The race card in American politics is well beyond the point of absurdity and now threatens to become a permanent red herring in all conversations about policy. Liberals tend to consistently make the argument that practically any criticism of the President or liberals in general is racist. Case in point: calling Obama a “two-bit thug” seems perfectly reasonable and race neutral if you examine and explain his bullying tactics but IN CONTEXT because he is black, the word “thug” can only bring about discussion of the stereotypes of violent black youths. This is fundamentally different from identifying a statement as racist “prima facie” meaning “on its face.” Any example of this would be “white people are dumb.” Here we clearly have the target identified and a negative generalization made. Contextual racism in statements requires both a contextual target and a reasoned argument. With Barack Obama in the white house, liberals believe they have a persistent contextual target leading me and others to wonder if America is racially mature enough for a black president. If we can’t disagree with the President for fear of being labeled a racist, is he then free to govern as badly as he wants? As far reasoned arguments go, though, there is absolutely no quality standard anymore and to illustrate that, I will explain how the word “the” can be viewed as racist code. I was taught in the same fashion as the intelligentsia that makes stupid arguments on behalf of socialists they like so this is easy for me.
Obviously racist statement: “The Obama administration is ruining America.”
Racist code word: “The”
Explanation: the definitive article “the” performs the grammatical function of singling something out. This is different than the article “a/an” which simply identifies it’s object as part of a set or series (group). This can be used as a racist statement in two ways. The first is that since “the” defines a singular object, its use by a member of the majority or dominant ethnicity puts it at odds with uses by minority ethnicities. When this conflict occurs, the “the” used by the majority takes precedence, creating a grammatical tool for dominance which discredits minority views. White me says “the administration” which because of my status makes black you’s “the administration” a weaker statement. Oppression through the use of articles.
Secondly, using “the” draws more intense attention on the object of the article. Why focus on “the” Obama administration? Obama is black. (actually, he’s mixed half white and half black, roughly, so his use of black as a way to self-identify is an example of “hypodescent” which identifies people of missed backgrounds automatically with minority culture, an analogy would be to say that whiteness is like pure water and anything else makes it dirty – the President equates his black heritage with a contaminate). So if he’s black it’s as if the statement reads “the black man’s administration is ruining America.” I cannot single out Obama, even by using a definitive article, without some tinge of racism. Why point out that Obama is ruining America? By identifying “the” Obama, I have set him apart to describe him negatively, therefore, simply putting “the” in front of his name is a way to encode racist speech.
Do I believe the word “the” is racist? Absolutely not. But I do think this is a good way to illustrate how ridiculous the race card has become and as a way to combat the most incredible uses of attacks on “racist conservatives.” Arguably, though, since the explanation is that the statement is racist “in context,” it can similarly be said that the charge of racism is racist because it continuously leveled at white people who are “assumed” to be racist because of their skin color. Oh “the” irony.