“I am just absolutely stunned and mind boggled at the idea that someone could engage in blackface and then make the statement “I promise I’m not racist.” If that doesn’t qualify as racist, anymore, what the fuck does?”

I agree, and assume that all people here who feel that way have written to Jame Hamsher and railed at her for putting blackface on Joe Lieberman. Whether or not you like Joe, blackface is racist,no?

Regarding blackface, and interesting debate is the one surrounding the Krewe of Zulu’s (a black krewe) use of blackface (among other stereotypical accoutrements) in their Mardi Gras parade.

Regarding ENDA, I am opposed to removing gender expression from the bill, I think it undermines the moral basis of our arguments for inclusion in the larger society to exclude some people who step outside of a narrowly-defined gender(-ed behavior) box in order to save others.
But that said, I’m questioning myself regarding how this differs from my feelings about people in adult consensual polyamorous relationships — I do in fact believe that polygamy should be legal (IF and ONLY IF between consenting adults, mind you) and that the arguments are essentially the same as those for gay marriage: whatever consenting adults want to do in terms of forming/formalizing relationships with other people is not anyone else’s business to judge. And yet, I know most of America isn’t ready for that one, and thus it would not prudent to tack it onto the inclusion agenda of LGBTs. But how is leaving out the polyamorists because they’re “too controversial, not accepted enough yet” any different that the arguments to leave out trans folk for now? I am soul-searching here….

I think it’s just as much the politic of liberals, gay and straight alike, to look at trans issues as a place where they can say: “hey, look, we’re not extremists, we too agree that human behavior is locked into place by biological sex– just like sexual orientation, right?”

If that’s what’s really going on, then you’re right and T should be included along with LGB. But that is not an assumption that gibes with my experiences and observations. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone make that argument, although - full disclosure! - I haven’t exactly traveled in circles where I’m likely to hear such. But most people I know who are in favor of homosexual equality are so on the basis of, “It’s your body and you can do what you want with it” and they extend that to transsexuals as well.

It’s a pretty sure bet that if the first thing someone says is “I’m not racist,” then they’re racist and probably bigoted, both. If someone is truly not racist, the first thing they’ll tend to mention is the facts at issue (”I’d have done the same thing no matter what race he was and did so in the past.”) A guilty conscience resorts to obfuscation while the innocent will cleave to facts — a gross generalization but I think it works well enough to keep in mind.

Racism is a practice or belief that places one race above another in society.

Bigotry is a personal belief in an unfounded, usually malicious, prejudice. Bigots are almost always racist since a belief in superiority naturally carries with it a belief that that superiority should be reflected in politics and social mores.

Thus, you could have, for example, a person taking advantage of white privilege who honestly believes that blacks and whites are equals and acts accordingly in all other contexts. Such a person may be a vile opportunist, or socially unaware, but that person is racist and _not_ bigoted.

The distinction is touched upon in some of the posts above. Generally, blacks are concerned more by racism whereas whites are impressed more by bigotry. Thus, when blacks think racism they think “last-hired-first-fired” before they’d every think redneck. Meanwhile, whites, when racism is brought up, would think “cross-burning” (evidence of bigotry) before anything else.

Both words are serious and dangerous, but the distinction is important. One can be somewhat “innocent” while supporting a racist system. (Hell, we indirectly and involuntarially do it whenever we pay taxes.) Bigotry is thouroughly vile, however, and is a stronger word.

When it comes to emotional impact, I think the drunk driving analogy above was apt: people should realize that racism is about the effect on the targets in society and not the emotional or financial benefit of the alleged perpetrator.

Yeah, pretty much. That’s the size of it–I’ve had to develop these backdoor ways to point out racial thinking that don’t use the words ‘racist’, ‘racism’ or even ‘prejudice’, because saying flat-out ‘that’s racist, figure out why’ just don’t cut the mustard.

As a white person, I believe that my role is to push back against this problem in the way that only white people can: to use the assumption that the prejudice is shared for educational purposes. Calling bigots bigots is an exercise in futility because they know it’s bad to be a bigot; asking someone, ‘Why would you say that?’ and listening to the answer is far more persuasive.

Of course I have my moments where I just blow, but I’ve reached the point that I can usually recognize when I’m too steamed to educate anyone no matter how desperate his/her ignorance may appear to be.

I think a lot of white people just don’t have enough history and social background, and enough imagination, to understand why blackface would be considered insulting.

“Racist” is radioactive because the mainstream culture wants to condemn racial oppression without acknowledging its continuing presence within that culture. The more we “toss out” accusations, when anyone who takes a step back can see they are warranted, the less racism will be perceived as a quirk of Southerners fifty years ago, and the more it will be recognized for the disease it is, still infecting the mainstream.