Thanks you for this thoughtful piece. It's refreshing to see someone step back and look at the big picture of what is happening here. I think Americans have convinced themselves that they are no longer racist, that white supremacy is an archaic term, and that if minorities haven't been able to have the good life in recent decades, it's their fault. The truth is that white supremacy is embedded in our culture, our economics, and our politics. This primary has been a painful reminder of this and I am most enraged that two members of the Democratic party--the Clintons--would choose to exploit it. As an aside, for those of us who have been working on the ground for the Obama campaign, either through phone banks or canvassing, today's article in the WaPo might make you nod your head. I am middle aged white woman who can still recall stark racism, but it's an eye opener to the younger campaign workers.

Go here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html?hpid=topnews

Interesting analysis, as noted above.

What I've noticed is that people of almost any description do tend to self-segregate, at least to some extent, given the chance. I don't know quite what to make of this, except to note that most people's "circles" don't extend all that far, and if we self-segregate, our circles will fall almost entirely within our proximate communities. Then there is the truly malevolent racism, easy enough to recognize, to be sure.

And most of the people who will overtly refer to themselves as "white supremacists" probably don't even know how to spell it correctly...

Let me start by recognize that the corrosive effects of racism are everywhere in our society. As a public defender in Brooklyn I see it every day. But partisan hackery like this only demeans the discussion. It's posts like these that do more to undermine racial understanding than anything Hillary or Bill Clinton has said or done. Comparing the Clintons to white supremacists hardly merits a response, so rather than waste my time further, I'll let Barack do the talking: "[O]ne of the premises of my campaign and, I think, of the Democratic Party — and I know that John and Hillary have always been committed to racial equality ... What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality — has been historically."

And I will be voting for Obama. I'm quite certain he would not agree with your conclusions.

I think you're missing my main point, armchair guerilla, which is that we live in a society which continues to be "white supremacist," in that it continues to favor whites in a lot of ways, and in that whites still have most of the power as a group. Don't let the associations that term has taken on with neo-Nazis and skinheads overshadow the pervasive, ongoing fact of white skin preference and favoritism in American--the fact, in other words, that America is a white supremacist society.

What I'm trying to point out, basically, is that marginalizing the concept of "white supremacy" to a few extremists is part of the reason most white Americans don't realize that we live in a society that favors white Americans, and that is largely still controlled by white Americans, and that is, thus, "white supremacist."

I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton agrees with neo-Nazis, nor that the common white supremacy she expresses is THAT extreme. But her playing of the white race card is something she can get away with because we live in a society where the deck is stacked against Obama in this way--because he's black, he wouldn't be able to get away with it. Were he to call for black solidarity in the same ways that she's been calling for white solidarity, his campaign would be over quickly. But she's doing it, and hers isn't. So, we live in a "white supremacist" society.

Don't let the neo-Nazis hijack a useful term.

Macon D is a troll.

Go ahead and look at his profile for his recent posts and comments.

Then join me in complaining to Josh.

In the future, ignore him.

He's just trying to stir up shit.

Thank you Macon D. Finally, a breath of fresh air in the form of a thoughtful concise analysis of the racial problem that ails this country.

So again, I am left wondering why Rev. Jeremiah Wright was vilified. He was basically getting at the exact same thing you said, albeit through a different analysis, yet he was decried as a racist, anti-American. I don't get it.

But the most important part of your analysis is when you said that white people aren't seen as white, they're seen as individuals. This is, unfortunately, very true. White people are seen as the universal inidividual, the measure of all things human, while everyone else who does not conform to that universal is the "other".

Hopefully, though, one day we'll get it.

You're welcome, Zoomy. It's interesting how those who don't like the article can't seem to get past the title. Thus, it's interesting how most white Americans can't see how much their group is still on top and still in control. And thus, it's interesting how most white Americans don't see that the term "white supremacy" is a useful term for describing America today.

What's happened to that term reminds me of what's happened to the word "feminism." Most people don't self-identify as feminists today, because the term has been hijacked by the right, which used it incessantly to label "bra-burning man-haters." The effect was to discredit the term "feminism" for most Americans.

And yet, the term "feminism" merely refers to someone who believes women deserve equal rights; that they don't have them yet; and that something should be done about that.

Same with the term "white supremacy." As I said in a comment to another post here,
Alex Jung recently provided a useful definition of that term:

"White supremacy is simply the idea that white people, neighborhoods, concerns, beauty and self-worth are more important then nonwhite ones."

That's the idea that Hillary expressed when she said she was a better candidate because she has a broader, that is, whiter, base of support.

The reason Hillary won in West Virginia?

It's the economy, stupid.

Perhaps if Senator Obama took the concerns of Blue Collar Americans a bit more seriously, and attempted to modify his economic positions to the left a bit, he'd do better with them.

Or he could just whine and fume and say they're a bunch of dumb racist rednecks, and who needs them?

He does, if he wants to be POTUS.

I am very saddened that this post made it onto the recommended list.

Those who recommended it should be ashamed of themselves.

Macon D: Your response to my somewhat emotional comment was considerate and respectful so I will show you the same courtesy.

You'll get no disagreement from me as to the main point of your post (as you put it in your comment) that we live in a society that favors white over black in many ways, some obvious, some not. I don't believe using a term associated with a hateful ideology is helpful or appropriate to describe the phenomenon you are talking about. If your goal is to promote awareness you're not going to win anyone over by comparing them with skinheads or the KKK. If your goal is to provoke, however, you will surely succeed.

But this isn't my main objection to your post. What really bothers me is the facile way in which you state that a sitting Democratic Senator from New York and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, along with her husband, a former Democratic President, both of whom have a demonstrated commitment to promoting racial equality and understanding, have premised her candidacy on promoting white solidarity. That this has been taken as an article of faith by many Obama supporters is distressing indeed. I've seen all the examples, picked them over hundreds of times, and I don't see the same thing. Sure you can take each statement out of context and put it into that box, but it doesn't fit. The race so far has exposed deep divisions in the Democratic coalition, including race. HRC has apparently won considerable support from white, working class and older voters. That seems to be widely acknowledged. In elections past, that would be a selling point for a prospective nominee - something she brings to the table - a portion of the electorate that the Democrats have lost overwhelmingly and will probably need in some numbers to win in November. If the opposing candidate were white, we'd think nothing of it. Instead, her comments have been flogged to death, she has been called a racist, a race-baiter, etc. And I don't understand how you could possibly say she's gotten away with it? When Gerri Ferraro makes a stupid (and probably indefensible) statement to the Torrance Bee and it becomes national news for weeks and is held up as a symbol of the candidate's views, is that getting away with it?

So I don't buy the premise underlying your comparison. I don't think it promotes unity or understanding - if those are your goals. And it is beyond insulting to the nearly 50% of Democratic voters in these primaries who voted for Clinton to call their candidate a race baiter and to attribute her support to racist voters or appeals. It's offensive and only undermines the goals you profess to support.

Finally, I just wanted to point out one curiosity in your post. You state that most blacks "shifted their early support from Clinton to Obama precisely because of the repeated race-baiting of both Hillary and Bill Clinton)." Do you really believe that's true?

Well, I'm late to work.

Dear Macon D,
Loved it. The Clintonistas can't handle the truth any better than Bill and Hillary can. Lying liars, often not knowing that they're doing it. Hillary will, as fair witness Bill Bradley has said, will do or say anything that plays to whatever segment of the population is dumb enough to follow her. Her near slanderous attack on Jim Cooper, he avowed intention to "demonize" opponents, he lies about her trip to Bosania, and much more, along with Bill colossal subversion of his and his party's interests when he lied about Monica.... I just can't understand these people who support them. Perhaps the white supremacy lite thesis is explanatory. I know that in the beginning of the race, even people who loved Obama thought they'd be wasting their vote because this country, as many people of many stripes still say, won't elect a black man. The Gov. of Pa can say that his state won't do it. But the above commenters can still feel disgusted with your attempt to say something about the racism in this country. My most recent personal brush with it is when I presented a video of a former sociopath, a black man who was thrown against the wall for seven years of his childhood and then dramatically cared about and respected by a fellow african american. He changed his life, was working at a good job for four years, and every white person I showed that too said he was a talented fake. My world-class psychoanalyst friend called the reaction "racist." I think your argument would be stronger if you recalled how black people have seared in their brains the murdererous relationship whites had with blacks up until the 1960s, including not just drive by shootings of blacks and bombings and hangings but the tacit approval and complete abandonment of white America. The commentators minimize that, as Obama has, because the guilt and shame of
America for being ultimately callous toward its victims is buried behind a wall of justifications, many of which are represented in the now stock reply that America has changed. America has changed, but much less than people want to accept. The trail of blood staining us lives in our polite dismissal and our disgust with black people's ongoing experience of rejection, abandonment, and disgust in our inner cities where hell is just another word for ghetto.

Dear Macon D,
I've calmed down now. I think many of your points are well taken. My favorite is the idea that white racism is helpfully identified as "white supremacy." It gets us beyond the sugar-coated stuff that pervades public discussion. However, I think the most helpful distinction to be made in this discussion is between racism and prevailing morality. Prevailing morality is the foundation of racism. I'll explain later. Work calls.