BlogHer - Engage Her Documentary Launches, Plus: Was Obama the "Angry Black Man" at the Debates? - Comments

Regards to you as well

Kim Pearson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:45:12 -0500

Hi Norma,

Thank you for sharing your experiences and congratulations on your accomplishments. I did not say that you said racism and bigotry didn't exist. I merely tried to respond to your questions.

I hope that you will use some of your column-writing expertise to share more of your thoughts about the election.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

I appreciate

Norma156 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:59:55 -0500

I appreciate your response. However, I didn't assert that racism or bigotry doesn't exist. I merely asserted that we've come so far that a black man can run for president and probably win. I went on to say he should be grateful to his country, a hurtful nuance that was explained by another thoughtful post.

I really don't need an education on bigotry. My closest friend went to University of Mississippi just after James Meredith. Try that on for balls.

When we were younger, in our twenties, we were occasionally evicted from restaurants, called names on the street and on one occasion, physically attacked. He's written several books and I'm proud he dedicated the first one, a trade book, to me.

My children, who are grown now, call him "Uncle" to this day and as they grew up he and I were entertained by the stares of grade school and high school teachers trying to process the relationship.We never voluntered anything.

It was years before another very close friend had a conversation with me about the extent of racism she experienced in the deep south. She is godmother to my first child.

I graduated from Barnard College years before Columbia accepted women and earned a masters from Northwestern. This was during the late sixities and early seventies and believe me, all of us were alive to racisim. And I did my part.

I'm sorry if I did not appear to be alive the impact of racisim on people today. However, my point does remain valid. We've come a long way. In addition, Barrack, Michelle, you, me, all of us should be grateful we live in a country where this sort of progress can be made without widespread violence. (Although now that I understand the nuance regarding the word "grateful," I wouldn't phrase it that way.)

And, I never believe in deifying politicians...ever. It is always astonishing to me that the very people who most hated the government during the sixties and seventies now see it as the some sort of beign influence. Holy cow! Don't they get that they're still, all of them, lying? How in the hell does Obama reach some kind of celestial status? His policies are thin and discredited by experience.

Oh, well, I've enjoyed chatting with you and the woman who taught me something. Unfortunately in this format, I can't toggle up to see her name. But I'll remember her picture.

For your information, I used to be an award winning editorial wrrter and columist at Cox Newspapers.

It's so interested me that so-called editors posting here lost their supper over my comments. Never happened to me when I was editing. In fact, you should have seen the vitriol directed at me when I repeatedly wrote columns in support of Planned Parenthood.

Guess what I got in the mail? You know exactly.

Regards to you, Kim.

not to act as a "couples" counselor but....

Corina Fiore — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:45:25 -0500

I will address both sides of the divergent thread that has occurred here, as I find it interesting from a sociological point of view.

First, Norma. This is not an attack, simply making some observations. You have found yourself attacked here in one way or another. I think that it is fair to say that people are very passionate about the touchy subject of race. Your comments did incite some anger. I think it is because this is so very real to so many people. However, you try to downplay some of their experiences by not citing them as "real". Ask yourself right now, do you feel wronged by the thread at all? Are you feeling as if you have been attacked here? Do you feel the "vitrol" (as you put it) in the responses, even if the intenders meant it to make a point, and not to really attack you? I know that you say the "bubble" is thick. But you have mentioned this many times, and, in my experiences, you will only mention something like this, if in fact something did get to us. "Sticks and stones...." is in a way a pep talk to ourselves. If it did get to you, I think that the point has been waged fairly well that it doesn't take a "real" attack (and, although I don't want to make assumptions and you can correct me if I am wrong, by that you mean, physical) to make your day turn out hellish, your psyche to take a strong hit. Strong enough to ruin a day. Faced with it enough, strong enough to put stress on an entire life.

To the majority here. It is important to recognize passion. It is important to fight the fight. Things don't get better without them. It is a must to ask tough questions and demand answers. And it is very difficult not to let passions fly into other things . But also know that, even if the attacks are perceived and not real (and, also, not media spin as in what happens in the election....), the still may seem real to the person. Ask the tough questions. Come up with great points. Give examples. Continue to do some of the great stuff that you have done here, but be careful about letting the passions get the best of you (as sometimes they maybe should, but not as expressed). Because when you do, the perceived attacks can feel real and those that you are trying to engage may shut down. The potential for an eye-opening conversation can be lost.

Peace

Corina Fiore from www.dtemama.com

I don't think you've got them right

Maria Niles — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:56:18 -0500

Norma,

I certainly don't think that "racism is the largest factor in the election," that "everyone will vote on racial lines" nor that "if you support another candidate [than Obama] you are ipso facto racist." And, from the weeks that I have been blogging race and politics and the many comments from the women on this thread and others, I do not think that any of them think that either. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation but as you've argued to those who disagree with you, simply asserting it does not make it so.

As I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, this is a regular beat which looks at race so that is what we are discussing. There are, of course, a multitude of forces that bear upon this election. The fact that they are not being discussed with respect to this post does not mean we do not understand them or consider them.

Also, you've engaged only the comments here as far as I can see. You've not made any commentary with regard to the substance of the post. Kim has also encouraged you to read my previous posts and the links contained. There are plenty of data however nothing seems to satisfy your criteria for evidence you demand we provide you. The information is out there if you are genuinely interested however, it is not my job to do the work for you.

I'm glad you've found some useful perspective from Kim and Megan. And I am truly appreciative that you've added your voice to this discussion. We are all enriched by being exposed to a variety of viewpoints and engaging with those whose ideas differ from our own. And, as I've said before, I hope I will see your passionate voice expressed in blog posts you write to kick off the discussion of some of the other topics you raise.

However, I hope you'll consider that as disrespected as you feel by the responses back to you and as fragile as you believe others control of their anger, your first comment that generated so much response was angry and disrespectful to Mata because you reacted so strongly to her metaphor of sainthood for Obama and implied that she (and anyone who might agree with her) is dishonest, tiresome and full of nonsense. Hopefully we can all use this as a moment to recognize that the tone of our comments can affect how we are heard.

Peace,
Maria

I struggled

Maria Niles — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:17:02 -0500

With deciding whether or not to link to that post. However, it was a rare one that shows the tip of the iceberg I see (and I gather you have seen as well, Tacoma Mama) out there of irrational hatred directed at Obama and yet does not violate BlogHer editor guidelines for linked material.

But it is not all that is out there and there is much I think that will fuel, nurture and keep your candle flaming :)

Professor Kim

GirlProfNYC — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:11:32 -0500

Professor Kim,

What a great way to bring to light much of what is being discussed here. I totally agree, passion should not be confused with spewed hate or rather, disrespect. If we were all very easy, it would make for boring conversation (I think). As a fellow academic, I know much of what you say to be true and very personal. The psychological effects of racism, sexism, ageism, and anything else bias you can think of, is damaging, and much of the time for the long term.

Norma, I think we just all have different experiences in this world, obviously, and when it comes to race and politics (and religion sometimes) some of us have our nerves hit harder than others (I am taking responsibility for this as I know it to be very true for myself). This is a learning process, and while age does matter and does count towards contributing an analysis and perspective, personal experiences whether older or young hit home the most - generation can't compete with oppression, only compared.

There was also a comment regarding Muslims/Islam which was equally disturbing, but it proves to point, that oppression is wide spread and so is racism/bigotry, we can't fight all the battles presented to us at once. Life, as it is, while not possible all the time, should be taken one dose at a time.

-GirlProfNYC

GirlProfNYC - www.pinkerink.com

Thanks for continuing the conversation

Kim Pearson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:34:28 -0500

Hi Norma,

I just want to one point to your earlier summary of the points made in response to your comments, and add one personal note about the nature of my responses.

In addition to the anecdotal responses that were noted, survey data was cited. There is quite a bit more data of that type that we can bring to the discussion, if you would be interested. Also, the anecdotes about experiences in stores, academics experiencing racism from students, etc. are also reported in both qualitative and quantitative studies of discrimination conducted within the last 10 years. Again, I can point you toward cites, if you like.

As for the tone of my responses -- I've been at this a long time. I teach in an elite, mostly white public college; I'm a graduate of two predominantly white private university. I've had every experience cited here -- including threats against my life and job -- because of my race, or because I was perceived as not having been sufficiently respectful of a white person. I have also had to mediate painful conversations in which racism was unintentionally conveyed.

The BlogHer CEs are a varied bunch, but one thing we're not is hateful. Even when we express ourselves passionately. I am sorry if you felt disrespected. I want to assure you that I am certain that every CE who has responded to you is as committed to mutually respectful discourse as I am. I don't say that on behalf of BlogHer. i say it because I know these women and their work. I consider them co-laborers in the cause of making a better world for everyone.

Peace,

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Okay

Norma156 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:45:57 -0500

Okay--I definitely get this. Good point.

About The "Being Grateful" Part

Megan Smith — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:23:37 -0500

Hi Norma,

I'm glad you're making an attempt to re-read the comments objectively, outside the heat of emotion. That shows a maturity and willingness to listen that many more people need to express.

The only thing I want to address is the following:

Also troubling is the very real anger you unleashed over such a relatively minor observation that Obama should be grateful to this country.

When black people hear a white person say they should be "grateful to this country," what a black person often hears is "you lazy black people should be grateful for whatever we as white Americans allow you to have."

Whether that is actually what they mean is often irrelevant. Whether you meant that is somewhat irrelevant. It is what we hear.

For us it's code for: "whatever you have was given to you by us." We didn't work for it, we didn't sacrifice for it, we didn't scrimp and save and work two jobs for it...white America gave it to us and we should be humble and grateful. If we're not it inflames white anger about anything we might have: good educations, good jobs, homes, families...whatever.

It's like being told we're "articulate." Not that that's a bad thing per se, but usually it's code for, "what a good black person you are...unlike those bad black people who can't speak real English."

Now you can say that you don't mean that and I would have to take you at your word. But really, seriously think about what it might mean to us. Without trying to speak for all black people of course, what we're asking for is an acknowledgement that we have legitimate reasons and experiences for reacting and feeling this way.

Megan

Megan Smith
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube
Megan's Minute: Quirky Commentary Around

You ask if you have the main points "right"? Answer: No.

Mata H — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:39:42 -0500

If conversation here is not working for you, may I suggest reading Derrick Jensen's The Culture of Make Believe", which you can get used on Amazon for about $3. Sometimes, taking a step away from conversation into reading can be helpful in understanding the points we seem to be trying unsuccessfully to make.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool

To Be More Exact - Almost Every Store

Gena Haskett — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:51:56 -0500

Not just one. The majority of retail establishments. If not floor walked then observed via the store cameras. In malls, computer stores, supermarkets. It becomes a learned skill to deal with being watched as if I would do automatically steal something. It is a systemic practice. Not 10 years, 10 years at one particular store but a lifetime of this experience. Should I never shop retail again because of it?

Fragile control of anger. That is a good phrase. At least we got it across to you that we were angry about the original post.

We were not as successful of hoping you would understand the reasons why we got angry about your statements about racism and how we were hurt by them.

We tried to tell you that you hit a nerve that has been struck at some of us many times in our respective and diverse lives.

We gave you examples from our experiences and tried to explain that we cannot speak for the Obamas' experience but know that he has a set of racial experiences European Americans general do not have. It does affect how you perceive and move through your world.

When you wrote that perhaps that my experiences were due to the manner that I was dressed I knew you really didn't understand the depth of what I was trying to covey. Perhaps I didn't explain it full enough but I am too wordy as it is.

If Prof. Kim got it across to you about the Obama's gratitude then let's let that alone.

No, not all of us will vote on racial lines. Do not assume everyone here will or will not vote for Obama. But we are aware and respect the amazing journey he is now traveling.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

A Second Look at Your Posts

Norma156 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:07:23 -0500

As I mentioned, I've been a member of blogher for a number of weeks. I occasionally drop by to see what you're blogging about and am generally interested to read the blogs on politics and business. I was on my way to run a number of errands when I came upon the Angry Obama post and the one comment below it suggesting the writer wanting to start the process of making Obama a saint for running for office.

I don't see anything especially holy about Obama or McCain and elevating politicians to that degree is irritating. People who run for office are motivated by a number of factors, including what I consider distinctly unholy ambition. So the remark was irritating and I dashed off the reply that created the outpouring of comments. Bear in mind, I stand by my comment, although as Kim noted Obama has said he's grateful to have grown up in America, which I think only serves to buttress the point I was trying to make.

After a long afternoon doing tedious chores, I dropped back by and was astonished at the amount of vitriol I occasioned. I had a glass of wine and responded to a few of the comments.

Yesterday, I dropped back by at dinner time and saw there were more. This morning I re-read all the comments carefully trying to get around the anger and understand exactly what points you were trying to make.

Here is what I discern from them:

--Although he has every right to be angry, Obama has the temperment or the judgment not to let it show.

--A number of you produce anecdoctal evidence of racism directed toward Obama. He received secret service protection early on. The internet is a rich source of hatred. A relative whispers she will vote for Obama despite her husband. People at a rally claim they won't vote for Obama on the basis of race. The KKK distributes leaflets at an Obama rally. And, so on. Several of you suggest that McCain's posture during the debate was a form of racism, although there is not a consensus on that.

--A number of you adduce examples of racism in your own lives. A professor is called a name. People stare across a room. Someone clutched a bag in an elevator. A tramp called someone a name. Someone's husband was involved in an altercation with a car. Someone encounters racisim over a ten year period shopping in the same store.

--The majority consensus is that racism is the largest factor in the election and that Obama will win despite racism or lose because of it.

There are a number of secondary points, but these seem to be the main ones. Have I got them right? I think so.

Having read over the posts very carefully, I'm most troubled by the last point. It assumes everyone will vote on racial lines and that if you support another candidate you are ipso facto racist. The assumption ignores the very different directions the two candidates want to take the country.

Also troubling is the very real anger you unleashed over such a relatively minor observation that Obama should be grateful to this country.

Equally troubling is fragile control you have over your anger. I apparently made editors sick to their stomachs. Names were called. Some bloggers were so angry they couldn't reply coherently. Only a few posts disagreeing with me were written in a rational tone. Kim's two posts stand out here.

This is frightening stuff, ladies, really frightening.

Gahhhh, those are some cute

L16 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:17:41 -0500

Gahhhh, those are some cute kids. The older one is already very pretty, and the little one seems like the kind of trouble maker that flashes a toothless grin and dimples and gets away with anything. Love it. Totally irrelevant to voting yes, I know.

Any thoughts on why Obama is struggling with white female boomers? I accept racism exists, but not across such a large demographic. A minority of female boomers may feel unable to vote for a black man but that can't be the issue with all of them.

I wonder if it is because of the generational thing? I have heard someone I know say some bizarre things about the Obama's like "she's smug and I don't trust him" and then go on to gush about McCain and it befuddles me. I really don't think this person is racist I am talking about, I think she is jealous perhaps, at how a forty something black man with a serious shot at the white house is a real possibility, while she is just another woman in her fifties who really sacrificed career to raise kids and returned only to bump her head against a glass ceiling. Does voting for a younger, black man just remind white female boomers that they are now in the second half of life and destined to be the older crowd all the time now, while positive things they never thought possible start happening, just to groups other than themselves? I just can't otherwise explain how someone can go from supporting Hillary to supporting McCain (other than racism which I can't believe would be so pervasive). Or am I the one who has the naivete Johnny Mac was going on about? :)

McCain's neck

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:33:36 -0500

I did actually wonder if McCain did not look at Obama because he literally cannot turn his neck due to injuries, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt for that. Even setting aside the lack of eye contact, I found McCain to be extremely patronizing.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Agism & serial killer comment

Maria Niles — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:26:08 -0500

Norma,

I write a weekly post on race and politics so that's why the focus in this post. I'd encourage you to post here on BlogHer your thoughts on agism directed towards McCain and I'm certain people will share their comments and thoughts.

And the serial killer comment was made about Obama not McCain.

Engage Her Documentary Launches, Plus: Was Obama the "Angry Black Man" at the Debates?

Maria Niles — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:13:15 -0500

Yesterday I met Mabel Yee, co-founder of Engage Her. She spoke to the Last Friday Ladies Lunch organized by Sylvia Paull about her passion for getting women of color to vote.

The statistics are startling: In the 2004 election, 40% of registered African American women did not turn out to vote, 69% of Latinas and 70% of Asian American women. When Yee, who decided to become a mother at age 50 and now has twins who just entered kindergarten, learned of these numbers she didn't wring her hands, she took action. As a member of Moms Rising, Yee was inspired by the activism of women like Joan Blades and she decided she wanted to make a documentary about the issue. After putting that goal out to the universe, the people she needed to join her in accomplishing the goal showed up and in less than a year the documentary is finished.

Engage Her Trailer

What struck me while Yee spoke of her passion for this project was that the concerns raised by women of color are universal concerns. Yes there are some issues that are of more immediate concern such as Type II diabetes (including the alarming increase of the disease among children) which disproportionately affects blacks and Latinos. But concerns about accountability from elected officials, and the need for quality education in order to be prepared to compete in the 21st century economy are important to all citizens in this country.

If you share Yee's concern about the issue of engaging women of color in voting and the election process, I encourage you to check out the Engage Her website, learn where there will be a screening near you, order a copy of the DVD and have a house party viewing of your own. You never know who around you needs your encouragement. In the process of making the film Yee was surprised to learn that her brother belongs to a different political party than she and that her sister hadn't voted before but plans to register and vote now that she has learned of the importance.

Jeremy Adam Smith of Daddy Dialectic went to a screening

Liza Sabater at Culture Kitchen says Engage Her and make sure she casts a vote in November

Mabel Yee launches the documentary saying Invisible No More

******************************************************************
One of the discussions going on after the debates is how far Obama could go in being forceful without invoking the "Angry Black Man" stereotypes.

Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic says:

Obama is also a black man against a white man. So he must also be very careful not to get angry and to stay cool and calm. He has to do that to avoid the "angry black man" trap. But then he cannot afford to seem weak either. You realize how hard a balance that is for ninety minutes?

Obama has to walk through a racial minefield all the time.

Jenny at Tao of Coffee recognizes the tightrope Obama is walking:

I do hope that Obama will be a bit more assertive in the next debate, albeit carefully so as not to come off as an “angry black man.”

In contrast, The Angry Black Woman examines the subtext of McCain's anger and unwillingness to look at Obama during the debate:

Not so long ago in this country — within McCain’s adult lifetime, though not Obama’s — white men did not look at black men, except to order them around or warn them off white women. They did not address black men directly if they could help it — and if they had to, it was never done in a way that might suggest respect. Black men did not look at white men either, because that was the shortest path to death; a black man who dared to look a white man in the eye was “uppity”. Didn’t know his place. Needed to have a lesson taught him, usually with a bullet or a length of rope. Even today there’s a certain kind of white man — usually older ones from the South or from wealthy backgrounds — who still won’t accord a man of color the simple courtesy of looking him in the eye. They’ll look everywhere else, address “the air” rather than the person, and get progressively more irritated if that person doesn’t back off and go away.

Ta-Nehisi Coates also writing at The Atlantic thinks observers are "confusing strength with arrogance."

Perhaps there is good reason for Obama to be mindful of invoking the stereotype when some viewers have reactions like this:

I was so completely disturbed by Obama’s harsh, angry eyes that I am seriously starting to wonder if the man is an actual sociopath, who is incapable of feeling real warmth and love for another human being. These are the eyes of a serial killer.

And when some opponents are determined to drag racism into the race:

Laura Fitzpatrick, Time: The Ku Klux Klan at the debate

The Klan will, however, have pamphlets and membership applications on hand for any audience members who happen to share the Klansmen's views. Some examples of those views: Obama's election "could be the destruction of America," says Greene, who states categorically that he would not vote for a black candidate. Says the Emperor of the Mississippi White Knights (the group's ritual leader), who asked not to be identified: "Locally, every place that has come under black rule has declined, and has declined sharply." He cited Jackson, Miss., and Washington, D.C., as examples. "Not all black people are particularly bad people," the emperor adds. But leadership, he asserts, "is just not in their character ... it's just not in their ability."

Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times: Pinpoint Attacks Focus on Obama

It is a view shared by Democratic leaders, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who, in a recent interview with MSNBC, said of the advertising campaign, “The fact that it is being run in a predominantly white suburb tells you that there is an explicit effort to try to divide people by race.”

Brent Staples, The New York Times: Barack Obama, John McCain and the Language of Race

The throwback references that have surfaced in the campaign suggest that Republicans are fighting on racial grounds, even when express references to race are not evident. In a replay of elections past, the G.O.P. will try to leverage racial ghosts and fears without getting its hands visibly dirty. The Democrats try to parry in customary ways.

Mr. Obama seems to understand that he is always an utterance away from a statement — or a phrase — that could transform him in a campaign ad from the affable, rational and racially ambiguous candidate into the archetypical angry black man who scares off the white vote. His caution is evident from the way he sifts and searches the language as he speaks, stepping around words that might push him into the danger zone.

These maneuvers are often painful to watch. The troubling part is that they are necessary.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.