’m not even sure they get censured) for negative “whites are _____” statements.

Different consequences lead to different actions.

Bonilla-Silva has to know that: he writes in such a way that it’s obvious he supports said different consequences. So why does he ignore their effects on people?

My thoughts reading these comments were - isn’t it different to vote FOR someone of your race/gender for president, especially when there has never been a president of your race/gender, and saying that you WOULDN’T vote for a particular candidate because of that person’s race/gender?

I mean, the black people voting for Obama and/or the women voting for Clinton, even if they are doing so in part because of their identity affinity, surely (if it’s not their first election as eligible voters) have voted for white men in the past. They are not communicating that they would not consider a white man for president because of his race/sex, which seems to me at least potentially racist. I don’t know if this is a relevant/important distinction, but it seems to be part of what people are struggling with.

In common parlance, if a white guy uses race as a factor and votes for a white candidate instead of the black candidate running against him, he is engaging in “racist behavior.”

We are less comfortable saying that the black guy doing the same thing to vote for a black candidate is being “racist.” Didn’t we learn somewhere that racism = prejudice + power? If the black voter has no power, can he be acting racist? But wait . . . this black candidate has a decent shot to be President. Can we say that there is no “power” involved here? Maybe in a world where a black candidate has a legitimate shot to be President, a black voter can be “racist” in voting for him.

But wait, we also learned that in Nevada the Hispanic voters favored Clinton. Are Hispanics a third “race”? We think that people who hate Hispanics are “racist,” so maybe they are a race. But is it “racist” if people of Race A votes for candidate of Race B or candidate of Race C? Can you be racist for someone else’s race?

Imagine having a discussion about race in 1970 if the word “racist” didn’t exist. It would be pretty darned hard. I think we are having that conversation now, but the words we are missing refer to power structures, racial varieties and interactions, and other ambiguous issues that we never had to talk about in 1970 because we’d never be in a situation where Barack Obama could be either leading or a close second in a Democratic primary.

I don’t blame the reporters as much as I do the inability of language to catch up. Is a Hispanic voter who prefers the white candidate to a black candidate a “racist?” Yes, for some definitions of racism, but no for others. How else can a reporter (addressing a broad audience) talk, except to say, “Black South Carolina voters are not racist, except they are voting based on race, but, well, you know what I mean”?