About That Graphic, II

There’s something obscene about arguing over a graphic as we totter on the edge of World War III, but as I’ve been accused of being insensitive by people I respect I’m going to (reluctantly) open another thread for discussion of the infamous Lieberman blackface graphic. (If you are new here, please read my first post on the subject before commenting, and note that any comments that deliberately misrepresent what I wrote, or what other commenters write, will be deleted.)

Some warmup: I have a habit left over from my Zen student days of stepping outside my emotions and analyzing them. This is a means to develop equanimity and purge oneself of ego attachment. I don’t claim to have succeeded, mind you, but I still make the effort. There’s more about the practice of examining one’s own anger here and an advanced dharma talk here, for the adventurous. This may be new to you, but please give it a try. Although certainly there is righteous anger that arises on behalf of others, most of the time anger is like a guard dog defending our egos. I request that everyone chain up the guard dog, at least temporarily.

There are a number of issues here, which I’ll present randomly–

As I said elsewhere, symbols have no intrinsic meaning or power; they have only the meaning and power we assign to them. And that’s a subjective, individual thing. The same symbol — let’s say, a Christian cross — might represent love and salvation to one person and hate and oppression to another. Racist symbols push a lot of buttons in our society, certainly, and evoke a lot of pain. Using racist symbols to make any point is perilous, for that reason. And, yes, one could argue it’s dumb and inconsiderate, as well. But not necessarily malicious.

Starting with the dumb part: There is a lot of material on the left side of the blogosphere that offends me. I am very squeamish about sexually explicit language and graphics, for example. I attribute this squeamishness to my advanced age and 1950s-era midwestern small-town upbringing, however, and usually don’t make an issue of it except when it carries over into public demonstrations. But if we bloggers are in fact going to become major players whose utterances become hot button issues that could sway elections, perhaps it’s time to tone down the raunch on the blogs as well. As Mary Mary said here, “If bloggers want to play with the big kids they’d better start acting like it.”

But then (she said, taking the other side) the strength of blogs is that bloggers can be gut-level honest in ways that writers for commercial media cannot be. Is there a line that can be drawn between “toning down the raunch” and self-censorship? I could argue that line might be found somewhere between clear and honest expression of opinion and pandering to one’s audience. I think the Lieberman blackface image falls into the “pandering” category. But then firedoglake gets about six times the traffic The Mahablog gets, so what do I know? Maybe I should do more pandering.

Although I defended it, I wouldn’t have published the Lieberman blackface image on The Mahablog, controversy or no controversy, because although it had a point it was not an illuminating point. In other words, if you have to read the text to clarify what the illustration means, then the illustration isn’t being illustrative. Further, blackface is ugly and disgusting, and I don’t generally publish ugly and disgusting graphics here. Snarky is as far as I go.

Dave Neiwert and I are on the same page, I believe —

Now, longtime readers of this blog know that cursing and profanity aren’t really my style, though I do use them when the occasion warrants. And I have argued that obscene hate mail and vicious sexism have no place in the left’s repertoire.

However,

But there is a place for profanity. Even if it’s not my style, I well understand that the outrageous behavior of the right inspires real and righteous outrage; people are being killed on behalf of their agenda, after all. After awhile, it’s only natural to respond to constant abuse — the threats, the charges of treason, the constant personal attacks, the outrageous abuse of power — with a straight shot to the face: “Aw, fuck you, asshole.”

I think bloggers like Atrios, Digby, Tbogg and Jane — and scores of others — do a good job of giving voice to that outrage, and it’s needed. Reason and facts often are next to worthless when confronting these jerks, and though I do my best to provide them, I also applaud those who fight back — especially when they do so with as much wit as you often find in left Blogtopia [yes, skippy invented that term].

And I’m relieved I’m not the only one who thinks intention matters —

As with all such cases, it all boils down to intent. If this had been posted to derogatorily suggest that Lieberman was secretly a “black man” at heart (the kind of thing that is known to occur at certain far-right sites) then it would be a clear-cut case of race-baiting. If the intent, on the other hand, is to portray Lieberman as a pretend black sympathizer in the mold of a minstrel showman (as the artist responsible later made clear in the post’s comments) then it’s fairly harmless. Dumb, and not particularly effective, but harmless.

I really hate it when people take offense where (it seems obvious) none was intended. A wise person once told me if you don’t take offense, no one can offend you. I admit that takes discipline, but it’s the truth. And as explained above I don’t expect the whole world to tiptoe around and cater to my personal sensibilities, but I’d like the same consideration.

I defended Jane Hamsher not because I thought the graphic was brilliant, but because it was obvious to me she was not making a racist statement. Instead, she was making a statement about racism — more specifically, about a white politician’s racial hypocrisies. Slams of Hamsher did not make this distinction. But if we assume that any use of a racist symbol is racist per se, then by the same logic the World War II poster at left is anti-Semitic because it incorporates a swastika.

This rightie dug up other stuff out of firedoglake so he could rant about how awful it is. The first thing you probably notice on the page is the raunchy boys-in-leather image, which firedoglake didn’t publish but only linked to. Like this. This image leaves me cold, but I guess other people find it amusing. The image is closely parallel to the blackface image, except that instead of pretending to be black Lieberman is pictured as pretending to be gay. I suppose one could argue that the image is homophobic, because it depicts gay men in a stereotypical way. I don’t know that anyone complained about it, though. The rightie bloggers calls it an example of “sexually perverted imagery” — isn’t that homophobic?

I believe I could argue that this image of John Kerry in drag, while a lot less explicit, is misogynistic because it depicts being female as demeaning.

The rightie goes on to catalog examples of sexually explicit language at firedoglake. As I say I don’t care for raunchy language myself, but on the Left I seem to be an anomaly in that regard. But then the rightie finds it equally shocking that Ned Lamont agrees with Jack Murtha on Iraq — like any deviation from Dear Leader is just wrong — and objects to calling the “Religious” Right the “American Taliban,” which seems to me spot on (hey, if the shoe fits …). Lots of us lefties have used the same phrase many times before. Strong opinions are always going to be offensive to somebody. That’s why freedom of speech has to be protected.

Let’s wade in a little deeper. Mahablog commenter Kevin objected strongly to my defense of Hamsher, here, here, and here. And although Kevin is very articulate it still isn’t clear to me where the offense lies if (as he says) he doesn’t believe Hamsher is a racist. I also agree with Ian that the Malcolm X quote e.g., “the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political ‘football game'”) was uncalled for. It seems to me Kevin is assuming I am racist, and insincere about it. I admit I am frequently oblivious to many things, and I cannot speak to anyone’s inner motivations but my own, but I sincerely hate racism and do not want to use anyone as a pawn or tool. Being one of the more marginalized creatures on the planet myself, I’m hardly in a position to have pawns of my own, anyway.

Certainly you can argue that the Democrats have fallen short of keeping their promises to African Americans. But, hell, in the past several years the Democrats have fallen short of keeping their promises to all of us. Welcome to Progressive World. The whole point of the Lamont challenge is to send a message to the Dems they need to start listening to their base instead of the lobbyists and interest groups.

I was also stunned that Liza Sabater, who is a friend and a good-hearted person, slammed Jane Hamsher for being a “white woman of privilege” who presumed to speak for the black people of Connecticut. I never did see the text that went with the graphic, so maybe I’m missing something. And I sorta thought all us progressives were in the fight together. Certainly if, say, a black man presumes to speak for white-but-not-privileged me he’s welcome to go ahead and do so; I’ll take all the help I can get.

I learned a long time ago never to tell others they shouldn’t be angry. Through the years I’ve met people who have endured outrageous violations of their being, from many sources. Nobody gets through life without some wounds, but some people do seem to get wounded a lot more than others. However people deal with their anger is a personal matter. I’m not going to deliver any lectures on that today, except to remind readers that anger tends to be a defense mechanism (remember the guard dog?). It’s up to us as individuals to come to terms with whatever the dog is defending.

But although I regret whatever anger my position provoked, and although I acknowledge that anger may be understandable, at the moment I do not see cause to change my opinion in this matter. If there’s something I’m not seeing, please enlighten me.

26 thoughts on “About That Graphic, II

  1. I did not bother to look at the photoshoped photo, didn’t need to, didn’t want to.

    As far as I’m concerned, this is more of the righty inflamatory, hate-mongering, non-issue, nonsense ala Clinton-had-a blow-job-by-a-willing-intern-and-lied-about-it incendiary rhetoric.

    Maha, you absolutely have to right to express your feelings and I get it, as are others who express their thoughts. If I agree, or not, in the end it is my choice. As for those whose opinions I do not value, I have a hard time approving of those who are narrow-minded, hypcritical, judgmental, uneducated, and hate-filled.

    Intention is everything.

  2. Maha – I just returned home from work and I’m tired, so I’m not up to writing a full on response to your post. I just wanted you to know that I’m not ignoring this. I’ll continue tomorrow.

    I will say a few things though in regards to this:

    And although Kevin is very articulate it still isn’t clear to me where the offense lies if (as he says) he doesn’t believe Hamsher is a racist.

    No, I don’t believe that you or Hamsher are racists. I’ve been reading both of you for longer than you probably realize. What I’m taking offense to here is what I see as an attempt to justify what was quite simply a fuck up on Hamsher’s part. Look, I understand that we are all human and that we all make mistakes, but I’d rather see Hamsher just admit that she made a bad judgement call than to see her try to justify the whole thing with what I see as a “well, they started it” type apology.

    I’m willing to accept the argument that my choice of quotes was equally in bad taste. My intention was to point out that Black people are often debated about in the public sphere without anyone actually talking to a Black person. Of course, my previous comments should make it clear that I believe that what one intends and what actually happens are not always going to be the same. And so, I will admit that my initial reaction to all of this may have been unnecessarily harsh. My apologies.

    Here’s a perfect example. I recently linked aprovingly to a post on how White people can effectively be allies to Black people. David Schraub (another great blogger. if you’re not familiar with him you should look him up) found some of the post to be anti-semetic. It went right over my head when I read the post, but damnit if he didn’t have a good point. Did the blogger intend to be anti-semetic? No, I don’t think so? Is she anti-semetic? No, I don’t think so. Did she write things that might be offensive to Jewish people? Yes. And when all was said and done a lot of us learned a lot. That’s all I’m asking for.

    I know this is going to sound snarky, but how articulate am I if I’m not making myself clear to you (sorry, that’s the English major in me speaking and I felt the need to lighten all of this up a tad)?

    I do have more to say, and my position (for the most part) still stands. I’ll be back tomorrow.

  3. I’d rather see Hamsher just admit that she made a bad judgement call than to see her try to justify the whole thing with what I see as a “well, they started it” type apology.

    Well, yes, that’s fair, and I think she did use bad judgment, and she could have been more apologetic about it. But I believe also it would be helpful if everyone clarified exactly what was badly judged. It’s not as if crude and tasteless graphics haven’t turned up on firedoglake before, and as far as I know no one has complained until now.

    Was the fundamental error —

    (a) that she used an offensive graphic?

    (b) that a white woman using a racial symbol to make a statement about racism equals a racist statement, even if the white woman herself is not racist, and she intended to make a statement against racism?

    (c) that use of the graphic was seized by righties as a tool to bash Ned Lamont and the left blogosphere generally?

    (d) a combination thereof, or somethng else?

    As for (a), as I’ve said, there are a number of prominent leftie blogs that I wish would tone down the raunch (although not the snark). If we’re going to be taken seriously as a political force it might be to our advantage to act like grown ups.

    For (c), yeah, it’s infuriating, but if it hadn’t been Hamsher’s graphic it probably would have been something else. Even after all this time I am sometimes surprised at what the righties choose to turn into Big Bleeping Deals.

    If the answer is (b), we may have a problem.

    My intention was to point out that Black people are often debated about in the public sphere without anyone actually talking to a Black person.

    Yeah, I remember when men used to dictate to women what was good for us, although one doesn’t see that so often these days. On the other hand, I would never tell a man not to speak up on behalf of women. He doesn’t have to keep his mouth shut until he gets a permission slip from the Feminist Correctness Committee, for my part.

    Had Hamsher just written a straight-up post about how Lieberman’s past actions have not always been in the best interests of African Americans, and left out the graphic, would that have been OK? If not, why not? If yes, then doesn’t that tell us it’s all about the graphic and what it symbolizes to you?

    Regarding the anecdote about anti-semitism, of course we can all be thoughtless and ignorant about matters outside of our personal experience. Well-meaning people usually appreciate it if you smile at them and say, y’know, you said X, and I know what you mean, but that’s not exactly right because … and then show them where their blind spot is. I know there are people who think they already know everything and won’t listen, but especially when you’re dealing with a pack of liberals most of ’em will at least consider your point of view.

    But when someone offends you who did not mean to, who in fact thought he was being helpful, and you blow up in his face, don’t be surprised if what you get back is a hearty “bleep you.” That’s the guard dog protecting his ego. Pretty soon the two of you are shut down intellectually, and it’s just the guard dogs going after each other, and nobody’s learning anything.

    I have a BIG button regarding people suddenly blowing up at me about something I did that I didn’t understand was wrong. This is particularly devastating to me if the person is someone I am fond of and feel comfortable with. I was subjected to such behavior for long years of my life, and as hard as I try not to replay old tapes, they get replayed anyway. Although in my case I am less likely to get angry back than I am to crawl into bed and not come out for hours. Or days. Fortunately this doesn’t happen often.

    In Jane’s case — and I don’t know her at all, so I’m guessing — I ‘spect that when she got attacked from the Left her ego-defenses went up and she went into “bleep you” mode. It takes enormous self-discipline not to, under those circumstances. If someone had gone to her and said, hey, I know you meant well, but the graphic is painful to me and I wish you hadn’t published it, she might have been able to more forthrightly admit a mistake. Or not. Maybe she still would have said “bleep you,” in which case she would deserve to be slammed.

    And this is not to say that your anger isn’t completely justified. I see that this episode picked open a big, painful wound. I sincerely regret this. I see now that I didn’t fully appreciate the pain the graphic would cause. I suggest maybe you don’t fully appreciate how much pain your anger causes.

  4. I posted my comment on the earlier thread accidently.

    But I do want to point out that while I would not call either Joe Lieberman or Jane Hamsher an overt racist (& reading some of her take-down’s of Joe, one does get the impression that she believes he is on some level racist) . . . I do think they are both good examples of a kind of patronizing, unconscious racism that can be so noxious on the left. Joe’s lobbyiest minions out in Greenwich “asking” whether or not Lamont is a “Sharpton” dem or a “Clinton” Dem (in spite of the fact, that Sharpton and Lieberman developed quite a personal bond in the ’04 primary campaign, and Lieberman actually asked Sharpton for his endorsement) and Jane’s use of the graphic reveal that there are still many of us on the left who have not really explored our own complicated feelings re race.

    The NY Times mentioned that Hamsher is 47. About my age, which means that she grew up during a time (as I did) when white and black folk just did not mix. There was “white” music (rock) and black music (motown, disco) . . . etc. Those things just do ot go away with a little announcment, a la, I am a liberal and so by definition, I can’t be racist.

    Anyone who has really thought and allowed themselves to feel deeply the racial wounds in this country would not use an image like the one Hamsher used, just as they would not paper the windsheild’s of cars parked in black church parking lots depicting “the other guy” as racist. Meaning, black people are able to think through this kind of thing for themselves (or with the help of their leaders) and it is racist for a white person to tell a person of color or minority status when another white person is being racist.

    Just like I don’t need a man to tell me when another man is being sexist. Since I know more about it than he does.

  5. The NY Times mentioned that Hamsher is 47. About my age, which means that she grew up during a time (as I did) when white and black folk just did not mix. There was “white” music (rock) and black music (motown, disco) . . . etc. Those things just do ot go away with a little announcment, a la, I am a liberal and so by definition, I can’t be racist.

    I am, um, older, and grew up in an all-white, legally segregated Bible Belt community. Open white supremacy was the norm. I remember some of my teachers standing in front of the classroom and telling us about the inferiority of those “other” races. It takes work and time to overcome that. I openly admit I probably am oblivious to aspects of racism. On the other hand, I don’t think I deserve being lumped together with the Klan.

    Meaning, black people are able to think through this kind of thing for themselves (or with the help of their leaders) and it is racist for a white person to tell a person of color or minority status when another white person is being racist.

    What if the white person were providing information that the person of color might not know? I’ll ask the question I asked in the comment above — Had Hamsher just written a straight-up post about how Lieberman’s past actions have not always been in the best interests of African Americans, and left out the graphic, would that have been OK? If not, why not?

    Further, in the case of a blog, one assumes that the blogger is addressing all of her readers of all races, not just the black ones.

    In fact, I speak out on all manner of issues outside of my personal experience. I’ve spent a big part of the last several days discussing the bombing of Lebanon, for example, yet I have never been to Lebanon, and I can’t say for sure I have ever even met anyone from Lebanon. Is this wrong? I am not Tibetan and can understand only superficially what Tibetans are going through, so is it OK if I criticize the cultural genocide of Tibet?

    Certainly only an African American can fully and intimately appreciate what it is to be African American, but does that mean if I take it on myself to comment on a racial issue, in a well-meaning way, that such a comment is intrinisically racist because it’s coming from a white woman?

    We all tend to take a proprietary attitude toward “our” issues, but when you start slapping down people who want to be helpful and telling them they are not worthy to offer information or opinions because of what they are (white, male, straight, whatever), I believe you’re getting a bit extreme. This attitude also has “ego attachment” written all over it. Beware.

    FYI, I have observed that white racists — and I’ve known a lot of ’em — sometimes are sensitive to the opinions of other white people and will at least tone down their racism if they get a clue it is no longer socially acceptable among their peers. And although I don’t need a man to tell me that another man is being sexist, I don’t mind at all if a man tells another man he is being sexist.

  6. It seems as though the intent behind what I wrote is not understood, so I will take full responsibility and try again in another way.

    About 15 years ago, I was out having pizza with a couple of friends in West LA. I had great liberal – progressive credentials, having had worked very hard on Jesse Jackson’s Presidential Campaigns, Peace Movement throughout the 80s, anti-US interventionion in Central America, etc, etc. We were having a rather banal conversation about getting ripped off by a local merchant. In the midst of describing my own experience, I used a word which is “innocuous” in the dictionary but is clearly perjorative from a racial perspective (and no the merchant was not of that minority). The looks on my friend’s faces said it all. Still licking my wounds (my ego was incredibly bruised because I knew that my “coolness factor” had gone way down in this couple’s eyes — and in fact, it was never the same with them again) I went to see my brand new therapist and told her the story — and guess what, she was of the group I had dissed and I hadn’t even known it. More humiliation. Anyway — the stars lined up quite neatly in that case as I was forced to deal with my own personal unconscious aggression which was clearly being projected (albeit) unconsciously onto a a minority (other) group. My therapist did not let me get away with the “I am not racist” or “I didn’t mean to be racist” (and believe me, what I did was much more spontaneous and tame when compared to Jane Hamsher’s blackface image) — the gift was that it led to deeper places within me, and I learned a valuable lesson. Or several. And one is that it is impossible to grow up in this tacitly racist culture of ours and not take on some of it. Only until we admit that will we be able to judge when and when it is not appropriate to use a blackface image to make a point.

    Also, part of the way “liberal” whites express unconscious racism is with “well intentioned” patronage. I have seen such people attempt to point out the racist behavior of other white people to a person of color and it is one of those squirmy situations I cringe just thinking about it. Everyone was uncomfortable except the righteous liberal who was oblivious.

    Which is not the same thing as speaking up — as a white person — when appropriate. And there is a difference — again, it has a lot to do with where the person’s heart is. Do they need to see themselves as a “good person” or are they truly responding to the needs of a particular situation as it manifest in that space and time. I guess it is the difference between empathy and pity.

    For example: if I were in a resturant with an African-American friend and she was treated in a racist manner, I would allow her to determine how much of a fuss she wanted to make (and back her decision either way). She is an adult and it is her call. On the other hand, if I were in a resturant with a group of white people, and one were treating a person of color who is serving us badly (with a clearly racist justification), I would speak to the person directly. Difference is power. In the 2nd case, the person’s livelihood would likely be jeapardized. And for that reason, I would make sure to let my white companion know how I felt outside of the earshot of the worker so that there could be no way s/he could be sucked into a potential drama.

    So — it is in that spirit that I think that in this instance, it is perfectly appropriate to express my opinion (which you so nicely called a rigid judgement) that I believe Jane Hamsher’s use of a image of a Jew in Blackface says more about her own “issues” than it does about the Lamont-Lieberman campaign. And I do find it interesting that Hamsher did so quickly this after correctly “judging” Lieberman’s church parking-lot flyer as a disgusting attempt to play the “race card.”

    Also, I have also had many opportunities to obseve white racists. They do seem to appear to be sensitive to the opinions of other white people. Like you sayd, white people.

  7. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t think Jane Hamsher is racist, I don’t think she’s racist either. I do think that what she did was stupid (politically) and offensive (personally) and she screwed up.

    We mentioned this a bit on DKos but I was glad I wasn’t the only person to notice it: Something happened to FDL. The last few months it’s just struck me as sour and I stopped reading it. One poster put this way: “The attitude of the site, from its original engaged and informed premise, became judgmental in the extreme.”

    I think that gets to the heart of this issue. Not that pointing out the pandering is wrong, but the way it was done left alot to be desired and certainly did not increase my respect for FDL.

  8. I enjoyed Kevins post above. I am glad he added it.

    I think it is sad that Jane used a graphic instead of her talent:.. words.What she intended to say was important and it was lost when she used the image which as with any image could mean very different things to different people.Sometimes even words can be misunderstood but they are much clearer than an image.

    I hope you don’t decide to pander Maha…I have come to enjoy your blog for it’s higher standard..The rest of the world will catch on..give em time!

    People can feel any way they want..I just still feel sad there is more outrage over an image than for the suffering of real people in say N.O…or Durfur…I guess the true outrage lies in (but not limited to) those real time situations for me, as we sit by and watch injustice swallow the lives of so many yet find time to be angry with an image… thats all I am sayin….PEACE!

  9. My take would be..don’t let people put shit on you that ain’t rightfully yours.

    I like the term…proprietary attitude.. that’s the attitude when coupled with knowledge gives me the boldness to announce that we’ve lost the war in Iraq. My ticket has been punched against the accusations being unpatriotic. The righties can’t get to me with that feeble charge.

  10. sunrunner — You’re projecting. Get over yourself.

    Also, I have also had many opportunities to obseve white racists. They do seem to appear to be sensitive to the opinions of other white people. Like you sayd, white people.

    This is how progress is made. Once racism becomes shameful, it dissipates. It may take a generation or two, but there’s no other way. My point being that we’re all educating each other here, and it’s important for white people to talk about racism even if they’re full of shit.

    Because, truth be told, we’re all full of shit.

    If you think about it, just about all the civil liberties victories in American history were made by racists. Lincoln was a racist. U.S. Grant (pushed through 15th Amendment) was a racist. Eisenhower (sent troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock) was a racist. Earl Warren (instrumental in Brown v. Board of Ed) was also a prime mover behind the Japanese American detention camps in World War II. Make of that what you will.

  11. The last few months it’s just struck me as sour and I stopped reading it. One poster put this way: “The attitude of the site, from its original engaged and informed premise, became judgmental in the extreme.”

    One of the reasons I don’t tolerate trolls here is that if I had to deal with them all the time I’d be sour, too.

  12. Because, truth be told, we’re all full of shit.

    OK, I admit it!…but did I make it sound like I knew what I was talking about? Actually, to know that we’re all groping for answers is a good starting point.

  13. That is all you have to say?

    I also said we are all full of shit. Sorry, but you still strike me as being self-absorbed and judgmental. And not terribly interesting, frankly.

    Do you want me to say more?

  14. I really wish you’d all spend more time working for either of your candidates rather than wasting time with this idiocy. Worry about what really matters, ok? Enough already.

  15. Worry about what really matters, ok?

    I didn’t want to write about this at all. I wrote about it once because I allowed myself to be goaded into it, and I addressed it again because I was startled by some of the reaction the first post caused. IMO anything that arouses strong emotions “matters” and shouldn’t be suppressed.

  16. Barbara,

    First, thanks for the post. When I posted my rants about Jane I was leaving for my niece’s memorial service. I am back and at the moment trying to gather the strenght to hit this issue head on. I have much more to say in a longer post but here’s what I would like all people involved in this discussion to understand:

    Racism is a cultural matrix that permeates all cultures of the American hemisphere. The ignorance of many white liberals is to think they are above racism because they have black friends or have all of Public Enemy’s CDs. The problem with many people like Jane Hamsher is that they don’t start from the premise that because they too are born of racism just as people like me, who happen to be a third generation ‘free slave’; that they have no responsibility to be conscious about how their actions can be misconstrued as racist.

    But that is what a priviledge white woman almost never has to contend with. And if you are uncomfortable with me calling Jane Hamsher so, well … good. Not all white people have the means to blog like Hamsher; who was able to drive herself and her poodles across the US to cover the Lamont campaign. I come from white indentured europeans, mestizo servants, former slaves and free blacks. My mom, who is very white –as white as Jane Hamsher– is keen of talking about “blanquitos”; white people of privilege who live like they are above class differences or racism.

    My talking about white women of privilege is not new. For readers of culturekitchen know that I have much to say about white privileged feminists and how their values changed feminist discourse from one of social justice to one of middle-class entitlement. As I have said many times, if measured with a US feminist ruler then, I just don’t fit the description because class is as much a big issue for me as it is race when discussing politics.

    Which is why culturekitchen freaks out a lot of white liberal and feminist bloggers.

    The liberal blogosphere, at least the top 100 bloggers of that study a year back, is 95% white; meaning only five of us where colored folk. Just 5. For white liberal bloggers to call themselves the voice of the voiceless is incredible. Especially if they are Harvard educated like Matt Stoller.

    What is worse is that many liberal bloggers pat themselves on the back because the owner of the biggest liberal blog happens to be half-latino and that somehow seems to exempt them from looking into the way they engage race and ethnicity either in their day to day writing or in their relationships with other bloggers. They think because Steve Gilliard writes nice things about them that somehow that has earned them a “i am not a racist” badge.

    Well, it doesn’t. If you have not reckoned I am saying we are all racists because we are all borne of the same cultural matrix.

    http://culturekitchen.com is a blog that eventhough it is in the top 100 of liberal blogs, it makes a lot of my white blogging counterparts uncomfortable and has been black-balled by some of them as well. Why? I have talked about the dangers of this echo chambering and fundraising around candidates. Most importantly, I have been one of the bloggers who refuses to not talk about race and class as it is embodied right now by the liberal blogosphere and have become very critical of this fairy-tale called the netroots.

    It is indecent when white, upper-class, ivy league educated kids call themselves the face of the voiceless, the real grassroots and the outsiders. It is even more indecent that the media and politicos eat the lie whole.

    One of the biggest differences between a lot of colored bloggers and their white counterparts is that we acknowledge we come from a position of privilege; that without the privilege of being the token negroes or colored faces of the blogosphere, we would not be in the position we are right now.

    I have made no bones of the fact that I am the only prominent not just Puerto Rican woman in the US political blogosphere but Puerto Rican BLACK woman who does not write about race or latino politics on a daily basis. Chris Rabb makes no bones he’s the designated negro in many a politics and technology conference. So does George Kelly, Lynn D. Johnson, Tiffany Brown, Kim Pearson, Louis Pagan and many others.

    What makes us different from our white counterparts is that with this privilege comes power and with great power comes … if you’ve seen Spiderman, you know how that one ends. We, the losely associated members of the digital ethnorati understand our responsibility and understand the great consequences that can come from our actions.

    Jane Hamsher thinks she is above that kind of responsibility because, you know what, she’s never had to deal with race like people like me. I may not “sound” like a Puerto Rican black woman when I write but the moment I walk out the door, passers-by’s relationship to the color of my skin remind me on a daily basis we a color-blind culture are not.

    Barbara, I know you like Jane Hamsher and that you meant well when you wrote the post but please understand, there is no amount of rationalization for it. I am asking for something really simple. Just stop and listen.

    What Jane Hamsher posted was a racist and antisemitic image that had no place in the political discourse around Ned Lamont; especially when he had a 13% margin above Lieberman.

    Now Lamont only has a 6% margin, btw.

    Jane Hamsher could have gone to black neighborhoods and engaged Connecticut voters in a discussion about Lieberman. Instead of trying to speak for them, she could have given black, latino, native American, Middle Easter, South Asian bloggers or regular folk from Connecticut a prominent spot from where to be heard. That would have been radically more powerful and to the point than that hideous image. But she didn’t. And she will get away with it because as a white woman of privilege she has many people who will defend her because, you know, good folk like her don’t do those things Liza talks about.

    Which is why I invite you and your readers to listen.

    Many white liberal bloggers have the resources and the access to power that comes with their privilege. How they choose to use them no just speak but scream volumes to a lot of colored folks like me; because even with our privilege there is so much we as ‘the other’ can do on our own.

    Which is why I invite you and your readers to listen what racism can be and how it afflicts us all.

    As sunrunner wrote in the comments above : Difference is power. It’s time you step out of the echo chamber and start listening more to the colored voices of the progressive blogosphere.

    Peace,
    Liza Sabater, Publisher
    http://culturekitchen.com
    http://dailygotham.com

  17. Liza, thank you for writing. My concern is that, first,without knowing Jane Hamsher personally I have no idea where she’s coming from. So I’m not comfortable stereotyping her as a “white woman of privilege.” People get oppressed all kinds of ways, and even white women with money can have abusive parents or husbands or endure other soul-crippling experiences. You cannot know what wounds people bear unless you’ve lived inside their skins.

    Second, I speak for people of different demographic groups all the time, without having to seek permission or get my comments pre-approved. The last thing we need now is to retreat back into “identity politics.” Certainly racism afflicts us all, which is a good reason why we should all be talking about it.

    It is clear the image cause terrible pain to you and others, and for that I am sorry, but I doubt the pain was intended. Most of us white liberal types are open to being corrected and educated if we cause offense. I’m just saying there are ways of doing this without making the gulf between us even wider.

  18. It’s time you step out of the echo chamber and start listening more to the colored voices of the progressive blogosphere.

    You know…that’s one of the great things about the internet..people can’t tell who you are except by the words you speak. it gives meaning to Martin Luther King’s admonition that we judge by the content of the character rather than the color of the skin.When we start hearing colored voices in blogtopia©..you can bet we’re hearing a perpetuation of racism. Reason has no color.

  19. I cannot know the experience of being African American, but I also cannot know the experience of being a soldier in Iraq or a Lebanese child running from bombs, either. All of us have flawed and imperfect understanding of what the person next to us is going through. In other words, we are all ignorant of each other. The best we can do, I believe, is treat each others’ differences with respect.

  20. “The best we can do, I believe, is treat each others’ differences with respect.”

    Portraying a Jew in black face is not respectful to anyone. Now Lamont is down in the polls. While their will be plenty of analyzing of this down the road, common sense says that it certainly did not help.

    Priviledge and degree of suffering are two seperate issues. All humans suffer. Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of being a member of an oppressed group. (takes a lot a lot of $$, generally)

    Hamsher’s stupidity is not due to a lack of intelligence on her part. More likely a abscence of concern. Prolly not used to being held accountable for every single little word and deed like the plebians on the ground. Diagnosis: Tone deafness or color blindness. Tak your pick.

  21. Portraying a Jew in black face is not respectful to anyone.

    As I’ve said elsewhere it’s not something I would have done, although it’s not clear to me why it would have been less awful if the subject had been, say, Irish and not Jewish.

    Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of being a member of an oppressed group.

    Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of being raped.

    Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of being in an abusive marriage.

    Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of being physically handicapped.

    Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of being psychologically handicapped.

    Not everyone has the capacity to overcome or transcend the powerlessness of losing a child.

    etc.

    I’m not belittling racism; I’m just saying that there’s a world of hurt out there. Being competitive about it isn’t all that helpful. We all see what hurts us but are oblivious to what hurts other people. This is a universal trait.

    Hint: You’re doing it, too.

  22. Pingback: Right Wing Nut House » DAYDREAM BELIEVER

Comments are closed.