Oh, I Wish I Were in the Land of Cotton

Courtesy FITSNews, images from  the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) annual fall Board of Directors meeting held in Charleston, S.C. last weekend (I'm linking to the site because I'm not too big on plagiarism. I came to the story via alternet.org, who provides really good news and info.):

(captions mine)

This is why having your black conservative friends argue that you should be able to use the n-word means nothing to me.



The Right is "Taking Back" the Civil Rights Movement, Remember?

Black Power's Gonna Get You Sucka:
Right-Wing Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism
By Tim Wise

July 10, 2010

Prominent white conservatives are angry about racism.

Forget all that talk about a post-racial society. They know better than to believe in such a thing, and they’re hopping mad.

James Crowe, II, Supreme Court Justice

Note: The will be a sudden change in tone as I discovere more while writing this piece. ~ No1KState
_____________________________

Folks, it's worse, much worse, than I had expected. I'm sort of embarrassed cause I should've ranted about this a month ago! I've had this article in my "read ASAP" file since it came out, but am only just now reading it all the way through. Cause the money quote comes on page 4.

Now, if you remember, last month, June 2009, before Michael Jackson died, we were all engulfed the the Ricci case, where a white firefighter sued the city of New Haven for reverse discrimination.

Also, remember all the white, male racial victimization played out during the Sotomayor hearings based on just 2 comments that I can think of, and only one which pertained to race, the comment about the "wise Latina woman"? I mean seriously. Were white men, who were members of one of the most powerful bodies in the world, really whining about anti-white and anti-white male bias? Yeah. See, they had their cake and ate it, too. Now, about that other cake that is yours . . . technically. . .

So anyway, get this:

Justice Antonin Scalia said at oral argument that he didn't believe New Haven would have canceled the test results if they'd yielded no white promotions.

Are you shocked? Stunned? Do you follow?

You know my biggest problem with that comment? Besides the fact that it's not true. It represents what so many white people fear from black anti-racist activists. They think we wanna turn the table against them. We don't, and the suggestion that we do is a not just a bit insulting and not just tad racist in and of itself. Do we wanna fire all the white power-brokers and replace them with people of color?

I'm sorry. That's not a good question, or rather, it wouldn't have resulted in a good answer. So let me say this. We don't want to rule the world. We'd just like to have fair and just say in our own. Is that too much to ask?

In light of Scalia's comment, could it not be the case that the Court did just what Sessions and Grahams feared it would? Except, to the benefit of white men (and two Latinos) and the disadvantage of men of color? And didn't Sessions, Grahams, and Pat-B all carry on as though the decision, handed down by four white men and man who wishes he were white, were some sort of vindication for white males?

And not is Scalia's comment disturbing, but he and Thomas joined Scalito - oh! I mean, Alito in this concurrence:

What Justice Alito sees in New Haven's actions, is not the good faith effort of a City with a history of discrimination in firefighter hiring to address a stark and alarming racial disparity in exam results. Instead Alito is certain that there's something of a racial conspiracy afoot - a conspiracy by black community leaders to discriminate against whites. . . . In fact, Justice Alito devotes pages and pages of his decision to examining the actions of Rev. Boise Kimber, who Alito describes as "a politically powerful New Haven pastor," including Kimber's "loud, minutes-long outburst" at a Civil Service Board meeting, Rev. Kimber's "adamant oppos[ition to the] certification of the test results" and his attempts to "exert political pressure" on the Board. All of this sounds like garden-variety aggressive rough and tumble of city politics, but to Alito it's evidence of racial quid pro quo.

Again, isn't Alito playing the very identity politics Hatch and Grassley claimed to fear . . . when the other "team" plays it, I guess.

And for that matter, seeing "that Congress amended Title VII in 1991 to enunciate the disparate impact standard explicitly," didn't the conservatives on the Court engage in . . . judicial activism?

:scary and voice music here:

And what's more is that they reviewed the facts of the case, role generally reserved for the appellate court. On top of that, and what resolves for me the racism on the court is that, "Justice Ginsburg in dissent says she believes that New Haven could have satisfied the new standard Justice Kennedy set forth, but [the majority] didn't give them a chance."

According to the experts I read, chances are employers, public and private, will still be able to practices for hiring and promoting that don't result in disparate impact.

Tell me again someone, preferably not someone I already know is racist, how is that not racist? Or, in the least, a prime example of white power and privilege, and the protection of white supremacy? How is that not racism at its finest? James Crowe, II, Esquire.

Who in Hell Left the Gates Open?! [Updated}

Update: This is the most recent info I could find. Now. There are several out there who feel the whole ordeal was Gates's fault, that had he just complied with the police and been polite, he wouldn't have been arrested - police don't like to be shown up no matter what the other person's race is. All that junk, you'll have to google on your own.


Smooth Criminal (Radio Edit) - Michael Jackson

Me? I hope this finally convinces those individuals who believe that it's not about race as much as class that race does indeed trump class. I personally don't believe the police account that Gates became combative and accused the police of racial bias - mostly because Gates doesn't believe in the overarching construct and impact of racism. But assuming Gates did become belligerent, do the cops really arrest every person who becomes belligerent. Are there no white people who became belligerent with cops and didn't get arrested? I know that's not the case because I've already read a few personal accounts to the contrary.

And it's widely documented that white people accept more disrespect or combativeness from other white people than from people of color. It's also widely known, amongst black people at least, that any sign of resistance will be met with a billy-club and handcuffs. Like I said, I can hardly imagine Gates being belligerent. And the plain truth is he could've done everything the police asked and been as perfectly polite as Emily Post instructs, that does not mean that a request for the cops name and badge would not be met with handcuffs. Or maybe, considering all the cases of police brutality that I've seen and heard, I just think a black person has to give 110% effort at demonstrating their cooperation and respect for the police. Including but not limited to keeping your hands visible at all times. I mean for real. I know of a 19-year-old black guy who was the passenger in a car driven by a white person, and the black guy ends up dead. I'm not even sure the white driver was arrested. I know of a situation where a woman was in some kind of state of medical emergency, I can't remember if she had overdosed on some drug or was in a diabetic shock, but she was shot several times by the police and killed even though, and the police say because, from start to finish she did not move.

The other issue that convinces me this was about race is the neighbor. I mean, why was it necessary to describe the possible thieves as "black?" Whatever it may be and whatever the race of the neighbor, there are racial implications and reason for describing a suspect as "black." Maybe you didn't know you had any black neighbors and you're using the descriptor to indicate the people you're calling about don't belong there. Or, maybe you know that saying "dangerous black male" will get a quicker response. And just who is this neighbor and how long has she been living there? Maybe it's because I've lived in the same neighborhood all my life, or because my eyes are wonderfully healthy, but I'd be able to recognize my neighbors across the street even if it were just by their silhouette.

But there's another issue to address, and this no matter how racism-deniers (You know, like holocaust-deniers? My term, my term.) respond to this, is what it says to black kids and maybe even all kids of color. White people don't know it, but within the black community, adults do stress the importance of education. Work hard, go to college, be the best "you" you can be. We tell our young people that the sky is the limit, they can become whatever they want to become, racism is an obstacle but it has been, can and will be, overcome. In fact, I go as far as to say one of the many strategies of assault on racism is to use education to learn how the "system" works and be able to manipulate it, whether from the inside as a lawmaker criminalizing racial profiling or from the outside as a community activist. But here's the hard-hitting truth, the part of Pres. Obama recent speech to the NAACP that mainstream media ignores: at the end of the day, no amount of education or success can shield you from racism. And especially if it's coming from US senators during your confirmation hearing on your nomination to the Supreme Court and you're a wise Latina woman.
_________________________________________________________________
I just heard about this. Just heard about this. Here's what racismreview has to say . . . my thoughts, and a Michael Jackson song, later.

Racism in Cambridge: Harvard Prof. Gates Arrested
Posted by admin on Jul 21st, 2009 2009
Jul 21Arriving home after a recent trip to China and struggling to get into his own home in Cambridge because of a jammed door, esteemed scholar of African American Studies and Harvard Professor, Henry Louis (”Skip”) Gates, Jr., was arrested by police. According to one report (h/t @BlackInformant for a couple of these links), this incident began when someone alerted police:

A witness, 40-year-old Lucia Whalen of Malden, had alerted the cops that a man was “wedging his shoulder into the front door” at Gates’ house “as to pry the door open,” police reported.

None of the reports I’ve read online describe Ms. Whalen’s race, or why someone from Malden was doing calling the cops about a man entering his own home in Cambridge, but apparently it was her call that began this series of events. Here’s what happened next, according to several reports, this one from HuffingtonPost:

By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in.

“Why, because I’m a black man in America?” Gates said, according to a police report written by Sgt. James Crowley. The Cambridge police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.

Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him,” the officer wrote.

Gates said he turned over his driver’s license and Harvard ID – both with his photos – and repeatedly asked for the name and badge number of the officer, who refused. He said he then followed the officer as he left his house onto his front porch, where he was handcuffed in front of other officers, Gates said in a statement released by his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree, on a Web site Gates oversees, TheRoot.com.

As this story has begun to get out on the web in the last 12-24 hours, it seems to be touching off a tsunami of outrage at the persistence of racial inequality in the U.S., even for one of the most well-known and accomplished scholars. If this could happen to Skip Gates, at his home in Cambridge, Mass., it does not speak well for the state of racial progress in the country as a whole. As Rev. Al Sharpton said, “If this can happen at Harvard, what does it say about the rest of the country?”

But, make no mistake, this outrage is not universally shared. Almost as soon as this story broke, the undertow of white backlash to the reality of racism began to counter the outrage. For example, Bruce Maiman, writing at The Examiner, contends that the Cambridge police were just doing their job, responding to a call about a break-in to a home, and that Prof. Gates escalated the situation. Here’s Maiman:

So I ask you: Who’s the person who caused this encounter? Professor Gates is now being represented by another distinguished law professor from Harvard, Charles Ogletree, and they’re going to claim that this cop was racist and mishandled this situation because the fact that a black male was involved.

I don’t see any racism, do you? Tell me where? No names were called. Nobody was hassled or pushed around. Legitimate requests were made and cooperation was not forthcoming from a man, Henry Louis Gates, who know better than most people on this planet what happens when you escalate a confrontation with the police. But he does it anyway.

Is there racial profiling in America? Sure there is. But if you justify the behavior of Henry Louis Gates because other black men have been hassled by other police officers unfairly and thus you assume every black man has a right to a chip on his shoulder every time he meets a cop, you are asking for trouble.

This doesn’t appear to be racism. It sounds to me like a colossal case of extraordinarily bad judgment on the part of a distinguished African American historian who happens to teach at Harvard, and who certainly should’ve known better.

Here, Maiman’s interpretation of these events is completely steeped in the white racial frame. He says, “I don’t see any racism” and, of course, he can’t from the WRF. He only sees a black man “with a chip on his shoulder,” not the racist behavior of the cop. Maiman further diminishes Gates by referring to him as someone “who happens to teach at Harvard” and questions his judgment because he “certainly should’ve known better.” Known better than to what, try and enter his own home? Maiman is simply wrong on the facts here, and wrong on his interpretation of the events. Maiman is like other whites, as philosopher Charles W. Mills writes, “unable to see the world he has created,” unable to see how his not-seeing-racism contributes to the problem of racial inequality.

The research on the racial inequality in policing, arrest, and incarceration in the U.S. is starkly clear (as we’ve recounted on this blog hundreds of times): those who are black or brown, particularly men, are much more likely to be stopped, frisked, harrassed, arrested and convicted than whites. And, this inequality in criminal ‘justice’ is part of a larger pattern of racial inequality that operates systematically throughout U.S. institutions. The irony, for those that have followed Gates’ scholarship closely, is that he has tended to downplay the significance of institutional racism in the contemporary U.S. Reports are that Gates’ is “shaken” by this experience, as anyone would be. This is a horrifying, and yet all too common, experience for black men in this country. Perhaps Gates’ next volume will be called “Harvard Professor, Still a Suspect.”

More good sociological analysis on this case (and others) from City College Prof. Dumi Lewis, here.
________________________________________________

As a history student, and nerd, I know Gates and hold him in fairly high regard. However, I've always been disappointed in his views, or maybe his lack of outspokenness, on systemic racism. I wonder if this will do anything to change his thinking. Though, regardless, whatever it matters and to the extent that I can, I got his back like black.

Do I Need to Scream?

:sigh: What a musical genius. Wow. And I have to admit, "Black or White" aside, I didn't realize Michael Jackson was that attuned to race in America.

So anyway. We know I'm a frequent commenter over at racismreview.com. A discussion that's still ongoing (can you say "still ongoing") got me to thinking.

A commenter, Gloria, said something very interesting.

I'm gonna cut and paste cause it's easier than trying to explain it to you myself. Now, of course, she denies systemic racism. I guess this is a rhetorical question:

You truly believe the United States of America is full of horrible white supremicists who systematically practice white racism each and every day?

So of course no one had said that. That's what she thinks we think. I'd like to know if that's what all white people think of black anti-racists. But that aside, the answer to her question is fairly simple: yes.

Does this mean we think all white people are evil little devils plotting and planning how to keep black Americans from being as successful as white Americans. No! That'd be silly!

:DDDDDDD

Do I think the majority of white Americans would freak-out and have a meltdown if African Americans enjoyed the same privileges that have? Yes. You saw those "tea parties" after the first ever black president. You've heard of the recent spike in hate crimes and DHS's concerns about right-wing extremism. Can you imagine if there were employment, housing, education, and lending equality? Can you imagine if their were equality in the justice system? Can you imagine the unemployment rate being the same for all racial and ethnic groups? I mean, do I need to remind you of the race riots throughout history?

I probably do, huh? There've been anti-black race riots in Detroit, Boston, Wilmington (NC), and Tulsa (OK) just to name a few. I hope you've seen the movie Rosewood at least once. I get so angry, I've only been able to watch it once.

And recall, the construction of the interstate highway system uprooted black communities and destroyed thriving black business districts. I'll try to get more info to you about that, but this link will have to suffice until then. And there's more. I just need to move on.

So you see the historic reaction of white America to black progress.

So, no, black people don't think all white people are evil, mis-shapened creatures who only look human to us. We just think y'all are complicit and guilty in maintaining a system that by its very nature disadvantages us. If you don't like that, then stop being so complicit in the racism happening around you, and we'll think differently. Don't get me wrong. We don't think this of each and every white person. Tim Wise is cool. Joe on racismreview is cool. A couple of my high school teachers, Prof Janken at UNC. Here's a cat who seems to get it, both he and his student. Big ups to the white folks who protested the Valley Club. I mean. Every black person know at least a few white people who are honestly anti-racist. But there're 70 of you to every 13 of us. You do the math. (No seriously. My head is buzzing and AP stats is fuzzy.)

Anyway. Back to Gloria's comments.

I am a teacher during the school year, and in the summers I hostess at a restaurant here in town. I have worked with some lovely black hostesses. I have also worked with some black hostesses who celebrated being black in a negative way. They enjoyed talking the black street talk that Bill Cosby ( read my former post) detested. They knew better because they didn’t speak that way to the guests. However, they spoke that way to their fellow employees and To Me.
I’ve heard them say, endless times, if the manager reprimanded them for being late or leaving their post to take a break while the restaurant was slamming busy, “He racist! Dat why he doin’ me lak dat.” OK..so would someone respond to that please? Is poor behavior excusable Because You’re Black?

I did respond. I pointed out that what her coworkers were probably referring to was that when white workers were late or left their post, the manager didn't speak to them in the same disrespectful, condescending tone. I asked if possibly there were a difference in how the manager reprimanded everyone. Gloria didn't answer my question.

Here's the kicker and what inspired this post:

I know many lovely black people. Funny..I never hear them yell racist! They just go about their business of working hard, getting an education, and being good friends and nice people.

I should tell you that Gloria's had a wide-range of experiences. Her grandfather is an Italian immigrant. Her father was held up by a group of black teenagers. None of that excuses her racism; I just thought it would only be fair to Gloria to give you a bit more of her frame of reference. Also, she said a whole lot more. Much of it absent any facts. And a good chunk I didn't read. Sorry.

Now, let me get to the meat of this post. I'll have to share with you my line of thought, if only just to have it here where I could read it. My initial reaction to that last comment is that that's how the overwhelming majority of African Americans conduct ourselves. We don't complain about racism to our white coworkers, neighbors, or friends. We complain at the barber or beauty shop. We complain at church. And it's not the topic of every conversation and we don't think about it every day or even every week or month. But when we do, we don't complain to the white people in our lives.

Then it occurred to me that I hear and read that a lot from white people, that they have black friends who don't complain abour racism and what's wrong with the rest of us. So I'm thinking, maybe black people should complain about racism to the white folks in our lives. Usually we don't because we're already upset and if we have to hear our white "friend" tell us we're probably "over-reacting," we're gonna "pop go the weasel till the weasel go pop!" (That's a shout out to Bernie Mac.) But I'm thinking, maybe we oughtta go ahead and risk it so more white people can understand how frustrated it can be to be judged negatively based on the color of our skin. And don't even go there. The little bit of irritation most white people feel when the learn, or remember, that most black people regard them with suspicion is jelly beans compared to what we go through.

Then I have this sudden, crystallizing thought. I don't think I've ever heard or read a white person say they didn't no any black person to complain about racism. They do the same thing Gloria did: separate black people into good and bad, and decide that it's the opinion of the(ir) good blacks that matters.

Which makes sense on the face of it, right? No one who really wants to know the news goes to Fox for information, cause Fox is bad. If two kids get in a fight, you may ask both what happened; but you only really take the word of the kid known to be good.

But, there's a problem with what Gloria and others like her do: just complaining about racism makes you a bad black person. Go back and look at what she says about the black hostess at the restaurant. Really think about what she says about them. They seem to perform their duties well. It doesn't seem as though she tried to get to know them personally, even though they did reach out to her.

(Huh? Where did I get that from? When we're talking to a white person, we use standard English. We know what white people think if we don't. Even I use standard English with all my white acquaintances. I can only think of 2 white friends I'd use black English with, and we're fairly close friends. So to talk in our vernacular at the workplace to a white co-worker shows so effort, or expectation at least, at comraderie.)

Gloria doesn't really have anything bad to say about them except that they will come to work late and not stay at their posts during busy hours. That's not really bad. I'm sure their were some white co-workers who showed up late and left their posts during busy hours, too. So really, there're only 2 complaints Gloria has with these hostesses: 1) They dare speak black vernacular to her; 2) They assert that the only reason the manager spoke to them the way he did was that they're black. Even notice that. She doesn't say that they complain about being reprimanded at all, just that the manager did them "lak dat" [sic]. So part of what makes them untrustworthy for Gloria and folks of her ilk is their complaining about racism. You can't have a formula where whether or not you trust someone's take on racism depends on whether or not that mention it in your presence. And if you do, it can't be that the ones who don't complain about racism are the ones you listen to. Cause like I said, black folks generally don't complain about racism to our white acquaitances. Though, maybe we should.

Plus, it's not like Oprah and Bill Cosby and President Obama don't acknowledge racism. They do. They just focus on achieving inspite of. So referencing them in your "there's no systemic racism" argument only shows the selectivity with which you listen to black people, in the few ones in positions of power.

So stop saying you know (these certain) black people who don't complain about racism (to you) and so therefore it must not exist. That's just plain ole ign'rant logic.


Scream - Michael Jackson

Freedom Writing, Am I?

I just finished watching the movie Freedom Writers. And by just finished, I mean it went off two minutes ago. I'm embarrassed to confess I actually had the book for about a month but never read it. And I'll tell you why. One reason is that given my situation, I try not to add anymore sadness to my environment. That's why I didn't read the book.

But as for why I'm just now watching the movie? I had already seen Dangerous Minds. I have seen some Meyrl Streep movie where she plays a violin teacher, is it? I've seen the Ron somebody movie.

So. Another movie where some pasty, suburban white teacher comes into a rowdy, poor, urban classroom and manages to teach these kids of color where everyone else had failed? My feelings were, simply, "Seen it."

And, I'm going to stick with that thought for a moment. My mom was a teacher. My aunt is a teacher. My great-grandfather help build a school for black children during neo-slavery, or rather, Jim Crow. I'm afraid teaching may be my truth. But that's for later.

My point is this. With the exception of Lean on Me, I haven't seen or heard of a movie where a black teacher, or any other teacher of color for that matter, comes in and changes the lives of his/her students. Even though as I've laid out, I know it happens everyday. And what about the movie of the black teacher, or any other teacher of color for that matter, who comes into a suburban, white class, honor students, disciplined, well behaved, and changes their lives? Has that not happened? Ever? When's that movie coming out?

Come to think about it. I've even seen the movie of the first little black girl who integrated some Southern school, and because none of the white parents wanted their child(ren) in class with her, she ended up in class alone. Being taught by a white teacher. For a year. One on one.

And even in that movie, the white teacher was the "star."

What is it with white people and their, or maybe your, need to be the "star" in every show. Amistad. A Time to Kill. Ghosts of Mississippi.

Mississippi Burning. I mean, damn. You people will rewrite history to make yourselves the hero(ine)(s), and then bitch and moan because the first black attorney general over 200 years after the "birth" of a nation that has always had black people in it called everyone a "nation of cowards." And you wonder why anyone would call you a coward? It's because you're too much of a punk to look yourself in the mirror and say . . .

"I'm prejudiced . . .

"The country I live in and cheer for was founded on the subjugation of another group of people . . .

"The country I live in and cheer for grew territorially by genocide and theft of another group of people . . .

"Today, I still benefit from discriminatory practices against my fellow citizens because I am white and they are not . . .

Until you can say that to yourself, or something like it, you are less than a coward. I mean, damn. Even a coward has the courage to admit he's afraid. (Oo! There goes my flair for writing! Love that line.)

So anyway, I just saw the movie Freedom Writers. And it struck me personally for a number of reasons. Not the least of which that this woman unexpectedly found her calling. Plus, what she and her class did encompass all of my best and worst qualities. Never settling for "not going to happen." Challenging and questioning the system. Writing.

And the funny thing about me and writing is that I haven't read a fiction novel since the first semester of my first year in college. So, literally not since 2000. But writing is what I do. It's one of the innumerable things I am. I wake up in the morning, put myself to sleep, usually keep myself up - writing.

Teaching and inspiring is something else I do. When you get me in front of a group of people to talk, it's magic. And the funny thing is, I can convince people of things I don't necessarily believe myself. Things I'm saying just to convince myself!

But, when it comes to issues I'm passionate about - history, education, social empowerment, justice, spiritual salvation - I can move people by the sheer force of my own passion. My own desire for what's right.

I mean. It's not like I close my eyes and really see myself with the courage of a Miep Gies or Ida B Wells or Ella Baker. I just know from my own experience, when push comes to shove, I. do. not. break. Oh, I'll let you win the battles I don't care about. And I do shy away from unnecessary confrontation. I mean. I'm not going to get into a big thing with my pastor about Original Sin when I know upfront I'm going to believe whatever I want to believe anyway regardless of what he says. And now that I think about it, perhaps my biggest problem with Original Sin is that I know in my spirit, there's just something about the need for "doctrine" that ain't quite up to snuff.

But I digress.

I am a woman who, as a child, did not shy away from challenging my parents when I thought they were wrong and I right. One who refused to cry even when being "spanked" with a belt (because my mother takes exception to my describing what occurred as "whooping"). One who would go to the well again, knowing what I could expect. So deep down, yeah. I'd be just the teacher on the forefront of challenging my department head, my principal, my school board. Everybody. Even in college, I told my history professor I thought one of the historians we were reading had mis-analyzed, if that's a word, a situation and gotten it wrong. She looked at me funny, the professor that is, looked at me funny and made one of those parental threats to call the historian. "I know her. I can call her." My response? "Good. Call'er."

But what really agitated me was that department head lady who refused to give Erin and the kids credit for anything. And that male teacher who said integration was a farce. Though, I disagree with the girl about speaking for the entire black community. Personally, I loved to speak from my experience and tell the truth, especially if it provoked some guilt. I'd be thrilled to be called on to give the "black perspective" if for no other reason than just to make sure my white classmates knew their lived experiences weren't shared Or even true. But I can be contrary like that. I don't know whether or not I would've chosen to go to a the Freedom Writer's class. If I knew upfront I was going to piss someone off, maybe.

But trust me. Just like our enslaved forebearers, we all still challenge the system in our own ways. Victoria's strategy no better or worse than my own.

Anyway. What I saw in that department head lady and that male teacher is the same thing I see and read and hear from so many white people today: the desperate fight to maintain the status quo.

Don't get it twitted (my creative lisensed "twisted," nothing to do with "twitter"). The majority of white Americans voted for John McCain. And as for the rest, those white Americans and other non-blacks who voted for Barack Obama, did they really have any other viable choice? So, from where I'm sitting . . . but I digress.

It's not just white people who fight to maintain the status quo. It's men. It's bankers. It's the wealthy. It's anyone who benefits from the status quo and if you are one of those people who benefit or are content with the status quo I ask you I implore you to ask yourself do you really benefit? Are you really content?

Don't be a coward.

Scott. He wasn't really content, but he wasn't willing to fight for what he wanted.

Me? It hasn't been a question of whether or not I'd fight. My struggle has been deciding just how to fight. I'm loathed to become a teacher for several reasons that don't need discussion here.

But I am a fighter.

I guess my question is, for you my reader, and even for me on those days when I become so tired, my question is - are you?

Oh, Shut Up!

If you've read a good number of my posts, you know I support gay rights, including same-sex marriage or at least some legal approximation. (There is a credible argument to be made that throughout history, even Greek history when philosophers were sleeping with their male protegees, marriage has always and only applied to the covenant between a man and a woman.)

If you've read a good number of my posts, you know I have little respect for the so-called Christians Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. I have referred to them as "gellies" and "fundies." I think they're wrong to focus so much attention on things they have no right to control, like women's bodies and other people's sexuality, while they dismiss and even aggravate the need for racial and economic justice. They ignore the growing prison industrial complex that is ravaging communities and making use of legalized slavery. They ignore our over reliance on the military. They ignore the growing military industrial complex. They ignore the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans who have died in our ill-conceived "war on terror." They can make no credible claim to concern for "life." Not while the vote against S-CHIP and other attempts to make healthcare affordable and accessible. Not while they sit complacently as our schools return to a pre-integration state in the disparity of money spent per child and children in integrated schools end up racially segregated.

Don't get me wrong. I've read Purpose Driven Life. But I'm a much bigger fan of Rachel Maddow than I am of Rick Warren.

Having said that, I wish the gay community would stop with their whining and crying over Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration. They claim that his presence is a slap in the face and a signal that the LGBT community won't have a seat at the table during Barack Obama's administration. But the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay rights, including gay marriage, is giving the benediction. What does that mean? Does Rick Warren's presence make anything Joseph Lowery represents as far as gay rights null and void? And if so, why? Cause I know you wouldn't be acting as if Lowery's presence means nothing just because Warren is white and Lowery is black. (Of course, I'm being facetious.)

And quit crying about your social status! You're not at the back of the bus; and if you are, you're certainly not their alone. When you move into a community, people don't rush to move out! The property doesn't go down, it goes up! So shut up with you're whining.

You make the same mistake the gellies and fundies make: you act like your issue is the only one that exists. It's not, and you're both wrong. You act like racism and sexism and economic justice no longer exist. You're both wrong. You act like that only people who matter are white people. You act like only the concerns of white people should be addressed. Again, you're both wrong.

And what's more, shut up complaining like Obama owes you something! All he owes you is living up to his campaign promises. He's been doing that. What I find most especially disturbing is this sense that a group of people beyond Obama's choosing is going to control what he does. I mean, really. Do you think that you're supposed to order him around or something? That he's your White House negro? Come on! I've seen this show before. A black person reaches some position of influence and power, and the white people below and around him/her act as though they're still going to tell him/her what to do. I'm sorry. Try as I might, I can't separate the way the LGBT community is carrying on from race.

Not that Rick Warren is great on issues of race. From what I can see, he'd vote against affirmative action. And still, you don't see people of color carrying on like the sky is falling.

For goodness sake people, it's just an invocation! Some of you don't even believe in God. What do you care who gives the invocation?

It's just an invocation! He's not righting a bill for Obama to sign. Obama's not "pandering" to the evangelical community. How can he be when he has someone who supports gay rights doing the benediction? Or am I missing something.

Yeah, I don't think I'm missing anything. Now, I know the entire LGBT community includes people of color. So, I'll admit, it's really the white LGBT community I find aggravating. Just like their pout-fest over Donnie McClurkin, someone they probably had never heard of, singing at a gospel concert aimed at the black community reeked of white privilege, this whole outcry against Rick Warren stinks, too.

Now again. Don't get me wrong. I disagree with Warren's position on proposition 8. Personally, I'm wrestling with whether to understand homosexuality as a sin or not. I certainly understand it is beyond the person's control. If a person is sexually attracted to people of the opposite, I don't know if there's much to gain from "choosing" to be gay. Or, at least, I don't think many if any heterosexuals "chose" to be straight; it just so happens that they are. So, I reject the exclusionary language a lot of professed Christians use.

But, I also reject the apparent exclusionary track the gay community is taking in regards to Rick Warren. I mean really. He's apparently removed the most offensive language from his website. That's as far as you're going to get. I doubt you'll succeed at changing his mind in regards to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. So, stop the pouting about Rick Warren and move on to something more substantive like "don't ask, don't tell."

Sorry if this post seems even less lucid than usual. My head is foggy, and I'm just really fed up.

Kill McCain! He's a Terrorist!

Yeah. That's right. I'm an Obama supporter and I'm shouting "Kill McCain" and "He's a terrorists" and "Assassinate him!"

Yeah. That's right. Soak it up conservatives. Let that marinate for a minute.

Oh. I'm not finished. He is a terrorist. And not a very good one at that. We had no just cause to go into Vietnam. In fact, from what I recall, we never declared war. We just there killing innocent Vietnamese and dying by the thousands. That makes his as much a terrorist as any "Arab." And that makes the US as much a "terrorist state" as supposedly Iran and Syria.

So chew on that conservatives. How does that feel? How does that sound?

Now, I don't actually think of McCain as a terrorist, or at least not yet, and I don't wish him to be killed or anything like that. But for McCain to say this morning that he's proud of all his supporters, even the ones who think Obama is a single-cell Arab terrorist who should be killed . . . I can't even put it into words. Honestly, I was already upset that McCain spent much of the debate last night lying. I certainly didn't like his stance on the "health" of the mother in the case of abortion. And I honestly didn't think my opinion of him could be any less. I thought it hit rock bottom last night. But this morning, when he declared his pride for all his supporters, McCain dug a hole and fell right into it.

And for all that guy on Hardball said, John McCain has not corrected people shouting "kill him!" and "he's a terrorist!" concerning Barack Obama. And like the guy on Hardball is saying now, John Lewis is absolutely right: it only takes one crazy person to assassinate someone. So, McCain pride is just repulsive.

And that reminds me of something else. Let's drop this illusion that Ronald Regan is such a good president for having ended the Cold War without spilling blood. That's a lie. Maybe he "ended" the Cold War. But he personally called for the spilling of Grenadian blood as part of the "Cold War." The Vietnam Conflict was about the "Cold War." Osama bin Laden earned his bonafide as a mujahudeen fighting for Afghanistan in the "Cold War." The Congo is in the mess it's in partly because the US assassinated Patrice Lumumba, helped support the cleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. And now, over 5, maybe even 10 million people have died and millions of women are raped daily over a conflict that started because of the "Cold War."

The notion that the Cold War ended without blood shed is not only a lie - tens of thousands of Americans died - it's racists - millions of people of color died.

This Is Interesting

. . . well, probably to you, but not so much to me. Take for example, those people who declared their shock and anger about where we are in this election, so close to Obama winning. They're really just surprised a "negra," and an "uppity" one at that may become president.

What's interesting is this article from the Washington Post. It details experiments over a number of years that confirm that white Americans don't see Americans of color as fully America. They even attribute "Americanness" to white foreigners while attributing foreignness to Asian and African Americans.

This one of those "I told you so moments" where white indignation at the accusation that America is a racist nation falls flat. In fact, in proves Dr. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's US of KKK-A point, and should this show any accusations that he's a hate-monger as false and racist.

Obama Knew It Was Coming All Along

Obama wasn't the only one who knew this was coming! - No1KState



I actually have more I want to blog about, like Elisabeth Hasselbeck's racism towards Sherri Shepherd - telling her to calm down. You know, the ol' racist nation that white people can remain calm and collected while nonwhites often become overly emotional, that's what Elisabeth was acting out with Sherri.


It come as about 2:15. I mean, not that Sherri wasn't upset. But after all the whining Elisabeth has done, she's calling someone out about being overly emotional, making it personal? Which reminds me of another racist notion white folks have, "Beware the angry black woman."

Well, okay. You actually should be afraid of an angry black woman. Just as you should be careful around anyone who's angry. But, let's kill the lie that "angry" black woman are just "angry" for some unknown, amorphours reason. Maybe she's had a bad day at work. Maybe her kids have just defied her. Or, and this one is just really crazy, some white person has done or said something racist to her, like, oh, I don't know, "Rev. Wright is a hate-mongerer."

Yeah, more on that - the racist lie that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a hate-mongerer - later.

Here I'm Is

Yeah, I don't mean that sentence literally. It's not acceptable in any form of English. It's just something I heard my little cousin say when she was 2-years old.

Again, today. Some stream of consciousness about the world around me.

Let me start by saying that Americans, especially those who lack the melanin content of others, need to get over ourselves. We're not God's gift to the world. Right at this very moment, while we claim to support democracy and are willing to occupy a country that posed no danger to us, we're undermining a democracy in South America. Quite possibly just because Evo Morales and his left-leaning government doesn't dance to our tune.

No, America. We're not the greatest place on earth. We're not the the Disney Land of the world. Get over it!

We claim to be a land of religious tolerance. Not true. Ask the Muslim in your neighborhood. There aren't any? Try your job. Still none? Find someone who looks Arab, promise you're not wired, and ask them their truest thoughts of America.

We claim to be a Christian nation. That's not true, either. Oh, I know how candidates for president have to profess a belief in Christ. I know how we treat the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, etc, etc, so on and so forth. All of which leads me to the conclusion that we got a bunch of people who're crying, "Lord, Lord!" and ain't nowhere near heaven.

We claim to be a racially tolerant nation. Well, I'm black so I know that's a load of crap. In fact, that's what the previously mentioned male friend added to my list of traits I want in a husband. He's anti-assimilation. Which is odd if you knew him. But, that's what I heard him say. And, well, I like that. I'm anti-assimilation, too. Yes, I can speak standard American English with the best of'em. I have my "white" voice. I can "act white" when necessary. But ultimately, I feel as though I'm being deceptive when I do those things. And I am indeed deceiving the audience of my "white" performance into accepting me for the person they would like me to be, and not the person I really am. I do that to get what I want. Studies have shown that the average person responds more positively to whiteness than blackness. So, I get what I want and go on with life.

I mean, take a look at the most liberal site you can find. Huffington Post. Alternet.org. Read the articles, then read the comments.

Which further proves my point that we're not a Christian nation. Over 30% of our citizens, in order to be successful, have to put on a performance. We 30% have to spend at least 8 hours of our day lying about who we really are. Um, yeah, any religious leader who spent more time with the so-called "sinners and tax-collecters" than he did high priests and scribes would not force others to be anything but who they are in order to be successful.

Now, granted, I'm kinda down right now. My football fantasy teams aren't performing as well as I had hoped. You'd think I'd be able to just shake that off, but no.

So, here I'm is with a few of my general complaints about America.

And when I mention our lack of religious tolerance, I'm including dogmatic atheists and agnostics as well. It bothers me that these intellectuals who understandably demand rational proof of God can't separate religious teachings from religious people and their most demonstrably religious actions. I once can across someone who was trying to make the barb that in Christianity, a man dies to receive 10 virgins while at least Islam gives him 72. The guy was referencing a parable, a story Jesus told to help explain how the Kingdom of God works. The fact that he couldn't tell the difference between a parable and actual promises led me to the conclusion that he's not the genius atheist he thinks he is.

Which brings me to another point. We claim to be a sexually tolerant nation. We're not. Whether or not your sexuality and sexual activity is accepted depends on your race, your gender, and the particular group you're in at the moment. We have a healthy margin of people who believe whole-heartedly in sexual purity - at least for females - and who decry the relatively high amount of sexual content on TV. As though they can't turn the channel. Then there're those who think waiting until you're married to have sex is a terrible idea. No, no one's actually explained to me why that is, but whoa! Just find yourself someone who's "sexually liberated" and find out just how uptight they are.

Yes. I'm a virgin. Oh, believe me. It's by choice. If at this moment right now, I decided to have sex, I could change my networking-site status and find at least 10 sexual partners available tonight. And another 10 who'd be willing to fly in or fly me out by tomorrow.

And, as promised, I suppose I should list some general complaints about the world at large.

Okay. Let me first start with America's international affairs. We went to war with the Taliban if Afganistan, illegally invaded Iraq, talking tough about Iran and Russia. Meanwhile, there's a genocide in the Darfur region of the country of Sudan on the continent of Africa and what have we done? At least 5 million people have died in the war(s) in Congo on the same continent and what have we done? . . . Oh, I should be clear. I mean, what have we done to promote peace? Cause the fact that we're selling weapons in these regions does count for doing something, just not something constructive. And before you fault "those people" as though we American are above such destructive actions, interview some Iraqis and also, some women in our military.

And as far as international affairs apart from America, Georgia needs to stop their illegal, genocidal actions in South Ossetia.

Okay. I gotta go now. But I'll be back. And I'm not promising a better mood.

Racism Without Racists.

Very informative article. Well . . . not so much for me because I already know this stuff. But, it's information white Americans need to stop running from. - No1KState

October 5, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist
Racism Without Racists
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

One of the fallacies this election season is that if Barack Obama is paying an electoral price for his skin tone, it must be because of racists.

On the contrary, the evidence is that Senator Obama is facing what scholars have dubbed “racism without racists.”

The racism is difficult to measure, but a careful survey completed last month by Stanford University, with The Associated Press and Yahoo, suggested that Mr. Obama’s support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. That’s significant but surmountable.

Most of the lost votes aren’t those of dyed-in-the-wool racists. Such racists account for perhaps 10 percent of the electorate and, polling suggests, are mostly conservatives who would not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate.

Rather, most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president — yet who discriminate unconsciously.

“When we fixate on the racist individual, we’re focused on the least interesting way that race works,” said Phillip Goff, a social psychologist at U.C.L.A. who focuses his research on “racism without racists.” “Most of the way race functions is without the need for racial animus.”

For decades, experiments have shown that even many whites who earnestly believe in equal rights will recommend hiring a white job candidate more often than a person with identical credentials who is black. In the experiments, the applicant’s folder sometimes presents the person as white, sometimes as black, but everything else is the same. The white person thinks that he or she is selecting on the basis of nonracial factors like experience.

Research suggests that whites are particularly likely to discriminate against blacks when choices are not clear-cut and competing arguments are flying about — in other words, in ambiguous circumstances rather like an electoral campaign.

For example, when the black job candidate is highly qualified, there is no discrimination. Yet in a more muddled gray area where reasonable people could disagree, unconscious discrimination plays a major role.

White participants recommend hiring a white applicant with borderline qualifications 76 percent of the time, while recommending an identically qualified black applicant only 45 percent of the time.

John Dovidio, a psychologist at Yale University who has conducted this study over many years, noted that conscious prejudice as measured in surveys has declined over time. But unconscious discrimination — what psychologists call aversive racism — has stayed fairly constant.

“In the U.S., there’s a small percentage of people who in nationwide surveys say they won’t vote for a qualified black presidential candidate,” Professor Dovidio said. “But a bigger factor is the aversive racists, those who don’t think that they’re racist.”

Faced with a complex decision, he said, aversive racists feel doubts about a black person that they don’t feel about an identical white. “These doubts tend to be attributed not to the person’s race — because that would be racism — but deflected to other areas that can be talked about, such as lack of experience,” he added.

Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to be against a particular black candidate, Mr. Obama included. Opposition to Mr. Obama is no more evidence of racism than opposition to Mr. McCain is evidence of discrimination against the elderly or against war veterans. And at times, Mr. Obama’s race helps him: it underscores his message of change, it appeals to some whites as a demonstration of their open-mindedness, and it wins him overwhelming black votes and turnout.

Still, a huge array of research suggests that 50 percent or more of whites have unconscious biases that sometimes lead to racial discrimination. (Blacks have their own unconscious biases, surprisingly often against blacks as well.)

One set of experiments conducted since the 1970s involves subjects who believe that they are witnessing an emergency (like an epileptic seizure). When there is no other witness, a white bystander will call for help whether the victim is white or black, and there is very little discrimination.

But when there are other bystanders, so the individual responsibility to summon help may feel less obvious, whites will still summon help 75 percent of the time if the victim is white but only 38 percent of the time if the victim is black.

One lesson from this research is that racial biases are deeply embedded within us, more so than many whites believe. But another lesson, a historical one, is that we can overcome unconscious bias. That’s what happened with the decline in prejudice against Catholics after the candidacy of John F. Kennedy in 1960.

It just might happen again, this time with race.

Don't Vote Against McCain Just Because He's White

Especially when there are so many other legitimate reasons.

Full disclosure:

• I saw the clip scrolling through Jack and Jill Politics.
• I wholley disagree with Bill Maher when it comes to religion.

Other than that, laugh it up!

UPDATED: Yep. Someone forgot to use code and just went ahead and said uppity.

Yes, this is egregious.

Update from therawstory:

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia who referred to Barack and Michelle Obama as "uppity" says he wasn't aware of the term's racial overtones and did not intend to insult anyone.

That's a pile of bull! He's absolutely lying. Or, at least I hope he's lying. A lying racist has a bit more sense than and idiot racist.

In a statement Friday, Westmoreland - who was born in 1950 and raised in
the segregated South - said he didn't know that "uppity" was commonly used as a
derogatory term for blacks seeking equal treatment. Instead, he referred to the
dictionary definition of the word as describing someone who is haughty, snobbish
or has inflated self-esteem.

"He stands by that characterization and thinks it accurately describes the
Democratic nominee," said Brian Robinson, Westmoreland's spokesman. "He was
unaware that the word had racial overtones, and he had absolutely no intention
of using a word that can be considered offensive."

The Obama campaign had no immediate response.

Westmoreland is one of the most conservative members of Congress. He has
drawn criticism from civil rights advocates on a number of issues, including
last year when he led opposition to renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He also
was one of two House members last year who opposed giving the Justice Department
more money to crack unsolved civil rights killings.

On one hand, I hope he loses his re-election. He's not qualified to be in Congress. Then again, he does help bring attention to the continuing problem.

from Hungry Blues

“Uppity,” That’s Racist for “Kill”
This was written by Benjamin T. Greenberg. Posted on Thursday, September 4, 2008, at 11:10 pm.

US Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican from Georgia, made a very bald appeal to racists to unite against Obama. This wasn’t a private statement caught on a mic he didn’t realize was on. This was a statement for the record, to reporters, in the halls of the United States Congress.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity,” Westmoreland said.

When asked to clarify, Westmoreland said it again, pretty much to say, you heard me, they’re uppity n—s.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

I bring up the N-word because that is the debased level of rhetoric that the word “uppity” belongs to, especially when a white Southerner is directing it at Blacks.

This is overt racist thuggery. As Ta-Neshi Coates put it:

The worse part is it isn’t vague. Uppity is exactly the term white thugs and terrorists used to use for high-achieving blacks–right before they burned down their neighborhoods and ran them out of town.

I suppose this might seem hyperbolic to some. It is a factual, historically accurate statement.

When I interviewed the children of Samuel O’Quinn, an African American man who was shot dead by a sniper at the gate to his property in Centreville, MS in 1959, they said that the main problem their father had with whites was that he was well educated and successful.

Samuel O’Quinn was a graduate of the Tuskegee Institute—”the highest form of education you could get” at that time, if you were Black, Rance O’Quinn emphasized.

“My mother and father gave away a fortune,” Rance O’Quinn continued. “They gave money to every cause, the building of every church. They bought the bus for the kids to go to school and paid the bus driver to take children to school.”

“That’s why he was hated,” added Phalba O’Quinn Plummer. “They said he was biggity. They would say ‘uppity’ and ‘biggity.’ ‘Biggity’ means too big for his britches.”

Five years after Samuel O’Quinn was murdered, in April 1964, his eldest son, Clarence, was attacked on the Centreville Post Office steps by Chief of Police Bill Ivey. “You damn uppity nigger, you think you own the town,” Ivey said, as he beat O’Quinn with other whites looking on. Clarence O’Quinn’s 94 year old grandmother, mourning the murder of her son Samuel, urged Clarence to leave town. “You have a life worth living; you should not throw it away,” she said. “You have no rights and privileges here.”

“I left Mississippi that same day,” Clarence O’Quinn recalled. “I was humiliated. I was alone. There wasn’t a Black person other than myself that I remember being at that post office, and I felt the evilness that lurked throughout Mississippi and Wilkinson County at that time. The separation from family, from friends was horrible and still is. Many have stood in my shoes and had no place to go.”

“We used to see kids get beat up,” Rance O’Quinn said. “There were lynchings that were never reported. Kids never showed up again. You’d see them in school today; tomorrow you never heard from them and you never would know what happened to them.”

“So and so run away,” his sister Laura O’Quinn Smith added. “That’s all people said. ‘They run away.’”

Lynn Westmoreland’s slur was a conscious evocation of the the racist sentiment that Blacks who refuse to be subservient to whites should be put in their place through violence—beatings, bombings, murder. Westmoreland’s slur is also a call to arms to extremists who would still carry out Klan-style violence. Westmoreland is not fit to govern. I hope his colleagues in Congress are fervently asking for his resignation.

"We Don't Hide from History"

Something real egregious just happened. John McCain claimed that America isn't a country that runs from history, "we make he history," he boasted.

What a lie!

If America didn't run from its history, we wouldn't have such racial and ethnic struggles. Barack Obama wouldn't be the first African American presidential candidate of a national party. If we weren't running from its history, poverty wouldn't be so pervasive. Inner-city neighborhoods would be the social quagmire that it is.

If we didn't run from our history, conservative "Christians" wouldn't be in such a push to force the Old Testament into our legal system.

If we didn't run from our history, we'd stop acting like we're the greatest country in the world and confess to the crimes of humanity we have committed across the world.

If we didn't run from our history, we'd stop electing Republican presidents who continuously make the economy worse for average Americans.

"We don't hide from history," indeed. Well, I guess there is some truth in that. We just outright ignore it.

The only absolutely honest thing he said as that, "Change is coming." Barack Obama will be our next president.

Updated: What's Wrong with the White Community? 2

First, it was the rash of pregnant teens in Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Then, you had the guy Jim Adkinsson who ended up killing two people even though he planned to kill more at a church's children's production of "Annie."

Then, you had the guy who killed the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party.

Now, you have the daughter of Sarah Palin, vice presidential nominee of the Republican party pregnant at the age of 17. Though, to give her credit, she is planning on marrying the father. Sarah Palin is very pro-life, and wouldn't support abortion even if her daughter had been raped. (That reminds me, I do need to write a post specifically concerning God and issues of life.)

And while I cast no judgement, I do think it's ironic that in every political position she's had, Sarah Palin has been against comprehensive sex education as well as contraception. And shockingly enough, she even slashed funding for housing assistance for teen moms. She's supports abstinence only education which is documented to lead to teens having unsafe sex and leading to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and so, is a waste of money.

And here's her response to a questionnaire:

In a 2006 gubernatorial questionnaire, Sarah Palin said she would not support
explicit sex-ed programs.
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead
of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

And for those secularist who hate the "invasion" of faith into politics, here's a Biblical quote you might like: :Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Which essentially mean, be careful of how harshly you judge people because the same thing may happen to you. (That's also for all you "Christian" conservatives who take the Genesis literally but haven't gotten around to more of the "blessed are the meek" parts of the Bible.)

What's next white America? Electing John McCain for president?!

I mean really, white people. Get it together!

The More Things Change . . .

In my estimation, this article details the historic tension between white feminists and feminists of color. It's why so many white women could only see history being made by Hillary Clinton and could ignore the history being made by Barack Obama. Is why when someone decides to play a game of whose most oppressed, white women always cry about black men being given the right to vote before they were, never mind that black women couldn't vote, and black men's voting rights were complicated eradicated by the time white women got to vote. There are some white feminist would drop all other issues relating to nonwhite women altogether.

1921: Alice Paul Pulls the Strings

By Freda Kirchwey

This article appeared in the March 2, 1921 edition of The Nation.
July 31, 2008

Women won the right to vote in 1919, but African-American women continue to be disenfranchised. At the National Women's Party convention in 1921, their pleas for representation were rebuffed by suffragist leader Alice Paul. The Nation's outraged correspondent Freda Kirchway reports.

The spirit of the National Woman's Party convention at Washington last week was summed up in two striking sentences. Said a disheartened delegate after the last day's session: "This is the machine age." Said one of the leaders of the Party to another delegate who tried to plead for a free consideration of a real program: "At a convention human intelligence reaches its lowest ebb."

That was what it amounted to; the leaders acted on the theory of an amiable contempt for their followers; the rank and file, either cynically or enthusiastically, watched the wishes of the leaders become the law of the convention. With quiet precision the Woman's Party machine--a veritable tank--rolled over the assembly, crushing protestants of all sorts, leaving the way clear--for what? If anyone left the convention with a distinct idea of what the Party will do now that it has solemnly disbanded and solemnly reorganized, it is, perhaps, Alice Paul and the Executive Committee and some members of the Advisory Council and a few State chairmen. The rank and file, not realizing that their intelligence was at a low ebb, are vaguely disappointed. They do not know what their party will do; they only know that no action was taken in behalf of the Negro women, who have not yet got the vote in spite of the Nineteenth Amendment; that birth control and maternity endowment and most of the questions that stir the minds of modern women were ignored; that disarmament was ruled out; and that the program finally adopted--the majority report of the resolutions committee--declared vaguely against "legal disabilities" and for "equality" leaving the future definition of those terms and their translation into action to the executive board. The only specific application of the word equality appeared in the demand that it be "won and maintained in any association of nations that may be established"!

It may, of course, be asserted that since this mild and hypothetical program was adopted by a vote of the convention it was therefore the will of the convention, but one is forced to wonder whether the result would have been the same if a dissenting delegate or a minority committeeman had presented the winning report, and if Alice Paul's program had included disarmament or birth control or the enfranchisement of Negro women. I, for one, would back Miss Paul's chances on either side she chose to support. When the minority report recommending disarmament was before the house it was opposed vehemently by several ardent militarists of the order who declare: "I am as much against war as anybody in this room, but when the world is on fire . . . " From the point of view of the leaders this opposition was undesirable; the majority report would only be weakened by militarist adherents. Presently the floor was taken by a well-known pacifist who set herself squarely on the side of immediate, complete disarmament and then proceeded on other grounds to an effective attack on the disarmament program. Later in the day this same pacifist--who is also a radical and a feminist--had a program of her own in the field in opposition to the majority report. This new dissenting program was specific. It demanded, in addition to the removal of the legal disabilities of women, the rewriting of the existing laws of marriage, divorce, guardianship; and sexual morality on a basis of equality; the abolition of illegitimacy; the establishment of motherhood endowment and of the legal right of a woman who chooses homemaking as her profession to an equal share in the family income; the repeal of all laws against the dissemination of information regarding birth control.

These proposals were sternly opposed by the machine. The leaders declared that such a program was too vague; they declared that it was too definite; they declared that it was too comprehensive; they claimed that the majority program could be interpreted to include all those demands and more besides. But in expounding the majority program they were cautious; not one of the leaders specifically stated, for example, that it should be interpreted to cover the question of birth control. "And after all, that's the acid test," said one of the younger delegates. The new program received the support of a few of the less orthodox members of the Advisory Council, but its most persuasive advocates were among the young Party workers who charged that the majority report offered no more inspiration than the programs of other women's organizations which they had long been trained to look down upon as cautious, respectable, dull. Again the leaders were worried; they couldn't let the idea get about that only middle-aged respectability stood for the majority report. And presently a couple of the younger workers rose from their seats and opposed the radical program and swore by all the suffrage prophets that the majority report offered inspiration enough for any feminist. And it was well known to those who hung about in the lobby or watched the play from the wings, that Alice Paul had spoken the word necessary to make the pacifist oppose disarmament and the young radicals oppose the radical program.

Some day the story of the working of the National Women's Party machine will be told. It will be an interesting story, full of strange contradictions. It will tell of valiant self-sacrifice and magnificent defiance coupled with an incongruous willingness to appeal to the tradition of feminine weakness. It will be full of idealism and steadfast purpose and yet of a readiness to use any trick or pretense that might bring that purpose nearer to fulfillment. It will tell of independence and individual heroism existing side by side with obedience bordering on subservience. It will show sympathy and ruthlessness walking together. But that story cannot be written until the people who know it get out from under the spell of the Alice Paul legend. Today any attempt would be futile.

The efforts--finally successful--of the birth control advocates to secure a chance to speak at the convention would form an amusing chapter of that story. At the second day's session representatives of women's organizations with legislative programs made brief addresses stating their aims. Even old-time enemies of the Woman's Party were given a place. For weeks before the convention the head of the Voluntary Parenthood League had been in correspondence with the Party leaders demanding her chance to be heard. First the leaders refused, then they demurred, finally they surrendered; but their written objections to the presence of this organization on the platform of the convention were redolent with the faint fragrance of Victorian delicacy and reserve.

The efforts--wholly unsuccessful--of the representatives of the colored women would form a tragic chapter of the same story. A delegation of sixty women sent by colored women's organizations in fourteen States arrived in Washington several days before the convention. They requested an interview with Alice Paul so that they might take up with her the question of the disfranchisement of the women of their race. They were told Miss Paul was too busy to see them. They said they would wait till she had time. Finally, grudgingly, she yielded. The colored women presented their case in the form of a dignified memorial--which read as follows:

We have come here as members of various organizations and from different sections representing the five million colored women of this country. We are deeply appreciative of the heroic devotion of the National Woman's Party to the women's suffrage movement and of the tremendous sacrifices made under your leadership in securing the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

We revere the names of the pioneers to whom you will do honor while here, not only because they believed in the inherent rights of women, but of humanity at large, and gave themselves to the fight against slavery in the United States.

The world has moved forward in these seventy years and the colored women of this country have been moving with it. They know the value of the ballot, if honestly used, to right the wrongs of any class. Knowing this, they have also come today to call your attention to the flagrant violations of the intent and purposes of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in the elections of 1920. These violations occurred in the Southern States, where is to be found the great mass of colored women, and it has not been made secret that wherever white women did not use the ballot, it was counted worthwhile to relinquish it in order that it might be denied colored women.

Complete evidence of violations of the Nineteenth Amendment could be obtained only by Federal investigation. There is, however, sufficient evidence available to justify a demand for such an inquiry. We are handing you herewith a pamphlet with verified cases of the disfranchisement of our women.

The National Woman's Party stands in the forefront of the organizations that have undergone all the pains of travail to bring into existence the Nineteenth Amendment. We can not then believe that you will permit this amendment to be so distorted in its interpretation that it shall lose its power and effectiveness. Five million women in the United States can not be denied their rights without all the women of the United States feeling the effect of that denial. No women are free until all are free.

Therefore, we are assembled to ask that you will use your influence to have the convention of the National Woman's Party appoint a special committee to ask Congress for an investigation of the violations of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in the elections of 1920.

Miss Paul was indifferent to this appeal and resented the presence of the delegation. Their chance of being heard at the convention was gone. A Southern organizer told the one active supporter of the colored women--a white woman and a delegate from New York--that the Women's Party was pledged not to raise the race issue in the South; that this was the price it paid for ratification. But no such sinister motive is necessary to explain the treatment of the colored delegation; they were simply an interruption, an obstacle to the smooth working of the machine. Their leading members were not allowed to ride in the elevators of the Hotel Washington where the convention was held, until finally they made a stand for their rights. And only by the use of tactics bordering on Alice Paul's own for vigor and persistence, did their spokesman--the delegate from New York--get a moment to present a resolution in their behalf-a resolution which was promptly defeated and which left the question precisely where it stood.
The attitude of Alice Paul and her supporters toward these disturbers of the peace--Negro women and birth control advocates alike--was the attitude of all established authorities. "Why do these people harass us?" asked Miss Paul. "Why do they want to spoil our convention?" The answer, that never occurred to her, was this: "For the very same reason that made you disturb the peace and harass the authorities in your peculiarly effective and irritating way: because they want to further the cause they believe in."

In the lobby, among the futile opponents of the machine, there was much discussion of the cause of their leaders' hostility to all that was new and clear-cut. The great fighting issue was gone; if the organization was to continue it must turn its attention to other issues and work for them one at a time or several together, not only in Congress but in the States. Would the leaders evolve out of their vague program an issue which they could again attack with military precision and on which they could hope again to raise their disciplined volunteer army? Would they justify their tactics, as they had so often done before, by the brilliant success of their results? Or were they only greedy of power, eager to hold the final decision close in their own hands, unwilling to trust to the desires of their followers? Or were they, perhaps, only half awake to the fulness of life? Absorbed in a task of immense proportions, for years they had forfeited, as soldiers must, the common enterprises of life--love, marriage, children, the economic struggle. Had they thereby lost touch with the plain demands of modern women who are more interested in their opportunities for personal expansion and economic freedom and the right to bear children when they choose than they are in the presence of women in the councils of an unborn or dying League of Nations? The opponents of the machine never decided those questions; the Alice Paul legend hung too closely over them and its phrases sounded in their ears through the closed doors of the convention hall.

Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
About Freda KirchweyFreda Kirchwey was a former managing editor, literary editor, editor and, ultimately, publisher of The Nation. She died in 1976.

I Tried to Say Basically the Same Thing. Linda Burnham Says It Better.

But let me just say, white person, unless you've taken courses in undergrad and graduate school and black America, racism, and politics, or maybe you're like Macon D and you're really trying o figure this stuff out, otherwise, shut up talking about black politics. You don't know what you're talking about.

I mean really. You guys are the same people who blamed the spike of crime in post-bellum South on freedmen and women, even though up to 95% of the crime was committed by whites, and got away with it. Not just that, but now it's a reputation we just can't shake. So know, you don't get to "objectively" judge the state of black politics.

Obama's Candidacy: The Advent of Post-Racial America and the End of Black Politics?

By Linda Burnham

The Obama candidacy has provoked a torrent of observations and speculations about race in America - some grounded in reality, some approaching the realm of sheer fantasy. In the latter category are the commentaries heralding the advent of a 'post-racial America' and 'the end of Black politics.'

Matt Bai's August 10th piece in The New York Times, entitled 'Is Obama the End of Black Politics?,' is one of the more coherent versions of the genre. In it he argues that a newly emerging generation of Ivy-bred black elected officials, with Obama as their chief representative, are more interested in representing universal interests than in representing the black community; that therefore 'black politics might now be disappearing into American politics in the same way that the Irish and Italian machines long ago joined the political mainstream'; and that an Obama win would likely undermine the argument for race-based measures such as affirmative action.

The post-racial, end-of-black-politics crowd rests its case on at least five fallacies:

Fallacy #1: That the end of a racially unjust society is a declarative act.

Some commentators seem to be confused by the forms racism takes in the post-civil rights era, and prepared to declare that, since there are no laws explicitly upholding racial inequity, it must be dying out of its own accord.

Racial apartheid and the most blatant 20th century forms of discrimination are behind us, but the colorline has hardly faded away. Centuries of affirmative action for whites built up an enormous wealth gap, along with stubborn inequities along nearly every other economic and social parameter. Active discrimination persists, especially in employment and housing, as the experience of testers repeatedly confirms. (According to the New York Time's own recent poll, 'nearly 70 percent of blacks said they had encountered a specific instance of discrimination based on their race, compared with 62 percent in 2000.') Millions of white people -most of them lacking control of the resources required to actively discriminate - nonetheless make daily choices about which neighborhood to move into or out of, which schools to send their kids to. Too often those choices amount to the preservation of white space, and the privileges that attach to it. And the gains of the freedom movements of the 1950s and 60s came under attack before the ink was dry on the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act - and have been under attack ever since. Meanwhile, nominally race neutral policies, particularly those related to the social safety net, criminal justice and tax policy, have a disproportionately negative impact on people of color -hardening, if not widening the racial divide. And the globalization of the demand for labor, in the absence of the protection of the laborers themselves, has stoked a toxic mix of nativism and racism.

This is not the picture of a post-racial society.

Social reality is rude. It tends to break through even the most sophisticated screens designed to mask it. The Katrina debacle, the repeated exposure of the debasement of immigrant labor, the disproportionate impact of the housing crisis and the generalized recession in communities of color -all these phenomena attest to the continuing salience of racial inequity and bring the conversation about race out of the post-racialist clouds and back to earth.

Fallacy #2: That the sum total of black politics is electoral politics.

There are many forms of political leadership among African Americans, as is true for other racially or ethnically distinct groups. Elected representatives are critical and central to moving policy, but religious leaders, community organizers, think tankers, opinion leaders, policy advocates, legal strategists, and politicized artists and cultural figures all give shape, texture and substance to the complex thing that is black politics. The complete collapse of the political into the electoral ill serves a community that has been so ill served by mainstream politics. Challenging power requires the coordination and synchronization of many different actors, some located within legitimized structures, some working well outside the mainstream. Furthermore, while the politics of protest and mass action may be in extended abeyance, a death warrant is probably premature.

Fallacy #3: That the most legitimate black leaders are those elected representatives who are most legitimated in the eyes of whites.

The promoters of the 'end of black politics' draw a sharp generational divide between the confrontational protest style of the Jesse Jackson generation, who are constructed as speaking to and for 'only' the interests of African Americans, and the more universalist approach of the younger generation of politicians, as exemplified by the Corey Bookers and Deval Patricks of the world. This is a problem on a few different counts. Gary Younge, writing in The Nation, addressed the careful selectivity of this view. 'The emergence of this cohort has filled the commentariat with joy--not just because of what they are: bright, polite and, where skin tone is concerned, mostly light--but because of what they are not. They have been hailed not just as a development in black American politics but as a repudiation of black American politics; not just as different from Jesse Jackson but the epitome of the anti-Jesse.

There are many problems with this. Chief among them is that this `new generation' is itself a crude political construct built more on wishful thinking than on chronological fact. Patrick, born in 1956, is hailed as part of it, but hapless New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who was born the same year, and civil rights campaigner Al Sharpton, who was born just two years earlier, are not. Obama and Booker are always mentioned as members of this new club, but Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who was born between them and spent his twenty-first birthday in prison protesting apartheid, is not. So whatever else this is about, it is not just about years. It is one thing to say there is a critical mass of black politicians of a certain age and political disposition. It is entirely another to claim that they represent the views of a generation.'

This view also rewrites and narrows the politics of Jesse Jackson, Martin King and a generation of leaders, many of whom were, and still are, clear that racial justice for African Americans is central to deepening democracy for all Americans and who, through the Civil Rights movement and the Rainbow Coalition, mobilized, inspired and transformed the political thinking not only of African Americans but of millions of whites and other people of color as well.

Finally, this view posits associations between black politics and parochialism, mainstream politics and universalism, and white politics and .? Actually, in this view there is no such thing as white politics - that is, politics that represent the interests of whites as a group -only universalist politics inclusive of all and the narrow, race-based politics of the past.

Put fallacies # 2 and #3 together and you get the absurd notion that the undeniably significant expression of politics represented by Obama, Booker, Patrick, et al. is the sum total of black politics -a claim not even they would make -and that the future of black politics depends, first and foremost, upon its appeal to white voters.

Fallacy #4: That African American political expression is the black equivalent of white ethnic voting, and will soon fade as a distinct trend.

The most focused reflection of black political consensus is the 90% of black votes that regularly go to Democratic candidates in presidential elections. No other demographic votes in such a consistently and dramatically lopsided fashion. Whites split their votes, ranging between 55 and 60% Republican and 40 to 45% Democratic. Latino and Asian American votes split much more evenly than those of African Americans, and vary more from one election to the next. So if, as Bai maintains, black politics are 'disappearing into American politics' somebody better tell the Democrats who, in presidential elections, are completely reliant on the consistency of that vote. As Amiri Baraka notes in a recent piece, 'the foundation of Obama's successful candidacy is the 90% support by the Afro-American people.' Even though '90% of 12% is not enough to win the presidency,' it's something to build a campaign around, a stable factor in political strategizing, when you can count on it every time. African Americans widely view the Republican Party as the chief protector of white interests. Until that changes, that is until the Republican Party changes its core platform, African Americans are unlikely to follow the course of Irish and Italian politics and disappear as a remarkably cohesive voting block, at least in presidential elections.

Fallacy #5: That the progress of middle class African Americans is a stand in for the progress of African Americans in general.

Bai notes that 'when millions of black Americans are catapulting themselves to success' it's hard to make a case for the ongoing significance of race and racism. And nearly every election commentator has observed that the changed class configuration of black America has given rise to a new political cohort: those who walked through the doors swung open by the gains of the civil rights movement, and who are now themselves opening new doors in U.S. politics.

But in an era in which significant numbers of African Americans have substantially improved their social and economic standing, there are major countervailing trends: the black poverty rate still hovers between 20 and 25% and remains more than twice that of whites; the class profile of African Americans is still weighted toward the bottom; while median income rose dramatically for African American women in the 30 years between 1974 and 2004, it fell for African American men; and those African Americans who do achieve middles class status face much greater difficulty than whites in passing that status along to their children. It may be that the biggest problem a segment of African Americans faces is whether they can hail a cab successfully in New York City. This is not the case for the black majority.

And so the issue is not whether Black politicians who aspire to represent a broader constituency can do so effectively. Undoubtedly they can. More to the point is whether they also have the orientation and the capacity to represent the interests of those who are disadvantaged on the basis of both race and class. This will take more than lessons in uplift, finger wagging at black fathers and lectures on how to turn off the TV and help the kids with their homework.

* * *

Apart from these five fallacies, the other thing that seems to confuse the post-racialists is that no one in the political mainstream makes overtly racist appeals to the white majority. So maybe racism is over with.

We can count it as a victory, only recently won in terms of the long arc of white supremacy, that blatant racism is widely viewed as morally repugnant. While it is the role of the activist right to preserve the prerogatives of racial hierarchy, they'd prefer to do so without being tagged as the guardians of white power. Happy to claim their allegiance to unregulated markets, regressive tax policies, 'family values,'small government, and robust militarism, the frank embrace of white supremacy is a bit beyond the pale.

And so they've become masterful shape shifters, skilled at promulgating policies that protect white privilege while insisting that race is the furthest thing from their minds and skilled at framing and controlling the national dialogue about race. Racist expression has taken new, coded and perverse form. And the presidential campaign itself provides more than enough evidence that some white politicians recognize the power of race-based appeals.

We now have:

Double-bind racism, in which those who make reference to the actually existing racial regime or advocate on behalf of anti-racist practices and policies are themselves accused of being racist, of 'playing the race card.' (The whose-face-is-on-the-dollar-bill flap.)

Dog-whistle racism, in which racist messages are conveyed on a separate frequency, through racially coded words and phrases, reaching ears that have been primed and are highly attuned. (Clinton's 'hard working Americans' appeal to white working class voters in Pennsylvania. Yep, the Dems do it too.)

Color-blind racism, in which the racial status quo is sustained and defended by those who pledge allegiance to purportedly race-neutral policies. (Perfected by opponents of affirmative action.)

Visually evocative racism, in which imagery is purposefully deployed to surface deeply engrained racial stereotypes. (The Paris Hilton/Brittney Spears/McCain ad fandango.)

All these stratagems and more have been skillfully manipulated to stoke fear and resentment, undermine black candidates, confuse potential allies, undercut the efficacy of racial justice organizing and advocacy, and silence the anti-racist voice. It is our job to learn to decode and expose these forms of expression for what they are - maneuvers to obstruct racial equity.

We will not reach a post-racialist U.S. by announcement or decree. The only way to get there from here is by way of racial justice. We can already identify some of the markers on that route: substantially diminishing disparities in health, education, housing, income distribution, wealth, police practices, sentencing and incarceration, political participation and representation. Whether we steadily approach these markers or they recede into a murky, unapproachably distant future depends, in large part, on the continuation and renewal of black politics in diverse, increasingly effective form.