Tim Wise is one of the few "white" writers who comes close to telling the subtle, unspoken, dirty little secrets of what I call "post-racist white supremacy".
I just read a missive he wrote last week right after Hillary Clinton's "white" women posse started howling about their plans to vote for John McCain. Although I think much of their threats were a classic case of sore loser's sour grapes - and that most would eventually come to their senses, Mr. Wise's "Your Whiteness is Showing" is an essay on the seldom confronted broader issue that some might call "Miss Sally" privilege.
BTW: When you click on the link, you'll get Tim's homepage. You have to click on Essays to find "Your Whiteness is Showing".
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Making the Unthinkable Thinkable...and Doable.
I just read a short piece in the Huffington Post by a guy named David Bromwich that I think eloquently sums up what many of us felt and maybe couldn't quite express about Hillary Clinton's assassination remark and her unapologetic apology to the Kennedys. (She never bothered to even fake an apology to the Obamas).
It is the exact opposite of the over-heated reaction of Keith Olberman, who's anti-Hillary video jihad almost made me feel sorry for her. (I said "almost"):
Assassination Chatter
What do you think?
RM
It is the exact opposite of the over-heated reaction of Keith Olberman, who's anti-Hillary video jihad almost made me feel sorry for her. (I said "almost"):
Assassination Chatter
What do you think?
RM
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Racism vs Sexism vs McCain
Nobody asked me, but...
I don't want to turn this into a political blog but since the Presidents race is more blatantly about the president's race than any other election in our history, how could anyone who calls himself RaceMan not comment?
That said, I just read two thoughtful pieces on the subject of racism vs sexism in America that shouldn't be missed:
1. A short column in the Wall Street Journal, 'Nothing but Misogynists' that makes a pretty strong case against Mrs. Clinton being the best candidate to take on John McCain in November....using her own words about sexism.
2. An op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times about a similar subject from a historical perspective; the battle between "white" women and "black" men for equality in America.
Check 'em out and report back to ol' RaceMan, OK?
RM
BTW: I was just directed to another interesting piece on this subject on the Kansas City Star web site, here.
I don't want to turn this into a political blog but since the Presidents race is more blatantly about the president's race than any other election in our history, how could anyone who calls himself RaceMan not comment?
That said, I just read two thoughtful pieces on the subject of racism vs sexism in America that shouldn't be missed:
1. A short column in the Wall Street Journal, 'Nothing but Misogynists' that makes a pretty strong case against Mrs. Clinton being the best candidate to take on John McCain in November....using her own words about sexism.
2. An op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times about a similar subject from a historical perspective; the battle between "white" women and "black" men for equality in America.
Check 'em out and report back to ol' RaceMan, OK?
RM
BTW: I was just directed to another interesting piece on this subject on the Kansas City Star web site, here.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Did Hillary just kill her campaign for President?
RaceMan,
Have you heard the latest remark that Hillary Clinton made about why she's staying in the race?
She said that she would be stupid to give up now since other campaigns, like her husband's weren't decided until June....and (and this is the kicker) Bobby Kennedy wasn't assassinated until June! Although she apologized a few hours later, the apology seemed to be more to the Kennedys, than Barack and Michelle Obama. What do you think?
The Wonderer
Dear Wonderer,
As far as I can see, Hillary not only just ended her chances for the presidency, she just unloaded both barrels on any vice presidential aspirations too.
Even if you give her the benefit of humongous doubt, her remarks (just like her musings on "hard-working Americans, white Americans") show that she is too insensitive to the power of words to be president.
Was it wishful thinking, a Freudian Slip, campaign fatique, poor judgment, political tone-deafness or all of the above? No matter how you look at it, it's a killer-diller. Any explanation undermines her strongest selling point - that she's more experienced and world-wise than Obama. Of course everyone has thought about the possibility of assassination but it's pure amateur hour for a leading politician to encourage all the hate-mongering losers* out there with itchy trigger fingers by speculating on the subject.
If there was any reason for the Superdelegates to wait until June, she has just eliminated it. And I think she's assassinated her vp chances too. Imagine having a vice president who's on record speculating about what would happen if you're killed. I don't think so.
RM
*Monroe Anderson, a well-known Chicago-based journalist has more on this here.
Have you heard the latest remark that Hillary Clinton made about why she's staying in the race?
She said that she would be stupid to give up now since other campaigns, like her husband's weren't decided until June....and (and this is the kicker) Bobby Kennedy wasn't assassinated until June! Although she apologized a few hours later, the apology seemed to be more to the Kennedys, than Barack and Michelle Obama. What do you think?
The Wonderer
Dear Wonderer,
As far as I can see, Hillary not only just ended her chances for the presidency, she just unloaded both barrels on any vice presidential aspirations too.
Even if you give her the benefit of humongous doubt, her remarks (just like her musings on "hard-working Americans, white Americans") show that she is too insensitive to the power of words to be president.
Was it wishful thinking, a Freudian Slip, campaign fatique, poor judgment, political tone-deafness or all of the above? No matter how you look at it, it's a killer-diller. Any explanation undermines her strongest selling point - that she's more experienced and world-wise than Obama. Of course everyone has thought about the possibility of assassination but it's pure amateur hour for a leading politician to encourage all the hate-mongering losers* out there with itchy trigger fingers by speculating on the subject.
If there was any reason for the Superdelegates to wait until June, she has just eliminated it. And I think she's assassinated her vp chances too. Imagine having a vice president who's on record speculating about what would happen if you're killed. I don't think so.
RM
*Monroe Anderson, a well-known Chicago-based journalist has more on this here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Nobody asked me, but....
I read a few columns today that dealt with the issue of race and politics in ways I don't remember hearing or reading anywhere before - not even in alternative, progressive and even radical rags. It seems to me that no matter what ultimately happens with the current presidential race, we are seeing a phenomenon that has never happened in mainstream America. We are seeing the usually avoided or exploited issue of race dealt with by serious, well-informed (and seemingly, well-meaning) people. And some are going beyond the lazy thinking and accepted "wisdom" of the past.
I'm adding links to two columns in particular that gave me some insights that I don't remember ever seeing on TV or by any of the usual pop media susp....I mean...uh.....pundits. One is by a guy named Timothy Egan, who blogs for the New York Times, called White on White.
The second is by Joseph Lowndes on The Huffington Post, titled What Oregon Says About America. Go check them out and report back to ol' RaceMan, OK?
I'm adding links to two columns in particular that gave me some insights that I don't remember ever seeing on TV or by any of the usual pop media susp....I mean...uh.....pundits. One is by a guy named Timothy Egan, who blogs for the New York Times, called White on White.
The second is by Joseph Lowndes on The Huffington Post, titled What Oregon Says About America. Go check them out and report back to ol' RaceMan, OK?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Aren't all American "races" responsible for America's atrocities?
RaceMan
"...Well whatever race one might belong to in U.S.A., it seems to me that every single citizen of this country is responsible for these atrocities [in Iraq] (including me as a non-permanent resident) whether they are playing their tunes on the black or white keys of Nixon's or Clinton's piano."
Dr. A
Doctor, Doctor, Doctor,
Thanks for your comment to my last post, "Is Hillary Clinton a Racist?" You made lots of interesting points but I want to respond to the one above and invite everyone who reads this to go to the comments section beneath the original post to read your full comments.
You mentioned that you are "a non-permanent resident", so you're not an American. Right? I'll assume for now you're nodding your head in the affirmative.
It's very hard for non-Americans to understand US - I 'd guess it would be just as difficult for most of us to understand your country. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of humans never, ever go beyond the borders of the country they're born, so it's a common human shortcoming. We all see the world through the eyes of an ant on a small beach. We think the whole planet is made of sand. (See, I can be a little philosophical myself).
But the U.S.A. has usually welcomed other ants, no matter where they're from. Although the reason for such openness has always had more to do with our oligarchs' desire for cheap labor than the "give me your tired, your poor..... blah, blah, blah" rhetoric on Lady Liberty, it's still true.
In fact, many believe that without this constant replenishing of our cultural gene-pool (as well as our labor pool), we couldn't be the dynamic, albeit seemingly out-of-control society we are. As much as I get on its case, I think pound-for- pound, ton-for-ton and acre-for-acre, citizens of the U.S. of A. have a lot of things to be happy about.
Too bad our current "leadership" isn't one of them.
In the U.S.A., because of our form of government, I agree we are all - "black", "brown", "yellow", "red", "white" and "other" - responsible to some extent for whatever it does in our name. But those of us who voted for certain "persons" we now call our leaders are more responsible than others. Hopefully we can correct their obvious mistake in the coming election.
Of course whoever wins, it will not be the end of our long history of failure to live up to our much touted, sporadically realized ideals. But it could be a new beginning in the right direction.
Can you say the same about your nation?
(This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to hear what you think).
RM
"...Well whatever race one might belong to in U.S.A., it seems to me that every single citizen of this country is responsible for these atrocities [in Iraq] (including me as a non-permanent resident) whether they are playing their tunes on the black or white keys of Nixon's or Clinton's piano."
Dr. A
Doctor, Doctor, Doctor,
Thanks for your comment to my last post, "Is Hillary Clinton a Racist?" You made lots of interesting points but I want to respond to the one above and invite everyone who reads this to go to the comments section beneath the original post to read your full comments.
You mentioned that you are "a non-permanent resident", so you're not an American. Right? I'll assume for now you're nodding your head in the affirmative.
It's very hard for non-Americans to understand US - I 'd guess it would be just as difficult for most of us to understand your country. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of humans never, ever go beyond the borders of the country they're born, so it's a common human shortcoming. We all see the world through the eyes of an ant on a small beach. We think the whole planet is made of sand. (See, I can be a little philosophical myself).
But the U.S.A. has usually welcomed other ants, no matter where they're from. Although the reason for such openness has always had more to do with our oligarchs' desire for cheap labor than the "give me your tired, your poor..... blah, blah, blah" rhetoric on Lady Liberty, it's still true.
In fact, many believe that without this constant replenishing of our cultural gene-pool (as well as our labor pool), we couldn't be the dynamic, albeit seemingly out-of-control society we are. As much as I get on its case, I think pound-for- pound, ton-for-ton and acre-for-acre, citizens of the U.S. of A. have a lot of things to be happy about.
Too bad our current "leadership" isn't one of them.
In the U.S.A., because of our form of government, I agree we are all - "black", "brown", "yellow", "red", "white" and "other" - responsible to some extent for whatever it does in our name. But those of us who voted for certain "persons" we now call our leaders are more responsible than others. Hopefully we can correct their obvious mistake in the coming election.
Of course whoever wins, it will not be the end of our long history of failure to live up to our much touted, sporadically realized ideals. But it could be a new beginning in the right direction.
Can you say the same about your nation?
(This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to hear what you think).
RM
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Is Hillary Clinton a racist?
RaceMan,
I know you've heard Hillary Clinton's much-quoted statement about hard working white Americans not voting for Obama. Doesn't that sound like something George Wallace, Strom Thurman or Richard Nixon would have said 35 years ago...not a so-called liberal leader of the Democratic Party? Doesn't that prove that, no matter how enlightened whitefolks are, they're still racists deep down where the sun don't shine?
Just Asking
Dear Just,
Grab a chair. This may take a while.
Ms. Clinton is reported to have said to U.S.A. Today last week:
“Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again....There’s a pattern emerging here.”
When I read this statement in the New York Times, I was a little shocked. Not because Mrs. Clinton made the statement but because she made it to a major publication. I'm not amazed she dealt the proverbial race card. But she pulled it from the bottom of the deck so clumsily that everybody saw it. It showed either a level of what-have-I got-to-lose desperation that's scary, or that she and her handlers are so deficient of communications skills, she makes GW look like John Barrymore spouting Shakespeare.
But, whether Hillary Clinton - or any of us - are racists or not isn't as important as whether they are, what I would call "race pimps and pushers". Hillary's statement shows that she, as almost every major "white" politician in American history is, that. It's always been one of the unwritten qualifications for the job.
Just like with drugs, you don't have to be an addict yourself to be a major purveyor of junk. Most American leaders, no matter what their personal views (and who ever really knows anybody's inner thoughts...really?) have always bowed down to America's twin gods of greed and racism. After all, slavery and white supremacy were usually, directly or indirectly, the basis of their wealth and power.
Only one book that I know of, written by an obscure professor named Kenneth O'Reilly over 12 years ago, addresses the issue, "Nixon's Piano". Even though the title seems deliberately designed to keep anyone from picking it up, the subtitle and the content are pretty direct. "Presidents and Racial Politics from Washington to Clinton" pretty much sums it up. But in the end, all it does is document what most sentient Americans (and thinking people all over the world) know: this nation, and its leaders, has engaged in an ongoing conspiracy against African-Americans from before its founding till this second - and will continue to do so until its most moral, intellectually honest and patriotic citizens mount a campaign to stop it and correct the damage.
Hillary is willing to use racism to get what she wants. In that way, she is just following in the well-tread footsteps of our most sainted leaders, starting with the Founding Fathers. They not only used racism to justify the dehumanization and enslavement of Africans and the annihilation of American indians, they made it the basis of America's economic, political and social systems. It is the bloody soil in which our nation's foundation was laid and on which our oldest institutions were built.
Her statement showed a degree of desperation that signals the end may finally be near for her bid for the presidency. It shows a "we might as well go all the way at this point, maybe it will work" frame of mind that happens - to use a sports analogy just like the pro pundits - when there's only 2 seconds left in the 4th quarter, you've got the rebound on your opponents side of the court, you're three points down. Why not throw the ball as hard as you can toward your basket and pray? You may only have 1 in a billion chance of getting lucky but it's better than none.
On the other hand, it shows the admirable, never-say-die spirit that made me originally believe she would be the best person to take on the Republican mud machine. I still think her tenacity is good for Barack Obama, the Democrats and their chances of winning in November. She forced Obama to show, not only that he could take a punch. The fact that he's still standing after tangling with Hard-as-Nails Hillary shows he can take a bullet.
But I'm wandering. Let me get back to your question. Is Hillary Clinton a racist?
The short answer is "Who knows?". The follow-up is "Who cares?" Racism - at least the kind we AfrAmericans have to worry about isn't personal. Whether a particular "white" person is a racist or not has little or no effect on us as a group. It's only when the power of government, economic, social, etc. institutions are used to deny us our rights, livelihood and ability to participate equally at all levels that racism is a problem. And maybe that's why I was so shocked by Hillary's balls-out appeal to racism in her hour of need. It shows, not that she's a racist, but that she thinks enough "white" Americans are to make her the Democratic nominee, not that sophisticated, eloquent, sexy nig....er...uh....African-American man.
Of course she would have never revealed her real thinking if not for the prospect of losing her lifelong dream. Her husband, Willie, was much more adept at making his racist overtures. But that was a different time and day.
But these days, to my pleasant surprise, it's not working. Why?
I'll be honest. It beats the hell out of your ol' RaceMan. All I've come up with so far is that the volatile combination of young educated NewMericans mixed with the overwhelming economic, ecological, social, rhetorical, military failure of a white, privileged usual-prospect has forced thinking Americans to re-think everything - including their "white men only" sign on the white house. Whatever it is, it has put this nation in a position to move a little closer to our ideals. And if Obama wins, I don't expect the end of racism by a long shot, but it will be another step in out of the deep hole we're in. And I'll take it.
RM
BTW: I just figured out how to link my books to Amazon. Just click on the "Nixon's Piano" cover on the right for more info or to buy a copy. If you haven't read it, you've got a huge hole in your education.
O,AOMT: (Oh, and one more thing) - Mrs. C told more of the truth than she knew (and as far as I know, no Big Media 'pinionators caught) when she said her hopes for presidential power depended on struggling, poorly educated whitefolk. American politicians have always counted on the ignorance, (cupidity if not stupidity) and fears of "hard-working" whitefolks. That's their idea of democracy.
I know you've heard Hillary Clinton's much-quoted statement about hard working white Americans not voting for Obama. Doesn't that sound like something George Wallace, Strom Thurman or Richard Nixon would have said 35 years ago...not a so-called liberal leader of the Democratic Party? Doesn't that prove that, no matter how enlightened whitefolks are, they're still racists deep down where the sun don't shine?
Just Asking
Dear Just,
Grab a chair. This may take a while.
Ms. Clinton is reported to have said to U.S.A. Today last week:
“Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again....There’s a pattern emerging here.”
When I read this statement in the New York Times, I was a little shocked. Not because Mrs. Clinton made the statement but because she made it to a major publication. I'm not amazed she dealt the proverbial race card. But she pulled it from the bottom of the deck so clumsily that everybody saw it. It showed either a level of what-have-I got-to-lose desperation that's scary, or that she and her handlers are so deficient of communications skills, she makes GW look like John Barrymore spouting Shakespeare.
But, whether Hillary Clinton - or any of us - are racists or not isn't as important as whether they are, what I would call "race pimps and pushers". Hillary's statement shows that she, as almost every major "white" politician in American history is, that. It's always been one of the unwritten qualifications for the job.
Just like with drugs, you don't have to be an addict yourself to be a major purveyor of junk. Most American leaders, no matter what their personal views (and who ever really knows anybody's inner thoughts...really?) have always bowed down to America's twin gods of greed and racism. After all, slavery and white supremacy were usually, directly or indirectly, the basis of their wealth and power.
Only one book that I know of, written by an obscure professor named Kenneth O'Reilly over 12 years ago, addresses the issue, "Nixon's Piano". Even though the title seems deliberately designed to keep anyone from picking it up, the subtitle and the content are pretty direct. "Presidents and Racial Politics from Washington to Clinton" pretty much sums it up. But in the end, all it does is document what most sentient Americans (and thinking people all over the world) know: this nation, and its leaders, has engaged in an ongoing conspiracy against African-Americans from before its founding till this second - and will continue to do so until its most moral, intellectually honest and patriotic citizens mount a campaign to stop it and correct the damage.
Hillary is willing to use racism to get what she wants. In that way, she is just following in the well-tread footsteps of our most sainted leaders, starting with the Founding Fathers. They not only used racism to justify the dehumanization and enslavement of Africans and the annihilation of American indians, they made it the basis of America's economic, political and social systems. It is the bloody soil in which our nation's foundation was laid and on which our oldest institutions were built.
Her statement showed a degree of desperation that signals the end may finally be near for her bid for the presidency. It shows a "we might as well go all the way at this point, maybe it will work" frame of mind that happens - to use a sports analogy just like the pro pundits - when there's only 2 seconds left in the 4th quarter, you've got the rebound on your opponents side of the court, you're three points down. Why not throw the ball as hard as you can toward your basket and pray? You may only have 1 in a billion chance of getting lucky but it's better than none.
On the other hand, it shows the admirable, never-say-die spirit that made me originally believe she would be the best person to take on the Republican mud machine. I still think her tenacity is good for Barack Obama, the Democrats and their chances of winning in November. She forced Obama to show, not only that he could take a punch. The fact that he's still standing after tangling with Hard-as-Nails Hillary shows he can take a bullet.
But I'm wandering. Let me get back to your question. Is Hillary Clinton a racist?
The short answer is "Who knows?". The follow-up is "Who cares?" Racism - at least the kind we AfrAmericans have to worry about isn't personal. Whether a particular "white" person is a racist or not has little or no effect on us as a group. It's only when the power of government, economic, social, etc. institutions are used to deny us our rights, livelihood and ability to participate equally at all levels that racism is a problem. And maybe that's why I was so shocked by Hillary's balls-out appeal to racism in her hour of need. It shows, not that she's a racist, but that she thinks enough "white" Americans are to make her the Democratic nominee, not that sophisticated, eloquent, sexy nig....er...uh....African-American man.
Of course she would have never revealed her real thinking if not for the prospect of losing her lifelong dream. Her husband, Willie, was much more adept at making his racist overtures. But that was a different time and day.
But these days, to my pleasant surprise, it's not working. Why?
I'll be honest. It beats the hell out of your ol' RaceMan. All I've come up with so far is that the volatile combination of young educated NewMericans mixed with the overwhelming economic, ecological, social, rhetorical, military failure of a white, privileged usual-prospect has forced thinking Americans to re-think everything - including their "white men only" sign on the white house. Whatever it is, it has put this nation in a position to move a little closer to our ideals. And if Obama wins, I don't expect the end of racism by a long shot, but it will be another step in out of the deep hole we're in. And I'll take it.
RM
BTW: I just figured out how to link my books to Amazon. Just click on the "Nixon's Piano" cover on the right for more info or to buy a copy. If you haven't read it, you've got a huge hole in your education.
O,AOMT: (Oh, and one more thing) - Mrs. C told more of the truth than she knew (and as far as I know, no Big Media 'pinionators caught) when she said her hopes for presidential power depended on struggling, poorly educated whitefolk. American politicians have always counted on the ignorance, (cupidity if not stupidity) and fears of "hard-working" whitefolks. That's their idea of democracy.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Chicago Trib buries Tutu, along with our race problem.
Nobody asked me but (NAMB),
No wonder America's newspapers are dying. They seem to be intent on committing suicide.
Case in point - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the world-famous, Nobel Prize winning moral leader and head of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was in Chi-Town yesterday (May 13). In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune, he's quoted as saying, unlike in South Africa's apartheid era, "where blacks were treated as nothing", in America "You say to them (blacks), 'You're equal and the sky's the limit.' And they keep bumping against this thing that's stopping them from reaching out to the stars." The articles headline is, "Desmond Tutu: Equality of U.S. blacks an 'illusion'".
He also weighs in on the Rev. Wright controversy, basically agreeing with the Wright Rev. and ol' RaceMan.
So where does the Chicago Tribune put this world renowned leader's words about America's biggest and longest-running problem? On page 13, in very small type in two very short columns on a page filled with ads, of course. They interred Tutu so deep on their website I had to Google to find him.
So it's up to lowly, little, byte-stained bloggers like moi to once again beat the big boys to the stories and truths right under their corporate, compromised noses. Maybe if so-called "news" papers used their financial firepower to become "truth papers" they could get back some of their readers. American newspapers like to see themselves as guardians of truth, but have, from before our founding as an sovereign nation, not only ignored, but also profited from and exacerbated our race (and class) problem(s).
The major papers, like the New York Times and The Chicago Tribune were around before slavery was abolished and have published continuosly during the 100 years of balls-out racial terror that followed. I'm sure a look through their archives would find both ads, "news" and editorials covered with the finger prints of white supremacy. I suspect one of the reasons they're so reluctant to honestly address the issue is that they'd have to reveal their own complicity in it.
If you'd like to read the whole pathetic little Tutu article (and I'm not criticizing the reporter, just the editor and publisher), scroll down past Books in the right column to my LINKS.
No wonder America's newspapers are dying. They seem to be intent on committing suicide.
Case in point - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the world-famous, Nobel Prize winning moral leader and head of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was in Chi-Town yesterday (May 13). In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune, he's quoted as saying, unlike in South Africa's apartheid era, "where blacks were treated as nothing", in America "You say to them (blacks), 'You're equal and the sky's the limit.' And they keep bumping against this thing that's stopping them from reaching out to the stars." The articles headline is, "Desmond Tutu: Equality of U.S. blacks an 'illusion'".
He also weighs in on the Rev. Wright controversy, basically agreeing with the Wright Rev. and ol' RaceMan.
So where does the Chicago Tribune put this world renowned leader's words about America's biggest and longest-running problem? On page 13, in very small type in two very short columns on a page filled with ads, of course. They interred Tutu so deep on their website I had to Google to find him.
So it's up to lowly, little, byte-stained bloggers like moi to once again beat the big boys to the stories and truths right under their corporate, compromised noses. Maybe if so-called "news" papers used their financial firepower to become "truth papers" they could get back some of their readers. American newspapers like to see themselves as guardians of truth, but have, from before our founding as an sovereign nation, not only ignored, but also profited from and exacerbated our race (and class) problem(s).
The major papers, like the New York Times and The Chicago Tribune were around before slavery was abolished and have published continuosly during the 100 years of balls-out racial terror that followed. I'm sure a look through their archives would find both ads, "news" and editorials covered with the finger prints of white supremacy. I suspect one of the reasons they're so reluctant to honestly address the issue is that they'd have to reveal their own complicity in it.
If you'd like to read the whole pathetic little Tutu article (and I'm not criticizing the reporter, just the editor and publisher), scroll down past Books in the right column to my LINKS.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
4 Stars for Star
I just got a message from my friend Paul about a statement that Star Jones made concerning Bill O'Reilly's comments about Michelle Obama and lynching. First, I admit that I don't know much about Ms. Jones except that she is a talk show personality who was once on a show called "The View", that she lost a lot of weight and that I shouldn't invite her and Barbara Walters to the same party.
I've never viewed "The View", so I don't have much of a sense of Ms. Jones' personality or style. But based on her passionate but well-stated commentary on BlackVoices about O'Reilly's comments, I've got a lot of respect for her intellect. I say "Go Girl" (or whatever is the current equivalent slang). You are a real RW (Race Woman). Check out the link below.
RM
I've never viewed "The View", so I don't have much of a sense of Ms. Jones' personality or style. But based on her passionate but well-stated commentary on BlackVoices about O'Reilly's comments, I've got a lot of respect for her intellect. I say "Go Girl" (or whatever is the current equivalent slang). You are a real RW (Race Woman). Check out the link below.
RM
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Truth & Reconciliation in the U.S.A? 2
I just got the message below from a EuroMerican man I know. I think there's a lot more "white" folks like him (and the previous poster) than the mediocre media and our national mis-leaders want us to know.
Lowell,
I love the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation campaign for the United States. As Reverend Wright has remarked, other countries' governments have offered formal apologies to the peoples they have abused and enslaved. Why not the United States? The reason I feel an apology and a Truth and Reconciliation campaign are essential at this moment is that I see America dividing itself along racial lines in some sectors more sharply than ever. The losers in this present scenario are the young, poor people of color who -- judging from the desperate look in their eyes and the rage which understandably is always bubbling close to the surface -- feel themselves to be on the outside of the American Story. This is a crime. Richard Wright finally left America for Paris because he felt that America "had made the Negro a strange people." He was referring, of course, to the profound damage that centuries of slavery and then homegrown terrorism (the KKK) and institutionalized racism wrought. As the novelist Charles Johnson has remarked, perhaps the greatest tragedy of slavery was that "it epidermalized being."
Now, NOBODY should have to live in such a circumstance, much less a people who laid the economic foundation for this country, are responsible for much of what we recognize as American culture, and literally built the White House. It is my opinion that only an apology and an acknowledgment of what transpired will actually give us the possibility of becoming one people.
Keep fighting the good fight, Raceman.
Cheers, Dan
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Truth & Reconciliation in the U.S.A?
Note: I received this comment by email from a "white" person I know. Although it's not exactly a question, I think it leads to a very obvious one: Why has no one in any mainstream (or as far as I know "offstream", media ever made this suggestion?:
Dear RaceMan,
Re: IS BARACK OBAMA THE GREAT WHITE HOPE?
I’ve already written to Rev. Wright, that first week, and got a great, warm letter back.
I call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission such as they had in South Africa, in which everybody confessed what they had done, nobody was imprisoned for it, but they found a way to get out of the morass and build a new future. I’ve heard some people speak on this, and it’s still hard over there (you don’t get over a centuries-old situation overnight), but at least people are trying.
We haven’t got to the point of acknowledging what the whole world knows: our guilt and shame in pursuing empire, and thinking we’re so great. Let’s bring all the military bases back home and get about our business while other countries get about theirs.
Not in my lifetime, I’ll bet, but at least we can call for confession.
A "white" Person of Conscience
Dear WPC,
I think a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, U.S.A. is a great idea. I've thought about it ever since Desmond Tutu oversaw the original in South Africa. I'm sure many other AfrAmericans have thought about it too, if not in name, in effect. The idea of our nation finally confronting what Condi Rice, of all people, recently called its Founding Flaw, is always on my mind. But you are the first "white" person I've ever heard address it.
Why?
Is it because "white" people are so mis-educated that they have no clue of the role slavery and the idea of white supremacy played in the colonialization of Euro-America and the founding and eventual economic success of its United States?
Is it because "white" Americans are so morally deficient that they don't see the irreconcilable difference between what America professes itself to be and what it actually is? - And how that difference makes everything we say about human rights and democracy a joke in the eyes of the world?
Is it just hypocrisy, pure and simple?
Or is it fear of inviting the wrath of the greedy, power-hungry 1% of Americans who received the overwhelming majority of the booty from this "original sin" - and whose descendants and/or beneficiaries still control our economy and thus, our government? Does the average "white" American (and the media that supposedly informs them) really know the truth but is scared to death to speak it to White Power?
RM
Dear RaceMan,
Re: IS BARACK OBAMA THE GREAT WHITE HOPE?
I’ve already written to Rev. Wright, that first week, and got a great, warm letter back.
I call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission such as they had in South Africa, in which everybody confessed what they had done, nobody was imprisoned for it, but they found a way to get out of the morass and build a new future. I’ve heard some people speak on this, and it’s still hard over there (you don’t get over a centuries-old situation overnight), but at least people are trying.
We haven’t got to the point of acknowledging what the whole world knows: our guilt and shame in pursuing empire, and thinking we’re so great. Let’s bring all the military bases back home and get about our business while other countries get about theirs.
Not in my lifetime, I’ll bet, but at least we can call for confession.
A "white" Person of Conscience
Dear WPC,
I think a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, U.S.A. is a great idea. I've thought about it ever since Desmond Tutu oversaw the original in South Africa. I'm sure many other AfrAmericans have thought about it too, if not in name, in effect. The idea of our nation finally confronting what Condi Rice, of all people, recently called its Founding Flaw, is always on my mind. But you are the first "white" person I've ever heard address it.
Why?
Is it because "white" people are so mis-educated that they have no clue of the role slavery and the idea of white supremacy played in the colonialization of Euro-America and the founding and eventual economic success of its United States?
Is it because "white" Americans are so morally deficient that they don't see the irreconcilable difference between what America professes itself to be and what it actually is? - And how that difference makes everything we say about human rights and democracy a joke in the eyes of the world?
Is it just hypocrisy, pure and simple?
Or is it fear of inviting the wrath of the greedy, power-hungry 1% of Americans who received the overwhelming majority of the booty from this "original sin" - and whose descendants and/or beneficiaries still control our economy and thus, our government? Does the average "white" American (and the media that supposedly informs them) really know the truth but is scared to death to speak it to White Power?
RM
Friday, April 25, 2008
Barack Obama, The Great White Hope?
RaceMan,
What do you think of the Democratic primary? Doesn't the fact that Barack Obama has gotten so much support from white Americans prove that the racism you like to rant about is a thing of the past? And if things are not exactly equal, they're a lot better than people like you make them out to be?
Gary
Gary,
You got ol' RaceMan. I have to admit the "white" support for Obama is something I didn't predict. But I don't feel so bad because I don't remember any of the people who get big bucks to know such things seeing this train coming either.
I'm still leary of the numbers, (and after Pennsylvania, it seems the fat lady won't be exercising her vocal chords for a while), but I do think we're seeing something new in American politics. The engine is the hundreds of thousands of energetic, well-educated young NewMericans who grew up in a nation changed for good by the Civil Rights Movement.
But I think we should give George W. Bush more credit than the average "white" American's sudden desire for truth, justice and equality. He could not have done more to set the stage for Obama.
How?
By proving once and for all that being born a wealthy "white" male in the U.S.A. does not make you a natural born leader. He has caused a number of normally complacent, blissfully ignorant Euromericans to rethink the idea that only about 5-10% of our population is qualified to even be considered for the ovoid office.
All of our Presidents from the beginning have been white men. Only a few - Lincoln and Clinton come to mind - have been from less than wealthy families. Half the population - women - couldn't even vote until the early 20s, let alone dream of being President. Add poor or working class "white" men, Afrimericans, Hispanics, and the growing number of "other" U.S. citizens and you have over 90% of our population automatically eliminated from being future "leaders of the free world".
No wonder the gene pool that remains seems to suffer from an incestuous lack of new ideas, energy and understanding (or caring) about the world outside of the D of C.
Only a President so disasterously out of his depth as W could lead so many Caucasions to reject their "all-wealthy-white-men, all-the-time" criteria. But Barack isn't the only potential beneficiary of this new found desire for diversity. Hillary Clinton is doing her best to open up things for wealthy white women.
If either of them is elected President, our nation will have a better chance of making it to the next century. But neither of their elections will in itself make up for over 200 years of government of wealthy white men, by wealthy white men and for (you guessed it) wealthy white men.
BTW: And neither of their elections will change the fact that the vast majority of "un-white" folks in America still live in the long shadow of white supremacy, slavery, peonage and government-sanctioned discrimination.
RM
What do you think of the Democratic primary? Doesn't the fact that Barack Obama has gotten so much support from white Americans prove that the racism you like to rant about is a thing of the past? And if things are not exactly equal, they're a lot better than people like you make them out to be?
Gary
Gary,
You got ol' RaceMan. I have to admit the "white" support for Obama is something I didn't predict. But I don't feel so bad because I don't remember any of the people who get big bucks to know such things seeing this train coming either.
I'm still leary of the numbers, (and after Pennsylvania, it seems the fat lady won't be exercising her vocal chords for a while), but I do think we're seeing something new in American politics. The engine is the hundreds of thousands of energetic, well-educated young NewMericans who grew up in a nation changed for good by the Civil Rights Movement.
But I think we should give George W. Bush more credit than the average "white" American's sudden desire for truth, justice and equality. He could not have done more to set the stage for Obama.
How?
By proving once and for all that being born a wealthy "white" male in the U.S.A. does not make you a natural born leader. He has caused a number of normally complacent, blissfully ignorant Euromericans to rethink the idea that only about 5-10% of our population is qualified to even be considered for the ovoid office.
All of our Presidents from the beginning have been white men. Only a few - Lincoln and Clinton come to mind - have been from less than wealthy families. Half the population - women - couldn't even vote until the early 20s, let alone dream of being President. Add poor or working class "white" men, Afrimericans, Hispanics, and the growing number of "other" U.S. citizens and you have over 90% of our population automatically eliminated from being future "leaders of the free world".
No wonder the gene pool that remains seems to suffer from an incestuous lack of new ideas, energy and understanding (or caring) about the world outside of the D of C.
Only a President so disasterously out of his depth as W could lead so many Caucasions to reject their "all-wealthy-white-men, all-the-time" criteria. But Barack isn't the only potential beneficiary of this new found desire for diversity. Hillary Clinton is doing her best to open up things for wealthy white women.
If either of them is elected President, our nation will have a better chance of making it to the next century. But neither of their elections will in itself make up for over 200 years of government of wealthy white men, by wealthy white men and for (you guessed it) wealthy white men.
BTW: And neither of their elections will change the fact that the vast majority of "un-white" folks in America still live in the long shadow of white supremacy, slavery, peonage and government-sanctioned discrimination.
RM
Thursday, April 17, 2008
White mainstream columnist comes close to truth about race.
Roger Cohen, who just started writing a column for the New York , wrote one that does something almost unheard of in mainstream media - he confronts American racial history pretty honestly. His column titled "Race and American Memory" is a rare instance of a white American national news pundit saying anything close to the truth about our nation's oldest sin. I've added it to my links section. Check it out.
RM
BTW: I checked out his bio and found out, surprise, surprise, he wasn't born in the U.S.A.
RM
BTW: I checked out his bio and found out, surprise, surprise, he wasn't born in the U.S.A.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Isn't talking about racism racist?
Hey RaceMan,
Negroes like you always want to talk about racism.
Don't you think racism would go away if folks like you didn't bring it up all the time?
See No Racism
BTW: And why do you call yourself RaceMan? Isn't that racist?
Dear See No,
No. and No.
I could easily leave it at that. But, because of the mass misinformation in the mass media, there are lots of people who think your questions are good ones. So, at the risk of saying what's obvious to a few, I'll say it.
1. No, because before there was even a word for it, there was racism. In fact, I just found out a few years ago that the word "racism" itself is fairly new, at least to the English language (which is what we Americans say we speak). According to my sources the word racism was not used at all to describe what the U.S.A. had done to American Indians and African-Americans. Euro-Americans didn't talk about it, they just did it.
From what I've learned, the first usage of the word "racism" was to describe what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in the 1930s, not what white supremacy did to "colored" folks for at least 300 years before that.
So, it's not a chicken or egg phenomenon. The big white-supremacist, hateful, murdering, racist chicken laid the little righteously-bitter black egg.
2. I call myself RaceMan because I fight for the only race that actually exists - the human one. In spite of American media's attempt to hide racism (and its centuries of complicity in it) behind an unspoken "gag order", honest, reasoned, even heated discussion of race and racism is not the same as racism itself. That's why, even though his style is provocative, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher was right in his condemnation of American racism, no matter how much media bloviators try to equate his righteously-bitter words with racism itself.
RM
Negroes like you always want to talk about racism.
Don't you think racism would go away if folks like you didn't bring it up all the time?
See No Racism
BTW: And why do you call yourself RaceMan? Isn't that racist?
Dear See No,
No. and No.
I could easily leave it at that. But, because of the mass misinformation in the mass media, there are lots of people who think your questions are good ones. So, at the risk of saying what's obvious to a few, I'll say it.
1. No, because before there was even a word for it, there was racism. In fact, I just found out a few years ago that the word "racism" itself is fairly new, at least to the English language (which is what we Americans say we speak). According to my sources the word racism was not used at all to describe what the U.S.A. had done to American Indians and African-Americans. Euro-Americans didn't talk about it, they just did it.
From what I've learned, the first usage of the word "racism" was to describe what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in the 1930s, not what white supremacy did to "colored" folks for at least 300 years before that.
So, it's not a chicken or egg phenomenon. The big white-supremacist, hateful, murdering, racist chicken laid the little righteously-bitter black egg.
2. I call myself RaceMan because I fight for the only race that actually exists - the human one. In spite of American media's attempt to hide racism (and its centuries of complicity in it) behind an unspoken "gag order", honest, reasoned, even heated discussion of race and racism is not the same as racism itself. That's why, even though his style is provocative, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher was right in his condemnation of American racism, no matter how much media bloviators try to equate his righteously-bitter words with racism itself.
RM
Friday, April 04, 2008
WHY CAN'T WE ALL TALK ABOUT RACE?
Yo RaceMan,
I'm a fairly well-educated, well-paid African-American man who hangs out with a pretty multi-colored crew. But, whenever the topic of race or racism comes up, I notice that all my white friends get very quiet. Then if somebody presses them to say something, they get real nervous or defensive. What's that about?
Rodney
Hey Rod,
Some witty wag once said, "Whitefolks don't like to talk to blackfolks about race for the same reason chicken hawks don't like to talk to chickens about dinner".
(OK,OK, in the interest of full disclosure, I said it. But I thought it was a good line.)
Of course, I'm generalizing. There are "white" people who do talk about race...and talk very honestly. But you won't see them on any of the news shows (commercial or pbs). They have been effectively eliminated from public view by the people who own and run the networks - and who (if you haven't noticed) have an amazing resemblance to chicken hawks.
RM
I'm a fairly well-educated, well-paid African-American man who hangs out with a pretty multi-colored crew. But, whenever the topic of race or racism comes up, I notice that all my white friends get very quiet. Then if somebody presses them to say something, they get real nervous or defensive. What's that about?
Rodney
Hey Rod,
Some witty wag once said, "Whitefolks don't like to talk to blackfolks about race for the same reason chicken hawks don't like to talk to chickens about dinner".
(OK,OK, in the interest of full disclosure, I said it. But I thought it was a good line.)
Of course, I'm generalizing. There are "white" people who do talk about race...and talk very honestly. But you won't see them on any of the news shows (commercial or pbs). They have been effectively eliminated from public view by the people who own and run the networks - and who (if you haven't noticed) have an amazing resemblance to chicken hawks.
RM
Thursday, April 03, 2008
WAS WRIGHT RIGHT?
Hey RaceMan, Where have you been?
With all this Presidential race talk going around, we need you now more than ever.
So what do you think about the Rev. Wright and Barack controversy?
Concerned in Chicago
Dear Concerned,
I've been busy working on my art career. Remind me to tell you about it later.
Anyhow, I'm glad you asked about the Rev. Wright issue because I wrote a piece about it a few weeks ago. But it's way too long to be posted here. So I'll post the beginning. The full article is about 4 times longer. If you'd like to see it, email me at lowellt@hotmail.com. OK?
RM
It’s been a few weeks now since Barack Obama gave what many call his most important speech.
Instead of jumping in with my two-cents, I decided to do something unheard of in our blabbing-blogger times. I read and listened to others, along with Obama’s speech, before I said a mumblin’ word.
But now that I’ve thought about it, I’d give Barack a gentleman’s B. Although I barely made it out of Wendell Phillips High myself, at Street U. we grade harder than Harvard
Obama’s speech reminded me of what I said about the would-be husband-in-chief of his competitor. Like Bill, Barack showed all the qualities of an exceptional politician. But fell short of a great leader.
Why?
First, he called race an issue “we can’t afford to ignore right now” but ignored it until it bit him in the butt. Great leaders confront important issues because they’re important, not because they’re all over YouTube and MySpace.
Did he really think that if he spoke eloquently enough, no one would notice his coffee complexion and kinky hair? Half-black is still too black for many. Did he really believe R-A-C-E, America’s most feared four-letter word, would not be an issue? Anticipating problems before they become crises is another gift of great leaders. Liberal commentators praised the “fact” Obama wrote his speech himself in a few days. A real leader would have been working on the speech before he announced his candidacy.
Second, instead of using his nationwide (even worldwide) spotlight to face the real issue, he did a softshoe - admittedly more deftly than George Bush’s latest attempt - around it.
The issue he avoided?
Do Black Americans have a legitimate grievance with the way they have historically been - and are currently being - treated? Was Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr’s words those of an unreasonable, unprovoked hate monger or the understandable righteous anger of a shepherd of America’s most consistently abused flock?
(Continued)
With all this Presidential race talk going around, we need you now more than ever.
So what do you think about the Rev. Wright and Barack controversy?
Concerned in Chicago
Dear Concerned,
I've been busy working on my art career. Remind me to tell you about it later.
Anyhow, I'm glad you asked about the Rev. Wright issue because I wrote a piece about it a few weeks ago. But it's way too long to be posted here. So I'll post the beginning. The full article is about 4 times longer. If you'd like to see it, email me at lowellt@hotmail.com. OK?
RM
It’s been a few weeks now since Barack Obama gave what many call his most important speech.
Instead of jumping in with my two-cents, I decided to do something unheard of in our blabbing-blogger times. I read and listened to others, along with Obama’s speech, before I said a mumblin’ word.
But now that I’ve thought about it, I’d give Barack a gentleman’s B. Although I barely made it out of Wendell Phillips High myself, at Street U. we grade harder than Harvard
Obama’s speech reminded me of what I said about the would-be husband-in-chief of his competitor. Like Bill, Barack showed all the qualities of an exceptional politician. But fell short of a great leader.
Why?
First, he called race an issue “we can’t afford to ignore right now” but ignored it until it bit him in the butt. Great leaders confront important issues because they’re important, not because they’re all over YouTube and MySpace.
Did he really think that if he spoke eloquently enough, no one would notice his coffee complexion and kinky hair? Half-black is still too black for many. Did he really believe R-A-C-E, America’s most feared four-letter word, would not be an issue? Anticipating problems before they become crises is another gift of great leaders. Liberal commentators praised the “fact” Obama wrote his speech himself in a few days. A real leader would have been working on the speech before he announced his candidacy.
Second, instead of using his nationwide (even worldwide) spotlight to face the real issue, he did a softshoe - admittedly more deftly than George Bush’s latest attempt - around it.
The issue he avoided?
Do Black Americans have a legitimate grievance with the way they have historically been - and are currently being - treated? Was Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr’s words those of an unreasonable, unprovoked hate monger or the understandable righteous anger of a shepherd of America’s most consistently abused flock?
(Continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
