.
When discussing the political career of Sen. Barack Obama, most journalists avoid mention of his skin color, fearful of appearing biased. In "Racisim Without Racists," Nicholas ristof plunges headfirst into this controversy without hesitation, a trait unmatched by most modern political analysts. More than three decades after the Civil Rights Movement, most whites like to think prejudice is extinct. According to Kristof, these same "well-meaning whites" are the ones who "discriminate unconsciously," which has significantly affected Sen. Obama's campaign. This kind of accusation is so bold that it makes white readers, like myself, get their backs up, and makes them defensive enough to keep reading.
.
Kristof then mentions how racism helps Sen. Obama's campaign. He wrote, "[Obama's race] underscores his message of change; it appeals to some voters as a demonstration of their open-mindedness." Taken a step further, Kristof is saying that no matter how whites vote, they are biased. He later said, however, that only 50% of whites have unconscious bias. He is essentially contradicting himself, which for me, took away some of his credibility as a writer, although I admire his audacity to write about such a controversial matter.
.
Kristof's conclusion was also poor. With such a unique thesis, I expected Kristof to give readers a send-off that is equally unique and meaningful. Instead, Kristof tied up his article about racism with a history lesson on Catholics in the 1960s. Blacks have been abused for hundreds of years around the world, and to compare their struggle for freedom with that of the Catholic's lessens the urgency of the issue. The ending was weak and distasteful.
.
4 comments:
Hey Sarah, I liked your write-up regarding the op-ed and I totally agree with you that it was a disappointing article. I found it actually a little difficult to follow, maybe because it was a lot of statistics at once and the author's point is kind of lost among the research. I also agree that the conclusion was weak and disappointing. It was a rather random, not very relevant point in my opinion, especially to bring up in the conclusion.
Hey Sarah!
I acutally read this article for one of my op-ed pieces in English, and I had the same reaction to it. I felt that Kristof was courageous in confronting this controversial issue head on, but he did contradict himself many times. Although it is true that racial biases are embedded within us, the conclusion belitted the severity of racism in our nation when it compared the current situation to Catholics and JFK.
This article did have a very promising topic, most people are so fearful of being racist that they instead become color blind, which is just feeding ignorance with more ignorance. The article was a bit weak and I was disappointed that the writer didn't take a more interesting route. Good job!
Wow - intense article.
I actually found it really interesting, and almost mind-bending - the ways we act based on buried prejudices and also how we act in trying to counter them. I though the study of whether an individual would call for help for a white or black person based on whether other witnesses were present was especially intriguing - I never would have though to study that.
Some of the stuff Kristof brought up seemed completely legitimate, and I don't doubt that race plays a role for most of us, even if we don't think it does. The subconscious has a lot of power. At the same time, though, some of the assertions were a little hard to swallow. Kristof said that when aversive racists "discriminate" against a black candidate, they often see problems with him/her that they wouldn't notice as readily, such as lack of experience. But how can you determine whether a white voter legitimately doesn't like Obama based on his lack of experience, or is an aversive racist who uses his inexperience to unconsciously cover up their true problem with him - his race? At what point are we just speculating it all?
Post a Comment