Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Wilentz and Sympathizers Insult Blacks (and Whites) Again
Sean Wilentz is a published historian who has had a long friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. He (along with some posters at TPM) has a stick in his craw about widespread accusations that the
Advertisement
Comments (27)
Hmmm...most of the post was cut off. Let me try again.
Sean Wilentz is a published historian who has had a long friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. He (along with some posters at TPM) has a stick in his craw about widespread accusations that the Clintons have employed racial politics to try to slow down the Obama campaign’s momentum. In fact, they claim that it’s Obama who is fiendishly attempting to exploit race while giving the false impression that the Clintons are racist. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
What I find most offensive about the hyperbolic accusations Sean Wilentz and some TPM posters (see the thread in TPM reader blog post entitled “With Democrats like these, who needs racists?”) level at Obama—of trying to exploit racial resentments to his benefit—is that the charges are based on arrogant, demeaning presumptions about black Americans (and some white Americans, too).
Thinking about Sen. Clinton’s MLK/LBJ comments, let's remember to consider the context: the reason Sen. Clinton even brought up MLK was because she needed to counter some of the media's comparisons of Obama to MLK, not because she just spontaneously tried to make an historical observation, as Sean Wilentz's lengthy, out-of-context apologia might try to persuade. ttp://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a383df9e-9d33-4b57-b832-a75b7c4d0d0c
Most of the anger and outrage at Sen. Clinton's MLK/LBJ statements, which was obviously part of her ongoing 'he's a talker; I'm a do-er' campaign theme, occurred spontaneously. It was not prompted or coaxed or stirred up. Nobody had to tell African Americans that they should feel insulted by Hillary's statements. Are Wilentz and his like-minded critics really arrogant and presumptuous enough to believe that 75% or more of African American Democratic voters would not have been insulted by Hillary's statements, were it not for Obama's dastardly manipulation? Amazing. Insulting.
Saying LBJ was NECESSARY to getting civil rights legislation passed isn't necessarily about his unique qualities and efforts as President. Perhaps, to black Americans (and some white Americans, too), the reason we had a President Lyndon Johnson instead of a President Martin Luther King is because King was a black man. And it was 1964. In the 1960s, having a President Martin Luther King was unthinkable. He was a black man in a country where disenfranchisement of black voters and de facto segregation was still tolerated and protected. Jim Crow was still very much alive.
Thankfully, it is no longer 1964 and we no longer have the need to wait for a white LBJ-figure to arrive and take care of the non-inspirational, practical, down-to-bidness work that U.S. Presidents do in bringing justice at long last.
In South Carolina, reporters asked Bill why it was taking "two Clintons" to fight Obama. Instead of simply saying that Obama was a strong candidate who was running a competitive campaign—and leaving it at that—he decided to draw comparisons to a previous candidate's campaign to support his point. It's curious that he felt the most effective comparison was Jackson's candidacy in 1984 (OVER 20 YEARS AGO), which is commonly historically viewed as a niche-, black-candidate campaign.
It really doesn’t matter what Bill Clinton’s intent was here. The relevance of this particular outdated comparison is highly questionable. It seemed to diminish the nature of Obama's broad-appeal candidacy to a niche-, black-candidacy. That’s why so many people, without prompting by the Wilentz-imagined evil and conniving Obama, spontaneously interpreted Bill Clinton’s intent the same way.
True, nobody can know with certainty what was in Bill Clinton's heart; but when considering his comparison of Obama's candidacy to Jackson's, it is once again useful to look at the comments in the context of the ongoing campaign conversation.
Bill Clinton had enjoyed a long-standing, positive relationship with African American Democratic voters; and he had just spent a week in South Carolina, trying to stop the fast leak of earned goodwill that was quickly draining away. When it became apparent in pre-election polling that his efforts had not been successful, Bill Clinton was, no doubt, searching for a way to explain why he seemed unable to salvage Hillary’s previously poll-demonstrated African American support. I suggest that the comparison of Obama's candidacy to Jackson's was a way to explain that the overwhelming African American support of Obama wasn't because Hillary had become UNAPPEALING to them; it was just that Obama, being a black man, was MORE APPEALING to them.
If this was indeed the motivation for his comparison, it was a bad move. In trying to rationalize Hillary’s loss of African American support this way, it also seemed to imply that their support of Obama was natural, as if they were unlikely to vote for a white candidate if a black candidate was available. This is 2008, not 1984. I'm sure African Americans, just like people of all other colors, and regardless of ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation, are willing to vote for candidates who reflect their self-interests, regardless of race.
March 1, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton referred to Jackson from both 1984 and 1988, which is only 20 years ago, and only 4 years before Clinton ran for President. That you can't see the obvious relevance doesn't make it racist. Clinton had to build past his southern roots. Dukakis was only strong in the liberal NE. Everyone has their strengths, but to win the candidacy you have to crossover past your strengths. A marathon is more than 3 miles. Obama had won Iowa and South Carolina and lost New Hampshire, somewhat similar to Jackson's successes which weren't enough to get him the nomination. Now that Obama has won some more he can start bragging. Though a bit early still to put on the gold medal. Why exactly isn't this clear?
March 1, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, re-reading your post it's more nuanced than I gave it credit for. Undoubtedly his comment was a bad move because it got picked up and used as an anti-Clintons ad campaign.
But I think your conclusion that African-Americans vote their self-interest more than their race is too distorting of the human race in general. There will be a significant percentage of Irish-Americans who will vote for an Irish candidate. Southerners will likely favor Southerners. There is a presumed "shared values" that often trumps actual ability to do a better job of catering to one's actual interests, actually delivering on promises and potential.
March 1, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because, Obama's success was TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Jacksons:
He won 24 PERCENT of of the white vote, and Jackson 5 -10 PERCENT in 1988 and far less than that in 1984.
Your entire way of thinking can be summarized as follows:
"Hey, one in every ten thousand of you blacks, makes it, so what are y'all complaining about?"
or
"Hey you blacks aren't getting lynched no more, we've evolved to just dragging you behind trucks, so what are y'all complaining about?"
and more of that ilk.
You're so stupid to think that anybody will fall for that crap. But nobody, other than racism-apologists like you, does that.
Try something else.
March 1, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
A thoughtful piece in response to an unthoughtful one. Wilentz displayed a remarkable lack of integrity and an amazing ability to see the world through his prism (He laughed at the suggestion that John Lewis might endorse Obama.) I appreciate your reasoned response.
March 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing to remember about Jackson's showings, is that the Democrats had already chosen a nominee, and Jackson was the only one still actively campaigning in there. He was an uncontested protest vote. Obama was facing a front-runner, with nearly a full field of candidates, in a contest nobody thought was over yet. The ONLY comparison available to Bill Clinton, or anyone else, would have to be skin color, because these were COMPLETELY different sports. "Of course the NY Giants won the Superbowl, Reggie Jackson was a great baseball player."
March 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis, chautauquan.
March 1, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing racist in Senator Clinton's LBJ comments. Absolutely nothing.
Bill Clinton made the mistake of suggesting what literally dozens of political analysts had said before him-- that Obama would have an advantage in South Carolina because of the demographics.
The whole country knew this-- for days there was talk of how if Obama lost in Nevada, he could recover in South Carolina because of the demographics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that-- demographic groups tend to rally around one of their own if the candidate passes a threshold of credibility. What percentage of Irish Catholics voted for JFK-- 80, 90, 95%? For a long time Clinton had a huge advantage among women-- again, nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Breaking barriers is part of the progressive agenda, whether for African Americans or for women or gays or Jews or Latinos.
Bill Clinton's response to a reporter's question has since turned into the media's big lie of the campaign-- that the Clintons "played the race card"-- analogous to the lie that Gore claimed he invented the internet.
March 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are thoughtful people who sincerely don't see the racism in Hillary's or Bill's comments.
The point of my post was not to PROVE that the Clintons' remarks were racist. As I said, none of us knows what's in their hearts--indeed it is hard to believe that they would jeopardize many years' worth of genuine goodwill with African Americans for immediate political goals.
Rather, I speak to Sean Wilentz's attempt to PROVE that the Clintons are not racist, and his further assertion that it is actually Obama who is using race as a political wedge. This is equally hard to believe, since Obama's success depends on avoiding having race exploited in his campaign.
What I'm saying is that the Clintons' intent at some point is not entirely relevant. Regardless of intent, African Americans' anger in response to their comments was genuine and, given the circumstances, understandable.
To evaluate the sincerity and spontaneity of African Americans' response to the Clintons' comments, I point to two things: 1) consider the running theme in each of their comments in the days and hours preceding their statements; and 2) consider that how each statement was received by African Americans is shaped by their experiences and by our shared history.
It was not ginned up or manipulated by Obama, as Wilentz and Clinton apologists assert. And to suggest so is extremely insulting to African Americans.
March 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know it wasn't?
March 1, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought about not dignifying this with a response.
I think it would be absolutely impossible to orchestrate 'manufactured' outrage of this kind against politicians who have been popular with African Americans.
You can choose to believe that if you like. It seems extremely unlikely and illogical.
And by the same token, there's no way you or Wilentz can "know," either.
March 1, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does Mr.Wilentz explain Hillary Clinton's apology, last week, to the African American Community, since he is now claiming that the Clintons were actually the victims.
Do people usually go around offering apologies for something that actually victimized them. I know I would never do such a thing. Would you. Mr. Wilentz appears to be making the case that Hillary did just that!.
March 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the ClintonAttacksObama Wiki Incident Tracker.
Incidents Page
It's up to #44 Incidents.
Believe them, don't - I really don't care. But, the premise that Obama used race against Clinton is utterly absurd.
Black folk, on Black radio, Black Talk Radio and the Black Blogosphere, heard the call of the racial Dogwhistle politics coming from the Clinton campaign LONG before the MSM 'picked it up'. And, it DID NOT BEGIN with the MLK/LBJ comment.
Check out the Incidents Page.
March 1, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
eudoxie,
I checked out that website. Are there more websites you can point me to? I'm interested in learning more about the comments by the non-pundit black folks out there -- you know, "normal" peoples' thoughts and feelings.
I find it appalling that people like Wilentz can so easily disregard or discount the genuine thoughts and feelings of African Americans. Too often they are accused of being "wrong" for their feelings, or "over-reacting," or pretending to be outraged just to get attention. And now it's suggested that they're being manipulated and duped into being angry.
March 1, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wilentz's tactics are embarrassing for him and his profession. It'd actually be interesting to hear from Josh on this--as a history PhD. who knows the standards of intellectual honesty to which the profession holds itself.
March 1, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post might present a tad more honesty if you were to deal with a few of the other examples that Wilentz brings up, such as the "fairy tale" remark, and the "kid" remark (which was a complete fabrication -- Bill Clinton never even said that), and the infamous memo from Obama's SC campaign obviously trying to fan racial resentments from supposed "racially tinged" remarks. And there were many more examples he raised with like difficulties.
As it stands, your post could hardly be more dishonest. And you presume to criticize Wilentz?
March 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I chose to focus on only the two incidents that seemed to me to cause the most disillusionment and hurt among African Americans. They are incidents that can be understood without having to consider any additional dynamics caused by campaign operatives, surrogates, or supporters.
I also think (and I confess I'm basing this on my own feelings) that people experience the strongest reactions to statements made by the candidates themselves, rather than campaigns' supporters and operatives.
Mr. Wilentz really has extremely weak supporting arguments for his position that Obama is deviously manipulating the media and African Americans with racial anger. By objective standards, his recent column lacks reasonable substantive support.
I'm not lacking the critical thinking skills needed to evaluated his work.
As it stands, your comment on my post could hardly be more pompous. Your condescension is unwarranted, and I reject your insults. You presume to criticize me?
March 1, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really a weak response.
Look, in order to show that the Obama campaign was trying to foster racial resentments, it suffices to show that they tried to turn a number of obviously non-racial remarks into something that caused many African-Americans to see them as racially tinged.
The examples I raised, which you simply didn't deal with, make that point powerfully. I'd argue that the MLK/LBJ remark was more of same, but that would be a longer argument, and it's always easier to focus on the more obvious cases to establish a point.
Again, just consider all the hay that got made out of the "fairy tale" remark, and the alleged (but invented) "kid" remark. Note how they made their way into the infamous memo from Obama's SC campaign.
I don't see how anyone looking at all that information honestly could fail to conclude that the Obama campaign was actively seeking to foster racial resentments so that it could win the African-American vote in SC.
Either you deal with the examples, or you should just give up your argument.
March 2, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't address the incidents you refer to because I don't need them to support my main point.
Wilentz busies himself with trying to prove the Clintons' innocence and Obama's guilt in exploiting race during their campaigns. His assertions do not properly acknowledge the possibility that African Americans experienced genuine emotional responses of their own, unprompted and not manipulated. And it's possible these genuine emotional responses could be experienced even if the Clintons intended no offense.
March 2, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Jordan,
“It was not ginned up or manipulated by Obama, as Wilentz and Clinton apologists assert. And to suggest so is extremely insulting to African Americans.”
This kind of statement is the essence of playing the race card itself. It is an appeal to racial victim-hood based on inferences made by the supposed victim. If one makes an innocent statement that is taken as a slur by someone else, it is not (racially) insulting to to deny or rationally question whether offense was intended or can even be inferred.
You say this: “What I find most offensive about the hyperbolic accusations Sean Wilentz and some TPM posters […] level at Obama—of trying to exploit racial resentments to his benefit—is that the charges are based on arrogant, demeaning presumptions about black Americans (and some white Americans, too).” Immediately following this: “In fact, they claim that it’s Obama who is fiendishly attempting to exploit race while giving the false impression that the Clintons are racist.”
Now, who is being hyperbolic? Demographic groups do vote for a variety of reasons, and identification with a candidate’s race or gender or beliefs about those or other single issues are often considerations. I don’t think Obama began playing identity politics anymore than Clinton but both have at times. And I’ve seen no one in this whole campaign say that Obama is only getting votes because of race, especially both Clintons who have praised him as a candidate.
After warning to consider the context of Clinton’s MLK/LBJ comments, you distort that context and Wilentz’ clear explanation of it. You claim it was a response to the media’s not Obama’s obliquely linking himself to MLK (in yet another passage borrowed from Deval Patrick). You assert that Clinton’s remarks on MLK/LBJ were race-baiting and denigrating to King. That is the very kind of biased, unsubstantiated and distorting claim that critics are accusing Wilentz of committing. And please re-read Clinton's staement after S.C. in its full context. Jackson is the best example clinton could have used to make that point (which was not racist). This post like most on this subject misrepresents the context of those statements and most of the other supposed racial “slurs.”
I don’t think the campaign to tag Clinton with race-baiting has been a calculated, organized strategy (and Wilentz doesn’t argue that), but it was working and some among Obama’s campaign and supporters ran with it (and he did not stop them at the time). After years of smearing the Clintons, it was easy for many to buy them as doing anything to win even if it made no sense. As the media has reinforced the Clinton race-baiting, it has become simple FACT. It swung black votes in great numbers prior to S.C. and brought along a lot of white voters who were appalled by the media confirmed racism. It was just enough to tip the momentum in what had already been decided was a two person race.
Though Wilentz’ support of Clinton is apparent and this is a magazine article not an academic paper (SNL?), he is a highly regarded historian and the article is solid. Where in the MSM, before Wilentz’ article and an occasional jab from Krugman, has anyone even questioned the Obama campaign on this? You claim the Wilentz article is weak, but it is, in fact, loaded with evidence and support. I've yet to see anyone argue against it without distorting its substance.
March 2, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"After warning to consider the context of Clinton’s MLK/LBJ comments, you distort that context and Wilentz’ clear explanation of it [...] You assert that Clinton’s remarks on MLK/LBJ were race-baiting and denigrating to King. That is the very kind of biased, unsubstantiated and distorting claim that critics are accusing Wilentz of committing."
No, actually I'm not trying to assert that the Clintons' remarks were race-baiting, and I conceded in a comment on this thread that there are thoughtful people who do not detect racism in the Clintons' comments. My point is that the Clintons could be well-intentioned; and yet it's not difficult to understand, given the context, how their statements could have been perceived as demeaning.
"You claim the Wilentz article is weak, but it is, in fact, loaded with evidence and support. I've yet to see anyone argue against it without distorting its substance."
Wilentz's article does contain substance, but it doesn't support his charge against Obama. There his position is based mostly on conjecture.
March 2, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That’s a good one- taking my comment about context out of context :) What I said was that Clinton was responding directly to Obama’s associating himself with MLK. If he had compared himself to Ghandi or John Lennon or any one else(not black or president), she would have responded to that. But you are implying that it is race baiting to say LBJ was needed to pass MLK’s objectives.
“Saying LBJ was NECESSARY to getting civil rights legislation passed isn't necessarily about his unique qualities and efforts as President. Perhaps, to black Americans (and some white Americans, too), the reason we had a President Lyndon Johnson instead of a President Martin Luther King is because King was a black man.” Uh, yeah…kind of a circular argument, isn’t it? Clinton was only talking about experience and administration. There is simply nothing racist there by any objective reading. To continue to try to frame this otherwise and to shut off debate by claiming that discussing the matter is insulting to one group IS playing the race card.
“Thankfully, it is no longer 1964 and we no longer have the need to wait for a white LBJ-figure to arrive and take care of the non-inspirational, practical, down-to-bidness work that U.S. Presidents do in bringing justice at long last.” How is this not running on identity politics? And “down to bidness”? At least, you didn’t say “shuck and jive” or “spadework” or “niggardly” which are slurs to some, regardless of context, meaning or intent. But then, according to your argument, I’m insulting all African Americans even bringing this up. My bad.
Wilentz provides solid evidence showing that Obama campaigners and supporters (disdainfully called surrogates when speaking of Clinton) stoked the race politics accusations which the media was only to happy to blow up. I know you claim that you aren’t trying to prove the Clintons were being racist, just make the case that it can’t be proved they were not. Of course, strictly speaking, “prove” is arguably unattainable, as in you can’t prove evolution. But Wilentz does make the case that the race card was played by the other side and he does that convincingly.
It takes a willful blindness not to read, for example, Jess Jackson, Jr’s threats and insinuations (No tears for Katrina? -talk about codes) as anything but race politics. HRC has run a pitiful campaign at times and has attacked Obama from many directions. There have been plenty of smears to go around on both sides (but nothing compared to what's coming). But, obviously, the Clintons wouldn't cut their own throats by race-baiting Obama. The journalist's credo, "Follow the money," is just a construct of "Who benefits?"
March 2, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah! About "the bidness"...
I was making fun of LBJ's Texas good ol' boy mannerisms. You live in Texas, you know what I'm talking about. ;-) But I probably shouldn't have been jocular there. My bad.
(D'oh! I screwed up replying to your comment. See down thread.)
March 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Race and Gender issues are the third rail in American Politics. Smart Politicians are fully aware of that. You touch those issues, in what may be perceived as using them to try and create a wedge issue, at your Political peril. Bill Clinton is acclaimed as a brilliant politician, yet he did just that. Why?
I have a suspicion that Bill does not want Hillary to actually become President. He is the one that has been eager to tell the media how Hillary must win both Texas and Ohio or it is over. How is that helping Hillary.
Bill may prefer to be the last two term Democrat, rather than having his wife in the History books ahead of him, and should she be a failed President, then they would be lumped together as the failed Clintons .
Bill may be trying to keep Hillary from pushing him aside in the History books.
He is too smart a politician not to be aware that he was playing with fire. Hillery may be married to an arsonist.
March 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not willfully blind, but I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse.
Once again, my focus is not on proving whether the Clintons were race-baiting. You said, "Of course, strictly speaking, 'prove' is arguably unattainable, as in you can’t prove evolution." I agree.
My focus is on African Americans and the insult they felt, regardless of the Clintons' intent. It was an attempt to encourage folks like you and Wilentz to use context and empathy to consider that many African American responded with spontaneous, un-coaxed, genuine anger. And angry African Americans who read Wilentz's assertion that they could be manipulated into buying into manufactured offense removes all agency from them to determine when they have or haven't been insulted.
Once again, it seems you do not understand this or you choose to ignore it.
March 2, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wasn’t saying you were willfully blind, only arguing that JJJ was obviously referring to black victims in New Orleans when he said Hillary didn’t cry after Katrina. (I’ve always wondered how someone can be deliberately obtuse, though, other than taking a hammer to their head).
Now, Laura, you post a piece criticizing a sound and well-documented article thoroughly debunking these claims of race politics, but that wasn’t your “focus.” You present Wilentz as a Clinton apologist, making hyperbolic accusations, and then you tear into the Clintons’ MLK/LBJ and Jesse Jackson remarks. That’s pretty good criticism for not being your argument. And saying this: “There are thoughtful people who sincerely don't see the racism in Hillary's or Bill's comments” doesn’t exactly repudiate the argument that the Clintons are playing race politics. It kinda says they are.
No, I did read your post and I did hear your response. And I explained mine, which was that your “focus” is race-card playing. Of course, African Americans can be manipulated into buying into “a manufactured offense.” Everyone and every group is manipulated all the time (see: advertising), especially every four years.
“Are Wilentz and his like-minded critics really arrogant and presumptuous enough to believe that 75% or more of African American Democratic voters would not have been insulted by Hillary's statements, were it not for Obama's dastardly manipulation? Amazing. Insulting.”
That’s what you call a loaded question but the short answer is yes, at least in my own arrogance and presumptuousness, I do not think most or even a small number of AAs would read those comments as racial if the seed had not been planted and the meme propagated after that (because, of course, it isn’t just that statement but five or six, no thirteen, no forty or fifty or hundreds of incidences when you really start looking and listening for the dogwhistles and coded words made by a calculating politician who’ll do anything to win.
To try to repeat myself in plainer language, it seems more insulting to say that this issue shouldn’t be broached because African Americans FEEL offended by the Clintons’ race-baiting (regardless of if they actually are race-baiting) and therefore shouldn’t, you know, examine the evidence and analyze what is really going on. You’re saying Wilentz and all who try to correct the record and get at the truth are insulting African Americans by doing so. The race card works because it plays on some kind of PC liberal guilt. But the fact that it works doesn’t make it valid.
March 2, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I'm surprised you were still attentive and responding to my comments. You may not be paying attention any longer, but I'll add one more comment just in case.
The whole reason I made this post is because I know quite a few African Americans who were immediately and genuinely angered by the Clintons' statements in New Hampshire and South Carolina (those two specific incidents), before the media or the Obama campaign had any opportunity to massage or manipulate anything. And these were people who were NOT predisposed to ANY notion that the Clintons were racist. In fact, a few of them intended to vote for Hillary.
The reason I went to such length to describe the context and perceptions in each of the two cases I cited was to frame these situations from the perspective of my African American friends. And since I knew their angry responses were immediate, and not massaged and manipulated, I do think Wilentz is arrogant and presumptuous for asserting that they were. (I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that what I said wasn't as much a "loaded question" as it was a rhetorical one.)
So the incidents in New Hampshire and South Carolina were difficult enough for them to deal with. But now these claims by people like Wilentz, that African Americans' anger at the Clintons is actually the result of devious manipulataion by Obama, REALLY angers them. This notion removes all agency from African Americans to determine who and what made them angry.
Do you want to admit you really don't understand how this is insulting? Do you want to insist that you and Wilentz know better than these folks why they're angry?
I know it's tacky for me to ask, but are you African American?
March 4, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment