Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(07-03-2020, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your statement contributes to the idea that there’s a “right way” to be black.  That type of thinking leads to people like Terry Crews being called a “coon” and an “Uncle Tom” because they don’t think the “right way”. Maybe that wasn’t your intention and I’m certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt given your explanation.

Well here's why I don't think my little joke contributes to the idea there is a right way to be black.

It is not possible to study subjects like world history, US history, the history of the Civil War or of Civil Rights, or black history, without recognizing subgroups of human population defined as "black," "native American," "European," albeit according to shifting criteria.  Merely recognizing that such groups exist and can be studied as such is not, at the same time, a claim each is monolithic, unchanging, and absent social, historical and cultural difference.

Scientific polling, which began in the 1932 election cycle, has since tracked the voting habits of demographics like "blacks," and now includes "Asian," "Latino," and "colleged-educated women."

If it falls out that since 1965, "blacks" have voted predominately Democrat--above 80% in EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION--then how are pollsters and social scientists and historians to treat that information? I say they should not suppress it because it might make black voters who vote for Trump feel bad, anymore than they should do away with the demo "college-educated women" because the revelation Trump is doing poorly with that group might make female Trump voters without college degrees feel "dumb." Without these demographic groupings, we lose any refined understanding of voter interests and behavior.

So from a social scientific POV, simple reference to this demographic history, even in a joke, is a reference to a historical/statistical fact, not a "blanket statement" about blacks on the order of "they all like watermelon." If that were not the case, it would be impossible to study "blacks" or African Americans from a social science/historical perspective.  The ability to distinguish between "blanket statements" and practical analytical categories is essential to the practice of good social science.

Certainly someone COULD use the aforementioned statistic as part of an argument claiming any African American voting for a racist president is an Uncle Tom, implying there is a right way to be black, but that would require specific additions and claims beyond a simple, figural understatement of the black vote for Trump.  Otherwise, any "right way" claim is just projected into the statement. It would be analogous to claiming a simple joke about how poorly Trump does among white, educated women is at the same time a statement about the right way to be a woman, questioning the femininity/womanhood/motherhood of those who vote for Trump. If such uncontrolled inference passes muster, then it is really impossible to rationally discuss and criticize voter choices. Any statement critical of any demographic can become a rorshach blot onto which readers can project their unique anger at individuals, groups, or society as a whole.

Final note: it is unsurprising if there are African Americans who fault other African Americans for voting for Trump, who is routinely accused of racism. It is certainly a fact that some African-Americans fault others for not being "black enough" or black the right way. But in my years on the Bengals message board I have never made that my fight. Where I have spoken in depth about race, it has always been to critique essentialist constructions of what is finally a social, not a biological construct. Occasionally I have urged my fellow posters to eschew ascribing racism to other posters on the board or intervened to urge benefit of the doubt.