mooreroom

Barack and Michelle Obama went on the Today Show this morning to perform some serious damage control following Monday’s performance by Reverend Jeremiah Wright before the National Press Club. Indeed, to be fair, we should view both television appearances as performances, one by Wright, the other by the Obamas, in a larger drama playing out several conflicts at once: between two generations of African Americans, between two strains of political philosophy on the American Left, and between Black political actors and the American media over how to define the image of political participation by African Americans. As an example of the latter, consider Maureen Dowd’s snarky portrayal of Obama as the Sort of Angry Black Man and Wright as the Really Angry Black Man. (Cripes, is she annoying.)

That is by no means an exhaustive list. For example, I have not mentioned Michele’s role as supportive wife, and the balancing act she has to perform as providing “strength” as his advocate while “softening” her husband’s image via her very presence. Better minds than mine can explore the implications of this role for women in political life, and Black women, especially in the context of this conflict over the image of Black political participation.

What strikes me is the relevance of a theory I recently came across in a new book written by communication and anthropology professor John L. Jackson, Jr., Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness. Don’t let that subtitle fool you; I think it was an editor’s choice, because Jackson is not ranting about the “excesses” of “P.C. culture” like some Limbaugh boor. Rather, he puts forward a rather thoughtful thesis:

Racism is characterized by hatred and power: the hate people express for other racial groups and the relative power they possess to turn that hatred into palpable discrimination or material advantage. The concept of racial paranoia, however, stresses the fears I’ve been talking about, the fears people harbor about other groups potentially hating or mistreating them, gaining a leg up at their expense. Racial paranoia is racism’s flipside, even if those two analytically discrete sides can sometimes effortlessly meet. (p. 4, Introduction).

Examples Jackson cites in the Preface and Introduction are Dave Chappelle’s perception that one of the crew member’s on his show was laughing inappropriately at his use of black face; and the Reverend Louis Farrakhan’s promotion of a theory that the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers had deliberately dynamited the dams near black neighborhoods in New Orleans to spare white neighborhoods from the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina. I thought especially of the latter when I read that Wright in his press conference had repeated the old theory that the C.I.A. had brewed the HIV virus and tested it on vulnerable populations, including poor working class people of color. Such assertions put Obama and any other Black politician attempting to appeal to “mainstream white voters” on the defensive. Indeed, much of Obama’s reluctance to distance himself from Wright stems not only from his personal relationship, but also from the differences in perception that Jackson identifies among Blacks and Whites regarding events that disproportionately affect the Black community, such as the spread of AIDS and Hurricane Katrina. Regarding the latter, Jackson relates an appearance by Chuck D. on Tucker Carlson’s thankfully now-kaput MSNBC show; typically, Carlson plays the Reasonable White Guy flabbergasted that anyone would believe Farrakhan’s theory and that Chuck D. - “a smart guy” in Carlson’s disingenuous words (p. 7) - would not immediately denounce it.

Carlson is a perfect example of America’s too-quick willingness to dismiss the significance of racial paranoia. Of course, such dismissal allows everyone to sleep better at night, believing that a few racial cranks say nothing meaningful about more general racial suspicions in American society, but we can’t begin to understand race today (or the volatile racial fault lines of contemporary national politics) without taking such beliefs (as wild as they may seem) quite seriously - not as points of fact but as organizing principles for how people make sense of their everyday lives and the forces potentially allied against them.

I have only begun to read this book, obviously from the source of my quotes, but I really appreciate Jackson’s approach. In calling such fears “paranoia” Jackson does not “mean that they’re not after you.” He doesn’t off-hand dismiss these fears, but sees them as rooted in a post-Civil Rights environment in which readily identifiable sources of discrimination such as Jim Crow laws have been largely eliminated, yet more subtle practices continue and social inequities along lines of racial and ethnic identity persist without a larger narrative to explain them. As such, the demand for Obama to completely renounce Wright - sever ties, hit him with a shovel and bury him in ditch, or whatever means would truly satisfy the Sean Hannities of the world - are inherently racist in nature, reflecting the institutionalized blindness Whites enjoy as a social privilege.

Tags: barackobama, reverend jeremiah wright, racism, racial paranoia, white privilege, john l. jackson

Click the image to see the full cartoon.

And the full explanation for it.

Tags: incontempt, judge arthur cooperman, sean bell, racism, police state

I have nothing original to add to the discussion of the police murder of Sean Bell and the judge’s decision to let the guilty cops go free. Maybe because I’m too pissed off, or nauseated, or both by the loss of life, the criminal murder of an innocent man, the inherent racism of the police state, the loss to the man’s wife and young daughter and the rest of his family - I could go on. But others are writing more eloquently than I can muster today, so I link with approval to them.

Holly writes at Feministe that the police murder of black men is a feminist issue. She makes a strong, eloquent case.

The problem is that this disproportionately affects communities of color. The black men who are most often slaughtered by such violence, and all the women and children in their lives too, their loved ones, friends and relatives. A system that is all too eager to exonerate “the thin blue line” and continue business as usual. All of these are feminist issues. Racism must be a feminist issue, for any kind of feminism that counts. Police brutality must be; the biases of the criminal justice system must be.

The SuperSpade is rightly flabbergasted and bitter:

I know there will be rallies held in New York to protest this miscarriage of justice and if you are in the area, you should go. After the marches though, Bell’s story like Amadou Diallo and others will be filed in the Black consciousness as the continuing saga of injustice that has plagued Black folk since we were kidnapped from Africa. Surely this is worth Black folk being bitter right?

Mikhael B. Reid expresses her outrage and posts links to cartoons she has done on this case and on police brutality.

I’ll post more when I find it.

Oh, And: Barack Obama registered the predictable “we are a nation of laws so don’t go crazy in the streets” admonishment. Not that I expected him (or think he should) advocate rioting, but it would be refreshing to hear a prominent politician say something like, “We are a nation of laws, sure, but I don’t see how the police can be allowed to gun down a person in cold blood and get away with it. Something is wrong with our justice system. Cases like this make the law seem like a sham to protect the power of the state against the rights - the very lives - of the people.”

UPDATE: The Village Voice reports that the Justice Department will begin investigating civil rights violations pertaining to this case. And that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has vowed to take measures that will build up public trust in the police department.

Curiously, Bloomberg announced that one of the ways they hoped to instill public trust in the NYPD was by bolstering the staff at the Civilian Complaint Review Board so that now “complaints are dealt with swiftly and efficiently.” What Bloomberg didn’t mention was that since bolster the CCRB last year the NYPD has “swiftly and efficiently” been dumping a record number of the agency’s substantiated cases.

Roberto Lovato analyzes the political implications of this case for Obama, although I could give a crap less. However, I agree with his conclusion:

Beyond Obama, all of us need to raise our voices and point at the abyss of our country’s institutional racism as was painfully and transparently reflected in today’s verdict. We might want to start by pushing Obama, Clinton and McCain — and the mainstream media — to speak honestly and continually about what the 50 bullets in Sean Bell say about justice in the 50 states of our tattered and bloodied union.

Russell Pearce, the Arizona state representative who is pushing through a bill to destroy Mexican-American studies and Chicano studies programs in publicly funded schools and colleges has Neo-Nazis among his political allies. So reports Steven Lemons of the Phoenix New Times.

Are pro-neo-Nazi values American values? Why of course they aren’t. So that means ol Russ is just plain un-American for encouraging such varmints. He should be stripped of his salary and legislative position tout de suite and returned to the wilderness of Mesa to dwell the rest of his days. Perhaps some waggish Democratic legislator could propose a law to ban Pearce and his ilk from the state capitol forever.

Man, if I were Hillary Clinton - currently riding high on a 10 point margin of victory in Pennsylvania - I would find a way to remove the tongue from my husband’s mouth. Because I (Hillary Clinton, that is) can’t really enjoy my hard-won win without Mr. Megaphone saying dumb crap like, say, accusing black Democrats of “playing the race card” on him and driving the black vote toward Barack Obama. Ya see, they totally took his comparison of Obama’s victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s the wrong way. He wasn’t making a racially charged, dismissive and douchebaggy comment; he was just answering a question. And, best of all, this was part of the Obama plan aaallll alooonngg!

Hat tip to Aisha Music.

UPDATE: Now The Master Equivocator is refusing to acknowledge he ever said anything about a “race card.” Dude, it’s on audio! WE CAN HEAR YOU! This is why the right wing thinks you’re on drugs, because you refuse to look reality in the face or take any responsibility for your words and actions. Man! That guy is a piece of work.

Click the image to see the full scale cartoon.

By now everyone is familiar with the idiotic questions ABCNooziz Georges Gibson and Stephanopoulos asked of both Senators Obama and Clinton during last week’s debate. But I focus on Stephanopoulos, because he seems to have a knack for asking Obama utterly moronic questions.

For instance, the question about Obama’s “cool style” comes from a one-on-one interview back in May, 2007.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have a very cool style when you’re doing those town meetings, when you’re out on the campaign trail. And I wonder, how much of that is tied to your race?
OBAMA: That’s interesting.

Following that interview Charlton McIlwain and Stephen Maynard Caliendo co-blog their dismay:

We LOVE the response. “It’s interesting,” which means, “what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?! All black people are ‘cool?’”

Lastly, Think Progress has the audio clip making the Hannity-Stephanopoulos connection.

HANNITY: There are two questions that I don’t think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don’t know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is – the only time he’s ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I don’t think we did enough.” When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I’m taking notes right now.

Lowrider Librarian (aka, my buddy Max I wrote of last night) has responded to the Arizona State Legislature bill threatening to de-fund education programs that include content critical of so-called “American Values” and “Western civilization.”

Lets look at some American Values (Notice how weak that term is—how it can be interpreted by whoever reads it differently)this bill does NOT want kids to learn about. One is the value of Genocide, and the active and sustained denial of this horrific crime against humanity. The refusal to acknowledge this also prevents any real advances in race relations and communications. I mean if our culture can’t accept that there was widespread genocide in the so-called Americas (oh oh–I said “so-called”–does this mean I’m a bad American, or is it as I believe–that I’m NOT regarded as FULLY American and am NOT allowed to criticize my government?), then how is it going to accept the fact that slavery built this country and our debt has never been paid, among many other atrocious acts? I’m not talking about giving anyone anything, but what about a little equality? Or what about the land theft–what happened to all the indigenous land? Acknowledgment of the past instead of attacks against minority groups in this country are what we need.

In other words, such a bill threatens to deprive our students of a well-rounded education. If they learn only the squeaky-clean Lynne Cheney version of history, then they will have no real understanding of the persistent social problems that arise from that history. They won’t be able to explain inequality, poverty, the disproportionate struggles affecting people of color, or any other facet of the situation that they find themselves in.

Now, you may start wondering, “Whaddaya mean by ‘they’, white dude?” I mean all students, regardless of color, gender and social privilege. Programs like the ones created by MEChA are designed to address the huge gaps in standard versions of history that leave little room (if any) for the historical experiences of the poor, the oppressed, workers, people of color, and women; these gaps affect all of these groups, depriving them of important historical pieces of their social identity. They also affect the white people whom racist scum like Russell Pearce claim to defend by creating false impressions of white supremacy, of a civilization founded solely on the Olympian pronouncements by a select group of Northern European elites. What better way to oppress white workers than by fooling them with such nonsense? “Hey, don’t blame capitalism - blame the illegals! They’re invading! Destroying our culture! Look over there! Watch this hand while I lift your wallet!”

The Arizona legislature is considering legislation that would pull state funding from education programs that “denigrate American values and the teachings of Western civilization,” reports the East Valley Tribune. And I quote:

SB1108 also would bar teaching practices that “overtly encourage dissent” from those values, including democracy, capitalism, pluralism and religious tolerance. Schools would have to surrender teaching materials to the state superintendent of public instruction, who could withhold state aid from districts that broke the law.

Another section of the bill would bar public schools, community colleges and universities from allowing organizations to operate on campus if it is “based in whole or in part on race-based criteria,” a provision Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said is aimed at MEChA, the Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, a student group.

Em-phas-is mine. Firstly, “capitalism” is a value? But second of all, this fails the First Amendment on so many levels I lose count. Hey, how about academic freedom? Debate? Inquiry? The socratic method? Are those not, er, “Western values”?

Hmm. Maybe this is just a nativist ploy to punish Chicana/os, Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants for creating more culturally relevant educational programming. Hey, whaddaya know! (more…)

From a Washington Post story on a Pew Center of the States study on the U.S. prison population:

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars at the start of 2008, the United States leads the world in both the number and the percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving even far more populous China a distant second, noted the report by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

The ballooning prison population is largely the result of tougher state and federal sentencing imposed since the mid-1980s. Minorities have been hit particularly hard: One in nine black men age 20 to 34 is behind bars. For black women age 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 white women in the same age group.

Take that, China! Booyah! In your face!