BY GALEN LEONHARDY
Guest Blogger Galen Leonhardy teaches English and humanities classes at Black Hawk College in Moline, Illinois.
Exhibit on Jim Crow Segregation–Center for Civil and Human Rights, Atlanta, Georgia{Adam Jones from Kelowna, BC, Canada [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)]}
The first key of the current racist rhetoric is to deflect attention from minorities to whites. More specifically, the process employed by the racist right consistently shifts the focus of the discussion to affirmation of Trump’s non-racism and the non-racism of right-wing whites rather than focusing on the realities of racism and the experiences of minority people. Half-truths, equivocations, blatant fabrications facilitate the diversion.
Trump, the suffering of whites, the idea of a post-racial reality, and blaming the victim remain consistent within the racist right’s dialogue. The content of authoritarian reasoning avoids or denies the actuality of racism. There is no short-term way to convince authoritarians that they need to re-reason their understanding of racism or racist language or socially sanctioned racism, no way to convince them that Trump’s tweets to minority representatives were rooted in racist sludge because Trump is what the authoritarian followers are ideologically and what they imagine they could be socially were they not shackled by a general lack of possibility resulting from the over privileging of minority people who, in the minds of racists, are unfairly afforded greater access to education, employment and social welfare by virtue of skin pigmentation (race does not exist: racism does). The racists are empowered now by Trump’s unrestrained expression of racist perception and are now liberated to roll in the stink of their own prejudicial, nationalistic, irrational, fear-based beliefs. They will not enter into any discussion of racism not founded on distractive practice.
Face it, were they interested in discussion, authoritarians would have read material related to and listened to discussions on racism, long ago examined carefully their language patterns, long ago stopped longing for the freedom whites had back in the days when Judy Garland could put on black face and sing “Swing Low Sweet Chariot.” Rather, authoritarians are now liberated to sidestep the responsibility of reading and listening and reasoning.
Here is one way that works: Trump’s rhetoric avoids the use derogatory terms common to Jim Crow. His racism is a slant rhyme of that older form and represents a rhetorical shift allowing authoritarians to believe they are not racists, allowing authoritarians to look at the back of a mirror and see the squeaky white purity of their passions because they don’t use racist name calling. This deranged, knockoff of reality cannot be transformed until the racists turn the mirror around. And why would they do that when doing so would require the great effort associated with ideological transformation? Instead they deflect with distraction, often in the form of invitations to discussion.
The time it takes to explain away the racist right’s claims actually distracts from the experiences of those suffering the bitter realities of racism. In this process of deflection, the racist right’s invitation to rational dialogue becomes the lead-filled life jacket which drowns the potential outcomes of reasoned, progressive compassion. I am not saying we should stop talking to the racist right. I am saying that, at this point, any discussion must be seen as potentially reinforcing their racist beliefs.
As someone who for decades automatically shouted “racist” at any individual or idea that had a hint of prejudice based on epidermal pigmentation, I have finally learned to be more nuanced in my name-calling. It seems to me that what Trump said recently was actually XENOPHOBIC, not racist. It had to do with going back to the COUNTRY of one’s origin if you didn’t love the U.S., not one’s skin color. (I know, I know. The 4 congresswomen are “people/women of color” but the Donald was questioning their patriotism, not their race. There’s enough real stuff to criticize Trump for that we don’t have to waste so much time and energy on his stupid tweets.
What others do with his ill-chosen words is another canard used by his opponents. “If “the racist right” get sustenance from from misunderstanding trump’s words, how is that different from the anti-white left getting a morale boost from the “Squad”?
BTW, I am a Marxist who has worked in minority communities for 40+ years, and am no Trumpist. What I do expect, though, is Freedom of Speech for EVERYONE, even presidents who repeatedly misstate facts.
I am completely confused by one statement in the comment by Dr. Tomasulo: ““If “the racist right” get sustenance from from misunderstanding trump’s words, how is that different from the anti-white left getting a morale boost from the “Squad”?”
What is the “anti-white left”? I mean, if I’m left and I appreciate “the Squad,” especially the one who represents my borough, would people think I’m anti-white? (A self-hating white, perhaps?)
Dr. Tomasulo points out something very true, that trump was questioning these Congresswomen’s patriotism and didn’t mention their skin color. Remember the hullabaloo about Obama — not some white politician — not wearing a flag pin? To some people, only whites don’t have to prove their patriotism. But be that as it may, Trump fell back on that old “anti-American” thing especially when he started to defend himself as not a racist. To me, his statements are really dating him. He can’t even think of something original to say. Back in the ’60s and ’70s, in response to my criticisms of the Vietnam war, I was told to “go back to Russia” or to leave America if I wasn’t happy here.
Thanks, Unvarnished Truth, for replying to my post. I was kind of vague and created a hypothetical category of villains: “the anti-white left.” Perhaps I was thinking of those extremists who proclaim that ALL whites are “devils” (i.e., Farrakhan) or those who assert that “white privilege” redoubts to EVERY Caucasian, no matter what their individual socioeconomic status. And, yes, the self-hating or guilt-ridden whites you mention (like Buttgieg) would fit that category too. I hope that clarifies my original imprecise statement.
If you’re white and “appreciate the Squad,” be my guest. “It’s a free country” (Well, not really.) I, for one, wouldn’t AUTOMATICALLY think that you were self-hating. One of the problems with recent political discourse is the automatic, knee-jerk responses made by even supposedly intelligent elites — like politicians and network anchors — who leap to a damning code word like “racist” without first thinking through all the implications and nuances. (I used to do that myself!)
Fnally, thanks for agreeing with me in your last paragraph.
Distinguishing between xenophobia and racism is just splitting hairs. I think Trump is racist because racists are his audience, he knows that, and he exploits that.
Well, we have separate words and dictionaries to make large and fine distinctions between words. Racism (based primarily on skin color) SOMETIMES accompanies xenophobia (based on geography), but not always.
For instance, if I said that French women should be deported back to their home country because they don’t shave under their arms, that would be xenophobia without racism.
As far as your second sentence is concerned, calling ANYONE a name because of what their listeners think is a classic case of guilt by association. Like Hillary, you seem to believe that 40% of the American public is “irredeemably deplorable” — i.e., “racist, homophobic, Islamophobia, sexist,” etc. Really? 40%?
I suppose the alternative to dialogue is direct action. I believe Dr. King used the term “soul force”.