Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Geraldine Ferraro is no friend to women

(Caution: Hysterical rant ahead.)

It's the black journalists!? The black journalists!?

I don't care about Geraldine Ferraro's achievements. I don't care about her history-making run for the White House. She is VILE! It is clear to me that she is intentionally fomenting division and hatred against black Americans. This isn't about women's equality. Geraldine Ferraro doesn't give two shits about women like me. She will never call out the media for demonizing Michelle Obama, just as they demonized Hillary Clinton when Bill ran for the White House, because she doesn't care. This is about protecting the entitlement and privilege of women who look like her...women like Hillary Clinton, who I find hard to believe is unaware of her "former" surrogate's racist media tour.

The feminist movement is revealing its racism in the ugliest ways this election cycle. And I have screamed about it until I can't breathe. I don't know what else to say. I am just so sad...and angry. And I am wondering why white feminists who are allies of women of color are not being more vocal in rejecting this behavior.

Anyone? Anyone?

Watch what I am ranting about below.

(Thanks, Carmen for tipping me to this. Or, maybe not. Now I have a headache.)




UPDATE: Oh, my sweet Lord!

BOCA RATON, Fla. - Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women.

Clinton, at times sounding like a modern history professor, praised the abolitionists,
suffragettes and civil rights pioneers and talked about her own efforts to fight legislative redistricting and voter identification initiatives that she said dilute minority voting power."

This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak." SOURCE
I honestly think I may have to leave the country for a few months. I just can't take it anymore.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Race and I'm still running

Michelle Myers, a guest contributor at Anti-Racist Parent, penned an excellent essay about how wearying worrying about race all the time can be.

A few weeks ago while watching “Dancing with the Stars,” my husband tried to get me riled up over a routine that Kristi Yamaguchi and her dance partner were performing which had him dressed in a military uniform and she, his Asian lover, swooning on his shoulder.

I had cringed inwardly when I saw the set-up, but I wanted to just enjoy the moment—just relish something for pure entertainment without the brooding presence of racial stereotypes and hegemonic ideologies.

So when my husband whispered suggestively to me about the “soldier savior” and “What was she thinking?” I shushed him and said that I didn’t want to be Yellow Rage all the time. “She just happens to be Asian, not playing ‘Asian,’” I retorted. But when Bruno, one of the judges, referred to Kristi’s character portrayal in the routine as being a “Madame Butterfly”—which he meant as a compliment of the romantic qualities of their dance—my husband’s head snapped towards me, and said “See? You can’t give white people a pass.” And I could only sigh deeply.

Bruno’s reference to the Puccini opera reminded me that really only white people could find romance in the story of a Japanese woman who gives birth to an American sailor’s baby and then commits suicide when he abandons them and marries a white American wife. But even then, I tried to excuse it. “He didn’t mean it that way”—meaning she wasn’t playing the passive, love-toy of a white man who sees himself as superior to her, her people, and her culture. “What’s happening to you?” my husband wanted to know.

Honestly, I’ve been getting tired. I’m tired of fighting against racism and injustice—it’s a never-ending, exhausting battle. And what’s worse for me is that after years and years of harping and exposing and teaching, I see very little to indicate that any of the work I’ve done has made a difference.
Read more and be sure to weigh in in the comments section.

Feeling warm and fuzzy


You like me! You really like me!

Well, somebody does, anyway....Jennifer at Mixed Race America has awarded me the E for Excellent Blogging award. And I swear I didn't even know this when I gave MRA some love in my post earlier today. Like I told Jenn, it is always great to hear that someone admires your blog, but it is even cooler to know that someone whose blog you admire admires your blog.

So, as part of this meme, I am to pass the award to four bloggers that I admire. I like Jennifer's approach of focusing on blogs that don't get a lot of national attention. Racialicious and What About Our Daughters are daily must-reads for me, but EVERYBODY knows how awesome they are. For my choices, I decided to go back to some of the first blogs that I really loved and whose owners (like Carmen and Gina) were supportive of my early efforts. So, without further ado:

Black Women Vote: The work Shecodes has done to solidify and articulate a platform for female, black voters is phenomenal.

Boring Black Chick: My blog sister from across the pond is super-literate and a wonderful writer. She has a unique ability to lay it down eloquently on topics from music, to books, to politics, to travel...

Essential Presence: For Symphony's work on Dunbar Village alone, she should be commended. But, like Boring Black Chick, Symphony writes passionately on a variety of topics. She has a knack for finding people and things that the black community should be proud of.

Los Angelista's Guide to the Pursuit of Happiness: I just wish I could write like Los Angelista. She makes a post about a trip to Starbuck's award-worthy. I kid you not. This girl can WRITE! Also, she loves Depeche Mode and just hearing that band's name takes me back to my New Wave high school days.

A honorable mention goes to Mes Deaux Cents, currently on hiatus, whose blog was my first read every morning.

Now, I would like to thank the Academy...(cue music)

Blogs you should be reading (and opportunity for shameless self-promotion)

Darn you people and your talents! My morning perusal of blogs used to be so easy. Now it seems every other day I find a new great blog that I HAVE to add to my reading list. Here are just a few that have caught my attention recently:

Black Women, Blow the Trumpet!
Described as "a place where black women identify, organize and strategize solutions for societal issues that impact black women," BWBT has a wonderful post up now about alliances between white and black feminists. an excerpt:

As I read the conversations on the blogs of many black feminists, I hear a recurring complaint that white feminists do not fully understand the struggle of black women. I need to make this very clear to all of my sistas so we can stop whining about it once and for all: NO ONE understands the struggle of black women and NO ONE ever will. Can we agree that today shall be the last and final reality check regarding the fanciful notion that non-black women will ever fully understand our struggles?

Entering the mind and heart of black women can NOT become a criteria for our allies. It is an outlandish and unrealistic expectation. No one needs to understand my mind and my heart to contribute to the objectives that I have placed on the table. Do us all a favor and please leave your heart outside of the room when we come to the negotiating table as a collective to leverage the influence of our non-black allies.

Black women, we need to have some requirements for our allies. Our allies must:
(1) understand and embrace the objectives we have on the table
(2) understand and embrace the vision for how those objectives can be accomplished
(3) understand the resources that they are being expected to leverage in order for those objectives to be met for our mutual benefit
(4) have a clear understanding of how "mutual benefit" is being defined by us
(5) understand how the contributions of our allies will be defined and measured
(6) examine how milestones will be identified and measured

No one has to become an honorary black woman in order to advance the priorities that matter to black women. I would encourage all of my sistas to examine why it seems so necessary for someone to understand your personhood in order for you to extend trust. Read more...



Mixed Race America
Okay, so this blog isn't a new find. I link to my blog sister, Jennifer, often. But she has a wonderful post about the University of Washington belatedly granting honorary degrees to Japanese American students who were forced to leave the institution and face incarceration during WWII. Jenn says:

For more on the graduation, click on this link. I had tears in my eyes when I read it. Because it's true--it's never too late to do the right thing. It's never too late for us to remember that we CAN do something--we don't have to just sit back and say, "There's nothing I can do." The faculty and staff at UW who helped make this graduation ceremony possible should be commended. Because they didn't have to do this. But it was and is the right thing to do. Which makes me wonder, will our current administration ever be brave enough to admit its mistakes and apologize? Will we recognize, much later, the harm we've done to others--the racial profiling we do to anyone of Muslim or Arab descent--anyone who "looks" Middle-Eastern? Read more...


The Cruel Secretary
This blogger just got name checked in a recent Washington Post article (Washington freakin Post!) on critics of old guard black activists.

...I agree with the Post article about the traditional Civil Rights organizations losing their prestige. I just disgree w/ the major reason cited: IMO, these organizations seem to be on the wrong side of the right issues nowadays. If SCLC, CORE, and the NAACP worked with ColorofChange and secured the release, their prestige would have been burnished. If the NAACP would have supported the victims of the Dunbar Village situation (atrocity, really) in the first place instead of their violators, the group would have received some praise. (The last I heard, the NAACP, West Palm Beach chapter, who jumped in to defend the violators, didn't retract their support or apologize to the victims or has done anything else on the victim's behalf). The most sustained critiques and actions against rap's misogyny (in the music and the videos) haven't come from any of these organizations. That's why, moreso than not keeping up with technology or being a victim of their own success or their pool of middle-class donors leaving–is why these organizations are fading away. Read more...


Universal Blackness
Unlike the MSM, Mr. Shadow celebrated the anniversary of Malcolm X's birth yesterday by printing Ossie Davis's eulogy of the slain leader.

Writes Like She Talks
Jill Zimon has posted an interesting interview with John C. Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. Green tackles the issue of what Hillary Clinton supporters could do next.

Blogher
This diverse collective of female bloggers, secured an exclusive interview with Barack Obama. Check it out below.



Share in the comments section and don't be shy about boldly hawking your own site.

Monday, May 19, 2008

When will Barack Obama answer for the bad behavior of his brethren?

That said, it would be nice to see some glimmer of feminism coming out of our presumptive black male candidate. I'd like to know what he thinks of OJ Simpson, for example. Would he, law professor, stand up in front of a black crowd and admit that he thinks OJ got away with murdering a white woman - unlike the countless black males who actually didn't murder the white woman, but were hanged anyway? In all cases, remember, the woman was actually dead.

More importantly, will Obama repudiate the misogynistic undertone in rap music, the tidal wave of bitch and ho vulgarity that does nothing to move young black (and
white) women an inch closer to parity with men? Read more...

Wow! Just...wow, Nina Burleigh. In her Saturday post on Huffington Post, the writer wonders "Is Obama Man Enough to be a Feminist Too?" I wonder if Burleigh realizes how ridiculously race biased it is to ask a candidate to weigh in on O.J. Simpson and decry hip hop simply because he is a black man.

Will Hillary Clinton be taking a stand against Susan Smith, the white woman who murdered her children a year after the Simpson-Goldman murders and blamed their disappearance on a mysterious black man? Should she be expected to? The idea is ludicrous and so is any notion that black people always need to answer for the behavior of people who share their skin color.

Once again druing this election cycle, a feminist proves that there is no shelter from racism, not even in supposedly progressive communities.

I don't need Barack Obama to be the second coming of Andrea Dworkin or a Black Panther. As a black person and a woman, I need to know that, as president, he will move this country closer to equality for all people. That means helping to close the wage gap between women and men, and white women and women of color. It means ensuring committed gay couples have the same rights as committed heterosexual ones. It means ensuring that kids in poor inner-city and rural areas are guaranteed a good education just like rich kids in the suburbs. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I am the only person on earth to face inequality, and I am not entitled enough to think that a president's work need be all about me. I wish some of my fellow American citizens felt the same way.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

New Music: Adele (and missing Mes Deaux Cents)


I'm really missing my blog sister, Mes Deaux Cents, this morning. See yesterday I "discovered" a great new singer. (Readers in the UK are going, "Yeah, um, she's not new here.") Adele is a 20-year-old soul and jazz singer that has been dubbed "the new Amy Winehouse." After enjoying a couple of her songs, I downloaded her album yesterday and have been playing it obsessively ever since. It's wonderful: soulful, melodic, passionate. I'm hooked!

Anyway, MDC shares my eclectic taste in music, my knack for finding great stuff not getting major airplay in the U.S., and my sad addiction to iTunes. Her music posts always made me think she was secretly raiding the song files on my computer. So, while MDC is on hiatus, I bet somewhere she is listening to Adele. If not, MDC, you should be!

Anyhoo, here is Adele performing two of my favorite cuts from her new album "19":

Melt My Heart to Stone






Best for Last


Saturday, May 17, 2008

Random Saturday stuff

Barely Political had a bit of fun with video of Bill O'Reilly's vintage "Inside Edition" meltdown. My husband and I watched this three or four times on Olbermann last night and laughed uproariously every time.



Okay, generally I think Chris Matthews is a sexist, prejudiced jerk, but this week I loved him a little. Watch Tweety (TM Daily Kos) take down a loud-mouthed conservative parrot.



I'm sure my Matthews hate will return next week.

File this under: The truly sad state of things. From Mother Jones:


Lately, I've seen some changes at the two Starbucks that live less than a block away from the Mother Jones office. Last month, they both started pushing a new blend called "Pike Place Roast" as their regular drip coffee, as part of a campaign to compete with brisk coffee sales at Dunkin' Donuts and McDonald's. As part of the campaign, Starbucks re-introduced its 1971 brown-and-white logo featuring a two-tailed mermaid. Okay, technically it's a siren, but regardless, the image of a female figure brazenly spreading its tails has made a few Christians vow to boycott the company.

"The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute," explains alarmist Mark Dice, of a Christian group called The Resistance. "Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks." Read more...
Exactly how did that meeting of The Resistance go? Did the members gather to discuss which of the world's ills their more than 3,000 Christian soldiers worldwide should tackle? Poverty? No. Hunger? Uh-uh. Cyclone victims in Myanmar? They were probably heathens. Victims of violence in Darfur? Ditto. Twenty-two dead in last weekend's mid-U.S. tornadoes? At least they were Americans...but no. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Has anybody seen the tawdry siren on the new Starbucks logo? Now THAT is a problem that Jesus would have been all over. You know how he spent all his time preaching to the Pharisees about his Father's disdain for retro logos. Amen!

Sad.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Sexism and privilege: parsing gender politics in the Clinton campaign

I was all set to write a post about how some feminist support of Hillary Clinton seems contrary to principles of female equality. I get the sense, in some Clintonistas' breathless defense of the candidate, that she is a delicate flower than needs protecting from male colleagues, the media and other women who simply don't understand her, and that her actions don't deserve the scrutiny that those of male candidates receive.

That is not equality.

Hillary Clinton's supporters too often cast her as a victim, all the better to champion the "she's a fighter" narrative. After all, a fighter who has nothing to fight against is just surly and combative.
Remember when, early in the race, in a "bloody" debate, Clinton stood as the front runner, while the other Democratic candidates tried to knock her off her game? That is what opponents who are behind try to do in politics--take out the front runner. And all of Clinton's opponents "attacked" her respectfully with valid points about policy. (Unlike some of the attacks the Clinton camp would later launch against Barack Obama) Clinton was tough, but it was not her best debate performance. Well, c'est la vie. That is how the political cookie crumbles. Sometimes you perform win, sometimes you lose and come back to fight another day. That's fair. Or no, maybe not. Following the debate, the Clinton camp and many of her supporters bemoaned the Dem "boys" ganging up on the lone "girl."

From Politico:

The debate is still churning in feminist circles, where some women’s activists said she had every right to invoke sexism and gender stereotypes as a defense on the campaign trail — and predicted that this tactic will prove effective against fellow Democrats and against a Republican, if she is the general election nominee.

“It goes beyond logic — it’s a gut response,” Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said of the spectacle of Clinton onstage confronting seven male rivals and two male moderators at a debate in Philadelphia on Wednesday night.

Smeal, who has endorsed Clinton, compared the debate scene to the congressional grilling of Anita Hill when she challenged Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination in 1991.

“Every woman — it was just so visceral — that panel was all male,” Smeal recalled. “It didn’t matter almost what was being said. It [was] a visceral gut reaction, and I think that’s what you’re seeing here again.”
It really does go beyond logic. Clinton, because she is a woman, should not withstand political attacks that surely would be visited upon her if she were male. Isn't that just a little, well, sexist?

And now there is all this flap about NARAL Pro-choice America's endorsement of Barack Obama. It seems to me that the advocacy group is doing what all good progressives who want to see a Democrat in the White House come next January should do. In the name of unity and likely to ensure a voice in a future administration, NARAL is getting behind the presumptive nominee--the person who is ahead in delegates, the popular vote, states won and superdelegates, and who has a strong pro-choice record. But many female Clinton supporters don't see it that way. NARAL's endorsement is BETRAYAL!

A woman in this comment thread said:
I cannot believe how socially irresponsible this organization is. How can you possibly think that your advocating for women when you make a decision that could divide the women’s movement for years to come? I am so fundamentally repulsed by your decision. I am absolutely stunned at how thoughtless and irresponsible your decision making is regarding this matter. The founders of the women’s movement everywhere suffer a serious set back today when their own sisters attempt to destroy them. If you think that this is going to help our cause, you are clueless. I can’t believe you’ll cut your throats and those of all the women out there who have supported you, including Senator Clinton, just to get on the bandwagon of the male candidate who has no personal insight whatsoever what it feels like to have the federal government regulate his body. How dare you attempt to destroy what so many of us have worked so hard to create. The founders of the women's movement roll in their graves today. I never thought I would see the day when an organization, founded by women for women, actually had the chance to support the most qualified candidate for president and SHE happened to be a women and yet, they chose the male for no justifiable reason whatsoever. I'm speechless. This has already been a rough week for women in that Obama supporter Steven Cohen assaulted Hillary with his violent rhetoric and then this. Wow, what a sad week for women in this country.
You see, NARAL's endorsement was yet another attack on Hillary. Note the use of inflammatory language like "assaulted" and "violent." Those who do not fully support Clinton are abusers. This really is identity politics at its worse. It obscures discussion of the very real sexism that has occurred in this campaign, along with the heinous racism (some of it stoked by Clinton herself). And it makes mockery of the very real ways women around the world are abused, intimidated and oppressed.

The course of Hillary Clinton's campaign makes me uncomfortable as a woman, who was raised by both of my parents to believe that I could do anything, but never told that, when competing in a male-dominated world, I should be treated with delicacy. And it makes me uncomfortable as an African American, because what I also see hiding behind the idea of Hillary Clinton as the wronged woman is privilege and entitlement. There is this idea that Clinton is owed the presidential spot. It is her time. Obama is just a potential affirmative action hire, unqualified and slick, poised to steal what is hers.

The spot in which Hillary Clinton finds herself could not possibly be of her own making. She cannot be losing because her campaign thought the Democratic race would be a coronation and failed to plan for anything past Super Tuesday. She cannot be losing because her campaign rejected Howard Dean's 50-state strategy that is working so well for Obama. She cannot be losing because her campaign has employed the very Rovian tactics that progressives have been decrying throughout these long, dark eight years. She cannot be losing because by employing Nixon's "southern strategy," she and her surrogates alienated one of the Democrats most loyal voting blocs: black Americans, who initially favored her over her opponent. She cannot be losing because she simply failed to strike while the iron was hot--back in 2004, when so many people wanted her to run her to run for the presidency. She could have taken Bush to school in a way that Kerry did not. But she waited. And a new political star emerged. Sometimes that happens. It's not sexism. It's life.

No, too many Clinton supporters will tell you that Hillary is losing because everyone and everything is just so unfair because she is a woman. And no one mentions that if their places were reversed--if Clinton was the one ahead by all common metrics and Obama (or Edwards or Richardson or any of the original male candidates) was behind by no matter how small a margin--we would be talking about the rampaging male ego, how the boys club refuses to let a woman win, how sexism is tearing the party asunder, how unfair it is that the Democratic male candidate will not step aside for the good of the party. That the Democratic Party has not more forcefully called for Hillary to step down reflects her privilege.

Anyway, I was all set to write this post, but then I read Stephen Daugherty's diary at Daily Kos, titled "Is it feminist to portray Hillary as a victim?". And he pretty much said what I wanted to say, but perhaps more eloquently. Now, some will discount this diary, because it is written by a man. But I do not.

Here is an excerpt of Daugherty's essay:

Some folks view critiques of her bare-knuckles style of campaigning as an attempt to penalize her for being un-ladylike. Some may think that way, but I don't think most Americans think that way, especially given her culturally conservative base. If anybody would have a problem with Hillary having sharp elbows, it would be them.

But you can be seen as unsympathetic and mean-spirited independent of gender. You can also be seen as disloyal, on the basis of your actions. Lieberman's a good example. In critiquing the rhetoric of Obama supporters, one should consider the nature of the perceptions she has raised by continually consorting with media figures, rhetoric, and tactics more appropriate to the other side.

Lastly, we should consider the tensions and the anxieties generated by a contest which has long lead in, with Obama long known to be the likely winner.

Hillary's image problems have little to do with her gender, and to make them out to be gender-related is insulting to real feminism. To be equal in our society is to be held equally responsible for obnoxious behavior and self-expression. If you pander to the Right-Wing Media to attack fellow Democrats rather than stand up for the party, you should be held accountable. If you selfishly extend a contest you are unlikely to win, rather than conceding things to get the fight against your common enemies started earlier, people are going to get angry and frustrated with you.

The question for feminists raising the red card of porcine male chauvinism should be this: when they talk about other people, do they speak of those folks as an "us", or a "them"? Is the goal of feminism to preserve women as a separate block, politically, one that needs special treatment to get fair treatment, or is the goal of feminism to put men and women on equal footing, with equal rights and equal obligations? Read
more...

UPDATE: Check out reader MacDaddy's critique on why Hillary Clinton is losing the Democratic primary at DaddyBStrong.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Keith Olbermann: Speaking truth to power

This special comment had my husband and I on our feet shouting. It's about time somebody said something.





Keith, you make a liberal girl swoon.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

I colonize

Taigi Smith, in the brilliant essay "What Happens When Your Hood is the Last Stop on the White Flight Express" in the book "Colonize This: Young Women of Color on Today's Feminism," describes gentrification like this:

Gentrification: The displacement of poor women and people of color. The raising of rents and the eradification of single, poor and working-class women from neighborhoods once considered unsavory by people who didn't live there. The demolition of housing projects. A money-driven process in which landowners and developers push people (in this case, many of them single mothers) out of their homes without thinking about where they will go. Gentrification is a pre-meditated process in which an imaginary bleach is poured on a community and the only remaining color left in that community is white...only the strongest coloreds survived.

and this...

For poor single mothers, gentrification is a tactic "the system" uses to keep them down; it falls into the same category as "workfare" and "minimum wage." Gentrification is a woman's issue, an economic issue and, most of all, a race issue. At my roots I am a womanist, as I believe in economic and social equality for all women. When I watch what has happened to my old neighborhood, I get angry because gentrification like this is a personal attack on any woman of color who is poor, working class and trying to find an apartment in a real estate market that doesn't give a damn about single mothers, grandmommas raising crack babies or women who speak English as a second language.

Urban gentrification is like global colonization. An advantaged people decide they fancy an area and use their advantages to push into it with, at best, disregard, and at worst, disdain, for the people already living there.The invaders use their might to erase the culture of current residents, and eventually, to erase the residents all together.

I know this, and yet, my feelings about gentrification are ambivalent: a blend of concern and guilt. Yes, guilt. Because I have been an urban colonizer.

Smith describes the gentrifiers of San Francisco's Mission District as "white people--yuppies and new media professionals who would pay exorbitant rents to reside in what the Utne Reader had called "One of the Trendiest Places to Live in America."

...The streets were now lined with Land Rovers and BMWs, and once seedy neighborhood bars now employed bouncers and served $10 rasberry martinis. Abandoned warehouses had not been converted into affordable housing but instead into fancy lofts going for $300,000 to $1 million.

I understand that description and recognize it. But I also know that the gentrification of urban areas can mean opportunity for many working and middle class black people.

Shortly after my husband and I became engaged, we moved into a small, newly-renovated, high-rise condo on Chicago's Michigan Avenue. It was just north of the once prosperous, now blighted, Bronzeville neighborhood, just south of booming development: fancy lofts and condos starting at $300,000 a pop, just west of of the beautiful shores of Lake Michigan, and just east of a sprawling public housing project. We were smack at the epicenter of the gentrification of Chicago's near south side.

Our new home was modest: just a one-bedroom with a tiny kitchen, but it had awesome views of the Windy City skyline. On July 4th, you could watch fireworks all over the city--from the West Side to Chinatown to Grant Park--on our balcony. And if you craned your neck, you could see a sliver of Lake Michigan. We were proud. We owned something, like our parents before us.

My husband, then fiance, had spent years counting pennies and living in a crappy apartment to save up to buy his own place. When we met, I had just graduated from a dusty, old studio apartment, to a larger place. You see, even for folks with good jobs, like my husband and I, property ownership in expensive cities like Chicago is elusive. We worked hard for that little place.

Gentrification brought improvements to the near south side--increased police presence, renovated homes and amenities--that attracted people like my husband and I. We were not, for the most part, six-figure-earning yuppies. We were not, for the most part, white. The residents of my condo association, which included three renovated high rises and two-story town houses, were a mix of up-and-coming professionals, working class retirees and graduate students. The population was mostly black, but also brown, white and Asian. Our enclave was not unique, it seemed to me mostly black folks who were buying the impressive, newly-polished greystones that lined King Drive.

Interestingly, though many of my fellow gentrifiers shared skin color with the long-standing residents of our neighborhood, our cohabitation was sometimes uneasy.

Part of the development of our condo complex included erecting a high wrought iron fence with locked gates that spanned three city blocks.The fence afforded safety and privacy for my fellow homeowners, but barred residents of the housing project to our west from a direct route to some major bus lines, as well as family and friends in a smaller public housing development to our east. The condo of which I was so proud was, I'm sure, to some existing residents, just a new hindrance dropped in the middle of their community.

Rather than walk around my complex, people would break the locked gates, forcing owners to pay for repairs again and again. Or, they would loiter around entrances waiting to slip in behind a resident with a key. Coming home, particularly at night, could be harrowing. Could I enter my home peacefully or would I be greeted by a group of sullen young men demanding to walk in with me?

I was often resentful of my neighbors, who shared my African roots, but not necessarily all of my culture and values. I was resentful of the broken locks and broken glass; resentful of the children with souls seemingly too old for their young bodies, who stood loud talking and cursing outside of the neighborhood dry cleaners; resentful that I didn't feel safe allowing my stepchildren to play in the park across the street; resentful of the men with nowhere to go who tried to "holler" at my not-yet-teenage stepdaughter; resentful of our need to create a neighborhood watch program with citizen patrols to guard against petty vandalism and worse; resentful of the guns fired from the windows of the projects on New Year's Eve and Independence Day and sometimes just because.

I know about the very real economic, societal and sociological factors that created the things that I hated. But I confess that I didn't think about them much. I just wanted my brothers and sisters to do it my way, to want the kind of neighborhood and life that I wanted.

Living in my gentrifying neighborhood was a daily struggle between my intellectual understanding of racism, economics and marginalization, and my visceral desire to protect a way of life that I saw as "right" from one that I viewed as "wrong."

Mary Pattillo, professor of sociology and African American Studies at Northwestern University, studied the black middle class in "Black on the Block: the Politics of Race and Class in the City" (University of Chicago Press). In the book, she focuses on North Kenwood-Oakland (NKO), a Chicago neighborhood that has been gentrified by black professionals who, she says, operate at the center of complex urban politics. Patillo discussed the relationship between black gentrifiers and their neighbors in a question-and-answer session related to her book:

Your book points out the complicated relationship that the black leadership in NKO has with less well off neighbors.

Yes, class schisms continually challenge attempts at racial solidarity. But those class tensions are greatly mitigated by the residents' recognition of a shared history of oppression and the lingering effects of racism today. The gentrifying black middle and upper classes tend to be more grounded by upbringings and socialization in more humble black surroundings. They recognize the short shrift that African Americans have been given by the wider society and, for example, continuously insist that black construction workers be included in neighborhood building. A deep sense of racial responsibility is the most important distinguishing feature of black gentrification relative to white gentrification.

Yet, class differences cause fissures that put great stress on racial solidarity.

Yes, for example, black leaders in NKO have called for the demolition of public housing and have been critical of the lifestyles of working-class and poor neighbors -- including loud barbecues on a public boulevard and porches and fixing cars on the street.

Those attitudes seem to reflect middle-class values everywhere.

Yes, they do. But partially what I want to do with this book is make people aware of the economic rationales that contribute to differences in class behavior. People don't barbecue on Drexel Boulevard because they want to be flamboyant. It has a lot more to do with not having their own backyards. Their lifestyles reflect the realities of stratification. Renters and public housing residents are particularly vulnerable to the discriminating tastes of newcomers. And the differences have to do with capital resource status -- employed versus unemployed, homeowner versus renter, etc.

What are the larger consequences of those class tensions?

In general blacks in increasing numbers have moved into schools, institutions and occupations from which they were once barred. They have alliances with powerful white elites and can consequently dominate more marginal groups. While the black leadership is more able and definitely more willing to deliver resources to black communities in need, they also are more able to translate distaste for certain class-related behavior into action that hurts poorer blacks.

How do such class biases play out specifically in North Kenwood-Oakland?

North Kenwood-Oakland offers a microcosm of boundary making among African Americans. Black newcomers are moving into the neighborhood and aligning with some old-timer homeowners to resist the building of public housing and reinforcing attempts to control the behaviors of low-income neighbors in and out of public housing. Many established poorer residents have been displaced and those left behind are supervised and disciplined consistent with new residents' desires. That begs the question: For whom are we developing these neighborhoods?

More...

Even Taigi Smith, once a victim of gentrification, became an urban colonizer:

I don't want them to take over my San Francisco neighborhood, but five thousand miles away, in another state and another community, I "am on the front lines of gentrification," as a neighbor so politely put it. when I come home at night and see the crackheads loitering in from of the building next door, I realize I may have switched sides in this fight. When I dodge cracked glass and litter when walking my dog, I realize that this neighborhood really could use a facelift and that the yoga center that just opened up on the corner is a welcome change from the abandoned building it used to be.

Parts of my Brooklyn neighborhood are symbolic of what the media and sociologists say is wrong with "the inner city." I live on a block where the police don't arrest drug dealers who peddle crack in broad daylight, where young black men drive around in huge SUVs but barely speak grammatically correct English, where I see the same brothas every day standing on the street corners, doing absolutely nothing. They don't hustle or harass me, but instead politely say "hello," as if they've accepted me. I feel strained by my situation. While I am intimately aware of what is happening to my new enighbrohood, I feel powerless. I've been in Brooklyn long enough to know that although it is not the most savory neighborhood, it is a community where people feel connected, where the old folks know each other, where neighbors still chat. But sometimes I feel like telling the young men on the corner, "Get the hell off the street! Don't you see that life is passing you by? Don't you see this is what they expect you to do? Don't you see they're moving in and in a few years, you're going to have to get out?

And so, I am ambivalent about gentrification. I reckon it is both a blessing and curse to urban neighborhoods and the people who live in them.

When my husband and I moved to another city three years ago, we looked at homes in gentrifying areas and then chose to live in the suburbs. My stepson was moving with us and it was important for us to find a safe neighborhood with good schools. He wanted a dog and dogs need spacious fenced yards.

As I read over what I have written here, I realize that maybe I am one of those middle class blacks folks are always talking about. Did I abandon my community in favor of something easier? I say this even though my suburban neighborhood more closely resembles the way I grew up than my old, urban haunts. There is an unspoken belief, I think, among the larger black community, that discomfort with the culture of inner-city poverty is denial of one's blackness, and that pursuing the advantages of middle classness means selling out. I don't think that is true.

Nevertheless, I struggle.

I struggle with my feelings for my former inner-city neighbors. I struggle with my decision to live in a mostly-white suburb. I struggle under the weight of my guilt.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The brown and the dead


Does this woman's body deserve respect?

Saturday night I was watching as CNN covered the tragedy in Myanmar (Burma). I was well aware of the devastation caused by Nagris, the cyclone that ripped the country apart. What shocked me was the graphic nature of CNN's report. There were bodies and bodies and more bodies--Burmese men, women, even children, dead, bloated, discolored and rotting in the Southeast Asian sun; arms and legs akimbo as if their owners had been tossed like rag dolls. I know this is what death looks like, especially when it takes place in a poor country where the people have been colonized, militarized and rocked by ethnic strife and drug trafficking. But I watched the television and couldn't help thinking that this video desecration of the already desecrated was another example of how American culture sees brown people as somehow less human.

According to the Huffington Post, a CNN spokesperson, defending the news outlet's work in Burma, said "the enormity of the story" merited showing corpses. What are the chances that CNN will show the broken bodies of the 22 people killed in twisters that plowed across the central United States this weekend, y'know so we get "the enormity of the story?" We did not need to see graphic footage of victims to understand the enormity of Oklahoma City or 9/11. I do remember seeing some footage of Hurricane Katrina's dead--not as graphic as the Myanmar coverage--but we all know those folks in New Orleans weren't American anyway, they were "refugees." (Tongue firmly in cheek, here.)
This is the same bias that allows a magazine that would never show a naked American woman, to show an unclothed African woman. In our puritanical culture, where we are obsessed with, yet repulsed by, the bodies of the living and the dead, why do we reserve our concern only for those who look like us?

View a short clip of CNN's Burma coverage at Huffington Post. What do you think?

Image courtesy of exfordy on Flickr.

Monday, May 12, 2008

I'm still here

I realize my posting this past week has been...spotty at best. I am working to finish a writing assignment that is due this afternoon. I'll be back tomorrow in fine fighting form. As usual, I have a lot to say about politics, and I received one of those "little gifts" to my family research project that I have written about before. More later.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

You Don't Know Me: Part II

Despite the portrayal of my home state as a white wasteland, Indiana has a long, compelling history of competing ideas and interests. Yes, it was a hotbed for the Ku Klux Klan, but it also had several integral stops on the Underground Railroad. The state housed some of the first utopian societies in the United States, and boasts an internationally known center for modern Quaker society. Indiana was home to Eugene Debs, Socialist Party presidential candidate in the early 1900s and one of the founders of the International Labor Union and the Industrial Workers of the World. Today the work force is heavily based in manufacturing, more so than in agriculture, and as such is heavily unionized. Where Indiana was once largely a white state infamous for its “sundown towns,” the African American and Latino populations are growing exponentially, and within the last decade the university in my backyard hosted among the largest percentages of foreign students in the United States. But somehow, whenever an outsider writes about Indiana, it's all corn, religion, white supremacists, pickup trucks, and, goddamn it, basketball.
You tell it, sister! My fellow Indianian Lauren Bruce lets off some Hoosier frustration in a recent article in The American Prospect. My readers know that I am equally weary of the Midwest hayseed stereotype, especially since it erases my very existence. There is no room for an educated, liberal, secular black woman in coastal redneck fantasies, where everyone West of the Appalachians and East of the Sierra Nevadas is a ruddy-faced, uneducated, Bible-toting rube.


I find ironic pleasure in a state so patronized by progressives having become an important front in this ongoing primary. Contrary to what some experts believe, this long, drawn-out Democratic nomination process might be good for the party because it's taken the race outside of predictable territory. The last few weeks have set my little world so abuzz that I pray nobody drops out in June, as Howard Dean suggested, so other neglected states can get this shot of liberal adrenaline. First Bill Clinton spoke at the high school across the street, flooding my neighborhood with black sedans driven by serious-looking men in collared shirts and mirrored sunglasses. My friends and I sat on the front porch watching the attendees walk back to their cars after he spoke, debating the pros and cons of another Clinton presidency, high on the excitement of having seen such a prominent public figure in the flesh. A week later my co-workers sped out of the office to see Obama speak on the other side of town, and came back to the office describing the event with tears on their faces after seeing the potential first president who looks and believes as they do. Hillary Clinton arrived last Thursday and spoke downtown in an open-air, town-hall forum, and friends who saw her speak report that she was charming, whip-smart, nothing like what you see on television. The political yard-sign wars have begun in my neighborhood, Obama here, Clinton there, Obama, Clinton, Obama. Despite an occasional garden nod to Ron Paul, McCain is nowhere. People who never showed any political inclination are energized. Even my Republican parents are taking another road this year – both will reportedly vote for Clinton this primary season, one for Operation Chaos and one in earnest.
While I wish the Democratic primary had ended long before it reached my state, I too was energized by the political attention we received over the last few weeks. I attended an Obama rally on the town square of Noblesville, Indiana, 30 miles north of Indianapolis, and was proud to see a crowd that belied the stereotypes being floated by pointy-headed pundits. Black, white, Asian and Latino, young and old—all cheering and bonding on the American flag-festooned city center.

Now, I won’t pretend that I don’t shake my head at my fellow citizens from time to time. There are people here, too many in my estimation, who are dangerously close to the Hoosier stereotype—naïve, incurious, ill-informed, xenophobic and fearful. I, frankly, have no patience for the Operation Chaos folks--those who think it is clever to subvert the democratic process. But those folks don’t represent everyone in Indiana—not even most. And, more importantly, those people can be found all over this country--from sea to shining sea. (Yep, that means the coasts.) So, my progressive friends, stop discounting us. Your condescension reveals self congratulation that you really haven't earned.

I’ll leave the last word to Lauren Bruce:
This primary season, Democrats ought to take note of what kind of response they get when they actively campaign in the states they usually abandon. Here in Indiana, I don't know a soul who will pass up the chance to vote today, and none I know are voting Republican. You might be surprised at what happens when Democrats and the media spend some time in our state, rather than reduce us to uniformly conservative, marginal stereotypes because it’s easier than respecting local culture and diversity of opinion. We are educated, unionized, literate, racially diverse, economically desperate, and as concerned about our course as the rest of the nation. We also know that the Democrats are campaigning in Indiana in 2008 because they must, but we’ll take that if we have to.
Read Part I of "You Don't Know Me" here.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

The American Dream lives!





Barack Obama delivered the following remarks (as prepared) in Raleigh, North Carolina, last night...

You know, some were saying that North Carolina would be a game-changer in this election. But today, what North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington, DC.

I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on her victory in the state of Indiana. And I want to thank the people of North Carolina for giving us a victory in a big state, a swing state, and a state where we will compete to win if I am the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

When this campaign began, Washington didn’t give us much of a chance. But because you came out in the bitter cold, and knocked on doors, and enlisted your friends and neighbors in this cause; because you stood up to the cynics, and the doubters, and the nay-sayers when we were up and when we were down; because you still believe that this is our moment, and our time, for change – tonight we stand less than two hundred delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

More importantly, because of you, we have seen that it’s possible to overcome the politics of division and distraction; that it’s possible to overcome the same old negative attacks that are always about scoring points and never about solving our problems. We’ve seen that the American people aren’t looking for more spin or more gimmicks, but honest answers about the challenges we face. That’s what you’ve accomplished in this campaign, and that’s how we’ll change this country together.

This has been one of the longest, most closely fought contests in history. And that’s partly because we have such a formidable opponent in Senator Hillary Clinton. Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided – that Senator Clinton’s supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her.

Well I’m here tonight to tell you that I don’t believe it. Yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately, this race is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain. This election is about you – the American people – and whether we will have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future.

This primary season may not be over, but when it is, we will have to remember who we are as Democrats – that we are the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy; and that we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose – a higher purpose. This fall, we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country. Because we all agree that at this defining moment in history – a moment when we’re facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril – we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term. We need change in America.

The woman I met in Indiana who just lost her job, and her pension, and her insurance when the plant where she worked at her entire life closed down – she can’t afford four more years of tax breaks for corporations like the one that shipped her job overseas. She needs us to give tax breaks to companies that create good jobs here in America. She can’t afford four more years of tax breaks for CEOs like the one who walked away from her company with a multi-million dollar bonus. She needs middle-class tax relief that will help her pay the skyrocketing price of groceries, and gas, and college tuition. That’s why I’m running for President.

The college student I met in Iowa who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill – she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy; that allows insurance companies to discriminate and deny coverage to those Americans who need it most. She needs us to stand up to those insurance companies and pass a plan that lowers every family’s premiums and gives every uninsured American the same kind of coverage that Members of Congress give themselves. That’s why I’m running for President.

The mother in Wisconsin who gave me a bracelet inscribed with the name of the son she lost in Iraq; the families who pray for their loved ones to come home; the heroes on their third and fourth and fifth tour of duty – they can’t afford four more years of a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. They can’t afford four more years of our veterans returning to broken-down barracks and substandard care. They need us to end a war that isn’t making us safer. They need us to treat them with the care and respect they deserve. That’s why I’m running for President.

The man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one – he can’t afford four more years of an energy policy written by the oil companies and for the oil companies; a policy that’s not only keeping gas at record prices, but funding both sides of the war on terror and destroying our planet in the process. He doesn’t need four more years of Washington policies that sound good, but don’t solve the problem. He needs us to take a permanent holiday from our oil addiction by making the automakers raise their fuel standards, corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future. That’s the change we need. And that’s why I’m running for President.

The people I’ve met in small towns and big cities across this country understand that government can’t solve all our problems – and we don’t expect it to. We believe in hard work. We believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

But we also believe that we have a larger responsibility to one another as Americans – that America is a place – that America is the place – where you can make it if you try. That no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours if you’re willing to reach for it and work for it. It’s the idea that while there are few guarantees in life, you should be able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you need it; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential. That’s the America we believe in. That’s the America I know.

This is the country that gave my grandfather a chance to go to college on the GI Bill when he came home from World War II; a country that gave him and my grandmother the chance to buy their first home with a loan from the government.

This is the country that made it possible for my mother – a single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point – to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country on scholarships.

This is the country that allowed my father-in-law – a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant – to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis – who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation. It was a job that didn’t just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn’t just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it.

Somewhere along the way, between all the bickering and the influence-peddling and the game-playing of the last few decades, Washington and Wall Street have lost touch with these values. And while I honor John McCain’s service to his country, his ideas for America are out of touch with these values. His plans for the future are nothing more than the failed policies of the past. And his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.

Yes, we know what’s coming. We’ve seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain – to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States; blue-collar and white-collar; white and black, and brown.
This is what they will do – no matter which one of us is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they’ll run, it’s what kind of campaign we will run. It’s what we will do to make this year different. I didn’t get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.

We will end it this time not because I’m perfect – I think by now this campaign has reminded all of us of that. We will end it not by duplicating the same tactics and the same strategies as the other side, because that will just lead us down the same path of polarization and gridlock.

We will end it by telling the truth – forcefully, repeatedly, confidently – and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change.

Because that’s how we’ve always changed this country – not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up; when you – the American people – decide that the stakes are too high and the challenges are too great.

The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it’s not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda’s leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies – like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

I trust the American people to realize that while we don’t need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators; a government that stands up for the middle-class by giving them a tax break; a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity; compassion and prosperity aren’t liberal values or conservative values – they’re American values.

Most of all, I trust the American people’s desire to no longer be defined by our differences. Because no matter where I’ve been in this country – whether it was the corn fields of Iowa or the textile mills of the Carolinas; the streets of San Antonio or the foothills of Georgia – I’ve found that while we may have different stories, we hold common hopes. We may not look the same or come from the same place, but we want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

That’s why I’m in this race. I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.

It is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean.

It is the founding ideals that the flag draped over my grandfather’s coffin stands for – it is life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s the simple truth I learned all those years ago when I worked in the shadows of a shuttered steel mill on the South Side of Chicago – that in this country, justice can be won against the greatest of odds; hope can find its way back to the darkest of corners; and when we are told that we cannot bring about the change that we seek, we answer with one voice – yes we can.

So don’t ever forget that this election is not about me, or any candidate. Don’t ever forget that this campaign is about you – about your hopes, about your dreams, about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.

Don’t ever forget that we have a choice in this country – that we can choose not to be divided; that we can choose not to be afraid; that we can still choose this moment to finally come together and solve the problems we’ve talked about all those other years in all those other elections.
This time can be different than all the rest. This time we can face down those who say our road is too long; that our climb is too steep; that we can no longer achieve the change that we seek. This is our time to answer the call that so many generations of Americans have answered before – by insisting that by hard work, and by sacrifice, the American Dream will endure. Thank you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Why not Hillary Clinton?

The Nation has published what I think is one of the most reasoned and thoughtful discussions of sexism and racism in the 2008 presidential election: "Race to the Bottom" by Betsey Reed.

In the course of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the White House--in which she became the first woman ever to prevail in a state-level presidential primary contest--she has been likened to Lorena Bobbitt (by Tucker Carlson); a "hellish housewife" (Leon Wieseltier); and described as "witchy," a "she-devil," "anti-male" and "a stripteaser" (Chris Matthews). Her loud and hearty laugh has been labeled "the cackle," her voice compared to "fingernails on a blackboard" and her posture said to look "like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." As one Fox News commentator put it, "When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, Take out the garbage." Rush Limbaugh, who has no qualms about subjecting audiences to the spectacle of his own bloated physique, asked his listeners, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Perhaps most damaging of all to her electoral prospects, very early on Clinton was deemed "unlikable." Although other factors also account for that dislike, much of the venom she elicits ("Iron my shirt," "How do we beat the bitch?") is clearly gender-specific.


This is where I stand united with my feminist sisters. The 2008 presidential election has dragged into the light the loathsome misogyny that women have always known still existed. I was always smart and cynical enough to know that sexism (and a whole bunch of other "isms") abound in the media boys club, but even I have been shocked at the nakedness of the smirking, doughy, frat-boy talking head gender bias. (Matthews, Carlson, Morning Joe, I am looking at you.)

I have always thought that most virulent Hillary hatred was driven by her gender. My very first vote in a presidential election was cast for Bill Clinton and I admired his wife as an outspoken, smart First Lady. Hillary Rodham Clinton was a different kind of first spouse--not all adoring gazes and sequins like Nancy Reagan. I liked her. And I knew exactly where those complaints about her not being a "cooking baking" woman and her using a hyphenated name came from. The same place charges that Michelle Obama is angry and mouthy come from. America likes its women submissive or sexed-up. Smart and confident females make us uncomfortable.

Thus, feminist opposition to the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton has morphed into support for the candidate herself. In February Robin Morgan published a reprise of her famous 1970 essay "Goodbye to All That," exhorting women to embrace Clinton as a protest against "sociopathic woman-hating." In the Los Angeles Times, Leslie Bennetts, author of The Feminine Mistake, wrote of older female voters fed up with the media's dismissive treatment of Clinton: "There are signs the slumbering beast may be waking up--and she's not in a happy mood." A recent New York magazine article titled "The Feminist Reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the Fourth Wave" described how "it isn't just the 'hot flash cohort'...that broke for Clinton. Women in their thirties and forties--at once discomfited and galvanized by the sexist tenor of the media coverage, by the nastiness of the watercooler talk in the office, by the realization that the once-foregone conclusion of Clinton-as-president might never come to be--did too."

And this is where I depart from many pro-Clinton feminists. That Clinton is the victim of sexism is not a reason to support her. (Just as the fact that Obama faces racism is no reason to support him.)

Democrats were blessed with a strong field of presidential candidates this time around. I could have been happy with any of them as nominee. At first, it was John Edwards' populism that spoke strongest to me. I supported him, though I was impressed by Barack Obama, who I voted for as my state and federal representative when I lived in Chicago. When Edwards suspended his campaign, I was ready to wholeheartedly back Barack Obama. I view him as more progressive than Hillary Clinton, who can be disturbingly centrist. I think he is less galvanizing to anti-Democratic forces. (Saying the name Clinton is like waving a red flag in front of a Republican.) He has far less political baggage. He is amazingly inspiring and has the ability to bring the country together--and, yes, that is important. He represents a new, more reasoned way of doing things; for instance, I like that he is willing to negotiate with countries before "obliterating" them. And, most of all, despite the irritating spin of the Clinton campaign, he has more legislative experience than Hillary Clinton, has been more accomplished in the U.S. Senate and has a record of getting things done. (Sorry, I just don't buy the 35 years of experience argument. Being First Lady is not a stepping stone to the White House.)

All that said, I began this campaign eager to vote for whoever was the Democratic nominee. But...

Yet what is most troubling--and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul.

While 2008 was never going to be a "postracial" campaign, the early racially tinged skirmishes between the Clinton and Obama camps seemed containable. There were references by Clinton campaign officials to Obama's admission of past drug use; the tit-for-tat over Clinton's tone-deaf but historically accurate statement that Martin Luther King needed Lyndon Johnson for his civil rights dreams to be realized; and insinuations that Obama is a token, unqualified, overreaching--that he's all pretty words, "fairy tales" and no action.

This is the clearest explanation I have read of what troubles me about the Clinton campaign. It is that Hillary Clinton--a woman, herself marginalized, a member of the Democratic Party, the party of equality and progressive values--is willing to use Obama's racial identity against him to win. Oh, I have other problems with Clinton's policies and campaign performance, but I can overcome them. It is the race-baiting that I find truly unconscionable and immoral. It is this that is the clearest sign to me that Hillary Clinton represents the worst politics of old: the southern strategy has been around for a despairingly long time. It is this that has moved me to declare what I once thought unthinkable--that I will not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee if it is Hillary Clinton.

I understand that Hillary Clinton is a capable candidate--far better than John McCain. I understand that her platform is not greatly removed from Obama's. I am not being petulant, because Clinton is my candidate's opponent. I am following principles that will not allow me to support someone that I view as morally bankrupt. I feel strongly about this. And I have to admit, I have a hard time forgiving feminists who are so eager to see a woman in the White House that they would condone race bias. I guess some folks think it is okay to step on some heads on the way to the mountain top. But those are not the principles I believe in and if those are the principles of the Democratic party, then it has surely abandoned me.

Read the full Nation article here. (Folks, The Nation is a wonderful publication that is NOT corporate owned. If you are looking for good, progressive, fact-based journalism, get a subscription to this weekly magazine. It is on my must-read list every week.)

UPDATE: Racialicious also tackled The Nation article here.

What Loving is all about

<