Suburban Guerrilla

The Commissars

May 8th, 2008 at 9:11 pm by Susie

Bob Somerby explains the rules by which some people get to talk about race - and some people don’t. (Oh, and don’t forget the mindreading!)

Posted in Media, Politics As Usual

12 Responses to “The Commissars”

on 08 May 2008 at 9:23 pm1Macjazz

No. If someone talks about race in a way that’s racist (as with “Obama’s only where he is because he’s black” comments), then they’re gonna get called on it. There have been comments made during this campaign which were tinged with racism, as I’ve pointed out in other posts. It’s right and proper for ANYONE to point this out when it happens. This is not something that’s unique to these campaigns or to this point in time.
on 08 May 2008 at 9:33 pm2Joe

so it’s really looking like the last 48 hours you’ve been searching for posts to validate your feelings that you’re not really racist? riverdaughter, tiabbi and now this piece trying to define a racist statement based upon who say it? maybe these pieces are really evidence of the guilt many hrc-supporters are feeling after realizing they rightly wanted the woman to win by allowed themselves to become temporarily racist to help the black man lose??

I actually don’t know…I want to believe the pieces posted here since Tuesday night and the chirping crickets over the absolute over-the-top race baiting statements from hrc and co today are just parts of the grieving process of realizing your candidate has lost. I hope so…before this site became 85% devoted defending hrc/knocking OB, it was a frequesnt daily web site stop for me to hear a smart, progressive female view of the world (and great music pieces)…now I come here hoping to see a return to rationality and to on occasion attempt to get a comment through the stasi-like moderation-czar.

Either way, I’m a fan of this site and will stay until I see a piece devoted to hrc running as an independent with David Duke as a running mate…
on 08 May 2008 at 10:01 pm3white_n_az

The issue of race is the issue of electability.

But you guys can feel better now - here is your enemy…
on 08 May 2008 at 10:20 pm4Joe

OB (like hrc would have) will destroy McCrazy-pants in any and all debates. Even taking into account the msm man-crush on grandpa. McCrazy’s surrogates will eventually shy away from hard-hitting talking points for fear of a mud-stomping of facts within the following news cycle. Sure, grandpa will feed the racists; fearful elderly; and GOP tax haters, but McC will never shed his W-love.

If anything, OB will need to be careful from being seen as cruel to seniors…
on 08 May 2008 at 11:41 pm5white_n_az

Obama, if he is the nominee, will only do a minimum number of debates with McCain because you saw what future debates will be like from the last one on ABC.
on 09 May 2008 at 12:32 am6lambert strether

Susie, your commenters never disappoint. Joe burbles:

OB will need to be careful from being seen as cruel to seniors

Not that there will be any in his — sorry, make that His — party after Donna Brazile get done with the downsizing.

I’ll just take these few cans of dogfood out on the icefloes, then, shall I?
on 09 May 2008 at 2:05 am7Macjazz

white_n_az: “The issue of race is the issue of electability.
But you guys can feel better now - here is your enemy…”

Not sure what the link to McCain’s campaign blather is supposed to signify … that’s some pretty lame shit McBush is laying down there.

If one wishes to claim that it’s “about the issue of electability” that’s one thing. But, once again, to state that,

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Is purely racist. And dumb to boot. It’s not just making some political “analysis” about demographics, it’s stating flat out that Obama is winning because he’s black (or “who he is”, i.e. not white and not a woman) . Which, as I said before, is a racist dismissal of his rather stunning out-of-nowhere, come from behind campaign. There’ve been OTHER black candidates - how come THEY didn’t, due to their magnificent blackness, gather all those same votes? If being black is this big political advantage somehow (”Oh, the stupid, it burns …” as one of our big-blogging friends likes to say). Maybe, just maybe, skin color is not the most salient feature of Obama’s candidacy. And maybe it’s racist to pretend it is, as statements like Ferraro’s above do.
on 09 May 2008 at 7:25 am8BlindJoeDeath

Once again you site a white man telling black people what is and what is not racism. Here’s a hint, when your talking points mirror Pat Buchanan you are on the wrong side of the argument.
on 09 May 2008 at 11:11 am9white_n_az

Here’s a hint for you BlindJoe…caucasian is also a race. Being white doesn’t preclude anyone from understanding what racism is. Heck, you’ve got your compatriot MacJazz making his own claims of racism (rather repetitively too I might add).

The Time link was to alert you that the McCain campaign has put the media on notice of the bullshit racism claims. Do you expect them to be ineffective? The media has already begun to pivot.
on 09 May 2008 at 8:22 pm10Macjazz

Er, Naz … racism is what this thread is about. You can’t legitimately diss what I’ve said here just by calling it “repetitive” - it’s the subject of this thread for heaven’s sake, I think it’s ok for me to address it, no? The point I’m making is a valid one, and you haven’t given a cogent anwer to it.

Also … being white does not really give you a clue about what it is to be a disadvantaged minority. The fact that you don’t seem to understand that it’s still a disadvantage in this country to be black, pretty much says it all.
on 09 May 2008 at 9:59 pm11white_n_az

MacJazz…I suppose it’s safe to say that we will never agree on this issue.

OK it wasn’t lucky for Jesse Jackson that he was black because in SC primary 1988, he got 92% of the AA vote, 9% of the white vote but still garnered 54% of the total.

Perhaps you should explain the phenomenon of being black, getting the 90%+ of the AA vote and give me the proper adjective for this phenomenon. Does any other reasonably identified demographic vote in a block similar to this?

Also … being white does not really give you a clue about what it is to be a disadvantaged minority. The fact that you don’t seem to understand that it’s still a disadvantage in this country to be black, pretty much says it all.

I suppose you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. Yes, I am white and I have a privileged life compared to many. That doesn’t make me any more or less of a racist nor does it project on my abilities to empathize with others. All you have stated is that you have discounted all of my abilities because of my birth circumstances and if there were ever a racist statement, I think you just made it.
on 10 May 2008 at 12:11 am12Macjazz

I already addressed the “90% of AA voters …” business in the other thread where we discussed this, where you missed my point 180 degrees. Point being that in a national race, just drawing black voters (a la Jackson in SC) doesn’t get it done. A candidate also has to draw large numbers of white (majority) voters. Which Jackson and other black candidates DIDN’T do sufficiently despite “who they are” (black). Maybe Obama did something beyond just standing there being “who he is” (black), and therefore garnered votes that previous black candidates didn’t. Maybe it’s not his blackness that has him where he is - just being black didn’t do it for others, and it’s just silly (and racist) to say blacknness is what’s done it for Obama. It’s never been an advantage nationally to be a black presidential candidate. Hence no black nominees up ’til this point, and no black presidents.

To say that Obama is where he is becauise of “who he is” (not white, not female) just flies in the face of reality. There’s a REASON there’ve been no black presidents or nominees before, and that reason is that it’s simply a harder road to get there for a black candidate. So it’s simply not realistic or factual to say what Ferraro did. And it dismisses Obama’s abilities as a candidate to say that he’s just there because he’s black (or … “not white”). And such a dismissal is racist. This is really very clear. I don’t know why it’s hard to grasp.

As for your saying,

“That doesn’t make me any more or less of a racist nor does it project on my abilities to empathize with others. All you have stated is that you have discounted all of my abilities because of my birth circumstances and if there were ever a racist statement, I think you just made it.”

All I can say is “Wha??????” Where did I “discount all of [your] abilities”??? Your mind follows some unusual tracks. What I was saying is that if you’re white, you haven’t walked a mile in a black guy’s shoes, haven’t been pulled over for “driving while black”, haven’t been someone who for the same crime and circumstances as a white guy is more likely to be tried, to be convicted, to serve jail time, to serve longer jail time, and to be inadequately represented. To be less likely to be hired (affirmative action notwithstanding), less likely to make as much money, less likely to go to college … etc, etc.

In other words, if you’re white, you DON’T understand what racism is in the same way, or as profoundly, as a black person will. It’s pretty basic common sense.

Comments RSS

The Commissars

12 Responses to “The Commissars”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Archives

My Liberal Identity:

Categories

Tags

Pages