Sexism doesn't exist. Racism doesn't exist.

no objections to Obama or Clinton on DU or elsewhere are ever intermingled with sexism or racism. Coded messages don't exist. Tone deafness and loaded or clumsy language doesn't exist. We live in a perfectly fair world. Don't you dare suggest otherwise.

no one here has said Biden was being racist. Sorry you can't follow the complexities.

I do think he is a bigot which is an entirely different thing. A racist is one that puts his bigotries into action. A bigot is one that holds certain attitude and beliefs in stereotypes.

Based on Biden's statements regarding Obama, Indians and his "slave state" comment there is definitly some bigoted attitudes there. The question is whether he puts it into action and I'd say "no" at this point.

His recent statement to Obama wasn't meant to be complimentary. Clearly was a snide remark.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem fully aware of his prejudices and how they seep into his public comment.

All of us are prejudiced to varying degrees. Prejudice can range anywhere from making assumptions about people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc. to the far range of bigotry/racism. The problem is not that people are prejudiced, but that we don't acknowledge or these prejudices. Many people assume that prejudice automatically equals racism and that any suggestion that they or someone they believe thinks like them has any prejudice or bias or insensitivity, that they are being called a racist. And interestingly, some of these people think that racism is the worst assumption one can make about them, are HIGHLY offended at the mere thought of being accused of it and will object loudly and strenuously at the very notion - yet they are unable or unwilling to tolerate anyone else speaking up about something that offends THEM. Thus, we end up with the ludicrous situations we see on DU frequently:

"So-and-So made a blanket negative assumption about black people. I found that to be offensive. He should apologize."

"How DARE you call So-and-So a racist! "

"I didn't call So-and-So a racist. I just said that I was offended by what he said and I think it was an insensitive thing to say."

"There was nothing offensive about it! The only thing offensive is YOU accusing other people of racism. If you didn't try so hard to see racism where it didn't exist, we wouldn't have so much racial divisiveness in this country!"

"Even if you don't see how what So-and-So said was offensive, why can't you at least respect the fact that *I* was offended by it and had every right to be?"

"Now you're calling ME a racist!"

:toast:

brain involved in the process. In this case, he was in such a hurry with the snappy come back he missed the racist aspect of what he was saying. He may not be a racist. What he said is racist but he never meant it that way. He needs some more experience so he learns not to insult people inadvertently.

And consider the implications, if that's not too difficult for you to do.

:crazy:

It exists in the real world and it exists on DU.

It is a philosophical answer... Its beyond the simple answer to a complex problem this world faces, and like everything else, the root cause is the 1% who keeps people angry at one another so the other 99% do not work together to erase the evil at the top... If you are told all your life to blame someone else for your lot in life, then you spur hatred in your heart.. The most targeted at this time is Muslims... followed by the hispanic population (and this is deep seated by both the white and black community). If we all worked together as one, we wouldn't have such disparaging inequality. So, the 1% rabble rouses and funds causes that aren't in the best interest of humans, and, often, even on DU a progressive place, there is sexist and racist comments.

but my reasoning has nothing to do with race or gender. Besides, I like Obama. He's my second choice and it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if he won. I just hope he understands that, as things stand now, the Republicans are not really interested in working with the Democrats (the party they've done their best to destroy for the past two decades) and expecting REAL bi-partisanship and unity is a tad naive.

My dislike of Clinton as a candidate has to do with her allies and financial supporters and her unwillingness to recognize the damage corporate lobbyists are doing to our political system.

Do you agree or disagree that sexism and racism are present in regard to Obama and Clinton?

There was an excellent diary at kos, btw, about sexism and how people react to Clinton. And a lot of it was about how people aren't even conscious of falling into it.

Like I said, I can't speak for anyone else. I WISH Hillary or Obama were more about the top-down class war that's being fought against the middle class and the working poor. If they were saying what Edwards is saying, I'd be on-board in a second. I think ALL of our difficulties at this point stem from this unspoken conflict...economic, political, and social. The Republicans have deliberately divided us on the left by provoking conflicts of sexual orientation, race, and other things to keep us from recognizing the reality of the situation. It's the obscenely wealthy vs. the NOT-obscenely wealthy. Those whose voice is manifested in money and those whose only voice is (allegedly) the votes they cast.

The war is about money and resources. Basically trillions of dollars spent to increase the profit of a select few companies. OUR money spent, their profits delivered.

Nearly all the issues of the day can be broken down to this: Those who gain the most by the status quo win, those who suffer the most by the status quo lose.

It's time to rock the boat, upset the apple-cart, and challenge the status quo.

We didn't need the Republicans to divide us on race and sex. It's here. It's in us. We want to believe it's not because WE are the ones with a woman and a black man as our top tier, but it is. We just have different codes for it.

After that, we're pretty much in complete agreement.

to create conflict where they prefer it to be, rather than where it actually is...or should be.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:popcorn:

who feels he's oppressed because he cant make bigoted statements

"If they can put a man on the moon...why not all of 'em?"

are difficult to discuss in many places, including on DU. There is the potential to have some interesting and valuable discussions here. Sometimes they go quite well, other times not. It's a shame that frequently the good ones seem to get taken off-track by nonsense.

Either a person is sexist, or they're not sexist. Either a person is racist, or they're not racist. I dislike these either/or categories, when human minds don't really work that way. I think the majority of us might be in between these categories, in a variety of ways.

I almost spit my drink up in shock. With regards to Obama and Clinton...it's hard to tell. I think the atmosphere will be a lot different in the GE than it is now (since one of them will get the nomination). The Rethugs will stoop to any low to get ahead...they have no honor at all.

As I noted in another post, we are all prejudiced to varying degrees. Being prejudiced or insensitive is not necessarily the same thing as being racist or sexist.

Unfortunately, many people make that assumption, which causes numerous problems. First, they believe it absolves them of responsibility since, unless they are so extreme in their approach that their prejudices rise to the level of racism/sexism, they feel completely blameless and take great offense ever having their own words or behavior questioned. Moreover, it helps to shut down all rational discussions about the issue, discussions which require an understanding and acceptance of the gray areas we all function within. Therefore, when a topic like this comes up, a topic that we should be able to discuss and, hopefully, learn from, instead of a rational discussion, we get, "He is/I am NOT a racist!!!" which pretty much dooms the conversation.

I really wish that people would take the time and effort to learn from these situations rather than use them to claim their own personal perfection and attack others for not accepting it. We'd all be a lot better off.

Example: Several years ago while teaching a class, I said that someone had been "gypped." Afterward, one of my colleagues approached me and said, "Did you know that "gyp" is a racist term? It derives from gypsies. I'm sure you would never say that someone was "Jewed down" - that term is just as offensive."

I was mortified. I had no idea that this term referenced gypsied. And I was SO glad that he told me this. I'm not a gypsy. I don't know any gypsies. But I would never want to use a word that denigrated any group of people. The fact that I didn't mean to offend anyone wasn't the point.

I was so appreciative of my colleague for pointing this out. I would never attack him for pulling my coat on this or insist that because "I'm not racist," my use of a racist term, even unknowingly, was somehow acceptable and I shouldn't have it brought to my attention.

That's what I'm trying to do here - sadly, many people would rather protect their self-image of purity than recognize that there's always room for us to do better.

You know, if you want to call me a delicious snack, you could call something more upscale like Creme Brulee or something.

It is not concrete.

Funny . . . I was saying something quite similiar to this at another board around the time of the Jena 6 Brouhaha. Is this like how ONLY black folks like rap stars are the ONLY people to ever drop an N-Bomb? Because that's the excuse of mainstream Amerika as to why a white person using the N-Bomb is acceptable. After - the black folks use it.

I could really care less what Biden said off the cuff to Obama. I'm not voting for either one in the primary. But I get the point.

Anyhoo - I 'get' the sarcasm and irony of your original post. There's a thread here right now speaking of how different groups within the Democratic Party don't support each other. I have grave concerns (having spent the afternoon at a function for an 'elite' black organization) that one contender in particular in the Republican Party could steal the black vote right from under the noses of the Democratic party. I kept quiet this afternoon and listened . . . but he could really steal the votes of black, college educated, professional women who grew up in Methodist, Baptist and Catholic homes. He could also steal their husbands and significant others' votes. Let's wake up and pray they stop taking us for granted. And those words were specifically used. We've stood with this party for 40 years - don't throw us under the bus now. And that goes Barack too. He doesn't get a free pass because of the color of his skin.

This is about the Party's Consciousness.

Both are trying to do something that has never been done. In a country that has a bitter past with regards to race and gender. In a national general election the prejudiced individuals are still out there in significant numbers.

Blacks and women haven't been discriminated against, they haven't had the deck stacked against them, they haven't been held back in any way, they weren't consistently pushed aside while all manner of white men - from the most brilliant to the most mediocre and worse - stepped right on past them. They just weren't qualified. It just so happens that until about a month ago, there had never been a woman or black person who was qualified to be president. Clinton and Obama are THE FIRST woman and black to ever be qualified to be president. And now that there is FINALLY a qualified black man and a qualitied woman interested in being president, the playing field is dead even and they can compete just like everyone else, without any obstacles, burdens, baggage, prejudices, preconceived notions, or any other hindrance making their way a little more difficult.

:sarcasm: