When I was a young man seeking some measure of maturity, I came upon something which I found hard to reconcile--my progenitors were sold into slavery by other Africans. I was about 16 at the time and fully invested in the arcana of black nationalism as well as the proclamations of Paris and Brother Jay. This was not a pose--I was raised agnostic in a city that was falling apart. You know it all too well--crack, murder, AIDS, teen pregnancy. It's the headlines for late 80s urban America, and perhaps nowhere more so than in my native land of Baltimore.
The worst part of all the chaos was that I had no framework, no religion, no mythology to make sense of the mayhem. That was what black nationalism gave me--a means of understanding how we had all fallen into disgrace. So full were we on that notion, that we called it "Consciousness," for if you did not know that we were Original Man, that we were the descendants of kings and queens and thus royalty ourselves, that our time would soon come again, than you were mentally dead and truly lost. If you're snickering, it's because you aren't thinking hard enough. All of us need some sort of mythology and no group is immune to nationalism, to the need to believe that we are special.
Understanding slavery was, for me, a first step toward understanding humanity. Learning that black Muslims killed Malcolm X was another. Guns, Germs and Steel, still another. I never lost that old pride, because, as Hitchens says of religion, the truth turned out to be mythological enough. Harriet Tubman stealing south--repeatedly--to liberate slaves was a verified miracle. Ida Wells Barnett riding the railroads of the segregated South to investigate a lynchings, a pistol at the ready, was heroic on its face. In other words, the actual story was incredible enough. But more to the point, the deeper understanding that there was no dark and light, that there were no paladins, no orcs marked me for life
I thought about all of this again, last night reading Josh Green's piece on Hillary Clinton, and then the comments in the Wolfson post. Here is the thing--believing that you have fallen because of actions outside of your control, or the collective control of your tribe, rewards you with an unearned sense of the cosmic. It allows you to fashion yourself as heroic--a Hercules robbed by the smallness of Gods. It fills you with an anger which is, at its root, a sort of false power, a weak righteousness that turns your enemies into demons. It was thrilling to believe we'd been kidnapped by white interlopers, as opposed to knowing that, in the words of the great Robert Hayden, we'd been sold off for "tin crowns that shone with paste" for "red calico and German-silver trinkets."
That need to believe in something more is exactly how you come to think that you were robbed by John Edwards and Chris Matthews, as opposed to Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. It's how you come to believe that the order of questions in a debate is more decisive than your ability to keep the peace in your own campaign. Think on this for a second: Here was a candidate who was pressing the case that she was uniquely qualified to work Washington's sprawling bureaucracy, while failing to work the bureaucracy of her own campaign. Yet the belief that she was robbed persists.
It's now clear that her campaign was fatally flawed, that Clinton herself failed as an executive in the most basic rudimentary ways. So then, why the lionizing? Why Clinton as the champion of all that's right with feminism? Why Clinton--specifically--as a vessel for the hopes and ambitions of so many women? The answer lies, not with Clinton herself, but with her tormentors.
Obviously, I'm not a Clintonite, but a certain tribe of white men have always evinced a visceral hatred of her which I can't fathom. There's a sexism there, but something more than that, something about the men themselves and their own failings. For someone who's never been a flaming lefty, Clinton draws an incredible amount of venom. I may not completely understand why, but I suspect somewhere out in our fair country there are millions of white women who know exactly what that sort of hatred is all about.
From that perspective, Clinton is not a symbol of the possible, but of what these women have endured. If you see Clinton as a metaphor, not as an actual candidate, not as breathing, loving, fucking, eating, flawed human, but as the personification of all your strife, it almost doesn't matter whether she's a good candidate or not. Think about this notion that the sexism endured by the Clinton campaign is cause for a new woman's movement. The frame is almost jihadic. The concern isn't, How do we make sure that next time we pick a better female candidate, it's How do we use the pain we've endured to our ends.
I know this story so well that it hurts. The need to be noble, when in fact, you're really just beaten, is heartbreaking. This is about Kwame Kilpatrick and Detroit, Marion Barry in Washington, Sharpe James in Newark. It's about Karl Rove and country clubs, 9/11, Iraq and Bush's second term. It's about the South and the Lost Cause, about fighting for the confederate flag while your whole state teeters on the brink of the third world. This is about blindness and humanity, about a life defined by score-settling and what someone did to you, as opposed to what you're going to do for yourself.
« Billy Dee Williams says "Step away from the Cotillion, ma'am" | Main | Some rambling thoughts on Don Draper » The false nobility of victimhood12 Aug 2008 10:00 am Comments (71)
"i have to object to the idea that blacks bear equal moral responsibility for slavery. " I can't remember ever saying that--at any point. I don't even agree with framing the issue that way. The slavery anecdote isn't about some weak-kneed mealy-mouth relativism--it's about understanding people as people, not as metaphors or symbols for your own issues. EDIT: Also, your facts are off on this one. Whites didn't really penetrate the interior of Africa until the 19th century, which is basically the nadir of the slave trade. 
Wow. Wonderful post TNC. So much you touch on. Just a quick thought. It's human nature to react. If a stranger on the street slaps your face, it's instinctive to defend the self. To focus on the act of someone else slapping you, and the injustice of it, the anger you feel at the injustice. Because it's got the strongest truth to it, for the person slapped. It's not instinct to say... well that was so weird. I've never seen this person before in my life. This person is obviously a schizophrenic. Maybe they (not me) need help? On a different note... it is also really really hard for people to admit they are wrong. What you are saying is why people voted for Bush the second time, I think. There was a disconnect between the hurt this country is going through (9-11 happening on this administration's watch, an illegal war in Iraq, the economy in the crapper) and the actions of the self in the voting booth.
A beautiful and insightful post. Thanks.
"I can't remember ever saying that--at any point. I don't even agree with framing the issue that way. The slavery anecdote isn't about some weak-kneed mealy-mouth relativism--it's about understanding people as people, not as metaphors or symbols for your own issues." Of course. My post was largely to pre-empt the right-wing trolls that are sure to seize upon your first few sentences as proof-positive that those blasted Negroes really were the problem all along. An excellent post, TNC. I've only been reading your blog for a few months, but hardly a day goes by where I'm not given something to chew on. I'm grateful---really.
" but a certain tribe of white men...There's a sexism there" Interesting. In a post about not blaming external factors as a crutch, you push this canard. Why the tribe of white men? Can only black men and women not like her for what she thinks?
How come this is about personal responsibility versus being mobilized by what one sees as inequality? Both Clinton and Obama have come to represent images, symbols and notions of progress well beyond their personal identities. In our shallow celebrity- and media- and horserace-driven culture, both have served as catalysts for activism in the last year and a half. (Obama, for some people in particular, since his speech at the 2004 convention.) Many, many folks see electoral politics as the arena or cause for activism - electing more black officials to public office in the post-Civil Rights Era, for instance. There's been a significant stagnation of equality since the 1980s, and for many Clinton (and non-Clinton supporters), her failure to clinch the nomination has become a referendum on the status of women in the Democratic Party, inequalities with the Party, a failure of representative democracy, etc. etc. I'm not sure why opponents insist on begrudging these mobilized voters their activism to protest what they see as a failed Party and system. Isn't that something FISA opponents, War on Iraq opponents, and others see as true about the Democratic Party as well? If post-primary anger was really about Clinton, then Clinton's calls to support Obama would likely counter most of that anger, I believe. This mobilization is bigger than that, and personally, I don't see the problem with that. I'm mystified that others can't allow Clinton's run as a catalyst for some needed activism around reforming our Party and electoral system. Time will tell if this is really an useful political opportunity, but why all the cajoling - whether sympathetic or not, but certainly inaccurate - to give up Clinton's ghost?
I hate to heap praise on a blogger, especially one that plays D&D, but I'm REALLY glad to have access to your point of view.
TNC, Great post brother (aka Brotha, lol), I disagree w/ your slavery analysis (even w/ explanation) but I understand and agree w/ the underlying argument. Your post certainly makes me feel some sympathy for the clintons and their cabal. After, reading the atlantic piece, I just shook my head in disgust...I thanked God (yes he is real), for not allowing the dems to be stuck w/ clinton or edwards (even though, in the quitness of my soul, I fear that Obama can't win bc this country is still not ready). Still, I find the people who surround Sen. Clinton to be more despicable than Karl Rove because atleast, Mr. Rove would actually believe in xenophobia, that Hawaii is not America or American enough...Atleast the republicans have an idiological reasoning to their hate mongering, divisive politics (a coherence and consistency)...but low and behold we find out that this in not a republican problem. Apparently, per Penn, vast majority of Americans including dems are susceptitable to such utterly unamerican arguments (see Clinton memos. I fear that Penn, Rove, et al knows what we must pretend to not know, they are the honest ones. We (meaning the hope mongers, believing "not this time") are not niaave, we are in denial... which is worst than dishonesty.
Very Insightful Post.
Great post TNC - the thing I find facinating is that even though her campaign was unsuccessful (she did not win), HRC successfully turned herself into a brand that has tremedous loyalty amongst her supporters. I did not really get that until I started to read the reactions of serious HRC supporters when Sibelius, Napolitano and McCaskill started emerging as possible VP candidates. Rather than be excited that a woman might be VP, these hard core HRC supporters complained that it would be an unacceptable slap in the face to HRC for BO to pick another woman, and damn near came out and said that it would be sexist for BO to pick a woman not named Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wow! For this women, HRC is not a symbol of feminism, she is not a proponent, an advocate, a beneficiary of feminism. HRC, for these women, IS FEMINISM.
Word up to the props for Robert Hayden. My poetry professor in college, John Hatcher was a good friend of his and wrote a biography of Hayden. In everything I've written since then I've looked to not be the black anything but just to be the best writer I could be while wrestling with issues important to me, some of which are relevant to blacks. Also, as the multi-racial offspring of African immigrants (yes there are white people from Africa), who hardly speak English, it's tough to identify with the overarching epic mantra of slavery and its after-affects, some of which (profiling!) affect me greatly. It's sometimes easier for me to see the white side and think, get over this "victimhood". Like any relationship, I don't think America can solve any problem by laying guilt-trips, however noble they may be
RE: Redstar "If post-primary anger was really about Clinton, then Clinton's calls to support Obama would likely counter most of that anger, I believe. This mobilization is bigger than that, and personally, I don't see the problem with that. I'm mystified that others can't allow Clinton's run as a catalyst for some needed activism around reforming our Party and electoral system." As Ta-Nehisi said, the focus should be on improving next time around, and it's counterproductive to sit around claiming victimization. The anger at Hillary's loss ignores that she ran an absolutely awful campaign, both in terms of the depths it was willing to sink to (Penn memos) and it's arrogance, lacking a plan for the states after Super Tuesday. The cajoling to give up Clinton's ghost is based on the idea that Hillary didn't have a birthright to be president simply because she represented the first viable female candidate. Any backup plan that allowed for a long primary battle likely would have won Clinton the nomination, but, running as the inevitable candidate, her campaign didn't have a chance once her inevitability was struck down. Hillary's ghost is the wrong ghost to rally around, considering she could have won easily but destroyed her own campaign. Moreover, both candidates faced unfair bias during the primary season, Hillary for gender and Obama for race. And I'm sorry, but I think the disloyal American smear has proven more pervasive than any gender bias stemming from Hillary's womanhood.
Word up to the props for Robert Hayden. My poetry professor in college, John Hatcher was a good friend of his and wrote a biography of Hayden. In everything I've written since then I've looked to not be the black anything but just to be the best writer I could be while wrestling with issues important to me, some of which are relevant to blacks. Also, as the multi-racial offspring of African immigrants (yes there are white people from Africa), who hardly speak English, it's tough to identify with the overarching epic mantra of slavery and its after-affects, some of which (profiling!) affect me greatly. It's sometimes easier for me to see the white side and think, get over this "victimhood". Like any relationship, I don't think America can solve any problem by laying guilt-trips, however noble they may be
Also, you said "a certain tribe of white men have always evinced a visceral hatred of her which I can't fathom." There's also a certain (smaller) tribe of white women that also have a visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton that I can't fathom either. Sometimes we're the ones perpetuating the prejudices against our own. This is also about personal failing, and inability to examine why one feels so angry to see a First Lady violate those unspoken rules of being the ultimate supportive wife (who can't be too graceless, too aggressive). On that front, I sympathize with the frustrations of some Clinton supporters (even though I'm really not a Clintonite). They've dealt with some very complex prejudices all their lives. And to see some of it amplified on a national stage, to not feel like even all women are behind you, I get why someone would dig in even more in response to push back against an injustice in the world. To zero in on the injustice of being slapped in the face over any other factors at play.
Just to echo the other commenters, this is an excellent post.
Shortly before my state's primary, I had two middle-age women come to my door to urge me to vote for Hillary. I didn't have the heart to tell them I was voting for Obama. I could tell from talking to them how they viewed Hillary as "their" candidate; here was the time for a woman/women to show what she/they can do. I can certainly understand why they would be disappointed, and why they might view Obama as an interloper. That being said, Clinton ran a bad campaign, and in my view, was wrong on the biggest issue, Iraq.
Amazing post. I originally came here in a one-off, mistakenly clicking on your name down the line (wanted Ambinder) from Sullivan. Instead I found a blog that intimately connects the political with the personal, in the best way possible. So I keep coming back. Here, you try not to narrow the psychologies of us and our politics, but to expand them, to make them broader, understandable and sympathetic, if (often deeply) mistaken. Thanks for creating a space for such discussion.
Yet the belief that she was robbed persists. Not exactly. It's the belief that she was broadly mistreated but that the mistreatment was excused and made light of because of who she was (a female, and a Clinton at that!) and who her primary opponent (who was popular with all the right and cool people) was. At root, the injustice was the fundamental disrespect and the irrational opposition she drew from her opponents and critics. It's not imaginary.
I agree that there are no paladins and no orcs, but that doesn't mean there are no heroes and no villains. Too many people make that leap, and it's a false one.
@Whitey: you missed my point. "As Ta-Nehisi said, the focus should be on improving next time around, and it's counterproductive to sit around claiming victimization." How is mobilizing for an improved Democratic Party not a "focus on improving next time around"? How is that "[sitting] around"? Further, how nice to know that for you racism trumps sexism, and that they clearly are mutually exclusive. Duly noted.
"...the stars in their courses fought against Sisera." Yeah, that's the ticket.
"As far as I know..." Pretty shameful from a Democratic nominee hopeful. That is the exact moment I knew I would be voting for Obama. Some of the disgust and disrespect from her critics was certainly with merit.
You just made me re-read "Those Winter Sundays," one of my all time favorite poems. I hadn't read it since becoming a father, but I plan to read it to my son tonight. "What did I know, what did I know Still chokes me up.
"Further, how nice to know that for you racism trumps sexism, and that they clearly are mutually exclusive. Duly noted." That's not what I said. There are degrees of prejudice, without a doubt. While Hillary might have faced some sexism, no one questioned her patriotism while she was running, and no one cast her as a Manchurian candidate. So yeah, in this case, racism - and provincialism - trumps sexism.
I supported Hillary after John Edwards quit, voted for her and gave her money. Not because of any big policy difference with Obama but because Obama just seemed to me to be somewhat green and naive. That said, I vigorously agree with Ta-Nehisi. Look to your own mistakes, not to external agency. Let go, move on. You lost. Not by much, but you lost. You lost by ignoring caucuses, by not playing the "little ball" game. Honestly, I don't think Bill Clinton's remarks hurt them all that much, though in a race as close, even a dozen delegates swung means a fair bit. I now believe that Obama was in point of fact baiting Bill Clinton with his remarks about Republicans having all the ideas for the past 16 years, hoping to goad him into saying something stupid. Which he did, but I doubt it moved a lot of votes. I think that because I now think he's baiting John McCain in a similar way, and I think it might well work.
Good post. However, there is a big difference between pain, suffering and responsibility as pertaining to groups vs. individuals. The only way that there would have been no black African culpability in the slave trade would be if black Africans as a group were morally pure. Since this is impossible for any group, of course you would have some individuals who participated in the slave trade. Similarly, just because some locals in British India worked for the colonial administration doesn't mean British imperialism was ok. In the end, Clinton fell on her own accord. If you aren't among her base, she has no understanding of how to reach out to you and she always feels like she's talking down to you and that you're an idiot that needs to be saved by her. The Clinton paternalism of "leave everything to us" was simply not going to win against a bottom-up movement led by a charismatic anti-war candidate with appeal to independents. If Clinton had been able to retain the loyalty of young women, for example, she would be the nominee today. The problem was that her war stance, combined with the condescending attitude of second-wave feminists against younger women, just meant that there was no real connection or loyalty between younger women (and younger male feminists) and Clinton. People of my generation never saw her as a feminist and could hardly fathom why anyone ever would, especially considering she made her career on being married to a sexist who doesn't respect her or their daughter. All the Clinton campaign did was remind me why I'm happy the third and fourth wave killed off the second as a viable movement. The older feminists are just not willing to admit their time has passed. The tragedy wasn't that Clinton lost, but that we were stuck with her off all people as our first viable female candidate. That's the real failing of the Democratic Party here.
There might not be many (or even any) paladins, but a whole bunch of people want to think they are one. Everybody wants to be the hero. But everybody screws up. When that happens, they can either truly take responsibility, or rationalize their way into just about anything. Rationalizing is "easier." Guess which one happens more often.
@Monstertron I agree with all the posters who have been saying that this post and this blog are awesome, but I hate "piling on with praise" especially if it's not to say much. I also second that I also came here a bit "by accident" (though in my case, it's because I saw that Jed (jedreport.com) had added this to his blog feeds. Once I stumbled here, I make it a point to come back on purpose, on a regular basis. Now, let me just disagree with your statement that the psychologies and politics expressed here can be "(often deeply) mistaken". As you so rightly say, the views expressed here are broadened and examined. What does it mean for a belief to be "deeply mistaken"? It seems to me that the only beliefs which are not worth entertaining are those which have not been examined. Which is sort of like the paradox of those sets which are members of themselves. But you get my point. ;-) the MD5 checksum of this comment is: Thanks, Ta-Nahisi
"The tragedy wasn't that Clinton lost, but that we were stuck with her off all people as our first viable female candidate. That's the real failing of the Democratic Party here." I think the failing of the Democratic Party is that they were willing to look at her as a true "female candidate". Hillary got to where she was by riding Bill's coattails; that's her own deal with the devil. A meaningful female candidate would be one whose career was based on her own merits, rather than who she was married to.
First to respond to this: But it isn't true. Whites could not penetrate readily into "deepest" Africa until reliable malaria treatment became available, which was after the American Civil War. Tribes from the coast captured people from either rival coastal tribes or interior tribes, moved them to the coasts, and sold them to whites to be transported to the Americas. (From the Slave/Gold/Ivory Coast; I'm less familiar with what went on along the Pacific coast, but US slaves came overwhelmingly from the more convenient Atlantic side.) I don't think this gets any of the whites involved off any hooks. Those who were guilty of trading in slaves, and defending the institution of slavery, are just as guilty if black men were involved in moving people to the coasts for transit as if it were the popular image of 2 white men in cowboy hats, with guns, rounding up 50 poor hapless Africans (think about the actual likelihood of that working, in those numbers). Cherokee in the south keeping slaves was not morally better than white plantation owners doing so. If anything, better understanding the worldwide history of slavery makes it clear there's plenty of guilt to go around and perhaps no one should talk too loudly about their own ancestral purity from any such (which I think Ta-Nehisi is getting at in this post)--the tribes of the Pacific northwest, for example, were quite brutal in their treatment of slaves taken from other tribes, including the occasional "I'm so rich I can kill off my slave" "oh yeah, me too" contests. Well-intentioned abolitionists from England tried to set up a colony of free men and wound up enslaving their would-be rescuees; trade in sex slaves happens today. The native Australians were treated inhumanly but not enslaved. Trying to do better now (those modern sex slaves) is going to get us further than exactly meting out how comparatively bad was the bad behavior of people who died before we were born.
Now I think she still elicits that rorschach reaction from a lot of people, but this year they loaded on the "will women vote as they're told to by the leaders of feminism" which put a lot of young women (including me, and I'm 40) off. It's the arc that went from the 90s "Emily's List--what a noble idea" to the 00s "why does Malcolm keep whining? and why the hell are they giving cover to Nikki Tinker?"
As a woman of HRC's age, I really have a hard time seeing her as any sort of victim. This is a woman who was, by all accounts, utterly brilliant and primed for political success. (start with her commencement speech at Wellsley and go forward through her early years on the D.C. scene -- it's all there in rather dazzling detail). But in 1974, she chose (in her own words) "to follow her heart instead of her head" and finally give in to Bill Clinton's relentless pressure to get married. In Arkansas, she morphed from "Hillary Rodham" to "Mrs. Bill Clinton" (see Carl Berstein's bio) and subjugated her ambitions to her husband's career. Despite her long resume of achievement even after she married, she wasn't able to regain her authentic self -- the one she implored her fellow grads to seek back at Wellsley -- until she finally ran for Senate. The rest, well, is history. Although HRC certainly made her own choices, I feel an immense sadness for the lost HRC, and I can't help but wonder what kind of leader we might have gotten had she "followed her head."
"But it isn't true. Whites could not penetrate readily into "deepest" Africa until reliable malaria treatment became available, which was after the American Civil War. Tribes from the coast captured people from either rival coastal tribes or interior tribes, moved them to the coasts, and sold them to whites to be transported to the Americas. (From the Slave/Gold/Ivory Coast; I'm less familiar with what went on along the Pacific coast, but US slaves came overwhelmingly from the more convenient Atlantic side.)" I think it bears mentioning that black African slaves were common in the Arab world going way back, being present in the Koran, if I'm not mistaken. The man who called early Muslims to prayer under Muhammad, if I remember correctly, was a one-time slave of black African ancestry. Which isn't to say that white people get off the hook just because Arabs were doing it to, but that the history of Africans as slaves goes so far back in time that assigning immediate blame is pretty difficult to do.
"So full were we on that notion, that we called it "Consciousness," for if you did not know that we were Original Man, that we were the descendants of kings and queens and thus royalty ourselves, that our time would soon come again, than you were mentally dead and truly lost. If you're snickering, it's because you aren't thinking hard enough." I'm not snickering, just remembering the posters of great African Kings and Queens that graced the halls of my 90% black high school. I distinctly remember the one that showed an Egyptian Pharaoh and his wife, both black and with Jheri curls. My one white friend in the school and I used to get a chuckle out of that one.
both black and with Jheri curls When everyone knows they were white, blond and blowdried. I think you should have paid more attention to the Freud, Fred. Your subconscious has some prodigious issues.
Kris, Deborah, great comments. And yeah its true--the Tran-Saharan trade is/was much much older than than the Trans-Atlantic trade. Both included black slaves. Also, thanks for schooling folks on the history Deborah. It doesn't help to act like this stuff didn't happen.
Great post, especially about tying the Clintonite need to be noble victim thing with your own experience with racial victim identity. It is very hard to unlearn such a powerful lession, especially if the victimhood is not imaginary. How to separate the wheat from the chaff, that is the most difficult part of having a frontal cortex. I do think Hillary is trying to move on. As she said in her concession speech, "When you hear people saying or think to yourself, "If only, or, "What if," I say, please, don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward." The problem for America is that we are not given to the kind of honest self appraisal that is so evident in this blog post by Coates. And until we move from our self mythologizing and sense of entitlement to a real tough analysis of our problems and a tough commitment to our solutions to those problems, we will always be caught in a never ending loop of helpless frustration. For the Obama people and the Clinton people, it's time to move on from the recriminations and wounds of the past, to the actions and the victories of the future. The Democrats have it in their hands to grab the reins of power, and the only thing that will stop that is if we choose instead to engage in an endless tug of war within our own party.
While your overall point is spot-on, and basically says what I always had been thinking just clearer and better argued than I could ever have hoped to have done myself, I have to quibble with your characterization of HRC as "someone who's never been a flaming lefty." Hillary did her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky (later suppressing the thesis when she was in the white house), and her commencement address was quite radical and controversial. She also interned with the radical law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein in 1971. FWIW, my definition of radical is a political outlook seeking to dramatically change the basis of power and the political organization of this country through either legal, peaceful or illegal and violent means. Of course, her views and associations were a product of the times and the environment in which she studied. Her later moderation followed the same path as many of her contemporaries So, many conservatives believed that this early Clinton was the true one, and the later moderate Hillary of her White House and Senate years a mask. Other folks disdained her as a political Zellig with no other principals than a desire for power. That she achieved so many of her goals drove some folks nuts. Not that any of this undermines your main point in any way. She ran a terrible campaign and a profligate organization. That the members of that organization blame outside forces first is all too human of them.
Wow. Just wow. Great essay. I think of this on a personal level, about the things I haven't accomplished for which my mind wants to blame others--but I know it's just me that didn't succeed. Wow, save this post somewhere in the good ones book...
Kris - great comment. Stacy - Clinton unequivocally denied that Obama was a Muslim but the reporter kept firing the question at her. It was on the 4th round of the same question that she finally added, "...as far as I know." Eric Boehlert at Media Matters breaks down the entire interview, and points out how her initial dismissal of the question as ludicrous was lost to the preferred media soundbyte of the dubious "...as far as I know..."
Great post TNC. I think you hit the nail on the head in a previous post. There's just an inability to be accountable for anything. That inability springs from the belief that anything and everything is spinnable - a moral relativism of sorts. For them, there is no such thing as an objective measure. All measures are personal and subjective, i.e. arbitrary. That Hillary mismanaged her campaign is your argument of why she lost. Their argument is that she was discriminated against because she was a woman. No matter what "objective facts" you put forth to support your argument, they are irrelevant because there is no such thing as an objective fact, in their minds, only subjective ones. Therefore, their strategy is to repeat their argument enough to drown out your's over time. If they can get enough people to believe it, its "objective" enough for them. Therefore, your "victim" becomes their "fighter". The problem with this is it undermines the idea of standards and accountability and ultimately progress.
Whitey, The Arabs are usually considered Caucasian, although many of them have intermixed with Africans. This is partly due to a big difference between the Arab and Western views of slavery: Arabs had the concept of manumission, where the child of a slave and a freeborn Arab could be considered a freeborn Arab, or even a noble. There's no "one drop" rule in Arabia. A modern day example is the former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, whose mother was a black "servant". Another apparent example is Osama bin Laden, who, judging from his hair, complexion, and features, clearly has some African ancestry, and yet was the acknowledged son of a Saudi tycoon. James, A blond, blue-eyed pharaoh is a pointless straw man. The Pharaoh pictured may not have been a Swede, but he didn't look like Billy Dee Williams either. Recent technological advances give us a good idea of what the ancient Egyptians looked like. Google the reconstruction of Tut's face, for example. They were Caucasian. Making them look like African Americans was a patronizing fiction to instill pride in the school's black students. That's what we found humorous. They could have put up posters of, say, George Washington Carver, and it would have at least been based on reality.
Let's leave the debate aside over whether Tut was Caucasian or not - You wouldn't have known that at the time. Jheri curl aside, at the time it would have made more sense for them to look 'African' than caucasian. So you were laughing about a historical anomaly that would only become apparent in the future? And yes, it makes far more sense for black children to have a slave (as impressive as he was) as a role model than a King. The Freudian bit was that you seem to have such a racial problem that if you can't see it yourself, then you should perhaps look into therapy.
"tribes sold their members to whites as slaves---but these made up a very small number of the total slaves taken." jack TR: This part might be correct, but I don't think the majority were taken directly by whites. "Africans" did not then, or now, see themselves as all one people. One African civilization (because calling people like the Benin or Yoruba "tribes" is roughly the same as calling the Portuguese a "tribe", it can come off condescending) would raid another and then sell to whites. The raiding or wars existed before the European coastal presence and you see something more or less like it in many societies throughout the world. An obvious example being Ancient Greece and Rome. Another factor I believe is that African kingdoms would sell people already enslaved in their own kingdom. Whites did change the dynamic though by increasing the demand for slaves and thereby increasing the need of raids or expulsions needed to supply them. The increasing demand caused several dislocations and collapsed a few societies. I imagine many of you know this so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm talking down to anyone. On Hillary Clinton I think some resentment is the idea that she is tough and that she is believed to have gotten where she is by marriage. This may make her appear like I don't know maybe a widow who inherits a business and tries to whip it into shape. Some men might respect that, but others might feel her position is unearned even ten years later.
Obviously, I'm not a Clintonite, but a certain tribe of white men have always evinced a visceral hatred of her which I can't fathom...Clinton draws an incredible amount of venom. I may not completely understand why The answer is: Rush Limbaugh. You're welcome!
James, "So you were laughing about a historical anomaly that would only become apparent in the future?" That was no historical anomaly. North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa have always differed racially, and the African American kids in that school were descended from ancestors from Southwest Africa in any case -- a world away from Egypt and the fertile crescent. Since you brought up Freud, feel free to tell me in Freudian terms what my problem is.
And you knew that as a kid, did you? Please.
Actually I did, James, because ancient history and geography were passions of mine. But in any case, this was in high school. Could there be a Freudian reason why you are so allergic to facts?
The Taureg of the western Sahara speak an arabic language, look to have thoroughly mixed ancestry, and to this day lord over a "traditional servant" class that looks more "normally" black African. The world is more complicated than Fred.
Fred, In point of fact, I don't think there was a one-drop rule in the Catholic countries of Latin America either. It should be acknowledged that Spanish and Portuguese slavery, as cruel as it was, was much less cruel and dehumanizing than the same institution practiced by the English, Dutch, and U.S.-Americans. Your attempt to pass off Osama bin Laden as Black is contemptible. There's absolutely no evidence of that, and there are plenty of Italians and Spanish who are as dark as bin Laden. Why don't you just go ahead and claim that Hitler "had some African ancestry", too.
Yes Fred, It's my way of repressing the need to point out that you are a repressed racist. So your 'only white friend' was also a big ancient history and geography buff - hence the shared hilarity? Did you (and do you), frequently laugh in public when you see a blond, blue eyed Jesus? that's certainly more ridiculous than an African Tut. Would 'King of Kings' be the funniest film you've ever seen? And why out of all the role models did you pick a ex-slave for God's sake?
Oh, and Fred - Osama Bin Laden's father was Yemeni - and his mother was Syrian. As you aren't allergic to facts, I'm sure you'll appreciate me pointing out your somewhat huge mistake here.
Hector, The Portuguese certainly had fewer inhibitions about intermixing with the natives and with slaves than other Europeans, and they've always had more of a color continuum in Brazil than a color line, but I'm sure it sucked just as much to be a slave there as here. I don't know of any Italians who look like Osama bin Laden. James, Have you ever looked at a map of the horn of Africa? How far is Yemen from Africa? There are blacks in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia, as I mentioned above. Osama has obvious African ancestry. Yes, my friend was also aware that ancient Egyptians didn't look like African Americans descended from Southwest Africans. I have never seen a blond Jesus. He's usually pictured with brown hair. He probably was swarthier than that in reality, but I doubt he was black with Jheri curls, as he is pictured in some black churches. I mentioned George Washington Carver because we were beaten over the head with his genius and accomplishments in that school. He got more play than Edison.
You mentioned nothing about Yemen - you said Saudi because you were completely unaware it seems of his ancestry. And again - the Tut thing is relatively recent, by your own admission. If you were that ahead of the curve, how come some AA dumbo got in Harvard ahead of you? Let's leave the 'blond' bit aside. swarthier? Are you fucking kidding me? He wouldn't be white, would he? You don't find blue eyed Jesus ridiculous? Doesn't make you break out in laughter? You don't fool me Fred, sorry. I'm not sure what's funnier, your bitterness or your apparent blissful ignorance of it.
James, I never applied to Harvard. If you're going to persist in your puerile attempts at goading, you might as well know that. And you don't have to be far ahead of the curve to know that ancient Egyptians were Caucasian. That has long been the mainstream consensus. It was mainly fringe Afrocentrists who thought otherwise. "swarthier? Are you fucking kidding me? He wouldn't be white, would he?" Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Jesus was a Jew. Unless you think Jews aren't white, then Jesus was white.
I would probably be classified as a visceral Clinton hater. I don't like her because she seemed like the kind of person who would hold everyone else up against perfection and find them lacking, but never hold herself up to the same standard. People like that are bad enough, but when they have power over you its terrible.
Jesus was white Fantastic Fred, quote of the day. Do you have any African in you?
the 19th century, which is basically the nadir of the slave trade. I'm not sure about that. In a few centuries earlier, millions of Europeans and Africans were kidnapped and traded as slaves by Arabs. I don't have the final numbers, but I wouldn't assume the western african salve trade of the 1800s was the nadir of trading slaves.
James, You must either believe that: 1) Jesus wasn't a Jew, or Which one is it? Let's see if you can answer the question and argue your side in good faith this time, instead of quoting part of this post out of context like a lazy sophist.
"The Arabs are usually considered Caucasian, although many of them have intermixed with Africans. This is partly due to a big difference between the Arab and Western views of slavery: Arabs had the concept of manumission, where the child of a slave and a freeborn Arab could be considered a freeborn Arab, or even a noble. There's no "one drop" rule in Arabia. A modern day example is the former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, whose mother was a black "servant". Another apparent example is Osama bin Laden, who, judging from his hair, complexion, and features, clearly has some African ancestry, and yet was the acknowledged son of a Saudi tycoon." True, the idea of "Arab" as an ethnic group is a very Western concept (cultural group is more commonly accepted within the Arab world). From a historical perspective, however, there are very different trajectories of Western Europe and the Middle East, and to lump all enslavement of Africans into "Caucasians did it" isn't particularly meaningful, especially when discussing colonial slavery vs. African slavery at large. As for blonde Jesus, look to Medieval Christian art. Blonde and blue-eyed.
"You don't find blue eyed Jesus ridiculous? Doesn't make you break out in laughter?" In fairness, there are blonde-haired, blue-eyed Palestinians and Lebanese today, so it's not outside the realm of possibility (though perhaps that's coming from Crusader stock). What IS absurd is the frequency with which Aryan Jesus makes appearances.
"You must either believe that: When Jesus was alive, white/black, Caucasian/African weren't really meaningful terms, so I don't see how there's anything meaningful to gain from going there. Extrapolating our own racial hang-ups onto ancient history is a pretty meaningless exercise. There were white, Western European slaves, African slaves, slaves from the Levant. Moreover, while you might lump Arabs into "Caucasian", I'd advise asking Arab-Americans if they feel they're treated like white folks. Because I think you'd get some different opinions.
1) Jesus wasn't a Jew, or Which one is it? I'll field this one. Not all Jews are white. Just because your friend Mr. Cohen happens to be of European descent doesn't mean it's universal throughout the tribe. FWIW, although this flame war is annoying on both sides, you're treading close to the edge, Fred. Might I suggest taking a walk and clearing your head before you continue down this road?
Yes Fred, because you've shown such good faith. Whitey - fair point, but given it would be out of the ordinary, it would probably be noted that the son of God looked different from others around him. Like Whitey said, the idea that you havent seen a blonde blue eyed Jesus EVER shows that you are a liar. Are you now also saying that most Jewish people are blue eyed and very fair skin? And are you seriously now saying that Jewish people from 2000 years ago were racially identical tp caucasian Europeans? Since you were so keen on ancient history, you should be able to answer definitively as you did with King Tut, many years ahead of the reconstruction. And do you have any African in you? Or have you had any in the past?
scythia, Was writing the last post while you posted yours. You're probably right - I don't mean to derail But I still hold that racist civility isn't better than crude honesty. If TNC thinks its out of line, then fair enough.
James, How many straw men can you fit in one comment? This is a great one: "Are you now also saying that most Jewish people are blue eyed and very fair skin?" Of course you know I never said any such thing. You are playing a weak hand, so you're just throwing crap out there. In any case: 1) Caucasian does not equal European. Europeans may be Caucasian, but not all Caucasians are European. There are Caucasians native to North Africa and West Asia as well. 2) I haven't seen a blond Jesus. Sorry to disappoint you. I didn't say they don't exist, just that I haven't seen one. Still awaiting your response as to whether or not Jesus was a Jew, and whether or not Jews are Caucasians.
Fred, I just posted several blue eyed Jesuses, but it gets flagged for too many links. Jesus of Nazareth tv film was one example - another was this http://www.portraitofjesus.com/portrait.asp As per the question you demand I answer, I think I did, just not in the stupid binary way you desire, precisely because it is not a binary answer. However, if you think it's not satisfactory, perhaps you could address scythia and Whitey's comments on this nonsense you are throwing up as some sort of desperate defense. I did actually try to step back from this as per my post to scythia, but you are clearly so intent on not merely proving your bigotry, but also your stupidity, it's getting increasingly hard to do so.
James and Fred Respectfully please stop arguing both of you are proving nothing except that it is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Maybe I should take my own advice.
Sorn, Don't tell people to stop arguing by insulting them, its not a v successful tactic. TNC - I have an idea - ban me and fred. That way we don't get his garbage, I get to think about your posts with the extra free time I'll get, and everyone else gets spared this nonsense. At least till the Sailer crew pops by
This is a dumb thing to argue about, I think, and I wish it were more civil (really, James -- even if Fred is totally wrong, you don't have to be so mean-spirited; and Fred -- chill, man). And maybe I benefited as a kid from living in a pretty diverse place, but without any special or surprising or precocious knowledge of history, I think I must've always figured that the Pharaohs pretty much looked like the Egyptian people I knew, and that Jesus pretty much looked like the Palestinian or Lebanese or Syrians, or like a Jewish person with less European and more Semitic features. And, for sure, there are Palestinians and Lebanese and Syrians and more Semitic-looking Jews who could totally pass for white (on the swarthy side of white, not Swedish), and some who are distinctly middle-eastern-looking. The Egyptians I knew were all darker than most white people, but not really black either. Isn't that all pretty normal and reasonable to suppose? I think there might be confusion about the word "caucasian," too, which is perhaps an archaic ethnological term with such a dubious origin and so much vagueness to its use that we would be better off without it. It's certainly become synonymous in a lot of colloquial American use with "white european-descended," but it is also often used together for everyone from Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and sometimes even India (like, by the US Census Bureau). So we have to be careful with that. Also, there was an issue of National Geographic recently (Feb 08) about "The Black Pharaohs." It's not about all the Pharaohs, but apparently SOME of them were originally sub-Saharan. So, whatever that's worth...
Locked. My deep-seated desire is that this will stop happening. I made the mistake of taking my kid to football practice and leaving my duties for a few hours. Now I know.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood
interesting. but i have to object to the idea that blacks bear equal moral responsibility for slavery. sure, some tribes sold their members to whites as slaves---but these made up a very small number of the total slaves taken. the majority of slaves were kidnapped and carted off by whites who hunted them down--this is a historical fact. this narrative is so powerful and persistent because it is true.
Posted by jack | August 12, 2008 10:17 AM