Can Samantha Power be my graduation speaker? June 2, 2008 Jill Because, damn. Just reading that made me tear up. And I can relate to the student who said he wants her life.
Damn, Pitzer always gets the best graduation speakers. My college’s speakers were, to a one, middle-aged white men.
man, that was an insightful and helpful speech for graduates… She got it right…follow your nose (essence), and be sure of who gotcher back. I really hope she comes back into politics.
Loved it. Right up there with Sandra Tsing Loh’s marvelous 2005 Cal Tech commencement address. L.A. area schools get all the good speakers, I suppose. The glorious bit from that speech: I remembered the one thing that freed me, post-Caltech– And I believe can free you. . . . The advice being not “Dare to dream”– Every young person dares to dream-frankly, it’s all they do all day! But many bright young people, under their A student masks, also harbor a secret passion. . . And the key to releasing that last exotic bird to flight is not “Dare to Dream,” but, listen carefully, “Dare. . . to disappoint. . . your father.” Anyhow, the bit about being a good ancestor in Power’s address is magnificent.
That was really uplifting, especially as a recent college grad with many fears about the success battle. Thank you.
I saw her speak a couple of years ago at a ceremony the day before my friend’s graduation. I remember thinking: Why isn’t this woman the graduation speaker?!? I was so inspired by her, and I really hope Obama brings her back on at some point.
Samantha Power is a fraud. http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/8538 http://www.radicalreaction.com/blog/chomsky/2007/08/2007-july-samantha-power-bush-terrorism.html http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/03/different-problem-from-different-hell.html http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/02/watching-humanitarian-imperialist.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002196.html
Nice speech. That said, a woman who called a female candidate for President a “monster” should not get an unqualified rave on a feminist blog, IMO.
Samantha Power is a fraud. …not seeing how she did anything fraudulent here. Perhaps you mean you disagree with her, or think her positions are bad for U.S. foreign policy. That doesn’t make her a fraud . Oh, and for the record, that first link is pathetic. We’re seriously upset about the overuse of the term “genocide”? Genocides are notoriously un-named and swept under the rug. Yes, they are sometimes used for political purposes, but that doesn’t mean that Power, who has made a career out of looking into genocide and figuring out why states don’t respond, is the bad guy. Jesus, it’s disturbing when people on the left are putting “genocide” in scare quotes.
Nice speech. That said, a woman who called a female candidate for President a “monster” should not get an unqualified rave on a feminist blog, IMO I agree that the “monster” comment was uncalled for. But honestly, from Power’s perspective, I’m not sure it was all that horrible. First, monster isn’t a gendered term, and I’d imagine Power would use it against Bush, too. Second, Power cut her teeth in Bosnia. She saw first hand what was going on there, and what the Clinton administration’s policies were doing. I dislike that she used that word, and I think it was inappropriate. I think she should have apologized (as she did). But of all the nastiness that’s gone on in this primary, that one ranks very low on my list — it wasn’t racist, it wasn’t sexist, it was just shockingly mean. But given her history, I can understand it. I am also admittedly biased because I think Samantha Power is one of the most brilliant minds in international human rights law, and I’m praying that she gets put on Obama’s national security committee, should he win the election.
Umm, did you even read the first link? Not everything qualifies as a genocide, by the way. Power has a made a career out of focusing exclusively on genocides where the US failed to act, while ignoring or downplaying the genocides where the US lent a helping hand or committed outright. That’s why she has a career in the first place. If she was a critic she wouldn’t have risen anywhere close to where she is today. She’s a fraud because her actual work doesn’t live up to her humanitarian reputation.
“The cruise missile left also adheres closely to the party line on genocide, which is why its members thrive in the New York Times and other establishment vehicles. This is true of Paul Berman, Michael Ignatieff and David Rieff, but I will focus here on Samantha Power, whose large volume on genocide, “A Problem From Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide won a Pulitzer prize, and who is currently the expert of choice on the subject in the mainstream media (and even in The Nation and on the Bill Moyers show). Power never departs from the selectivity dictated by the establishment party line. That requires, first and foremost, simply ignoring cases of direct U.S. or U.S.-sponsored (or otherwise approved) genocide. Thus the Vietnam war, in which millions were directly killed by U.S. forces, does not show up in Power’s index or text. Guatemala, where there was a mass killing of as many as 100,000 Mayan Indians between 1978 and 1985, in what Amnesty International called “A Government Program of Political Murder,” but by a government installed and supported by the United States, also does not show up in Power’s index. Cambodia is of course included, but only for the second phase of the genocide: the first phase, from 1969-1975, in which the United States dropped some 500,000 tons of bombs on the Cambodian countryside and killed vast numbers, she fails to mention. On the Khmer Rouge genocide, Power says they killed 2 million, a figure widely cited after Jean Lacouture gave that number; his subsequent admission that this number was invented had no effect on its use, and it suits Power’s purpose. A major U.S.-encouraged and supported genocide occurred in Indonesia in 1965-66 in which over 700,000 people were murdered. This genocide is not mentioned by Samantha Power and the names Indonesia and Suharto do not appear in her index. She also fails to mention West Papua, where Indonesia’s 40 years of murderous occupation would constitute genocide under her criteria, if carried out under different auspices. Power does refer to East Timor, with extreme brevity, saying that “In 1975, when its ally, the oil-producing, anti-Communist Indonesia, invaded East Timor, killing between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians, the United States looked away” (146-7). That exhausts her treatment of the subject, although the killings in East Timor involved a larger fraction of the population than in Cambodia, and the numbers killed were probably larger than the grand total for Bosnia and Kosovo, to which she devotes a large fraction of her book. She also misrepresents the U.S. role: it did not “look away,” it gave its approval, protected the aggression from any effective UN response (in his autobiography, then U.S. Ambassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan bragged about his effectiveness in protecting Indonesia from any UN action), and greatly increased its arms aid to Indonesia, thereby facilitating the genocide. Power engages in a similar suppression and failure to recognize the U.S. role in her treatment of genocide in Iraq. She attends carefully and at length to Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical warfare and killing of Kurds at Halabja and elsewhere, and she does discuss the U.S. failure to oppose and take any action against Saddam Hussein at this juncture. But she does not mention the diplomatic rapproachement with Saddam in the midst of his war with Iran in 1983, the active U.S. logistical support of Saddam during that war, and the U.S. approval of sales and transfers of chemical and biological weapons during the period in which he was using chemical weapons against the Kurds. She also doesn’t mention the active efforts by the United States and Britain to block UN actions that might have obstructed Saddam’s killings. The killing of over a million Iraqis via the “sanctions of mass destruction,” more than were killed by all the weapons of mass destruction in history, according to John and Karl Mueller (“Sanctions of Mass Destruction,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 1999), was arguably the greatest genocide of the post-World War 2 era. It is unmentioned by Samantha Power. Again, the correlation between exclusion, U.S. responsibility, and the view that such killings were, in Madeleine Albright’s words, “worth it” from the standpoint of U.S. interests, is clear. There is a similar political basis for Power’s failure to include Israel’s low-intensity genocide of the Palestinians and South Africa’s “destructive engagement” with the frontline states in the 1980s, the latter with a death toll greatly exceeding all the deaths in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Neither Israel nor South Africa, both “constructively engaged” by the United States, show up in Power’s index. Samantha Power’s conclusion is that the U.S. policy toward genocide has been very imperfect and needs reorientation, less opportunism, and greater vigor. For Power, the United States is the solution, not the problem. These conclusions and policy recommendations rest heavily on her spectacular bias in case selection: She simply bypasses those that are ideologically inconvenient, where the United States has arguably committed genocide (Vietnam, Cambodia 1969-75, Iraq 1991-2003), or has given genocidal processes positive support (Indonesia, West Papua, East Timor, Guatemala, Israel, and South Africa). Incorporating them into an analysis would lead to sharply different conclusions and policy agendas, such as calling upon the United States to simply stop doing it, or urging stronger global opposition to U.S. aggression and support of genocide, and proposing a much needed revolutionary change within the United States to remove the roots of its imperialistic and genocidal thrust. But the actual huge bias, nicely leavened by admissions of imperfections and need for improvement in U.S. policy, readily explains why Samantha Power is loved by the New York Times and won a Pulitzer prize for her masterpiece of evasion and apologetics for “our” genocides and call for a more aggressive pursuit of “theirs.””
I agree it’s not necessarly gendered. But it wasn’t some reaction to Clinton’s Bosnia policy either. That’s pretty extenuated, and she’s never mentioned that as an influence on her commentary despite the many times she’s frankly addressed her motivations for it. People make mistakes. She apologized (she had to). Still, I wonder whether a Clinton staffer who called Obama a monster would be similarly lauded here without qualification. Ferraro wasn’t racist (“hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”) either. She made a demographic assessment that is disputable and ill-guided but is one that she also made about herself. Yet she’s become public enemy #1 whereas Power is praised — again those key words — without qualification. Sorry — it just doesn’t sit right.
Ferraro wasn’t racist? Really Octogalore? Have you missed her slandering black male journalists? Or her “I’m not racist, I’m just telling the truth” trope that the folks at Stormfront use so fondly? Or her op-ed which includes sexism in the headline but goes on to discuss “reverse racism?” Or wait, does that not count?
Latoya: I think Ferraro’s words about black male journalists and about reverse racism were misguided and histrionic. But they boil down to: some black male journalists such as Bob Herbert favor Obama, and Reagan democrats who don’t care about sexism who come up to me on the street complain about reverse racism. Aren’t those factual? Inflammatory, yes. Unprofessional and inadvisable, yes. But Bob Herbert has been anti-Clinton and called her out for citing the same demographic analysis he himself did. And Reagan democrats undoubtedly have made that complaint to Ferraro. It was not wise of her to repeat it, but I don’t believe that makes her a racist.
Power didn’t just call Hillary a monster. It was an entire paragraph of ugly comments including the hideously sexist, “Just look at her ergh.” I won’t be coming back here.
Samantha Power is one reason I voted for Obama. I was never particularly impressed with him on his domestic policy positions. They sort of reeked of “centrism”, and all that DLC-lite stuff that I’m sick of. But, when I saw that Samantha Power was in his brain trust on foreign policy, and that she was highly regarded and respected by him, it made me think that maybe Obama could be really good on foreign policy.
Power has a made a career out of focusing exclusively on genocides where the US failed to act, while ignoring or downplaying the genocides where the US lent a helping hand or committed outright. Let’s say we grant you that (dubious) assertion. That doesn’t make SP a “fraud.” That makes her someone working towards incremental change within the system. The good = not the enemy of the perfect.
Renee — here’s a quote from a feminist in academia who asked not to be named, which I think sums up my Ferraro position well: “Ferraro remarked, in effect, that one of Obama’s main attractions to his core constituency was not his negligible professional achievements as a lawyer or a legislator but his historical glamor as the first black contender with a real shot at the presidential nomination. This remark is not a disparagement of blacks; it’s a political analysis of the psychology of Obama’s core constituency. That group consists of young college graduates, young liberal professionals, self-described intellectuals, and blacks. I tend to agree with Ferraro that, beyond Obama’s particular style of oratory (which flatters these folks with the possibility of looking in the mirror at glamorous and savvy partners in the New Politics), he gives his sentimentally progressive followers a chance to be in on the Righting of an Ancient Wrong. Whether or not this analysis is on target, there’s nothing racist in saying that Obama owes the lion’s share of his success to glamor and symbolism rather than substance.”
his negligible professional achievements as a lawyer or a legislator You know, I’m getting a little tired of this meme. No, Obama is not a long-time senator like John Kerry. No, he does not have the executive experience that a former governor has. But he isn’t some totally inexperienced newbie. he gives his sentimentally progressive followers a chance to be in on the Righting of an Ancient Wrong. But doesn’t Clinton do this, too? I mean, she is a woman. Would it be sexist to say that her successes are not from substance, but from her gender and her status as a Clinton? When white dudes get ahead because of family connections, or when they gain access to the institutions that create great men, no one second-guesses them. When a black man does it, all of a sudden it’s “glamor and symbolism” over substance. Yes, the symbolism is important. Yes, it is incredible that we have an election between a woman and a black man. But I dispute the assumption that either candidate got to where they are in undeserved ways. Clinton is often criticized for getting ahead because she had access to certain institutions, and because she’s a Clinton. But you know what? That’s how a whole lot of politicians have gotten ahead. Obama is criticized for getting ahead because of symbolism and “identity,” and because he’s this young, glamorous, inspiring figure. Again, he is hardly the first politician to get ahead on those terms — but because he’s someone in a category that we usually don’t consider entitled to those privileges, it throws us off. In other words, I call bullshit on these arguments and assumptions.
Octo – Whether or not this analysis is on target, there’s nothing racist in saying that Obama owes the lion’s share of his success to glamor and symbolism rather than substance.” No, there is nothing racist in that statement. However, Geraldine Ferraro is not running around charing that Obama is “an empty suit” some “flashy new orator” the glamour candidate or anything of the sort. Ferraro is specifically calling out Obama’s race – if he wasn’t black, he wouldn’t be in this position. Not if he wasn’t a good speaker, not if he wasn’t a rookie, not if he wasn’t a media darling – because he’s black. As dnA wrote there aren’t that many black male journalists writing with regular gigs from which to attack Hillary. And those who do have those spots have all dedicated ink to discussing how sexism has played a role in this campaign. And furthermore, a lot of the worst sexist spew has come from white male journalists – so why single out black men? And I am not even touching “reverse racism.” And you know what makes this even worse? That Ferraro has beyond crossed the line of the benefit of the doubt, and still here we are, debating over whether or not that’s racist. Like Ta-Nehisi Coates said, what does it take to be racist anymore? Are people that afraid of the label that they will excuse actual racist behavior?
You know, octogalore, continually picking out a section of Ferraro’s comments and denying the racism in that one segment does not refute all of the other racists things she has said.
Excellent speech, though I’d skip the comments. Far too many, you-were-right-Hillary-is-a-monster ones for my taste.
@shah8 – Similar thoughts, but not the same. We cannot excuse the sexism aimed at HRC with a “because she deserves it.” No one does. There are ways to critically dissect the tactics used in this election without resorting to sexism to get our point across. And if we only selectively fight battles based on the target of the sexism, what does that make us? We’d be in league with the same kind of people who feel like they can hurl racist slurs at Michelle Malkin because she’s a right wing nut-job, instead of attacking her for being a right wing nut job. And we would also be in the same league with the people who are doing what we find so infuriating – excusing one -ism while screaming bloody murder about another.
Jill: the quoted passage didn’t say Obama was totally inexperienced, and the person quoted has had similar issues with white dudes and white women who got ahead on mechanisms other than experience and merit. These concerns aren’t being aired out specially for Obama. The person in question, a college professor, backed a black woman who wasn’t initially a front-runner as head of the institution over others’ objections (the effort was successful), so has no issues regarding “someone in a category that we usually don’t consider entitled to those privileges.” Might be a good idea to understand which assumptions you’re questioning before calling bullshit. Latoya: see comment #17 about the black male journalists and reverse racism issues. Per the latter, Ferraro isn’t justifying the concept, but saying that Reagan democrats who do have these (admittedly misguided) concerns will be a tough demographic for Obama. Again – I don’t see demographics as racism. If she had said she too had this issue, that would be a problem. On the black male journalists, I agree with you that “a lot of the worst sexist spew has come from white male journalists – so why single out black men?” Absolutely. That is problematic, and racist. I don’t know that we condemn Ferraro generally as a racist because of that statement though. If an Obama surrogate said “older female journalists favor Clinton/criticize Obama” when in fact there are men who do too, I wouldn’t condemn that person as a sexist unless I felt there were an overall pattern.
I *especially* agree with this part of dnA‘s analysis… What Ferraro is trying to do, and what Fox News is helping her do, is turn give “sexism” the subtextual meaning of “anti-white,” much the way folks on the Right who attack department stores for maybe, possibly including Hannukah but more likely referring to New Years when they put up banners saying “Happy Holidays” get incensed about “anti-Semitism” when the target is Amiri Baraka. So now instead of calling the Obama campaign “racist” by which they mean anti-white, they can just call it sexist and we’ll all know what it means. Which is a big part of why I was talking about the devaluation of anti-sexism. Note as well, when people pop up and say Obama’s supporters are sexist with no evidence and no context, they aren’t playing a positive role in the communal life. What they are doing is what nationalists have done over the millenia…use slogans that are ostensibly *patriotic*, and repeat them over and over and over in a *nationalist* context. The *classic* sign is when sayings, or a way of life, or anything else that proports to be about community and about purpetuating/defending it, is converted to the idea that some *other* community represents a danger to community via threatening the ideal saying or way of life. Marriage is a set of customs that you and your partner agrees to and uphold, for example, but you aren’t defending your idea of Marriage by attacking some other person’s idea of Marriage. Yet, that is how Republican rally support to its causes, which include homophobia. And they repeat about the “threat against marriage” over and over and over again, to use repitition as a means to eventually short circuit reasoning and the whole What Is This We, Kemosabe? effect. When I see SarahMC use the standard, well, Obama’s supporters are sexist too! strategy, without any means for us to evaluate what is happening, and I think that whether intentionally or not so, She doesn’t *want* us to think about what she is saying, she just wants us to *accept* it. It’s why I am aggressively hostile. As for Samantha Power, I really do hope that she comes back, and I never had thought her “monster” statement anything but a comment issued in the heat of competitiveness. Sports teams have done so for millenia. So have politicians, it’s sorta why ad hominem is around as a phrase for us to use. Hillary doesn’t need the defense against *that*. She’s proven quite adequate in ability to dismiss or trash people she doesn’t like. And every day this race goes on, it makes that reporter who talked about the Clinton pimping their daughter out more and more a martyr, even though he was a friggin’ asshole for saying that and should have been fired, regardless.
I do not excuse sexism. I simply said that she doesn’t need the help, which is not saying that I have a tolerance for it. And especially, I’m saying that anti-sexism is for *helping* and *defending* people, *not* as some sort of *offensive* and *political* weapon. Which is what I see many pro-clinton people doing. We get results that aren’t progressive, like Samantha Power being dismissed, or the more positive aspects of Pfleger’s speech being dismissed, or Obama being constantly told to appease conservative lower class people–which pulls him further away from a general progressive and liberal assault, at a time when no Democrat has been MORE free to seperate himself from a Republican and bomb McCain from *deep* within liberal territory. You know…I had just *read* a deeply feminist book on Sunday , and it was *all* about what feminism *is* and *why* it is needed. Moreover, it *contrasts* the flashy sort of feminism that feeds a single woman’s ego, with the quiet sort of feminism that enables a focus on eudemonia. This focus on Clinton’s election as being objectively a feminist issue is all wrong. It should be the focus around and about Clinton’s campaign (not sure if I’m saying what I want to say).
hmmm, or Shorter Me. Invitations to condemn Obama’s campaign for sexism is not antisexism without an action to condemn
@ Octo – Let me break some things down: 1. Backing a black candidate is not an absolution. It doesn’t mean you have no issues in a certain area. And the passage quoted reads as Jill states. The use of words like “negligible” do minimize Obama’s accomplishments. And Jill’s comment is absolutely right – these kinds of arguments and these kinds of assumptions are bullshit. 2. They don’t boil down to shit. Geraldine Ferraro has proved she meant what they said. And hey, newsflash – pro-Obama does not equal anti-Hillary. And her reliance on “Regan Democrats” is one of the oldest tricks in the book – “hey, I’m not racist, but these people – check them out! They’re totally racist.” It’s bullshit. It’s race baiting. And quite frankly, if Ferraro isn’t arguing that Obama’s race is a liability, it makes even LESS sense because Regan Democrats will still probably side with McCain. It’s bullshit all the way around! Relying on the racism of others to prove your point is a disgusting and dishonorable tactic, period. This should not even be up for discussion as to why this is so fucked up. 3. The things that G.F. have been saying are racist. They are not based in fact. They are entirely speculation. They imply a set attitude in a diverse group (or rather, diverse groups) of people. They rely on fear-mongering tactics to drum up support. Why the hell would she stress racism when it could be argued that appalachian voters prefer HRC’s stump side speeches or contributions to labor or whatever? She is a racist, Octo, whether you admit it or not. Not all racists burn crosses and have white sheets in the closets. And a whole lot of racists look and act and behave just like anyone else. It may not even cross their minds that what they are doing or saying is racist because they internalized it as the truth so long ago, they don’t bother to challenge it. There are racist progressives. There are racist feminists. There are racists who don’t bother to discriminate against blacks, but will happily discriminate against other ethnic groups. But they are still racists. There is a reason why we use language to describe things in certain ways. We have discussed how the Clinton camp have used race-baiting tactics at length on my blog. And we have pointed out that painting HRC as a racist probably isn’t truthful, but she (and her advisers) clearly find racism useful. There is a net benefit to her playing around this way. But Hillary and her surrogates and campaign managers and such are not Geraldine Ferraro. She has crossed the line, she has made it clear that she has an issue with black men in particular, and she has said more than enough racist things to earn the label. Racism is not a game of appearances. It is a belief system. And Geraldine Ferraro spent the last few months meticulously explaining her world view. Not explaining that she was misinterpreted and misunderstood, and that her comments did not mean to imply anything about Obama’s race. Oh no. She has spent the last few months campaigning – Southern Strategy style – about how wronged she has been by these minorities, these Obama supporters, these black male journalists. All for telling “the truth.” Racism is a belief system, Octogalore. If you believe blacks are inferior, that they cannot think for themselves, that they are one mass set deadlocked against the best intentions of the white majority, if they are throng of reverse racists just trying to mess with a white woman because they can, that becomes the truth with which they see the world. That is racism.
@shah8 – I simply said that she doesn’t need the help, which is not saying that I have a tolerance for it. And especially, I’m saying that anti-sexism is for *helping* and *defending* people, *not* as some sort of *offensive* and *political* weapon. Which is what I see many pro-clinton people doing. Yeah, we agree on that count. But you’re still coming off (or directly stating) that HRC doesn’t need to be defended from sexism because she’s actively benefiting from racism. Trust me, I understand and *really* feel where you’re coming from on this. But that doesn’t make it right or fair. And we (anti-racist/possibly feminist/progressive thinkers) have to suck it up and continue on. Doesn’t that suck? But that’s how it is. The argument that sexism is not the same as criticizing HRC is a valid one. We don’t need to point to anyone else’s fucked up behavior to justify it. And anytime we start up that kind of comparison, it leaves us open to misinterpretation, or starts that whole round of “this is worse!” style arguing that is not helpful. Just argue the point. If their claims are empty, call them on it. There is more than one way to win an argument.
Latoya: 1) I did not claim the quoted person was absolved of all sins because he backed a black candidate. I did claim that because I’m familiar with the circumstances in which he did this, they satisfied me that he didn’t have issues regarding “someone in a category that we usually don’t consider entitled to those privileges.” That was an assumption, and a false one. He used words like “negligible” because he does feel that short-term senators without much political pedigree have negligible accomplishments compared to other candidates, regardless of race. 2) I would not have written the Boston Globe piece if I were Ferraro, because it doesn’t help her case. But I do not think that her pointing out demographic issues is racist or hiding behind others. I read her point as: Reagan democrats don’t care about sexism towards Clinton, but care about what they perceive affects them. I think her making this point reveals bitterness for the misperceptions of her earlier statement. And therefore takes it into personal territory and should have been avoided. But motivated by racism, as opposed to taking something personally and reacting? Again, I don’t think so. 3) I am not happy with the Boston Globe piece. But I do not believe your description of racism applies to Ferraro based on what she says there. Latoya – Ferraro is one of my childhood heroines. My grandmother lives in her congressional district and hers is the first and only autograph I’ve ever gotten, when much younger, from a “celeb.” I went to rallies for her, read everything she wrote and went to hear speeches. I am coming to this discussion with some gestalt around GF that is influencing my thoughts here. For this reason, I am not sure that our getting into around this issue is productive. I hear where you are coming from. This is just one of those issues where I see it differently.
Latoya, nationalist sentiments burns me. I will always react in a very hostile way to it. I got into a flame war over at The Agonist with Unforgiven because I felt he was being a black-nationalist isolationist. I have very strongs feelings about nationalism because in much of the history I’ve read, it’s one of the very worst traits in humanity, and completely dehumanizing. The dynamics that I am seeing in which many women are bunching up as if there is a Team Woman against the World, or often, Team Black, and in the way that many women have been pressuring others that Clinton need gender solidarity, even in the face of negative detriment to the overall goal of the general recognition of women as full human being with the same rights and privileges as anyone else. I believe in egalitarianism, or more fully, a very sophisticated and wide ranging “might makes right”, which I don’t want to explain–it still amounts to the old marxist statement, anyways. I see the important goals of feminism being subverted to support the aims of one woman. I don’t think this is right. And I don’t believe that agressive support for Clinton (sexism or otherwise) contribute to the welfare of women as a whole. I believe in the agressive support of women as a whole–directly. Since tekanji‘s response largely avoids responding to *any* of my in-depth responses in the previous thread, I’ll just answer them here. My point has always been thus: Clinton is a big girl. She can take care of herself. The political arena has been and always will be full of insults. It’s not going to be different for any woman who chooses to run. Do you think any of the women senators, especially those who were new and breaking in the scene, like Cantwell or McCaskill, didn’t face huge buckets of sexism? They still won, and without handholding from feminists, and with plenty of help from minorities, who might be sexist or not, still evaluated the canidates on what they can do for the community. One big honking difference between *their* success and *Clinton’s* failure, is that they followed the Jackie Robinson book of toughness. Just be better than they are, and leave the noisy fools in her dust. It’s why Obama’s winning. Grace under fire, and composure under stress. Do your freakin’ job, the best you can, and network behind the scene for prominent backers. *Clinton* has not done any of that, and entangling sexism with her whining and race-baiting does feminism a disservice! What we need to do is defend against sexism that impacts women as a whole. Yeah, that means defending Clinton by providing a voice against that stupidity. But you know, it’s not typical assholism that blocks women from being considered fit for that job. It’s things like the attitudes and dynamics in this list by Libby Copeland @ http://www.truthout.org/article/libby-copeland-the-rules-a-fair-fight that we need to fight against. Those ideas are pernicious and serve as a block against consideration of women for high office. I will *always* be full-throated in defense of Clinton against the *generalization* of these attitudes. I certainly damn well have defended Clinton against family members who use sexist attacks to denigrate her. However, this is not the same as being in an uproar over *every* attack on Clinton because it was an attack on women. This is not, and never has been true…It leads to marginal crap like zuzu trying to work sexism into the whole periodically quote, or the linking of the video in the recent post as some sort of general statement about bitchy women, when it’s really, waaaaay too tied into Clinton’s actions to be taken as a general attitude against other women. It also leads to crazy stuff like people crying out that Obama flicking on his neck is some sort of dogwhistle that’s supposed be some sort of dismissal or insult on Hillary. And it leads to racist stuff that is progressively imbueing a racial element into the use of sexism (not that both sexism and antisexism hasn’t *always* been deeply influenced by racism). I’m just asking activists to not attack the image, but the substance of sexism, and I’m asking people to make actual *judgements*, and let the little stuff go (there’s just waaaay too much of it), and press against the big stuff, against the *structural* memes that block the fullest range of possible canidates. I’m asking people not to automatically assume that Clinton is a feminist icon, merely because she’s running for president, and to not conflate Hillary with Feminism.
This will have to be my last word, for now, but I want you all to think about *this*: One of the reasons that I percieve Clinton as being racist, is because I’m familiar with Atlanta political history. And as such, I’m familiar with the general tactics of southern “liberals” who are running for office. Bill Hartsfield was running a triangulation racket way before Bill Clinton ever got to it, and I do believe guys like Bill Hartsfield were both Clinton’s inspiration for at least some of their politics. This involved coopting the black elite, having them drive black people to the booth in favor of the democrats, making a coalition with white elites who want racial peace above all, justice not included, and triangulate that by appealing to conservative populist lower class white people. It lead to the perpetuation of the racial system, only without violence and with voting, and it lead to most progressive bills being loaded with reactionary sensibilities…think of Clinton’s welfare reform bill. I percieve Hillary as running the same sort of game, except that this works in a *general* election, and not in a contested primary with more than one black-friendly canidate. She shouldn’t have tried what she did in SC, if she hadn’t, she might still hold 30% or more of the black vote. now… /me pinches the bridge of shah8’s nose… Let’s have a little realpolitik session here. point blank–Clinton’s run was a *bad* thing for political feminism. Most of all, it reinforced big stereotypes about the mercurical and mercinary attitudes of feminists. Before you denounce me…Do you *really* think that female politicians have been served well by Clinton? Think about it. The *BIG* picture. Most female politicians are democrats, and almost all female politicians very much *must* count on the support of minorities. Grenholm and McCaskill were pretty much *vaulted* into office on the urban black vote. Do you really think female politicians, especially white ones, can afford to have the perception that such politicians feels free to engage in racism and stab the backs of their minority constituency at will? Each election is local, with local factors, which should mitigate that damage, but do not think there isn’t damage to the viability of other female politicians. Secondly, how about thinking about all the black leaders who responded to Clinton’s need and repaying debts to the Clintons might feel? All of them have egg on their faces, and some of them are going to be facing primary challenges as a result of her actions. Does this not put a damper on any future (white) woman’s ability to collect needed endorsement from mayors, concilpeople, congressional critters, and celebrities?. Never know, maybe those hard working white people who voted for republicans really do have more valuable votes! Lastly, does not the overall poor grace in losing deliver a story and a scheme to straightjacket future female canidates for president? Really, think about it. Feminist must rely on coalition politics to get our issues heard. Repeatedly actingly like we aren’t in a coalition, and that we don’t have obligations to the other members of that coalition in words and deed…just isn’t…going…to…work. Big Picture! /me can’t wait for Shirley Franklin to attempt for Senator of Georgia…
@ Shah8 – Nationalist? Why did you assume that? I meant as a fellow BHO supporter. I am not familiar with your race. (Psst – many other anti-racist activists, which I assumed you were, are not black.) And I guess I must be missing the team woman, team black thing – there are women for Obama, black women for Hillary, and so on. Octogalore – My assessment is not based on one op-ed or one incident. It is a pattern of behavior. But I understand your sentiments. I can see where you are coming from in terms of an older hero figure, but it’s kind of like the posts on your blog about “feminist foremothers” and their contributions. Yes, they were important, trailblazing people. But they have flaws just like the rest of us.
Thanks, Latoya. Just visiting Pam’s House Blend, I found it interesting regarding Obama’s experience level and whether or not noting this implicates racism, that Obama himself stated in 04 that he was not running in 08 because he did not have the experience.
@Octogalore – I already linked to that 😛 Noting that doesn’t indicate racism. It does indicate he changed is mind somewhere along the line. But obviously, there are many more things that go into a president than experience. (At least I hope so – or else McCain is a freaking shoe-in, he’s been around forever.) And all the Constitution says is age 35, native-born and been here for 14 years (that’s a random number…) We’ll see, now, won’t we?
Latoya — yes, and noted. RE my statement that noting his experience level (and while I agree it’s not the only point, it’s an important one for me) wasn’t racism, that was directed not to you but to Jill’s statement of “but because he’s someone in a category that we usually don’t consider entitled to those privileges, it throws us off” relating to the portion I quoted. Even though Obama apparently was prevailed upon to change his mind, he did voice the opinion just a few years back that he was not qualified based on experience, and prided himself on not being “one of those people” who was going to start campaigning upon joining the Senate. Somebody agreeing with him on that — I think you need more info to conclude that person’s racist. The age-35 thing was set forth at a point when life expectancy was much less than it is today, and the average person at 35 was peaking in her/his career. That’s not the case today. I don’t rule out that someone in her/his mid-40s could have enough of a political resume, but I don’t feel that is true in this case. (For what it’s worth, were Obama up against someone with all of his characteristics including experience level, except not being a POC, I’d vote for Obama). In any case, I certainly respect your views and assessments and thanks for the challenging dialogue and good humor as always. It really is a pleasure.
Latoya, I am not sure of what you are asking about nationalism, since I made several planks around that issue. None of them really concerning Obama. Just that I hate it, and that it feels like to me that this whole election saga is comparable to the many times in the past where people pervert patriotism into nationalism.
oh, and I am black. Graduated from Morehouse (currently being supportive of that white guy who got to be valedictorian…I thought it was a good thing, but boy oh boy it was a shock to so many black people) Sure, anyone can be an anti-racist, no problem. As for me, personally, I hang with cosmopolitan people mostly–jews, asians, egyptians, west africans, the odd european, and blacks. I don’t have many white friends, more or less because so, so many of them are pretty damn clueless. I have had some, and am always open to more. I think it’s mostly just that I haven’t been in many areas where there are many white people who aren’t pretty racist, or very preppie to edge the teeth. I live in NorthEast Cobb.