In response to the Steve Gilliard “Sambo” dustup (in which Gilliard, a black progressive, posted a picture of MD Lt Governor Michael Steele, a black conservative, in minstrel makeup), Cathy Young wrote a few days back:
It seems fairly clear to me that such racial putdowns are more likely to be used against black conservatives, in the same way that some progressives think sexist slurs against right-wing women are all right—because, being politically incorrect, they don’t share in the protected status of victim of racism/sexism.
Given the opportunity to howl about such a fairly straightforward assessment, many progressives I’m sure would proudly showcase their indignation by obdurately justifying the righteousness of their tactics: because conservatives are anti- (pick your aggrieved identity politics group), forcefully pointing such out is almost a moral or ethical imperative—or, at the very least, is necessary and proper insofar as it demonizes them as a way to warn others in the “identity group” who might think about engaging in nonsanctioned, heterodoxical thinking.
We saw this in Gilliard’s attack on Michael Steele, a we saw it very plainly again yesterday in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed arguing that Clarence Thomas’ “blackness” is superficial and inauthentic—an argument I called “the apotheosis of progressive identity politics played out in a major newspaper editorial in the most baldfaced way I have ever seen.”
But whereas yesterday’s clear embrace of the structural imperatives of identity politics was jarring (it simply asserted, rather than sought to justify, the implicit claims of group-based politicking, namely, that apostacy is not to be tolerated and should be met with asterisking or, in the worst cases, excommunication from the group), today’s news goes even further, as proponents of identity politics seek to justify, openly, the anti-individualism of their position. From the Washington Times:
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web’log.[…]
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with “pointing out the obvious.”
“There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names,” said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
[…]
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
“Party trumps race, especially on the national level,” she said. “If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It’s democracy, perhaps at its worse [sic], but it is democracy.”
[My emphases]
What is happening here is truly astounding—not because it’s happening (I’ve been pointing out these maneuvers for years)—but because we have now reached a point in our country’s political evolution where identity politics proponents feel comfortable enough in their positions to openly justify them in plain terms.
On one level this is quite frightening, as it signals the mainstreaming of a decidedly anti-American idea (in the Constitutional, rather than a patriotic, sense); But on another level, it is a welcome development—one that allows us to engage with the direct (rather than the implied) arguments of those who would embrace group identity as a political tool.
In the Washington Times piece, we see several justifications, each of them evidently sincere, none of them logically coherent. First, the campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume begs the question of race baiting by trying to draw distinctions between calling someone names and calling someone names whom he believes deserves to be called such names—the distinction of course hinging on predetermined ideas about who is fair game. And so when he says, “There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names,” what he is really saying is “I am not calling someone a name if I think that person deserves to be called a name; or better—it is only name calling if it is undeserved, and the way to decide whether or not it is deserved is to judge it against the rectitude of my own beliefs.”
Second, Lisa Gladden notes that racial jabs are to be expected in national politics, because “party trumps race” —in this case the argument being that (superficial) blackness being equal, the deciding factor in black identity politics is now political affiliation. Therefore, it follows that a move away from the Democratic party is tantamount to a move away from black authenticity, a willful act that opens to attack those “race traitors” who have surrendered the protections that proceed from adherence to the dictates of the group’s identity. Which is to say, racial jabs are okay when they are aimed at those who’ve surrendered the protections offered by the group, because those who’ve left the group no longer meet the requirements for protected blackness.
Perversely, then, we have progressives sanctioning the kind of racial attacks they would normally decry on the grounds that those who choose the wrong party affiliation have surrendered the protection of their race. And what makes this so troubling is that it redefines the idea of “offense” as something that is to be decided upon by identity groups—and so is yet another way in which identity politics robs the individual of autonomy.
(h/t Attila and blogreport20005)
****
update: More from Michelle Malkin, RedState, Captain’s Quarters
Ok, I give. At first I simply did not believe this latest story about the Oreo’s but it has shown up in to many sources. I guess I have been ignoring the trickle of stories over the years or discounting them as false or not typical.
Sigh.
I have been hoping that my party (the Dem’s) would return to what I thought they were or at least once stood for. But this last example is the final straw; I can’t support a party that practices open racism.
Today I am going to go change my registration from Dem to an Indy.
What a depressing day.
This&That
I share your astonishment Jeff.
Open racism based on group identity politics.
I’m sure right now MLK is somewhere punching a wall with his fists in open disgust.
So I guess this means that Condi can now state openly what she really thinks of Mfume, Jackson et al? Right…right, sorry, forgot myself. What could I have possibly been I thinking?
surf-actant
Completely OT, but the way a person strings words together, like pearls on a necklace, totally makes a difference. It’s a skill that only few can skillfully wield.
Given the opportunity to howl about such a fairly straightforward assessment, many progressives I’m sure would proudly showcase their indignation by obdurately justifying the righteousness of their tactics: because conservatives are anti- (pick your aggrieved identity politics group), forcefully pointing such out is almost a moral or ethical imperativeâ€â€or, at the very least, is necessary and proper insofar as it demonizes them as a way to warn others in the “identity group†who might think about engaging in nonsanctioned, heterodoxical thinking.
Oy. That just turns me on. You, sir, are a genius if not the God of Words incarnate.
Never forget that the Democrat party is the one full of progressive sophisticates and the educated, you Rethuglican knuckledraggers.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go find some food to throw–I have a political point that I need to underscore.
Many times I have been told that as a white male I am the unconscious recipient of benefits not available to racial minorities. One of these benefits, of which I have been embarrassingly ignorant, is my ability to think freely without having cookies thrown at me.
“There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names,”
I don’t get it. Does this mean I can’t call Lisa Gladden “stupid” or does it mean I can’t call her a “ho?”
I posted this on the other thread, but I’m putting it here too:
“Last night on NPR (here in Philly anyway) they had a debate (panel, whatever) about calling people names like “Oreoâ€Â, “Samboâ€Â, “Tomeâ€Â, etc. Most everyone on the panel seemed to concede that it was OK to label people like Steele, Thomas, Rice, etc. such because they weren’t sufficiently committed to protecting the intersts of the community. It would therefore act as a deterent for others who may consider a jaunt or two off of the reservation.”
The program was Roundtable. You can listen at the link, it starts at about 7:30. It’s got some of the most racist, but educational, things I’ve ever heard.
TW: quite. As in, “Yes, quite so.”
I wish someone would throw cookies at me. What a ni**a gotta do?
See how handy it is when you can ignore and assign intent?
In the case of Bill Bennett the politically correct allow themselves to strip Bennett’s remarks of their clearly stated intent, assign a malignant intent of their own making, and then proceed to demonize Bennett based upon the remarks they have inserted into the conversation.
Now we see a variation. Deliberately scandalous remarks are assigned a positive context based upon who said them. George Orwell/Lewis Carroll would be proud. Words mean what the politically correct say they mean.
TW: required- Serious drugs are required before this makes sense.
Oy.
Remember back in the early ‘90s when they were telling us that PC didn’t exist and it was just a creation of the right wing?
TW “Present”, as in “fast forward to the”.
if clarence thomas is not ‘black’ because of his adoption of whitey’s ways, what color is michael jackson?
Whatever happened to Elizabeth McGovern?
In a perverse, unintended way, perhaps this sort of hard bigotry of low fulminations will lead us, eventually, to a truly colorblind world.
Or maybe not.
Second, Lisa Gladden notes that racial jabs are to be expected in national politics…
Wait, doesn’t anyone have a problem with this part? We don’t even have to look to the “party trumps race” thing to say that this is wrong. Is it too much to ask that racial jabs not be a part of national politics at all, regardless of whether they are cross-race jabs or same-race jabs?
Astounding. How the tables do turn.
So that I’m clear, if you’re black and vote republican, you’re a racist and hate black people ?
You had me at “obdurately”…
SB: mans
“Judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.”
— MLK
Actually, I think you’re allegedly racist with the “vote republican” part.
Whatever happened to the power to interpret words resting with the recipient?
Next thing you know, it will be appropriate to say that Steele’s conservative policies on state spending are “niggardly”.
Gilliard, a black progressive
Hmmm, is that a good way to characterise him? The word “progressive” implies he’s in favor of progress. Sounds like Gilliard is more in favor of race-baiting and insults.
Speaking of Orwell, would it be correct to say that in the eyes of many on the Left, some are more black than others. And, of course, they have called dibs on deciding exactly how black you may happen to be.
Turing word: ideas
I seem to remember you recently quoting someone who more or less said “We give less scrutiny and criticism to the remarks of liberals, because they are not racist.”
Second, while channel surfing, I stumbled upon an old black man describing his personal fight for equality(quoting from memory):
“I didn’t want one thing more than they got. I wanted exactly what they got. No more.”
He said this with great dignity, and justifiable pride. It was the statement of a moral giant. The greatness of it was expressed through his tone, and his bearing, as he made the statement. It brought tears to my eyes.
It also brought to mind the contrast between the giant that is that man, and the midgets who comprise today’s race baiters.
Where’s O-Dub on this?
Meanwhile, upon hearing this news an insatiable Oliver Willis seriously debates switching over to the Republican party…
[TW: “group” as in, ”Group Polarization”]
DAMN YOU DAVID!
I’ll be damned, MayBee was right yesterday. Shows what I know. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to think about what liberal thought has turned into and bawl my freakin’ eyes out.
This is the same world in which the ACLU files complaints because hardware manufacturers “slave” drives for computer components?
And now it all makes sense. “Black” doesn’t refer to the color of one’s skin, it refers solely to one’s political beliefs. A person of color who dares think for himself and not go along with Democratic party orthodoxy isn’t really black. In the meantime, a person of pallor who does go along with the Democratic party line is black… witness Bill Clinton, the “first black President.” I’ve always boggled in frank bewilderment at the willingness of black liberals to award Bill Clinton that title. Isn’t that a grave insult to the real first black President, whoever he or she may be?
So Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd wrote a shrill piece about shrill harpies dating in todays world? Did they compare notes first?
Speaking of Bill Clinton, he’s speaking at Rosa Parks’ funeral today along with other grandees of the progressive left.
Anyone know if they’ve turned it into a foot-stompin’, Republican-hatin’ political rally a la Wellstone’s? ‘Cause that was sure tastefully done.
”Party trumps race, especially on the national level.”—MD State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden
WOW. Wow.
By common agreement a Republican can’t be black.
Wow.
Does it then follow that a Democrat can’t be white?
That a Green must be Native American? That an Independent must have mixed blood? That an undecided voter can be neither black nor white? And where does that leave Asians, Hispanics, and Slavs? What about adoptees who are unsure of their ethnic heritage?
This is a lot like picking dodgeball teams during 4th grade gym class, where the short kid with glasses always gets chosen last.
Does it follow the NPR logic that since Hillary ignored, stood up for, was weak in the face of the Cock OTUS, she is no longer representing the interests of women and is fair game to be called a man from here on out?
Mr. Hillary Clinton? Can Gilliard Photoshop Hill with John Gibson’s hair and Michael Moore’s body?
Oh… and I don’t see why Gilliard is called a “Black Progressive” when “Doooosh Nozzle” is a more accurate description. Let’s keep race out of this, can we please?
BLT: Doesn’t matter what race you are, so long as politically you’re liberal.
And not one of those “Libertarian” fartnockers–they’re just Nazis who like porn. I mean a screaming lefty.
And drugs. Porn and drugs.
Don’t get mad, get even.
The most satisfying and practical outcome will be if Mr. Steele gets elected to the Senate.
Volunteer or donate here…
(APF) And not one of those “Libertarian†fartnockers–they’re just Nazis who like porn.
(FJ) And drugs. Porn and drugs.
And guns. So we can defend our porn and drugs.
SB: out
and over
Isn’t the idea that the members of certain groups necessarily have certain viewpoints the justification for affirmative action that the Supremes bought in Grutter?
Second, Lisa Gladden notes that racial jabs are to be expected in national politics…are you sure this is what you want commie queer?
Trizzack Bizzack. I tried to make a diagram.
BREAKING: Nabisco stocks rose sharply this afternoon on speculation that blogger Oliver Willis may shift party affiliation to the Republicans. FEMA has announced plans to mobilize thirteen tankers full of whole milk should they be required.
Developing…
This kind of stuff makes me so sick. To say to a black conservative, “You don’t know what’s best for yourself, but we do,” is so outrageously condescending that I don’t know how all the irony of their racism charges can sail completely over the head of liberals.
Maybe some black Democrats will start to see the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party when they chance upon some white Deaniacs having a little too much fun chucking Oreos and screaming “house n!gger!” at a distinguished black man. That is, of course, only if a motivation of race loyalty has anything to do with the imperitives of identity politics, rather than identity politics simply being a crass mode of political black mail (no pun intended).
Does Oreos still make those reverse Oreos, with white on the outside and the cookie inside?
Cause I want to buy a box to throw at white Democrats. Cause they’re obviously not hewing true to our racial politics.
Ah, on second thought, heck with that, I just wanna eat me some Oreos.
Oh, man. If I weren’t morally opposed to tossing things at people just because of their views, I’d be all over that.
That, and I’d be scarfing down the cookies long before I got near any politicians.
At first, I was outraged to read about the cookie incident, but realize we should take the high road and throw Valium, Viagra and anti-psychotics at the Dems in return. They’re hurting and need help fast.
Boy, am I sure glad you commented. I got me a hot date tonight and forgot to take my Cialis. Whew!!
I’m jealous.
There’s no “Oreo” equivalent for non-observant Jews. You know, Kosher on the outside kind of thing.
Bacon-wrapped gefilte fish perhaps?
I just throw nickels at you people.
That is ABSOLUTLY the last time I am going to read comments while drinking a beer. Not only is it all over the place, but what a waste!!
I’m stocking-up on Wonder Bread to chuck at Howard Dean the next time he’s in town.
Is it OK for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in an editorial, to contend (declare, really) that Clarence Thomas is not really a Black but rather a Black* (with an asterisk) because his positions do not reflect those of “mainstream†Blacks?
Isn’t it racism or bigotry to stereotype members of a race in terms of how they should think?
Let’s see if I have this correct; I’m trying my best to keep up.
(1) All are created equal, kind of.
(2) Whites are encouraged to decide whether they should view the world through a liberal or conservative or some other frame, without having their “standing†as a white person called into question.
(3) Blacks may also have this choice someday, but they are not quite ready to be that independent in thought and deed.
(4) We’ll get back to those Blacks with an asterisk if and when it’s OK for them to start thinking, speaking, and acting on their own.
(5) Prepare to be patient about this, but know that someday we will overcome these restrictions. Meanwhile: stay in your place and please don’t distract us with your thoughts about what is best for all folks, including Black ones.
(6) By the way, send money and give us your vote so we can look out for you.
Clarenceâ€â€you’ve been warned. Back on the liberal plantation, please. But if you MUST wander off, make sure that asterisk is placed correctly on your forehead.
APF – can I respectfully suggest you wrap the bread around a brick or rock first?
TW: “british,” as in “Pretty much all of America’s problems can be blamed on the British.”
Throw in some Prozac. I need a guilt free one night stand.
The actual link is this now.