<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Ta-Nehisi Coates</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:,2008-04-15:/31</id>
    <updated>2009-01-08T21:53:19Z</updated>
    
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.1-en</generator>

<entry>
    <title>Do blacks care about black on black crime?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/do_blacks_care_about_black_on_black_crime.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65797</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T21:32:19Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T21:53:19Z</updated>

    <summary>Often when a cop comes under scrutiny for shooting a young black man, I hear some version of the following argument, &quot;Blacks are only angry when a cop kills one of there own. But they don&apos;t care about black on...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[Often when a cop comes under scrutiny for shooting a young black man, I hear some version of the following argument, "Blacks are only angry when a cop kills one of there own. But they don't care about black on black crime, which is way more common."<br /><br />With all due respect to commenter IrishPirate, I knew it was only a matter of time before such an argument <a href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/oscar_grant.php#comment-1214593">was made</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>...as to the comment about this not being the first black man
killed in Oakland by Police recently I believe that. I also wonder what
the ratio is of police shooting black men in Oakland to black men
shooting black men in Oakland.</p><p>My guess it's fewer than 1 police shooting to 100 other shootings.   Assuming Oakland is anything like Chicago.</p><p>It always amazes me how much anger there is in the black community
regarding police involved shootings. You can get a dozen reverends and
"community leaders" to show up to protest ANY police involved shooting.
Whether it is justified or clearly unjustified as this Oakland shooting
is.</p><p>Yet hold a protest for some dead innocent kid killed by a gangbanger
and few show up. Partly it's because other types of shootings are so
common I guess. Partly it's because it's easier to focus on the police
as being the main problem in the black community and not the fucked up
standards that exist among elements in the black community.</p><p>I recall Michelle Obama being asked if she feared for Barack's
safety. She said something to the effect of "he's a black man, he might
get shot at the gas station".</p><p>Now there was a comment that everyone hates police worldwide. I
agree. There's a reason for that. Human nature. Yet who do folks call
when they are in trouble? Who runs to the sound of gunfire while others
flee?</p></blockquote>









It's interesting to me how Irish interprets that Obama's comment. I heard that comment and assumed she was talking about getting shot by someone trying to rob him. But be that as it may, the sentiment that black people are unconcerned about black on black crime is simply wrong. <br /><br />Anyone who lives in any hood, of any sort, has been treated to one of those "Increase The Peace" marches. I date back to "Self-Destruction" and "We're All In the Same Gang<br />--released at the height of hip-hop's black nationalist phase--concerned, not with cops, but with black people killing black people. I spent most of last year <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/cosby">following Bill Cosby</a> around to standing room only rallies in Detroit, Birmingham and Baltimore, talking to people who were pissed off by a variety of social maladies. Number one amongst them all--the murder rate among black men. That year, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/30philadelphia.html">black men in Philly</a> came up with a plan for the community to patrol the corners. <br /><br />It is true that a police killing will draw more headlines--but that has more to do with the MSM considers a story, and what it doesnt, than with what black people care about. The fact that people are pissed that a cop shot a man face down on the pavement, doesn't mean that they also aren't pissed about shit <a href="http://www.blackpressusa.com/news/Article.asp?SID=3&amp;Title=National+News&amp;NewsID=2632">like this</a>. I'm black, and I know I am. Walk and chew gum, people. That's the motto this year.<br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>I need to emphasize this</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/i_need_to_emphasize_this.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65795</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T20:38:02Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T20:56:00Z</updated>

    <summary>Was reading through the comments below and I wanted to say this again, My position on scapegoating and prop 8, in no way means that those of us in the black community don&apos;t have a serious homophobia problem that we...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[Was reading through the comments below and I wanted to say this again, My position on scapegoating and prop 8, in no way means that those of us in the black community don't have a <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/over-generalizi.html#more">serious homophobia problem</a> that we need to confront. Put in the most brutal and coldest terms, too many of us dying for us to not take up this fight. One can believe that media got it wrong on Prop 8 and still believe that we've got work to do. Religion explains a lot. History explains a lot. Education explains a lot. But nothing excuses it. We've got work to do. Having been wronged, doesn't automatically make you right. We must learn to walk and chew gum this year.<br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Oscar Grant</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/oscar_grant.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65790</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T19:32:40Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T19:44:28Z</updated>

    <summary>Don&apos;t know if you guys are following this, but a cop in Oakland was caught on tape shooting a man--who later died--while he was face down. The tape is below. The worst part of it all is, unlike in some...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[Don't know if you guys are following this, but <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/07/BART.shooting/index.html?iref=mpstoryview">a cop in Oakland</a> was caught on tape shooting a man--who later died--while he was face down. The tape is below. The worst part of it all is, unlike in some other cases, this doesn't look a tragic misunderstanding or mistake. The cop simply pulls out his gun and shoots the dude. See for yourselves. The officer has since resigned, lawyered up, and skipped a meeting with investigators. I expect we'll soon be hearing explanations like "the gun summoned itself to the officers waist, unholstered itself and discharged." Meanwhile, protests have turned violent. Postracial, indeed.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IKy-WSZMklc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IKy-WSZMklc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></object>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>More Michelle</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/more_michelle.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65764</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T16:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T14:27:05Z</updated>

    <summary>One of the more poignant moments comes when Michelle Obama&apos;s mother, Marian Robinson says the following:&quot;I keep saying this: Michelle, Barack, and my son are not abnormal,&quot; Marian Robinson said. &quot;All my relatives, all my friends, all their friends, all...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[One of the more poignant moments comes when Michelle Obama's mother, Marian Robinson says <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/michelle-obama/4">the following</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"I keep saying this: Michelle, Barack, and my son are not abnormal,"
Marian Robinson said. "All my relatives, all my friends, all their
friends, all their parents, almost all of them have the same story.
It's just that their families aren't running for president. It bothers
me that people see [Michelle and Barack] as so phenomenal, because
there's so much of that in the black neighborhood. They went to the
same schools we all did. They went through the same struggles."<br /></blockquote>On some level, that will ring false for some people--these are two Ivy League lawyers, after all. But for those of us who've lived in black neighborhoods all our lives--and probably for black Chicagoans in particular--Robinson's point has a particular resonance. It's not that Ivy League lawyers are walking up and down the street, as much as we see talent, drive, and ambition every day. We see people taking their kids to school, going to PTA meetings, working their jobs everyday. But somehow the worst of it, becomes the most of it--and then the all of it. I think Obama, herself, also got at this at the end of the piece:<br /><br /><blockquote>"People have never met a Michelle Obama," the soon-to-be first lady
said toward the end of our interview. "But what they'll come to learn
is that there are thousands and thousands of Michelle and Barack Obamas
across America. You just don't live next door to them, or there isn't a
TV show about them."<br /></blockquote>Anyway, here's another video where me and Pops discuss that aspect.<br /><br /><embed src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1460906593" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=6631577001&amp;playerId=1460906593&amp;viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&amp;servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&amp;cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&amp;domain=embed&amp;autoStart=false&amp;" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swliveconnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" width="486" height="412">]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>No black senators?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/no_black_senators.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65758</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T15:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T15:12:28Z</updated>

    <summary>Nate Silver&apos;s post on why there are no black senators is really good, and has been attracting a lot of attention. But let me begin by quibbling with something:The question, of course, is why African-Americans aren&apos;t getting elected in these...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[Nate Silver's post on why <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/why-are-there-no-black-senators.html">there are no black senators</a> is really good, and has been attracting a lot of attention. But let me begin by quibbling with something:<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /></span><blockquote><span id="fullpost">The question, of course, is <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span>
African-Americans aren't getting elected in these districts. Racism is
undoubtedly part of the answer, but it probably can't be a complete one
now that the country has just elected Barack Obama to the White House.</span><br /></blockquote>I want to agree that racism can't explain it all. Having said that, I also think this is the sort of thing that keeps black people up at night. The problem is that Nate is looking at the racism of right now--i.e. will white people today vote for a black guy. But the worse racism happened yesterday, and it's the worse because we're still feeling the effects of it. Nate, I think correctly, notes that one reason there aren't any black senators is because blacks aren't competing in districts that look like America:<br /><br /><blockquote><span id="fullpost">I suspect that a lot of the problem, however, is
that as Congressional Districts have become more and more
gerrymandered, leading to the creation of more and more
majority-minority districts following the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the
black political apparatus has become more and more 'ghettoized'. Black
candidates have not had to develop a message that appeals to white
voters, because most of them don't have very many white voters in their
districts (about half the nation's African-American population is
limited to the 60 blackest Congressional Districts). Nor do they have
very many conservative voters in their districts, and so they have not
had to develop a message that appeals to conservatives, even though the
black population itself is far more diverse in its political views than
is generally acknowledged.</span><br /><span id="fullpost"></span></blockquote><span id="fullpost">Leaving aside that raging lefty Harold Ford, gerrymandering isn't the only reason black congressmen tend to come from majority black districts. African-Americans are still the most segregated minority in the country. I can't overstate how much that sort of thing warps a prospective candidate's world. It influences who he meets, what he sees, what he's invited to, who he has drinks with etc. It's not because white people are saying,<i> Nigger don't come over here</i>. It's because these folks don't know each other.<br /><br />That said, there's a Du Bois quote that I love, even though I'm about mangle it. Du Bois, disenchanted with the NAACP, ironically had entered into a Garveyite phase. Speaking on the future of race he told black people,"You didn't create this problem. But you will have to fix it." That's not the exact quote, but it's something like that, and it really captures the best of black nationalism. Du Bois's point was to not so much to dismiss white racism, but to look at the problem and acknowledge that mass white benevolence would not be forthcoming.<br /><br /><br /></span>]]>
        <![CDATA[<span id="fullpost">Du Bois said that in the 30s, but part of that
thinking is still with me. So when I see a Bobby Rush <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/bobby-rush-birmingham-dogs/">comparing Roland
Burris</a> with the worse scenes out of Alabama, I don't just chafe because
of the race card. Fuck the race card--the original, and most potent
race card, stretches from Reagan going to Philadelphia through Bush
speaking at a school that outlawed interracial dating. I chafe because it
traffics in a dangerous illusion that our only way in, is through the
side door. Roland Burris will--and by law should--be seated. But there
will be no side doors to save him 2010. And in all likelihood, we'll be
right here, having this same discussion again.<br />
<br />
And so that leaves us with a question--What will we do? I look at my home state of
Maryland. I look at the shifting demographics of Georgia, North
Carolina and Virginia. I look at Corey Booker in New Jersey, Deval Patrick is Massechussets. I think about how this isn't 1988. How will play on this feild? Is it enough that to just be black, or should we be organizing around issues, not people? We just watched a black man use technology--and the sacrifices of others--to win. Is there not some lesson for us there? Is it only that our way in, must be through the worst impulses of corrupt politicians? What will be our magic, as Baraka would say. What will be our sacred words?<br /></span>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>You know the NAACP is in trouble...</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/you_know_the_naacp_is_in_trouble.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65760</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T14:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T13:56:16Z</updated>

    <summary>When your boy gets nominated for an &quot;Image Award.&quot; Man listen: The kid boasts the sort of resume that sends respectable blacks into anaphylactic shock. Let&apos;s do a run down here:--Born out wedlock. Check!--Has brothers and sisters by different mothers....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[When your boy gets nominated for an "Image Award." Man listen: The kid boasts the sort of resume that sends respectable blacks into <a href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/ask_the_expert_is_conversate_a_word.php#comment-1213629">anaphylactic shock</a>. Let's do a run down here:<br /><br />--Born out wedlock. Check!<br /><br />--Has brothers and sisters by different mothers. Check!<br /><br />--Was kicked out of high school. Check!<br /><br />--Dropped out of college. Check!<br /><br />--Bad grammar. Check!<br /><br />--Happily continued the cycle of having children out of wedlock, Check!!<br /><br />--Lives in sin. CheckCheck!!!<br /><br />--Has not been to church--in, well, almost ever. Check!<br /><br />--Uses the word nigger. CheckityCheckCheck!!<br /><br />--Uses the word conversate, then attempts to legitimize it. Check!<br /><br />If only I'd done a bid, the cipher would be complete. But I'm from Baltimore. I think that counts.<br /><br />There's a part of me that wants to say to the NAACP--Do I look like a role model? But it's a really, really, really small part. The truth of the matter is that I'm highly amused. But the deeper truth is that I'm honored. All I ever wanted to do, was represent for my folk. Now get out here, before I start losing my edge. Someone send me a Bobby Rush clip. Fast.<br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>They still make you??</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/they_still_make_you.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65757</id>

    <published>2009-01-08T13:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-08T12:40:45Z</updated>

    <summary>Via the awesome Dave Weigel, we see the PUMAS are alive and well, and competing for Hillary Clintons seat. Which PUMAs? That one, of course! Rewind, selector...I think the most egregious part isn&apos;t even the &quot;inadequate black male&quot; comment--that&apos;s just...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[Via the awesome <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/24131/sister-christian-oh-your-time-has-come">Dave Weigel</a>, we see the PUMAS are alive and well, and competing for Hillary Clintons seat. Which PUMAs? That one, of course! Rewind, selector...<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KACQuZVAE3s&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KACQuZVAE3s&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object><br /><br />I think the most egregious part isn't even the "inadequate black male" comment--that's just funny now. The truly fascinating thing is to remember that there were people who actually believed that Obama was going to take Democratic party down the tubes. Christian may be ranting in this video, but she wasn't alone. Remember that cat down South who said he supported Hillary because if Obama was the nominee, every Democrat under him would lose? Wonder where that kid is now...<br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Added Bonus: Irregardless of what you think, &quot;conversate&quot; is a word</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/ask_the_expert_is_conversate_a_word.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65731</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T20:45:33Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T23:51:18Z</updated>

    <summary>So a bunch of people noted in yesterday&apos;s Ebonics thread that conversate wasn&apos;t a word, because it wasn&apos;t in the Oxford English Dictionary. Well, I had nothing better to do today, so I decided to call up the OED people...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[So a bunch of people noted in yesterday's Ebonics thread that conversate wasn't a word, because it wasn't in the Oxford English Dictionary. Well, I had nothing better to do today, so I decided to call up the OED people and see if I could get an editor to talk to me. <a href="http://www.jessesword.com/">Jesse Sheidlower</a>, Editor At Large for the Oxford English Dictionary, was nice enough to bring some knowledge to this most important subject.<br /><br /><b>Ta-Nehisi:</b> So is conversate a word?<br /><b><br />Jesse Sheidlower:</b>
 
Of course it's a word, the question is, is it acceptable. There
are a lot of things that are acceptable in some situations, and not acceptable in others. "Table" is generally acceptable, but "ass" or "fuck" might not be, In some cases they would. It's the same for "hopefully" or "irregardless." They're all words, but it behooves us to be serious and ask, is it acceptable in
this context? If you're delivering the State of the Union address, maybe "fuck" is not acceptable. If you're having sex with your girlfriend, maybe it is acceptable.<br /><b><br />TNC:</b> If a word isn't in the OED, does that mean it isn't actually a word?<br /><br /><b>JS:</b><o:p> </o:p>No, not all. No dictionary can include all words. The OED<span style="">&nbsp; </span>can only cover a small fraction
of all the words out there. There's nothing official about the OED or any other
dictionary out there. People sometimes think that it is, or pretend that it is. I think
it's the most comprehensive and the best researched. But there are zillions of words
that are not in the OED. <br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal">Our goal is to include
things that are in widespread use. We don't care about things like whether they
are acceptable, ungrammatical, or offensive. There are times when we have many, many words for the same concept. People say, "We don't need conversate, we have
converse." Well then,&nbsp; we don't need hip because we have cool. We don't need illness because
we have malady.</p><p class="MsoNormal">There are factors that we look at. They include how widespread
something really is. How long has it been around? How broad is its use? A word that's
in widespread use<span style=""> </span>in many places is more
likely to be included than a word that is only used in a small place but is widespread.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>[MORE]</b><br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<b>TNC:</b> What fuels the notion that certain words aren't really words?<br />
<br />
<b>JS:</b> There a lot of different things. People feel that there is a certain
kind of language that's appropriate and a certain type that isn't appropriate. And
these judgments are based on many things--some may make sense, some might not. People
take these things very seriously. People are told things about the language in school that
are demonstrably untrue, and they think anyone who doesn't follow along with those
beliefs is stupid or wrong.<br />
<br />


<p class="MsoNormal">Let me give you an example, in terms of looking at things
historically. At the beginning of this conversation you pronounced the
word "ask" as "aks." This is something that people often
object to. People say it's the wrong pronunciation, and it's stupid.
But if you
look at the history of the English language, you can't tell if the
correct pronunciation is "aks" or "ask."&nbsp;The "aks" pronunciation goes back
1000 years. It's in Beowulf. It's in Chaucer.  <br />
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What happened was both were in
use. But at some point, the dialect in which the "ask" pronunciation was used became
dominant. But both continued and have been in use since then. When you look at America, the "aks" pronunciation is widespread in Southern American English. African-Americans
used this because they were in the South--it's not especially African-American,
but its Southern.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, if you look at other Germanic languages, the
"correct" pronunciation is, in fact, "ask"--but
you can't tell that looking just at English and it ultimately doesn't matter.
If I asked you to name the ordinal number between "second" and "fourth"
you'd say, what?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>TNC:</b> Third.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>JS:</b> Right, third--but the old pronunciation is
"thred," it comes from three. But if you were to say thred, you'd be
considered a moron--even though it's "correct." </p><b>TNC:</b> Will conversate be included after the next revision of the OED?<br />

<br />

<b>JS:</b> It's very likely to go in.]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>What Israelis Think</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/what_israelis_think.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65733</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T20:08:26Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T20:22:41Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA[UPDATE: By Eyal PressA couple of readers have asked about the state of opinion within Israel, wondering if there's a greater diversity of views among Israelis than the headlines here suggest.&nbsp; In fact, Israel is one of the most fractious...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[UPDATE: By Eyal Press<br /><br />A couple of readers have asked about the state of opinion within Israel, wondering if there's a greater diversity of views among Israelis than the headlines here suggest.&nbsp; In fact, Israel is one of the most fractious political societies on earth. Israelis tend to stand together when they feel threatened, as people in most countries do, but they also love to argue.&nbsp; Consensus is about as common (and lasting) as snowfall.&nbsp; And unlike in many other Middle Eastern countries, Israelis have the freedom to air just about any political opinion they want.&nbsp; For a flavor, <a href="mailto:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/LiArt.jhtml?contrassID=2&amp;subContrassID=4&amp;sbSubContrassID=0">check out the columns in <i>Haaretz</i>,</a> where you will find far more pungent criticism of the Israeli government than in the American press. &nbsp;<br /><br />The recent war might make you think a lot of Israelis have shifted to the right, resigning themselves to the idea that the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be occupied and subjugated forever.&nbsp; But this isn't the case. A majority of Israelis still favor a two-state solution.&nbsp; A great many revile the settlers.&nbsp; The vision of a "Greater Israel" championed by the right for decades keeps losing advocates, and not just on the far left.&nbsp;<a href="mailto:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22112"> Last October, in an interview with the newspaper <i>Yedioth Ahronoth</i>,</a> Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, once a hard-line member of the Likud, conceded that building settlements and checkpoints will do nothing to bring Israel long-term security:<br /><br /><blockquote>We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the [occupied] territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage [of territory elsewhere]--without this, there will be no peace.<br /></blockquote>"Including Jerusalem?" he was asked.&nbsp; "Including Jerusalem," he said. &nbsp;<br /><br />Afterwards, the columnist Gideon Levy <a href="mailto:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1026334.html">announced,</a> "With neither sorrow nor grief it may be announced: The Israeli right is dead."<br /><br />This may be a bit premature.&nbsp; But the right has indeed lost the ideological battle.&nbsp; The problem is that many Israelis on the center and moderate left are conflicted and confused.&nbsp; More and more when I've gone to Israel in recent years, I've spoken to people who unequivocally oppose expending lives and resources to defend illegal settlements, but who also fear withdrawing from the West Bank will only lead to violence and chaos. &nbsp; <br /><br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>We don&apos;t believe you, you need more people...</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/we_dont_believe_you_you_need_more_people_1.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65707</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T17:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T15:34:56Z</updated>

    <summary>Harry Reid flexes:Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.Reid stated, &quot;I don&apos;t believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[Harry Reid <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/i-dont-work-for-obama-2009-01-06.html">flexes</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp
for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama
administration.<br /></p><p>Reid stated, "I don't believe in the
executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution,
three separate but equal branches of government."<br /></p>"If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him," he said.<br /></blockquote>Harry Reid needs to take his baby moms advice. Seriously, you want a majority leader who's going to hold the president accountable. But after watching Reid get waxed by Blago, I don't think he's the guy to do it.<br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Prop 8 and blaming the blacks</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/prop_8_and_blaming_the_blacks.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65720</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T16:14:34Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T17:03:54Z</updated>

    <summary>I&apos;m sorry, but this really pisses me off. The problem with getting good numbers is that they invariably take time to come in. In the meantime, people are happy to run off and trumpet their half-cocked theories--unchallenged--to anyone who&apos;s listening....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[I'm sorry, but this really pisses me off. The problem with getting good numbers is that they invariably take time to come in. In the meantime, people are happy to run off and trumpet their half-cocked theories--unchallenged--to anyone who's listening. I've tried to be measured and sensitive on this. But frankly, the scapegoating of black people for the <strike>failure</strike> passage of Prop 8 has been a travesty. Anyone who doubts that needs to read <a href="http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf">this report</a>. A few of the conclusions are as follows.<br /><br />1.) The 70 percent figure for black support of Prop 8 is wildly overblown, and in conflict with all the other polling done. The study concludes that 58 percent is a more likely number. To put that in context, the study also concludes that 59 percent of Latinos supported prop 8. That isn't one-up-manship--it just means we were about the same.<br /><br />2.) Black people almost certainly did not account for 10 percent of the voters on Prop 8, they accounted for seven percent<br /><br />3.) 58 percent is still higher than the 52 percent for the state, as a whole, but that difference is almost entirely accounted for by the fact that no ethnic group in California is as religiously devout as (as measured by church attendance) African-Americans.<br /><br />4.) Among those who attended church weekly, African-Americans were support for Prop 8 was <i>lower</i> than amongst any other ethnic group.<br /><br />The faultiness of exit polling is well known. But when it comes to blacks, we believe the worse and ask questions, uhm, like never.<br /><br />Look, my fight is clear. Homophobia is bad for my community. I support gay marriage because I believe it is a moral imperative, and the marker of a just society. I support it because, as a black man, I have seen first-hand the value of all kinds of family. In other words, <i>it's in my interest</i>. It's in <i>my son's interest</i>. It's a part of a world, that I hope to live in. But frankly, I have no use for people--gay, straight, white, red, rich, poor--who feel like black people "owe them." I have no use for people who like to trot out their history of supporting "black causes." I have no use for people who want to compare gay racism with black homophobia. With friends like those...<br /><br />There are people in my business who took to the highest hills to decry the betrayal of black Californians, and to this day, are giddily noting that blacks sunk marriage equality in California, who foist the failure of marriage equality on <i>seven percent of the electorate </i>. I will not speculate on their motives. But let's see how loudly they address this study. Let's see how much ink we see spilled revisiting those assumptions. Or will it be on to the next calamity, where the blacks--or the Arabs, or the Latinos--can be trotted out and blamed for the failings of others. For the failings of us all. <br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>For people who&apos;ve forgotten what lynching actually means</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/for_people_who_like_to_casually_throw_out_the_term_lynching.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65708</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T16:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T15:35:50Z</updated>

    <summary>This is late, but it&apos;s an important point from Jelani:New rule effective immediately: no politician can use the term &quot;lynching&quot; to describe an otherwise routine political impasse. Nor can it be used for low-grade racial conflicts. Between 1880-1910 African Americans...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[This is late, but it's an <a href="http://www.americanexception.typepad.com/">important point</a> from Jelani:<br /><br /><blockquote>New rule effective immediately: no politician can use the term
"lynching" to describe an otherwise routine political impasse. Nor can
it be used for low-grade racial conflicts. Between 1880-1910 African
Americans were lynched at a rate that averages out to two per week.
These were people who were routinely tortured, shot and castrated
before being set afire. Being passed over for a job -- even a job you
deserve -- just isn't in the same category as recreational murder.<br /></blockquote>Yup, and when Rush threw that "lynching" card out there, he didn't just disgrace himself, he really trivialized, arguably, the most disgraceful eras in American history. Of course he wasn't the first:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>First Clarence Thomas, inventor of the portable crucifix, hailed
that he was the target of a hi-tech one (the only lynching to culminate
in a guarantee of lifelong employment for the victim) and now every
black politician who gets questioned on an expenditure smells kerosene
in the air. (And this damn sure doesn't give Bill O'Reilly a pass on
reckless lynching references either.)</p><p>Bobby Rush knows&nbsp; (or at
some point knew) better than this which is part of what makes the
Roland Burris fiasco so frustrating. If Burris is not seated it will
not be tantamount to a lynching. But he and Thomas have a surprising
degree of common ground on the lynching issue. </p><p>Thomas threw out
the L-word hoping to cow white Senate Democrats who were on the fence
about his nomination. Seventeen years later Rush is tossing the term
around pretty much for the same reason. In America, where cynicism is
an art form, there's room for a kind of ironic appreciation for the
fact that the most horrific element of black history can now be
deployed to gain leverage over white politicians. That is, if it didn't
consistently undermine the memory of what lynching actually was. </p>At
the end of the day, cynicism is like using a mirror to look at a mirror
-- in the reflection of a reflection of a reflection you eventually
lose sight of what the real image is.<br /></blockquote> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Flawed Analogy</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/flawed_analogy.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65714</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T15:38:38Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T16:01:02Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA[UPDATE: By Eyal PressOn the letters page of yesterday's New York Times, a reader from Haifa asked Americans to consider what their government would do if a terrorist organization in Mexico started launching missiles at Texas.&nbsp; "How long do you...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[<b>UPDATE:</b> <i>By Eyal Press</i><br /><br />On <a href="mailto:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/opinion/l06mideast.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">the letters page of yesterday's <i>New York Times</i></a>, a reader from Haifa asked Americans to consider what their government would do if a terrorist organization in Mexico started launching missiles at Texas.&nbsp; "How long do you think the United States would tolerate having rockets fired at Americans in El Paso?" <br /><br />If you've heard this question raised elsewhere lately, it's no accident.&nbsp; <a href="mailto:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/eldar/print">According to Akiva Eldar</a>, chief political columnist for <i>Haaretz</i> and coauthor of <a href="mailto:http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Land-Settlements-Territories-1967-2007/dp/1568583702"><i>Lords of the Land</i>,</a> an important new history of the settlement project, a film has actually been produced that compares Israel's southern border to that of the United States.&nbsp; "Would the United States ignore rockets fired from Mexico into San Diego?" the narrator asks.<br /><br />What's wrong with this analogy?&nbsp; I defer to Eldar, who points out that Israel's border with Gaza is actually different than any other border in the world, notwithstanding its withdrawal from the territory in 2005:<br /><br /><blockquote>Israel controls the entrances and exits, as well as access to necessities such as power and water. Mexico has not spent the last three or more years under an American aerial and sea blockade. Moreover, Israel's impressive victory in the Six-Day War turned the West Bank and Gaza into one ethnic unit. In the peace agreement signed by Egypt and Israel in 1979, the Gaza Strip remained in Israel's hands. The Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians, signed in September 1993, determined that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are one political entity. This means that as long as the West Bank is under Israeli occupation, so too is Gaza.<br /></blockquote>None of this justifies the conduct of Hamas, which Eldar (like me) would love to see removed from power.&nbsp; But he recognizes that this can only happen through the ballet box, and that analogies to the borders of other countries will prove persuasive only when Israel demarcates permanent borders with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In other words, after negotations resume to end the occupation. &nbsp; <br /><br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>On almost taking Michelle Obama for white...</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/on_almost_taking_michelle_obama_for_white.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65706</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T15:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T14:15:51Z</updated>

    <summary>I&apos;ve been leery about talking about Michelle Obama on the blog, while I knew this story was coming out--I didn&apos;t want to preempt myself. But I&apos;d like to discuss some aspects of the story now. I&apos;d also like to answer...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[I've been leery about talking about Michelle Obama on the blog, while I knew <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/michelle-obama">this story</a> was coming out--I didn't want to preempt myself. But I'd like to discuss some aspects of the story now. I'd also like to answer any questions that you guys might have. Anyway, I've noticed in comments that there's a lot of attention being paid to the lede. A lot of that has to do with me and my Dad debating the lede in the video, but also, I think it probably is a bit jarring. Here's the lede again:<br /><br /><blockquote>The first time I saw Michelle Obama in the flesh, I almost took her for
white. It was late July. Pundits were taking whispered bets on the fate
of Hillary Clinton's female supporters. In part to heal the intraparty
rift, and in part to raise some cash, Obama was presiding over a
Chicago luncheon for Democratic women. They were an opulent,
multiracial, mostly middle-aged bunch, in pantsuits and conservative
dresses. Clinton-turned-Obama staffer Patti Solis Doyle waved from the
floor when she was introduced. One of Clinton's longtime backers
appealed for unity. Only a few weeks earlier, Obama had appeared on <i>The View</i>
in a striking black-and-white floral dress. Now, throughout the room,
some of the women were decked out in their best version of that number.
Obama flashed her trademark sense of humor, her long arms cutting the
air, as she made her points.<br /><br /><p>I'd flown into Midway that morning and driven down Lake Shore Drive,
with William DeVaughn crooning "Be Thankful for What You Got" in the
background. But even as I took in the stately beauty of Michigan
Avenue, notions of Michelle Obama were spinning around in my head. I
thought of an ecstatic phone call from my sister Kelley: "You have to
ask her how she holds it down!" I thought of my Atlanta aunts,
partisans of the Alpha Kappa Alpha pink and green, crowing over Obama's
acceptance of an honorary membership that same month: "Tell her she
made the right choice." I thought of a Chicago homeboy who'd summed her
up for me: "Michelle is a six-foot black woman who says what she
means." </p></blockquote>

<br /> ]]>
        <![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And then I thought of an image from last February, when Michelle
Obama, in a gray sweater and a non-smile, slipped into a box marked <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Angry Black Woman</span>.
"For the first time in my adult life," she had told a Milwaukee rally,
"I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making
a comeback." When I first saw that clip, I could almost hear the
trapdoor opening. In that instant, Michelle Obama became a symbol of
her husband's otherness. And for much of the rest of the campaign
season, the opinion media obsessed over her love--or lack of love--of
country. </p><p>Now, waiting in that cavernous downtown Hilton ballroom, I did not
think I'd find Ida Wells or Stokely Carmichael. I did not expect to see
Michelle Obama with her fist in the air, slinging bean pies, or hawking
<i>The Final Call</i>. But still, I was unprepared for what I did
encounter: Michelle Obama recounting her life as if she were an old
stevedore hungering for the long-lost neighborhood of yore. </p></blockquote>



My greatest fear, in regards to this story, is that people will say, "Oh yeah that's the article where that dude accused Michelle of acting white." I swear I was coming home yesterday from my reading in Brooknam shuddering at the possibility. I don't want people thinking that that lede is there because Michelle Obama is successful, the product of a two family home, and isn't from the projects. Indeed, I think the piece argues quite the opposite. I think if you watch the video, and read the whole article, the observation makes a little more sense. I also think the initial observation--like most writing--says more about me, than it does about her. You may not agree with it, but I think you can see that it isn't the case that I <i>literally</i> almost took her for white.<br /><br />That said, had I to do it again, I probably would have dropped that whole device for a couple reasons. 1.) Given what just happened in this campaign and all the stupid, ugly "black enough" debate we've had going, I hate being tied into that. 2.) I don't want readers tied up on that particular question, and thus not getting into the rest of the article. <br /><br />It would be really convenient if I could blame my editors here and tell you that the White Satan Known As The Atlantic, twisted a brother's words. Meh, the truth it was my idea. Moreover, I haven't worked for a publication, in a long time, that's been so singurlarly obsessed with letting the writer speak for himself. So on that point, I take the fall. But I also take the lesson.<br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The future of the Congressional Black Caucus</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/the_future_of_the_congressional_black_caucus.php" />
    <id>tag:ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com,2009://31.65704</id>

    <published>2009-01-07T14:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-07T13:27:43Z</updated>

    <summary>I think there are serious questions to be asked about where the CBC is headed and what, exactly, its relevance will be over the next decade or so. But it&apos;s wrong to say those questions are arising, solely, because of...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ta-Nehisi Coates</name>
        
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/">
        <![CDATA[I think there are <a href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/let_him_in.php">serious questions</a> to be asked about where the CBC is headed and what, exactly, its relevance will be over the next decade or so. But it's wrong to say those questions are arising, solely, because of the election of Barack Obama. Those of us who watch these issues know that this is more about the growing ineffectiveness of the Civil Rights Industrial Complex, and its distance from those it was supposed to be repping for. Moreover, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07blacks.html?pagewanted=print">this</a> is a really squishy attempt to answer those questions filled with hypotheticals, hedges, and trumped up conflicts. <br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>
