Wife as war trophy at We’ve moved to www.racialicious.com

Wife as war trophy

CVK
senator John DeCamp We’ve talked in the past on MMW about the widespread belief that if you’re in an interracial relationship, you can’t possible be racist. I guess we can consider this story to be Exhibit A proving exactly why this concept is a load of bull. There can be plenty of racism within an interracial relationship, and this story is a perfect example of that. (Thanks to Angry Asian Man for this one!)

The main focus of the story is the racism inherent in the remarks he made about a black colleague: “I never backed down to him once and kicked his black you-know-what every time I took him on.” Real classy.

But also check out what he has to say about his wife Nga, whom he met in Vietnam during the war:

“My wife, of course, my little Vietnamese wife, my war trophy, she wants to tell you also to vote against me because she says politics is mean, tough, cruelest thing so you vote for other man.”

Nga, kick this loser to the curb.

Trackbacks & Pings

Mixed Media Watch - tracking media representations of mixed people on 14 Jul 2006 at 4:30 pm

[…] The problem with this idea is that it assumes interracial couples and mixed race people themselves cannot be racist. And of course, we all know that’s not true. Check out former Nebraska Senator John DeCamp’s description of his Vietnamese wife as a “war trophy” for just one example. […]

Comments

brad wrote:

John Derbyshire of the “National Review” is a similar racist. Derbyshire’s wife is Chinese but he is known for his anti-black statements and beliefs. His comments after Hurricane Katrina were truly vile.

BTW, if you read the article on DeCamp, there is a comments section where readers commented on Ernie Chambers, the target of DeCamp’s racist statements. It’s interesting to see how the Caucasian commenters now charge African-Americans with racism very easily but dismiss DeCamp’s racism. The Right-wing, in particular, has latched on to accusing others of discrimination very easily and painting themselves as victims: Caucasians as the victims of Afirmative Action, Christians as victims of secularists, Christian homophobes as victims of religious persecution for wearing anti-gay t-shirts at school or denouncing anti-bullying education.. It’s amazing how the majority can be victimized by minorities so effectively. Orwell would be saddened to see how well his predictions of language manipulation had turned out.

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 10:52 am ¶
eric wrote:

I have too much to say on this topic, but for now all I’ll say is that this type of guy is still extremely common in the US, and not just old guys. I was an ethnomusicologist in school for a long time, and the guys I met in that program were just as creepy as this clown.

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 10:54 am ¶
Merq wrote:

“My war trophy???”

Wow… that was even more disturbing than any statements about “my little lotus lower” I’ve ever heard.

Brad:
I was equally irritated by the comments on that page. It’s such a common occurrence now to play the “majority victim,” that I just don’t care anymore. I can’t speak on Chambers, as I’ve heard nothing about his allegedly-racist comments. But let’s just say DeCamp carved his own tombstone in this argument with that “war trophy” comment.

Also, I will say that I agree with Chambers’ comment that he probably thought he was among people who share similar beliefs. People here with “racial spy” experience don’t need me to explain how quickly certain masks can be discarded in closed quarters.

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 11:09 am ¶
Unlisted wrote:

Brad:

Derbyshire is one of those who believe that blacks are inherently inferior IQ-wise (and perhaps otherwise), and that Asians have a little more brain-power than whites, so by marrying an Asian, it seems that he was trying to score some IQ points for his off-spring

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 12:25 pm ¶
John wrote:

“DeCamp carved his own tombstone… with that war trophy comment.”

Yeah, but a racist image can be a plus in politics.
If you surround yourself with the right people you can enjoy a long ass career.
Strom Thurmond- “there’s not enought troops in the army to… break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 1:37 pm ¶
merq wrote:

John:
Oh, don’t get me wrong, ma fren’. I know racism can easily go in the “Pros” column in the estimation of an American politico. I was just talking about how he kinda killededed any chance of winning the “who’s less racist” argument.

…that is, of course, except where the people in Comment area on that site are concerned.

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 4:40 pm ¶
John wrote:

Understood, man.

Call me a pessimist, but as disturbing as that “war trophy” comment was to you (and me)… I’m not sure if the majority of Middle America would understand.

Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 5:13 pm ¶
Daniel wrote:

Hey John, I wouldn’t be so quick to underestimate “the majority of middle america” (whatever that is, I’m not sure) The only person who could listen to statements like “she’s my war trophy” and not understand how wrong that is would have to be flexible enough to fit their own head in their…

Posted 27 Apr 2006 at 4:58 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

While acknowledging that it’s possible to marry interracially for reasons that are themselves racist, I think it’s worth noting that most white people who marry interracially actually have to overcome serious negative influencing on them from racist structures in culture. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t actually done this has any idea what that’s like, and this is an area where I think non-whites just have no idea what it’s like to be white in the same way that whites have no idea what it’s like to be non-white.

As someone who has had to be very deliberate in countering tendencies that I feel conditioned to have, I can say quite confidently that I think anyone marrying someone across racial lines in a way that requires reevalating and reconditioning in terms of standards of beauty (which I think is much more serious for white men marrying black women than for any other combination) will be extremely unlikely to be a racist.

So while I don’t think it’s true that someone in an interracial marriage can’t possibly be a racist, I do think being in such a marriage is very strong evidence against the person’s being a racist, at least if the reasons for getting married are similar enough to most people’s reasons for getting married.

Posted 29 Apr 2006 at 7:25 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:

“(interracial marriage) is very strong evidence against the person’s being a racist…”
Because the white husband can see past his black wife’s physical features…

Where do I begin…

Posted 29 Apr 2006 at 6:59 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

Anonymous, not only are you drastically misrepresenting what I said, but you’re not even willing to admit that you’re doing it.

What I said is not that there is this negative thing about his wife that he can see past despite its being bad. What I said (and I said it quite clearly to be seen by anyone not deliberately trying to twist it) is that he realizes that he has been negatively affected by society in all sorts of ways to see things that are not bad as bad. He has overcome those things or is trying to overcome them. This is at least a step beyond the people who don’t even realize that they’re there. It’s also at least a step beyond the person who doesn’t think it’s bad to have been conditioned in this way and just has to “see past it” as you’ve pretended I said. What I’m talking about simply is not what the word ‘racism’ properly refers to, which is someone who has a negative attitude toward those of another race. This is someone who is the opposite of that.

Now if you’re going to do the bait-and-switch method of using different senses of racism in order to twist what I’m saying, I’ll just head it off right now. It’s improper (as in inaccurate, though I’d extend it to immoral as well) to call someone a racist if you’re just talking about unconscious and unintended structures in society that are properly called institutional racism. Those are there, and those affect the kind of person I’m talking about. That’s what this person is overcoming. But that’s not the same thing as being a racist, and no stretch of the English language will ever make them the same thing.

There’s also what’s called residual racism, which is the unconscious and unintentional effects on individual people of institutional racism and attitudinal racism of others. As is true of everyone, this person has that, but that’s what this person is overcoming, and the very goal of overcoming it is what makes this person not a racist. If someone is a racist for having this, then in that sense every person on this planet is a racist. If you start misusing language that way, you’re not going to be able to distinguish between real racists and everyone else. So that’s an extremely bad idea. When we call people racists, that should be reserved for people who have a genuinely evil attitude toward people of other races (or toward their own race, as it might happen, though that’s a different enough phenomenon that I’m not even sure we should call that person a racist).

I have no problem talking about racism as an unconscious force that affects people unintentionally, but that isn’t the same as someone being a racist, which requires something far beyond what the sort of person I’m talking about has.

If your view is correct, I think you leave white people in an impossible situation. They’ve been negatively affected by residual racism and structural racism in society so that they instinctively view white as better. Once they realize that about themselves and seek to change themselves, you will see it as bad because it’s just trying to “see past it”. But if they remain as they are, you will call them racists for being affected by residual racism. So white people will be racists no matter what they do. The whole purpose of calling people racists is to distinguish between the ordinary white person and the one who is racist. You can’t do that with the kind of bait-and-switch move that you’re doing, and now we can no longer usefully call anyone a racist.

Posted 29 Apr 2006 at 8:10 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

I think I accidentally cut out the crucial bit of information in my first paragraph in the immediately preceding comment. I meant “not willing to admit who you are who is doing it” due to being unwilling to attach a name to the comment.

Posted 29 Apr 2006 at 8:11 pm ¶
Adrianna wrote:

Good Lord this man should not be allowed to talk!!! lol. Seriously he should not!! War trophy? I wonder how is wife feels about being compared top an object.

Posted 04 May 2006 at 1:21 am ¶