dagblog - Comments for "AFL-CIO Misses Mark on Racist Healthcare Commercial"

I'm going to diverge a bit

Nebton — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:15:19 +0000

In reply to I agree that is plausible to

I'm going to diverge a bit from what Larry's saying (and possibly from what I previously wrote), and say that I don't think the AFL-CIO is deliberately making an untrue statement. Rather, I think they are making a statement of certitude that cannot be backed up by the events. They are making racial assumptions, but they are not reverse race-baiting in, to me, the latter implies a certain intent that the former does not.

I agree that is plausible to

Larry Jankens — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:03:04 +0000

In reply to Who's assuming? I and others

I agree that is plausible to infer race baiting, but I don't think it is logical or rational.

What I was arguing is that race bating is racist (which it is unclear - I would argue non-existent - if the original commercial did), but reverse race bating (accusing others of race baiting whether or not they are in order to drum up racial support - which we know the AFL-CIO is doing) is also racist.

Final note: I emailed this article to Stephen Colbert's one black friend and he agrees with me.

Final note: If it's

Nebton — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:57:00 +0000

In reply to Who's assuming? I and others

Final note: If it's borderline racist to assume that the ad-maker is race-baiting, then wouldn't it be equally borderline racist to assume that the AFL-CIO is race-baiting?

No, it's not. (I assume by "race-baiting" you simply mean pointing out the racist assumption.) The ad (as far as I can tell, I don't have sound here), makes no reference to either person's race. Other than inferring that the race choices were deliberate, there's no clear racial connections made. On the other hand, the AFL-CIO does make an explicit reference to race (or at least minorities). The AFL-CIO is clearly making an issue about the race of the two actors. The ad maker is inferred to be making an issue about the race of the two actors. I see a huge difference there.

On a side note, because it's always about me, my real first name (you know me by my middle name) might as well be "Sue". As such, it's astonishing the number of times I'm asked to show ID when I use my credit card. It happens to me significantly more often than it happens to friends I'm with. It's safe to infer that some of those ID requests are due to my first name. It is not safe to infer that any particular instance is due to my first name, however, as everyone gets asked for ID occasionally.

I do want to clarify something: I'm not calling anyone a racist in the usual sense of the word. There are racial assumptions (or inferences, if you prefer) being made, though, that I'm not entirely comfortable with.

Who's assuming? I and others

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:00 +0000

In reply to I think it's entirely

Who's assuming? I and others have tried to present a plausible argument for inferring race-baiting. Moreover, I neither assume nor infer that the makers of the ad are white, so whence the racism?

Larry's argument, insofar as I understand it, is different. He's suggesting that the AFL-CIO is deliberately race-baiting (reverse race-baiting?) to drump up health care support. That's possible (even if the ad itself is also race-baiting), but I would like a little more evidence to back it up, such as a history of race-baiting by the AFL-CIO and other health care supporters.

Final note: If it's borderline racist to assume that the ad-maker is race-baiting, then wouldn't it be equally borderline racist to assume that the AFL-CIO is race-baiting?

I think it's entirely

Nebton — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:32:18 +0000

In reply to I have to disagree with you,

I think it's entirely possible that there was a racist undertone to the message, but I agree with Larry that it's at least borderline racist to assume so.

I have to disagree with you,

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:27:41 +0000

In reply to AFL-CIO Misses Mark on Racist Healthcare Commercial

I have to disagree with you, Larry. Ads like these are heavily researched, and attention is paid to subtle and even subliminal messaging, so it's logical to assume that the actors were chosen for their race. Such choices are not necessarily racist. Often it works the other way, as with beer commercials that depict buddies of different races to broaden the appeal of the products.

But when you combine the likely intentionality of the casting with the persecution narrative popular on the right, one can plausibly infer a more sinister intention. One of the paranoid right's chief tactics has been to represent white Christians as a persecuted demographic. On the race front, you need to consider Beck's contention that the health care plan is a form of slavery reparations (redistributing health care benefits from whites to blacks), Beck and Limbaugh's charges that Obama is intentionally hiring racists who hate white people, and a host of "reverse racism" fearmongers like Buchanan who have charged that white people being discriminated against. This ad fits easily into this narrative with the subtle suggestion that white people will lose their jobs to black people. Larry Jankens is not the target of this ad, but there are plenty of folks who are receptive to that message, which is why right-wing pundits shout it so loudly and so frequently in less subtle ways.