Shirley Chisholm is NOT to be forgotten now or ever.

by Guest Contributor Sylvia/M, originally published at Problem Chylde

The thing that angers me about Obama and Clinton is this is NOT a historical first with regards to a black person or a woman seeking the presidency. The REAL historical first is Shirley Chisholm back in 1972.

Clinton has been using Chisholm’s legacy as a pawn with black folks and black women since one of the things she did as a junior senator is contribute to legislation honoring her. That’s it.

Obama, on the other hand, has channeled her “Unbought and Unbossed” campaign into an appeal to the people, catered to the hopes of young people with complete audacity, and has painted himself as the Every Person Candidate. That’s it.

Just as Chisholm did! Before Jesse Jackson, even!

It’s no coincidence or surprise from either politician to give her lip service about what she did. I mean, I read these words from Chisholm and it sounds like something Obama’s used in his speeches in almost the exact same words:

“You can be part of the system without being wedded to it,” I say. “You can take part in it without believing that everything it does is right. I don’t measure America by its achievement, but by its potential. There are still many things that we haven’t tried — that I haven’t tried — to change the way our present system operates. I haven’t exhausted the opportunities for action in the course I’m pursuing. If I ever do, I cannot at this point imagine what to do next. You want me to talk to you about revolution, but I can’t do that. I know what it would bring. My people are twelve percent of the population, at most fifteen percent. I am pragmatic about it: revolution would be suicide.”

Chisholm’s the one who paved the way. All these folks can spin Obama and Clinton as historical firsts and discard the importance of her run post-Civil Rights Acts era. I don’t buy the “first with a chance” theory. The fact that she ran knowing that she may not win reflects more on the superficiality of the American people than it does on the merits of her campaign and her spirit. Junior Congresswoman vying for the ticket, all of that. People have thrown lip service in her direction and a few quick glances; but if they look at her ideals you can see so much of her in this season. So much, and yet not enough.


Such leaders must be found. But they will not be found as much as they will be created, by an electorate that has become ready to demand that it control its own destiny. There must be a new coalition of all Americans — black, white, red, yellow and brown, rich and poor — who are no longer willing to allow their rights as human beings to be infringed upon by anyone else, for any reason. We must join together to insist that this nation deliver on the promise it made, nearly 200 years ago, that every man be allowed to be a man. I feel an incredible urgency that we must do it now. If time has not run out, it is surely ominously short.

And ironically, when I look back at descriptions of how Chisholm ran her campaign and garnered support, tactically Obama’s rhetoric squares with hers. (Aside: Why is this historical first’s biography out of print?)


    On Young People and Change

    One question bothers me a lot: Who’s listening to me? Some of the time, I feel dishearteningly small and futile. It’s as if I’m facing a seamless brick wall, as if most people are deaf to what I try to say. It seems so clear to me what’s wrong with the whole system. Why isn’t it clear to most others? The majority of Americans do not want to hear the truth about how their country is ruled and for whom. They do not want to know why their children are rejecting them. They do not dare to have to rethink their whole lives. There is a vacuum of leadership, created partly by the bullets of deranged assassins. But whatever made it, all we see now is the same tired old men who keep trucking down front to give us the same old songs and dances.

    There are no new leaders coming along. Where are they? What has happened suddenly? On the national level, on the state level, who commands respect, who is believed by a wide enough cross section of the population to qualify as a leader? I don’t see myself as becoming that kind of a leader. My role, I think, is more that of a catalyst. By verbalizing what is wrong, by trying to strip off the masks that make people comfortable in the midst of chaos, perhaps I can help get things moving.

    It may be that no one can have any effect on most adults on this society. It may be that the only hope is with the younger generation. If I can relate to them, give them some kind of focus, make them believe that this country can still become the America that it should have been, I could be content. The young may be slandered as “kooks” and “societal misfits” by frightened, demagogic old men, but that will not scare them. They are going to force change. For a while they may be beaten down, but time is on their side, and the spirit of this generation will not be killed. That’s why I prefer to go around to campuses and talk with the kids rather than attend political meetings. Politicians tell me I’m wasting my time and energy. “They don’t vote,” I’m told. Well, I’m not looking for votes. If I were, I would get the same kind of reception that a lot of political figures get when they encounter young people, and I would deserve it.

    There are many things I don’t agree with some young zealots about. The main one, I suppose, is that I have not given up — and will not give up until I am compelled to — my belief that the basic design of this country is right. What is essential is to make it work, not to sweep it away and substitute — what? Something far worse, perhaps.

    Most young people are not yet revolutionary, but politicians and police and other persons in power almost seem to be conspiring to turn them into revolutionaries. Like me, I think, most of them are no more revolutionary than the founders of this country. Their goals are the same — to insure liberty and equality of opportunity, and forever to thwart the tyrannous tendencies of government, which inevitably arise from the arrogance and isolation of men who are securely in power. All they want, if it were not too fashionable for them to say so, is for the American dream to come true, at least in its less materialistic aspects. They want to heal the gaping breach between this country’s promises and its performance, a breach that goes back to its founding on a Constitution that denied that black persons and women were full citizens. “Liberty and justice for all” were beautiful words, but the ugly act was that liberty and justice were only for white males. How incredible that it is nearly 200 years since then, and we have still to fight the same old enemies! How is it possible for a man to repeat the pledge of allegiance that contains these words, and then call his fellow citizens “social misfits” when they are simply asking for liberty and justice?

    Such schizophrenia goes far back. “All forms of commerce between master and slave are tyranny,” intoned Thomas Jefferson, who is rumored to have had several children by black women on his estate. If the story is true, the great democrat was a great hypocrite. Even if it is not true, it has verisimilitude. It could be a perfect metaphor for the way our country was founded and grew, with lofty and pure words on its lips and the basest bigotry hidden in its heart.

    The main thing I have in common with the kids is that we are tired of being lied to. What we want is for people to mean what they say. I think they recognize at least that I’m for real. They know most adult are selling something they can’t deliver.

I wonder if Gloria Steinem even remembers what she wrote about Shirley Chisholm as she shills for Sen. Clinton, or if any of the Obamaniacs recognize the person who tried it first.

Perhaps the best indicator of her campaign’s impact is the effect it had on individual lives. All over the country, there are people who will never be quite the same: farm women in Michigan who were inspired to work in a political campaign for the first time; Black Panthers in California who registered to vote, and encouraged other members of the black community to vote, too; children changed by the sight of a black woman saying, “I want to be President”; radical feminists who found this campaign, like that of Linda Jenness in the Socialist Workers’ Party, a possible way of changing the patriarchal system; and student or professional or “blue-collar” men who were simply impressed with a political figure who told the truth as she say it, no matter what the cost.

The Chisholm candidacy didn’t forge a solid coalition of those people working for social change; that will take a long time. But it began one. If you listen to personal testimony from very diverse sources, it seems that the Chisholm candidacy was not in vain. In fact, the truth is that the American political scene may never quite be the same again.

So perhaps it is time for the electorate to ask ourselves honestly what we want to see our President do, instead of listening to what they want to do for us.

With more straight talk and crystal clear positions. (PDF) Her announcement speech:

I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America. (Clapping.)

I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. (Clapping.)
I am not the candidate of the women’s movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. (Clapping.)

I am not the candidate of any political bosses or fat cats or special interests.” (Clapping. cheers).

I stand here now without endorsements from many big name politicians or celebrities or any other kind of prop. I do not intend to offer to you the tired and glib clichés, which for too long have been an accepted part of our political life. I am the candidate of the people of America. And my presence before you now symbolizes a new era in American political history.

I have always earnestly believed in the great potential of America. Our constitutional democracy will soon celebrate its 200th anniversary, effective testimony, to the longevity to our cherished constitution and its unique bill of rights, which continues to give to the world an inspirational message of freedom and liberty.

We Americans are a dynamic people…


More on the inside of the campaign.

And no white feminist would dare say she neglected women’s rights.

But I understand why most people now would rather have you forget her. She is perhaps the first black woman who knew her place and dared to ask people to help her get there.

    “The Chisholm candidacy… confused and unsettled the niggers — and by niggers, I don’t mean just the black niggers, but also the student niggers and the woman niggers and the poor niggers — plus a whole lot of other people who thought they were revolutionaries but discovered they couldn’t dig her wig.”

— Florynce Kennedy, lawyer, black activist, a founder of the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Party

(Above quote added for Daisy after I recognized the speaker! Hehe, gracias! ;))

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Racialicious « on 09 Jun 2008 at 10:11 am

    […] quote is taken from the article published on Racialicious. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Pssst! Did you notice that this […]

Comments

  1. the izza wrote:

    Barack Obama is the first person to garner a major party’s nomination. Many, many black people have run for president with lesser party affiliation.

  2. Kali wrote:

    Time to stop the Hillary bashing.

    Obama has the nomination - now can we (women especially) stop this continual outpouring of vitriol against Hillary?

    It is intolerant, racist and sexist - and I am an older WoC in case you are wondering.

  3. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Kali -

    In this piece, Sylvia/M bashes both Obama and Hillary equally for appropriating Chislom’s words and platform.

    What specific part of the piece do you object to?

  4. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Shirley Chisholm was significant because she was the first major black and woman candidate for president. We should honor her as such.

    But let’s also acknowledge some of her historical antecedents. Here are some sources and quotes on the subject of presidential campaign firsts:

    http://www.jofreeman.com/politics/womprez03.htm

    Victoria Claflin Woodhull is remembered as The Woman Who Ran for President, but whether she actually ran is debatable.

    Woodhull may have been the first woman to be nominated for President but the first woman to actually campaign was Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood in
    1884.

    When Margaret Chase Smith, the Republican Senator from Maine, stood before a luncheon of the Women’s National Press Club held at the Mayflower
    Hotel on January 27, 1964 and announced that she was running for President, she became the first woman to become a candidate for a major party
    nomination for the nation’s highest office.

    In 1968 Charlene Mitchell became the first woman to head a minor party ticket in the Twentieth Century, and also the first African American of
    any party to appear on a Presidential ballot. She was officially nominated to head the first Communist Party ticket since 1940 by 179 delegates
    meeting at a hotel in New York City, after selection by party leaders behind closed doors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull

    Woodhull was nominated for President of the United States by the newly formed Equal Rights Party on May 10, 1872, at Apollo Hall, New York
    City. Her nomination was ratified at convention on June 6, 1872. Former slave Frederick Douglass was nominated for Vice President. Douglass never
    acknowledged this nomination. Instead, he served as a presidential elector in the United States Electoral College for the State of New York.

    While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States, some people have questioned
    the legality of her run.

    http://www.jofreeman.com/politics/womprez.htm

    Then there was Wonder Woman’s fictional campaign for president in “Wonder Woman for President,” from “Wonder Woman” comic book, No. 7, winter 1943 (http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/may06/women.html).

    And don’t forget that we actually elected Charles Curtis, a Kaw Indian, as vice president in 1928 (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/06/obama-isnt-first.html).

  5. Black Canseco wrote:

    I’ve been writing about Carol Mosely Braun who ran from my home in Chicago in 1996, Shirley Chisholm, and Charlene Mitchell–black woman who ran on the Communist party ticket in 1968—for the better part of a year now… And it’s always amazed me that feminists and the media continue to ignore these 3 women in the name of annointing Hillary Clinton to some mythical status that she doesn’t deserve.

    Obama never claimed to be breaking “the glass ceiling”. It’s Hilary Clinton and her supporters have spent 2 years claiming that she was the first woman to run and not since Geraldine Ferraro’s VP run have “women” been this close to the White House.

    I guess those black women who busted their asses to run on their own, without their husband’s influence don’t count huh?

    Similar to Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet when in fact it was in fact Philip Emeagwali, a Nigerian scientist who did so–here’s yet another instance of myopic and condescending white liberals marginalizing black folks in the name of propping up their own selfish agendas and self-aggrandizing perspectives.

  6. Black Canseco wrote:

    And can somebody please explain to me why their isn’t more outrage about this “women” label that’s only applied to Hillary and other white women as if they speak for all women or represent all women yet WOCs are seen–in this election cycle as much as ever–as being lesser than women?

    Is it too much to ask for someone lighter than a paperbag to speak out against this marginalization thru coded language?!

  7. Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

    No one is taking away from what Shirley Chisolm did, at least not people who know their history. But Obama is the first one to get as far as he did. That’s like beating up Martin Lurther King up for what Gandhi did. I KNOW he used a lot of his methods!

  8. Diana wrote:

    Thanks for reminding us about this truly awesome woman. You’ve inspired me to go learn more. And I wish her legacy was getting more visibility right now - I’ve seen nothing on it as the media talks about the historic “firsts” of this campaign.

  9. Kali wrote:

    “Obama, on the other hand, has channeled her “Unbought and Unbossed” campaign into an appeal to the people, catered to the hopes of young people with complete audacity, and has painted himself as the Every Person Candidate. That’s it.”

    I read that particular “That’s it” as ironic or approving.

    Shirley Chisholm’s contribution to the black/women’s struggle for equality in the sphere of politics and statesmanship can be made without decrying another woman’s or black person’s current efforts or accomplishments. One can make the same point and win many more minds to one’s point of view by being more respectful and mindful of the way we anti-racists/feminists phrase our arguments.

    Our implacable enemies don’t need any more ammunition provided to them from within our ranks.

  10. Kali wrote:

    >Obama never claimed to be breaking “the glass ceiling”.<

    Yes he did say that (not ‘claim’ - that implies you don’t believe the claim) - even if not in those words. It is dishonest to parse words and suggest otherwise.

    And I am damn pleased and proud that he did.

    I just wish that people would not think Hillary was fair game for disrespect and vitriol just because she is female and yes, white.

  11. Medea wrote:

    Black Canseco,

    Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He said, “I took the initiative in creating the internet,” meaning that he supported its creation. Why are you repeating a right-wing lie?

  12. Cara wrote:

    i don’t understand why ppl are having a problem with the post…?….the author only wrote what she and many others have been thinking. no disrepsect to either candidate - but she makes some good points.

    we aske our leaders to be “excellenct, not perfect.” obama and clinton are not perfect they can’t make everyone happy. however, this is an obvious oversite and ommission on their parts. maybe the have a good reason as to why they both haven’t mentioned Shirley Chisholm outright….maybe Chisholm has asked them not too, who knows…..she had several attempts on her life during her ‘72 campaign. so maybe she wants to be left out of it.

  13. Tim wrote:

    This post reminded me today of Obama’s response a year and a half ago to Joe Biden’s brain-dead remark that Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

    Obama said, ““African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.”

    I don’t think Obama intended that list to be exhaustive, but he has seemed to have a pretty well-rounded sense of his historical position.

    The argument that the media on the other hand have effectively taken Biden’s stance seriously, by slighting Chisholm and Braun and perhaps especially Jesse Jackson, who won many states and came fairly close to winning the nomination in 1988, seems indisputable.

  14. Black Canseco wrote:

    Kali,

    I don’t begrude Hillary for running or for her success. My issue with her as it relates to this particular issue is the co-opting of those who came before for selfish reasons.

    For her and her supporters to call herself the first woman candidate is simply not true. That 3 black women came before her within her own lifetime and that she ignores that is utterly insulting.

    That we defend this against criticism almost blindly is a bigger insult.

    I’m from Chicago and i can tell you that when Carol Mosely Braun ran–after being the first black sentor since Reconstruction and only the 2nd ever–millions of people thought she had a legitimate shot at the nomination. When Jesse Jackson ran in ‘84, masses people thought he had a legit shot, no matter what you thought of him/his personal character.

    yet they don’t merit a mention beyond the occasional blog entry. There’s nothing equal, inclusive or representative about that.

    Now I can’t say for certain who’s best for people in any given election, but one thing’s for sure: The person who doesn’t take my community serious enough to even acknowledge our accomplishments isn’t deserving of my vote or support in any way. If they’ll ignore/condescend to you while running, they’ll do the same or worse to you once they’ve won.

    Furthermore, this nonsense of “legitimate chance at winning” as some sort of qualifier only further dilutes these people’s accomplishments.

    And it’s the dilution/marginalization of their accomplishments that speaks to how they truly see these people and the constituencies they represent.

  15. Black Canseco wrote:

    Medea,

    Dr. Philip Emeagwali, who I’ve had the honor of meeting–was a co-inventor of the Internet having developed the supercomputers that are the pillars of the modern internet.

    based on all research, articles, queries and interviews Al Gore doesn’t know Dr. Philip Emeagwali or anyone affiliated with pioneering internet technology. Furthermore, no one in the scientific community acknowledge Al Gore’s claims.

    now if that’s right wing regurgitation, then so be it.

    Dude lied. Period.

  16. Kali wrote:

    I for one would have read this post more eagerly and sympathetically if I had not read the words anger, Clinton and Obama in the first sentence. The comparisons with H and O could perhaps have been made at the end of the article.

    But thank you Sylvia/M for reminding us of this truly remarkable woman .

  17. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    There was also Wonder Woman’s fictional campaign for president in “Wonder Woman for President,” from “Wonder Woman” comic book, No. 7, winter 1943 (http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/may06/women.html).

    And don’t forget that we actually elected Charles Curtis, a Kaw Indian, as vice president in 1928 (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/06/obama-isnt-first.html).

  18. Medea wrote:

    Vint Cerf defended Al Gore, actually.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html

  19. Kali wrote:

    ” lighter than a paperbag” is also coded/loaded language to the mother (me!) of a young woman of mixed-ehnicity.

    So much of what you say Black Canseco is so right and so necessary . I think that ALL of us - black, white and paper-bag brown need to be more careful how we speak and not alienate otherwise sympathetic listeners.

    No offence intended - just musing…

  20. L-K wrote:

    maybe the have a good reason as to why they both haven’t mentioned Shirley Chisholm outright….maybe Chisholm has asked them not too, who knows…..she had several attempts on her life during her ‘72 campaign. so maybe she wants to be left out of it.

    Chisholm passed away on January 1, 2005, so no, that’s definitely not the reason why.

  21. Black Canseco wrote:

    Vint Cerf couldn’t be more vague if VC tried… this is just a simple case of googling, if nothing else. Saying Al Gore was took initiative in creating the internet is like Hillary Clinton saying she was instrumental in bring peace to northern ireland–which she claimed as well. the folks involved in this just don’t support it.

    And given the bulk of the infrastructure for the internet was done by scientists at the behest of the military in the late from the 1970s + 1980s, Al Gore and Vint Cerf’s timelines just aren’t based in reality.

    but hold onto that thought if it makes you feel better.

  22. sfsinger wrote:

    Yes! More Shirley Chisholm….and Barbara Jordan. No it is not in the corporate media’s interest to give props because they’d be honoring instead of denigrating a Black woman. Clinton diminished their contributions to pump up her own - it was poor campaign strategy. Had she run an entirely different campaign she would have made sure to include Black female voters with an empowerment meme for all women, but she chose not to. Her support from Tubbs-Jones and Jackson Lee amongst other Black female elected officials don’t count because it was based on patronage. Even now some women are so caught up in the emotionalism and anger brought out during the campaign by Clinton using sexism [very real, but not to the degree she claimed and not encompassing real issues beyond what related to her and her campaign] as a wedge issue. She totally ignored the racism employed or acknowledged with it with equal outrage. Hopefully people will be able to separate their feelings and think more critically. Obama is trying to run as a ‘blank slate’ in a manner of speaking non-racial and not emphasizing his gender either. He just happens to be a man and a man of color because it’s supposed to be about US. So since he say the brilliance of Chisholm’s campaign then he was wise to use it. I wish some of those feminists who wish to diminish her contribution now had actually supported her then, because they did not.

  23. NancyP wrote:

    Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan have a special place in the hearts of those “of a certain age”… I was nearly voting age when these women made national news…

  24. Black Canseco wrote:

    Clinton was allowed to run as a “woman”–not a white woman, not an upper middle-class woman with 35 year-political-insider-thru-marriage pedigree, but as a “woman”—implying that she was all women. At one point she was even allowed to be a Blue Collar Betty, which the mainstream media ate it up hook line and sinker.

    Obama had to run as a “post-racial, post-civil-rights-era” candidate–all of which is just intellectualspeak for “I promise to ‘get over what i am and not challenge you’ if you vote for me.”

    Candidates like Jesse Jackson, Braun, Chisholm, Mitchell didn’t play that “get over it” game. And that played huge roles in why they lost.

    It’s also why their accomplishments of even trying are marginalized today.

  25. G.J. wrote:

    To Black Canseco:

    I remember hearing that about Gore back in the day, and interestingly enough, I did come across one blog on the the net which also said that the Gore quote was probably a plant by the right-wing. I thought maybe this might help clear that up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies

    Also,thanks for the link/info about Dr. Emeagwali—I”ve never heard of him, but I’m glad I have now—especially since he made his great discovery here in the Detroit area!

    I definitely agree with you about Clinton’s forebears getting big-time short shrift in the media—whenever they trumpeted Hilary’s campaign like it was some major first, I’m thinking, “Damn, what about Carol Moseley Braun—they forget about her THAT quick? Hell, she was only running for President 4 years ago!” I just recently found out about Charlotte Mitchell and peeked in a book about Belva Lockwood. But yeah, the media has rarely acknowledged Ms. Chisholm as the pioneer she was, letting Hilary hog all the credit as if she was really starting something. How ridiculous.

    On your last point—-there’s definitely soem truth in that—it’s always seemed to me,though, that Braun didn’t push enough for a higher profile, and that might have been part of the main reason she didn’t win—–not enough people knew who she was.of enough about her to vote for her. And yeah, Obama knew he’d never nail the nomination by just saying, “This is who and what I am—a black man—get over it your damn selves,” he had to appeal to our perceived national sense of unity as Americans and all that, which actually made more sense given how quickly we tend to divide ourselves across racial/class/gender lines. I’m glad as hell he got the nomination, though!

  26. jsb16 wrote:

    Exactly how many people qualify as co-inventors of the internet? Does everyone who worked on ARPAnet get credit? Everyone who claims to have invented a fast processor?

    Does it really matter? We all know Al Gore didn’t invent the internet, though he may have voted to fund the expansion of ARPAnet or even sponsored a bill to fund it. Anyone sensible also knows that no single person invented the internet, and anyone who takes a moment to think knows that having invented the internet wouldn’t grant anyone acceptance in America today, even if they’d done it single-handed. After all, Eric Altman wrote the first email server, and we all know how well accepted gay men are in mainstream America, right?

  27. Annie wrote:

    The way the media ignored Chisholm disgusted me. For people who don’t get the significance of Chisholm’s campaign watch the documentary Chisholm ‘72: Unbought and Unbossed. The film discusses the struggle Chisholm faced as she tried not to be just the “black candidate” or the “woman candidate”, the lack of support from black men and white women and how far her campaign really did go contrary to popular belief.

  28. Black Canseco wrote:

    I watched Unbought/unbossed… also know folks that campaigned for her. she was hardcore. Contrary to some belief, black women and black men supported her. She didn’t get much support from politicians because she criticized a number of them before and during her campaign… and–not surprisingly–she was blasted for being “too militant” by white liberals and conservatives alike.

  29. Athan wrote:

    I am glad people are writing about Shirley Chisholm and pointing out the enormous debt that both Barack and Hillary owe her.

    Ironically, I think that the Clinton campaign would have benefited from studying Chisholm’s ‘72 campaign and adopted her “Fighter for Change” persona as a model. This may have neutralized Obama’s message to some extent and given Hillary a stylistic difference to work with. Instead, she stuck to the “experience” narrative and ended up acting as a stand in for John McCain for much of the campaign.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.