Longform Links – Popping Off, Gwen Ifill, Rape as a Weapon of War
WoC PhD – I’m About to “Pop Off” – Obama, Solis-Doyle, and MSNBC
Last night, like many N. Americans, I was quietly waiting for Al Gore to come on the tv and tell us why he had chosen to endorse Obama so late in the game. Mr. Gore was late. 15 minutes late.
During that 15 minutes, MSNBC left it up to Keith Olbermann to fill air time, which he did with a combination of top 3 lists and interviews of equally underprepared and unscripted pundits.
Keith asked one of the pundits about the Obama campaign’s recent hire of Solis-Doyle, the powerhouse Latina formerly running the Clinton campaign until fired after a particularly low turn out in Clinton’s favor. Olbermann wondered outloud if it was just to make Clinton angry and seal any chance she had at VP.
Yep, the qualified Latina wasn’t hired because of her stellar record, she is just the quickest way to rub salt in the white woman’s wounds and keep the racial tensions between women alive b/c Obama’s the one invested in that, not the media.
The pundit said the following:
“Maybe it was to reign in the potential first lady in case she ‘pops off’ again.”
What?!
Why was a successful, and well respected, Latina professional hired to run Obama’s campaign? To stop the equally well-educated, often eloquent, black woman from acting like the loud mouthed, violent, pre-madonna of the Oxygen reality show Bad Girls who claimed to have coined the term “pop off” and used it to mean she was about to beat somebody down.
Misogyny and racism served up on the left is just as offensive as the right.
Never in my life did I expect to be awaiting a presidential candidate endorsement speech and have some off the cuff remark by a well known, educated, and respected media figure demean the qualifications and abilities of two women of color and get a dig in it the white woman all at once.
Ifill’s first love was print journalism, but Russert helped her transition into the world of television, as she recalls in this touching tribute, “Farewell to a Standup Brother,” featured on The Root (love that site, BTW).
“There is quite a line of people who, at various times, have taken credit for my career. I usually let them do it, even if I remember events quite differently. But Tim deserves the credit. He not only talked me into switching to TV against my first instincts, but — five years later — he engineered a way for me to leave NBC when I was offered the chance to become the first African American to host a weekly public affairs program, Washington Week, over on PBS. He not only talked NBC executives into getting me out of my contract, but he also looked me in the eye and told me this was something I absolutely, positively had to do.”Gwen also remembered her experiences with Russert on NPR with Farai Chideya and Michele Norris yesterday, in an interview that illuminated Russert’s role in mentoring several black journalists of note. In that vein, I think appointing Gwen Ifill as a moderator of Meet the Press would not only be a historic and significant decision by NBC, but I think it would make Russert tremendously pleased. At the end of that interview, Chideya invites the two esteemed journalists to consider how the election will be covered now, in light of Russert’s passing. Ifill expresses concern for the future of journalism — the industry truly is in terrifying times. There were significant layoffs at the daily in my own city just yesterday, so it’s hitting me all quite close to home.
The New York Times (Op-Ed) – Rape as a Weapon of War
The United Nations Security Council will hold a special session on sexual violence this Thursday, with Condoleezza Rice coming to New York to lead the debate. This session, sponsored by the United States and backed by a Security Council resolution calling for regular follow-up reports, just may help mass rape graduate from an unmentionable to a serious foreign policy issue.
The world woke up to this phenomenon in 1993, after discovering that Serbian forces had set up a network of “rape camps” in which women and girls, some as young as 12, were enslaved. Since then, we’ve seen similar patterns of systematic rape in many countries, and it has become clear that mass rape is not just a byproduct of war but also sometimes a deliberate weapon.
“Rape in war has been going on since time immemorial,” said Stephen Lewis, a former Canadian ambassador who was the U.N.’s envoy for AIDS in Africa. “But it has taken a new twist as commanders have used it as a strategy of war.”
There are two reasons for this. First, mass rape is very effective militarily. From the viewpoint of a militia, getting into a firefight is risky, so it’s preferable to terrorize civilians sympathetic to a rival group and drive them away, depriving the rivals of support.
Second, mass rape attracts less international scrutiny than piles of bodies do, because the issue is indelicate and the victims are usually too ashamed to speak up.
In Sudan, the government has turned all of Darfur into a rape camp. The first person to alert me to this was a woman named Zahra Abdelkarim, who had been kidnapped, gang-raped, mutilated — slashed with a sword on her leg — and then left naked and bleeding to wander back to her Zaghawa tribe. In effect, she had become a message to her people: Flee, or else.
Since then, this practice of “marking” the Darfur rape victims has become widespread: typically, the women are scarred or branded, or occasionally have their ears cut off. This is often done by police officers or soldiers, in uniform, as part of a coordinated government policy.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
The very idea that rape camps actually exist, really f–king makes me sick to my stomach.
What the f–k is wrong with the human race?
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 10:53 am ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
I get in trouble frequently on my own blog and in daily life for daring discuss what i call CWL–Condescending White Liberals.
Dick Gregory, famed comedian and Civil Rights activist once characterized them by saying, “A moderate will hang you from a lower tree.” referring to the often hypocritical nature of white moderates’ refusal to honestly discuss and address racial issues regarding themselves.
Great part about Olberman and others like him is their assumption that the bigotry and misogyny of conservatives, Republicans and the ubiquitous “religious right” is intentional, if not ingrained in their philosophical/cultural DNA while any such examples from the left, dems, moderates, etc are simply the result of “misstatements”, unintended faux pas’, or corruptive influence of said “right”,etc.
Similar to those (on all sides) who characterize Obama’s support among black voters as “emotional” and “identity politics” (i still see you Bill Clinton, Limbaugh, Olberman, Madow, etc.) while assuming that votes for Edwards, Paul, Clinton, McCain, etc. were somehow rooted in some great intellectualized dissemination of voting records, facts, or false representation of said info by candidates, etc., Olberman has (once again) made the leap that the only way an ethnic figure can achieve stature is out of some thinly veiled tokenism play.
In short, Obama needs an ethnic woman appointment because ethnic women voters are too stupid to vote for him under any other circumstances.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 10:54 am ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Personally i don’t view Olberman’s comments as a dig at Hillary, tho. Quite the opposite in fact.
Because never in any previous election in my memory—not those involving Moseley Braun, Chisholm, Jackson, Sharpton, Henry Ford Jr., or any black male/female candidate of note, have I seen such incessant hand-wringing over the need to compliment, and “not offend” a constituency after their candidate has lost as I’ve seen with Hillary and her supporters.
Every Hillary story is “what will she do now?” “What will her supporters do?” “Will/why won’t Obama add her to the ticket?” “How do (white)women voters feel about losing their candidate?” “Did Hillary lose because of sexism?”
Similar to the stunning hands-off approach the media took with Chelsea Clinton during her 100-stop stump campaign, the media and the Obama camp are babying HRC and her supporters like they’re children who just found out Santa Claus isn’t real.
For as long as i’ve been following politics, the sentiments expressed to losing Black and Hispanic candidates and their mostly ethnic male/female supporters has been “You lost, your candidate lost. You should be fortunate you guys had a shot. Now grow up and get over it or get left behind.”
But for some reason, Obama and even McCain are expected to bend over backwards to appease and comfort HRC and her primarily white female supporters.
it’s very Oprah-ish, if you ask me.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
There was a recent documentary on rape in the Congo–the Greatest Slilence. I wasn’t crazy about the director’s constant need to insert her own rape into link these women’s tragedy (it just came off as very “out of africa/magical negroes can heal me-ish), but it did strong glimpse into the whys and process of rape as a weapon of war and how it dehumanizes not only the women, but the soldiers, as well.
i think part of what gets overlooked is how rape as a common practice distorts the men’s view of themselves. granted that is secondary to the abuse and tragedy of the women being violated, and it should be, but i think, at some-point it should be discussed as the males are often taught rape as a survival tool and a technique for winning wars.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 11:25 am ¶
Winn wrote:
@Black Canseco,
I saw “The Greatest Silence” as well, and also listened to a very interesting interview with the director on a talk show that airs on our local NPR affiliate. She mentioned that when she was initially trying to find women willing to be interviewed on camera for the documentary, they were understandly reluctant and distrustful, for a whole host of reasons (notice she had no trouble finding rapists willing to talk, though), not the least was that they couldn’t imagine that a white, privileged woman like her could begin to understand their experience. Some even believed that white women were never the victims of rape. She incorporated the story of her own rape to establish a connection with the women and build trust and rapport with them to the extent that she could. It may have been somewhat self-serving and exploitive, and I certainly see your point about the “being down with the natives healed me” aspect of it. And I think that rape as a political weapon of war and intimidation differs psychologically and culturally from a more personal attack. But there are obvious levels of commonality for the survivors of sexual assault, and I truly think the director’s ultimate goal was to tap into those commonalities so that these women would trust her with their stories, and perhaps through that trust, find their own voices. Imperfect, promblematic even, but necessary.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 4:56 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Winn,
i get the commonality aspect. but i was so interested, as a black male to hear other black males, specifically young black children admitting to being taught to not just accept/condone rape but to actively rape women as a survival tactic/war strategy.
now misogyny’s one thing; but i don’t know any young black american males that are taught to specifically rape women— for any reason.
I found that revelation of the doc to be so horrific that i was even more appalled that the director chose not to pursue it as the flipside of her doc’s focus on the women and instead seemed to reminded us every 5 minutes that she herself had been raped. it was a huge missed opportunity for understanding how rape is ruining not just part of the community but all of it.
After a while, i was like “i get it–you’ve been raped and it still hurts, but whose doc is this–yours or theirs?”
Again, I’m not trying to imply that the victimizer needs more or equal simpathy to the victim, but in this case both sides had compellingly intertwined stories that seemed to be ignored less because of an unwillingness to share and more because the director thought her own story was more important than her subjects’.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 5:43 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Been a fan of Gwen Ifill for a minute now. She comes off as being so serious tho… Serious is good, but it’s almost a dry old school journalist’s view–kinda like the Mcneil/Lehrer News hour.
She’s a great moderator and strong commentator. She could do MTP, but i think they’d have to get her to be a little “warmer”–not by much because this isn’t the Today show, but enough to be engaging with guests and viewers.
I think Robin Roberts has the best balance between warmth and serious newface, but she’s a sports journalist by trade… But if gwen ifill were willing to open up like that, I think she’d be perfect.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 5:57 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
I get you, Black Canseco. Perhaps gender plays a role in our differing perspectives, or I am biased because I am a therapist and see what the director weaving of her own story with the women’s in a different light. However, I definitely see the perspective that their may have been some inadvertent privileging of her story over theirs. Food for thought.
I’m even more interested in your view that the director missed an opportunity to explore and challenge the deeply entrenched misogyny that allows rape to be seen as an expected and respected war and survival strategy. That was the most horrific aspect of the doc, and was, I think, too complex and overwhelming a story to comfortably abut that of the survivors. I think each group deserves its own story and examination; there’s certainly enough material to create a whole ‘nother doc. The intertwining of their stories needs addressing, but perhaps this doc wasn’t the one to do that.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 6:52 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
By the way, I really can spell, don’t always think faster than I type, and do know the difference between their and there. Apparently however, the ability to proofread eludes me…
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 6:57 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
On the other hand, Solis-Doyle did run a losing campaign….. I am not surprised that some people didn’t think hiring her to run the VP’s campaign was all that great.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 7:52 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Nancy P,
Solis-Doyle did run a losing presidential campaign, but (1) campaign workers get recycled more than white NFL head coaches and MLB baseball managers. (2) I’m gonna guess that a VP vetting process isn’t as hard to screw up. and no doubt Solis convinced folks that HRC’s campaign failings were the fault of others, HRC included as opposed to hers.
(”i told them to campaign in Iowa and hit the web, but noooo…”)
Winn,
I think our gender and background affect our view of this doc. For me, the rape victims and the rapers would’ve been natural pairings for analysis, especially since the motivation of the rapists is fairly unique–we’re taught to rape and rape is necessary for our war.
If not that, then I would’ve rather seen a movie more focused solely on the rape victims and their view of the war/culture/circumstances that created it.
As for the director, her story would make for a nice doc on its own, but the conflation of hers and theirs was a bit much for me.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 11:50 pm ¶
Constructive Feedbac wrote:
[quote]Great part about Olberman and others like him is their assumption that the bigotry and misogyny of conservatives, Republicans and the ubiquitous “religious right” is intentional, if not ingrained in their philosophical/cultural DNA while any such examples from the left, dems, moderates, etc are simply the result of “misstatements”, unintended faux pas’, or corruptive influence of said “right”,etc.[/quote]
What else should you expect from Keith Olbermann? Journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty? Fool you multiple times – shame on you!
If the sin of the “right wing” is sometimes less that subtle in your face racism to let you know how they really feel about you- the left wing shows that “racism knows no ideological bound” with their assumed inferiority of the Black community. As long as they are “providing for us” so that we don’t starve they will receive support from the Black community. When the community of Democrats gets too “dark” they move away just as the most hard core right winger has done.
It is interesting that Bill & Hillary Clinton went from “The First Black President” and a person who “you can tell is comfortable around Black people” over to a “Republican” as such a label made it easy for those who were trying to characterize their racialist comments in terms that were easy to understand. They were not “Racist Democrats” they were “Republicans” at this point in time. For some Blacks as long as they don’t look too hard they won’t see certain things about the popular party of which so much of their racial development plans are linked to that would bring them concern of this ever happening.
Again I must ask – Did Bill Clinton change because of time and circumstance (I know plenty of Black folks who waited in line for 3 hours during his book tour) or did Black people’s understanding of Bill and Hillary Clinton get expanded when they were put in a particular circumstance where there was no “right wing White person” in front of them to deflect what was clearly inside of them all along?
Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 5:45 am ¶