Oh good for Hillary. She should be really thrilled to celebrate her victory over Barack Obama in a state full of white racists who will never vote for a Black man (or woman for that matter). How must it feel for her to know that West Virginians voted for her in order to vote against a man because of the colour of his skin? Even if she gains the Democratic nomination, these West Virginians aren't going to vote for her anyway. They're going to vote for that so-called straight-talkin' McCain.
This victory in West Virginia is not a victory for the Clinton campaign. And it's a defeat for anyone who has hope for racial equality in the United States. Go ahead, Hillary, try to make this win in West Virginia work to your advantage. The more you talk it up, the uglier you will look.
Congratulations.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
If Obama loves Reagan, Does Dumb Okie love Obama?
What does Obama mean here?
Even the most benign interpretation of this quote is troubling. At best he is merely expressing an appreciation of Regan's ability to connect to people. If so, as the Professor says, we should remember that Adolf Hitler had the same ability. So maybe we shouldn't be so free with our appreciation of this skill.
The more troubling interpretation of this quote is that Obama reveals more than appreciation for Reagan's ability to connect with the American public. Maybe this quote reveals that Obama also agrees with Reagan's policies and maybe even ideologies. I find this sinister interpretation hard to reconcile with Obama's record, but I can't rule it out just yet.
Before she can love you, Barack, Dumb Okie needs to know: do you really love Reagan, and if so, how?
Even the most benign interpretation of this quote is troubling. At best he is merely expressing an appreciation of Regan's ability to connect to people. If so, as the Professor says, we should remember that Adolf Hitler had the same ability. So maybe we shouldn't be so free with our appreciation of this skill.
The more troubling interpretation of this quote is that Obama reveals more than appreciation for Reagan's ability to connect with the American public. Maybe this quote reveals that Obama also agrees with Reagan's policies and maybe even ideologies. I find this sinister interpretation hard to reconcile with Obama's record, but I can't rule it out just yet.
Before she can love you, Barack, Dumb Okie needs to know: do you really love Reagan, and if so, how?
Friday, January 18, 2008
Golfweek: Keeping racism alive and well!
Dear Mr Babineau,
It's good that you have replaced Dave Seanor, but how are you ever going to repair the damage done?
A noose? On the cover of a golf magazine? 'Lynching' in an article about Tiger Woods? How hideously, hideously frightening that something that blatantly over-the-top racist wasn't picked up by any single staff member who worked on that issue. Everyone who was involved in that issue needs some basic, remedial anti-racism training. They need to go, say, twice a week, for the next 10 years or so.
Wow. Your magazine really showed that racism is alive and kicking in the Good ol' U.S. of A., as well as (we all know) in the good ol' boys' game of golf. You've got a lot of badness to undo. Good luck.
The 15th of January was the anniversary of Dr. King's birthday, too. You really couldn't have timed it any better. What a message. I guess your magazine has set back the racial integration of golf, say, to 1960. Good job!
For March (Women's History Month), why don't you put a picture of a woman being raped by a 9-iron on your cover? Then you can keep them out of golf, too.
Sincerely,
Dumb Okie
It's good that you have replaced Dave Seanor, but how are you ever going to repair the damage done?
A noose? On the cover of a golf magazine? 'Lynching' in an article about Tiger Woods? How hideously, hideously frightening that something that blatantly over-the-top racist wasn't picked up by any single staff member who worked on that issue. Everyone who was involved in that issue needs some basic, remedial anti-racism training. They need to go, say, twice a week, for the next 10 years or so.
Wow. Your magazine really showed that racism is alive and kicking in the Good ol' U.S. of A., as well as (we all know) in the good ol' boys' game of golf. You've got a lot of badness to undo. Good luck.
The 15th of January was the anniversary of Dr. King's birthday, too. You really couldn't have timed it any better. What a message. I guess your magazine has set back the racial integration of golf, say, to 1960. Good job!
For March (Women's History Month), why don't you put a picture of a woman being raped by a 9-iron on your cover? Then you can keep them out of golf, too.
Sincerely,
Dumb Okie
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Obama v. Clinton
Dear Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell,
Last night I listened to your debate with Gloria Steinem as I walked home from work. And it was fascinating exchange. I was sad to hear Gloria Steinem, after all these years, not really getting it. And I was sad to hear her arguments so poorly articulated. Clearly, it seems to be time for women like Steinem to pass the torch to women like you. Now, I love Gloria Steinem and respect what she has accomplished. I am indebted to Second Wave feminism, but my indebtedness is informed by my understanding of its inherent limitations and flaws. As much as I was saddened to hear Gloria Steinem less than up to the challenge of a televised debate on race and gender, I was proud to hear you as one of today's spokeswomen for contemporary feminism.
I heard my own thoughts on the Obama v. Clinton debate summarized in the arguments you presented on Democracy Now! You made your points far more persuasively than I could ever manage to do and you put into words some ideas that I had but not fully formed into coherent arguments. Thank you for putting into words what I had been thinking and feeling but could not yet communicate. As a White American feminist who is deeply concerned with matters of race and ethnicity, of these two candidates, Barack Obama for the exact reasons you so clearly explained.*
It is true that I'd like to see a woman -- of any ethnicity -- in the White House! But I don't want to see just any woman in the White House. Clinton is not my woman. And yes, I'd like to see a Black American -- of any gender -- in the White House. To see a Black American in the White House would be an amazing and wonderful and truly overdue step forward. Of course, I would not want to see just any Black American in the White House. For example, I wouldn't want to see Condoleezza Rice as President. As a White feminist, I can revel in the glee and joy and surprise of a Black man running for the White House just as much as I can revel in the fact that a White woman is running for the White House. And I do revel in the fact that people who fit those categories have broken through barriers and have the opportunity to run in this election. But when it comes down to choosing between Clinton & Obama, I choose Obama.*
Although the following is an oversimplification, I'll go ahead and say it: I trust Obama with gender more than I trust Clinton with race. She simply won't fight the fights that I think he just might be willing to take on. He will take more risks -- and fight for more -- than she will. She will compromise more than he -- on both race and gender. Clinton would like us to believe that her consciousness about race and class and sexual orientation is as acute as her consciousness about gender. But I think not. (I don't even think her gender consciousness is that acute -- at least not anymore. Maybe it was at one time in her history.) Her support for her husband's policies such as Defense of Marriage Act and welfare 'reform' and 'Don't ask Don't Tell' demonstrates her failure to see the power of institutionalized racism and classism and heteronormativity. She cannot (or will not) do for the U.S. what Barack Obama is more likely to at least try to do.
On Democracy Now you made a long list of points with which I agreed, but I'll single out only one more to comment on: Your analysis of Hillary Clinton's tearfulness, her 'hurt', etc. as subtle theatre that played on the fears of White Americans about the threatening Black man was both insightful and dismaying. It was dismaying because of its validity. It fit. My mind and my gut both told me you hit the nail on the head. It's exactly the kind of subtle, modern racism that actually perpetuates and reproduces uneasy and uncomfortable and distrustful relations between Black and White folks. I agree with you that her reaction to Obama's victory in Iowa elicited a white female sympathy vote in New Hampshire, women who just might have stayed home had Clinton not played into their fears and anxieties.
Finally, I would just like to say that you are an amazing woman. Thank you for all that you do.
With respect,
Dumb Okie
*Of course, in an ideal world, either Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel would win the Democratic primaries. They are the only candidates that are on the left side of the political spectrum. But for some reason, the typical Democrat can't see past moderate liberalism. Of course, neither can the so-called 'liberal' media that so thoroughly block these candidates' messages from reaching the general public.
Last night I listened to your debate with Gloria Steinem as I walked home from work. And it was fascinating exchange. I was sad to hear Gloria Steinem, after all these years, not really getting it. And I was sad to hear her arguments so poorly articulated. Clearly, it seems to be time for women like Steinem to pass the torch to women like you. Now, I love Gloria Steinem and respect what she has accomplished. I am indebted to Second Wave feminism, but my indebtedness is informed by my understanding of its inherent limitations and flaws. As much as I was saddened to hear Gloria Steinem less than up to the challenge of a televised debate on race and gender, I was proud to hear you as one of today's spokeswomen for contemporary feminism.
I heard my own thoughts on the Obama v. Clinton debate summarized in the arguments you presented on Democracy Now! You made your points far more persuasively than I could ever manage to do and you put into words some ideas that I had but not fully formed into coherent arguments. Thank you for putting into words what I had been thinking and feeling but could not yet communicate. As a White American feminist who is deeply concerned with matters of race and ethnicity, of these two candidates, Barack Obama for the exact reasons you so clearly explained.*
It is true that I'd like to see a woman -- of any ethnicity -- in the White House! But I don't want to see just any woman in the White House. Clinton is not my woman. And yes, I'd like to see a Black American -- of any gender -- in the White House. To see a Black American in the White House would be an amazing and wonderful and truly overdue step forward. Of course, I would not want to see just any Black American in the White House. For example, I wouldn't want to see Condoleezza Rice as President. As a White feminist, I can revel in the glee and joy and surprise of a Black man running for the White House just as much as I can revel in the fact that a White woman is running for the White House. And I do revel in the fact that people who fit those categories have broken through barriers and have the opportunity to run in this election. But when it comes down to choosing between Clinton & Obama, I choose Obama.*
Although the following is an oversimplification, I'll go ahead and say it: I trust Obama with gender more than I trust Clinton with race. She simply won't fight the fights that I think he just might be willing to take on. He will take more risks -- and fight for more -- than she will. She will compromise more than he -- on both race and gender. Clinton would like us to believe that her consciousness about race and class and sexual orientation is as acute as her consciousness about gender. But I think not. (I don't even think her gender consciousness is that acute -- at least not anymore. Maybe it was at one time in her history.) Her support for her husband's policies such as Defense of Marriage Act and welfare 'reform' and 'Don't ask Don't Tell' demonstrates her failure to see the power of institutionalized racism and classism and heteronormativity. She cannot (or will not) do for the U.S. what Barack Obama is more likely to at least try to do.
On Democracy Now you made a long list of points with which I agreed, but I'll single out only one more to comment on: Your analysis of Hillary Clinton's tearfulness, her 'hurt', etc. as subtle theatre that played on the fears of White Americans about the threatening Black man was both insightful and dismaying. It was dismaying because of its validity. It fit. My mind and my gut both told me you hit the nail on the head. It's exactly the kind of subtle, modern racism that actually perpetuates and reproduces uneasy and uncomfortable and distrustful relations between Black and White folks. I agree with you that her reaction to Obama's victory in Iowa elicited a white female sympathy vote in New Hampshire, women who just might have stayed home had Clinton not played into their fears and anxieties.
Finally, I would just like to say that you are an amazing woman. Thank you for all that you do.
With respect,
Dumb Okie
*Of course, in an ideal world, either Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel would win the Democratic primaries. They are the only candidates that are on the left side of the political spectrum. But for some reason, the typical Democrat can't see past moderate liberalism. Of course, neither can the so-called 'liberal' media that so thoroughly block these candidates' messages from reaching the general public.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
...But Murder Doesn't?
So a 70 year old Indian gramma was sentenced to prison today because she and her son lured the son's wife back to India from England and then murdered her. Why? Because the daughter-in-law wanted a divorce. Divorce dishonors the family, but murder and insurance fraud do not.
huh?
I'm familiar with honor killings. I mean, not intimately familiar, although my friend's cousin was killed in an honor killing. I know about them because I'm a feminist and I care about women. I care about honor killings and female genital mutilation in other cultures just as I care about domestic violence and 'honor killings' amongst my own people. It's not much different in the U.S. and in the U.K., 'cept in those places, when it's white men doing the killing, they call it a 'crime of passion'. Right. It's all the same. And it's very, very sad.
huh?
I'm familiar with honor killings. I mean, not intimately familiar, although my friend's cousin was killed in an honor killing. I know about them because I'm a feminist and I care about women. I care about honor killings and female genital mutilation in other cultures just as I care about domestic violence and 'honor killings' amongst my own people. It's not much different in the U.S. and in the U.K., 'cept in those places, when it's white men doing the killing, they call it a 'crime of passion'. Right. It's all the same. And it's very, very sad.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Is this sexy CD?
Sometime ago I lost my Strange Little Girls CD by Tori Amos. This morning on my way to work I decided to go into the local used CD store to see if they had a replacement. All they had were Little Earthquakes and Boys for Pele, which I obviously have. As I was randomly flipping through other CDs, a middle aged Indian man says, "Excuse me, excuse me, is this sexy CD?" as he pointed to this CD. Now, remember, I'm shopping for Tori Amos. If from that you conclude that I am not a huge connoisseur of rap music, you would be right. From the cover, I immediately conclude that it probably is someone's idea of 'sexy'. But this conclusion is a rather obvious one that any grown man should be capable of reaching without my assistance. Does he simply want to know my opinion on the sexiness of this particular CD? Or is this a come-on? Perhaps, unbeknownst to me, this CD shop is actually the local hangout for johns. Maybe his question is actually the secret phrase passed between johns and prostitutes looking to earn a quick £ behind the record shop at 10:30 on Monday morning. And I fit this profile? No, I must have misunderstood him. I am very confused and not a little suspicious. I say, "I'm sorry?" (By the way, why do we say I'm sorry when we mean, "What the f***? I'm SURE I didn't hear you right!") "Is this sexy CD?!" he again demanded of me as he impatiently tapped the Shaggy CD that he held out in front of me. Although I am still not sure I have correctly understood him, I decide his intentions are not good and said, "I'm sorry, but I don't work here, so I wouldn't know if that is sexy CD. Perhaps you should address your question to the clerk at the counter" as I quickly exited the store. That'll teach me to shop on company time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
