Barack Obama v. White Male Supremacy Paradigm


[Author's Note:] Cross-posted at the AfroSpear'sPamsHouseBlend (credentialed blogger to the Democratic National Convention, and at the AfroSpear's African American Political Pundit.Com, (also credentialed blogger to the Democratic National Convention), and at the Francis L. Holland Blog. (Francis L. Holland is co-editor of AfroSpear in the News, which links to over one hundred articles about the AfroSpear and its members in the mainstream media over the last year, averaging approximately one article every four days.

This is what I said at DailyKos, just before I was banned there:

I define "white male supremacy":  as "the belief that white males, no matter how much and how often they fail, are still, by virtue of their male gender and white skin, inherently more qualified than blacks and women who succeed." -- Francis L. Holland, December 13, 2006 at DailyKos.
Everything about this election in 2008, shows that I was correct:  Barack Obama runs not just against a man, John McCain, but also and much more importantly, against the white male supremacy paradigm.  Barack Obama has to show NOT ONLY that he will be a better president than John McCain, but also and more importantly, that John McCain is not inherently superior to Obama by virtue of John McCain's white skin.

It ought not be hard to demonstrate that the Party that prefers to end an expensive and futile war that is wildly unpopular is preferable to the party that proposes to continue that war indefinitely.  It ought not be hard to convince the public that the party whose current president has a 29% approval rating ought not be selected to perpetuate the policies of that same lousy-ass president.

And polls show that when adding undecided voters to the McCain column, (as might arguably happen in November) the race is actually a dead heat.

Why?  Because in addition to having a Black candidate at the helm, the Democratic Party has become known to Americans as the party of Black people, simply because 90% of Blacks vote in November for Democrats, while only 10% of Black vote for Republicans, and Democrats necessarily have to be more responsive to Blacks than Republicans are.  There is nothing that the Democrats can do about this in the short term, since without Black voters the Democrats would be an electoral nullity.

On the other hand 50% - 60% of whites vote for Republicans, based as much on the color of the party - all-white - as based on the politics of the party.   This explains why, even as the Republicans tank in virtually every meaningful respect, Barack Obama still requires a campaign strategy at all.

Certainly, the Republicans promise different economic strategies from the Democrats - strategies which benefit one percent of the populous at the expense of everyone else.  But the important part of Republicans' promises is that they promise to do nothing at all for Black people, which is what many white people are fixated upon, above all else.  They vote for Republicans because they want to vote against Black people.

National health care would help all Americans, but it would help Black people more, because our health is worse and our present access to health care is worse.  For many white people, denying Black people health care alone is a sufficient reason to oppose national health care.

Additional funding for school lunches, daycare and college tuition would help all Americans, but they would help Blacks more, because Blacks are economically more stressed and relatively more desperate for these kinds of middle-class supportts.  For many whites, that alone is sufficient reason to oppose these programs.

There's more...

Are Pantsuits Treated Equally?


Even though there is very little difference between a woman's suit and a man's suit (they both include pants and  jacket), yet they have different names: "pantsuit" and "suit", respectively.

In the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton was ridiculed daily for her pantsuits.  And yet, the only difference between these suits and her opponents' suits were the colors, and the fact that Senator Clinton's pants don't have pockets.

The color of the women's pantsuit is important because the colors that Senator Clinton often wears would be considered outlandish and unacceptable on a man.  And so the question arises whether women's goal is to adopt the culture of men in order to be accepted in the "men's" province of politics, or whether women's goal is to insist upon and establish that the bright "feminine" colors they have traditionally been allowed and encouraged and even culturally obliged to wear are just as legitimate in politics as the navy blues and greys that men have traditionally worn.  

Are women adopting a male political culture to be accepted by it, or are women changing a male political culture in order to make it more amenable to them?  Could Hillary simply wear the same suits Bill does, but a little bit smaller?  What ARE a woman's pantsuit options that don't put her in a bind?

There's more...

Francis L. Holland on Radio Pacifica re: DNC State Blogs

Update [2008-6-26 14:38:20 by Manic Lawyer]:: Here is a link for the article and audio interview at Radio Pacifica. Although some readers doubted in comments that the interview had taken place at all, I hope this link removes all doubt.

Today, Francis L. Holland recorded a radio interview with Nathan Moore, National Program Coordinator for Pacifica Radio, from Washington, DC, about the virtually all white state blog corps of the Democratic National Convention, where 53 white state blogs will have their own desks, computers, Internet access on the floor of the Convention, seated among the delegates for the entire Convention, while Black bloggers will receive only 30-45 minute passes for the floor and will have NONE of the amenities on the floor provided to the virtually all-white 55-member state blog pool.

Francis told Pacifica Radio, among other things:

There is nothing "Democratic" about a virtually all-white Democratic National Convention floor blogging corps.

D. Yobachi Boswell of the AfroSpear applied to participated in the state blog corps and was rejected.  Everyone knows D. Yobachi Boswell as the coordinator of the Afrosphere Action Coalition that coordinated the AfroSpear's participation in the 30,000 person Jena Six March on Jena, Louisiana last year.  Yobachi's application to the state blog corps was denied and consequently there will be no 50-state blog representation for the Blacks from Tennessee at all, as well as many other states where Black voter turnout will determine the fate of Barack Obama and down-ticket candidates this fall.  "It's outrageous and it's infuriating," Francis told Radio Pacifica.

If anyone knows where I can listen to this interview, announced but with no link at the Francis L. Holland blog, I'd be much obliged!

There's more...

WaPost Polls McCain, Obama & Color-Arousal

John Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta have a thought provoking article in today's Washington Post on the basis of a study of relations between color-groups and persons in the United States, with particular respect to questions about Senators Barack Obama and John McCain's candidacies:

As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Lingering racial bias affects the public's assessments of the Democrat from Illinois, but offsetting advantages and Sen. John McCain's age could be bigger factors in determining the next occupant of the White House.

( . . . )

there is an overwhelming public openness to the idea of electing an African American to the presidency. In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be "entirely comfortable" with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.  WaPost

It's worth reading the whole poll, since the answers respondents gave are broken out in a very detailed way. For example, I think the race between Obama and McCain is, at best, tied at this point, because of the following:

There's more...

Patti Solis Doyle Great Pick for Obama

Al Gore Endorses Barack Obama

I haven't been in a very pleased mood lately, in spite of the fact that the end of the 43-term white male monopoly of the American presidency may be just four months away.  But Al Gore's endorsement of Barack Obama does please me.  It helps neutralize some the venom and bile of Hillary supporters who believed that Hillary should win regardless of how many delegates her opponent won.

Women supporters of Hillary were and are right that women have systematically been condescended to, demeaned, subjugated, exploited and objectified in the United  States.  But, that's not Barack Obama's fault and there's no evidence that he won't do everything in his power to turn that around.  He seems to treat his wife with a lot of respect, particularly compared to John McCain, who called his wife a "c*nt" (sorry) in public, in front of reporters.


Obama chooses Patti Solis Doyle
to lead V.P.'s campaign team.

I'm pleased that Barack Obama has chosen Patti Solis Doyle for a high-level position in his administration.  I wrote last year that Clinton deserved a lot of credit for appointing Solis Doyle, a bright Mexican-American political manager, as her campaign manager, so  I and many other people were disappointed when Clinton blamed Solis Doyle for Clinton Iowa loss and threw Solis Doyle overboard.  As I said on March 31 of 2007,
I've heard some anti-immigrant sentiment recently but I'm not feeling it.  I'm proud that Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, is Mexican-American, second-generation.  Diversity works for the Democratic Party.  Culture Kitchen
Then Clinton fired her.  Go figure!

Now, some Clinton surrogates are saying that the choice of Solis Doyle to lead the V.P.'s campaign, with Solis Doyle having been fired by and estranged from Clinton, means that Hillary will not be Obama's V.P. choice:

Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.  

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket." WaPost

Well, the choice at least means that if Clinton wants to be V.P., she'll have to mend her bridges with Solis Doyle and work with her hand in glove, even after firing her.  It seems like Obama may have someone else in mind for V.P., perhaps anyone else.

There's more...

There's tragedy and then there's tragedy.


The top photo is of a luxury home destroyed by flooding of the banks of a river in the US midwest (perhaps Wisconsin), while the bottom photo is of a favela, flooded by normal rains somewhere in Brazil.

The home above is relatively new, very expensive.  The homes below could be found pretty much just as you see them, regardless of any natural disaster.  If two or three of the families from the favela below could share what's left of the house above, they would probably do so and feel a sense of relief.

There's more...

Hillaryism Invites Conservative Backlash

Hat Tip to Lauren S.

In the video above, which, no doubt, many have seen already, Liz Trotta, a conservative white woman commentator, was asked to comment on Hillary Clinton's suggestion that the word "assassination" is relevant in the 2008 presidential campaign.  Trotta responds,

"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]....well both if we could [laughing]"
Hillary Clinton's frequent allusions to assassination in the 2008 presidential election contest have opened a Pandora's box, effectively making assassination part of the public discussion while giving permission to radical Republicans to air their dirtiest mental laundry in public, thereby making the entire debate more conservative than it would have been otherwise.  

In that sense, Hillary's contribution has once again been very "Republican", as when she repeatedly asserted that John McCain was more capable of leading the country than her Democratic Party opponent.  

There's more...

Roswell Beacon on America's Homicidal Schizophrenia


Because of a front-page image of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama's image within the sites of a rifle, an article from the Roswell Beacon, Roswell GA (pdf), has become national news. But the article itself, underlying the photograph, is actually informative and necessary. It shows that, even though most whites believe that Obama would be an acceptable president, including Jimmy Carter effectively endorsing Obama and urging Clinton to cede the race by June 6, there nonetheless remains a fervent wish among a small percentage of white Americans that Senator Barack Obama be assassinated before he can assume the US presidency.

Even Hillary Clinton has made repeated comments which some believe are suggestive of her membership in this small minority of Obama assassination proponents. (Sen. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly suggested that if Sen. Barack Obama were assassinated then her campaign would be given new life.) Later, Hillary said in a long letter to the New York Daily News,

"I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week."
If so, then what has been her purpose in repeatedly raising the specter of assassination over the past three months?

 Did Hillary Just Call for the Assassination of Barack Obama?

One speaker at a white supremacist rally cited in the Roswell Beacon article says, seeming to be thinking along the lines of that of which Senator Clinton is suspected,

We should remember to be law abiding, but we will remember that what they won't allow at the ballot box can be won at the bullet box. Roswell Beacon

The front-page image is shocking, but it brings necessary attention to a reality of American life: Black people risk our lives when we endeavor to improve our status in ways that were previously off-limits to us, based on our skin color. This was so when Blacks integrated the Jim Crow lunch counters of the South and it remains so as Barack Obama seeks to become the first Black presidential nominee of the Democratic Party and the first Black president of the United States.

There's more...

Dallas Morning News Slams 99%-White DNC Blogger Corps


Eddie, Shawn, AAPP, Francis & Pam in Dallas Morning News

Karen Brooks, staff writer for the Dallas Morning News, has published an article there about the lack of diversity in the Democratic National Convention's state blogging corps.  She quotes the AfroSpear's Francis L. Holland, Esq., African American Political Pundit, Shawn Williams of Dallas South, and the afrosphere's Pam Spauling of the PamsHouseBlend blog.

By now, most afrosphere and whitosphere readers know the contours of this controversy:  The DNC drafted and implemented selection criteria for its Denver Convention state bloggers corps which criteria  foreseeably and predictably produced a virtually all-white state blogger group to cover the floor of the Denver Convention.

But this roundup comes courtesy of Kenneth Quinnell, Florida Progressive Coalition Blog.

The Francis L. Holland Blog— Jim Crow Blogging at the Democratic National Convention

African American Political Pundit— Black bloggers to the back of the bus!

Pam's House Blend— Democratic National Convention state blog selection dustup.

Cotton Mouth— Cotton Mouth Is Not Going To The Democratic Convention (And Why).

Open Left: Clamping Down on Blog Dissent: More Evidence of State Blogger Problems.

Open Left— State Parties Nixing State Blogs from the Convention?

There's more...

At the Risk of Hypocrisy

There's way too much hypocrisy in the United States with respect to ideation and emotion involving skin color (and gender, for that matter).  On the one hand, many white people (but hardly all) insist that discrimination has ended and that Blacks can achieve anything that we want, if we only work hard enough.  On the other hand, some of them insist that a Black man will have difficulty winning the presidency, because some whites are too full of color-aroused ideation, emotion and voting behavior to give a Black man a chance.

They think we should take this discrimination VERY seriously when choosing a presidential candidate when choosing our Democratic presidential nominee.

So, should we also take this discrimination very seriously in the college admissions process and the workplace? Which is it?

Has discrimination ended or is it prevalent enough to determine who our next president will be, or both?  Are we in a new day, when Blacks have the same chances as everyone else, and where whites need no longer feel guilty for using their majority status to keep Blacks down and reserve societal privileges for themselves?  Or are we in an old day, where there are whites who steadfastly discriminate against Blacks, thereby limiting our opportunities, including Barack Obama's opportunity to become president?

I believe that anyone who argues on both sides of this question, depending on the circumstances, is at risk of being a hypocrite.  It seems that some whites argue this question differently depending on which side of the argument is most convenient for them at any given time.  When some whites are evaluating Blacks' chances for electoral office, they suddenly discover that whites are color-aroused and they doubt that a Black man can win.  "Is America ready for a Black president," (or are we white Americans still so color-aroused that we would vote against a man simply because his skin is brown?)

There's more...


Advertise Blogads