Quoted (WTF Edition): Frances McCaffery on Obama
Excerpted by Latoya Peterson
What was so beautiful about this? Well, although Obama has all the “presidential” characteristics – the capacity to inspire, the sonorous, soaring voice, the cool, soothing nature – we were all able to create him in the individual image we all needed him to be: someone who refused to be victimized, took control of his life and became self-realized; someone who lost his way and then regained his footing spectacularly; someone who was an insider-outsider, both simultaneously smooth and authentic.
To everyone saying we were swilling the Kool-Aid, charmed by his very image, I say this: this image was ours. It was ours! The idea of racial inequality being righted in our lifetimes somehow realized our American Dream.
—Frances McCaffery, “How Obama Carried Me Home,” in this month’s Adbusters.
Latoya’s Note: I don’t know if I can express how I felt reading this seemly innocuous passage on the metro yesterday. The rest of McCaffery’s article talks about feelings of alienation and reconnection, all from this one person. I’m not sure if the feelings started because I was reading this piece in Adbusters. I enjoy reading the mag and their overall message, but years have passed and they seem completely and totally disinterested in anti-racist, feminist, or anti-colonialist thought. They will occassionally publish criticism in their letters section asking why Adbusters is full of white images or why Adbusters didn’t quote radical feminist economic theorists, or why Adbusters is enamoured with the idea of “noble savages” unspoiled by our consumerist Western ways, but seem to have no desire to change these things – or even engage critically with these critiques within their pages. So, with that context, these specific words of hope and targeted praise seem a bit chilling.
Do they (McCaffery and Adbuster’s editors) really think that casting a vote “righted” racial inequality? Really? With that line, the ones before it talking about “refusing to be vicitimized” took on an ugly sheen. Like the neo-boostrap argument. Sounds like the same old bullshit and it Smells Like Teen Spirit. – LDP
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Elton wrote:
“The idea of racial inequality being righted in our lifetimes”
A prime example of the “One black president singlehandedly ends racism, even retroactively” cliché.
Also, Adbusters is off-putting to me as a person whose parents came from pretty low socioeconomic levels (and are still there, relatively speaking) but, dammit, still believe in the American dream in that I was raised to appreciate the things I have, material and otherwise. I feel like Adbusters is run by a bunch of privileged folks who want to save the world but need to get over their own hubris first.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶
Aris wrote:
That “refusing to be victimized” got me too…. >_> Kweh.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 1:51 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Pure asinine racially-blinkered self-congratulatory claptrap.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 1:51 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
There’s something gross about identifying yourself with Obama on the basis of outsidery-ness, when you’re not an outsider in the way that he is. Like if you say “as a vegan, I totally understand the struggles Obama has faced as a black/mixed person in a social strata dominated by white folks…”
I get annoyed when people who aren’t outsiders in the political sense (ie people who are not politically marginalised) talk about themselves as outsiders. For example people who are into “independent culture” and therefore define themselves against the – they’re still reaping all the benefits of being identified by the dominant culture as “one of us”, even if they feel like their opinions or tastes are not reflected in the mainstream. I got not sympathy for them.
Ok I may be opening up a can of worms here as to how we define “politically marginalised”…
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
I meant “against it” not “against the”.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 2:07 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@Elton–Feel you on the “Negro President Saves Us From Teh Rasizm.” Which, to me, is a variation of the Magical Negro meme.
Enough.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 3:14 pm ¶
Nelly wrote:
“I get annoyed when people who aren’t outsiders in the political sense (ie people who are not politically marginalised) talk about themselves as outsiders.”
Thea, stay away from science fiction fans! Seriously, if I had a dollar for every comic-book-geek, con-goer, or gamer who thought they “knew what it was like to be Black/discriminated against”… Well, I’d be a very rich lady!
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶
dani wrote:
“we were all able to create him in the individual image we all needed him to be: someone who refused to be victimized, took control of his life and became self-realized; someone who lost his way and then regained his footing spectacularly; someone who was an insider-outsider, both simultaneously smooth and authentic.”
Aww yes! the typical neo-bootstrap argument that is more refine than condescending. Sounds like McCaffery might be using Obama as the exceptional negro and the catalyst for post-racialism lol.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Aris
Ah, yes. Victimization is typically the choice of the victim, right? They should really just say “No” like Brave Obama. I mean, that’s why he’s never had to deal with racism. Because he said “no.”
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 4:54 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ Latoya
I hear you on this–and I agree– but I want to add a different spin.
The Obama campaign “answered” the questions that white people had about electing a Black man to the highest office in the land in two ways: 1) by framing his “family story” within a “bootstrap” immigrant narrative and 2) by positing the notion that they were proving the inherent goodness of the American system by electing a Black man. (I also think Obama has positioned himself in sharp contrast to W as a post-ideology president, which has less overtly racial implications, except that it lends itself to waving off racial concerns as partisan.)
I have said this before: I think many white people LOVE the fact that Obama is Black because it flatters their sense of themselves as fair and inclusive. And I think this quote is the most articulate version of Why White People Love Barack Obama I have ever read. But I don’t know if it is entirely fair to criticize white people who idolize Barack Obama for getting on that slippery slope to a “post-racial” argument when they are taking their cues from the Obama campaign itself. Not to mention a host of African American celebrities who celebrated his win as a turning point in US American history, which it is.
None of which is to say that “racism is over” or any of the post-racial blah-blah-blah that is floating around. But I think it is difficult for white people to understand that racism is a system of discourse that cannot be ended by the achievements of a single person, no matter how extraordinary. After all, if we are talking about African Americans, there have been extraordinary things achieved as far back as slavery, but none of these “firsts” has shifted the discourse itself. It is invisible but persistent, like perfume.
For me, this is where the conversation on race has to begin, with an understanding that race is an imaginary construct shaped by imaginary rules that have devastating material consequences. It can’t be “ended” until the rules change–and they haven’t.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 5:15 pm ¶
foshothoyo wrote:
Adbusters could be so great. It’s a shame that they keep getting it wrong.
It’s like they keep trying to make cheesecake with cottage cheese. It could be sooo delicious, but they keep throwing crap in there, and then wondering why it tastes wierd. When you look at it, you go “oooo! cheesecake!” and then you bite into it and make such a face…
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 7:10 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:
Canadian left-wing activism is cool and all, but I don’t really like Adbusters. The magazines don’t seem that groundbreaking or especially intelligent. Also, Buy Nothing Day is for rich white people, and Blackspot sneakers perpetuate capitalism, branding, and uniformity.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 8:20 pm ¶
Slow Lee Roll wrote:
@Thea
“I got not sympathy for them.”
This sounds weird to me. Do you mean you have no sympathy for those who compare their struggles to yours? Or do you mean all those whose struggles are not yours?
Obviously people who equivocate being vegan with being a PoC are speaking carelessly and cluelessly. But if someone isn’t being so ignorant, would you deny them solidarity? Why?
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:53 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
For you average white person who isn’t deep in the trenches of this type of discussion, it is very important for them to get credit for the actions that they have taken, like voting for Obama. If liberal whites thought that they could never “get credit for” any of the actions that they’ve taken, and that no individual action they did would really matter, then they would completely lose interest in the idea of righting wrongs. Egocentric, I know, but so it goes.
The truth is that deep anti-racist work, as I understand it, isn’t ever going to going to be something that white people can be on board with, *primarily* because they never get to take credit for anything. They never get to win. The whole northern white culture is based around the idea that individual actions can have positive consequences, and that if you try hard enough, you can be a winner.
Honestly, a lot of white people did vote for Obama primarily because they wanted to right historical wrongs. If you tell them that one action is not sufficient, that is understandable. But if you tell them that one action is nothing — even if that is the truth — or that they get no credit for that, it doesn’t inspire them to continue.
I have a theory, which may be true or may be bullshit, that anti-racist work or feminism (as I understand it as an outsider) is all about getting 1% of the nation to agree with you 100% of the time, and focuses its effort on trying to convert those that only believe 95% of what you do. I hypothesize that the lives of all individuals might get better quicker if anti-racists and feminists focused on getting 50% of the nation to agree with you 50% of the time.
Or maybe that would accomplish nothing.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 10:08 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
@ Slow Lee Roll
I have empathy/sympathy for people who face marginalisation in the sense that some aspect of their socio/cultural/political identity makes it hard for them to (for eg…) get access to healthcare, to not fear police brutality, access the education/work experience that allows them to actualise their dreams, access safe housing, walk down the street and not fear violence in response to some aspect of who they are…
I do not have sympathy or empathy or solidarity for/with people who consider themselves marginalised on the basis of a lifestyle choice they have made (for example people who are big sci fi geeks like Nelly mentioned, have existential angst, choose to opt out of consumer society…).
I’m not simply in solidarity with whoever wants to be in solidarity with me. Like, why do they want to express solidarity with me? B/c they have real respect and really care about my issues? Or b/c they wanna seem down?
In the same way, I would never say to someone who lives in North America with English as a 2nd language “Wow, we’re totally the same because you don’t speak the dominant language, and I don’t have a drivers’ license!” or something like that. That kind of basis for solidarity is false and belittles the real struggles people face.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 12:11 am ¶
Mandy B. wrote:
What really gets me about this quote is the “refusing to be victimized” part. If someone is the victim of a drunk driving accident, do we say, “They should have refused to be a victim”? Of course not.
@ Matt: I feel what you are trying to say, but I think the meaning of your message is lost in your terms.
What is “the whole northern white culture”? If I substitute in “the whole southern black culture”, does that sound like an appropriate generalization to you?
‘If liberal whites thought that they could never “get credit for” any of the actions that they’ve taken, and that no individual action they did would really matter, then they would completely lose interest in the idea of righting wrongs. Egocentric, I know, but so it goes.’
I am not sure that pathologizing the intentions of an entire group adds much to the conversation.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 10:13 am ¶
Mike wrote:
@Mandy
My terms are imprecise because I don’t really have a language for what I’m trying to say. I don’t think there are agreed upon terms.
But anyway, “northern white” is different from “southern white”. People of Germanic and Scandinavian Protestant descent have a different idea about self-determination an independence than those French and Spanish Catholic lineage.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 11:59 am ¶
aimerrouge wrote:
@ Mikee –> “People of Germanic and Scandinavian Protestant descent have a different idea about self-determination an independence than those French and Spanish Catholic lineage.”
Please explain.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Every time I get the urge to read Adbusters I just watch The Corporation again or flip to a random page in The Radical Reader. It’s gotten too too frustrating. For every inspiring and informing article (even those that skew slightly problematic) there’s something like this. They’ve made it clear on a number of occasions that I am not their target audience.
@ Mike
I have a theory, which may be true or may be bullshit, that anti-racist work or feminism (as I understand it as an outsider) is all about getting 1% of the nation to agree with you 100% of the time, and focuses its effort on trying to convert those that only believe 95% of what you do. I hypothesize that the lives of all individuals might get better quicker if anti-racists and feminists focused on getting 50% of the nation to agree with you 50% of the time.
Your theory, to use your language, is bullshit. If you think that people who devote their lives to anti-racist or feminist work really have no interest in getting things done or just have no idea how to do that, let me disabuse you of that assumption. The fact is, it’s hard work. There is a lot of resistance.
An ambivalent outsider (on the problem rather than the solution side) should really be able to recognize that.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Adbusters totally off the mark? Why am I not surprised?
I once read a timeline in Adbusters in which they placed the founding of their magazine in sequence with the Magna Carta and Brown vs the Board of Education, and every time I flip through a copy I see that they still have that inflated sense of importance.
And in every issue if you flip to the letters section there’s some variant of “I used to be a McDonald’s eating brand name show buying corporate loser until I went vegan and realized I was better than everyone else around me, thanks Adbusters!”
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 3:17 pm ¶
Mandy B. wrote:
@Mike
Sorry for calling you “Matt”.
Co-sign with aimerrouge.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I think Mike is referring to the Puritanesque “Protestant work ethic”.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 5:39 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
@ aimerrouge & Mandy
I’m no ethnographer, but, it goes something like this. (I know I’m going to get flamed for this.)
Much of the immigration to northern territories beyond New England were from rural northern Europeans who continued to live rural lives after they arrived in the 1800s. Germans and Nordic immigrants were a big group. The cold climate farmers tend to be self-sufficient.
Northern whites were usually Protestant, especially Lutheran, which stressed that the relationship with God was a personal one, and that one could talk to God without an intercessor.
And northern whites were usually from the countries that were more insular and had less involvement with the world at large.
The (non-Appalachian) South changed hands a few times: indigenous to French to Spanish to French to USA. The white population tended to be of heritages that were less insular, more involved with the world and more colonial: English and French.
Religiously it has changed a lot. When it was French, only Catholics were allowed. Catholicism is more hierarchical and stresses intercession with God more then personal relationship with God. Then there was a huge switch to low Protestantism, like Baptists, which stresses community as well direct relationship with God.
So, in a general sense, southern whites are more social and society-centered. Northern whites are more rugged individualist. Southerners are more likely to concern themselves with how they present themselves as members of society. Northerners are more likely to focus on having a tidy home.
At least, that’s how I understand it.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 6:42 pm ¶