I've been having a hard time figuring out what to say about politics of late.
Part of it is that life gets in the way and a brotha ain't always got time to sit down and take stock of everything that is happening. And part of it is that I'm losing faith that we liberals always taking to the innanets is even effective.
But this was a big week, folks. Big education speech. Big health care speech. White folks still freakin' out about the fact that the president got some melanin. And one of the tried and true liberal visionaries lost his job, leaving Obama with pretty much no one on the Left with which to work.
No, seriously -- let me start by saying that the fact that we have a president who talks about race seriously at all is a huge step in the right direction.
That said, I am frequently distressed by what the president actually says when he does speak about race. Because I think he is (perhaps unintentionally) intellectually dishonest about how race truly operates, what life is actually like as a Black person, and what it will take to really create equality of opportunity and an equitable division of resources (which are two very different things that require two separate, but specific, approaches).
Unlike most people, I thought the Philadelphia speech was terrible, ahistorical, and dangerous. I thought in his attempt to appeal to both White and Black, he made a crucial mistake that many people make when discussing race -- equating Black and White feelings about, and experiences with, race symmetrically. Meaning White people's resentment at Black progress was the same as Black frustration with being oppressed.
Simply - though both are legitimate, they are not equal.
To suggest, as he did, that they are, I think is dangerous. I think it contributes to a feeling of fatigue in America. Fatigue with remedies for past wrongs. Fatigue with talking about Black people when we can talk about White people. Fatigue fatigue fatigue.
This is perhaps unavoidable. He is a politician and there are many more White people than there are Black people. He must say what will allow him to stay in power and do what he wants to do to help everyone. I get that.
But because race operates the way it does, what any prominent Black person says carries enormous weight. In this case, what he's saying is incredibly detrimental to a concerted, real fight to end racism (it's great, if you're goal is bettering race relations...but yea, that's a different goal).
We've got to find language that talks honestly, directly, and passionately to the specific and unique experience of being Black in America without it being assumed that, by doing so, we ignore everyone else.
I think this is the major point that Bill Maher has buried in his critique of Obama. His comment that even his own audience, which suffered few jokes or critiques of Obama in the past, applauded that critique is instructive.
I think that is saying something.
This is sort of what I wanted to get at yesterday in my post. The Democrats have two out of three branches of government and, mostly, the other team is on the ropes. Now might be a good time to do what you said you would do when you got elected, Democrats.
I think the challenge for them is figuring out what the hell it is they want to do and then figure out how to bring the entire party along. The Blue Dogs are Democrats in name only. And despite what the Right will tell you, the rest of the party ain't all that liberal. Especially not the leadership.
Of course anyone who watches Bill regularly knows that he knows that the Democrats have no idea what they really want to do, mostly because there is no Democratic ideology (I'm coming to believe this more and more). So rhetorically, he's conflating what Obama should/would/could do with what is really the role of Congress. This works because, as you see, it gets him interviewed on MSNBC. And there should be criticism of Obama. But I don't think it is translating to people demanding what they want from Congress.
Bill has to get that applauding audience of his to transfer that frustration from Obama to Congress.
There's this whole meme out there in the blogosphere -- Jamelle rounds all the recent stuff up nicely -- around the notion that the real problem with our federal government is that Congress abdicates its duty to be a check on the executive branch -- even in the age of Obama.
And I largely agree with this, but with a twist: I think the problem with Congress is the Democrats.
I think they are weak and rarely if ever use the rules and strategies of Congress to their advantage. Sure Republicans rammed through all the stuff they wanted pre-2006, but Dems didn't do what they should have done by blocking any of it.
In fact, I think the Republicans, even in their crazy current state (perhaps even because of it), are a better minority party than the Dems were from 1994 to 2006. This year alone, Republicans have already blocked a D.C. voting rights bill, the bankruptcy bill that would have fixed a lot of the mortgage problem at no cost to taxpayers, and will probably ruin the health care bill. But that's their job. They don't think those bills are the right thing to do, so they stop them.
Democrats have controlled Congress for 3 and a half years and they just aren't getting the job done. I don't know that they need to be as obstructionist and as partisan as the Republicans, but sometimes you gotta take the hard vote and I just don't think they do nearly as much as they should.
There's been quite a bit of discussion about how the Senate is institutionally designed to impede progress. But the plain fact is that Harry Reid has a lot of power - and the knowledge and skills - to move legislation forward when he wants to. It's just what when it comes to truly progressive legislation, he doesn't want to, and few members of the Democratic Caucus care enough about progressive policies to put any pressure on him. So we can go two ways: transform the Senate's rules, procedures and most imporantly, its privileges, or transform the Democrats in the Senate.
"This policy of neutrality maximizes state autonomy and democratic self-governance in an area of traditional state concern, and preserves scarce government resources. It is thus entirely rational."
Say what?!
I think what bothers me most about this is the "it is entirely rational" part. To save money, the government should discriminate? Really? You really wanna go down that rabbit hole, Barry?
The president would do well to define this moment by taking immediate action to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" or ensure adoption rights for homosexual, bisexual and transgender families. Kennedy believed that promoting civil rights would jeopardize other aspects of his domestic agenda during a national crisis. Barack Obama has a broader set of crises to resolve than any president in modern history, but that is not a rationale for inaction on this issue.
Then he goads us, the people:
Ultimately, the gay rights movement will have to learn something that the civil rights movement learned again and again during the 20th century -- it is often necessary to force the hand of even your allies to achieve your goals.
This post is an entry in a blogging day of action. Check out more posts and get involved!
When my friend Tanya told me about the Sotomayor cartoon and I looked at it, I wasn’t angry. I'm a Black man living in the United States. Sadly, I expect this. Since January, I’ve watched White men lose their damn minds over any little thing Obama has done, racializing everything from economic recovery to the man’s dates with his wife. Unlike most, I do remember what it was like during the election.
The man picked a Puerto Rican woman to be on the Supreme Court. Something like the cartoon was bound to happen. Sad, but inevitable.
We live in a racist, sexist country.
The reason White men are losing their minds over everything that Obama is doing and the selection of Sotomayor is because, to the core of their being, “minority” and “qualified” are mutually exclusive terms. “Qualified” and “woman” are mutually exclusive terms to them.
They so virulently go after Obama and Sotomayor because they really believe that the world is unfair, giving shit to people who don’t deserve it. Destroying our perfect union. Wrecking havoc on the wallets of ordinary Americans and deigning to join a body that has, yes, decided Brown v. Board of Education but also decided Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. The notion that a woman of color would think she could gain entrance to it literally assaults their sense of balance and rightness in the world.
Or more pointedly, racism and sexism.
See, though far too many people think these terms have become overused and thrown around so much, that is what is at work here. It can’t really be anything else (no matter how much you argue).
It’s crucially important to recognize racism and sexism for what it is.
The image of Sotomayor strung up like a piñata with a bunch of Republican men waiting to hit her with a bat is disgusting and dehumanizing. That’s what racism and sexism are, the notion that the people you don’t like, that aren’t like you, are not even human. Sotomayor becomes an object to beat the shit out of. Literally. Further, the constant conflation of the varied nationalities and cultures of Hispanic people leads to ridiculousness like insinuating that Sotomayor is Mexican. You know, ‘cause what’s the diff, minorities aren’t human the distinction is a nonissue.
I think the reason so many other people are so livid about this cartoon and the new cover of The National Review is because of two things: 1) racism and sexism at this level still seems antiquated to most White liberals and 2) they still understand so little about how racism and sexism works (or ignore it in their neverending quest to tell the world “it’s all better”). Given these two facts, folks get angry but can't seem to do anything much constructive with that anger.
I am interested in posting some conversations, emails, IM's I have with colleagues, friends, adversaries because often I find I say some dope ass shit when I'm just talkin and vibin off of someone compared to when I say "i'm gonna write a blog post on X thing about race today." LOL.
Appreciating what me and a friend are discussing here is not contingent upon reading that stuff, but I wanted to provide context for those curious about why we are talkin about this stuff.
These photos of Barack are from an exhibit that is currently running at the M+B Gallery in West Hollywood, California. They were collected by a former classmate, Lisa Jack, of Obama's at Occidental College.
All the photos are from his freshman year at Occidental.
What's clear is that O's effortless cool was large even then, when he was barely out of his teens. The photos above are my faves. I particularly like the one where his face is obscured. You can view the rest online at Lisa's website.
Also - I see why the anti-smoking folks campaigned so hard to have smoking removed from movies and stuff because Obama looks cool as fuck with the cigarette. Lil bit o' hood in that photo that I totally dig.
But an area about which I know absolutely nothing is foreign policy, torture, and everything relating to the Middle East.
For this reason, I haven't blogged much on the torture stuff. For me it is very simple - the U.S. shouldn't torture. Ever. - but the national conversation includes a lot of stuff that makes me tend to wanna shut up about shit I don't know.
Luckily, my boy Ta-Nehisi Coates has written a beautiful post about why Obama should go on 'head and investigate the architects of the U.S. recent foray into torture:
I believe that while a good politician accomplishes what is possible, a great one expands the realm of possibility. He doesn't simply accept the lines of argument as their drawn and hew to the side with the most soldiers, he tries to redraw those lines to benefit his ideals. Obama's jobs isn't simply to spend his own political capital, it's to grow his capital, and by extension, the moral weight of his ideals. Perhaps pushing torture investigations would make passing health care harder. But this is the business he chose. This is the business of becoming great. And after what happened last year, we have the right to expect more of him. We have the right to demand more.
This morning on the Sunday shows everyone was talking about the stimulus, the politics, spending versus stimulus, tax cuts versus infrastructure spending. Blah blah blah snooze.
A few people, including Senator Kay Hutchinson of Texas, mentioned the housing crisis, or what we like to call, the root of the current economic crisis.
It seems to me if everyone under the sun seems to think that the main problem with the economy is the housing market, the stimulus should be targeted there -- at least in part. But the provision has been removed from every stimulus bill since last year.
And no one seems to want to talk in public (besides Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who was on point on This Week, this morning, if reliably unintellible in places) about this provision. Is the banking lobby gangsta like that?
I can understand Republican skepticism about all the spending in the stimulus bill. I get the argument that the bill should be targeted (knowing full well if they were in power it'd be all tax cuts and be just as bad as it seems the Democrat drafted spend happy bill is).
And I can understand why the Dems think it's a critical time to start investing in our nation. I think now is the time for some short term fixes like roads and education that actually create a few jobs.
I get both sides.
What I don't get is why both sides talk about wanting to stimulate the economy but neither has the balls to stand up to the banking lobby and pass a small bill that would actually stimulate the economy, or at the very least, slow the tide of foreclosures.
Clearly - that didn't work for him as the House bill got not one Republican vote. And remember folks, Senate Republicans are the tough ones.
I love that Barack is trying to work with everybody and they mommas. And I think for a wide swath of the electorate, he looks every inch the guy they voted for. But I suspect, in this, it only works because ain't nobody been talking about this bankruptcy bill enough for Joe Voter to notice that right now we got too much posturing from both sides and not much else.
Apparently, what we have here is a situation where even Barack, with a nearly 70 percent approval rating and two branches of government on his side, can't get it done.
Is the head of the banking lobby Suge Knight? Seriously.
Barack's a smarter guy than me and maybe he will end up smelling like roses in a year or two or 10. But damn if ever there was a time to take a risk and actually help the people at the nexus of America's economic woes, this is it. There ain't no bipartisanship if the other side ain't gonna play. And the Republicans don't look like they are willing to play ball. And frankly - the House Democrats are, to be nice, idiots.
Time to start spending some of that political capital, Barry.
Man - it's amazing how similar the experiences are for black people around the world. No matter where you are in the world, being black marks you. It is striking to watch stuff like this and get it instinctively, but it is also incredibly sad.
More power to my brothers and sisters in Iraq as they take to heart Barack Obama's success and make moves for themselves.
"Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship."
Indeed.
So it's official. Barack Hussein (they even said it, y'all) Obama is President of the United States!
I came, I saw, I conquered my desire to be warm, my impatience with tourists, and my general crankiness at all things pageant-like.
Psychologists and sociologists have long drawn a link between the amount of anxiety that occurs in interracial interactions and one’s previous exposure to the other race; a guiding principle of desegregation was that it could help detoxify race relations by making whites more comfortable with blacks in daily life. -- The New York Times, January 14, 2009.
Ummm...no.
In fact:
We must come to see now that integration is not merely a romantic or aesthetic something where you merely add color to a still predominantly white power structure. Integration must be seen also in political terms where there is shared power, where black men and white men share power together to build a new and a great nation. -- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "The Other America" April 14, 1967.
The New York Times article's angle (Barack as an icebreaker to conversations about race between the races) is a fascinating one, but it quickly devolves into a
white optimism v. black skepticism without any real acknowledgement of
why such a disconnect exists. This occurs far too often and actually ends up reinscribing this notion that White people are reasonable and Black people are irrationally holding onto some silly grudge.
A couple of thoughts occurred to me that might have made this article work better. Like how come its assumed that its a bad thing for White people to be uncomfortable talking about race, that they should think before speaking on any topic related to race? To my mind, this is true progress. Race so colors everything in America that we all, but White folks especially, should think before speaking. I'd be worried if White folks felt free to just say whatever stomps through their brain at any given minute. Often, what White people do display when they aren't aware are the implicity biases and stereotypes that racism has taught them. Being made aware of them is actually a good thing because then the person has the opportunity to unlearn these things.
The challenge for America then if Barack is some kind of icebreaker is to not allow his symbol of progress to inhibit the kinds of conversations and interactions that could challenge racism and stereotyping. I think this is what the Black folks at the end of the article were getting at when they talk about this notion of "transcending race." There is a tendency with White folks to see every individual Black person as an exception that proves the rule (the rule being that Blacks are inferior). Barack could potentially just be the next in a long long line. Resisting that tendency is very important.
To that point, how come equal attention wasn't given to how uncomfortable talking about race is for Black people? Is it because the author might have had to acknowledge power dynamics? That one can be punished for it? It might have been interesting to see the contrast between perceived punishment from Black people when White folks say something crazy versus real punishment from White people if you speak too much about race (or, more pointedly, blackness) in a way that makes White folks uncomfortable.
The point here is that power's role in social interaction is completely obscured here. To the point where we have yet another article about race viewed entirely through a rosy white lens where the complexity of race, it's power
dymanics, are subsumed in a cloak of "we need to just get along."
The other thing, perhaps equally as irritating and dangerous, is the subtext of the quoted portion above, something that appears far too often in articles of this type -- white self-aggrandizement. These articles on race tend to be about White people, not Black people. Black people are always juxtaposed in such a way as to make White folks feel better about themselves. They end up reading like some kind of psychological balm to White fear ("don't worry you don't have to deal with racism, not now, things are so great!").
I suspect that a lot of the problem, however, is that as Congressional Districts have become more and more gerrymandered, leading to the creation of more and more majority-minority districts following the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the black political apparatus has become more and more 'ghettoized'. Black candidates have not had to develop a message that appeals to white voters, because most of them don't have very many white voters in their districts (about half the nation's African-American population is limited to the 60 blackest Congressional Districts). Nor do they have very many conservative voters in their districts, and so they have not had to develop a message that appeals to conservatives, even though the black population itself is far more diverse in its political views than is generally acknowledged.
Because they are not very representative of their states as a whole, moreover, these districts are also not likely to be very good launching pads for ascension to the Senate or to the governor's mansion. Do I think Jesse Jackson Jr. would have some trouble winning statewide office? I do -- but I also think that Pete Stark, who lives in a mostly white and Asian but extremely liberal district in the Bay Area, would have trouble becoming a senator in California.
Conversely, of course, the majority-minority districts drain black voters from surrounding districts, and so white politicians have not had to develop messages that appeal to black voters. This may be particularly problematic for Republicans, who went from winning 16-18 percent of the black vote for the Presidency in the 1970s to only about half of that now.
Democrats ought to be mindful of these things when redistricting occurs again after 2010, aggressively challenging Republicans on both the wisdom and the legality of creating ghettoized Congressional Districts. Majority-minority districts harm Democrats by creating surplus Democratic votes, and in the long run, they probably hurt African-Americans too
I take some issue with the term "ghettoized Congressional Districts" and the apparent disdain for redistricting only because this post is written in the absence of history.
Nate doesn't talk about why districts are drawn the way they are - The Voting Rights Act of 1965. By leaving the VRA out, the post comes across like redistricting is purely political. Some of it is, but some of it isn't.
Nate correctly states that Black congressman are elected from majority-minority districts. But it wasn't always like that. Before 1965, Black people's vote was blocked and even in majority-minority districts Black people had no effect on the outcome of most elections.
The Voting Rights Act fixed that because the behavior of officials in those states was unconstitutional as it flew directly in the face of the "one person one vote" principle that is the basis for our electoral system. Section 5 of the VRA says that when redistricting happens in areas that have a history of racial voting discrimination -- many of the very areas that Nate references -- they have to prove to the federal government that the change will not have an adverse effect on the ability of minorities to elect their candidate of choice.
This is critical. States and jurisdictions have to do research and they have to prove that they aren't screwing Black folks. If they can do that the change goes into effect; if not, it doesn't.
In 2006, Section 5 of the VRA (and 2 other key provisions) were reauthorized for another 25 years. The reason they were reauthorized is because the truth is that racial voting patterns is still rampant in the VRA states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, most of Virginia and parts of California, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota). In addition, there was ample evidence in the VRA states of institutional resistance to minority voting.
So while Black congressmen do come from these districts, its still not easy for them to get elected.
Nate does say that there are limitations to redistricting in that
candidates end up talking to like-minded people (Dems to Dems, Black
folks to Black folks, Republicans to Republicans, etc). And he does
complicate the issue a bit when he acknowledges that black politics is
more diverse than even Black politicians admit.
But the reality is that in the absence of federal law, the number of Black congressmen would likely decrease.
Obviously - in light of Obama's win and Duval Patrick's win in 2006,
some of the conventional wisdom about what Black people can and cannot do to get elected needs to be
interrogated, and in all likelihood, will be interrogated.
And so that leaves us with a question--What will we do? I look at my home state of Maryland. I look at the shifting demographics of Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. I look at Corey (sic) Booker in New Jersey, Deval Patrick is Massechussets (sic). I think about how this isn't 1988. How will play on this feild (sic)? Is it enough that to just be black, or should we be organizing around issues, not people? We just watched a black man use technology--and the sacrifices of others--to win. Is there not some lesson for us there? Is it only that our way in, must be through the worst impulses of corrupt politicians? What will be our magic, as Baraka would say. What will be our sacred words?
Perhaps with this Burris mess, the nation will think seriously about the dearth of Black senators. I am not sure. I do think Nate's post main point - that it is still really really hard for Black people to get elected by large numbers of White people -- is an important point in keep in mind as we continue to have this conversation.
Watching stuff like this from the old guard reminds me of bell hooks and her warnings about the politics of victimhood. In her book Killing Rage she writes:
Black Americans who exploit the rhetoric of victimization do so not only because it grants them moral authority but because it provides a platform from which demands can be made that are not mutual. If only white folks need to change then black folks are not required to undergo processes of radical politicization.
If that doesn't describe Bobby Rush and Roland Burris in this mess right now, I don't know what could.
In the wake of Barack Obama's presidential win, black politics as previously practiced really do seem outmoded, even if the reasons and logic behind them still hold true. Yet so many of our elders still employ these strategies as if it was 1972.
Time to step aside, elders. We love you. We respect your effort, your struggle, your accomplishment. But your time is up.
Step!
Let's be perfectly clear - It is a travesty that we don't have any Black senators. That we have so many (White) women, a few Asian Americans and Latinos, but no Black senators does say something about America and its commitment to ending racism (or lack thereof).
But it also says something about the health of Black politics. That maybe it has become less about anti-racist work and more about capturing what little power available to Black folks willing to play the victim there is.
But the sad truth that Rush and Burris seem to not recognize (or do, but perhaps don't much care about) is that black politics of this kind actually make anti-racist work harder.
Because the "controversy" happening here, created by Blagojevich and stoked by Rush and Burris, actually obscures the importance of ending racism and increasing black political representation.
Every time Black politicians cheapen black inequality with insincere appeals to history and black liberation struggle, it makes Americans feel more and more like racism is really a game of one-upmanship between two equally powerful groups, instead of a fight to give power, agency and humanity to a devastated group.
Every time black politicians cheapen the seriousness of racial oppression for selfish aims (even if on some level there is a real principle there), they make it hard to get Americans to pay attention to real issues of racial discrimination and white supremacy.
Burris' naked ambition actually lets White people off the hook, it gives them moral cover. Whether or not they want or can handle a black senator becomes a non-issue because this Black guy is shady as hell.
This kind of black politics, the politics of victimization employed here socializes all Americans (but White Ameriicans most especially, since they are the primary audience) to think that black politics is about opportunism, not fairness and equality. Conflating personal ambition with liberation struggle does nothing but make all Americans comfortable in the status quo and confirms in the minds of far too many White folks that Black people just want something for nothing.
And, more than anything, the most dangerous consequence is that it becomes harder for all Americans to recognize the seriousness of inequality, racism, and white supremacy.
I'm sure there are many Americans who do think, on some level, that its wrong that there are no Black senators. But I'm also sure that they don't think this is the right (or best) way to get one.
Interestingly, I don't think this will work. The irony is that the politics of victimization was flawed even when it worked, but at least it was pure. There was, as hooks says, "moral authority." But these guys are seriously fuckin' with even that. I can't imagine any Black person really buyin' this bullshit.
And what's more, as Ta-Nehisi Coates says, "Barack Obama is on the other side of the table."
Tryna play the game the old way with the guy who is basically re-writing the rules of black politics seems to me to be the worst kind of arrogance and hubris.
So I'm just gonna say what folks seem to not be able to say outright:
Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration is wrong.
And for a man as smart as Obama is, his response is simply inadequate and (frankly) bullshit:
"let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I contend -- intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about; that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we -- where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.
"So Rick Warren has been invited to speak. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues, is also speaking. During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about. That's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. And so, you know, that's the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration. And that's, hopefully, going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration."
Obama is smarter than this, folks.
There is a difference between a diversity of opinions and bigotry.
To wit, this:
...is bigotry.
I don't think it brings us together or advances the ball on equality in America. And I don't think it gets us to this promise land Obama has been promising. It is not a better America if any rights, privileges, and societal transactions are proffered unequally.
Obama's statement that "we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans" only works when minority viewpoints take the backseat and say "hey we'll worry about our equal rights later."
When politicians tell me to focus on what we have in common what I hear is "what white folks will allow." It doesn't surprise me that my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters hear "what straight folks will allow" when they hear it. Gay and lesbian people happen to have in common with straight people the desire to get married.
So...how does that work again? The focusing on what we have in common thing?
I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things. But in the same way his Philadelphia speech was dangerous and ahistorical, the decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation is dangerous and strikes me as a little cavalier and heartless. It sends the message to yet another minority group that collective advancement really only happens when some of hte collective sublimate what they really want. That collective advancement can only happen by making the majority group feel safe and happy.
Yea, not so much.
I never thought Obama was pro-gay rights (sorry "civil unions" and vague references to "everyone should be able to work where they choose" ain't gay rights, its status-quo and ducking the question) to begin with.
--So with all the hoopla surrounding Obama, transition, angry lefties, and where the hell will Tyler be on January 20, I missed the news that the United Nations has been working on a treaty to decriminalize homosexuality. They will probably vote on it tomorrow, which is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thirty-six countries - which includes nearly all of Europe and Canada, among others - support the declaration. Read this Guardian opinion piece which puts some context and history on this issue. Most notable - anti-gay laws in Africa and Asia were imposed by colonial and imperial powers when they were runnin thangs. Wow. This treaty is really huge.
--A new study shows how social status affects people's perception of someone's race. It's clear from this article that there's a feeling from the researchers and other folks that race can be transcended by economic mobility, or at least an initial perception to one's race might be different that "reality, but Professor Robert T. Carter correctly states in a Los Angeles Times piece:
"It's not social status that shapes race, it's race that shapes social status," he said. "Stratification on the basis of racial group membership has been an integral part of our society since prior to the inception of the United States. It's been true for hundreds of years."
--Grammys were announced. No real black people of consequence were nominated, as per usual. White folks latest favorite black buffoon, Lil Wayne, got the most nominations. Big surprise. You'd think that in a year when you elect Barack you might give the nods to Nas for his brilliant treatise on American and black identity. Guess only one smart black person on top at a time, huh?
