Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis?

So, the first question that I got from my post asking for questions. This question came from my white friend jgalt:

Do you believe that since you are a light skin black woman, who does not speek with a negro dialect, that you could be the first female President on the Democratic ticket?

Great question, jgalt. I do think that my light skin and lack of negro dialect (unless I want to have one) would help me if I decided to run for President. But I think my non-chemically straightened hair, state school education, and intense lack of motivation to become the leader of the free world would all work against me.

But what a great segue into talking about the Harry Reid incident you have given me, jgalt! Did you plan that? ;)

Reader, if you don't know what incident I am referring to--you should watch the news more. Or, just click on the link.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that is wrong with what Sen. Reid said was his use of the word "Negro". I will chalk this up to a racish
mistake. It makes sense: he's an older guy, and for a significant portion of his life that was what black people were called.

I think he actually deserves props (that's negro dialect for "credit",) for being aware of the effect that skin color can have on people's perceptions. I don't think that is something that most white people have even thought about. And most importantly: What he said is true. Barack Obama would have had a more difficult time being elected if he had darker skin, and if he didn't speak the way he does. I also think Obama would have had a tougher time if he weren't half-white, if he were married to a white woman, or was a descendant of slaves instead of a Kenyan immigrant.

I am far more concerned about the comment that Bill Clinton made, one that hasn't gotten nearly as much media attention. " A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." What the hell?

Unlike Reid's statement, this is not true. Unless by " a few" Clinton means "fifty". President Obama has degrees from Harvard and Columbia, these don't usually lead to jobs serving politicians coffee. No, Clinton seems to be talking more about the fact that Obama is black and in Clinton's mind black = coffee getter. And remember when Clinton made the remark about how "Jesse Jackson did well in South Carolina too" when reporters were questioning him about if his wife would win the primary there? Two pretty pathetic comments coming from the man who was supposedly, "America's first black president."

I'll just take comfort in the fact that Clinton ruined his entire legacy because he couldn't keep it in his pants, and for the rest of history people won't think of him without also thinking of cigars, navy dresses, and naive young interns. Nice job, dude.

One more thing (well, two more.) President Obama is such a forgiving man. He is always forgiving these people who say ignorant/disrespectful/mean/racish/racist things to him. Forgiveness is a good quality to have, and I bet his wife helps him a lot with this ( I am envisioning lots of late night conversations, where he's not as cool, calm and collected as he appears in front of us.)

Second, I think if Sen. Reid and former President Clinton had been Republicans, the media's coverage of these two incidents would have been very different.

But enough about what I think--what do you think? What do you agree with that I've said here? What do you disagree with? And most importantly, Why do you feel the way you do? Leave your comments after the jump.

Ok, there is no jump--I've just always wanted to say that.

comments from the peanut gallery...

This started as a facebook status update and is morphing into a blog post. I try to keep my facebook postings as non-controversial as possible, in an attempt to avoid potentially offending people. You know, like people I built toothpick bridges with in elementary school, or randomly met at Jewish pub crawls. You don't always get into deep ideological discussions in situations like those, so I like to keep my FB postings pretty light and easygoing--YKWIM?

This blog on the other hand, has always been intended as a place for me to say what I want, when I want--so let's get to it, shall we?

Last night, President Obama gave a speech before both houses of Congress about health care reform. During the speech, one of the people in the audience yelled out, "You lie!" as the President was making a point. Today, that outburst is being framed by the mainstream media as a sign of how contentious the health care debate has gotten; evidence of the deep political divisions that exist between the parties. I see this as a sign of something very different, and it bothers me that I'm not hearing my interpretation of the events expressed/discussed more.

I think everyone agrees that what Rep. Joe Wilson (a 62-year-old white male, born and raised in South Carolina,) said to President Obama ( a 48-year-old black male (allegedly) born in Hawaii,) was inappropriate. Disrespectful? Fewer people would agree with this, but props to John McCain for characterizing Wilson's behavior as such.

What we don't agree on, is what compelled Wilson to say such a thing. What made him think it would be okay to say, "You lie!" on live television, in front of a global audience, at a work function, to the President of the United States of America. Now, Obama is not Wilson's boss, but one of them has a plane and the nuclear codes. The other has to eat in a cafeteria.

Now, Wilson characterized the incident as a "spontaneous" event where his emotions got the best of him. If it was so spontaneous, why do we hear someone (who sounds to me a lot like Joe Wilson,) yell something else out, a few seconds before the soundbite that has become so popular? Listen below at the 1:18 mark



Also, why is it that in the 43 presidents that we've had previously, no one has ever felt compelled to yell statements that question the integrity of the Commander in Chief in the past? The Civil War, The Great Depression, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Iraq--all these extremely controversial events in our history, and none of the thousands upon thousands of congresspersons has ever yelled, "Go suck an egg, Hoover!" or "We're bout to impeach your ass, Clinton!" So peculiar...

And finally, what was the statement in that got Mr. Wilson so riled up--so out of control that he's just gotta start yelling? Oh that's right, brown people without work papers getting free health care.

"Killing grandma, I'll let you say that's not true Obama, but free care for illegals? That is where I've got to draw the line." If you're wondering why he calls them "illegals" instead of illegal immigrants: Representative Wilson is a very busy man, he can't be bothered with the extra energy it takes to add a noun to his not-even-a-word adjective. And don't even bother telling him about the term "undocumented workers,"--that would imply that they work and pay taxes.

So, my husband says that sometimes when I make my blog posts, I beat around the bush and avoid saying what I mean. I think this is true at times, because I am trying to stimulate thought and discussion amongst my readers. This is not one of those times.

Joe Wilson said what he said to the person he said it to, because he is pissed off that a black man is president. He can't believe that some black guy is trying to tell him what to do. He has never really had to treat a black man with respect at any point in his life before--why should he start now? Sure he's in the hallowed halls of Congress--but somebody has got to put this uppity negro in his place!

Strong words? Yes.
Am I in Joe Wilson's head? No.
Do you agree with my analysis? Probably not.
Do I care? Can't say that I do.


Damn...that felt good.

You're a real--special lady...

So today's post is about President Obama's comment about the Special Olympics that he made on The Tonight Show. Brief recap: Mr. Obama was talking about how his bowling score is 129. Jay Leno clapped for him and said, "Oh, that's very good!" And then President Obama said, "This is like the Special Olympics or something."

One of my white friends asked me what I thought about this and what happened afterwards. I think a couple of things.

1) I think that if Mr. Obama made a similar gaffe about another group of people like women or gay people, it may have garnered more attention. I am leery of the idea of putting marginalized groups on some kind of heirarchy. At the same time, I do believe that some groups are more organized, have more political influence, etc. Part of the reason this isn't that big of a deal is because the clout isn't really there to make it that big of a deal.

2) Another more unfortunate reason for the response is that a lot of people say things like this, and so they are more likely to cut the President some slack. You are much more likely to hear someone say the "r" word than the "f" word or the "n" word (don't worry, I've got a post in the pipeline about the whole " first letter of the word" word phenomenon).

3) It's helpful to Barack Obama that he's friendly with the Shriver family, so the head of the Special Olympics can say, "Hey, everything's cool, we're not mad about this." I applaud Tim Shriver for trying to turn this into a teaching moment, but I can't help but wonder how their personal relationship influenced his ability to deem Obama's apology as "moving" and "sincere." Now, I'm not saying it wasn't. What I'm saying is that when you know and like someone, it's a lot easier to accept an apology from him or her.

President Obama seemed to be saying that in the Special Olympics, people are cheered and applauded for performance that really isn't that impressive.

Does he believe that? He's got to believe it on some level, otherwise it would have never come in his mind as a thing to say.
Do you believe that?
What does it mean if it's true?
Does it matter that he didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings?
Should the intention behind an insensitive comment ( for example "I was only joking,") make a difference in how people choose to respond to it?

As an interesting sidenote: I was watching Inside Edition and they had an interview with a guy that actually did bowling in the Special Olympics. He had bowled five perfect games ( a score of 300) in his career. Wow.

Looks like President Obama might need to step up his game.

As always, I welcome your comments.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

So, today I want to talk about Michelle Obama and two unsettling portrayals that I saw of her in the media last night. The first was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They were doing a segment on Michelle Obama's fashion, and how the media is obsessed with the fact that she is always showing her arms. My opinion on the matter is that it may have been a little out of place at the speech President Obama made to Congress last month, but every other time it has seemed appropriate. Besides, she is a grown woman and can wear what she wants. I also recognize that critiquing what First Ladies wear is pretty standard, because a significant number of the judgments we make about women are based on how they look.

No, I am concerned with a little fashion show piece that they did to tie into the story. They were talking about how Mrs. Obama could use her fashion choices to champion causes she is interested in. One of the things they said was that Mrs. Obama was concerned with transparency and then they preceded to show her in a dress with a front but no back and so her entire butt was exposed, and blurred out like they do on tv when nudity is shown. I tried to find a picture on google images to describe what I am talking about--and I'll spare you the disturbing details of the stuff I had to look at along the way. But, I couldn't find one, so just imagine Michelle Obama with her back to you, and her naked butt blurred out.

The second instance occurred when I was watching Nightline. After sitting through an interview with Jeff Bezos (that was really just 10 minute long advertisement for the Kindle, ) they run a story about how Michelle Obama is a big celebrity and on the covers of a bunch of magazines. They interview this woman named Sally Quinn. I'd never heard of her before, but after reading her Wikipedia entry, I think I understand a little more where this comment I'm about to describe came from.

Ms. Quinn and the interviewer are sitting around a coffee table that is filled with magazines that have done stories on Mrs. Obama, and the interviewer asks something like, "What do you think this coverage says about Mrs. Obama?" Ms. Quinn's response:

"I think it means she's a sexual person."


Um, what?

Please tell me how one looks at photos like this:










and the first word that comes to mind is, "sexual." Does she look like she's trying to seduce you with her eyes? Is what she is wearing super revealing? I don't think so.

Which brings me to my point: I don't think the graphic that was shown on The Daily Show, or the comment that Ms. Quinn made would have happened if Michelle Obama had been white. The fact that when I type the words "First Lady," they are supposed to be capitalized shows that we are supposed to treat the person who holds that title with a certain amount of respect. Have you ever heard/seen any other First Lady portrayed in or talked about in such a way? I've had a pretty good grasp of what was going on with Presidential wives since Nancy Reagan, and I can't recall anything like this.

Let me be clear that I am in no way saying that President and Mrs. Obama can't be criticized or made fun of, and that anyone who says anything negative about them is a racist. That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I am saying is that black women have a long history in this country of being portrayed as sexually promiscuous. While white First Ladies in the past have had their fair share of jabs taken at them, as soon as we have a black First Lady--I see two overt references to her sexuality in the same night. From both liberal and conservative source.

What's up with that?

As always, I welcome your comments.

It's the story of a man named Bobby...

So I was watching 60 minutes last night, and they had an interview with Bobby Jindal. I was immediately reminded of the "Oh, God" incident that happened recently. One of the first things I noticed is just how skinny the guy is! He is really skinny--like 15-year-old- gangly-teenager skinny. After getting over that initial observation, I settled in to watch what was an informative and engaging interview. And not surprisingly, since we're dealing with the mainstream media interviewing a person of color, I was able to find something remarkable for my blog.

Morley Safer was interviewing Jindal and it was revealed that Bobby's given name is Piyush, and Bobby changed it sometime when he was a kid. When I heard this, I had flashbacks to to Barack Obama going by "Barry" when he was in school. To me, it is an example of a brown person trying to make their identity more palatable for white people. It's like, "Hey, is Piyush too 'weird' or diffcult to say? Ok, just call me Bobby then."

Later on in the interview, Jindal's wife came out and Morley asked them how many Indian customs they practiced in their household. They both looked at each other with smiles and then looked back at Morley and said, "Oh, not many."

Now, I want to make it clear that the point of this post is not to say there is something wrong with Jindal because he goes by Bobby or because he doesn't keep many Indidan traditions alive in his home. One of the main themes of my blog is that people of color (like white people,) should be able to express themselves in the way that feels most comfortable for them. And it is not anyone else's place to say, "No, you need to be this way in order to be a real Indian person/black person/Latino person etc. So, while those might not be choices that I would make for myself, I fully support his decision to do so, and might even celebrate them--because he is challenging and pushing off the boxes that people of color are often put in.

No, the reason that I am writing this post is because of something that Safer and other journalists interviewed in the story attempted to imply because of the choices that Jindal has made for himself and his family--that Jindal was a "real" American. The actual quote was that he was a "true blue American."

Sorry guys, that's not going to fly with me. Someone who's name is Bobby is not more American that someone who's name is Piyush. Someone who is Catholic is not more American than someone who is Hindu.

This is just one more example of mainstream culture putting forward the idea that things that white=American and non-white=something else. People of color whose names weren't John and Elizabeth helped to make this country great, and they have as much of a right to claim being American as the people that came over on the Mayflower. People who eat noodles, pig intestines and linings of cows stomachs are as "true blue Americans" as those that eat apple pie. Being an American doesn't have anything to do with what your name is. Loving this country isn't measured by what kind of accent you have. Believing in the American Dream, wanting the best for your family doesn't depend on whether you listen to Rascal Flatts or Talib Kweli. And don't let anyone (even if they are on 60 minutes, ) tell you otherwise.

As always, I welcome your comments.

The Rest of the Story

So the Mayor I talked about in this post has resigned.
That was fast. He'll still be on the city council though. Hmm...

"It's true, it's true--we're so lame..."

So I just came across this story about a mayor in California who sent an email of a picture of the White House with a bunch of watermelons on the front lawn. The caption reads, "No Easter egg hunt this year." I wish I knew how to spell that wonh wonhhh sound they play in shows and on the radio when someone does something stupid, because I think it's pretty appropriate.


For me the funniest part of the article is when the mayor says that he was unaware of the stereotype that black people like watermelons. Well, if he's unaware of the stereotype, why in the heck is he forwarding the e-mail? I need a comedy person to explain to me what level of humor that picture is working on, if not on the stereotype about black people liking watermelons.


As a side note: when I first read the headline, I thought it said the Mayor of Los Angeles and I thought to myself, "Uh oh--bye bye job, Mayor of Los Angeles." But when I reread and saw it was some small town I'd never heard of, two things happened. 1) I immediately thought that the guy would no longer lose his job over it, and 2) I thought, "Oh, that makes more sense." What's up with that?


My thinking on number one is that the more power and influence a person has, the more they're going to be expected to not say things that others might consider offensive. But why? It doesn't matter how much power and influence you have, the things you say and do can hurt other people's feelings. And on the second point: that's my bias that people from small towns are more likely to do racially insensitive things. Is that accurate? Is it fair? Why or why not?


For the record, I'm black and I do like watermelon. And my mom is black too, and she really likes watermelon, she might even consider it her favorite fruit. I'm not really sure how that is funny, noteworthy, or relevant to much of anything.

This article got me thinking how many scores of e-mails there must be out there like this now that Barack Obama is president. I haven't gotten any--have you? If so, how did you respond?


As always, I welcome your comments.