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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well put Raceman, if your book on God is as good as your book on Race, America is in for a real treat!
Ah, Mr. Thompson - another piercing observation. I like the appellation 'NewMericans' (though on second thought it may scare the issue). I have been trying to find a way to deny the importance of my black ethnicity as a rooting foundation of this country in order to accept the new direction of the Baracka era, and find it quite difficult. How can I deny "[Racism] is the bloody soil in which our nation's foundation was laid and on which our oldest institutions were built."?
You think the tenacity she's showing is good? It's nail-biting for me. Everyday I hope that he doesn't make some vocal misque, which seems so easy for all the public honchos. And I just admire the fact that he hasn't joined their mud dragging events. I like the things he's keeping up un-drenched, though I know those things, as yet real ideas, were weathered in a lying fog.
And you know, I like the woman. A lot. I like her tenacity in opposing those big insurance megaheaps during the early day's of Willie's period. I thought the lady great.
And you raise the most interesting point: "Racism - at least the kind we AfraAmericans have to worry about isn't personal." This is a rather an epistemological way of speaking, or it represents a way of knowledge. No one else can know and will know what we feel.
For instance I wish I had the vocabulary to accept all immigrants as I did as a young man and not have to accept the political bearings on the subject today. And this would be to deny racism personally. This is good, it enables us to analyze ourselves phenomenologically without the brackets of racism today.
I remember times I had internalized the racism constantly directed toward me. Was it personal? Would I be a better individual if I had not internalize it, make it personal and, instead, become an object. An object of phenomenological thought. This is like the feated Second Life. A perfect community in feint disguise. I need to read some of those books you got. Ooops! it looks many of them are out of print. They need to be reprinted.
Ah, Mr. Dunn,
It's good to hear your philosophical musings again. Thanks for taking the time to leave them here for those less articulate...or less willing to articulate.
I always appreciate folks who are willing to say what they think and say it so deeply
I would like to shift the debate (maybe this might be your next post, too) from your careful and piercing comment on Hillary Clinton's somewhat 'uncanny' act of racist card trick to a more pertinent prospect of how racism will affect the upcoming election. With that I mean the relation of any citizen of United States of America to 'Borats' of the 'third world nation' such as Iraq - a country that has lost a million citizens by now in the reckless act of a nation that claims to be the promoter of freedom and democracy.
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 (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.
There is always the pragmatist escape in dealing with these matters by boiling this question into a "how is the situation in Iraq will affect the upcoming presidential election in U.S.?" Such an act of domestication or taming of such a question, which is both morally and politically loaded, will not even achieve to start a meaningful, self-reflective dialogue on this matter and will endorse the self-referential, isolationist approach of almost all citizens of U.S., who define multiculturalism with cook recipes and tolerance with indifference.
When I questioned my friends here on the reason why protests against this war was nowhere close to the angry Vietnam demonstrations, the answers that I received from them smelled self-interest all over: a. because there was draft back then. b. we have an easier time defining Islamic society and creating an evil out of them c. those people are killing each other. so on... Well as an internationalist and Marxist, I believe that Malcolm X. was following the right path when he traveled all around Africa and other nations and tried to carry racism to an international arena. As Audre Lorde argues and Malcolm X. Non-non-violence claim supports that what this nation craves for is anger, not hatred because the former is creative, erotic and revolutionary...
Well, Raceman this is my first post, but you can count on more thorough comments in coming days on my part..
Dr. A,
Thanks for your "question", even though it seems to be more of a philosophical musing. And, as you've probably already figured out, we Americans don't go in much for philosophers...or their musings.
But you do raise some points I'd like to try to respond to about the way the rest of the world sees US, no matter what "race" we claim.
Instead of trying to discuss it here, I'll post a portion of your comment on the blog and invite other more philosophical and world-wise readers to join in.
Thanks,
RM
Post a Comment