Obama: speaking the unspeakable about race

I'll take a little stab at this. . .though it will be far from thorough. . .

For over 230 years, this country has been dominated in both the public and private sectors by people elected and appointed representing around 35% of the population. No one has ever bothered asking how the hetero white male, possessor of the golden peepee, adequately represents the interests of people of color, women, or the GLBT community - the image which has been projected for this entire nation's history is that the straight white dude IS the "majority" even though that has largely never been the case.

We see this evidence in any number of ways. A white male can commit a crime, for example, but the act is not an indictment of white men but only of the individual committing the offense. However, when a representative of any other group (including the REAL majority, which would be women) it is often still portrayed as somehow linked to their membership in that particular group. It's a rather manipulative tactic in exercising power by the dominating minority. And it doesn't surprise me that Freepers, along with their pals in the white male-dominated "reliigous" Right, really believe the "culture wars" are primarily about maintaining hetero white male supremacy.

Oh, con-servative columnists and writers will drone on and on and on about how there are no longer any "race" issues in this country, while the same media producing that propaganda openly speculate about having an African-American successfully running a presidential campaign. They don't stop and ask "Why IS this the first time?" because it means they'd have to admit the inherent differences in how classes of Americans are historically treated in this country.

While there are differences in their rhetoric, this manifests itself in the rabid language being used today against members of the GLBT community. And just like they've done with women, people of color, and today, the GLBT community, they reach into the Bible as their bottom line of fear to explain why God assigned hetero white males absolute hegemony over all others.

If we treat them as a minority of their own, those straight white males have a lot to be afraid of - since they are the historical oppressors and have unabashedly violated their own rule of law and professed ideology to prevent other Americans from fully participating in this country as complete citizens. It's much easier for them to say that "race makes no difference" as long as their customary exceptions are listed "EXCEPT they cannot be President"...and they don't have any rational reason except a deeply-held and irrational fear that their own past will come back to haunt them. I suppose that makes some sense - after all, if I spent my history oppressing everyone else around me to secure privilege for myself, why wouldn't I be insecure about admitting someone else might be better capable of qualified to do my job?

I sometimes wonder if what scares that minority the most is having to confront themselves - and we've seen from the rhetoric in the last few years just how defensive and in denial they are about their own history. Con-servatives love to rail about "Well, I DIDN"T OPPRESS THE WOMEN. I DIDN"T OPPRESS THE BLACKS". . .and then whine about having to take any responsibility for the acts of their fathers and their grandfathers. Then, of course, they proceed to try to find what they think is another rational reason to reject members of those groups for the highest office in the Land, using terms like "not enough experience" or "they won't appeal to the 'average Joe' - meaning the very minority which has done the oppression. They are still under the illusion that THEY must be pandered to, even if THEY are the minority in this country, and when they are forced to face that fact, their defensiveness often turns into violence and bullying.

Now what other groups of Americans have ever been able to get away with asserting dominance and power by bullying? What other group has been able to get away with quoting a document they wrote and re-wrote for themselves as justification for denying some of the most basic human rights to others? What other group has used their position to continually oppress others? In my mind, it makes perfect sense that they rail against the "brown menace," manufacturing grandiose schemes for building the Great Wall of the Southwest while ignoring illegal immigration from, for example, Ireland. They scream about protecting the "sanctity" of "marriage" - yet ignore the absolute tyranny of a set of laws which completely strip the human dignity of the MAJORITY of Americans (meaning unmarried adults) in making the most basic decisions concerning their life (and death) experiences. They claim they are victims of "reverse discrimination" and yet continue to claim that they hold the majority of CEO positions and public offices because THEY are innately more talented and qualified, and it isn't THEIR fault that other groups are lazy, too effeminate, or overly restricted in judgement ability based on their estrogen levels.

We need to remember that it has only been 30 years since a woman has been allowed to READ the NEWS on our television screens - and not much longer for one to be allowed to write anything in the newspaper beyond fashion and recipes. And we should also remember that there were no recognized gay "journalists" in most mainstream media until only about 15 years ago. . .because "coming out" would mean likely losing their careers. And that it has been only about 40 years since it took a government commission to point out that the media was at fault in covering the race riots of the 1960's by their blatant exclusion of people of color from reporting the news.

The frustration of the straight white male minority is, in my mind, manifested by their constant whining of "look, there is a black woman reading the news - what MORE do you want?" as if their own sense of entitlement is automatically threatened by actually realizing the ideals of this country. That is why, so many times, the Right goes to the "our Founding FATHERS intended" argument. . .because that represents complete straight white male hegemony and they want to remind us that the MAJORITY of people in this country enjoy any rights at the pleasure and the approval of the straight white male minority.

 

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:39:02 AM CST

absolutely spot-on comment, Kevin

Oh, con-servative columnists and writers will drone on and on and on about how there are no longer any "race" issues in this country, while the same media producing that propaganda openly speculate about having an African-American successfully running a presidential campaign. They don't stop and ask "Why IS this the first time?" because it means they'd have to admit the inherent differences in how classes of Americans are historically treated in this country.

Exactly. If they stopped and actually asked themselves that question -- and answered it in their columns and news articles, the answer would require that they hit the third rail for all the reasons you've described. That takes the discussion in such a dangerous direction for so many people because inevitably, one is forced to admit racism (sexism, homophobia) is still woven deep into the American quilt and that progress such as we saw in Iowa reflects what is possible at any given point and time. All one has to do is some rudimentary surfing of the web to find stories of discrimination, cross burnings, race-based attacks on innocent people, etc. These festering wounds do not heal overnight, and for some of our fellow citizens, the threat of a change in the social structure is so unhinging, that they can be driven to violence and anti-social behavior as a response to that change.

The conservatives bleating about the end of racism don't live in the world I live in if they truly believe that. Quite frankly, I don't think they really believe it; it just simplifies political discourse for them by putting up the wall of public denial that the country still has serious problems even discussing these issues.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:02:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great post.

Excellent post, kevin. But I have to take issue with the notion of a "hetero white male" hegemony. Is it literally true that the mantle of power in American political and cultural life has always been worn by straight white men? Probably. But the actual circle of the elite in American society has at various times been more or less inclusive than that formulation alone is sufficient to convey. Most glaringly, it completely overlooks class issues: poor white men may have been historically better off than their black and female counterparts, but they certainly weren't running the show. You mention illegal Irish immigration: that wouldn't have been overlooked 150 years ago. Today we can look back at JFK and think "hetero white male," but a Know Nothing transplanted from the 1850s would've seen a filthy Irish papist.

Anyway, feel free to disregard this as just a desultory remark. It's probably not all that relevant to the substance of your post.

---

by: anomie @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:18:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True, and in our day...

...angry white male radio demagogue play the role of useful idiots for the money powers--diverting attention from class issues.

I think Kevin's right that an unquestioned sense of entitlement exists among white men, but we should also recognize how it's exploited by a small minority of white men to serve their financial interests.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:39:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are absolutely right.

Economic class certainly played a heavy role in our political and cultural history. After all, at the start of this country's history as a Republic, only white male landowners could vote. Certainly those who did not own land were denied participation in the system.

 

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:56:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think they'll

ever own it unless they have to. Right now, they're not in a position of having to. It has to be thrown on them, over and over.

The key is to make the GOP answer for its Base. They court this vote, they own it.

The GOP and especially the talking heads on the teevees are in a perfect and practiced position for denying culpability. How many times have we heard from them things like, "certainly no one condones this sort of thing"? In fact, they not only deny any responsibility, they tend to preemptively try to paint anyone examining them critically as partisan or radical. They say things in feigned shock like, "how could someone think of using this for political gain?".

I can't help thinking of lovelies from the 'base' such as Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. They and people like them are the direct results of years of race- and gay-baiting fear-based politics. Why not look at the farmers that planted those seeds of hate?

Goldberg's not so sly racism isn't surprising at all. Expect more, much more. Novakula struck this weekend too. From ThinkProgress:

   Q: What is Obama's potential Achilles heel?

   NOVAK: I think the only potential Achilles heel is in a general election, if there is some racist prejudice. I'm not sure there is. He's, as poor Joe Biden said, he's clean. He isn't a stereotype African-American. And I think he's a very strong candidate.

And expect the white-guy swivel chair set to come out in force to defend, to their bloody typing fingertips, any of their political heroes that get caught playing, subtly or overtly, race. If they came out in force for Imus, just think of how they'll stand strong for a real member of their set. Not to say that they shouldn't be countered or that it's hopeless. But they are ready to type loudly. We should be too.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:56:22 AM CST

McVeigh and Rudolph

Yeah, I guess Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and all the rest of them conveniently "forget" our homegrown extremists McVeigh and Rudolph ascribed to beliefs held by many, many people, most of them who would never resort to violence, but most certainly would never vote for a black man of either party because they feel "white culture" has been polluted already, and to hand the reins over to a POC is tantamount to the nation committing suicide.

The punditocracy can point to those folks as fringe, but don't own it -- trotting out the "certainly no one condones this sort of thing" nonsense is the simple way to cleanse themselves of any need to further discuss topics that result in visceral and violent actions by insecurity.

We're not only talking about The Base, we're talking about  -- people who won't admit in polite conversation that they would:

* prefer not to live next to a person of color;
* not want their daughter or son to be lesbian or gay (or come out of the closet, if they managed to accept them within the family circle)
* become unglued if a loved one announced that they plan to transition to another gender.

Remember, there are still people who cannot accept their child marrying someone outside their religion.

Anything that threatens a traditional world view or seemingly challenges their control of their level of comfort with the society they live in can drive some people to anti-social behavior. 

The fact that political campaigns rely on stoking fear on so many hot button issues to achieve their desired electoral results means they are the owners of this, that they are hooked on the negativity. The MSM, with the vague floating of controversial statements without placing them in the context of a larger discussion about the cultural issues at play, simply don't care to take the time to dig any deeper into motivations and strategies.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:19:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, that's true

the 'not in my backyard group', the ones that kevin writes of above, who become shocked and defensive when any talk of racism (or sexism or homophobia) occurs, are people not to lose sight of. It's much easier to see the extreme fruits of the neocons' labors.

What do you think is an effective way to reach such people? I think they're capable of understanding these issues and even changing if they're willing to do some self-examination. But how distracted are they from the these things? I was surprised last week when the people at school didn't know about Giuliani's placement behind Ron victory blimp Paul in Iowa. They didn't know about McCain's finish either. But they all knew about every pop culture issue under the sun.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:47:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

as I've said many times before

I can hardly manage to get progressives to discuss race, let alone the people who need to be reached to allay their fears. Our culture has boxed itself into a corner of political correctness that makes it nearly impossible to have a safe forum to discuss the issues without tempers flaring and people going into defensive mode rather than examining how we can overcome the problem.

For those with so many fears about "race-mixing", the loss of the patriarchy, or the homosexual agenda, some basing it on their religious beliefs, this is doubly difficult.

My point is that those of us willing to stick our necks out to discuss it need to call out those who shape debate -- the pundits, the MSM, the right-wing blogs -- who don't get called out because they rely on many of us to remain silenced because of political correctness and discomfort.

 

 

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:07:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope

places like CNN have you back on to talk about these very things.

For those of us with smaller voices (and I don't mean that in a snarky way at all), do you think writing and calling MSM news outlets is the way to go? From your dealings with them, do you get the sense that they listen to viewers/listeners? I can't help thinking of Jon Swartz's presentation of advertising versus subscription income figures for newspapers. Subscriptions are a small, small part of their total revenue and a call from an advertiser objecting to content has more power than any letter to the editor ever could. In TV and radio, where advertising dollars rule, is going to the source of the money a better option? Religious fundamentalists seem to do this all the time.

The above are some neophyte questions I've had for a while, but really haven't had anywhere to ask them.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think critical mass helps

For instance, I cross posted this on Daily Kos and Pandagon, because I believe that more eyeballs raises the possibility that other bloggers will cite it, and perhaps discuss these larger issues. Sending your thoughts/excerpts of posts is meaningful to the MSM if there is enough of a groundswell of similar thoughts heading their way. But remember, they march to their own drumbeat and have their own agenda.  There's no magic tool to ensure that debate on this isn't quashed -- by those on the left, right or anywhere in between.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:43:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What is a "traditional world view"?

This is one of those things I can't quite wrap my head around. Pam, I know you're referring to the mythical "American Nuclear Family" here, but is this truly "traditional" or just one of many world views. What is "traditional" for one specific group, isn't necessarily "traditional" for another.

By rights, polygamy (one man, multiple wives) is a traditional form of marriage that pre-dates Christianity and is still practiced in parts of the world today. Same-sex marriage was once a traditional (and honored) form of marriage that was practiced in several different societies.

In truth, the phrase "traditional world view" is as fluid as "lifestyle". Traditions evolve. Attempting to halt that evolution will only lead to stagnation and extinction.

---

by: AggieCowboy @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's Security

You will be pleased to see that Obama's Secret Service detail was increased to an equivalent level as Bush gets since he won in Iowa. So I hope we don't have to worry too much about his physical security.  

---

by: RandyH @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:26:57 AM CST

I still don't understand

why Obama is considered black.  The American side of his lineage is white.  I would have thought the bigger issue would be his being African-American.  Is America ready to elect a president with even half foreign parentage?

---

by: Brian @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:05:10 AM CST

black trumps it all

Not that it should, but as long as one is physically identifiable as black, that garners the first reaction and assessment by people. Someone's half-white heritage is not a given, nor is foreign parentage. One has to actually ask someone to learn that.

It's why blacks who were fair enough and had features caucasian enough used to "pass" back in the day. If they didn't appear black, then they wouldn't be treated as if they were.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's as may be, Pam

But I remember an interview with Tiger Woods, where he refused to be classed as black, or African-American, or Thai, or Thai-American, all of which he could have assumed under the apartheid racial classification that Americans insist on. Woods simply called himself American. Goodness, what a radical idea!

---

by: Brian @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and he should be proud of his heritage

We can individually refuse to be classified one way or another, but he problem is American culture and social structure has not made room for people to do anything other than assign "black" to a person who appears to be so, no matter their heritage. If you look it, you are for all intents and purposes, considered black, no matter what you put on a form or consider yourself, and that's unfair.

 

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:04:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Radical, yet irrelevant

It would be nice if every American with the mix of racial heritage (genotype) and physical appearance (phenotype) Tiger has been blessed with were equally able to define her own ethnicity.

Unfortunately, that privilege--defining what he is--is not a product of his rebellious stand against 'apartheid'. It's an artifice, an exercise of the social privilege that came to him through his fame.

IOW, Tiger can afford to be above race, but that's because he's Tiger, not because he's mixed.

To learn more about the mixed phenomena as it's experienced, check out Sean Lennon's book, '100% Hapa'. Its focus is mixed people with Asian heritage, but the theme is that it's a visual and textual reply to the question, What are you? 

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 21:10:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Radical, yet irrelevant and sad

If an entire nation considers being "American" second rate to being "African" or what have you, then the result is a second rate nation.  One is what one declares oneself to be.  How many people put "Gay American" down on a passport application?  Racial designation is a social convention.  It exists only because it is perpetuated.   

---

by: Brian @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 23:08:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Post-Black" Candidate?

I think that's how a lot of pundits want to describe Obama, because it allows them to avoid the racial issues that Pam is talking about. They can use Obama's candidacy as evidence we are beyond all issues of race in this country and won't have to discuss it. But the reality is that we still have a culture too divided by race, and that has to be addressed - our churches, our nightclubs, our shopping areas, where we live - are all, to a greater or lesser extent, still divided by the color of our skin. Even in a city like DC, where I live, the divide is striking, and there are continuing rumors about "the Plan" to turn DC from a predominantly black city to a majority white city. So you see complaints that our new mayor, Adrian Fenty, has too many non-blacks in his cabinet; you hear complaints about people like me, whites who move into predominantly black neighborhoods (little do many of my neighbors know I moved in because of the neighborhood's success in fighting drug dealers through community action). And I totally understand the minor paranoia that is the foundation of those beliefs, even if I think they are wrong.

Even though race is scientifically bunk - there is no set of characteristics that can distinguish one "race" from another - we have to be conscious of its role in our society, even as we strive to minimize and eliminate its role, which is a weird balancing act. At the same time, I see real hope in the candidacy of Obama, because I think it shows the beginning of that societal transformation. While some discussion of Obama's race has occurred, and I have no doubt the GOP will use it to attack him if he becomes the nominee, most of the discussion has been about his relative short tenure in national politics, which I think would be the same for any Senator who had spent less than one term in that house before running. What I find fascinating is how the media has not dropped the "he lacks experience" meme, but have shifted it from a negative to a postive after the Iowa results - e.g., "His lack of experience also means he is not a typical Washington insider," which is what the voters seem to be working toward.

I am still pissed at Obama for the Donnie McLurkin crap, but perhaps as African-American voters move toward supporting him because he now seems electable he won't feel the need to pander to anti-gay bigotry any longer. On the other hand, his speech after Iowa was inspiring and compelling - and totally deserving of the Kennedy comparisons, both JFK and RFK. I also think race will not be as big a factor as many pundits might believe, for two reasons. The first is that the Democratic coalition - labor, women, minorities and GLBT voters - are less susceptible to race-baiting. As one caller on Signorile's Sirius OutQ show said last week - "he might lose Alabama being black, but he wasn't going to win Alabama anyway." The other reason is the youth vote, because young people are far less conscious about race. If Obama can continue to energize youthful voters to come out, he could not only win, but win big.

There is one other reason Obama has an edge over, say Jackson, Sharpton or Chisolm, and I normally wouldn't bring it up, but if Pam wants us to be frank, here goes. Obama is white "enough" to alleviate the racial concerns of a lot of voters. I realize that is harsh, but I think its true. When Doug Wilder was elected the first African-American governor of Virginia, I remember my roommate questioning his race while looking at a black-and-white photo of him. Because of his light skin and then-gray hair, Wilder did not look especially African, and I think that helped him win some votes, and I think it will help Obama as well. In spite of the right-wings attempt to make Obama out to be a fifth-column Muslim, I also think Obama will be helped because he addresses his ethnicity as an example of his worldly upbringing. That is, he portrays himself not as a hip-hop ghetto thug, but a refined man of the world.

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:24:34 AM CST

"post-black"

But the reality is that we still have a culture too divided by race, and that has to be addressed - our churches, our nightclubs, our shopping areas, where we live - are all, to a greater or lesser extent, still divided by the color of our skin.

What I said over at Pandagon about the "post-black" view of Obama and the reality of what it would take for this country to elect a black man -- a "superblack":  

Fear of the Black Man requires it. Try looking at Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967) with today’s eyes. Sidney Poitier’s character was intentionally a “superblack“: 

According to director Stanley Kramer, he and Rose intentionally debunked ethnic stereotypes; the young doctor, a typical role for the young Sidney Poitier, was purposely created idealistically perfect so that the only possible objection to his marrying Joanna would be his race, or the fact she only met him nine days earlier.

While that film is dated, the presumption that the first POC to occupy the White House will have to be one that offends the least number of people and reduces the level of irrational fears.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges

GWCTD was 40 years ago and is hardly a barometer any longer on American racism.  Could Obama possibly be a viable candidate because he is competent, intelligent, charismatic, articulate, hard-working, and has a stand people agree with?  Or is it because he is palatably black?  

---

by: Brian @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 23:39:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"man of the world"

That's an astute comment. There is a double standard for regionalism and race. Huck gets a pass for being a complete hick without a good education or wide experience - no problem, set him out with Oxford and Sorbonne-educated world leaders. Race, however, is considered inherently limiting and parochial in the USA. It's the same deal as making women write only about "women's" issues, blacks only about "black" issues, etc. in news media.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:02:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly right

Obama was president of the Law Review at Harvard.  Huck is a dropout from a backwater seminary somewhere.

We in the US have allowed the right to peddle the "liberal elite" bullsh*t to such an extent that the whole country has become anti-education, anti-intellectual, and generally anti-rational.

Furthermore, it's sick, sick, sick that our society accuses black Americans and the left generally of being susceptible to and/or fomenting identity politics.  Evangelical christians are the most consistent purveyors of divisive identity politics, and have been for decades.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 14:00:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I had my way...

I wish I could vote for Shirley Chisholm instead of the lesser model conjoined twins Obama/Clinton that can only fight over the word change and never have to really represent any true difference.

Chisholm knew what it was all about.  She had courage.

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM CST

Backlash?

Thoughtful post as usual, Pam.  Thanks.

Reading this stuff makes me ornery, and I know I'm not the only one.  Race-baiting will likely aid the GOP's Southern Strategy, but the Southern Strategy ain't enough to win an election, and these ploys will likely fire up liberals and independents against the GOP.  It's exactly the sort of strategy that'll help turn out folks <i>for</i> Obama, the youth vote especially.  

---

by: Batocchio @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:17:41 PM CST

Tough read.

I keep reading and rereading this piece, and keep finding different aspects of this I missed on the previous readings.

I think what strikes me at the moment is that most people -- most of us -- are often cowardly about subjects we don't feel comfortable discussing.  It's easy to say something in agreement with Pam with regards to this article, but it's not easy for a lot of us white folk who are supportive of racial equality to speak up on the subject.  We really are afraid of saying something unintentionally racist.  As Pam wrote:

The other oft-cited defense for avoiding discussions about race is to make the claim that they are unqualified to discuss race matters because they aren't a person of color. This of course, is absurd, but the fear is well-founded because of the elements in the black and other minority communities that loose their cookies when anyone white makes a statement on race that remotely reflects a lack of knowledge about the issue. The blowback only drives whites further into the closet, and any opportunity for a teachable moment is lost because of defensiveness.

I also go back to a strategy statement of Bayard Rustin's on black and gay civil rights:

"[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment."

In my last seven years in the Navy, one of my collateral duties was as an Equal Opportunity/Sexual Harassment facilitator (read: facilitator = instructor who tries to encourage lots of discussion).  My experience was that it's awfully hard to get white folk to enter into meaningful discussions about race -- often because we are afraid of inadvertently saying something racist.

I'd say that sometimes when we make it hard for our enemies to make openly racist or openly homophobic comments (as Rustin strategized), an unintentional consequence is make it just as difficult for people who are supportive of our causes to be brave enough to say something positive.  It really is because if they -- if we -- say something positive in a way that displays some terminology ignorance, or say something we think is positive but can be interpreted as being racist or homophobic, they/we are worried about the blowback Pam mentioned.  

I know sometimes I still struggle with my own racial issues cowardice -- even after being an facilitator that worked to get others to talk about race and racism.  As Pam wrote, it's often just easier to say nothing.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 15:46:37 PM CST

Well said, Autumn.

I've been reading these comments through the day and I've wanted to say someting about this issue that has me sort of knotted up. It's an important issue, but I really don't want to offend anyone inadvertantly. I have no trouble discussing these things verbally with black people who I have built a mutual friendship and trust with, but it's different in writing because the tone of what you're saying doesn't always come across right and can be taken the wrong way.

You articulated it so well.

 

---

by: RandyH @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 19:01:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow. Great quote from a great man.

Do you have a cite on the Bayard Rustin quote? Or other references about/by him?

I'm planning to use some of my down time (enforced by the rules of my state's legislature, which don't permit me to use my laptop in hearings or full session) to learn more about him over the coming months.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 21:45:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bayard Rustin

Try to find this terrific documentary: Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin (2003).  It played on PBS as part of the P.O.V. series.  It must be available for rent.

A discussion guide to the film recommends these texts:

Anderson, Jervis. Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've
Seen (New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997).

Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters: America in the
King Years, 1954-63 (New York: Touchstone, 1989).

Haskins, James. Bayard Rustin: Behind the Scenes
of the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Hyperion,
1997).

Rustin, Bayard. Down the Line: The Collected
Writings of Bayard Rustin (Chicago: Quadrangle
Books, 1971).

---

by: Pollyanna @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 22:39:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Citation: Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)

There is a collection of Rustin's writing out in book form, titled Time on Two Crosses: The Collected Writings of Bayard Rustin. One of the essays in the book is From Montgomery to Stonewall.  

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:14:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thx to both of you! n/t

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:36:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So what do you want, Pam?

As a white, gay, liberal male, I'll just throw my hands up and say, "I don't know."

---

by: tbl92666 @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 17:44:01 PM CST

what a load of misconceptions in one comment

I see you, a lesbian, supporting this candidate because "black trumps all".

That comment of mine had nothing to do with supporting or not supporting Obama; it was referring to this culture's perception of someone who appears to be black when they may be of mixed origin; in that case our culture assigns the label "black" to that person.

Secondly, you must be new to the blog because I have said repeatedly that I have not endorsed any candidate.

I guess I feel, personally, that when it comes to race it is a one way street.  Your side doesn't want to give anything. 

Ah, there's the rub "your side", as if I represent all of "my people". I don't presume that any of your opinions represent all white men, or gay men, why the need to refer to "your side?" Again, your reasoning seems to reflect a massive lack of understanding of this blog, my attitude toward confronting race conflict and the environment I provide here at the Blend.

Also, you clearly haven't read the scorching I gave the Obama campaign over the McClurkin debacle. Please take the time to read before lodging criticism.

I simply want an open discussion, unlike the black folks you encountered and based on that confrontation, assume no black people are willing to open a dialog on a problem that belongs to all of us.

I catch flack from blacks for wanting to open that dialog precisely of the above attitudes that you mention.

Blacks never give an answer...

Again, you presume your encounters represent all black people. When you manage to meet every black American to come to that conclusion, please drop by and inform us. You are paralyzed by making blanket assumptions of a group based on individual encounters; if I counted every time I was slighted by someone white and held it against the entire group of white folks, that would be insane. For anyone to do that of any race is ludicrous and non-productive, which is why I advocate for allowing people to ask "dumb questions" without fear of retribution. Try reading Skin and the color of money.

You are welcome here to discuss the slights and experiences that have colored your worldview, but take the opportunity to remove the chip from your shoulder before you form a permanent opinion of the dialog here.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 17:59:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the chip is on your shoulder, Pam

You proved my point.  Don't worry after reading your reply and the responses I had to my opinions on other posts, I have decided that you are only interested in your narrow views of race, sex, etc.  You are no better than the closed minds on the right.

---

by: tbl92666 @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:31:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd love to see the list

Of the narrow views I espouse, since I inevitably am accused of being a race traitor (see Thrasher below), or that I discuss race too often (when gay-related posts by far outnumber the ones on race).

Be that as it may, sorry you feel unable to engage with people on an individual as opposed to a group level. Peace out.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:38:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So when I said over at Pandagon

that I avoid these conversations more than I should because there is always some fool making me ashamed to be white?

The fool came and went while I was at work... 

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 21:16:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mr. Boobie, No! Please don't go!

 

Miss Cleo loves you. And had you heard, she's said she's got teh ghey now, too? So we really are one big family after all. And that prediction she made about you? http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do?commentId=44445

Uh huh, still in effect.  Forever.

 

---

by: Pollyanna @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 21:06:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can I pick one thing and beat it to death?

Thanks.

There's an interesting theme in this comment that bears some exploration, because I think it's connected tightly to our collective insanity about race. The theme is, We're trapped in dominant/inferior.

It only makes sense to suggest that 'blacks want to dominate whites', 'we can hardly switch places', and 'whites have done blacks wrong, so blacks want to do whites wrong'.

As long as you accept that race is influential on our lives, placing us in a hierarchy of power and inferiority based on our skin color, someone has to be the top and someone has to be the bottom. But what if this whole paradigm in which race is a determinant of our fates is what we have to overcome? Wouldn't that serve all of us better than the system we have now, in which folks like this guy are worried that admitting racism exists will cause them to have to give away their worldly goods and become outcasts, or whatever they imagine the fate of blacks to be? 

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 22:00:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The only reason we should oppose Obama is that he's a Democrat.

The US is a cesspool of bigotry. Bigotry is a divide and rule tactic meant to pit GLBT folk, minorities, immigrants and women against each other to preserve the wealth of the ruling rich. 

Obama contributes to the cycle of bigotry and divide and rule. He patronizes GLBT folk while pigheadedly opposing samesex marriage. Obama panders to the superstitious vote by touring his gaybashing christian supporters. Although the Democrats have controlled the Congress since 2006 they refused to end DADT, gutted ENDA to placate big business, refused to revoke Bill Clinton's federal DOMA and 'misplaced' the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill so it wouldn't be an issue in the 2008 elections. They won't even impeach Bush. They're gutless and worthless.

On other questions he's no better or worse than Clinton and Edwards. He avoids dangerous votes on the war but funds it. He wants to extend the war into Pakistan, but with nukes they can bite back a lot harder than the Iraqis or the Palestinians. He obstinately opposes socialized medicine but supports union busting measures like NAFTA. Obama and all the Democrats vote for an endless series of tax cuts for the only people who don't desperately need them, gazillionaires. Their 'deregulation' bills have let corportate tigers loose in the treets and caused the mass forclosure crisis facing homeowners. 

The Democrats are a roadblock to GLBT equaltiy, a fair standard of living, ending the war, socializerd medicine and the fight against all forms of bigotry. A vote for them or the Republicans is a wasted vote.  

With Democrats like therse who needs Republicans?  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 17:46:05 PM CST

what he said

Thanks, d....

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:19:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pam's twisted commentary and failure to disclose her guest writing on Glenn's site

"..The always insightful Glenn GreenWald..'yeah right!!... Pam penned a couple of selfish hit pieces against Obama on this site, she also attacked a white gay minister for appearing at an Obama event. It sadden me that Pam's selfish antics against Obama on a site where the Obama is not approved of, where the myth of black unrest is used by Gleen Greenwald a  carrier and conduit for these hateful myths about Black folks.

Pam then has the audacity to infer that Blacks make it difficult for whites to be honest about thier racism as if we are liable for thier shortcomngs. Pam then claims those of us who resent ignorant whites discussing us somehow we have  destroyed"teachable moments"..what a losers lament from Pam given her sell out on a White gay Liberal site where Obama is oft attacked..

Pam has a habit of playing the good noble colored person at the expense of Black activists like me who are tired of this game of good/bad negro just to make her seem noble and maybe get more guest spots on sites where Obama and Black radicals are attacked..

---

by: Thrasher @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:18:28 PM CST

huh?

My readers know I guest posted at Glenn's blog. No secret there, Thrasher (readers -- he's been on a one-man mission to dog me at Glenn's pad and via email). The "hit pieces" were the McClurkin-related posts, so as you can see, within this one thread, I'm attacked from both sides -- I'm doing hit pieces on Obama vs. I am endorsing Obama. Neither is true. People see what they want to see/fight/get riled up about. I speak only for myself, I don't need Glenn or anyone else to defend my opinion. I happened to agree with him about Jonah Goldberg's asinine hysteria about an uprising if Obama isn't elected.  

And I suppose, Thrasher, you're going to pollute the thread with personal attacks so that I have to ban you, thus making you appear to be the noble one. There are no myths that some blacks do not want a dialog with whites. To deny that is ludicrous. It's a fact that POC and whites have boxed themselves into a corner so that everyone is defensive instead of working toward resolution of some of these misunderstandings and bile. You're part of the problem, not the solution. I won't hesitate to open the trap door on you if this continues.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:35:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry

I'm feeling the pain right along with you Pam.  As you've said before,  this discussion gets too emotional and out of control sometimes.

---

by: txrad @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:47:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Only an Intellectual coward threatens to use a 'trap door'

Pam please spare me the threat and your marginal claim that POC have backed white folks into a corner. What part of america's racal legacy has escape your memory. I find it insane that a Black person would make the claim that our rejection of white racism makes us the villians and  the immovable aspect of the race dialouge.

What is it about black folks like you who always feel compelled to be noble and fairminded in the eyes of white folks at our expense. White folks have had millions of 'teachable moments' to be educated about thier racist pathologies. I am tired of liberating them.

It is obvious you have an agenda as a Black gay female for you  to go to a white gay liberal site and slam Obama and give those who reject any advances for Black folks a wedge issue. Your self-centered selfish agenda has the potential of destroying a threshold moment for all of us and our ancestors whose depraved teatment on this soil still makes me puke in rememberance..

How dare you play wedge politics on the souls of Black folks!!! Cowards like you are part of the problem, your threat to ban me only reveals your true myopic nature for all to observe.. YOUR ARROGANCE IS TRAGIC..YOU ARE THE PROBLEM TO AUTHENTIC RACIAL DIALOUGE..

---

by: Thrasher @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 20:44:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah, yes, "selfish"

I've heard plenty of white liberals and progressives use that word to slur gay and lesbian people who speak up for their own interests and dignity.  They like to tell us what our priorities should be--specifically, their priorities.  And how DARE we ruin their movement with our "wedge issues"!  So black radicals serve up the same self-righteous bullsh*t, huh?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 21:31:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not a coward

Simply pointing out that you are violating the community standards (emailed when you opened an account here) regarding personal attacks.

In the twilight zone of your universe, I'm finding it difficult to see how you can interpret this current post is slamming Obama. You're still reliving the commentaries regarding McClurkin. You just can't let it go.

Face it, his campaign blew that big time. A simple Google search would have told them the dust up it caused, and in the end, Obama went to the gay community blog <a href="http://www.bilerico.com/2007/11/a_call_for_full_equality.php">The Bilerico Project</a> to state his case for LGBT rights. That's clearly more of an olive branch than you would ever offer to someone in a political conflict. It's sad that your fixation with commentary I published months ago is still giving you agita.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 22:49:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You need to wake up..'Personal Attacks?? when , where??

Let me understand becuase someone dares not to drink your 'house blend" you either threaten them with a trap door or declare they are violating community standards. What are you now a Black lesbian facist??

Why I continue to reject your mode of operations beyond the nonsense you wrote for Glenn is that Black folks like you have a long history of tossing the community aside to achieve your selfish self-centered agenda.

The only fixation I have is my need to reject backward, selfish, single minded agenda folks like you who would throw us all under the bus...

I started this interaction by contacting you and leaving you my phone# to understand where I may have been wrong all I got from you was some boilerplate dogma spin. It is obvious you lack the personal depth to deal with those who dare not to drink your blend or they will be subject to your threats..

Not to worry I have balls( excuse the pun, on second thought don't) and I do not run away from small fires..

---

by: Thrasher @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please ban.

If this is not a personal attack, I don't know what is.
If this attack were directed at someone else here in the Blend it would drive them away.

---

by: Tomistocles @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

'Please ban"..Again yet another person who is threaten by honesty and dissent

I thought the LGBT world was against intolerance. I have not called Pam out of her name, I am objecting to the nature of her politics and content not her personhood or gender status..

Please do not stain me wth your myopic views, I do not belong to those views of yours...

---

by: Thrasher @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I second the motion

Trasher isn't interested in open dialogue. Hell, he can't even spell dialogue (once is a typo, twice in the same post is not knowing how to spell the word).

---

by: AggieCowboy @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Shorter Thrasher:

OMG a black woman disagrees with me about my deeply held belief that Obama is the second coming of Martin, Malcolm and John Lewis...who BTW is still alive and has not yet endorsed Obama to my knowledge...must be a sellout!

Bad activist! No donut/cookie/sweet potato pie for you!

 

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 21:22:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The typical reply I would expect from a pedestrian thinker.

It must be a gay thing this ability to know what folks are thinking perhaps it is an insight developed from hiding in the closet or the need to aquire extra skills to fend off gender attacks, or perhaps it is just arrogant defensive thinking when one cannot comprehend all the facts..

I have not endorse Obama, nor do I worship any human being other than myself. I just remain a Black man who rejects ignorance, cowardice and the those like you who are compelled to follow the leader in this case a self centered, selfish person like Pam..

Of course I will keep hope alive

---

by: Thrasher @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:35:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And yet another personal attack

And not only against PheonixRising, but against every gay person reading this blog.

Plus, I love how he calls Pam a self-centered, selfish person...right after he says "nor do I worship any human being other than myself."

Reminds me of the religious right who can't see their hypocrisy past their over-inflated egos.

---

by: AggieCowboy @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:03:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

trap door has been sprung

buh-bye

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is an excellent post Pam

I read it over at Shakes and I'm ashamed that it even needs to be written in the 21st century, but clearly it does.  The comments alone prove it.

---

by: konagod @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 18:45:00 PM CST

Objections to Obama

My lack of comofrt with Obama, and I suspect the objection of many LGBT's is that he is not in our corner, period. That, too I would imagine is Pam Spaulding's discomfort. It is as simple as that. No other secret agenda, no mysterious or underhanded ploys.

The Republicans have moved right definitively, to the dismay of Corporate Republicans who thought to use the extreme wing, not the near majority, of the party to support a pro-business agenda. Sliding to the middle as a political tactic is uninspiring to those of us making up a decent percentage of the Democratic Party's base and perhaps the most vulnerable component of the base. Giving anti-gays a stage to enhance their credibility to posture yourself as a moderate on gay issues (some rights, just not equality) is disingenuous ethically and damaging to our position in America.

Pam Spaulding is a figure of stature in the LGBT community precisely because she will not ignore hypocrisy. I am sorry if her agenda, truth, conflicts with the accomodationist agendas of others, but I for one share her feelings and cheer her on.

 

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 19:10:11 PM CST

thanks

As I've noted before, any of the Democrats running will be light years better than any of the Republicans, who want to roll civil rights back, not extend them. To have all the major Dem candidates willing to extend our rights is good news for us. That none likely to win the nom have reached the point to publicly advocate extention of full equality in marriage, for instance, is not what most would like to see. However, I think aside from Gravel and Kucinich, who are for full rights, there are others who privately do believe the same, but are calculating that the political risk of announcing it publicly is a political deal killer.

Our problem, of course, is figuring out who is really in our court. 

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 22:54:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Use empathy and imagination -

now, is that so very hard?

Apparently so. These two ingredients are so important in any discussion about race. Oh, and a bit of humility helps, as well.  

---

by: NancyP @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 19:00:20 PM CST

I'm not decided, either

Obama sounds good, but is a little undeveloped on some policy details of interest to me - does he really understand the health care situation? I am watching and waiting until our primary comes. Edwards was very interesting based on his health care statements and greater degree of attention to low and middle income bread and butter issues, but I confess that his pouncing on Hillary for being emotional-while-sleep-deprived irritates me greatly at this moment. Hillary is the centrist candidate, and is likely to be much more effective in behind the scenes bargaining than she is given credit for. It disturbs me a lot that she is involved in a politicians'/ pols' wives Christian cell group weekly session called "The Family", which has largely a wingnut membership (see http://www.talk2action.org/sto... for info). Does this mean she is getting more conservative? Does this mean she is making useful contacts with rightwing politicians through their wives? What the heck is she doing in a sex-segregated cell-group with wives, anyway? (She started going when she was First Lady, so it was at least semi-appropriate match vis a vis job description).

---

by: NancyP @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 19:11:33 PM CST