Yes anyone can hate (racism), but not everyone has the power to create broad-based policies and institutions that determine the fates of millions of people. In the case of the latter, that power is still overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of white straight protestant men. Any productive and honest conversation about race MUST start there.

Often when we are talking about “racism” we are really talking about how these men wield their power in a way that sustains, and sometimes expands, inequality for everyone else. Sure not all white straight protestant men do that, in fact few do, but they also don't bear the brunt of what it means politically to be anyone who isn't a white straight protestant male in everyday American life. The significance of this statement is something that all white straight protestant males have a really hard time with because there is a sense that you're paying for something you have no control over. And that's only partly the case.

The issue with the New Haven case is complicated and, in truth, everyone was treated unfairly. It's worth reading the decision and, in particular, Ginsburg's dissent. The case, first of all, wasn't about affirmative action so much as it was about the degree to which any employer can guard against discrimination, intentional or otherwise. We must be more honest as nation – especially white folks – about how laws and policies can be facially neutral but have disparate impact on people who, again, are not white straight protestant males. Again, any discussion about true equality and equity must start there if it's going to be honest and truly productive.

It is simply untrue that any policy that seeks to prove equal opportunity and deal with inequities is discriminatory against white straight protestant males. To suggest otherwise, is to be blatantly ahistorical and to, essentially, assert that you don't get something every day by being a white straight protestant male.

Further, I agree totally that we don't deal with white liberal racism at all in this country. It manifests differently that the racist politics of the Republican party (as distinct from conservatives, small “c”, more broadly defined), but it is just as real and just as dangerous. On this, we agree.

For me though, I get tired of Republicans and conservatives whining about being called racist when they aren't doing any work purging it from their party. The collusion with a 40-year racist national agenda is no small thing. We all have responsibilities in dealing with racism, but it is a mistake to think the greatest burden of dealing with it falls on non-white straight protestant males.

Lastly, an interesting article that gets at a more productive and less “blame white/blame black” way of talking about race from the guys over at The League of Ordinary Gentleman. It's instructive and I co-sign much of it: http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/revis...

My personal and direct experiences prove to me that most people don't live in either camp all the time.

Many of us have more questions than answers and WE have to seek each other out and commit to having the tough talks. AND share some laughs, too.

You are right, it was a generalization. I apologize for including this site in a generalization… that was not my intent. That is why I come here. I love the open discussion and the knowledgeable people on this site. On the other hand, what I said is still generally how I view the situation. I believe this blog to be much more the exception than the rule. I would change the “no one…” statement or take it out all together. My main point is that the standards of what constitutes racism or bigotry, and the impact of the “racist” label, are generally not the same between whites and blacks. The question “Does conservative mean racist?” can only have meaning if the standards we apply are the same.

I don't see where my bias so much prevented me from an accurate recollection of the conversations that occurred here. I see a mistake in using the term “no one” and a failure to recognize this blog and most comments as set apart from what I generally perceive. That may not help at all, but I'll be glad to try to answer any other questions you might have.

Here is where it gets hard for me. You like this blog, written by a black woman who in the matters of the New Haven firefighters and Rev. Wright happens to have taken the same position as you have (as did many commenters) and still you write generalizations about “no one really cares if a leftist is a bigot.”

I ask you, how would you feel about that if you were me? Would you feel marginalized and invisible? Would you feel that that commenter bias (racial? gender?) is preventing an accurate recollection of the posts and conversations in this very spot?

I hope you'll write back. I'd like to explore this, because I am sincerely confused.

Was there push back from the left (or more specifically, from blacks) on Jeremiah Wright? If so, it did not seem very loud. What I remember more than anything was blacks defending Wright as not being afraid to “speak the truth.”

I am against affirmative action. Although I would not push to round up all illegal immigrants and deport them, I think we need to either change the existing laws or stick to them. I think what Sonia Sotomayor said was wrong. I think the New Haven firefighters were not treated fairly, and it is an indictment of our country that it had to go to the Supreme Court to be rectified.

And I also assume that many, many liberals would read what I just wrote and conclude “racist” without a second thought. Also, the racist “label” is a strong indictment from poc… it is a weapon that can do some major damage. But it does not hold any power in the hands of whites.

I guess my perspective is that both sides have issues with racism, bigotry, and hatred, but no one really cares if a leftist is a bigot unless he/she is white. The standards are not the same.