Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
ALICE WALKER ON OBAMA Ignore the other post
Lest We Forget: An open letter to my sisters who are brave. The author argues that we must build alliances not on ethnicity or gender, but on truth. When I was born in 1944 my parents lived on a middle Georgia plantation that was owned by a white distant relative, Miss May Montgomery. (During my childhood it was necessary to address all white girls as "Miss" when they reached the age of twelve.) She would never admit to this relationship, of course, except to mock it. We lived in a shack without electricity or running water, under a rusty tin roof that let in wind and rain. Miss May went to school as a girl. The school my parents and their neighbors built for us was burned to the ground by local racists who wanted to keep ignorant their competitors in tenant farming. During the Depression, desperate to feed his hardworking family, my father asked for a raise from ten dollars a month to twelve. Miss May responded that she would not pay that amount to a white man and she certainly wouldn't pay it to a nigger. That before she'd pay a nigger that much money she'd milk the dairy cows herself. When I look back, this is part of what I see. I see the school bus carrying white children, boys and girls, right past me, and my brothers, as we trudge on foot five miles to school. Later, I see my parents struggling to build a school out of discarded army barracks while white students, girls and boys, enjoy a building made of brick. We had no books; we inherited the cast off books that "Jane" and "Dick" had previously used in the all-white school that we were not, as black children, permitted to enter. When I joined the freedom movement in Mississippi in my early twenties it was to come to the aid of sharecroppers, like my parents, who had been thrown off the land they'd always known, the plantations, because they attempted to exercise their "democratic" right to vote. I wish I could say white women treated me and other black people a lot better than the men did, but I cannot. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that white women have copied, all too often, the behavior of their fathers and their brothers, and in the South, especially in Mississippi, and before that, when I worked to register voters in Georgia, the broken bottles thrown at my head were gender free. I made my first white women friends in college; they were women who loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white women and that whiteness mattered. That, for instance, at Sarah Lawrence, where I was speedily inducted into the Board of Trustees practically as soon as I graduated, I made my way to the campus for meetings by train, subway and foot, while the other trustees, women and men, all white, made their way by limo. Because, in our country, with its painful history of unspeakable inequality, this is part of what whiteness means. I loved my school for trying to make me feel I mattered to it, but because of my relative poverty I knew I could not. I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him. Cannot see what he carries in his being. Cannot hear the fresh choices toward Movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans –black, white, yellow, red and brown - choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me. When I have supported white people, men and women, it was because I thought them the best possible people to do whatever the job required. Nothing else would have occurred to me. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves. True to my inner Goddess of the Three Directions however, this does not mean I agree with everything Obama stands for. We differ on important points probably because I am older than he is, I am a woman and person of three colors, (African, Native American, European), I was born and raised in the American South, and when I look at the earth's people, after sixty-four years of life, there is not one person I wish to see suffer, no matter what they have done to me or to anyone else; though I understand quite well the place of suffering, often, in human growth. It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton referred to as "a woman" while Barack Obama is always referred to as "a black man." One would think she is just any woman, colorless, race-less, past-less, but she is not. She carries all the history of white womanhood in America in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to attempt to make her innocent of her racial inheritance.
Comments (97)
Paragraphs.....
March 30, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't need paragraphs.
Recommended.
March 30, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's beautiful. I, too, was raised in the South at about the same time ... only I was riding in the bus to the brick school (and feeling diminished, shamed somehow, as we passed those walking to a very different school). One forgets how very, very bad it was not too terribly long ago.
That massive, overwhelming change could happen only one way: from the ground up, beginning with the ordinary people. Martin Luther King, Jr. could tap the power in everyday people, power they had no idea they possessed, and give them a direction and hope. And just LOOK at what was achieved! This is what Michelle Obama had never seen in her life (she was 4 years old in 1968),and it is truly awe-inspiring, pride-making.
Barack Obama has that same ability and intelligence to bring out our strength, give hope and lead. Different struggle but the same kind of power. I am so sorry - for her (as well as the rest of us!) - that Hillary Clinton, a woman of my age and my race, cannot see that, that she does not *want* to step beside Obama and join in, rather than try to stop it. But .... no one ever said it was easy, I suppose. But so worthwhile.
March 30, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But lets not forget:
"Martin Luther King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the civil rights act. It took a president to get it done" - Hillary Clinton
March 31, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse Jackson Sr.: I wrote an article urging both of them to stay away from those edges. For example, it was unfair to attack her on that basis [Senator Clinton stated that Dr. King did not act alone. She said that he needed a politician to get civil rights legislation enacted]. The reality is that that was not an insult to Dr. King. Dr. King campaigned for Lyndon Johnson. Because if Goldwater had won, we wouldn’t have had the Voting Rights Act of ’65. You need a combination of litigation, people like Thurgood Marshall, and demonstrations, [people like] Dr. King. And legislation, [people like] Lyndon Johnson. You need that combination. That was gotcha politics. On the other hand, trying to make Barack somehow a Reaganite also was wrong."
March 31, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that it would be best if Hilary and her supporters took notice of what many of us sense as a rare and historic opportunity to promote, among other things, reconciliation rather than division.
However, it's also clear that Desidero and many other people don't see this as such an opportunity. Because Obama hasn't lived through imprisonment or assassination attempts and emerged seeking reconciliation, they think there's no reason to see him as having King- or Mandela-like qualities. I think it boils down to some of us seeing the similarity of Obama's messages with the statements of these great leaders and believing Obama will strive for similar achievements and perhaps lift our politics to higher and more productive level--at least, to an approach that isn't explicitly based on divisions and their skillful manipulation. By contrast, others look at Obama and say he hasn't paid his dues so he doesn't deserve a shot at the presidency. Fair enough, but there doesn't seem to be any Obama alternative who has paid his or her dues and is seeking the presidency in a way that offers comparable hopes. For those of us naive enough to think Obama will at least try and might actually come through, the choice between Obama and the other surviving candidates seems a choice between someone, however inexperienced and imperfect, who will seek reconciliation, and others whose professional handlers will play virtuoso tunes on every division that has ever hurt this country.
The question is whether Obama supporters are wrong in seeing Hilary as a divisive candidate or Hilary supporters are wrong in seeing Obama as phony and ineffectual. I keep hoping Hilary supporters will come around to the view that Obama is a pretty decent candidate after all and that his supporters' negative feelings toward Hilary didn't exist--simply were not there--until her campaign turned what strikes Obama supporters as very nasty and divisive. That doesn't seem to be happening.
Hilary supporters don't seem to think she's done anything nasty. Moves that strike Obama's supporters as hyperdestructive and unfair seem, to many Hilary supporters, to be objective descriptions of a flawed candidate from whom the country must be saved.
Many Hilary supporters seem to view Obama's campaign as nasty and sexist based on cues that Obama supporters can't even see. For them, I guess, Obama's "genius" is about how subtly he can tilt the world against Hilary based on gender, and about how blind Obama's supporters are to this obvious fact.
When someone sees grand possibilities in Obama, we end up not comparing what Obama might achieve with what Hilary might, or comparing their approaches to the nation's problems, but hearing how wrong it is to dare think of Obama as anything other than an ordinary man who was promoted before his time.
This divide is deep and getting deeper.
March 31, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't have to be like MLK or Mandela, you know. He doesn't have to be like Mohammed Ali. He could simply be Obama and do what Obama does.
I don't seem Obama's campaign as so sexist, but there's a lot of sexism flying around, from media, fans, etc.
March 31, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point, Desidero. Obama doesn't have to be on the level of King or Mandela and in terms of achievements, he's not in their league at this stage. But it's the soaring rhetoric that in many of us awakens feelings like those King awakened--feelings millions seemed to share, and feelings which led, over time and indirectly, to making this a better nation.
There were clear signs in polls that Obama's rhetoric was in fact drawing many independents and even some Republicans (like Susan Eisenhour) into Obama's tent. It seemed like a great thing for many reasons, not least the prospect of getting more Democrats elected along with Obama to enact a progressive agenda.
The sorts of feelings Obama's speeches evoked didn't have to be aroused by a black person. Kennedy and Johnson had their rehtorical moments. Hilary could have emulated them and King. All the attacks about Obama's rhetoric being empty and his being just another black candidate like Jesse Jackson successfully narrowed Obama's appeal. The attacks also further narrowed Hilary's own appeal to independents as well as blacks and many other Democrats.
If Hilary had emerged as a uniting figure like Obama, so that the Democratic Party still had such a figure to reach out to a broad electorate, harming Obama would not have harmed the party or the progressive cause. That is, if she had made a convincing case that she could do more than Obama to bring independents, some Republicans and virtually all Democrats into a working political coalition. She could have attempted that by launching initiatives to reach out to independents and Republicans (moderate ones, not Scaife and Drudge, whom she did cultivate). She could have given a glorious speech, for example, about how she had learned from the bitter, counterproductive wars of the 1990s and would launch initiatives to bring Americans together from across party lines to solve our most pressing problems--maybe bipartisan side conventions to contribute input for the platform committee at the Democratic convention, or initiatives that brought blacks and whites together to address racial problems based on the realities of the 21st century rather than the legacy of the 19th.
But Hilary didn't try to beat Obama at the game of uniting the nation in trying times. She said his speeches were worthless, mere words, and King's speeches didn't accomplish anything either. It was Johnson who actually got something done. Hilary showed no inclination to unite anybody. She just took Obama down (and King down a notch with him--at least, that's how it sounded to a lot of us).
The reason Hilary's attacks were so successful and destructive was that they came from a prominent Democrat with an excellent record on Civil Rights. It wasn't like an attack on Martin Luther King Jr. by Jesse Helms or other people who had always fought against equality. When Hilary injected that stuff into the campaign, she had enough credibility to undermine the legitimacy of a promising black candidate as a uniting figure, at least in the eyes of many independents and some Democrats.
Another course was open to Hilary. We didn't have to be focusing on how much Obama falls short of Martin Luther King, jr. We could have been talking about how Hilary Clinton was showing herself to be the superior heir to the King, Kennedy and Johnson legacy, was building on the best of the Clinton legacy, and how, like Roosevelt with his Republican cabinet appointments, she was reaching out to Republicans to unite the nation to deal with problems on the scale of the Great Depression. That is the road Hilary chose not to set foot on.
March 31, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
it does seem to me that it is a legitimate argument when Clinton points out that Obama talk is cheap. His lack luster legislative record, filled with NO VOTES makes him a moving target doesn't it. He can say anything he wants about his stance since he doesn't vote!
How would you suggest that someone point out that the person, who constantly talks about how good an ump he is, always manages to sit in the bleachers when the pitch is being launched!
I just received an email from someone talking about Hillary voting FOR an authorization to go to war with IRAN. NOT TRUE. But that was a vote that Mr. Obama chose not to make..he was absent... again.
Instead, he cosponsors another bill that says the SAME THING as the bill Hillary voted for! That Iran is a terrorist state! And this is the best he can do to draw a distinction between himself and Hillary? His absence (far to often) and Hillary's votes.
Just how would you suggest that Hillary's campaign approach this? Obama is the one who brought it up.. not Hillary. Just when do people stop with the hyperbole and turn to the "facts"?
These are two good candidates. Let them slug it out on the issues. The one left standing wins.
March 31, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate has a record of getting lots of great legislation passed in the US Senate. Both are too junior and are Democrats when Republicans have either had a majority or been able to kill any bill by filibuster or, if that's overcome, a presidential veto. Democrats only got a technical majority, if you count Lieberman and Johnson, who had a stroke, late in Clinton's Senate career. What was she supposed to do in the circumstances? Similarly, Obama hasn't been there long and hasn't been there when Democrats had a workable majority. You can argue about which was more productive. Neither one could have been. They were both beating their heads against a Republican wall.
As for Obama "never voting," he voted "present" 129 times in 8 years in the Illinois state senate. that's about 15 times a year. According to other legislators there, the present vote is useful and legitimate in a number of different circumstances. For example, if you have reservations about provisions of a bill even though you're generally in favor of what it's trying to do. You don't want to pass a bad bill but you don't want to record a vote against something you're for. In one case, Obama thought the law in question, if passed, would be struck down by the courts, but he did want a law to similar effect passed. He didn't vote no because he wasn't against the issue. In another case, he supposedly voted "present" to make it easier for others to do the same, giving them cover in their more conservative districts on an inflammatory vote related to abortion.
But let's say he avoided voting yes or no because he neither supported nor opposed the legislation, or because he saw that a controversial bill he favored would pass without his vote and so he didn't have to run a political risk. It would not be unheard of for a politician to avoid incurring the political cost of voting in such a circumstance.
I'm sure Hilary has never failed to proclaim her true position on every political issue at every opportunity--she has never done a single expedient thing. Never, for example, voted for a war or a surveillance law because she feared the political consequences of voting against. Or, if she was really in favor of the war, never later suggested that she was only voting to authorize something she thought that brilliant fellow George Bush would never do. The same George Bush who had been trying to build a pretext to attack Iraq since taking office and surrounded himself with advisers who had publicly called for attacking Iraq for over a decade. Hilary was too naive to see it coming. And, of course, Hilary never denied being in favor of NAFTA at any point in her life even though her book suggests it was a triumph of the Clinton administration and expresses no reservations about it.
Hilary and Obama are both politicians. Sometimes they vote yes, sometimes they vote no and sometimes they duck because they understand the political consequences of doing otherwise.
This discussion becomes pointless when it's plain Obama can only have faults and Hilary can only have virtues. It would be equally pointless if the discussion was the other way around.
In this particular campaign and its current circumstances, the biggest issue concerns the consequences of the way Hilary is campaigning. You no doubt think her campaigning blameless. She owes the world the favor of destroying the evil Obama no matter what the consequences for anybody else, the party or the country. She must follow the higher calling of..exactly what is that higher calling?
It must seem a complete mystery that her negatives continue to rise to remarkable levels in public opinion polls and that a lot of Democrats in those surveys say her attacks on Obama are unfair. Where could that possibly be coming from? Gender bias? Media bias? Obama dirty tricks?
March 31, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent point.
March 31, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse Jackson Sr. had more impressive rhetoric than Obama, plus a more impressive background.
March 31, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice comment, lifelongdem.
what can we do to promote the discussion of their respective agendas and solutions?
March 31, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, seachange.
You raise a good question about what actually could be done to promote discussion of the candidates respective agendas and solutions. At this point, I think it comes down to which is more likely to succeed in enacting an agenda if elected. Their policy proposals are pretty similar, especially when compared with Republican policies, such as fixing the mortgage crisis today by extending tax cuts starting years from now.
The chances of success with any policy depend on whether Obama's or Hilary's approach would be more effective in our political system. Specifics of healthcare and economic policy or foreign policy won't matter if Hilary or Obama has a narrow majority in the Senate and can't break a filibuster.
If Hilary is right and it's all about being tougher than your opponent in an ultimate fighting match between roughly equal Republican and Democratic representation, pollsters and spinmeisters, then I guess her prospects of success are better. However, they are by no means certain. The Republicans have been winning most of those fights for years. They're willing to resort to gay-bashing, charges of treason, calling people Communists, etc., as often as necessary. It's hard for Democrats to respond in kind, no matter how tough, because the Republicans have such a firm grip on the low ground. Democrats can't profit by accusing Republicans of being soft on gay marriage, no matter how many Republicans from Red States get caught hitting on same-sex pages or air travelers.
If Obama is right about the need to shift the focus to broader coalition building to elect working majorities for a progressive agenda, the question is whether he can succeed. It requires reversing a trend that has been as triumphant as it is destructive. Hilary says Obama is a nonstarter because the Republican attack machine will make mincemeat of him. But assuming he gets elected, he will be able to draw on massive discontent with how things have been working, and he can reach out to a populace confronted on all sides by evidence of just how disastrous our system of partisan deadlock punctuated by occasional extremist victories has been.
March 31, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. I think also that for me, as a party activist, the amnesty legislation for illegal immigration was another fight that brought out the "racist" charge against anyone who disagreed with it.
I, not being in favor of amnesty, was often and frequently called a racist. My opposition had nothing to do with race, it has to do with controlling population growth in our country which is already the 3rd most populous in the world! But no, there could be no discussion of this issue with the racism charge front and center.
So when the Obama campaign began the race baiting against the Clinton campaign about statements that clearly were not meant to be racist...well, I have to tell you my disgust meter went right to the top, having heard these spurious charges over the immigration issue.
You state the divide quite well. I don't know if there is an in between but honestly, the Obama campaign needs to stop it with the racism charges, they are alienating middle America in droves. I don't really care what the pundits or the talking heads say, I think they spin everything to drive an agenda none of us are party to.
I think it's been a little disturbing how quickly the black community turned against the Clintons, who had championed the black community for all of their political life.
I hope both campaigns take a step back and focus on REAL differences and similarities. I can concede that perhaps we can ALL find justifications for the things our candidates and their surrogates say... but isn't it about time that we stopped the hyperbole about racism, when we all know HC doesn't have a racist bone in her body. If Obama supporters expect HC supporters to believe that Obama isn't a racist (given his assoc. with a black nationalist church) then I suggest they start giving the quarter they want to receive.
Personally, I'm done with being called a racist just because I disagree about a candidate or solution. And I don't think I'm the only one out there.
March 31, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, BSerious.
March 30, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about that. We really should be allowed to edit our posts!
March 30, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the most beautiful responses I've seen regarding race and gender in America I've seen!!
Code words such as "women" DO NOT automaticlly mean NOR include "Black/African-American" women!
This distiction has been lost on most (white) Americans ... thank you Ms. Walker!
March 30, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? That's a new one for me.
March 31, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad thing is that there is still a tremendous amount of inequality in urban schools in the low income and minority neighborhoods. Lack of materials, poor facilities and not enough teachers continue to put poor kids, and people of color particularly, at a disadvantage. I believe that the conversation about race that Obama has opened can shed a little light on this dark truth and force people to address this.
March 30, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't read it without paragraphs because I'm 48, nearsighted, farsighted, and just a little cross-eyed. Does she support Obama or Clinton? Is it by Alice Walker or just contain quotes by her?
Ah, forget it, you kids with fresh eyes or a decent optometrist have at it.
March 30, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A more readable version is here:
http://www.theroot.com/id/45469
March 31, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Walker, Thank you. I share your sadness as someone who has always been able to "see" Mr. Obama, that Ms. Clinton and many of her supporters seem to be of a different consciousness. It is a reality, but it is a sad one. Every other woman I am close to is of the same opinion. We are middle aged, varied in our socio-economic backgrounds, and wide ranging in ethinicity. And yet, we all feel as you do. I believe Senator Clinton has lost much of what is best of our age range in sage and kind-hearted wisdom.
March 31, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
March 31, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many of us are learning a great deal as we witness the death-throes of Clinton's self-destruction, because we can recognize that it is more than just HRC's demise at hand ...
it is the fate she shares with all that combined to create her -- we bury it or ourselves;
which becomes increasingly evident as together we move to create a more human and hopeful future, having determined that Obama is the leader we need now for this preferred and truly high destiny ...
humanity prevails again!
March 31, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother, how dreary. Why are African-Americans always going on about how bad it wuz half a century ago. My ex-wife grew up in Russia, and endured a childhood blighted by government oppression, poverty and shortages. And generations back her forbears were serfs. And I've never heard her complain once. Alice Walker is a hack writer who gets adulation and quite a good living from Americans who fawn over her maudlin and fifth-rate novels. Obama is a guy who grew up in an educated and not-uncomfortable family environment, who got enormous advantages in admission to Columbia and HLS, with a wife who got similar advantages from Princeton and HLS, and who is going to be a hack politician cum hack President, much like your Bush, and we're all supposed to get all weepy about 1954? God you people are pathetic.
March 31, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calling people "hacks", or "pathetic" is not an effective way to make a point. Kinda makes you sound like a right wing talk show host. You must be quite a big person to claim superiority over Ms. Walker and Sen. Obama. I, for one, am impressed!
March 31, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs. Walker,
We already heard from Rev. Wright - "Hillary's never been called a n****r, never had a taxi drive by her". We heard it from Dick Gregory - "don't start using [black] as your address". We've heard that Hillary had a privileged childhood while Obama has relatives on Lake Victoria. We've heard from Jesse Jackson Jr. that "A lot of politicians call themselves our friends. But Obama has a heart that beats for our community" and from Jesse Jackson, Jr. Helps Obama Win Black Vote "Barack Obama is not just running as a friend of the community - he's running as part of the community, he's one of us. He understands the challenges and struggles of the African-American community".
While Hillary saw Dr. King as a child, I think she is quite aware at least by now that she is indeed not black, though I'm not sure how we measure the guilt of her racial inheritance as you mention.
But I'm wondering if you've quite considered the innocence of Obama's gender inheritance. I recall an impressive speech from Sojourner Truth from 150 or more years ago, "Ain't I a Woman?", in which she raised 13 children by her lonesome, didn't have anyone to help her into the carriage if she even knew a carriage. They freed the black slaves back in 1863, but didn't seem inclined to let the womenfolk vote until 1920, and even now it seems unusual to have a woman seeking a high office even though they're over half the population. Doesn't this colorless bond for women still exist to a degree, in the birthing and caring for unwanted children, in the endurance of unmentioned violence on the street and in the home, in the mirthful chuckle of "you're only a girl" from grade school math class to seeking a raise in middle age to support the kids? Because I know you remember some hard times in the south, even though much of that has changed in the last 50 years. But not much of the woman's life has changed in hundreds - birthing and washing and cooking and cleaning and teaching and healing and comforting. By right-to-work, women got two jobs, not a better one.
I'm also bothered by the references to Mandela and Martin Luther King. Mandela spent 27 years in jail fighting apartheid. Dr. King spent 15 years of protest and action in the street and the corridors of power, enduring bombings, beatings, jailings, and finally a bullet he didn't survive. Through all of this, they emerged thoughtful, hopeful and inspiring leaders. I don't know what Obama has done to deserve comparison with these two giants - in a prep school from 10 years old, street activism for an NGO for 3 years, a politician for 11. My stomach roils at the comparison.
I'm sorry you came up with the term "Womanist" to distinguish women of color. Is it to draw distinction to unique troubles and outlook, to the 2/3 of black women and increasing number of Hispanics who now raise their children alone, or simply as a way to cast off the suspicious white background? Do you still see all white women as driving limousines, and has your own success and acceptance provided any hope? I rather expected a letter damning Hillary with faint praise, but to my surprise there's not an iota of praise at all. I'm not sure where you draw the line - that all self-respecting "Womanists" - feminists of color - should support Obama, or all women, or everyone. I truly am sorry for your troubled childhood - for the direct and indirect racism, for the humiliations, for the physical sufferings. But most of all, I'm sorry that from the Dr. Kings and Mandelas of the world you haven't learned love and forgiveness. Perhaps then you would understand the reasons they were truly great.
March 31, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to go ahead and take a swing at this one more time, especially since this is so boilerplate. You may not believe this, but when I first read this I immediately thought, "Oh Lord, wait until Desidero gets a hold of this", but I decided not to comment and just see what happened.
I'm not trying to say that you're predictable or anything. Well, okay.. I sort of am.
Let's see. We've got the obligatory mentions of Rev. Wright and Jesse Jackson Jr. Can't forget them. Then we've got your standard marginalization of slavery because we should be talking about women's suffrage instead (never mind that you're responding to the writings of a black woman) along with the obligatory mention of Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman?".
You're entitled to your opinion and I'm really over it because I can see that you'll probably be doing this until your heart stops beating, but do you ever feel like it's all a bit one note? I mean, I've read all of this from you so many times now that I could have written it myself. It's not that none of this has any relevance whatsoever, it's just that you seem to want to bring it all back to this no matter what happens. That's why you strike me as being caught up in identity politics. You're obviously completely pre-occupied with feminism. And not just feminism in general, but your very specific laundry-list version of feminism and your very boilerplate interpretation of history. Honestly, it seems like this is a very thick filter for you. You don't appear to ever be able to see things in terms other than this. That's why it's predictable.
I think this is exemplified by the fact that you seem to conclude that she doesn't understand King or Mandela. She's not saying Obama is King or Mandela. She's saying that she sees in him similar traits. Is she allowed to think this? Is that okay with you? It doesn't seem like it is. It seems like she didn't write her perspective your way so you've got to re-write it for her and you know how to do this well because you're very well practiced at it. You can go right back to the checklist and set to work.
I'm not saying any of this to be insulting and the only real reason I decided to respond at this point is just because you mentioned in your last post that you don't understand what I meant. This is what I mean: It seems that you will predictably revisit these issues if there's even the slightest possibility that you can relate them to the discussion. And I think it's fair to say that you've engaged in some pretty impressive gymnastics at times in order to do so. It leaves me to wonder what else you might write about were you not so pre-occupied with this single issue.
March 31, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.
All I see is some kind of unwarranted hero worship, but I suppose somehow Ms. Walker sees herself invested by her Goddess of 3 Directions in discerning the true genius that walks among us, thankfully saving us from any remnant of our (white) selves. These are only traits, DF assures us, "not perfect but humanly stunning like King was and like Mandela is" doesn't actually say Obama is one of these dudes, though striking two braincells together one might guess that she expects Obama to reach that same greatness because he's already stunning. Or did I leap to a miraculous uncalled for conclusion?
And then I'm amazed by your selectivity, DF. Here we have an article specifically marginalizing Hillary as just a white woman, tainted by her whiteness and the racial guilt that embodies. And Walker derives her own term to make sure Hillary isn't in the "women of color" group as if she had an idea she were. And Obama is a beacon of light and hope for the world running away from the horrid legacy of whiteness (which I suppose is all-responsible for the Pol Pots and Kim Jung Il's and Mao Tse Tungs as well as Arab slave trading as well, but she unfortunately didn't find time to answer).
Now, I'm not sure how I marginalized slavery. Alice Walker didn't specifically mention it, and I noted the divergence between black men and women in 1863, something that Ms. Walker ignores in her essay on excising whites from consideration. I brought it up because Ms. Walker's "Womanism" specifically discards white women from the equation because they carry the stain. (I'm going from the text you link to, not what's pasted here).
And then she says quite amusingly: "I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking....with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Mrs. Clinton who would drag ... the same image of white privilege and distance from the reality of others' lives that has so marred our country's contacts with the rest of the world." My God. Did she think when she wrote this? Man born of a white woman, raised by white grandparents, prep school at 10, accepted into Harvard. With a father who came from an Arabic line that fostered more slavery on Africa than North America did, given scholarships to come to America and then go to Harvard too before settling back into the ruling class in Kenya.
I'm constantly amazed when people like Ms. Walker stir the pot of race, gender and class and then someone else gets upset that people notice.
I'm not exactly sure what other things I should include in my laundry list of feminism, but I'm happy to consider being more expansive if you'll spell them out (though your "burning the bra" bit was handily rejected, thanks).
March 31, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
My impression is that you continually marginalize the lasting impact that slavery has had on American society. I haven't seen to pass up a single opportunity to play the game of oppression one-upmanship when it comes to this. Think back to you rantings over Rev. Wright and all of your nonsense about how the problems in the black community don't have laptops. Any time racism or racial oppression comes up, your response is: "Yeah, well what about gender oppression?" You obviously think this is more important, which is fine in that you're perfectly entitled to this opinion, but it's a non sequitur because it plays one against the other and in doing so marginalize the one that you don't seem to carry the torch for.
For someone who seems to have at least something of a penchant for literature you sure seem to be willing to be heavy-handed with literal interpretations when it suits your purpose. Alice Walker is saying that she thinks he may rise to greatness, but why does this have to be the same greatness? You're setting up a straw man again and it's really silly. Mandela and King aren't even the same, why would Obama be the same? You're trying to make the interpretation literal so you can shoot Obama down for not living up to a comparison that isn't even realistic. Of course, this is the purpose of a straw man because no one is really making this assertion except for you. You do this in your arguments all the time. Either you don't intend to and it's just sloppy thinking or you do intend to and you're a charlatan. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you keep doing it.
Walker is not the only who has observed that the dichotomy that is being played here, that of woman versus black man, is both false and unequivalent. It's a white woman and a black man for everything that each entails. Hillary Clinton is a woman, but she's also white. Apparently though, we're only supposed to talk about the historical implications of Obama's complexion.
It's really apparent that you think everything about Obama is fraudulent. Oh well.
I'm not sure what you mean by the bra burning bit. I didn't say anything about that. I think it's unfortunate that you're so fixated on your own point of view that you find yourself assailing people like who would otherwise be your allies. I don't think you'd honestly find many here who would fundamentally disagree with you that gender inequality is a real issue. The trouble that I think you get into is that it's all about marginalizing Obama to benefit Clinton which certainly makes your motivations seem a lot less pure. Perhaps your commentary will be able to explore a different tack once the election is resolved.
I'd be curious to know whether you saw the episode of Democracy Now! with Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris Lacewell and, if so, what you thought of it. If you haven't seen it and you're interested in watching, the first part is here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eQkzgr8kXDc
March 31, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I contend that there are 3 or more effects being mixed as the lasting impact of slavery. There's slavery itself, there's the effects of black migration (to cities and the north) and there's the effect of modern socio-economic situations and policies. Here you can read about the state of Education or the state of single parent black families. Is it possible to recognize that blacks were well-educated until relatively recently (even MLK's time) and that despite external oppression they had a functional internal society? You know a lot of Arabic countries have a lot of natural resources and they sit around angry and unproductive and don't do squat. And then there are places like Taiwan or Vietnam where they just don't care, they make money anyway. In short, blacks can sit around worrying about slavery, or the can get on with it, racist comments and all.
Regarding "blacks don't have laptops", I once lent a black guy an 8-track recorder. He turned his fledgling PA business into a recording studio. While his friends were sitting around drinking Mad Dog, he was busy soldering, building up his studio, piece by piece. You can imagine how he managed the money, but he managed it. We once watched a church raise $10,000 to record their choir in about 5 minutes - there was no shortage of love offerings that day. I've worked with black doctors who were very effective in outreach and mentoring - but that's a long term commitment. Launching a career in programming can be 1/10th of the time and of course 1/50th the expense. Students come over from Africa to study, but it's too hard for locals? It's an issue of priorities. What do Jewish mothers say? "If you're going to fall in love, it might as well be with someone rich." Others push for medicine, engineering, business, whatever. But they push. Instead of all the guys in the hood pooling their dollars to cut a record, they could do something else. But those are their given priorities. What's the church give them? More singing and dancing. All good fun, and for some it'll pay the bills, but for most it's a dead end. How about computer camp? IT and health care are America's biggest growing industries. Catch the wave.
Regarding Mandela and King, I didn't bring them up, Alice Walker brought them up. They're her straw men. Why's she comparing him to them? I've no idea, but it's her problem, not mine. Ever gone to a movie someone overhyped?
Regarding Obama's complexion, I never know if I'm allowed to mention it - he's white, he's black, he's universal, he's multi-ethnic. Who cares. Yes, it's easier for Hillary in some ways because of her race, it's harder for her because of her gender. Has she been raped? Has she had abortions? Has she been turned down for jobs because of her sex or she wouldn't give out? Obama undoubtedly had comments made about him. Did it derail him, or he managed? His choice of school and career didn't seem to suffer, but I really have no idea what he planned on doing and whether someone tripped him up along the way. I've known a few guys who escaped from Vietnam as refugees, one as a kid who hiked across Cambodia to Thailand and wound up in an American high school as a normal kid, another who spent a year or two in a camp before they let him into Australia - he learned chemistry and turned into a project engineer. I knew another guy whose last memory of his father was looking up and seeing a shotgun blast take his head off. He didn't turn out quite normal, but not too bad. The friend I had who got his fingers broken by the secret police was a little bit strange as well. What to do.
Okay, here's where we get more personal. My wife couldn't study under the communists because her father had done his Uni in England. She spent 2 years in exile and couldn't even come back when the Wall came down because she was illegal. She finally made it back and painted t-shirts because she couldn't get a job because she didn't have college. She'd go days without eating, living on a bit of wine, just to afford art materials. A lot of old friends just ignored her because she'd left, and everyone was too busy making money in the new system. And she dealt with it. The same people who screwed with her still had their jobs. Many of the same stupid laws were still on the books. That was life.
Regarding the bra thing, it was Merlot commenting, the Hillary on Civil War thread. As you're probably imagining it was a dumb comment for several reasons. So go blogs. You said something next to it but missed the bra thing.
In any case, I think Hillary's more straight forward a candidate, and all the arguments in the world about why she should just drop out make me laugh. Especially when followed about comments calling me a Republican. It may not be the prettiest way to win, but sometimes I play slop pool as well.
I'll watch the video in the AM. Hasta.
March 31, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have a lot of obtuse conceptions about race. This sounds about as stupid as some of the diarrhea that comes out of Tommy Friedman's mouth. If you think that "angry" is the problem in the Arab world, perhaps you have a similarly moronic understanding of race in America. Are you sure you're a Democrat? It's obviously not required, but I'm left to wonder.
Your anecdote is interesting, but it's simply that. An anecdote.
You obviously understand "straw man" about as well as you seem to understand the Middle East. Alice Walker did not create a straw man. She said that she sees in Obama qualities similar to those that she sees in Mandela and King. Plain. Simple. You try to trick people by twisting it into the weak argument "Obama is as great as Mandela and King" so that you can tear it down. That's a straw man and, like I said, you do this constantly in your arguments. It's either an indicator of sloppy thinking or an intent to deceive, period.
Here's where you become particularly obvious:
Wow. Really? Where to begin? Are we to assume that every woman has been raped, had abortions, etc? How loaded are your assumptions? As if that weren't bad enough, apparently the worst thing that Obama ever could have experienced was having comments made about him. And then, the coup de grace: Either way, despite the fact that they've both attained a similar station in life, you seem absolutely positive that, no matter what might have happened along the way, none of it was enough to "derail" Obama. On the other hand, Clinton's accomplishments are apparently absolute evidence that she has overcome all of the rapes and abortions that there isn't a hint or indication of ever having taken place (never mind the quiet little implication here about men). This is pretty damned amazing, Desidero. Somehow, you still wonder why I think you've got a giant chip on your shoulder over gender inequality and are entangled in identity politics.
There are many anecdotes like the one you share about your wife. I have many friends with similar stories. However, there is a reason social science (or any other science for that matter) does not rely on anecdotes. First, as you know they can be very personal. This is great when it comes to our relationships, but very bad if we want to have an unbiased picture of the world. Second, they are a data sample of one in a world of six billion. We can't discuss the margin of error with such a ratio because it's all error bar now.
You're more than entitled to your choice of candidate and you don't even need to have a reason. However, I don't think that this entitles you the intellectually dishonest tack that you seem to take at times. I don't really think that anyone is entitled to be intellectually dishonest even though people do it all the time and even though I, too, do it at times despite my best efforts not to. I try to alert people to such mistakes and I sincerely hope they'll do the same for me. Many here have done so and I'm grateful to them for that (I'm looking at you, Ben Hocking!). I want to think clearly and critically and not get trapped in my own personal beliefs about the way things are or, as is more often the case, the way that I want them to be.
I seriously do hope you watch the video. I think you'll find it interesting if nothing else.
PS - It was very nice to read something from you that was more or less bereft of the dizzying hyperbole that I often have seen in your posts. It is far easier to understand you this way.
March 31, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anger is a problem in the Arab world. That doesn't mean there's no reason, but it's held back progress. Sorry you don't agree. Some places are changing, others not.
Alice Walker only sees Mandela- and MLK-qualities in Obama? "He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species.", "if Obama were in any sense mediocre he would be forgotten by now", "He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill...." Yeah, maybe I'm full of shit that what Mandela and MLK did matters as much as whatever stunningness Walker thinks she sees.
More than a third of women have had abortions by 45. Black women are 4 times as likely and Hispanic women 2.5 times as likely as white women. Something like 1 in 4 or 1 in 6 women had attempted or completed rape during time on campus. Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. 77% of rapes are committed by someone known to the person raped. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992 [rate likely much lower for 2008]) Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)Reported rape victimization by race is: 34% of American Indian/Alaska Native; 24% women of mixed race; 19% of African American women; 18% of white women; 8% of Asian/Pacific Islander women. (Tjaden and Thoennes, National Institute of Justice 1998) In a 1999 longitudinal study of 3,000 women, researchers found women who had been victimized before were seven times more likely to be raped again. Among female rape victims, 61% are under age 18. (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). 22% of females raped are under the age of 12 years. Women with disabilities are raped and abused at twice the rate of the general population. [Sorry I don't have the larger assault figures]
While Obama could have suffered some atrocities, like the Brooklyn Diallo plunger incident, the types of violence experienced by men are still likely beatings, knivings, shootings, etc. and are more likely types of crimes that men will report. There can be more KKK-style harassment/terrorizing, not typical for Hawaii, and then other types of harassment in environments like California, New York and Chicago. And then there's the small slurs and insults that add up. Perhaps he held these back from his book, I simply don't know.
In any case, I didn't say Hillary had overcome anything of the sort - I said Rev. Wright had made assumptions where he shouldn't have, and that it wouldn't be that unusual if Hillary had dealt with assault, rape or abortion because they're endemic and often undercover in this society.
I give you statistics, I give you anecdotes, I give you opinions, I point to essays. In your mind they seem to only add up to me being a Republican.
April 1, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that gender inequality is a problem. Why don't you go look at the statistics for incarceration rates among black men? A black man in the inner city has approximately a 1/3 chance of not seeing his 30th birthday.
Maybe Obama is holding it back from his books. Maybe Clinton is holding it back from here. Why one gets credit for it where the other doesn't is your cognitive dissonance, not mine.
But I don't want to play Oppression Olympics with you. That's kind of my whole point.
Both things are a problem, but one is clearly a torch that you hold high and the other is something that you dismiss. You're welcome to your point of view, but I find it to be obtuse and boring. And apparently I'm not the only one that finds attempting to digest your arguments to be like listening to a broken record.
Oh well.
April 1, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've commented on the problem of incarceration for black men, especially for drugs, a number of times on TPM. While I think the whole War on Drugs and building of more and more prisons is stupid, I also think it's time the black community realized government's not going to handle the problem except to make it worse. But while that could have derailed Obama, it seems he managed to not get busted.
April 1, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hold it high - I brought it up after seeing Rev. Wright's condemnation of Hillary in rather over-the-top rhetoric filled with assumptions that she had an easy life of privilege or more laughably didn't get called nasty slurs as bad as n****r. And it's funny as well that Obama gets a whole lot of supportive assumptions that he must have suffered a lot because of his race, layerings of sympathy for slavery even though his ancestors weren't slaves, etc. It's weird.
April 1, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watched all 4 segments of the video, kind of like reading this blog. Unsurprisingly Steinem came off to me more relaxed and rational and less invested in any one candidate and less wanting to fight, and Lacewell came off as basically a flak and an Obama apologist. I don't think white women are particular interested in denying women of color their unique perspectives and experience even while trying to work for common goals and needs. The sense that white women were stepping on the backs of black maids to get into the workforce is a bit of a distortion. If there had been heavy Irish or Polish immigration at that time, no doubt those minorities would have held the lower class jobs. As Mexicans climbed up the ladder, Salvadorans replaced them on the lower rungs. It's also an opportunity - to put food on the table, to help pay for education or the next generation, or especially in the Latino case, to send money back home. With more women of color at lower rungs, obviously their perspective will be somewhat different than from higher rungs. But concerns like abortion, childcare, family violence, education, health care, etc. still retain some rather basic fundamental similarities.
April 1, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Desidero,
How quickly you forget the long history of white women proclaiming their gender oppression yet doing everything they can to maintain their race, class, and sexuality (heterosexist) privileges.
It was not black men who denied white women the vote. It was white men.
How quickly Susan B. Anthony and many others left black women in the dust for voting rights and to not "offend" their Southern white sisters. Let us not forget the reproductive rights movement either.
It took until the 80's and 90's to for it to even be recognized that there was a black feminist tradition.
But, you seem to be incapable of allowing yourself and HRC even basic humanity. We all have privileges and we all have aspects of our "identities" and place in life that can disadvantage us. Yet, you seem incapable of even allowing for a discussion of race privilege, as if that will somehow discount any claim to sexism. This is not a zero sum game.
Your defensiveness is matched only by your small and stingy heart. You begrudge black women even a name for who they are and what they stand for when they speak about feminism. No, no, no. It has to be YOUR feminism or nothing at all. Anything else is divisive.
March 31, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was Frederick Douglass who put the nail in the coffin by deliberately excluding women by his refusal to include women in the Civil Rights act of 1869, saying "white women are enfranchised by the votes of their fathers and husbands." Even then, after having gone back on his word that he would help the feminist movement after their united and effective efforts for abolition, the feminist movement continued to work for the equal rights of all people through their journals, especially "Revolution" the journal of Susan B. Anthony and through agitation for legislation to ensure equal rights at least in labour. It wasn't until 1900 that feminist movements decided to put aside any work other than women's suffrage and it took another twenty years before they achieved that.
March 31, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD--To suggest that Frederick Douglass had the power to enfranchise women is a stretch and to hold him accountable for what the white male government did is just silly. But here in lies the problem with the white feminist talking points. Can you tell me why Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton turned to the racist George Francis Train and the proslavery Democrats? Yes, they felt betrayed and angry but what justification did they have for splitting the feminist movement in two by turning away from their abolitionist friends? They took on white supremacist arguments and advocated for literacy tests as a pre-requisite for the vote and called black men the "worst elements". Hence, some white women feminists can and do fall back on racism and white skin privilege to advance their cause. Seems like a never ending pattern to me.
March 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't hold Frederick Douglass responsible, I hold him responsible for throwing women under the carriage when he didn't need them anymore. Stanton and Anthony didn't turn against the abolitionist movement, the abolitionist movement abandoned them, just as the civil rights Amendment movement did once they achieved their aims. They used the feminist movement and had no intentions of ever supporting women's suffrage.
As Stanton points out, it is only the feminist movement that is questioned in its welcoming of Train to support their movement, when the abolitionist movement welcomed many who were "false to women" and refused to recognize women's rights. As Stanton said, "[men] such as Garrison, Phillips and Sumner in their treatment of our question today, proves that we cannot trust anybody." Train financially supported the suffrage movement and financed their journal, "The Revolution". Was Train a racist? Yes, but then the abolitionist movement didn't hesitate to use financiers who were diametrically opposed to women's rights. Train also advocated equal pay for equal rights, the right of labour to collectively bargain and the right to a ten hour work day among his other eccentricities. Perhpas if support had been forthcoming for the feminist movement as the feminist movement had supported the abolitionist movement, both movements would have taken a different course.
March 31, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've no idea what you're talking about.
Did universal suffrage in 1920 deny black women the vote?
Alice Walker can create a separate category for women of color, and it seems her point is to explicitly omit white women. Sorry, did I deny her rights? Is there a problem with the term "black women" to refer to black women? I guess somebody needs a term for everyone but white women. (What would you think of me if I can up with a unifying term for everyone but black women? Okay, not quite the same thing, but you get the point).
Interesting what's all boiling just beneath the surface.
March 31, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Obama is quoting June Jordan and Sweet Honey on the Rock when he says "we are the ones we have been waiting for." This is very radical and supportive of women. But, I guess he has to only support white women to be supportive of all women but by quoting black women he is playing the race card because well black women cannot represent all women like white women can.
Desidero,
Why does it bother you so much that Walker coined the term "womanist"? Why do you take it so personally? Who are you to decide what is appropriate for black women and what is not? Why do you have to be so self-referential? Why are you so defensive? Could you not find ways of seeing yourself as a "womanist" as you are asking black women to see themselves in the term "feminist" and not create a new category?
And, to say that "womanist" excludes white women is wrong and intellectually dishonest. Perhaps if you stopped reacting you may find commonality that you did not even realize existed because you only wanted commonality on your own terms. Why are you selling yourself short?
March 31, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, follow DF's link to Walker's full post - she uses "womanist" specifically to exclude white women. Google it as well - "Walker womanism". The way you seem to define things, I couldn't possibly a feminist either. And I always thought feminism described a set of core ideals and behavior to support, not a specification of who one is, which would typically be much much more.
March 31, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
They weren't inclined to let the black folk vote in the south until they were forced to by the Voting Rights Act. And they still aren't inclined to let the black folk into their schools. So, again, you can stick that whole whine of yours where the sun don't shine. It may go over well with the women's studies set, but it doesn't stand up to the light of day.
March 31, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting to be oblivious is the true hallmark of privilege.
By the time I was 10, it was quite clear to me that that segregation was a wicked system that affected schools, buses, restrooms, water fountains, housing, motels and department stores. Yet I managed not to think through libraries until just now, at 48. Libraries, which I associate with love, and learning, and family, and especially with my grandmother who ran one. And Alice Walker didn't get to have the marvel in her childhood. Dear God, what a horrible way to treat people.
Likewise, having been handed Alice Walker work by my mother, my literary aunts and said grandmother, I thought of Walker as wise and strong and tremendously free. To read her saying that libraries were foreign to her even now, that the uneasiness still comes back to her, jolted me extra.
And yes, I could talk about the doctorate my mother didn't get or the jobs that paid her less than the guy she supervised or the shelves I couldn't reach in a law school that hadn't been designed for women of average height. Gender discrimination is bad and has been worse. It undervalues human beings, underuses their talents, and undermines their individual happiness.
But it is not equivalent, or parallel, or even in the ball park of similar.
To argue that it is similar, or that it is somehow worse, in a scolding voice, to someone who has laid bare real scars in a gentle voice, is astounding arrogance.
Getting to be oblivious is the true hallmark of privilege.
March 31, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you're married to Ike Turner or Phil Spector, you might not think it's "oblivious". As of 1993, 1 in 100 women per year was subject to simple assault, rape or other violence from intimates. That of course includes black women.
The woman who discovered nuclear fission in Germany in the late 30's had to work for free because women weren't allowed in the lab, and even then her male cohort took all the credit. Now likely it was easier for her to get a secretarial job than a black woman.
March 31, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has run a campaign making phony charges of racism and race-baiting. He played to the honmphobes in South Carolina in ways which are morally equivalent to how racists played to r acists. Obama then comes, as the arsonist to the fire, to give a speech on racial healing. I can see his character and hear Dr. Martin Luther King.
I have researched his record, read his two books, listened to a complete sermon of Dr. Wright and listened to and read Obama's speech on race: he is a phony.
I regret that our country's sorrow over race is going to lead to a mistake of this magnitude.
March 31, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Madlib time!
AJM has run a campaign making phony charges of fakeness and phoniness. He played to the Clintonistas on TPM in ways which are morally equivalent to how trolls play to other trolls. AJM then comes, as the arsonist to the fire, to give a speech on authenticity. I can see his character and hear Marginal Player.
I have researched his record, read his two posts, listened to a complete sermon of Howard Wolfson and listened to and read AJM's speech on Obama: he is a phony.
I am pleased that our country's indifference to trolls is going to lead to a change of this magnitude.
March 31, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero -- Don't know how old you are but I'm old as the hills and remember that time. Goldwater is out of it, as he wouldn't have taken office until 1965 and the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. There is no denying - at all - the importance of the efforts of the NAACP (with their counsel Marshall) in getting Brown v Board of Education and the Little Rock 9.
But Eisenhower showed clearly that without government recognition and support, the ruling itself wasn't going to make much of a dent at least in the deep South. (Brown involved a Kansas school board) There were no serious efforts in enforcement until after JFK and RFK, his Attorney General, came on the scene.
And the two people who were chiefly responsible for passage of the Act were King (and the many who worked, and walked, beside him from 1957) and JFK, who had introduced the legislation several months before he was assasinated. It was well understood at the time that passge of the Act was as a kind of memorial to him. LBJ certainly deserves credit or going along with the pressure (a good bit of it from RFK) to make that the memorial and his skill in shepherding it through Congress, but it wasn't *his* agenda and it's not certain his 'shepherding' skills would have been employed so well if JFK had lived. --- So there is good reason that Clinton's NH remark went down so poorly, both with blacks and with those who remember the Kennedys and their role (Ted among them, of course).
I don't expect Clinton to have remembered for this - after all she was working hard for Goldwater, who opposed the Act, during that time. But she should have done her homework before making a really tone-deaf and essentially inaccurate statement, particularly when doing so to 'put down' a black man who is in many ways a successor to JFK and RFK! Undoubtedly the change was going to come in some fashion, but at the time there was absolutely NO assurance that it would be as relatively bloodless and successful as it was because of the way that King and the Kennedys "shaped" it.
March 31, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
LBJ passed a Civil Rights bill in 1957 as Senate Majority Leader, the first bill since reconstruction. He was pulled onto JFK's ticket because of his skill at backroom dealing and then sidelined onto Civil Rights by the team around JFK since they wanted the more glory tasks. Like many things, LBJ sank his teeth into it and didn't let go, even if one can't claim he was the world's most color-blind or most ethical person in the world. Here's the Wiki version: "After the election, Johnson found himself powerless. Despite Kennedy's efforts to have Johnson busy, informed and at the White House often, his advisors and even some of his family were dismissive to the Texan. Kennedy appointed him to nominal jobs such as head of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, through which he worked with African Americans and other minorities. Though Kennedy probably intended this to remain a nominal position, Taylor Branch in Pillar of Fire contends that Johnson served to force the Kennedy administration's actions for civil rights further and faster than Kennedy intended to go. Branch notes the irony of Johnson, who the Kennedy family hoped would appeal to conservative southern voters, being the advocate for civil rights. In particular he notes Johnson's Memorial Day 1963 speech at Gettysburg as being a catalyst that led to much more action than otherwise would have occurred." You can also read about how LBJ battled to get the 1964 Civil Rights bill out of a pocket veto here: Pocket Veto
You can also read more about his appointment of Thurgood Marshall (the judicial point man for black progress in the 40's and 50's) to the Supreme Court, his statements against the KKK, his Great Society programs, etc. Not sure why giving LBJ his due is a problem - Jesse Jackson Sr. had no problem with it as I quoted above. And what I can't figure out is if being President isn't so important, then why does Obama want that job?
March 31, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sporcupine -- Thank you for saying this so well: "Gender discrimination is bad and has been worse. It undervalues human beings, underuses their talents, and undermines their individual happiness. But it is not equivalent, or parallel, or even in the ball park of similar [discrimination based on race]." As a white woman who lived in the South and saw the other discrimination up close, you are absolutely correct. There is no comparison; no rational human being would make that choice. -- I cannot understand the mind-set, or the hate, of some of the people posting. What an awful, limiting way to look at the world.
March 31, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is really Alice Walker? The same woman who wrote The Color Purple?
I have my doubts. This is trash.
March 31, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink