One of the more pernicious aspects of racial dialog, based on our simple desire to dichotomize everything, is the impulse to categorize everyone as either "racist," or, "not racist." The question then becomes where one draws the line. Do you get to place yourself in the latter category as long as you don't say the n-word and burn crosses? Do we have to move the line further such that you also have to not clutch your belongings a little closer when someone with dark skin is walking near you on the street when an otherwise identically-dressed and groomed white person wouldn't have caused the same reaction? Racial attitudes are tricky, and that's the problem with the dichotomization of something that isn't really dichotomous. Or even really a spectrum.
Racial attitudes are multifaceted. Everyone has a set of attitudes about different races. Those attitudes include affect (positive or negative evaluations), stereotypes, beliefs about history and current socioeconomic and political circumstances, and implicit biases, which are subconscious processes that affect how we process information rather than simply being positive or negative attitudes. And that's just a brief list. There is so much multidisciplinary research here that even trying to list the topics would be too much for a simple morning blog post. Point being, there's a lot, so you can't just categorize everyone as either racist, or not racist.
Yeah, I do it, and so do you, but it's lazy and inappropriate unless you are talking about people who are so over-the-top that you simply can't find a definition of racial attitudes or racial assessments such that they could be salvaged in any way. Race is just way more complicated than that.
Which brings me to Ron DeSantis. "Monkey this up." Could he have used this in reference to electing a white dude? Sure. It's a colloquialism. Would anyone have cringed and accused him of racial demagoguery? Nope. Would anyone have wondered why he used race-coded language while talking about a white dude? Not likely.
And yet, say that phrase when running against an African-American, and things get... icky. Why? History of the "monkey" slur. You, my very, very few readers know my opinions on language. I don't give a fucking shit about words like, "fucking," or, "shit." Why not? The taboos are derived from the Latin/Germanic distinction and the socioeconomic class issues in the British Isles based around a language with multiple roots. There is no moral or ethical principle violated by words like "fuck," or, "shit." The n-word? I won't say it. There is at least an implicit threat of violence to an entire race of people based on the history of the word, and that cannot be extricated from the word. "Monkey" can be a worse word than "fuck." "Boy" can be a worse word than "fuck." Call an adult African-American man either, and that's worse than "fuck" because of the history of both slurs, by the same principle by which I won't say the n-word. As bad? Maybe not, but assault isn't as bad as murder. That doesn't justify the former.
There is history to calling black people, "monkeys." Note my change in terminology, because it crosses national boundaries. Remember George Allen? He lost his Senate seat to Jim Webb for calling a campaign volunteer for Webb "macaca," which is the French slur for North Africans, derived from macaque monkeys. And he wasn't making up nonsense sounds. Allen speaks fluent French and spends a lot of time in France. Racist… See? Sometimes I'll just go with the dichotomy!
But what about the phrase, "monkey this up?" Is it plausible that DeSantis wasn't thinking at all about Gillum's skin color? Not only is it plausible, I'd bet he wasn't thinking at all about it. I would bet that it simply didn't occur to him that using the word, "monkey," in that context, would give a lot of people icky feelings.
What does that mean? If you treat racism as a dichotomy, this is all about where you draw the line. That's the problem with the dichotomization of something that isn't dichotomous. What is important, and informative, is that DeSantis can casually use the word, "monkey," that close to a reference to Gillum, without thinking anything was amiss. That tells you something. It tells you that he doesn't think about how African-Americans think about these things. For a simple racist/non-racist dichotomy, that's a modestly useful statement. Once we remember that it isn't a dichotomy, though, this becomes a very informative statement. DeSantis is a white guy who makes no attempt to think about things from any perspective other than that of a white guy. Otherwise, maybe that phrase would have come out of his mouth, but it would have been followed immediately by cringing, and saying, "oh fuck, that's not what I meant, I'm sorry, Andrew Gillum, foot-in-mouth, something something…."
Everyone says something they shouldn't say once in a while. What does it mean that this is the kind of thing that DeSantis could say, and not immediately correct? It says something about what doesn't go through his head. That is important.
Race isn't about dichotomies, and it isn't about racist/not-racist.