wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Hats off to Prof. Ford for bravely contributing to an honest discussion of race in this country. Perhaps the most pernicious barrier hitherto has been the largely academic cabal that, almost overnight, successfully altered the definition of racism. According to this “new” definition of race, blacks can’t be racist because they don’t have the power.

Nonsense. The formulation falls on two counts. First, who says so? For the hundreds of years prior, definitions of racism set no limits on who can be racist and who cannot be. Second, the assertion that blacks don’t have power is false. Among many other indices, the fact that drivel such as this new definition of racism can be advanced on behalf of blacks——often by blacks themselves——testifies to the power blacks do hold in our contemporary society.

But the academy will have none of it. Now, no blacks can be racist; only whites. In fact, more extreme definers of the term claim that not only is racism the exclusive province of whites, but that whites are prima facie racists! (How’s that for racial determinism?). Meanwhile, ostensibly educated people engage in ceremonies of crocodile headscratching, wondering why we can’t have an honest discussion about race. Hmmmm. . . . just a wild stab, but could this be part of the problem?

Press on, Prof. Ford. Your work is a desideratum for confused these times.

Here's a topic for you: African-Americans, and Africans, who target whites for emotional and financial manipulation by playing the guilt card.

I am a professor of cultural anthropology and ethnomusicology specializing in race and gender. The conversation shared between the host and the guest was itself a reflection of the crisis Ford seems to be addressing about racism. Racism was not clearly defined for the audience, imho, which seemed odd or at least confusing given that Ford is a Law Professor. I use the definition that racism is a form of discrimination and here is the operative "AGAINST" an ethnic group viewed as a race (now debunked by the American Anthropological Assn--see http://www.understandingrace.org/).

When Leonard Lopate asked Ford if a black man was racist for dating a white woman because of her skin color, that in and of itself is not racism by the above definition. What IS racism is that that black person might be discriminating against women of his own ethnic group (but not necessarily) in that case.

I distinguish between racial decisions in life by people of all kinds of backgrounds vs. being racist with one's discrimination AGAINST a group or person because of their skin color or other biology. Then there are levels: personal, professional relations, business transactions, etc. where these everyday forms of bias take their toll.

I wasn't all that impressed with Ford explanations, examples and ideas. His intentions are clear but I wasn't sold by his arguments.

Kyra Gaunt
Associate Professor
Baruch College

There is a GREAT spin off discussion. Is it racist to be attracted to someone because they are a different race? Who finds who attractive and who has the advantage?

ab,
It was Jena, LA. I agree that the timing makes the Columbia incident likely motivated by racism, but one doesn't know for certain.

The Jena incident--definitely racist.

Re: the bartender

It's called fetishization and exoticization and it's racist. It's not "complicated". Don't beat around the bush, pal. Explain why it's not.

I think inter-racial dating is a function of evolution. I am an Irish/American with fair hair and white skin. Thanks to the ozone, the sun is not my friend. My gene pool could die out over the long term if I do not breed darker pigment into my line... Of course, that unconscience analysis plays itself out in one phrase: "she's hot!"

Sad to say, but if Katrina had hit West Palm Beach, they wouldn't have needed so much help from the Federal Gov. Mayor Nagin should be critized just as much as Bush because ultimately it is Nagin who failed to evacuate New Orleans.

David,

I too agree with Ford's assessment. However, though I do not know about the noose at Columbia the noose that was hung in that town down south (at the moment the name of the place eludes me) was unquestionably motivated by racism (to deny that would be to be utterly blind, I think) and being that the Columbia incident followed so soon after that I find it hard to believe that some sort of racial impetus wasn't behind it. Perhaps that is not the best example considering what the noose symbolizes historically in this country.

At any rate, I agree with most of Ford's points, I just simply object to the term race "card". I think it is too often used as a way of dismissing legitimate claims "oh, he's/she's playing the race card". It makes it easier for people to not listen...probably due to some of the points that Ford is making.

I work at an ethnic studies center at UCLA. Since I'm an art school grad I'm grateful for work and health benefits of any kind, especially the good UCLA kind, but I also, mostly agree that ethnic studies are in the main a balkanizer. I believe ethnic studies should be folded into larger departments and themes such as American Studies, etc. As for quotas, that's too much of a lightening rod to comment on.

Would you please stop calling blacks "African-Americans?" It is a term of sheer lunacy.

Americans of North African (Egyptian and Moroccan) origins -- geographically African -- do not consider themselves "African-Americans."

ab, There are so many things that trivializes this topic, but I think Ford's assessment is very accurate. For example, consider the professor at Columbia who had a noose hung from her office door knob. What was the motivation of the perpetrator? Racism? Perhaps, but no one really knows. Now, Columbia has revealed that she is strongly suspected of plagiarism. Despite the facts that an initial investigative committee at CU, half of whom are black, felt the allegations by a person of color warranted an investigation from an outside law firm and that investigation supported the allegations; the professor is claiming she's being singled out because of her race.

Doesn't she realize how much that sounds like the boy who cried wolf?

Whether you care for the term "race card", frivolous claims of being a victim of racism diminishes real claims of being a victim of racism.

The term "race card" trivializes the subject of racism.