Quoted: Alice Walker

Excerpted by Latoya Peterson

When I joined the freedom movement in Mississippi in my early twenties it was to come to the aid of sharecroppers, like my parents, who had been thrown off the land they’d always known, the plantations, because they attempted to exercise their “democratic” right to vote. I wish I could say white women treated me and other black people a lot better than the men did, but I cannot. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that white women have copied, all too often, the behavior of their fathers and their brothers, and in the South, especially in Mississippi, and before that, when I worked to register voters in Georgia, the broken bottles thrown at my head were gender free.

I made my first white women friends in college; they were women who loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white women and that whiteness mattered. That, for instance, at Sarah Lawrence, where I was speedily inducted into the Board of Trustees practically as soon as I graduated, I made my way to the campus for meetings by train, subway and foot, while the other trustees, women and men, all white, made their way by limo. Because, in our country, with its painful history of unspeakable inequality, this is part of what whiteness means. I loved my school for trying to make me feel I mattered to it, but because of my relative poverty I knew I could not.

I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him. Cannot see what he carries in his being. Cannot hear the fresh choices toward Movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans –black, white, yellow, red and brown - choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

[…]

It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured enough to use her own name) referred to as “a woman” while Barack Obama is always referred to as “a black man.” One would think she is just any woman, colorless, race-less, past-less, but she is not. She carries all the history of white womanhood in America in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to attempt to make her innocent of her racial inheritance.

I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking, person to person, with any leader, woman, man, child or common person, in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Mrs. Clinton who would drag into Twenty-First Century American leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from the reality of others’ lives that has so marred our country’s contacts with the rest of the world.

And yes, I would adore having a woman president of the United States. My choice would be Representative Barbara Lee, who alone voted in Congress five years ago not to make war on Iraq. That to me is leadership, morality, and courage; if she had been white I would have cheered just as hard. But she is not running for the highest office in the land, Mrs. Clinton is. And because Mrs. Clinton is a woman and because she may be very good at what she does, many people, including some younger women in my own family, originally favored her over Obama. I understand this, almost. It is because, in my own nieces’ case, there is little memory, apparently, of the foundational inequities that still plague people of color and poor whites in this country. Why, even though our family has been here longer than most North American families – and only partly due to the fact that we have Native American genes – we very recently, in my lifetime, secured the right to vote, and only after numbers of people suffered and died for it.

When I offered the word “Womanism” many years ago, it was to give us a tool to use, as feminist women of color, in times like these. These are the moments we can see clearly, and must honor devotedly, our singular path as women of color in the United States. We are not white women and this truth has been ground into us for centuries, often in brutal ways. But neither are we inclined to follow a black person, man or woman, unless they demonstrate considerable courage, intelligence, compassion and substance.

— Alice Walker, Lest We Forget: An open letter to my sisters who are brave, originally published on the Root.


(Thanks to Andrea for sending this in!)

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. writing into existence on 04 Apr 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Where Writing Meets Politics…

    Author Alice Walker on why she supports Barack Obama in Lest We Forget: An Open Letter to My Sisters Who Are Brave: It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured…

Comments

  1. aka lynn wrote:

    As for Donna Summer’s, she’s currently married to David Sudano, and he doesn’t meet the nordic criteria she found herself once attracted toward. Sudano, I believe is Italian, and looks rather mediterranean in my opinion.

    Mod Note: Did you mean to post this under Alice Walker?

  2. aka lynn wrote:

    Mod, sorry, I placed that comment completely in the wrong section. I was further elaborating on the Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon responses in regard to the babies! Sorry…

  3. tasha wrote:

    What is the difference between this and Gloria Steinem’s NYT op-ed? You know, besides the obvious (one is pro-Clinton the other pro-Obama)

  4. Sarah wrote:

    This beautifully articulated many of the reasons I am an Obama supporter. I find it frustrating that people think I should be for Clinton just because I am a woman.

  5. j wrote:

    Tasha-

    The difference is that Walker is acknowledging race as well as gender, whereas Steinem ultimately suggested that gender should trump race - that Clinton being female was more important than Obama being black.

  6. Josh wrote:

    I’m glad to see her mention Barbara Lee - my Congressional Rep, in fact - but she’s wrong that Lee was the only person in Congress to vote against the war in Iraq. Lee did vote against that war, but so did a lot of others, both in the House and the Senate. Rather, Barbara Lee was the only member of either the House or Senate to vote against the War on Terror back in 2001.

  7. Michelle wrote:

    i am very glad that someone from Ms. Walker’s generation is chiming in on this issue. Obama’s speech was a entry point. Unfortunately, the only people I have heard really commenting on the speech are the White political pundits. While I realize that Ms. Walker is speaking in more general terms and not necessarily just about the speech, I think that there is an extreme power in people like Ms. Walker actually speaking with such precision, intelligence and clarity. More importantly, she was there during the sixties, grew up in the fifties, and to me, has the expertise to really speak about gender and race, from the point of view of someone who witnesses the conflagration of the civil rights movement and the “feminist” movement. I hope that continues to push the conversation forward.

  8. Aaminah wrote:

    “What is the difference between this and Gloria Steinem’s NYT op-ed? You know, besides the obvious (one is pro-Clinton the other pro-Obama)”

    Walker did NOT say “vote for Obama BECAUSE he’s Black” without regard to any genuine values or merits that she feels the candidate has. Nor did she say “you’re a race traitor if you vote for Clinton”. Nor did she imply that her neices or anyone else who does like Clinton is “not radical enough” and completely ungrateful to those who fought this fight before them.

  9. CG wrote:

    “I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking, person to person, with any leader, woman, man, child or common person, in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Mrs. Clinton who would drag into Twenty-First Century American leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from the reality of others’ lives that has so marred our country’s contacts with the rest of the world.”

    Bravo. Well said. I agree with that sentiment 100%. But even beyond white privilege, I see her dragging with her the marred political history of her and her husband. Obama is fresh, and that is a GOOD thing. I’m tired of hearing people say that he’s too green. He hasn’t been jaded by a political history. That’s GOOD.

  10. Orville wrote:

    I see a clear difference between Alice Walker’s piece and Steinem. Alice Walker is talking about her experiences as a black woman she talks about having white female friends in c0llege. However, unlike Gloria Steinem, Alice acknowledges the importance of discussing race and gender. Gloria Steinem due to white skin privilege fails to acknowledge the social and cultural power whiteness still has in society. Also, Steinem attempts to link black men as oppressors to women. Steinem refuses to acknowledge the racism in the feminist movement and the fact some white feminists have contributed to discriminating against people of colour.

  11. Orville wrote:

    Steinem in her OP ED was trying to make it appear as though if black women supported Hillary Clinton its an advancement for all women. And this is simply not true. Hillary Clinton is American political aristocracy she is married to a former USA president. Part of Hillary Clinton’s success is due to name recognition and to deny this is perfidious. Also, black feminism has pointed out some white mainstream feminists refuse to acknowledge the issues of race and class. You cannot just focus on gender to deny race and class is to treat discrimination with levity and this should not occur.

  12. Wendi Muse wrote:

    “He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. ”

    i totally disagree with this line of walker’s statement…mainly because it sounds a hell of a lot like the statements made by people who think obama’s candidacy means a homerun for america’s pending colorblindness. obama, while a skilled orator and statesmen, nevertheless is a human being. putting the burden on him to serve as a christ-like figure to the problems of america and the world is, well, unreasonable. he is going to make mistakes, but he is also most certainly going to commit ills that we hate other politicians for having done. it’s politics for god sakes. as he is a politician, he is going to end up having to occasionally be shady and he is going to make opportunitistic moves in america’s favor, even if it is to the detriment of other countries or our own citizens. let’s be real. he’s not a panacea, he’s a person.

  13. Haji wrote:

    This speech has been floating around for sometime. Once again I am reminded of how offended I was after reading Steinem’s op-ed column for the NYTimes. At the time I felt she was racializing Obama in a way that was competely unacceptable to be.

    This democratic race for the nomination has been very grueling for me personally, all the race baiting and fear-mongering from Clinton’s campaign have put many black women in the daunting position of having to defend our feminist ideals yet feeling forced to take sides. Are we women first or black first?

    I think that what Alice Walker fails to do is remind us of the more important reasons why we should vote for Obama-which coincidentally, less to do with his blackness and more to do with his stance on the big issues such as his refusing campaign money from lobbyists and special interest groups. Race alone can never be a good argument for why someone should be president.

  14. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Just as an FYI, it was intentional that I posted this without analysis. I wanted to see what others had to say from just reading what Walker wrote.

    Here are the quotes that made me highlight these specific passages:

    I made my first white women friends in college; they were women who loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white women and that whiteness mattered

    These are the moments we can see clearly, and must honor devotedly, our singular path as women of color in the United States. We are not white women and this truth has been ground into us for centuries, often in brutal ways.

    And with this quote:

    It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him.

    Which is of immense importance to me. How many people see Obama as a black man, and not Obama the candidate for President? To apply this quote, how many people see Clinton as a woman and a wife and not as the candidate for President? I would love to hear people tear each other apart over policy, but unfortunately, that is not the political discourse that I hear.

  15. Haji wrote:

    Sorry for the mis-spellings earlier. I agree that feminist white woman might be flocking to Hillary in the same vein that motivates many black voters go to the polls for Obama. Its a double edged sword, I think the media hype of Obama (inexperienced populist) vs. Hillary (the fear-mongering tanya harding) forces people to take sides while distracting them away from crucial issues that they differ on. Chris Matthews and Lou Dobbs aren’t helping further that discussion.

  16. tasha wrote:

    “The difference is that Walker is acknowledging race as well as gender, whereas Steinem ultimately suggested that gender should trump race - that Clinton being female was more important than Obama being black.”

    @J

    But isn’t that what Walker is doing here, suggesting to women of color that race should trump gender, saying that only Obama can represent a fresh start in the 21st century because of his race, and that Hillary’s gender should not distract you from the fact that she’s white (read the fifth paragraph)? And look, (LOL) Walker’s even taking catty jabs at HRC when she says in the fourth paragraph, “It’s hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton (I wish she felt self assured enough to use her own name)” (MeOWWW, Scratch!). And Steinem did acknowledge race (though very shallowly), just not in the way, you might have thought she should have. Did she acknowledge the intersectionality that black women face? No, but Steinem did touch race as it pertained to her thesis when she surmised that a fictional, female Obama wouldn’t have been taken seriously as the DNC Presidential front runner because of her sex. Steinam also briefly touches on positive stereotyping of black masculinity.

    ________________________________

    “Walker did NOT say “vote for Obama BECAUSE he’s Black” without regard to any genuine values or merits that she feels the candidate has. Nor did she say “you’re a race traitor if you vote for Clinton”. Nor did she imply that her neices or anyone else who does like Clinton is “not radical enough” and completely ungrateful to those who fought this fight before them.”

    @Aaminah

    Just because Walker didn’t come right out and say “Vote for Obama because he’s black,” or that women of color who don’t support Obama are race traders, doesn’t mean that she didn’t imply it just the same. Steinem never came out and said “Women vote for Hillary, or else you’ll be betraying feminism,” in her op-ed either, but it was none the less inferred. And that right there is the difference between these two pieces. Steinem’s was direct, and Walker’s is passive aggressive, but just as Steinem was gender baiting, I fail to see how anyone could suggest that Walker is not doing something similar with race.

    @Orville

    It’s a plutocracy, not an aristocracy. And how many times must we go through this? Yes, nepotism, race, and gender are all largely apart of where Hillary is today, just as race and gender play a role in Obama’s popularity and ascent.

  17. Aaminah wrote:

    Tasha, I’m going to respectfully disagree with you. You’re right that Steinem was directly offensive, but wrong when you say we “inferred” those statements. She was pretty boldly nasty. Somehow it’s okay for white women to boldly be nasty; people give them a cookie for their honesty. But I totally disagree with you that Walker is being passive-aggressive. You are inferring something there that I just don’t see there at all, but that was starkly there in Steinem’s piece.

    And for the record - not at you Tasha :) - I don’t like Obama much either, and sure wouldn’t vote for him just because he is Black. But he’s better than Clinton - and a far sight better than McCain. So it’s not that I happen to agree with Walker’s general analysis even - I, like Wendi, don’t think that Obama is some messianic character that is going to fix all America’s ills. Nor do I believe that if he wins it somehow proves that the American people have moved on from race or that our nation has somehow miraculously improved.

  18. Ailurophile wrote:

    Barbara Lee! She was my Rep back in 2001! I was so proud of her for speaking out against the War on Terra, and if she ran for President you betcha I’d vote for her.

    I’m white, female, and feminist, btw, and I am for Obama (I was for Edwards until he dropped out). Not because he’s biracial, but because he’s got a vision for America that I can agree with. AND I’m so sick of James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, Mark Rand and all that crowd that Clinton has with her. I want a fresh Democratic face, not the same old same old.

  19. marge twain wrote:

    I don’t think Gloria Steinem was “boldly nasty” in her op-ed at all. She didn’t criticize Obama, instead she laid out some important points about why sexism is more media friendly and acceptable than racism, and I agree with that. She didn’t say that sexism is worse than racism but if, as I do, you watch MSNBC, The Daily Show, read the New York Times op-ed page, I think you’d see the same thing: An extremely low ratio of women to men with the majority of women pundits being those who vociferously attack feminists and feminism. I am really tired of hearing some women of color say that feminism has nothing to do with them because clearly Gloria Steinem only cares about white women, or the fact that the “mommy wars”(which exists only in the mind of rich anti-feminists like Hoff-Sommers and Flanagan) have nothing to do with reality. I want to say: pick up a Ms. sometime. They have a diverse staff and a very international and multiracial focus. NOW and Planned Parenthood, the most visible feminist organizations, fight poverty and health access issues for poor women who are disproportionately black.
    I love Alice Walker and have learned so much from her. I know about her past and I know that racism is not in the past. I really hate that she seems to want us to see Clinton as white, in the limo, and therefore business as usual, that she has not been sufficiently oppressed as Obama has been to effect change. Walker snidely calls Clinton out for not keeping her last name, which she did after her husband lost his first bid for governor and she was attacked for being an insufficently submissive wife. She still often calls herself Rodham Clinton and I don’t think feminism requires us to make correct feminist choices at every point in our lives. Certainly marriage requires us to compromise for one another. Walker quite clearly seems to say that Obama had it worse and that’s why he’ll relate. I actually like them both and I think many dems do as well. I think either one will have to massively roll back on their ideals if they win the white house.

  20. Orville wrote:

    @ @Tasha excuse you? Hillary Clinton has been successful due to her race and her gender. It is the classic white female victimhood that some white feminists have played very well for decades. If you bothered to read “All The Women Are White All The Blacks Are Men And Some Of Us Are Brave” maybe you would recognize this fact.

    If Barack Obama was a white male he would of won the Democratic party nomination by now I honestly believe this. Obama wasn’t able to capture California due to the White Hispanics something the American media ignores. Why is it in America the White Hispanic community can play with the issue of race? Why do white Hispanics ignore their white skin privilege? I know America has a bizarre racial classification system but in my mind Cameron Diaz, Daisy Fuentes, and Christina Aguilera are white American Hispanics. The USA has over 23 million white Hispanics.

  21. Orville wrote:

    I also want to point out some white feminists play the divide and conquer strategy for decades trying to separate blacks along gender lines. The Combahee River Collective, bell hooks and Audre Lorde have all written about the deception and deleterious racist tactics some white feminists have played for decades. Recent examples are Geraldine Ferraro and Gloria Steinem.

  22. Aaminah wrote:

    “Planned Parenthood, the most visible feminist organizations, fight poverty and health access issues for poor women who are disproportionately black.”

    Marge, you did NOT go there. Planned Parenthood POISONS women of color. That is the ONLY reason they serve women of color (black or otherwise) and are so quick to provide us services. Because they have an agenda that is well-laid out to limit our reproduction.

    Sorry, Ms does not speak to or for me. Sure, they’re sorta diverse. Alice Walker has written for them for years, so your point is actually… off point. Pointing out one magazine and saying it encapsulates the feminist movement is not helping your argument.

    And I for one am tired of listening to white feminists whine about how it’s WoC own fault that they aren’t down with the movement that was built on our backs, on our values, and continues to marginalize us. We have our own movement because we STARTED the movement, and don’t need to be told to get back in line.

    And the comment about Clinton in her limo speaks to the intersectionality of class issues, not gender or race.

    I didn’t say I agree 100% with Walker’s analysis. I don’t. But for it to be attacked as “just like Steinem” with an implication that it is even somehow worse is just wrong. And yes, Marge, Steinem was, as always, boldly nasty. Since you clearly have issues with women of color (which leads me to wonder why you bother to read this particular blog), you can’t see what is nasty about her. Fine, but don’t expect the rest of us to shut up just because our experience is different than yours.

  23. NancyP wrote:

    Part of the problem is that the two candidates’ platforms are quite similar, and that other factors therefore come to the fore in discussions. People are so attuned to the novelty factor (A Black! vs A Woman!) that they forget to look at temperament, past non-politics experiences, political style (behind the scenes negotiating skills, ability to confront appropriately/tactically, etc).

    Me, I am not picky. Any Dem is better than McCain. I am ready to have the Oppression Olympics over!

    I am white, and happen to be for Obama (after some agonising for a Super Tuesday primary), but part of my interest is his unusual background of living abroad in a non-European country, some community organizing in a style with which I am familiar (a Christian ecumenical umbrella organization called Gamaliel trained Obama and trains other professional and citizen community organizers, and I have had a taste of the training as a congregational representative to the local ecumenical social justice network), a good background in Constitutional law (needed now more than ever), and experience in small and big politics. Being black and biracial is an interesting feature, but not the only one. I can see that it might be an asset in foreign affairs negotiations.

    Do I have an issue with Hillary supporters? Not really, there are good and bad points about her. I am not interested in demonizing them. IMO, Bill is proving to be unable to STFU now, and I would expect him to be unable to STFU if HRC became Pres. I would expect the “two-for-one” approach including an unrestrained former Pres and a current Pres to be huge disadvantage in foreign affairs - Bill is likely to blab early and off the cuff and may well contradict the President.

  24. Black Canseco wrote:

    For me the biggest difference between Walker’s piece and Steinem’s is Steinem both then and now seems to come from what i call White Matriarchal Arrogance. Having lots of relatives in the south i would hear a lot of older black women who were frustrated by white women treating them like children, specifically their children.

    Whenever they tempted to broach issues of discrimination and race came up their white female counterparts the first thing they’d be hit with was “white men are responsible for it all,” including the bias aimed at women of color and men of color by white women.

    it was only when black women like my grandmother or mother were silent about this hypocrisy and behave as if race/culture/ethnicity were irrelevant did white women see them as even close to equal.

    Steinem and others of her mindset seem to be about “including” black women in “their” movement only as long as there’s a hierarchy in tact that keeps steinem and middle/upper class white women at the top.

    Conversely, Walker (who’s no saint) manages to convey a much fairer and more balanced sense of feminism one that isn’t about “inclusion” (as “inclusion” implies that some single person or some group owns the movement and is being charitable enough to allow participation by others.) but Womanism–if it works as intended–is about all women having a voice even if those voices disagree.

    just my two cents.

  25. Michelle wrote:

    @ Black Conseco

    I would agree with your analysis, for the most part. I think it was pretty much spot on.

    @ marge twain

    I think I know where you are coming from in your post, and to be fair, I can understand (not fully agree) but understand the Steinem position.

    Here’s where it get tricky…if people are going to argue about the intersection of race and gender, if people are going to study or argue about racism and feminism in this country and which one is more difficult to bear, wouldn’t it be helpful to ask the people who actually are Black and are women. Or people who are of color and are women? When you said,

    “I am really tired of hearing some women of color say….”,

    I would like to try and express to you the knee jerk reaction I had. I instantly wanted to go there with you. I immediately had images in my mind of the White women who refused to let Black women march in the first women’s suffrage marches. I had a image of all the “well meaning” white women, who only succeed in infantilising Black women, or worse, completely dehumanizing Black women. I say Black women, because when I read your quote I instantly saw the White woman in The Color Purple who tries to give Sophia a day off, you know and ends up crashing the car? I am not trying to exclude other women of color.

    I am not saying I am right in this. I am saying this because I think that anyone on this site is trying to further a more fruitful and powerful conversation. I just wanted you to know that I had to check myself, and really try to listen to you, without all the alarms going off in my own head. I thought that if I explained myself, it would help us speak (or write) to each other with more clarity.

  26. tasha wrote:

    @Orville

    Go back, near the bottom of the Ferraro thread, and read what I wrote to you on this topic. I don’t necessarily believe that Obama would have clinched the nomination by now, had he been completely white. And if “All The Women Are White, All The Blacks Are Men, And Some Of Us Are Brave” as the book you recommended suggests, then how will my vote as a woman who is not white and a black that is not male, change that?

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/13/open-thread-geraldine-ferraro/

    The fact that I can acknowledge how race, nepotism, and gender have contributed to Hillary’s success, but you can’t do the same with Obama is really telling. You’re behaving as if there are no prominant people of color that have benefitted from nepotism, name recognition, family connections and affirmative action, just white women, when in fact, both Hillary and Obama have been exploiting their novelty as “non-white male others” long before running for POTUS. Please do not front like Obama isn’t himself a beneficiary of white privilege. His mother, a white academic, and her family were able to secure many opportunities for Barack in terms of education and travel. Not to mention that arguments can be made about everything from Obama’s light skin privilege and being half white to the fact that it’s an amazing coincidence that the first serious, black Presidential front runner is not a descendant of the American slave trade, like the majority of black Americans. I mean, we could play these games all day. So I’ll ask you again. Do you have a problem with the Kennedys, Harold Ford Jr., Earl Graves (Black Enterprise) son, or Jesse Jackson’s sons when they use name recognition and family connections for political and financial gain, or is it just privileged females that bother you in that regard, or just privileged white females, or maybe it’s just the one running for President?

    @Aaminah

    well, my intention wasn’t to sway support for either candidate. I thought it was a pretty good essay, myself. I just wanted to point out that Walker is using a lot of the same tricks in this speech that Steinem used in her op-ed and that we shouldn’t hesistate to call her out just because she’s pro-Obama. Walker’s not slick, and neither are some of you all.

  27. Orville wrote:

    @Tasha I think you’re ignoring the power of the Mythical Norm. And if you read Audre Lorde’s groundbreaking book “Sister Outsider” you would know this. I think you are downplaying the currency of whiteness and the power of white heterosexual male dominance in society.

    If you read Audre Lorde’s work she says the Mythical Norm is the ultimate source of power in society. The Mythical Norm is the thin, white, Christian, heterosexual male. I do believe if Obama was a white man he would of won.

    You see Tasha the USA media ignore the racism of some white Hispanics as well. Obama didn’t win enough big states if he did he would had the nomination by now. In the state of California it is well known white Hispanics make up a large segment of California’s population they won’t vote for Obama because he’s a black man. Some Asian Americans are also racist and they wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s a black man as well. So yes Tasha race matters.

    Hillary Clinton has done well with the White Hispanics and Asian American voters due to her name recognition she’s Bill Clinton’s wife. Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of white supremacy she utilizes Ferraro and Steinem to do the race baiting yet claims she is oblivious to it. The Clinton campaign is all about reminding voters Barack Obama is a black man. It is the classic “fear” of the black man the Clinton campaign is all about. Anyone with a discenring eye can see this.

    You really should visit your local public library and read “All The Women Are White All The Blacks Are Men But Some Of Us Are Brave” maybe you would learn something about the hypocrisy and racism in feminism. “All The Women Are White All The Blacks Are Men But Some Of Us Are Brave ” was published in 1982 and edited by black lesbian feminist Barbara Smith and black feminist Gloria T Hull.

    All of the race baiting by Ferraro and Steinem is a perfect example of the hypocrisy and racism of some mainstream white feminists.

    I guarantee Tasha if you read this book you will learn a lot about the hypocrisy and racism of mainstream white feminists. White feminists don’t mind including black women in feminism as long as white women are at the top of hierachy. For instance, on Oprah’s website so many white women were bashing Oprah for supporting Barack Obama. But what has Hillary Clinton ever done for black women? Absolutely nothing. Some white feminists are acting as though if Hillary Clinton wins this will be a great social change and I strongly disagree.

    Hillary Clinton is a perfect symbol of white power, class, name recognition and influence. The NOW Organization is known for their pernicious racism and bigotry against blacks.

    You can will learn a lot about the racism and hypocrisy feminist movement. Audre Lorde stated there is no “global sisterhood” with white women.

    Some white American feminists are only concerned about white females consolidating power in the United States and you fail to acknowledge this. bell hooks has also slammed Gloria Steinem in her books for ignoring the issue of race. Steinem in her January 2008 OPED in the NY TIMES ignored the issue of race and concentrated on gender. It is the classic racist game some white feminists play its called divide and conquer.

    Some white feminists also play the victimhood game all the while failing to acknowledge whiteness as a cultural and social tool of white supremacy and obtaining higher social status. White heterosexual women such as Hillary Clinton have gained political recognition through the Marriage Market. Hillary Clinton’s already been in the White House.

    okay I agree to a certain extent that Barack Obama definitely is has some privilege. However, I still believe that his race and gender trump his social status. Yes Barack is an educated black man but he’s still a black man in a white America. White Americans account for 73.9% and that’s 221 million people. Add in the White Hispanics at 23 million and the USA white American population is even larger.

  28. Orville wrote:

    Michelle have you read the Black Candle by Canadian feminist Emily Murphy? Murphy wrote the book under the name Janey Canuck. If you read The Black Candle it is a very important book about the exclusion and racism in the feminist movement. Yes, Murphy’s book was written a long time ago when race relations were much more fractured. But Murphy’s book is also an important reminder about the ways in which some white feminists believe they “know” what’s best for all women.

  29. bdsista wrote:

    I have a question, what if they end up on the same ticket? With all this vitriol (not unwarranted ) can us Obama, Clintonites unite? Do you see Alice and Gloria holding hands at the Democratic convention singing We Shall Overcome? Just puttin it out there.
    Oh, and I agree with Alice, and the book recommendations are spot on! An essential part of my library. Reread them on occasions as well. Good to have post-its placed on the important parts.

  30. nati wrote:

    Orville

    ” The USA has over 23 million white Hispanics.”

    Really? Where did you come up with a figure like this? As mixed heritage “White Hispanic” myself ( a large part of my family comes directly from Spain) I completely understand your point about owning up to the white privilege I, in many situations, certainly posses. However, in talking about the role of Latina/os (many Latin American descendant people find “Hispanic” Eurocentric and offensive!) in the California election, it is erroneous to classify all of us as white. The the Latina/o population of California are overwhelmingly Chicana/o (as well as, increasingly, Central American) have Indigenous ancestry and African ancestry, and brown skin. Implying that they can claim white privilege is erroneous and dismissive of Latina/o struggle for civil rights, particularly in a state where there is such high anti-”illegal immigrant” sentiment.

  31. nati wrote:

    Also, I must include that although women that look like myself, or like Daisy Fuentes (we don’t all look alike!) may look “White” enough to be considered so in certain societal situations, a “bizarre” system of racial categorization certainly endures in the United States. Despite my European heritage, I was profiled as a “person of color” at the elite college prep high school I attended. Also, many people of color with mixed-heritage ancestries (African Americans, APA’s, Indigenous people) may be born with a “whiter” phenotype. Although this may certainly afford us many privileges in society, it does not negate our ancestry, our family’s history, or the centuries of racism an oppression that affect the community to which we belong.

  32. nati wrote:

    Sorry! add people of Middle Eastern descent to the list.

  33. Wendi Muse wrote:

    also, not to TOTALLY derail, but i think white hispanics with privilege based on skin color can also face discrimination. hello? last names! just like our discussion on first names a few posts ago and within the virginiaca post, the same goes for people with “ethnic sounding” last names. they deal with similar challenges in the job market that i don’t (considering my last name, Muse, is of british origin, but i’m a WOC). i think it also makes room for a weird “double agent” phenomenon that i plan to cover in the continuation of my piece on jewish identity. sometimes white ethnics (i.e. white hispanics, white jews) are privy to hyper racist/xenophobic information by way of others who assume they are just anglo/wasp-y when that is not the case. also, there are plenty of latinos/hispanics who voted for obama with no problem. i don’t think it’s fair to assume that just because someone may possess a white phenotype that they identify with the white experience SO STRONGLY that it would cause them to lose all sense of reason and only vote for a candidate who kinda looks like them. this the same assumption made with regard to black voters (of any gender) who like obama or women (of any race) who like hillary…and one that i don’t appreciate because it insults my intelligence as a person of color who happens to have a vagina.

  34. marge twain wrote:

    Co-sign on your last point especially, Wendi

    @bdsista:that’s my dream ticket

    @Michelle: Gloria Steinem doesn’t understand what it’s like to be a WoC and she did seriously put her foot in her mouth. That doesn’t mean she hasn’t treated WoC as allies on equal ground.
    The events you refer to are true. Thank you for showing me what my words made you feel. I don’t know that I would lump that scene from The Color Purple in as representative of feminism, though, white women’s oppression of black women is something I should have considered. I can add to that Olivia de Havilland’s anger at losing an academy award to Hattie McDaniel in 1939.
    Reading the posts here I understand more why some WoC who believe in gender equality don’t identify themselves as feminists but I think that division has been encouraged by mainstream society and supported by arguments against the condescending straw feminist. Especially during this election cycle it is apparant to me that the MSM wants us to think feminism is for white women and black women must pick one loyalty. This is just not representative of reality and it discounts the trans-ethnic and trans-national work being done today.

  35. Michelle wrote:

    @ Marge

    I agree with you, absolutely. One thing that people don’t take into account is the extremely personal and passionate way that people feel toward these issues of race and feminism. In order for us to even want to talk about it, we have to have some powerful emotional and passionate reasons why we want to see change in America. Given that, I think it is important to acknowledge that and then, keep the discourse rolling.

    I would like this whole thing to be far less polarized. And so I hear you Marge, there is a lot of work being done today. I would hate to see this moment in history become another watershed moment in the decades long battle of feminism and the question of “where do Black women stand”. We have moved beyond that and Geraldine and Gloria are not helping us by inflaming the embers of that divide.

    To that end, I think that this article is a little less polarizing and it helps to try and acknowledge an intensely personal connection to the “movements” and to the campaigns, and in doing so I think this article pushes the conversation back toward the center. Maybe not all the way, but the tone seemed far less accusatory and absolute than either Ferraro’s or Steinems’s words.

  36. marge twain wrote:

    @Aaminah: If PP has a well laid out agenda to poison WoC and limit our reproduction, then can you lay it out for me? Where’s the poison in providing contraception, safe and legal abortions for women who ask for them, STI screening and treatment, obstetric and pediatric health care, sex education..? I read recently that 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STI. In these times when more states are passing laws limiting reproductive health access and factual sex education, even allowing doctors and pharmacists to deny contraception to women who ask for it, it sounds like we need them more than ever.

    It’s okay with me if Ms. doesn’t speak for you. I mention it because it’s the most famous and visible (oldest current?) feminist magazine. I have heard people mischaracterize it and the FMF as emblematic of the elite, white feminist mainsteam when it is actually very racially diverse in it’s writing staff and photographed women and also international in it’s scope. Also because I have read many pieces by Alice Walker in it. I thought it was relevant to my point about WoC who don’t identify with the movement because they aren’t aware of the WoC who have been and continue to be integral to it. I think this has more to do with the way the media focuses on a few white women who say inflammatory things rather than a true reflection of the movement.

    “And the comment about Clinton in her limo speaks to the intersectionality of class issues, not gender or race. ”
    I think this comment is obviously about class and race and how she views Clinton as not her peer because of it.

    I didn’t attack Alice Walker’s piece or say that it was just like or worse than what Steinem wrote. I seek out everything she writes. I see a parallel, however, in that she doesn’t just say why she wants Obama to be preseident, she says why she doesn’t want Clinton to be.

    I don’t know if you realize that I am a woman of color. I have to struggle with issues of race, gender and class just like we all do. You seem to think, however, that I’m unwilling to grapple with those issues and must be reading this blog with my eyes shut since I don’t agree with something you wrote. Ironically, you’re the one who implies that I shouldn’t be reading here(and threfore not polluting the messages?)I don’t want anybody to shut up or stop posting and I never said that. Please take issue with my conclusions and not my person.

  37. Aaminah wrote:

    Marge, I did not attack your person. I attacked the fact that you sound like the typical white woman complaining about women of color. I didn’t realize that you are a woman of color because you sounded to me like you were railing against WoC and used typical white arguments (the comment about what NOW and PP do for WoC being a perfect example because most WoC I know hate both orgs and don’t feel they do much for us, but also because it sounded like “look what we do for you ungrateful people”. I see now that wasn’t how you intended it, but it is how it read to me, coming from my own issues.) If I misunderstood, fine, I’m sorry your feelings are hurt.

    It would take me forever to explain to you PP’s well laid out plans, so I will summarize and recommend you do the research. They were begun by a woman whose whole mission was to stamp out colored people. They have continued in that vein by their connections to population control organizations that target people of color. The ONLY reason they give women of color free and low priced services is because the services they provide ensure that we don’t pollute their population with more brown babies. Depo-Provera and Norplant are literally killing women. They were used on women before the risks could properly be assessed, and intentionally used on women of color in order to find out what those risks were. We are guinea pigs to them. And frankly, in my experience, some of the services are not great quality either, which is part of why they can offer them cheap. I am personally aware of many many many anecdotal evidences against what they offer us that would be too numerous to go into here, including women being lied to about what procedure is being done on them, and women who don’t speak English not having qualified interpreters or an advocate to ensure they are able to understand the decision they are making.

    I realize not all women are aware of these things. It is easy for our judgement to be clouded by the seeming good PP does, and make no mistake, there is good there too. I know that when I couldn’t get services elsewhere I was glad they were around. But in retrospect, that just points out to me that we need to fight for better services and our needs to be met all around. We shouldn’t have to “choose” the only option; you know, that’s not much of a choice. :) We need to have access to choices so that we can pick what is best for our individual needs.

    I don’t want to totally derail the conversation, so I will leave off here. By which I mean, I think the PP discussion is relevent to race-discussion, but not to this particular post and perhaps not even to a blog that is about race as it relates to pop culture. :) I intend to start covering some of these issues in more detail (this is good timing to give me the impetus to do what I’ve been putting off) on my own blog and will of course include links and references there. I would welcome you to check that out if you are interested.

    I am sorry we got off on the “wrong foot” and there were miscommunications. I imagine we probably agree more than we disagree, but in heated moments we forget that. :)

  38. Orville wrote:

    The 2006 USA Census clearly points out the USA has 23 million white Hispanics. The White Hispanics were the difference for Obama in California they didn’t vote for him they voted for Clinton due to race, gender, and name recognition.

  39. tasha wrote:

    @Orville

    Why do you assume that I don’t think that race matters, simply because I disagree with your notion that a man with Obama’s resume would have already secured the nomination? By your logic, shouldn’t Edwards have prevailed by now? Is race to be blamed every time Obama fails to win over a big state or minority group? What about the Latino and Asian population in VA, DC, and MD that favored Obama? Are they all somehow less racist, or perhaps not as Hispanic or Asian as the Latinos and Asians in California? You know Orville, it would’ve been nice, if somewhere in all that, you bothered to answer my direct questions about intersectionality and whether or not you had a problem with prominent black men using family connections and name recognition for personal gain. By your omission, I’m going to assume that you don’t have a problem with nepotism when utilized by black men, but then again, why would you, especially given that Barack himself, has used Michelle’s professional network to finance and advance his political endeavors? So what about when family connections and name recognition are used by black women? For instance, the first black female billionaire was not Oprah Winfrey but Sheila Johnson (BET Bob’s wife). Sheila’s role in the company was similar to Hillary’s before, during, and after Bill’s Presidency. Much like Hillary did before Bill became POTUS, Sheila brought in the lions share of the income while Robert was establishing the company. Now that they’re divorced, Sheila leveraged her settlement into ownership of numerous assets including real estate ventures and stakes in three pro-sports team franchises. Do you have a problem with Sheila using the “marriage market” to enrich herself? A black woman by the name of Tracey Edmonds runs the first supposedly black owned movie studio. Do you know how she got her job? She used the money and connections gained from marrying and later divorcing a rich musician (Babyface) to produce her own film and tv projects and eventually parlayed that into the studio head job. What about Spike Lee’s wife Tonya who used her marital status to get book and tv producing deals? Do you have a problem with them? If not, why knock Hillary’s marriage hustle, especially given the fact that Hillary’s resume is far more lengthy and substantive than Tracey’s, Sheila’s, or Tonya’s.

    And as for Hillary having done nothing for black women, that’s not true. It’s just easier for you to portray her as an evil, white bogeywoman than someone who’s been an advocate for women and children (many of which were not white) for the past 35 years, at least. Before entering the private sector, Hillary took on child abuse cases and gave free legal advice for New Haven legal services, when she was in law school, and later opened a free legal clinic in Arkansas. She was a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund, established a branch in Arkansas, and continued her pro-bono work even after she joined and made partner at the Rose Law Firm. She successfully obtained federal funding to expand health care services in rural Arkansas when Bill was governor. Susan Wood, the former FDA director for the Office of Women’s Health, herself, said that the Plan B emergency contraceptive wouldn’t have made it to the market if not for Hillary. Even though her health care initiative failed, Hillary got SCHIP, the national program that provides health care for uninsured children (many of which are black), passed, as well as the Adoption for Safe Families Act. Not to mention the federal funds she helped secure for World Trade Center victims after 9/11. Even if you take into account the earned income tax credit for the working poor that Obama got passed in the Illinois Senate, and his statewide children’s health care initiative, Obama hasn’t done more for black women specifically, than Hillary, and the bills he’s gotten passed in the US Senate, really don’t affect the everyday lives of black people. And Hillary’s surrogates don’t have a monopoly on race baiting. Between this Walker essay, Melissa Harris Lacewell’s “Hillary’s Scarlett O’Hara Act,” and Rev. Wright, there’s enough of that going around, and that’s not even including the sexist remarks like Michelle Obama’s little quips about Hillary’s “tone” and “running her own house” and Samantha Power’s off the cuff “monster” slur.

    And who cares if Oprah’s predominantly white audience is calling her out for her Obama shilling? You’ve got to be the only one who didn’t see that coming. You’re trying to make it seem like the white women sending Oprah hate mail are doing so because of so called “hypocritical white feminist” reasons, when in reality, unless their tirades are laced with racial epithets, their resentment probably isn’t racially motivated at all, rather they’re trying to “Dixie Chick” Oprah. When you make the bulk of your money from a red state, Bush loving (before the war went sour) crowd (as the Dixie Chicks did), and you go overseas and bad mouth the President, don’t be surprised when your fan base wants to have words with you when you get home. The same crowd (middle aged/elderly white women) that has anointed Oprah as their high priestess is coincidentally the same demo that’s popular with Hillary. Oprah’s made a lot of money off of them with touchy, feely feminist rhetoric, and the minute the first serious, female candidate for POTUS emerges, the otherwise apolitical Winfrey endorses a man, in essence betraying her consumer base. They probably would’ve reacted the same way had it been Martha Stewart endorsing Obama, but see, Martha wouldn’t have endorsed Obama, even if she wanted to, because she knows what side her babka (polish bread) is buttered on. Why shouldn’t those white women come for Oprah? Oprah’s race didn’t deter them from consuming her media. So no, she shouldn’t be exempt from a backlash if her fans feel like she’s out of line, just because she’s black. Oprah can get it too.

  40. Orville wrote:

    @Tasha of course you go on and on about the classic white female victimhood. You also ignore the power of the marriage market. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be successful if she wasn’t Bill Clinton’s wife. Hillary Clinton’s success is based on name recognition.

    Barack Obama actually worked hard for his success he didn’t already have a spouse that was a former president to launch his campaign.

    Hillary Clinton is no feminist and no’s friend of black people. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her racism over and over again.

    Some white women always want to play the victim ignoring contributing to racism against black men. Black men have been murdered because of white women. Or have you forgotten about the lynching?

    Emmitt Till is a perfect example he was only a teenager in 1955 but he was black and male. He was accused at whistling at a white woman and next he was savagely murdered.

    Hillary Clinton is a racist and a misandrist along with Ferraro and Steinem. Of course you Tasha ignore the race baiting of Ferraro and Steinem. Hillary Clinton illustrated her true racist colours by instructing Ferraro and Steinem to spread their bigotry trying to treat black men as oppressors.

    Black men we also encounter gender discrimination. And I am tired of racist misandrist feminists trying to act as though black men we don’t oppression due to race and gender. Steinem’s opinion piece was incredibly anti black male and offensive. There is an imbalance of young black men in prison due to the racism of the judicial system. Black men encounter police brutality and discrimination in the public sphere such as the workforce, housing, education.

    The Clinton campaign are the ones that started the race baiting trying to scare voters that Obama is a black man.

    I am not surprised it is clear and obvious Tasha you are a Clinton supporter. I guess you never learned anything from women’s studies and the racism of some white feminists.

  41. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *hits the ref bell.*

    Okay, Orville, Tasha - this has gone on for long enough. It’s pretty clear you aren’t hearing each other.

    Feel free to address the piece, but further comments addressing each other will be deleted.

  42. donna darko wrote:

    “And as for Hillary having done nothing for black women, that’s not true. It’s just easier for you to portray her as an evil, white bogeywoman than someone who’s been an advocate for women and children (many of which were not white) for the past 35 years, at least. Before entering the private sector, Hillary took on child abuse cases and gave free legal advice for New Haven legal services, when she was in law school, and later opened a free legal clinic in Arkansas. She was a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund, established a branch in Arkansas, and continued her pro-bono work even after she joined and made partner at the Rose Law Firm. She successfully obtained federal funding to expand health care services in rural Arkansas when Bill was governor. Susan Wood, the former FDA director for the Office of Women’s Health, herself, said that the Plan B emergency contraceptive wouldn’t have made it to the market if not for Hillary. Even though her health care initiative failed, Hillary got SCHIP, the national program that provides health care for uninsured children (many of which are black), passed, as well as the Adoption for Safe Families Act. Not to mention the federal funds she helped secure for World Trade Center victims after 9/11. Even if you take into account the earned income tax credit for the working poor that Obama got passed in the Illinois Senate, and his statewide children’s health care initiative, Obama hasn’t done more for black women specifically, than Hillary, and the bills he’s gotten passed in the US Senate, really don’t affect the everyday lives of black people. ”

    Thank you.

  43. Michelle wrote:

    Hillary has done all of those things and I sure there are more that you have not mentioned. And that is why she was beloved by the Black community.

    I think what has happened lately is what we are talking about. She did call Ferraro or Steinem on what were horribly offensive comments. Or comments that have allowed the ugly divide between feminism and Black women to rear it’s ugly head. Not to mention the way race has been framed in this campaign. If she really wanted to do something for Black people, I am curious what would happen if she came out and said, “Enough about race! Obama and I should go head to head on experience and where we stand on the issues. I don’t want to hear anymore about race, and who has it worse. My campaign, while symbolic, will not be an issue to further divide white women and Black women in this country. Furthermore, I think it is high time that this country had some serious and frank discourses on race. Since Obama and I agree on that, let’s move on to health care and the war in Iraq, and the potential for war with Iran.” Wonder what that would do?

  44. donna darko wrote:

    There’s also middle ground no one’s talked about. Steinem, Ferraro and Helen Thomas were right if you look at the context of their statements.

    Steinem said gender is the most restrictive force in Presidential politics and in the kitchen. Everyone latched on the first part of the sentence but ignored the second part.

    Ferraro was talking about historical candidacies and first said she wouldn’t have been a VP candidate in 84 had she not been a woman.

    Helen Thomas said sexism is more acceptable than racism which is true as this election season has proven.

    This is not to say taken together, second wave feminists should not be a lot more sensitive wrt intersectionality. They really need to get hip with intersectionality.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.