The Washington Post and other news outlets have reported the alleged racial epithets and expectoration hurled at black members of Congress during their walking of the Gantlet on Saturday, March 21st, 2010.

As Congressmen left their office buildings and marched through the swarm of protesters to attend the President’s speech at 3:00pm, some were met with adulation, others with disdain. Still even others marched by with hardly a recognition of their existence, especially the lesser-known Congressmen from the western extremities of the country. Most of the protesters were from the east coast, and could therefore more easily recognize their Congressmen and urge the crowd’s support or disgust.

When members of the Congressional Black Caucus crossed Independence Avenue from the Longworth building, the crowd’s protestations did indeed grow louder and more boisterous. Invoking images of Jim Crow, Rep. Clyburn claims that he heard things he hadn’t heard since 1960. While it is certainly possible that racial comments were uttered, I certainly never heard any, and no video evidence has been produced that does support his claim. On the other hand, several videos seem to show a story that contradicts his own.

Clyburn chose his words well. “I have heard things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960,” he told reporters. This does not mean they were actually said, only that he heard them–possibly because it is what he wanted to hear.

The real reason the crowd grew louder at the appearance of black congressmen has nothing to do with racism, although it does have much to do with race. The reason is simple: No black members of congress oppose this bill and they stand united in their support of it. The argument of race, however, is self-imposed by the minorities. By positioning themselves amongst a group that highlights their race and allows their politics to be determined by it–i.e., the Congressional Black Caucus–they allow others to infer that their race is a determining factor in decision-making. If race is a determining factor, as seen by simple definition of the group’s title, then when that factor is displayed, people will more easily recognize it and either voice their support or opposition. It would have been no different at this event if every Democrat were required to wear blue jerseys and every Republican were required to wear red jerseys.

As for members of the CBC themselves, many of their reactions to the crowd were indicative of their own brand of bias. Many black congressmen were scowling, glaring, and making no great effort to display a politic expression. Many other democrats, even some of the more recognizable ones who were met with an equal level of protestory volume, maintained their political composure and smiled at the crowd.

It was fairly evident from my perspective and interaction with the protestors at this event that race was only as much of a factor as the minorities’ self-imposed labels. Racism, however, was nowhere to be seen. (I am sure there were several racists there, but they certainly didn’t constitute a representative sample. They  would have been the statistical outliers in a quantitative analysis.) It would make much more sense if these allegations of racism were reported in order to marginalize the protests, and muster support for the bill, or, at the very least, opposition to the opposition.