Trackbacks & Pings

1. La Chola » Blog Archive » Politics and Intersectionality on 22 Jan 2008 at 1:24 pm

   […] the good news? I think I just figured out who I am voting for! But, let’s shift the shoe to the other foot for a moment. Ask yourselves: How does it feel to be a woman of color (feminist, womanist, non-affiliated) and to care about women’s issues. How does it feel to hear people who are supposedly advocating for you to say that your “special” issues don’t matter right now? (And they do tell us this, through silence or through trying to refocus the debate, or through misguided op-eds.) How does it feel to have a major part of your identity brushed aside, carelessly, often accompanied by the quote “well, gender affects more people than race does?” […]

Comments

1. gatamala wrote:

   All women are white and all the blacks are men.

   ***
   “Either.” “Or.” Not “both.” Never “and”

   I typed the virtually the same “phrase” on another blog last week. I read a comment by a gentleman that literally told “us” that if Obama doesn’t win the nom, it will be b/c of black women.

   Not being seen as a full, complex individual has worn me out. I’ve checked out of any “movement” that does not acknowledge whole people.
   ***
   I have never really felt anything even when I just look at Gloria Steinem - or any other white feminist- cause she’s not talking about or to me.

   BFP’s post is a perfect example of the “yes, but/and” or “well, it’s more complicated” responses I’ve had to what is proposed “women’s issues”.

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 4:05 pm ¶

2. Cynthia wrote:

   I also think a lot of gender and racial issues can’t change overnight. It’ll take time. Many people complain about the lack of women and/or minorities in senior positions in, say, law. However, many senior lawyers have been practicing law for decades and graduated at a time when there were few women and minorities attending law school. I don’t know the percentage in the US, but in Canada, most law programs are at least 50% female. But this is a recent phenomenon. Like the last 10-15 years. I spent some time working in publishing for the legal profession, and it’s amazing to see the differences between the profiles of top young lawyers (say, under 40) and the old-timers. I’d say women make up anywhere between 30-40% of the top YOUNG lawyers list (minorities, male AND female made up 20% maybe?? Don’t remember. I tend to pay more attention to gender than race.) while the overwhelming majority of the old-timers were white men.

   But what are race-specific gender issues? Ones that can be changed very quickly? I don’t know. I don’t think there are any that can be changed in the Asian communities. Many issues in the Asian communities pertain to language and tradition, and it takes years to change this. Some are resistant to change because they feel that it’s part of their culture, and therefore racist to be forced to change. Recently in Canada, many high-profile domestic abuse cases involving death happened in (middle class) South Asian households. Someone of South Asian descent brought up the issue on Vancouver radio, only to be criticized by some traditionalists from his community. While not gender-specific, mental illness is another issue, but again, making seeking health with a mental health care professional acceptable isn’t easy. OK, so you might ask why no one is encouraging Asian youth to become therapists/psychiatrists. Encouraging young people to enter the profession isn’t easy either. Not if the social stigma is still there. Stereotypically speaking, Mrs. Chan is going to be much prouder of a cardiologist daughter than a psychiatrist daughter because the latter works with “crazies.” Face it, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 4:38 pm ¶

3. AYo aka SouL wrote:

   I am a young woman of color and I secretly wish Obama and Hillary would just join forces and prove to everyone that people can get along and take the race v. gender bit off the table.

   I really liked Gloria Steinem’s piece a lot because I think it raised a lot of good points, but I wish it had been written by a woman of color.

   I wrote in my blog post “No Soup for You” that regardless of race v. gender, there is still another issue that trumps everything. That adoptees and immigrants (even ones who grew up as children, although I don’t believe people who immigrated later should suffer any more prejudice either) in the US are ineligible to run for President.

   Our society is racist and sexist and classist and xenophobic. Putting race v. gender just oversimplifies everything and makes enemies out of people who should be on the same side.

   http://www.rainbowfriends.net/2008/01/16/no-soup-for-you/

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 4:46 pm ¶

4. Fiqah wrote:

   Gatamala, get out of my head. I’ve been thinking “but some of us are brave” all week!

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 4:46 pm ¶

5. donna darko wrote:

   I was stuck by the amount of people who asked for someone who “doesn’t trivialize sexism.”

   They were talking about other commenters on the thread.

   Feminists have the sexism beat covered.

   POC have the racism beat covered. CNN even has a special this weekend, Politics and Race.

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 6:28 pm ¶

6. Kai wrote:

   Nice job, Latoya.

   Also, don’t forget that Cynthia McKinney is currently the favorite on the Green Party ticket.

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 7:01 pm ¶

7. Torontonian wrote:

   What’s worse, racism or sexism?

   Answer: Both.

   Being at the receiving end of both racism and sexism is worse than being at the receiving end of only racism or only sexism.

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 7:04 pm ¶

8. Paul wrote:

   Feminism has been co-opted by women such as Clinton, Jong, Steinem, and Dowd. These women have never been oppressed in any real way, yet seek to reap the benefits of victims. Thus, they benefite from being white and rich, while maintaining the moral authority of the oppressed. This needs to be recognized and proclaimed as much as posible.

   Women of color and poor white women do face sexism on an everyday basis. Their issues don’t matter to women like Clinton or else she would have not allowed her husband to demonize women on Welfare and unmarried mothers.

   Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 8:47 pm ¶

9. donna darko wrote:

   Recently in Canada, many high-profile domestic abuse cases involving death happened in (middle class) South Asian households. Someone of South Asian descent brought up the issue on Vancouver radio, only to be criticized by some traditionalists from his community. While not gender-specific, mental illness is another issue, but again, making seeking health with a mental health care professional acceptable isn’t easy.

   This is what happens with a lack of intersectionality in communities of color.

   Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 1:01 pm ¶

10. Aaminah wrote:

    Thank you so much for writing on this Latoya (as always, a fantastic piece). I am so flattered to have been included in the links with so many people I respect and think have written truly fabulous pieces that far outshine my own.

    I did not realize that Mosley Braun is considering a run again. I learned about her the last go-round and prayed that she would make it farther along because I would so vote for her! And not because she’s a woman or because she’s Black, but because she is just FIERCE, FABULOUS and full of great ideas. Being a woman AND Black are just icing, LOL.

    AYo, your secret is shared by many of us. It would be nice if Clinton and Obama joined forces and worked together. And as Latoya said, I am pretty much okay with any of the three Democrats, though none of them are exactly what I want, and all of them are lacking in some areas that are pretty important to me. It’s too bad they have to fight amongst themselves, because if only the three of them could be co-President together and each contribute what they are good at, we would actually have one complete fantastic pres.

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶

11. Cynthia C wrote:

    Donna, I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say. If you’re trying to say that there needs to be more mental health programs directed at certain ethnic groups, then you’re going to have a tough time doing so, because it’s:

    A: Difficult to convince some groups to seek help

    B: Not too many people in these cultures work in these professions

    C: Difficult to convince even western-raised youth from said culture(s) to go into these professions without a stigma in the family

    D: Even if you’re able to get youth from said culture(s) to go into these professions, they’re already so westernized that their understanding of the culture(s) is diluted.

    Oh, and I really hate the term “people of colo(u)r” Makes ethnic minorities sound, well, poor.

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 4:42 pm ¶

12. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Kai -

    Thanks! I was browsing the green party website but could not find a confirmation (but the site was also acting up on my work server, so…)

    Aaminah - Yes, I was surprised too. I haven’t been able to find anything reputable to back that up though, so it may be a rumor. (Or she may have been inspired by Cynthia McKinney.)

    I don’t feel like we will be able to get a candidate that is everything in one basket. Living and working here, it is more important to me that the people in power are good with appointees and clearly state their commitments - I don’t expect much more than that. It would be cool if we got a president and a VP out of this debate, but I am not so sure. I was about to say “It can’t get any worse” but then I looked at some of the republican candidates. So, yeah….

    Cynthia C -

    As a moderator, I am starting to have some trouble with your comments. Everyone on this site should feel encouraged to express their opinions, but I am starting to think you have some real baggage surrounding how race and racism are presented and interpreted.

    Class is an important factor in many of these discussions, and I have noted where you stated that you tend to notice gender more than race. It is also interesting to bring more discussion about how class plays a role in racial perception and stereotyping.

    However, a lot of your comments tend deal heavily in assumptions, and get awfully close to trolling (i.e. “It’s not race, it’s really this…” or the comment above about the equating of the term PoC and poverty.)

    I’ve been to your blogs, I see how you write, and I will say this: If you want people to understand where you are coming from, you need to spend more time trying to understand them.

    Please be more cognizant that this is a space in which we talk about race. No one here wants to be subjected to race based assumptions or the dismissal of racial issues as “class problems.”

    If you have any questions, you can drop me an email: latoya@alteregomaniacs.com

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 5:59 pm ¶

13. donna darko wrote:

    I heard a rumor Moseley-Braun is running again this time on the Green ticket! She had the best platform in 2004 until she dropped out. Cynthia McKinney rocks. I think her loss in 06 was due to a rigged vote count.

    Cynthia, I was agreeing w/you. Everyone and his sister talks about intersectionality in feminism but not in the APIA community, i.e., making the APIA community feminist to solve the problems of domestic violence and suicide.

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 8:22 pm ¶

14. Globalistgirl wrote:

    To Paul:

    Just like racism, sexism can be subtle to the point where it can be difficult to see it without either careful thought or listening to those who experience it. It is very difficult for you or me to declare who is and isn’t oppressed. Nobody - literally nobody - can understand someone else’s struggles without listening to them first and empathizing. In a sense, you can always find someone who is worse off. (For example, I have never had to experience a war zone and rebuild my entire life from scratch. That’s a form of priviledge.) However, that you can always find someone who clearly has it worse than you or a person you’re criticizing doesn’t mean that their life has been a cakewalk in every way. Maybe you even have some elements of struggle in common with someone you’d never have guessed could be a comrade-in-arms if you hadn’t heard their story first.

    I’m not saying you and Clinton have the same problems, I’m just saying that a softer approach leaves doors open for contact and cooperation to figure out how sexism and racism are similar and different. You can reject some white women as speaking on behalf of women more generally, by all means, but to say that they have never been oppressed but pretend to have been can easily feed into sore spots left by other men’s dismissal of feminism.

    (I’ve actually been told that sexism is a made-up problem by an American, who ironically is a man of color. I would have thought the obvious thing to do is to join forces, but as this whole post and comments show, that’s not at all taken for granted. I have also met white-collar men who are masters of making it look objective to deny women promotions and other career progression benefits, and you have to look closely to see it and know what’s been said, not just put in writing. But it’s there, and it’s the sort of thing that could stop anybody who isn’t a WASP from getting to the White House.)

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 10:47 pm ¶

15. Black Canseco wrote:

    What always overlooked in the whole, “how do we beat the bitch?” quote is that it came from an older white woman who based on her age and the times she lived in probably sw more marginalization and oppression simply for being a woman in a week than Hilary Clinton saw in her entire privileged life. And anyone who bothered listening to this woman being interviewed afterwards would know her problem with Hilary Clinton wasn’t a woman running for president, but Hilary Clinton–the lady didn’t trust her and thought she lied about issues during the 1990s. had nothing to do with “female-on-female hate” or feminism.

    Anyone whose studied the history of feminism knows that feminism was built exclusively by white women. Feminism has always suffered from three major flaws: (1) White Women represent all women.
    (2) Anyone who points out feminists elitist attitudes and often condescendingly maternal views toward women of color is simply “playing divide and conquer” and missing “the bigger issue”.
    (3) Any male who believes in equality for men and women and/or fights against sexism, etc. is automatically engaging in feminism. (Because the notion of women and men being equal couldn’t come from any view but a woman’s.)

    Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 4:11 am ¶

16. Menzi wrote:

    Gloria Steinem claims the most chastised minority in America has been Women. Clearly Gloria has never been Black. Or Native American. or a Black woman. No wonder her movement is irrelevant today.

    I am not conflicted, Obama has my vote. I have more in common with him than ANY white woman I have ever met.

    Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶

17. Blair wrote:

    Paul,

    I’d like to reiterate the points made by Globalistgirl. You can’t make statements about whether Clinton’s oppression due to sexism is completely negated by her class and racial privilege. Obviously, she is better off rich and white, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t face problems because of her sex. The media coverage of Clinton has been absurdly sexist, and that sexism is incredibly subtle because a lot of it has been indoctrinated into our heads since we were children. Our perception of her is informed by sexism and the media covers her with gendered insults (Chris Matthews being one of the worst offenders). And please stop acting like white women who are not poor do not face any kind of sexism. There are plenty of varieties of sexism which have nothing to do with race or class, like being judged excessively by your appearance, being afraid to walk alone in the dark, etc. etc. So please stop pretending like sexism doesn’t exist unless you are also dealing with classism and/or racism. They’re three different problems, and intersectionality matters a great deal, like Latoya points out, but that doesn’t mean that the -isms don’t exist on their own.

    Black Canseco: Just because the comment came from a woman doesn’t mean that sexism isn’t ingrained in it. A woman calling another woman a “bitch” doesn’t make “bitch” not a sexist, gendered insult. Everyone is indoctrinated with sexism, men and women. You’re right when you point out that feminism was originally built by white women, but a great deal of feminists today (third wave) are women of color and the mainstream feminist blogs (http://feministe.us/blog is a great one) do not only concern themselves with white woman nor do they treat women of color condescendingly. And they gave the Gloria Steinem piece a real beatdown, as it deserved. I understand the hostility towards historical feminism, but to act like every modern feminist is just some white woman looking out for their own is extremely misinformed and wrong. Feel free to critique the feminists who are ignoring or doing a poor job dealing with race, but don’t lump all feminists together.

    Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 5:00 pm ¶

18. LeAnne@hairsmystory wrote:

    Moderator Note:

    LeAnne, good point, but this comment is in violation of our policy:

    6. Let’s avoid oppression olympics please. I’m not saying it’s never something to be discussed, but generally speaking, bickering over who has it worse off, or who’s more racist, is really kind of useless.

    Comment has been deleted. Please rephrase and resubmit.

    Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 9:15 pm ¶

19. Black Canseco wrote:

    i don’t lump all feminists into any group; and i don’t have any hostility towards them–not by any stretch. but you have to admit that, in fact it’s feminists who are the ones who say “women” but are often only interested in issues relevant to “certain women” (white women) which is why virtually every black feminist i know has to be a “‘black’ feminist” just to have their femininity acknowledged by the larger movement.

    my frustration has alway been with this opportunistic conflating of racism and sexism only when its beneficial to furthering folks who would still, even today, ignore anyone not 100% like them.

    As an example, I still find it utterly amazing that every feminist and most every media/culture critic simply ignored the fact that it was a white woman and not any man that called hilary clinton a bitch. Feminists instead, chose to focus on the men don’t want a woman president angle as if some evil man forced that woman to say that.

    I have yet to read a single piece or hear a feminist say that it was possible that lady’s dislike of Hilary Clinton was driven by her understanding of Clinton’s political record and issues.

    You can best believe that had some old black man said to McCain or Edwards or Clinton, “How can we beat this n*****?” referring to Obama, the conversation would’ve been about the hypocrisy of blacks getting angry at whites for racial slurs but not challenging each other to stop using them. (Hell, it worked for Don Imus.)

    But because it was White (woman)-on-White (woman), all that was discussed was sexism and the boy’s club of politics.

    It’s this sort of hypocrisy from feminists and others is what’s fueled black feminists and third-wavers… it’s also what frustrates many of us who don’t take feminism seriously.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 2:01 am ¶

20. donna darko wrote:

    I have yet to read a single piece or hear a feminist say that it was possible that lady’s dislike of Hilary Clinton was driven by her understanding of Clinton’s political record and issues.

    Feminists have talked about this the last two years. Read some feminist blogs.

    You can best believe that had some old black man said to McCain or Edwards or Clinton, “How can we beat this n*****?” referring to Obama, the conversation would’ve been about the hypocrisy of blacks getting angry at whites for racial slurs but not challenging each other to stop using them. (Hell, it worked for Don Imus.)

    White feminists challenge female pundits all the time like Maureen Dowd, Ann Coulter, Caitlin Flanagan, Camille Paglia and many others for beating up on Clinton.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 2:47 pm ¶

21. Black Canseco wrote:

    Number one i read plenty of feminists blogs–have them on my blog roll as well. Secondly, you note that “White feminists challenge female pundits all the time like Maureen Dowd, Ann Coulter, Caitlin Flanagan, Camille Paglia and many others for beating up on Clinton.” that makes my point.

    god forbid that a woman criticize hilary clinton.

    I don’t have a problem with the lack of feminists complaining about Obama bashing, particularly Robert Johnsons rip; my only issue which i repeat on my own blog because i think it does a disservice to both movements is the hypocrisy of touting racism and sexism as fruit from the same tree, but convenient ignoring race issues.

    it’s just disingenuous—not only to women of color but to people of color across the board. It’s only one step removed from saying, “i have some black friends” when it’s convenient.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶

22. Blair wrote:

    I think you’re missing the point - the sexism directed at Clinton doesn’t have to do with the fact that someone dared criticize her, it has to do with the use of the word “bitch” as the criticism, and the fact that John McCain, etc, had no problem with a sexist insult being directed at his competitor. I have no idea why that woman disliked Clinton, it may be because of her politics, but if she’s calling her a bitch, loudly, in public, you can bet there’s something else going on. What I (and Donna) are trying to point out is that many people (yes, including women) are attacking Clinton in a sexist fashion, and for sexist reasons (her personality is a no-win, if she acts smart and tough, she’s calculating and evil, if she softens it up she’s got too much PMS to be president). That is the objection, not that Clinton is being criticized, or who is doing it. Many feminists recognize that women and men are equally capable of being sexist (see Donna’s examples) and I sincerely doubt that the majority of feminists were whining about “evil men not wanting a woman in politics.” You’re seriously misunderstanding feminism if you think it’s all about blaming evil men for every sexist thing that happens. Patriarchy does not mean evil, individual men. Plenty of feminists on some of those blogs you probably read do not support Clinton because of her policies. That doesn’t mean they’re not going to do their damndest to point out when she’s getting levelled by sexist attacks day after day in the media.

    I have seen some coverage on feminist blogs about racist attacks on Obama, but you’re right that it’s not as significant as the coverage of the sexism against Hillary - that, I can only assume, is because it’s less directly on topic to feminism. When the issues have been covered, I feel that they have been covered and discussed extremely well. I would not expect a feminist blog to address those issues specifically all the time, but you will note that racism, classism, and other entangled -isms come up constantly in feminist discussions that initially appear unrelated - why? Because they are fruit from the same tree.

    A hypothetically analogous scenario about Obama and what you think the reaction would be does not make an argument for feminists being hypocrites, nor does it justify you not taking feminism seriously. There are feminists I don’t take seriously, that doesn’t mean I’m going to blame a movement that makes sense to me.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 5:13 pm ¶

23. donna darko wrote:

    god forbid that a woman criticize hilary clinton.

    No one in the media including blacks have viciously attacked Obama for his race because he’s not racially divisive. I hope that never happens. He seems to be for uniting and uplifting the entire country. For fifteen years, men and women have viciously attacked Clinton and by proxy her husband for supporting such an apologetic feminist.

    The mainstream and new media coverage of race in this campaign has exploded. It’s all over the mainstream media and blogs. Granted the reaction to the sexism leveled at Clinton had a much greater effect i.e. her winning NH.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 6:27 pm ¶

24. NancyP wrote:

    Thanks for the links!

    I am not too interested in the “oppression olympics”. Feh. Better to read and learn. (see above re links)

    Steinem might have been able to make apoint if she confined herself to the widespread assumption that no woman could be Commander-in-Chief of the USA. But instead of being specific and descriptive, she got all vague and offensive.

    But look at it this way - Steinem’s older than most of the candidates (McCain might have her beat). Am I right in my guess that the younger generation of white feminists at least knows in a theoretical sense (not always in practice) that they don’t know much about race? There might be some worth a reminder that they need to look beyond their noses. Heck, I have my cranium up my posterior orifice sometimes, and I figure it keeps me honest to be reminded of the fact once in a while.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 7:08 pm ¶

25. NancyP wrote:

    I didn’t know the “bitch” comment came from a white woman, I just assumed it came from some overpaid male TV pundit.

    Do people understand that some of the female anti-Hillary voters object to her putting up with Bill’s antics more than her policies, and that many female anti-Hillary voters object to her because she is “unfeminine” and works when her husband can support her? Trust me, for a lot of voters, including women, the quick emotions related to Hillary’s womanliness trump any interest in policies - because a lot of voters out there don’t really pay that much attention to details of policy. And Obama is going to get a few “good-looking man” votes and lose a few racist votes from the voters who go on emotion and not policy.

    People who read the NYT or serious blogs or who just plain think about what is going on around them are a different sort of voter from the “oh, it’s an election tomorrow, I guess I better pick one” (watches TV attack ads) voter. Some voters put more thought into American Idol than American democracy. And the airhead type belongs to all races, economic classes, levels of education, and genders. As does the thoughtful type.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 7:23 pm ¶

26. Paul wrote:

    Here’s how Hillary has used feminists for her own ends: She paints Lewinsky as a creepy stalker despite the fact that Bill’s treatment of Lewinsky was textbook sexual harrassment. Then, she publically plays the vicitim of a false attack on her husband, despite the fact that she knew he was a serial adulterer. When anyone criticzes her, she has her husband protect her and plays the poor, weak, put-upon woman.

    If women cannot see how HRC uses them for her own ends, then they deserve what they get.

    Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 8:48 pm ¶

27. Tami wrote:

    First, thanks for the love, LaToya! Great post as always.

    NancyP, you asked if we think third wave feminists are more enlightened about race than their second wave sisters. I say “no.” It is, in part, the clueless reaction to Steinem’s op-ed in the comments at Feministing that inspired me to write my posts. Don’t get me wrong, there are conscious white feminists of all ages, but the Steinem episode convinced me that there is much, much work to be done to achieve equality for women of color withing the feminist movement.

    I didn’t “get” the womanist movement before. It seemed uneccessary. But recent events have made me wonder whether I can participate in a movement that focuses on my equality as a woman, while fighting within the movement for my equality as a black person.

    It’s all so mentally and spiritually tiring.

    Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 7:10 am ¶

28. NancyP wrote:

    If the third-wave white feminist generation hasn’t increased its percentage of racially open/ conscious/ learning/ actually getting it members, why is that? (I am a white younger second generation member, FWIW). It would strike me that there are more opportunities for learning and discussion now than when I was a middle-schooler in 1968, not paying much attention to civil rights (or any other civic / political matter) until MLK assassination got my attention. At least the number of books, documentaries, public lectures and other events, pertinent blogs, and so on have increased greatly.

    The news media?

    The entertainment culture?( “all I need to know about black people I can learn from rap and TV” attitude)

    Conservative teaching of social studies in high school? Lack of attention to WoC and global feminism in introductory women’s/ gender studies college courses?

    General anxiety about making a living, keeping up with the Jones, participating in the consumer culture?

    Preoccupied with relationships?

    Lack of concrete political engagement?

    Lack of curiosity about the world in general?

    Ideas about why urban/ suburban white 3rd wavers are often so oblivious to the race issue, despite rote acknowledgement that there is such a thing as racism?

    Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶

29. NancyP wrote:

    (I might add that I don’t tend to read long comments threads all that often, so I don’t pretend any insight into 3rd wave opinions.)

    Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 2:00 pm ¶

30. L wrote:

    Donna darko, Obama has been attacked over first and last name, accused of being “racist” by Sean Hannity for attending a black church. Both candidates have faced stupid comments based on their identities, so it bothers me that here and there people claim that Obama’s doing fine. Obama’s had to double his security because of death threats. Certain news sites have disabled comments for Obama because racist comments pour in (I think it was the CNN site? Someone let me know).

    Posted 23 Jan 2008 at 9:49 am ¶

31. L wrote:

    * that Obama doesn’t get unfair reactions, I meant, not “doing fine”.

    Posted 23 Jan 2008 at 9:49 am ¶

32. Yvette wrote:

    “No one in the media including blacks have viciously attacked Obama for his race because he’s not racially divisive. ”

    ???

    Besides the things L has mentioned, Obama has also been criticized as “not Black enough,” not arising out of the proper Civil Rights/religious organization-to-politics path, not talking enough about race. In addition his wife has been criticized for all sorts of things like calling BO her “babies’ daddy,” scaling back/quitting her job, talking about his faults.

    There has even been a wiki started to keep track of some of these attacks:
    http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/

    Posted 23 Jan 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶

33. donna darko wrote:

    He’s been severely attacked for his blackness. My bad. I know there’s an ever-growing wiki. I was trying to say Clinton is considered an “uppity” woman. Obama is half-white and may never be the “angry black man” we ( not whites ) want him to be so he’s also been attacked for not being black enough.

    Posted 23 Jan 2008 at 9:53 pm ¶

34. donna darko wrote:

    The mainstream and new media coverage of race in this campaign has exploded. It’s all over the mainstream media and blogs. Granted the reaction to the sexism leveled at Clinton had a much greater effect i.e. her winning NH.

    A week later, I can say the racism leveled at Obama had the effect of his winning SC.

    No one in the media including blacks have viciously attacked Obama for his race because he’s not racially divisive.

    I can also hold to my previous statement. He’s been severely attacked by Democrats but not as viciously as if he were an unapologetic black man.

    Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 6:50 am ¶

Post a Comment