this is a whole ass ordeal, now. what began as a pretty small feud has now escalated extensively and is exposing some of the fun nativism and racism endemic to american politics because some...
Exemplary
this is a whole ass ordeal, now. what began as a pretty small feud has now escalated extensively and is exposing some of the fun nativism and racism endemic to american politics because some people can't keep their masks on. gather round, ye children, for a tale of great and unbelievably stupid intrigue that strikes at the heart of darkness in the american soul:
Part 1: Donald, Professional Dumb Shit Sayer
our story begins with donald firing off an unhinged salvo that is so obviously racist that you really cannot explain it away:
pretty soon, she was echoed by democrats, but also a few republicans because it turns out you can't be that openly racist and not get called out for it--you have to be just a bit more subtle, i suppose:
Rep. John Katko: The President’s tweets were wrong. I have vehemently criticized lawmakers on the far-left when I disagree with the direction they want to take the country — but criticism should focus on policy.”
Rep. Pete Olson: The tweet President Trump posted over the weekend about fellow members of Congress are not reflective of the values of the 1,000,000+ people in Texas 22. We are proud to be the most diverse Congressional district in America. I urge our President immediately disavow his comments.
now, will anything come of this? probably not, but it sure is bringing to the forefront of the public discourse how hilariously racist a lot of people are!
Tweet with a flipped and rotated photo of his notes today: https://twitter.com/jabinbotsford/status/1150855138086707200 Yes, the handwriting in the top right corner appears to say "Alcaida".
I assume that "Alcaida" is a misspelling of "Al Qaeda". (In all fairness, even I had to double-check the correct spelling for that - and it turned out I would have spelled it wrongly without that...
I assume that "Alcaida" is a misspelling of "Al Qaeda". (In all fairness, even I had to double-check the correct spelling for that - and it turned out I would have spelled it wrongly without that double-checking.)
It's also possible that "Alcaida" is intended to be a phonetic spelling of "Al Qaeda", to guide Mr Trump on how to pronounce this name. (I've done similar things myself, when I have to read an unfamiliar foreign name out loud.)
So? I'm smarter than he is, more well-read than he is, and better educated than he is. If I have to double-check the spelling of "Al Qaeda" and if I have to write phonetic versions of unfamiliar...
So? I'm smarter than he is, more well-read than he is, and better educated than he is. If I have to double-check the spelling of "Al Qaeda" and if I have to write phonetic versions of unfamiliar words, I'm willing to concede that he might need to.
There are a lot of other ways in which Mr Trump reveals his shortcomings every day. This isn't necessarily one of them.
Technically, Al Qaeda is just an approximation of the actual Arabic words, so there are multiple 'correct' spellings. And in fairness, Trump is the kind of absolute, barely literate moron who of...
Technically, Al Qaeda is just an approximation of the actual Arabic words, so there are multiple 'correct' spellings. And in fairness, Trump is the kind of absolute, barely literate moron who of course failed to hit any of them. This guy lived in New York City during 9/11. The only explanation is that he does not read.
formal response from the four: 'The agenda of white nationalists': AOC, other congresswomen respond to Trump's attacks donald has sent out yet another salvo: We will never be a Socialist or...
"This is the agenda of white nationalists, whether it is happening in chat rooms or happening in national TV. And now it's reached the White House garden," Omar said of what she called Trump's "blatantly racist attack."
Ocasio-Cortez said, "I am not surprised" by the president's actions, given the actions she said he's taken against immigrants and to hurt the average American. She called Trump's comments about the four lawmakers a "distraction."
"We don't leave the things we love," Ocasio-Cortez said, and "we love all people in this country."
Omar called it a "pivotal moment in our country," with Trump "openly violating the oath he took" with "human rights abuses." She called for his impeachment and accused him of "colluding with a foreign government" in the 2016 presidential election, a charge he's repeatedly denied.
Pressley urged Americans to not "take the bait" from Trump's "disruption and distraction" tactics.
this whole catastrophe enters day three. donald has continued to receive some outcry (and some support) from republicans. Megan McCain, self proclaimed pundit and friend of lindsey graham, called...
Brian Murphy, a DC correspondent for north carolina's News-Observer, did the rounds with the north carolina congressional delegation and got the following:
still no signs of this abetting, nor signs of it really moving the needle other than continuing to prove that donald is a really open racist and that the GOP is either close becoming to or already a nativist, ethnonationalist party on some level.
I generally subscribe to the theory that whenever Trump makes a lot of noise about a culture war topic and is actively drumming up controversy he is trying to deflect from something else that he...
I generally subscribe to the theory that whenever Trump makes a lot of noise about a culture war topic and is actively drumming up controversy he is trying to deflect from something else that he believes could actually hurt him. He is moving the narrative to ground he is more comfortable fighting on.
Doubling down on nationalistic rhetoric, allows his base to circle the wagons, so that other information is harder to penetrate.
Now we will see all the purple district GOP condemn the president, all the reds district gaslight their constituents. Dems fighting for who can be outraged the most.
The news cycle will have to fight for time over, this salacious new News
The Epstein thing, the race for the Dem nom, or something else we don’t know about yet? It’s also possible that he’s just naturally escalating the redness of the meat he throws to his core...
So what do you think he is deflecting from here?
The Epstein thing, the race for the Dem nom, or something else we don’t know about yet? It’s also possible that he’s just naturally escalating the redness of the meat he throws to his core constituency.
As someone who grew up in PA, Pat Toomey is not a favorite of mine. I'm glad he's one of the few in his party that is calling Donald out, but how insecure do you need to be to reaffirm this in...
As someone who grew up in PA, Pat Toomey is not a favorite of mine. I'm glad he's one of the few in his party that is calling Donald out, but how insecure do you need to be to reaffirm this in writing?
Three of the four were born in America and the citizenship of all four is as valid as mine. I couldn’t disagree more with these congresswomen’s views on immigration, socialism, national security, and virtually every policy issue. But they are entitled to their opinions, however misguided they may be.
Obviously he doesn't agree with them on those issues, otherwise, he'd switch parties.
That Trump tirade calling AOC and others communists is peak authoritarianism. Trump's trying to drag us back into the red scare now? Any opponent of Trump is an opponent of America, an opponent of freedom.
Eh. I think the rest of what you wrote here is well taken, but this point is weak. Peak authoritarianism looks a lot more violent and involves a lot more active punishment of political rivals,...
That Trump tirade calling AOC and others communists is peak authoritarianism.
Eh. I think the rest of what you wrote here is well taken, but this point is weak. Peak authoritarianism looks a lot more violent and involves a lot more active punishment of political rivals, journalists, and speech that goes against the ruling party. Trump does not have enough power to get into McCarthyism. He never has. As long as he keeps doing dumb shit like this, he likely never will.
I think he's invoking the saying that's attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." He's saying the same thing: he disagrees with...
how insecure do you need to be to reaffirm this in writing?
I think he's invoking the saying that's attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." He's saying the same thing: he disagrees with their opinions, but he supports their right to have those opinions.
A good question about things like that is: "How could this be smoke and mirrors? Is there anything else going on that I shouldn't be paying attention to?"
A good question about things like that is: "How could this be smoke and mirrors? Is there anything else going on that I shouldn't be paying attention to?"
Follow up question: when has Trump ever demonstrated an ability to be sneaky without blabbing about it on some form of recorded media, typically unprompted?
Follow up question: when has Trump ever demonstrated an ability to be sneaky without blabbing about it on some form of recorded media, typically unprompted?
This question has taken a while to sink in to my brain, percolate, and then rise back to the surface... Why does it matter if U.S. politicians hate Israel? Why is a congressperson's love or hate...
This question has taken a while to sink in to my brain, percolate, and then rise back to the surface...
"These are people that hate our country," he said. "They hate it, I think, with a passion. Now it's possible I'm wrong. The voter will decide. But when I hear the way they talk about our country — when I hear the anti-Semitic language they use, when I hear the hatred they have for Israel — and the love they have for enemies like al Qaeda — then you know what? I will tell you that I do not believe this is good for the Democrat Party."
the president tweeted Sunday night that it was "so sad" that Democrats were "sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion."
Why does it matter if U.S. politicians hate Israel? Why is a congressperson's love or hate for a foreign country even relevant to their performance as a politician in the United States of America?
It's ironic that President Trump is so adamant that people who don't put the USA first should go back where they came from, but he also insists that they should love a foreign country as well.
There's some twisted logic going on here.
(Before everyone explains... I know why Israel matters to the USA. There's the real-world politics, plus the religious angle. I'm just "playing dumb" to make the point that an American president shouldn't be using people's love for, or hatred of, a foreign country, as his measure for whether they're good politicians or not.)
I'm reading a coincidentally relevant book at the moment. It's called White Fragility, and while its title can read like an indictment, it's more of an illumination. What it has to say is probably...
I'm reading a coincidentally relevant book at the moment. It's called White Fragility, and while its title can read like an indictment, it's more of an illumination. What it has to say is probably not new for a lot of people of color, but for me, a white person, it is eye-opening. I'm finding that the author contextualizes and frames race and racism in a thoughtful, relevant way, and her writing is full of rich insights. If you're interested in a summary, there's a good one here, though I think the book definitely benefits from its ability to be much more long-winded about the topic, as it's both challenging and nuanced.
She acknowledges that the title, concept, and ideas expressed can be uncomfortable to hear, particularly for white people. I'll admit to feeling that same discomfort. Rather than using that discomfort to turn off empathy, however, she encourages the reader to approach the concepts with an open mind and see if they just might learn something, and I know I certainly have.
She argues that part of the reason even the title itself can be jarring is that white people have been socialized to have low racial stamina and a low tolerance for racial stress. We often find immediate internal discord in racialized discussions, and our goal is to immediately alleviate that feeling and return to equilibrium. It's part of why accusations of racism are seen as so inflammatory to some. She has a list of common factors that can activate racial stress in white people and the underpinning mindsets from which that stress comes in the first place:
Suggesting that a white person’s viewpoint comes from a racialized frame of reference (challenge to objectivity);
People of color talking directly about their own racial perspectives (challenge to white taboos on talking openly about race);
People of color choosing not to protect the racial feelings of white people in regards to race (challenge to white racial expectations and need/entitlement to racial comfort);
People of color not being willing to tell their stories or answer questions about their racial experiences (challenge to the expectation that people of color will serve us);
A fellow white not providing agreement with one’s racial perspective (challenge to white solidarity);
Receiving feedback that one’s behavior had a racist impact (challenge to white racial innocence);
Suggesting that group membership is significant (challenge to individualism);
An acknowledgment that access is unequal between racial groups (challenge to meritocracy);
Being presented with a person of color in a position of leadership (challenge to white authority);
Being presented with information about other racial groups through, for example, movies in which people of color drive the action but are not in stereotypical roles, or multicultural education (challenge to white centrality).
She is not saying that any one person will necessarily be triggered by all of these, nor is she saying that feeling discomfort in response to these is fundamentally wrong. She's simply pointing out ways in which we have been socialized to be "fragile" on race because we're not used to so many (mostly) invisible mindsets being transgressed.
I bring this up because this whole saga with Trump's tweets and the public response is a salient real-world example of so many of these triggers. You can almost go down the list and check them off. Trump's racist tweets activated a lot of the triggers of racial stress, and we've witnessed plenty of people work to maintain their own equilibrium rather than acknowledge that there might be some truth in that labeling.
I am also finding the book valuable at an individual level as a tool for self-reflection. I consider myself progressive, and it's easy to look at that list and say that many of them don't apply to me. I'm not threatened by people of color in positions of leadership, nor am I bothered by media focused on the lives of people of color, for example. It would be easy for me to coast on those as a sort of internal "I'm not racist" narrative, but that would be ignoring some of the harder truths the book has highlighted.
The one about not providing agreement with another white person's racial perspective is tough for me, because I value harmony. As such, I don't always address racism in ways that I could or should. Even making this very comment raises my level of racial stress because I worry about not only receiving hostile responses but also because I don't like the idea of triggering other people with regards to race, even white people.
I also worry that I may have unintentionally done something racist with this comment despite my intentions, and while some of my stress is related to the idea of perpetuating racism and causing harm to people of color, I also would be lying if I didn't say that I don't also have a low-burn fear of receiving feedback that I have done something racist. I should, as she mentions in the book, be glad to learn this. If I'm hurting someone, I want to know so that I can correct my behavior! If someone were to call me out on something unrelated to race--for example, if I were unintentionally transphobic in some way-- then I would welcome that criticism, but I have to consciously override a subtle internal barrier that is there in order to say the same for a racial call out. It's not right, but it's part of the fragility I carry.
The same goes for the trigger about people of color being unwilling to tell their stories or answer questions. I'm guilty of putting that expectation front and center, despite full well knowing how exhausing it can be to have to be a perpetual educator/lecturer on minority issues, as I did it for years regarding being gay. In trying to understand things I often feel owed, which is an expectation that prioritizes my ignorance over someone else's understanding. Though someone can certainly indulge that and I'm grateful to those that do, it shouldn't be an expectation or a mandate.
I realize this whole post and particularly my reflections are merely tangential to the news story at hand, but as I was reading the book today I felt it was an especially relevant and important connection. The book has helped me better process and comprehend the frenzy around the news story, as well as prompt some valuable self-reflection, so I hope it might do the same for others.
I read this morning that a Democratic Rep. Al Green from Texas floated a motion for impeachment that didn't pass the house. If Trump wanted to sow divisiveness among Democrats, his crude shock and...
I read this morning that a Democratic Rep. Al Green from Texas floated a motion for impeachment that didn't pass the house. If Trump wanted to sow divisiveness among Democrats, his crude shock and awe remarks seem to have had at least some effect, at least in the media. Certainly I'd expect him to take credit for this as soon as it occurs to him. As far as being leader of the free world, mentioned above, I don't think other countries see the President of The United States in that role any more.
it didn't really, and the media is going to media. green got more votes on his motion than the last time he floated one, and most democrats didn't vote against it because they're genuinely against...
If Trump wanted to sow divisiveness among Democrats, his crude shock and awe remarks seem to have had at least some effect, at least in the media.
it didn't really, and the media is going to media. green got more votes on his motion than the last time he floated one, and most democrats didn't vote against it because they're genuinely against impeachment so much as because they don't want to rush proceedings; trump also interrupted a genuine moment of division in the party with his original comments that might have spawned something and in doing so rallied the democratic party.
this is a whole ass ordeal, now. what began as a pretty small feud has now escalated extensively and is exposing some of the fun nativism and racism endemic to american politics because some people can't keep their masks on. gather round, ye children, for a tale of great and unbelievably stupid intrigue that strikes at the heart of darkness in the american soul:
Part 1: Donald, Professional Dumb Shit Sayer
our story begins with donald firing off an unhinged salvo that is so obviously racist that you really cannot explain it away:
Part 2: Shit Hits the Fan
this, unsurprisingly, goes over like an atomic bomb in a megacity. the original response from nancy pelosi, who was literally hours removed from a spat with these exact four democrats: When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to “Make America Great Again” has always been about making America white again. Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.
AOC also chimed in here, being the recipient of some of these attacks. she also tweeted out Until Republican officials denounce yesterday’s explicitly racist statements (which should be easy!), we sadly have no choice but to assume they condone it. It is extremely disturbing that the entire GOP caucus is silent. Is this their agenda?
pretty soon, she was echoed by democrats, but also a few republicans because it turns out you can't be that openly racist and not get called out for it--you have to be just a bit more subtle, i suppose:
Part 3: Mask Off, Mask On
of course, not everybody was onboard with the notion of donald being a racist shitgibbon. the first lines of dissent against the Mainstream Media came from the House, in which Andy Harris tried to uh, explain them away with this shit? Maryland Congressman @RepAndyHarrisMD tells me President Trump's tweets this weekend were "clearly not racist" and that "he could have meant go back to the district they came from--to the neighborhood they came from."
Lindsey Graham, noted asshole of south carolina's other senate seat, opined a bit more wildly, saying "We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists ... they're anti-Semitic. They're anti-America." among other things.
donald, ever present, also sent another salvo in this whole clusterfuck of a situation not long after Graham went to bat on fox news:
other voices of support for the president have also since chimed in. Rep. Ralph Abraham for example says "There’s no question that the members of Congress that @realDonaldTrump called out have absolutely said anti-American and anti-Semitic things. I’ll pay for their tickets out of this country if they just tell me where they’d rather be.", while montana senator Steve Daines says "Montanans are sick and tired of listening to anti-American, anti-Semite, radical Democrats trash our country and our ideals. This is America. We’re the greatest country in the world. I stand with @realDonaldTrump. 🇺🇸"
nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi is now trying to push through a resolution condemning this whole ordeal:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday urged support for an upcoming resolution that would condemn tweets by President Trump in which he said that a group of minority, liberal congresswomen should “go back” to their home countries. In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said that Trump had gone “beyond his own low standards using disgraceful language about Members of Congress” and that Democrats would “forcefully respond to these disgusting acts.”.
Rep. Al Green is also going to force an impeachment vote on this, apparently: I will again, this month, bring impeachment to a vote on the Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for bigotry in policy, harmful to our society. #RacistPresident #ImpeachNow
now, will anything come of this? probably not, but it sure is bringing to the forefront of the public discourse how hilariously racist a lot of people are!
Addendum: Here's Some More Links
Tweet with a flipped and rotated photo of his notes today: https://twitter.com/jabinbotsford/status/1150855138086707200
Yes, the handwriting in the top right corner appears to say "Alcaida".
wtf is alcadia?
Canada?
Cadia?
For the Emperor?
I assume that "Alcaida" is a misspelling of "Al Qaeda". (In all fairness, even I had to double-check the correct spelling for that - and it turned out I would have spelled it wrongly without that double-checking.)
It's also possible that "Alcaida" is intended to be a phonetic spelling of "Al Qaeda", to guide Mr Trump on how to pronounce this name. (I've done similar things myself, when I have to read an unfamiliar foreign name out loud.)
But you're also not the President of the United States and leader of the free world.
So? I'm smarter than he is, more well-read than he is, and better educated than he is. If I have to double-check the spelling of "Al Qaeda" and if I have to write phonetic versions of unfamiliar words, I'm willing to concede that he might need to.
There are a lot of other ways in which Mr Trump reveals his shortcomings every day. This isn't necessarily one of them.
Technically, Al Qaeda is just an approximation of the actual Arabic words, so there are multiple 'correct' spellings. And in fairness, Trump is the kind of absolute, barely literate moron who of course failed to hit any of them. This guy lived in New York City during 9/11. The only explanation is that he does not read.
formal response from the four: 'The agenda of white nationalists': AOC, other congresswomen respond to Trump's attacks
donald has sent out yet another salvo:
also:
more republicans say stuff:
this whole catastrophe enters day three.
donald has continued to receive some outcry (and some support) from republicans. Megan McCain, self proclaimed pundit and friend of lindsey graham, called the GOP out for cowardice and said of lindsey "Whatever is happening to Lindsey, this is not the person I used to know yesterday.
Brian Murphy, a DC correspondent for north carolina's News-Observer, did the rounds with the north carolina congressional delegation and got the following:
senators Mike Braun and Kevin Cramer got their words in: GOP Sen. Mike Braun said Trump’s tweets undercut the GOP’s message and agenda on Capitol Hill. He said he doesn’t think Trump’s tweet or Trump himself is racist. Freshman Kevin Cramer also said he doesn't think Trump's racist but said it was a "poor choice of words"
Dan Crenshaw, GOP golden boy, opined this morning seemingly in relation to all of this that "Tearing down American symbols - our flag, anthem, pledge - is now the preferred leftist tactic for ALL policy disagreements. It indicates they can’t defend the merits of their ideas. Worse: inciting a divisive culture war by destroying the few things we share as Americans."
donald, meanwhile, went on another screed this morning, saying:
Those Tweets were NOT Racist. I don’t have a Racist bone in my body! The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game. Republicans should not show “weakness” and fall into their trap. This should be a vote on the filthy language, statements and lies told by the Democrat..... .....Congresswomen, who I truly believe, based on their actions, hate our Country. Get a list of the HORRIBLE things they have said. Omar is polling at 8%, Cortez at 21%. Nancy Pelosi tried to push them away, but now they are forever wedded to the Democrat Party. See you in 2020!
he continued, sharing the supposed opinion of GOP leader Kevin Mccarthy: Kevin McCarthy @GOPLeader, “The President’s Tweets were not Racist. The controversy over the tweets is ALL POLITICS. I will vote against this resolution.” Thank you Kevin!
this, however, does not appear to be McCarthy's actual stance, but a mixture of stuff he said and Fox chyrons.
still no signs of this abetting, nor signs of it really moving the needle other than continuing to prove that donald is a really open racist and that the GOP is either close becoming to or already a nativist, ethnonationalist party on some level.
I generally subscribe to the theory that whenever Trump makes a lot of noise about a culture war topic and is actively drumming up controversy he is trying to deflect from something else that he believes could actually hurt him. He is moving the narrative to ground he is more comfortable fighting on.
Doubling down on nationalistic rhetoric, allows his base to circle the wagons, so that other information is harder to penetrate.
Now we will see all the purple district GOP condemn the president, all the reds district gaslight their constituents. Dems fighting for who can be outraged the most.
The news cycle will have to fight for time over, this salacious new News
The Epstein thing, the race for the Dem nom, or something else we don’t know about yet? It’s also possible that he’s just naturally escalating the redness of the meat he throws to his core constituency.
As someone who grew up in PA, Pat Toomey is not a favorite of mine. I'm glad he's one of the few in his party that is calling Donald out, but how insecure do you need to be to reaffirm this in writing?
Obviously he doesn't agree with them on those issues, otherwise, he'd switch parties.
That Trump tirade calling AOC and others communists is peak authoritarianism. Trump's trying to drag us back into the red scare now? Any opponent of Trump is an opponent of America, an opponent of freedom.
Eh. I think the rest of what you wrote here is well taken, but this point is weak. Peak authoritarianism looks a lot more violent and involves a lot more active punishment of political rivals, journalists, and speech that goes against the ruling party. Trump does not have enough power to get into McCarthyism. He never has. As long as he keeps doing dumb shit like this, he likely never will.
I think he's invoking the saying that's attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." He's saying the same thing: he disagrees with their opinions, but he supports their right to have those opinions.
A good question about things like that is: "How could this be smoke and mirrors? Is there anything else going on that I shouldn't be paying attention to?"
Follow up question: when has Trump ever demonstrated an ability to be sneaky without blabbing about it on some form of recorded media, typically unprompted?
Remember that time she tried to go off the record so she could anonymously trash her husband in an article about their relationship?
https://mashable.com/article/kellyanne-conway-off-the-record-washington-post/
This question has taken a while to sink in to my brain, percolate, and then rise back to the surface...
Why does it matter if U.S. politicians hate Israel? Why is a congressperson's love or hate for a foreign country even relevant to their performance as a politician in the United States of America?
It's ironic that President Trump is so adamant that people who don't put the USA first should go back where they came from, but he also insists that they should love a foreign country as well.
There's some twisted logic going on here.
(Before everyone explains... I know why Israel matters to the USA. There's the real-world politics, plus the religious angle. I'm just "playing dumb" to make the point that an American president shouldn't be using people's love for, or hatred of, a foreign country, as his measure for whether they're good politicians or not.)
I'm reading a coincidentally relevant book at the moment. It's called White Fragility, and while its title can read like an indictment, it's more of an illumination. What it has to say is probably not new for a lot of people of color, but for me, a white person, it is eye-opening. I'm finding that the author contextualizes and frames race and racism in a thoughtful, relevant way, and her writing is full of rich insights. If you're interested in a summary, there's a good one here, though I think the book definitely benefits from its ability to be much more long-winded about the topic, as it's both challenging and nuanced.
She acknowledges that the title, concept, and ideas expressed can be uncomfortable to hear, particularly for white people. I'll admit to feeling that same discomfort. Rather than using that discomfort to turn off empathy, however, she encourages the reader to approach the concepts with an open mind and see if they just might learn something, and I know I certainly have.
She argues that part of the reason even the title itself can be jarring is that white people have been socialized to have low racial stamina and a low tolerance for racial stress. We often find immediate internal discord in racialized discussions, and our goal is to immediately alleviate that feeling and return to equilibrium. It's part of why accusations of racism are seen as so inflammatory to some. She has a list of common factors that can activate racial stress in white people and the underpinning mindsets from which that stress comes in the first place:
She is not saying that any one person will necessarily be triggered by all of these, nor is she saying that feeling discomfort in response to these is fundamentally wrong. She's simply pointing out ways in which we have been socialized to be "fragile" on race because we're not used to so many (mostly) invisible mindsets being transgressed.
I bring this up because this whole saga with Trump's tweets and the public response is a salient real-world example of so many of these triggers. You can almost go down the list and check them off. Trump's racist tweets activated a lot of the triggers of racial stress, and we've witnessed plenty of people work to maintain their own equilibrium rather than acknowledge that there might be some truth in that labeling.
I am also finding the book valuable at an individual level as a tool for self-reflection. I consider myself progressive, and it's easy to look at that list and say that many of them don't apply to me. I'm not threatened by people of color in positions of leadership, nor am I bothered by media focused on the lives of people of color, for example. It would be easy for me to coast on those as a sort of internal "I'm not racist" narrative, but that would be ignoring some of the harder truths the book has highlighted.
The one about not providing agreement with another white person's racial perspective is tough for me, because I value harmony. As such, I don't always address racism in ways that I could or should. Even making this very comment raises my level of racial stress because I worry about not only receiving hostile responses but also because I don't like the idea of triggering other people with regards to race, even white people.
I also worry that I may have unintentionally done something racist with this comment despite my intentions, and while some of my stress is related to the idea of perpetuating racism and causing harm to people of color, I also would be lying if I didn't say that I don't also have a low-burn fear of receiving feedback that I have done something racist. I should, as she mentions in the book, be glad to learn this. If I'm hurting someone, I want to know so that I can correct my behavior! If someone were to call me out on something unrelated to race--for example, if I were unintentionally transphobic in some way-- then I would welcome that criticism, but I have to consciously override a subtle internal barrier that is there in order to say the same for a racial call out. It's not right, but it's part of the fragility I carry.
The same goes for the trigger about people of color being unwilling to tell their stories or answer questions. I'm guilty of putting that expectation front and center, despite full well knowing how exhausing it can be to have to be a perpetual educator/lecturer on minority issues, as I did it for years regarding being gay. In trying to understand things I often feel owed, which is an expectation that prioritizes my ignorance over someone else's understanding. Though someone can certainly indulge that and I'm grateful to those that do, it shouldn't be an expectation or a mandate.
I realize this whole post and particularly my reflections are merely tangential to the news story at hand, but as I was reading the book today I felt it was an especially relevant and important connection. The book has helped me better process and comprehend the frenzy around the news story, as well as prompt some valuable self-reflection, so I hope it might do the same for others.
It saddens me no end how easily the people of this country are so easily led into hatred.
I read this morning that a Democratic Rep. Al Green from Texas floated a motion for impeachment that didn't pass the house. If Trump wanted to sow divisiveness among Democrats, his crude shock and awe remarks seem to have had at least some effect, at least in the media. Certainly I'd expect him to take credit for this as soon as it occurs to him. As far as being leader of the free world, mentioned above, I don't think other countries see the President of The United States in that role any more.
it didn't really, and the media is going to media. green got more votes on his motion than the last time he floated one, and most democrats didn't vote against it because they're genuinely against impeachment so much as because they don't want to rush proceedings; trump also interrupted a genuine moment of division in the party with his original comments that might have spawned something and in doing so rallied the democratic party.