"[R]acial dog whistling ... involves ... three basic moves: a punch that jabs race into the conversation through thinly veiled references to threatening nonwhites, for instance to welfare cheats or illegal aliens; a parry that slaps away 1/
2/ "charges of racial pandering, often by emphasizing the lack of any direct reference to a racial group or any use of an epithet; and finally a kick that savages the critic for opportunistically alleging racial victimization. The complex jujitsu of racial dog whistling lies at
3/3 "the center of a new way of talking about race that constantly emphasizes racial divisions, heatedly denies that it does any such thing, and then presents itself as a target of self-serving charges of racism." ~@IanHaneyLopez
This period of racial retrenchment, specifically the rabid anti-CRT rage, is nothing new. You can cut and paste MLK's words from 50 years ago:
"It is called the “white backlash.” But the white backlash is nothing new. It is the surfacing of old prejudices, hostilities and 1/
2/ "ambivalences that have always been there. It was caused neither by the cry of Black Power nor by the unfortunate recent wave of riots in our cities. The white backlash of today is rooted in the same problem that has characterized America ever since the black man landed in
3/ "chains on the shores of this nation. The white backlash is an expression of the same vacillations, the same search for rationalizations, the same lack of commitment that have always characterized white America on the question of race. What is the source of this perennial
"Almost always, the injustices that dramatically diminish the rights of blacks are linked to the serious economic disadvantage suffered by many whites who lack money and power. Whites, rather than acknowledge the similarity of their disadvantage, particularly when compared
2/ "with that of better-off whites, are easily detoured into protecting their sense of entitlement vis-à-vis blacks for all things of value. Evidently, this racial preference expectation is hypnotic. It is this compulsive fascination that seems to prevent most whites from even
3/ "seeing—much less resenting—the far more sizable gap between their status and those who occupy the lofty levels at the top of our society." ~Derrick Bell
2/ "open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote."
"...the ballot-collection law had not been enacted with discriminatory intent."
"...equal openness remains the touchstone."
Seriously, this is EXACTLY what we've been talking about.
3/3 And the gospel isn't the answer here, though there are applicable Biblical principles. The answer is to understand such laws within our historical context, understand their socially shared racial meaning, and re-recognize the VRA's substantive intent.
Much is being said about CRT’s critique of liberalism. But if you’ve studied CRT literature, it should quickly become clear that the CRT critique is specifically directed at traditional liberalism’s analysis of racism and its attendant view of linear, inevitable, progress. 1/
2/ What is rejected is the liberal idea that racism is simply a form of individual irrationality that can be overcome by knowledge, that its social effects can be overcome by race-neutrality, & that its legal & economic consequences can be overcome by formal, procedural equality.
3/ As such, for liberalism, racism is just another relic of the ignorant past destined to be overcome by the inevitable progress of enlightenment. And as we continue to “mix” and ignore “difference” and see the imagined “universal human” in all of us, then racial disparities
@sandylocks' critique of Thomas Sowell, and color-blind policy more generally, is still a couple of my favorite paragraphs written:
"[T]o believe, as Sowell does, that color-blind policies represent the only legitimate and effective means of ensuring a racially equitable 1/
2/ "society, one would have to assume … that such a racially equitable society already exists. In this world, once law had performed its “proper” function of assuring equality of process, differences in outcomes between groups would not reflect past discrimination but rather
3/ "real differences between groups competing for societal rewards. Unimpeded by irrational prejudices against identifiable groups and unfettered by government-imposed preferences, competition would ensure that any group stratification would reflect only the cumulative effects of