Do you regret referring to Bill Clinton as the first black President? —Justin Dews, Cambridge, Mass.
MORRISON: People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.
Let's face it, had this come from anyone else, we'd strike it up to a coincidence. But when Hillary Clinton, a top staffer and a top supporter start dissing the black vote within 24 hours of each other, I smell talking points.
First, last night, we had Clinton friend and supporter Paul Begala knocking Obama's supporters because they're mostly, according to Begala, "eggheads and African-Americans." Democratic SuperDelegate Donna Brazile, who is black, took umbrage at Begala's words. You can watch the video here.
I know Begala, and I like him. And I don't think he was trying to slam blacks. But after hearing what Hillary said today, I'm starting to wonder what's up:
At a Q&A in Shepherdstown, Clinton continues to make the case that her base -- working class whites, women, and Hispanics are the key swing voters.
"The base I've put together in this primary is a stronger place to start from," she says.
Hillary is saying that her base is better than Obama's base. And we all know who Obama's base is: Blacks (and elitist latte sipping pansies from San Francisco who don't have testicular fortitude, but Hillary doesn't mean gays, she means other effeminate pansies from San Francisco).
But John, you say, that's only twice, it's still easily a coincidence. Oh yeah? Then why did senior Clinton adviser brag about the "white votes" she got yesterday?
And Garin brags, specifically and explicitly, about her strength with the white vote, comparing North Carolina's white voters in North Carolina to those in Virginia. (The conversations have always been about these voters, but they're usually referred to as "blue collar" or by some less specifically racial euphemism.)
"We lost the white electorate in Virginia, started even in North Carolina among the white electorate just two weeks ago, and ended [with] a very significant win of 24 points among those voters," he said, acknowledging that among black voters, Clinton "did not do as well as we would want or need."
As Ben notes, the campaigns don't usually refer to "white" voters - so when they do, it's interestingly intentional.
So, there you have it. Black voters are bad (like "eggheads" are bad). White voters are good (like, uh, white skin?). We learned months ago that when the Clintons start invoking race, it's intentional.
PS If you've had it with Hillary's race-baiting, her scandals, and her bizarre need to continue destroying Obama even though she already lost, then give to Obama's campaign. Click the blue box at left and you can give a secure donation online. I want to try to raise $10k for Obama over the next few days. Hillary needs to be stopped. If the DNC won't do it, then our money and our words will. More to come. (We're also at over $7000 in our Scott Kleeb-athon, so give to him too if you can.)
Okay, I won't weigh in. Curious as to your take, however. Hillary's campaign director is now saying that Obama's outrage over Ferraro's comments is simply a political calculation on the eve of a primary.
"We reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people."
She means she rejects Obama's attacks on Ferraro, not that she rejects Ferraro's comments about Obama (though Hillary has said she doesn't agree with Ferraro). Then Ferraro added the following only moments ago:
Ferraro, too, pushed back in an interview on Fox News Channel's "American Election HQ" moments ago. "David Axelrod who knows me better, should not have gotten this whole campaign going," said Ferraro, accusing the Obama campaign of stoking the controversy. She added: "If in 1984 my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for VP."
Hmmm... So she's saying that in the same way that the party picked her to be on the ticket because she's a woman, they've chosen Obama to be on the ticket because he's black. I think. Your thoughts?
This comes as no surprise. After the 2005 riots there was the usual talk though nothing really changed. On the left, there has been a stubbornness to take any useful action because in the eyes of many (especially the traditional, white elite men who never share power) the French constitution provides equality so to even suggest otherwise or treat any disadvantaged group differently, would go against the constitution. On the right there have been numerous inflammatory public comments that have offered nothing to help bridge the gap.
With such positions it's hard to make any progress on this ongoing problem. Sarkozy used to talk about affirmative action plans and perhaps that will receive renewed interest. In France, affirmative action is considered to be an idea of the right, not the left. It's interesting to see how there is such a different interpretation on this issue. Somehow I doubt the pro-Sarko crowd in America would be in agreement with him. Regardless, something needs to change if France is ever going to start moving on with this problem. It's not going to disappear by throwing police at the problem.
I started out intending to do a short piece on this ridiculous incident in Louisiana about college students who thought it was knee-slapping funny to roll in the mud and play blackface on video depicting the Jena 6.
As I typed this out (again another wee hours of the AM post), it occurred to me the there are some interesting parallels that can be drawn about our difficulties discussing race and in the case of ENDA, transgender issues. Read on and see if you can make the connection.
***
White Louisiana students re-enact 'Jena 6' in blackface
From The Smoking Gun. The fact that these people thought it was hysterically funny to do this is all the evidence one needs to confirm that an honest discussion about the third rail topic of race is sorely needed.
A group of white Louisiana college students dressed in blackface and reenacted the "Jena 6" assault while a friend snapped photos and videotaped the staged attack, images that were later posted to a participant's Facebook page. The photos, which you'll find on the following pages, were taken late last month on the bank of the Red River, where students from the University of Louisiana at Monroe giddily acted out the racial attack. The photos (and the short video clip at right) were posted to the Facebook page of Kristy Smith, a freshman nursing student. The album of images was entitled "The Jena 6 on the River." In the video, three students with mud smeared across their bodies stomp on a fourth student, while two of the participants are heard to say, "Jena 6." One man can also be heard saying, "Niggers put the noose on."
The images were taken down, but not before other students snared the video. In subsequent Facebook postings, Smith said:
"We were just playin n the mud and it got out of hand. I promise i'm not racist. i have just as many black friends as i do white. And i love them to death," she wrote. She added in a later message that her friends "were drinking" and things "got a lil out of hand."
The Smoking Gun also points to similar racially charged images placed on Facebook by college students in Texas, Connecticut, and South Carolina.
***
The bottom line is that the first order of business was for Smith to declare she's not racist. That label is clearly radioactive to most people, so much so that they can simply cannot own the fact that they engaged in racist behavior. In their minds they rationalize away such incidents because a real racist burns a cross on someone's lawn, or ties a black man to the back of a truck and drags him until his limbs fall off.
The matter isn't helped when professional self-appointed Leaders of the Black CommunityTM (Jesse Jackson comes to mind first) tosses out the "racist" card way too often, explicitly because they know the label is radioactive.
Generally speaking, we can't get very far if people cannot even admit that racism is still part of our culture, and that one can engage in negative race-based thinking or behavior without putting a Klan hood on. Look at Michael Richards. One of the striking things about his unhinged apology on Letterman last year, after appearing onstate at a comedy club and going on an unhinged rant because of black heckler in the audience was that he felt compelled to say he wasn't racist.
"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.
How is this not racist:
"Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f------ fork up your a--...Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger!"
Those comments obviously indicate that Richards either must have been possessed by a racist demon or he was just "playing one" onstage that night, right?
The real problem is that Richards was more concerned about being labeled racist because contemporary society has deemed that label the sign of a fringe element, a social pariah.
Had he been more self-reflective he might have something more sane, such as "I realize that I am a product of a culture steeped in a toxic history regarding race, and my outburst -- and the response to it -- is a teachable moment. It's important to think about how we feel about race and how our internal views about race play out in our daily lives. I intend to do so, because there was no excuse for what I said on stage."
Instead, his advisers felt it was necessary for him to ring up Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to beg for mercy. That isn't productive.
***
This whole mess about ENDA, particularly the dialogue that has resulted in perceived anti-trans opinion to bubble up to the surface is quite similar to discussing race.
It appears some people are reluctant to publicly broach the subject of transfolk in LGBT movement and the effect on or strategy of the passage of anti-discrimination legislation lest they be labeled with the equally radioactive word "bigot." Nothing shuts down the conversation or draws a line in the sand faster.
If people want to make the case that Ts shouldn't be attached to LGB, then that's a discussion that reveals a serious difference in opinion and philosophy about the definition of our movement. It needs to be aired out honestly and openly. It's relevant to know how many hold this view and why. It's the first step toward admitting a problem we all must face to move forward.
It's one matter to make a case that the trans protections should be dropped from ENDA as a matter of strategy and pragmatism, it's a completely different matter to hold the view that Ts aren't really part of the movement at all and use the former as PC cover for belief in the latter.
Is this view due to lack of direct engagement with transfolk on the issue, a lack of education on the history of the movement, or is it because of some other factor that is worthy of open discussion that may inform those on the other side of the issue that may shed new light on the topic?
It really is identical to the problem our country has with race -- we'll never know if people aren't willing to express their fears without getting their heads bitten off. By the same token, no rational discussion about sensitive topics can take place if that expression is not really about engaging tactfully or diplomatically, but unloading frustrations in a way that is hurtful and shuts down conversation. That's what happens when people leave these discussions buried -- they come out in all the wrong ways, resulting in flashpoints at the completely wrong time.
I don't have a solution, of course, it's a matter of observing human nature and how difficult we often make things for one another when we talk all around the real problem -- the lack of ability to communicate effectively.
It sounds like a funny question, to ask it so starkly, but I don't think it is funny at all. A lot of Greek-Americans supported Dukakis because he was Greek. There was pride that one of our own had finally made it (well, almost). And we knew that it would help our community, break a few glass ceilings as it were, if a dark Mediterranean made his way to the Oval Office. So why not the same logic for African-Americans and women? Yes, no, maybe?
The people of Jena, the people of Louisiana and I are not racist. We simply want justice to be done. We understand that White people in America have lost our basic civil rights. Whites are now deprived of human rights by racial discrimination in jobs, promotions, scholarships, college admissions and in many other programs. More importantly, Whites are increasingly victims of Black racial violence and hate crimes. In fact, a White person is 40 to 50 times more likely to be a victim of Black gang violence than a Black is likely to be a victim of White gang violence.
...The entire Jena scenario and the coverage of it by the media show once again that it is not the people of Jena who are racists. By voting for me and by demanding justice in this case, they have shown rightly that they believe in fairness to all and that White people are now the real victims of racism in America. Once again it is shown that we must have advocates for our rights and heritage just as any other group is permitted to do so.
May the District Attorney and the people of Jena stay strong and never give in to those who seek take away their rights of life and liberty as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
He's crying for media attention as well:
David Duke is willing to explain to any media in the world what the real issues are in Jena, Lousiana To contact him press the contact button on the right side of the web page.
This is exactly why open discussions about race are necessary in general society. The open bigots have no shame in declaring their positions, and are quite sure of what they believe. Those who have good intentions by and large stay silent for fear of stepping on the third rail and "talking out of school." Discussions about solving racial tensions and its cascading impact are not the sole providence of blacks (or POC) who feel whites have no business talking about this difficult subject, nor does it belong with the David Dukes of the country, who are easy to point a finger at and declare "that's not me."
The resulting silence allows basic, human lack of understanding about the issues that challenge all of us on this topic to remain underground. No one learns about building bridges when they retreat to their respective corners.
Reading David Duke reminds me of that old joke about the Jewish guy in Germany during the beginning of the Holocaust. A Jewish friend asks him why he's reading the Nazi newspaper, and he says "Because it has all the good news! We own the banks, we own the government..."
I feel the same way about Mr. Duke believing we are somehow overrepresented in higher education and high paying jobs. It's a facile rationalization for his hatred, but that perception of unequal treatment for white people (when the opposite is actually true) is only slightly refined before being blared 24-hours a day from Fox News, where it gains the kind of legitimacy he could never give it. Simply put what he's saying really isn't so different from what Bill O'Reilly says on a daily basis.
Here in my home state of North Carolina, four nooses were found hung from a tree at a school in High Point:
Scholars call it a symbol that reflects a shameful period in our nation's history. Friday, High Point police removed four nooses hung from different spots around Andrews High School.
"To get to a situation in 2007 where people can feel like this as a prank is acceptable, that tells us a lot about how much progress we've made and how much progress we've got to continue to work on," Claude Barnes, a political science professor at North Carolina A&T said.
That situation is four nooses hung from the flag pole and other locations at the High Point school. "And so the symbol here of a noose is very, very disturbing whether it was a joke or prank or whatever; whether this was perpetrated by whites, blacks, or whoever, it's not funny," Barnes said, "because it takes us back to a tragic and very shameful period is our nation's history."
Unfortunately, this letter is to inform you that today, four nooses were found at Andrews High School. School administrators immediately notified the High Point Police Department; the incident is currently under investigation and additional staff and law enforcement presence will be maintained for a period of time. Guilford County Schools (GCS) is fully cooperating with law enforcement regarding this matter. Those found to be responsible for this criminal act will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
We want to impress upon you that this inappropriate act is not a representation of Andrews' administration, students or staff. Andrews and GCS will not tolerate behavior that is discriminatory or that disrupts the safe learning environment of our students.
Counseling will be available to students as needed by GCS. Additionally, the City of High Point has worked collaboratively with the school since 2004 through the High Point Human Relations Commission to establish a school-based student commission. These students are trained and ready to assist as needed. Please make sure your children are aware that threatening acts are not acceptable. Should your child observe inappropriate behavior or have any information regarding this incident, please ask him/her to immediately notify a teacher, staff member or our school's resource officer.
Andrews High School has proven to be a school accepting of all races, cultures, religions and backgrounds. We will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that all students feel welcomed and safe in our school. If you have questions, please contact me at 819-2800.
This is a very different post for AMERICAblog, but you may find it interesting, thought-provoking, and very much about American culture.
I have quite a few posts on the politics of having kinky hair over at my blog. In the past, people sometimes emailed me to say that they didn't understand how or why hair is political. After Don Imus and the whole "nappy-headed hos" mess, they got a taste of why it is very political. What the former radio talk show host did was touch upon the third rail of race in a way opened up discussions of matters not usually heard in public conversations.
Most black women know what it's like to have an arsenal of hair care products, particularly if you choose to wear your hair straightened with chemical relaxers. [Ironically, most of the Rutgers women's basketball team members had chemically straightened hair, which goes to show you that Imus reduced them to his assumption that black women=nappy hair=unattractive.] I had a cabinet full of "hair product" when I wore processed styles.
And oh, the dreaded hot comb. I am old enough to have experienced the "pleasure" of the thermal hot comb -- you rested it over the gas flame of the stove to heat it up. Then the pressing oil was carefully applied to your hair and that comb sizzled through the kinks till it was bone straight, hissing as you prayed the comb didn't touch your scalp. This is what black women did to emulate straight hair. I say emulate because all it took was water or merely a humid day to revert the hair back to its natural state. But that was the only acceptable style for the working black woman working in the dominant culture.
In 2005 I was interviewed by Heather Barnes, who was working on a documentary project on women and their relationship to their hair from a personal and political perspective. Her blog for the project, Hair Stories, is up and running.
The stories might relate to shaving, first haircuts, having long or short hair, losing their hair, hair and ethnicity, stigma about body hair (either too much or too little), and the cultural and social significance of hair in all its manifestations.
Here's my interview. She's intercut it with photos from my hair journey web page. When you watch it you'll see a tortured hair history in the school photos -- while I'm the product of two black parents, neither had kinky hair; it took a while for my mom to figure out how to take care of mine, particularly dealing with the humidity in NC.
Full freedom for me finally came when I decided in the 90s to toss out the relaxer and cut the dry damaged hair off. I wore a short natural for several years. I began the process of growing locs in November 2000, a style I wear today. Free from the burning hot comb sizzling my scalp, curling irons, flat irons or other instruments of hair torture.
The status quo is still straightened hair, even though we see more natural styles in vogue now. Black women are unfortunately still chastised by family and significant others not to 1) cut their hair or 2) let it be kinky. It's one of those "dirty laundry" matters that people don't want to discuss openly, but when you have such poisonous, enabled self-loathing, it needs sunlight upon it. Look at this ad. It implies that the woman got the job because her hair was chemically straightened. The self-loathing is so culturally ingrained, so pathological -- there is nothing wrong with our hair, but nearly every signal received by the dominant culture is that it needs to be "corrected."
You folks across the pond are simply too concerned about the planet and aren't spending enough time in the sack engaging in procreative sex. So says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
Thanks to the BBC's new emphasis on this crisis, Europe may finally wake up to the reality that its culture is on the verge of extinction. With global birth rates plummeting, the concern over saving the earth may soon be replaced by concern over whom we're saving it for. As the traditional family declines, fewer children are being born to replace and support the world's graying society.
As our friend Allan Carlson has observed, "Of the 10 nations with the lowest birth rates worldwide, nine are in Europe." Countries like Slovakia are producing only 50,000 children a year, compared to 100,000 in 1974. In nations like Russia, Belarus, and the Czech Republic, the birth rate is hovering at a mere 1.2 children per woman. The World Congress of Families (WCF) has warned of this "demographic winter" for years but only recently have the media begun to notice the chill. FRC has worked with the WCF to raise awareness of this trend. Now that we have the attention of the international community, FRC will continue to call on world leaders to implement pro-marriage and pro-family policies.
Actually, what Tony appears to be saying is that there aren't enough melanin-challenged people knocking boots. The brown folks are multiplying like bunnies. That's what John Gibson advised Americans on Faux News:
"By far, the greatest number [of children under five] are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Gibson later claimed: "To put it bluntly, we need more babies." Then, referring to Russia's projected decline in population, Gibson claimed: "So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load. The rest of you, get busy. Make babies, or put another way -- a slogan for our times: 'procreation not recreation'."
The quickest way to end a political conversation in DC these days is to bring up the issue of race. Most people, especially Caucasians (such as myself) are loath to discuss the issue. Your average Democrat (such as myself) would rather ride in the backseat with Lindsey Lohan at the wheel than openly discuss racial issues.
But I decided to breach these dangerous waters because of something I saw on television. It bothered me to see the head of the Atlanta Chapter of the NAACP, R. L. White, laying the credibility of his organization on the line to defend Michael Vick.
Vick is the very popular African-American quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons. He has recently been in the news because he is being investigated by the federal government for allegedly breeding pitbulls for dog fighting, as well as having such fights on his property. If that wasn't bad enough, it has also been alleged that Vick tortured and killed dogs that did not win fights.
This is not Vick's first time having a public relations problem. Vick settled a lawsuit with a woman who alleged he gave her herpes. He has been accused of stealing a watch and trying to get a water bottle with a secret compartment that smelled of marijuana through airport security (no charges were filed in either case).
Despite the troubled past and the even more troubling recent charges, the NAACP decided to wade into the situation on behalf of Vick. White said the way Vick is being treated amounted to a "crime."
R.L. White, president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback has been vilified by animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media and prematurely punished by his team and corporate sponsors.
"If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime," White said at a news conference. "Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."
The Atlanta NAACP stand in the Vick case is in marked contrast to the stand taken by the North Carolina NAACP during the Duke Lacrosse rape case. To refresh your memory, it was alleged that white members of the Duke Lacrosse team raped a black stripper at a party. The players were charged, but eventually cleared and the DA in the case, Mike Nifong, has since lost his license to practice.
The head of the Carolina NAACP, Rev. William Barber, had plenty to say about the case before it went to court, speaking at vigils for the defendant, asking the Duke President to conduct his own separate investigation of the incident, and outright indications of his desire to see arrests made. Barber, who graduated from N.C. Central University as well as Duke's divinity school, said the NAACP would keep watch over the proceedings.
"After all of these weeks of speculation, the demeaning of [the accuser] by defense lawyers and sometimes misinformation in the press, now we have the indictments," Barber said. "We hope to be satisfied as we move forward. The indictments are not the end of our monitoring."
How does the NAACP reconcile their different stand between the two cases, other than the race of the defendant?
The ultimate goal of those who sacrificed in the 50's and 60's at marches, lunch counters and sit-ins was to provide a more color blind society. Today's NAACP seems to be retreating from that, alternatively defending and prosecuting people in famous cases solely on the basis of their race. Who does that help?
Dr. Martin Luther King talked about people being judge not by their skin, but by the "content of their character." While Vick deserves the best defense his money can buy, what character has Vick shown, other than the ability to elude tacklers, that would warrant the NAACP leaping to his defense? I know Atlanta is supposedly the City too busy to hate, but isn't there something else the NAACP should be doing other than helping a multi-millionaire athlete under investigation for brutally mistreating and killing animals?
I bring up these points not to damage the NAACP, or out of malice, but out of real concern. Is this really the future for this hallowed organization, a Nancy Grace-like existence, appearing at celebrity trials? Have they given up on the ideal of blind justice?
Maybe because of my race, I just don't understand the situation. But I'd like to, even if the discussion is uncomfortable. Because the alternative, believing that the NAACP no longer cares about justice being blind, is even more uncomfortable.
A somewhat tortured article from the Washington Post about how the new mayor of DC, who is himself black, hired a lot of "non-black people" - the Post's words - for key government jobs. I don't know what bothers me more, the creation of this new term "non-black people," or the long-standing notion that if you don't hire all (or mostly) non-non-black people for key jobs in DC you're somehow selling out. I get that DC is 57% black, but does that mean that the mayor's senior staff has to be 57% black? If he goes over 57% does he have to fire some people to get racial quotas back in harmony? And in cities where blacks are only 5% or 10% of the population does that mean they're only permitted 5% or 10% of the really good jobs? Not to mention, should Burmese and Malians and Andorrans kiss their chances of ever getting a good city job goodbye, until they buck up their demographics?
Long-standing notions haven't solved this city's horrendous crime problem, poverty, and education woes. Perhaps our new mayor, and his crazy ideas about hiring competent people, can.
Hmmm... not sure that saying that labeling civil rights law protecting African-Americans as "special rights" that leave out millions of Americans like you and me (their words) is the wisest argument the religious right Republicans should be making in opposition to the hate crimes bill. Check it out for yourself, from a Family Research Council email alert sent out today:
This [hate crimes] bill creates a caste system within American society where those who fit a certain category - ranging from race, disability, gender to sexual orientation and transgendered - would be seen as deserving special legal protection. The bill is most notable for the millions of Americans it leaves out, meaning if you or I are a victim of a violent crime - we matter less.
And as an aside, check out the blatant lie from the Family Research Council. The hate crimes law wouldn't cover people like them, they say. News flash - the hate crimes law on the books ALREADY covers people like them explicitly. Religion is a category already in the existing federal hate crimes law. The religious right Republicans' problem with the hate crimes law being debated and voted on in the House tomorrow is that their little special right would have to be broadened to include more people.
They are just such liars. Un-Christian, un-Christ-like, liars.
So what if FOX has launched repeated racist attacks on Obama and the black community at large, including comparing black churches to white supremacists? I mean, why should the Congressional Black Caucus let a little thing like racism get in the way of, well, whatever it is that they supposedly care about? I've always heard the Black Caucus is one corrupt organization. This would appear to be more evidence that it's not just rumor. More from AP.
