Glenn Greenwald points to this genuinely disgusting column by Kathleen Parker, in which she writes,
“A full-blooded American.”
That’s how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren’t racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with “someone who is a full-blooded American as president.”
Parker argues that Fry isn’t necessarily racist, mind you.
Who “gets” America? And who doesn’t?
The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It’s also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.
It’s about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots. …
…We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice. …
…What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.
Republicans more than Democrats seem to get this, though Hillary Clinton has figured it out. And, the truth is, Clinton’s own DNA is cobbled with many of the same values that rural and small-town Americans cling to. She understands viscerally what Obama has to study.
Glenn points out that Barack Obama’s white grandfather fought in World War II, but somehow Barack Obama hasn’t earned the same “blood equity” that whiter candidates have, nor is his DNA properly “cobbled.” Gee, I wonder why that is?
Of course Parker is a racist. She’s worked out some system in her head by which she can justify being more comfortable with the white candidates than with the black guy, and then she kids herself she isn’t a racist. But she is.
Anyway — Since my ancestors starting earning “blood equity” in the Revolution, I assume I have the authority to tell Parker she doesn’t know America from grapefruit. Conservatives cling to a much-beloved fantasy that the “America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years” was somehow all of a piece culturally until recent times. Fantasy, I say. As I wrote a couple of years ago, the fact is that American culture has been in constant flux since the first white guys sailed into Chesapeake Bay to found Jamestown. Each group of immigrants, from the 17th century on, both changed whatever culture they found here at the time and were changed by it.
As I wrote in the earlier post, if we could reconstitute Daniel Boone and show him around, he wouldn’t recognize this country at all. I think they had apple pie in his day, but much of “traditional” American culture — baseball, jazz, barbecue, John Philip Sousa’s “Stars and Stripes Forever†— didn’t exist in Daniel Boone’s America.
If you spend much time with American history, surely you understand that different parts of the country developed very different “heritages,” in part because of the differences in immigration patterns. This was very apparent in the 19th century. The cultural differences between the slave-owning South and the free-soil North were particularly striking, and traces of that difference linger to this day. But there were also big cultural differences between, say, New England and the upper Midwest.
At the same time, although my fore-parents have been on these shores for just about three centuries, to native Americans I’m still an interloper. I respect that.
For a more nuanced look at what White America is going through, check out this column by Gregory Rodriguez. Although his DNA may not be properly cobbled either, I say Rodriguez understands America better than Parker does. (And per Parker’s own criteria my bloodlines make me the authority in these matters.) Rodruguez writes,
Last week, exit polls in West Virginia showed that Barack Obama might be facing some fierce racial resistance if he becomes the Democratic nominee. More than half of West Virginia Democratic voters — 95% of whom are white — said they would be dissatisfied if Obama won the nomination.
Is this white supremacy? No, in fact it might be its opposite, an acknowledgment that white privilege has its limits. With immigration and globalization reformulating who we are as a nation, it isn’t the white elites that are threatened by the changes; rather, it’s the nearly 70% of whites who are not college educated who figure among the most insecure of Americans. Many feel that their jobs are being outsourced or taken by immigrants — legal or otherwise — and that their culture is being subsumed. When Clinton promises to make their voices heard, she’s appealing not to Anglo-Saxon racial triumphalism but to the fear of white decline.
They’re bitter, you know, whether they’ll admit it or not.
Granted, not everyone who fits under the rubrics of “white, working class, not college educated” is going to vote against Obama. But by rallying to Clinton’s faltering candidacy, some sectors of white society might be trying to solidify the old racial boundaries of American nationhood. It’s not so much that they are hoping to reclaim their place, but that they are seeking to carve out a niche and demanding that, at the very least, the presidency remains “theirs.”
Like black or Latino activists who insist that a particular congressional district should be represented by one of their own, the disgruntled white working-class, non-college-educated voters might be demanding that their majority status still translate into something at least symbolically meaningful to them.
I say it’s splitting hairs to claim this isn’t a variation of white supremacy. For a very long time white supremacy has been all about building up the flagging self-esteem of unexceptional white people. But Rodriguez points out that we’re turning into a nation in which everyone’s in a minority.
Romantic notions of ethnic self-determination and multiculturalism may have once served to dismantle empires and garner attention for forgotten minorities. But today they are more likely to nurture the kind of white nationalism on which Clinton has placed her last political hopes.
Parker’s skewed perception of people’s “bloodlines” and “DNA” rests on the biased fantasy that the United States is a white nation. If the United States is going to be a functional nation in the 21st century, we’d best learn that we’re all in this democratic government thing together.
It is not all racism but globalization does scare people and for good reason. We are being economically leveled and it ain’t fun. it is not just education or lack of, it is insecurity. Obama does better among the young. Older people, which may predominate in places like WV, feel economically insecure. they have have seen nothing but decline for a long time. there has been a party goin on but it was all on borrowed $.
It’s about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values.
That sentence, right there, is pure 1920s KKK shit. There is no way to put a nice face on it.
And btw, at age 50 I have seen nothing but decline for a long time… Vietnam, Watergate, Reaganomics, and the rock-bottom inexcusable government-by-televangelist that we’ve had for the past eight years. I’d welcome globalization; much of the rest of the world has it better than the U.S. on all fronts, anyway. So no, it’s not insecurity. It’s ignorance… and racism.
“If the United States is going to be a functional nation in the 21st century, we’d best learn that we’re all in this democratic government thing together.”
Adn that’s right up there with the most sensible appeal that Obama could make to the demographic group that strives to build up their flagging self-esteem.
I saw a documentary many years back in which poor whites in an economically depressed region of the rural south were interviewed. One interview I will never forget was one in which an apparently por, uneducated white women lamented her situation adding that “if we ain’t no better than the n****rs, then who are we better than?” The human mind works in funny ways when it comes to saving oneself the shame and humiliation of being at the so-called “bottom.”
So much for what happens when one group depends on another group over which superiority can be claimed in order to establish an identity…a basic idea of who one is…
Anthropologists tell us that genetically, the average difference between any two individuals within one race is much greater than the different between the average representative of each race.
So the difficult thing for so many who must identify their apparently more deserving lineage to swallow is that they are in the same socioeconomic boat right along with those to which they claim superiority over. Granted, I have not indulged in the hair-splitting calculations that any campaign must wrap their heads around in order to win but “we are in the same boat” seems to be a simple enough message. Is this medicine just too strong to administer during a campaign? In many ways Obama is doing just this with rhetoric about uniting without dwelling on the divisiveness that would be overcome.
But what’s new? It has been proven time and time again that lower class whites will identify and become obedient followers of elites within their own race rather than admitting to a shared core of unfulfilled economic conerns and basic needs as other members of their own socioeconomic group, albeit ones of different colors.
Even more interesting is that none of this can be admitted outright so any discussion in this area is relegated to nonsensical ideological doublespeak and a healthy does of euphemism, leaving that for those who fail to find comfort in their message to try and decode it.
Oh man, I’m a third generation Cuban- American.. and all this time I thought I was a real red blooded American when it turns out I’m nothing but a free-loading Spic. Total bummer! It ain’t fair…I could of been a good American.
Good one, Barbara.
I am astonished that the article you link to discussing what could be considered a discussion on racial purity is a Jewish magazine.
A year ago, I wrote off the Obama campaign. It’s not racism, at least not any overt brand; I just ‘knew’ that Amercia would not support a black candidate, so the choice was between Clinoton & Edwards. This people of this country has disappointed me from time to time, but damn if they don’t show nobility and good sense occasionally. Let’s not get worked up if Obama does not convert all the racists in this country. His candidacy is pissing off a few bigots in the Democratic party. No great loss.
This is just my opinion, but Obama is not the likely nominee of the party becuae he is black, but in spite of it. People listened to what he is saying and were impressed; not only black Democrats, but he did well in elections (not just caucuses) in some predominately white states. A lot of white folks got past his complexion and heard the message. Let’s not forget that.
The current woes, and the decline of the last 35 years are a result of globalization. Wake up for crying out loud.
My concerns with Obama are his support for globalization, the fact that he is the chosen one of the TLC which started globalization in 1973, and the concern I have that he may be a racist.
Racism can be a 2 way street, and those victimized by it are prone to adopt it, just as those abused as children are more likely to be abusers themselves. In his book Dreams from My Father, written before he got adapted by the TLC and Zbig Brzezinski, there are some disturbing comments suggestive of a belief system similar to Pastor Wright.
He had a chance to address some of Wrights comments, many of which I agree with, and he backed off. This discussion would have been helpful to healing the racial divide. He chose not to, and you sense he is being less than honest in his relationship with Wright.
My concerns with Obama are his support for globalization, the fact that he is the chosen one of the TLC which started globalization in 1973, and the concern I have that he may be a racist.
You’re hallucinating. Clinton has closer ties to globalization than Obama. And he has done and is doing more to close the racial divide than anyone I’ve seen since Martin Luther King.
I suspect, dude, that the truth is you don’t want the racial divide closed. You seen rather attached to it.
However, you’ve annoyed me enough. You are banned.
Put me down as just another twelfth-generation English immigrant who feels nauseated by that quote about that West Virginian wanting a “full-blooded American” for President, since it’s pretty clear he doesn’t mean anybody off the res’.
Since my family showed up here before 1650, I wish these damn newcomers could have some manners, and stop acting like they own the place.
Well, my people came over in the seventeenth century, so I’m even more American, and I agree with you, so that proves it.
Oh, except for the ones who arrived in 1914 (how’s that for foresight?) and points in between. Being a first-generation US-born citizen on one side, I must be up to no good.
Actually, the combination makes me more American than just about anybody. And that reminds me: I’ve read about this Parker screed a couple of times, but only tonight did I make the connection:
We know everyone can’t be
As American as we–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izch3bAAnx4
Blood’s a funny thing. My mother-in-law often refers to blood ties. For her, blood is much thicker than water. I think she likes me and grudgingly respects me. Like a poor, white W. Virginian, she has little formal education and resents my university degree. On the other hand, she is burstingly proud of her two children both having a Master’s degree. I know that when push comes to shove, she will protect and help me (which she has done through two major surgeries that I had) ONLY because I am married to her son–her blood–and am the mother of her two beloved grandchildren–again, her blood.
Can this blood thing be related to not having anything else to hang on to: a good education, a stable income, respect in the community, having a voice that’s heard?
A former West Virginia resident – and quite happy to no longer be one – suggests that it’s the personality, or at least the campaign personality, of Clinton that attracts them to her.
According to him, they respect ‘true grit’ in a person above all else. A person who shouts and fights and ‘stands up’ is highly respected for those qualities and they alone will pull in the votes. (Interesting when I reflect on the personna that Bush projects. Maybe his re-election isn’t so unfathomable afterall.)
I also wonder if this characteristic is mainly an American phenomenon.
Obama offers the middle class nothing but platitudes and a “get over it” attitude. Unfortunately, McCain understands this better than Obama. It is not about race for many whites. And by the way, these middle class voters are really tired of being called racists, and the dems (of which I am a proud member) are going to lose this election if you don’t figure this out. We respond poorly to name-calling.
Obama offers the middle class nothing but platitudes and a “get over it†attitude.
Clinton’s and Obama’s domestic policy proposals are nearly identical. The difference between them is that, based on her past record, what Clinton might actually accomplish will be merely a limp and tepid spoonful of what she promises.
So I won’t call you a racist, but I do think you’re an ignorant fool.
I think that the term “white supremacy” is actually a nativism like the Know Nothings, and is common whenever an insular or isolated people (geographically or culturally) feel overwhelmed or subsumed. Ms Parker is not capable of seeing Barack for who he is and/or where he came from.
Growing up as a Kenyan/Kansan in Hawaii remains the misunderstood and underexamined framework for Barack’s childhood. In Hawaii, even the likes of surfer (and model) Laird Hamilton grew up thinking he was ugly because he was too white, (a ha’ole), so for Barack to go to elementary school there, he must have felt like he was from Mars. This IHT article quotes Barack’s half sister saying “I think Hawaii gave him a sense that a lot of different voices and textures can sort of live together, however imperfectly, and he would walk in many worlds and feel a level of comfort.”
This is not something Kathleen Parker’s life experiences has prepared her to feel or evalute from behind that annoying crimped smile of hers. Quite the contrary.
It is the trans-Altantic DNA, the Pan Pacific upbringing and the Ivy polish that brings Barack to this time and place. And that would not have been possible without the love and care of Stanley and Madelyn Durham.
So as offended as we are by the Neo-Confederate Neandethals, we need to remember that this too is part of “silly season in politics” and should be dismissed as quickly as McCain’s Canal-Zone origin. Whenever the side issues clammer in, we’ve got to refocus on the unjustitiable suffering that this administration has inflicted on us and innocents abroad. We are all in this together, and ignorance remains our baggage.
James Burke noted that in Colonial America and the West Indies that average life expectancy of a slave was seven years. This sounds very plausible to me, although it might have improved later. So all of those tragic deaths and stolen lives don’t qualify as “blood equity”. I guess in Parker’s opinion, because “their hearts weren’t in it” or some such reason.
Slavery continued in the South under the program of “labor lease” in which prisoners often arrested for bogus causes were rented out as miners and laborers. This didn’t end until 1945. The vast majority were African American. Maybe she could argue that was just a coincidence.
(Flight of thought…)
It is amusing to see my young neighbors here in the Bible Belt in an awkward mix of traditional southern and post MTV fashion, tooling down the street in their muscular pick up trucks with rap and hip hop blaring through the windows. (Ahh! to be young again) I think a few of them I know are going to vote for Barack Obama, God bless them.