In comments, there’s been discussion of Clinton’s recent citing of Bobby Kennedy’s death.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

(Huffpost has the video).

I don’t think Clinton was implying that she should stay in the race in case Obama gets assassinated. I think she was saying that there’s nothing especially unusual about a democratic primary lasting until June, and it doesn’t prevent Democrats from winning the general election.

So it was a gaffe — an unusually tactless gaffe, one which Clinton has made more than once. (I’m sure Clinton supporters who said, after “bittergate,” that a bad gaffe shows a candidate is unready to be President will stick by that position this week.) But it wasn’t Clinton hoping that Obama will be shot.

Ta-Nehsi agrees that it was a gaffe, but adds:

This is why it’s foolish to compare racism and sexism. Hillary and some [of] her blind-ass feminist supporters have asserted that there has been no racism in this campaign, or none when compared to racism. But Barack Obama had to get Secret Service protection before any candidate in history. I wonder if that has to do with racism. Part of this is our fault as we’ve allowed the definition of racism to devolve into the spectacular–the Rodney King tape or a Don Imus rant.

But the ugliest aspects are the things you don’t see, or don’t care to see. There is no American tradition of assassination in the feminist community. The sort of violence that consistently hung over Civil Rights workers, and ultimately got Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King, never hung over Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Again I think Hillary simply made a mistake. But I also think were she from my side of the tracks, a place where the assassination of black public figures has altered whole lives, she wouldn’t have said something that stupid. Ditto for Steinem, who if she’d ever spent any significant time around black folks, would know that there are forces which are just as restricting as gender. I still don’t think Clinton realizes what she said–she apologized to the Kennedy’s, but not to Obama. The blindness is strong in that one.

If you’re like me, your back may have reflexively gone up at the comment about “some blind-ass feminist supporters,” but frankly he’s right, as long as you remember that he said “some,” not “all.”

On Shakesville, one of my favorite blogs,¹ a few of the writers have been arguing that Clinton has faced much more bigotry than Obama, but now things are evening out. For instance, in comments Kate (who, I want to emphasize, I’m a total fanboy of) wrote:

…Now that everyone in the media has agreed Clinton has zero shot at the nomination, it’s safe to start running the anti-Obama crap they’ve been sitting on. They didn’t want to risk accidentally tanking him and letting the nom tip to her, but now that they’re sure he’s got it, they can let loose. (Never mind that he doesn’t actually have it yet.)

As I said at Shakesville, they haven’t been sitting on anti-Obama crap. The hundreds of times Farrakhan has been mentioned in the media is racist anti-Obama crap. The Wright story was racist anti-Obama crap. The “but how would he do among WHITE voters” concern trolling — with its implication both that Appalachian voters are all White voters, and the implication that black voters somehow don’t count (hence no need to worry about Clinton’s complete tanking among Black voters) is racist anti-Obama crap. The constant positioning of Obama as a scary, non-American “other,” from the flag pin “issue” to last week’s Washington Post editorial claiming that Obama lacks the “blood” and “heritage” to be President, is racist anti-Obama crap.

(And I didn’t even mention bowling.)

With all due respect, Kate, racism against Obama hasn’t just suddenly popped up in the last week or two. Like misogyny against Clinton, it’s been going on all along.

* * *

To be fair, I’ve occasionally seen Obama supporters claim that anti-Obama racism has been a bigger problem than anti-Clinton sexism — most famously when Reverend Wright said that Clinton has never been called “nigger,” to imply she hasn’t faced bigotry. (How often has Obama been called “cunt“?) But, at least in what I’ve read, Clinton supporters have made this claim much more often — and unfortunately, Clinton herself has made the same claim.

(See also — on the general topic, not at all directed at Kate — No More Mister Nice Blog’s “The fact that you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.”)

1. And a blog that has consistently posted anti-racist commentary about the election. (back)

The Clinton campaign is, in effect, proposing that Michigan should have a two-stage voting system.

Stage one: Voters of all races are allowed to vote. But only Clinton’s Michigan supporters (who are overwhelmingly white) get to vote for their candidate. The candidate who the overwhelming majority of blacks support is not be on the ballot, but somehow Clinton supporters don’t think this makes election results illegitimate.

Fortunately, everyone — even Hilary Clinton — agrees that these votes will never count for anything. It’s a purely symbolic election. So no one bothers getting in a big fight over it.

Stage two: Remember when everyone agreed that the votes in stage one were symbolic, and wouldn’t count for anything? Those votes should now be used to determine how the majority of Michigan delegates vote, according to Clinton.

The remaining minority of delegates will be “uncommitted.” This means that both candidates get to compete for these delegates — even though 100% of the voters who voted for “uncommitted” chose to vote for no one at all rather than voting for Clinton.

How is it fair for Clinton to have two bites at the apple, while Obama gets only one? How is it fair for Clinton to get even a single “uncommitted” vote, when the one thing most clearly intended by an “uncommitted” vote was “not Hilary Clinton”?

More importantly, the effects of this are racist. About 25% of Michigan’s Democratic voters are Black — and about 70% of those voters chose to vote for “uncommitted.” In effect, the candidate preferred by white voters is given two bites; the candidate preferred by Black voters is given only one bite. In effect, Black votes in Michigan are worth less than white votes in Michigan.

And yet, that is the solution preferred by Jeralyn, and Zuzu, and the Clinton campaign. I’m not saying these folks have racist intentions; but lack of racist intentions doesn’t make a racist outcome acceptable.

The majority of “uncommitted” delegates should be assigned to Obama. This isn’t as good a system as a fair election — but a fair election is no longer an option. (It’s worth noting that Clinton was opposed to holding a new, fair election.) And it’s not as unfair as assigning 100% of committed delegates to Clinton is.

I really loved the first 13 paragraphs of “The Misogyny I Won’t Miss,” an op-ed by Marie Cocco in today’s Washington Post, about what she won’t miss once the Clinton campaign ends:

I won’t miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible “gender card.”

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

Reading this, I was so with Ms. Cocco, mentally jumping up and down and cheering for her. The first 13 (of 15) paragraphs really are excellent. Then — with the editorial all but over — she had to drop in this cluncker:

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

Seeking a gold medal in oppression Olympics, Ms. Cocco?

Like Ms Cocco, I won’t miss the misogynistic comments directed at Clinton from the media, from right-wingers and from Obama supporters; nor the deafening silence about sexism from the party establishment. All of that is fucking loathsome.

Something else I won’t miss? Clinton supporters who either make race-based attacks on Obama’s candidacy, or who (like Ms. Cocco) imply that racism doesn’t exist or hasn’t affected the course of this campaign, and anyhow racism isn’t nearly as bad as sexism. And you know what? That’s fucking loathsome too.

* * *

Curtsy: Liza at Culture Kitchen. And see Ta-Nehisi Coates, as well.

The word ‘Haka’ caught my eye. It’s not one that I’m used to reading on American blogs. It was a headline on Reclusive Leftist Hilary vs the Haka. I clicked on the link, although I assumed she didn’t meant what I would mean if I used the word. Haka, to me and where I live, is the word for traditional Maori dances.

But it turns out that Violet Socks did mean that, sort of, and it was based on a blogger called River Daughter who has been using the word that way for a couple of months. River Dancer explained the metaphor she was making like this:

It’s all advertising and Maori war dancing. It sure looks ugly but it’s not as bad as we think.

River Daughter has continued to use haka as a metaphor for sound and fury from the campaigns that lack substance. In fact she expands what she means by the metaphor here:

What we have here is a Haka. A Haka is a Maori wardance, usually performed by men (figures) to scare and intimidate the enemy. The dancers do a lot of chest pounding and screaming and making truly scary faces complete with bulging eyes and sticking out their tongues. But just like the online world, they aren’t going to hurt you. It’s just to make you feel like they are the most dangerous people on the planet. So what if they scream at you, jostle you or make nasty faces?

To read such an ignorant characterisation of the haka makes me really angry. I have seen haka performed to congratulate and acknowledge achievement. I have been on protests where haka are performed. The racist subtext here isn’t very subtle ‘angry brown men are scary’, but deeper than that is the colonialist attitude towards Maori culture. River Daughter has no idea of Tikanga, she probably doesn’t even know what the word means.

From her posts, I’m guessing the only context River Daughter’s seen the haka is a sporting one. New Zealand’s Rugby team perform a haka before each test. While I think her description of the role of haka in a rugby test, is racist and ignorant, what she wrote was even worse, because there are many more haka than Ka Mate¹ and many more occasions where they are performed than rugby tests. I have seen haka performed as congratulations, as protests, as challenges, as rituals. River Daughter knows very little about the haka, but she is writing as if what she knows is all there is to know.

My point is that the Haka is not River Daughter’s, Violet Socks’s, yours or mine to turn into a metaphor of any sort. It’s worse because this particularly metaphor was ignorant, inaccurate and disrespectful. But I would never use the haka as a metaphor, even an accurate one. That’s one way appropriation works, the idea that you’re entitled to use other people’s culture, even though you know nothing about it.

A note for the comments: There are many threads to discuss the US Presidential elections, this is not one of them.

Edited to add: Sorry I had an incomplete draft and I posted that one rather than this. This is the complete version of my post

1. the name of the haka most often performed before rugby tests (back)

Clinton:

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Yes, there is a pattern emerging.

Elrod:

[…] The implication is, of course, that hard-working goes hand-in-hand with white. Never mind that Obama has won hard-working black Americans, or that he’s won whites everywhere outside the South and the Rust Belt.

The “hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a classic Wallace/Helms/Buchanan equation of whiteness with hard work and honesty. The opposite is either effete white intellectuals who don’t work, or lazy blacks who also don’t work. In fact, the Reagan coalition GOP even dropped the word “white,” knowing that “hard-working” and “law-abiding” already implied, in their minds, white people.

I don’t think Hillary Clinton really believes that only white people are hard-working. But she has to know that such phrasing is downright toxic given the racially polarized electorate in the primary.

Jack and Jill Politics:

Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos.

For some reason, despite this “broader base” Clinton still seems to be having trouble raising money, and you know, getting more votes than her opponent. But at this point any abstract metric besides votes or delegates that Clinton can use as a rationale for her candidacy becomes the only appropriate one to use.

This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it’s meant to give white voters the impression that they would be “disenfranchised” by an Obama win. It’s a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama’s success. […]

J&JP also points out that neither Clinton nor Obama will win a majority of the white vote in November (the majority of whites have always gone to Republicans, in recent decades). What matters isn’t who gets the majority of whites, but who gets the majority of voters.

Pam at Pandagon:

The frame is specific — that’s why Clinton referred to hard working white Americans. What happened to “blue collar Americans?” Oh wait, there are a lot of hard working black and brown blue collar/working class Americans, and many of them they voted for Obama, so she had to slice that demo down to the bottom line. Dog whistles no more.

I want to believe that it wasn’t a purposeful slip of the tongue because it’s too painful to contemplate that the black vote is now perceived as a “problem” because it skews to Obama, and because there are more white voters who have a problem with him based on his race, we have to nail that demo.

Remember, the black vote has been the most reliable Democratic vote, not the Reagan Democrats. Black voters don’t turn out for Obama solely because he is black. I’ve blogged before about this bizarre train of thought — if the affinity vote is so powerful we would have seen a bum rush for Alan Keyes. What Clinton is saying is not inaccurate (polls slice and dice this way), but its use here is inappropriate and inflammatory.

In Matthew Yglesias’ comments, Brendan writes:

The point isn’t that she’s calling non-whites lazy–I didn’t read it that way at all–but that she’s suggesting white votes should carry more weight than black votes in choosing the nominee. That is a blatantly racist claim, no matter the ostensible rationale behind it.

Steve Benen:

Let’s put aside the unfortunate wording of Clinton’s statement in which she equated “hard-working” with “white,” and consider the merits of her broader point.

Clinton has done well with white “hard-working” Americans, especially in states like Pennsylvania. But her argument is premised on the notion that White Joe Six Pack who votes in a Democratic primary would rather support a Republican than Obama. Where’s the proof to bolster this claim? There isn’t any.

By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

Why, then, characterize the race in this illogical, race-based way?

The Politico’s Ben Smith:

Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won’t feign shock. But it’s a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate’s mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voter.

And it’s also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there’s a substantial number of black voters.

More blogging on this: Stereohyped, All About Race, The Angry Black Woman, Comments From Left Field, Jeff at Blog Of The Moderate Left (but unless I missed it, not cross-posted to Shakesville), Fables of the Reconstruction, The Roland Report. The American Street.

A bingo card for arguments about whether or not racism can exist in fantasy and/or science fiction.

(Some commenters may be aware of the story and discussion that triggered this bingo card. I’m not going to link to it because I think the story itself is a red herring from this post. I think the use of an undigested trope was ill-advised, but I also believe it was a good-faith error, and that the author’s response to critics is genuine.

This Bingo card is presented A) in response to the comments on that story, and B) in response to the comments on every other story that spawns variations of these poorly formed arguments. As the Angry Black Woman said about the issue, more or less, whether or not one agrees with a specific charge of racism, using arguments out of the handbook for “How to Suppress Discussions of Racism” is NOT the way to prove your point.)

Feminist/womanist, anti-racist commenters only.

RICHMOND, Va. - Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Almost a year ago, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision, Mrs. Loving released a statement. Here’s part of what she said:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

I hadn’t realized that Mildred Loving was a supporter of same-sex marriage rights. She’d be a hero regardless, but finding that out makes me admire her even more.

(I’m already wincing at the thought of the political cartoons that will be appearing. My guess is that several cartoonists will do Mildred and Richard, reunited at the Pearly Gates, while Saint Peter comments that no one will be able to keep them apart now.)

Related link: NPR page on the 40th anniversary.

Curtsy: Shakes.

I’ve not posted for quite a while for a variety of reasons . . . I’ve lost my job, decided to go to law school, and generally been immersed in being very busy. What fun!

Now, part of what this means is that I missed the big WoC appropriation blow up completely. This is probably good, since I just don’t feel like I have anything useful to say that hasn’t been said better already by someone else. In the midst of all that, though, I was forwarded several wonderful blog posts written by African women, and I’ve finally got the time to write about them.

The first, and the topic of this post, is How to Beat Girls And Women by Mama Wangari of A Life Less Perfect. Everyone should read it in its entirety, of course, but it’s an autobiographical post about being beaten by her father when she was 16, how she avoided it, and the larger expectations and culture surrounding beatings.

“Please don’t beat me. I’m having my period,” and he turned abruptly away from me, dropping the belt to his side, and marched away to the end of the path to stand staring at the fence for a few dangerous moments. Then he turned and marched back to me and handed me the belt. My heart leapt.

“What you just mentioned to me,” his voice had gone low. “Never mention it to me again. Never. That’s between you and your mother. Go!”

It’s a great story, but the part that really makes it shine is her mother’s reaction, later:

A few days later I was walking home with my mum, down a steep rutted path, when out of a silence she suddenly asked, “Why did you ask Daddy not to beat you because of your period?”

“Pardon?”

“The other day, when you asked Daddy not to beat you because of your period. Did you think it would make you bleed more heavily or something? Why did you - ? What did you think would happen?”

I was puzzled. I decided to stick with pure fact.

“I wasn’t having my period,” I said.

“What? You weren’t?”

“No. I wasn’t,” I waited for her to burst out laughing and congratulate me.

“You mean you lied?” she was shocked.

“Of course!” so was I.

“But why?” she asked.

That really sort of sums it all up, doesn’t it? It’s not just that women and girls are expected to take their beatings, it’s that they’re expected to take them, and not object. The concept that she would object to being beaten is shocking and incomprehensible to her mother, because violence against women is a part of the natural order of things, like the weather. It’s just how things are.

Lying to avoid a beating is like lying to avoid a thunderstorm. It’s just not done. There’s no point. Why bother?

This, then, in a lot of ways, is one of the victories of feminism . . . the concept that, beyond women having the right not to be beaten, they, as human beings, have the right to object at all, to say, “this is wrong,” and, “no, I won’t just take it.” Abuse, institutionalized abuse, the culture of abuse, relies on maintaining the expectation that women will not say no and maintaining the expectation that objection to your own abuse is taboo.

It’s really an amazing post, and I encourage everyone to go read it.

Time for a follow-up. When is criticism like “wilding?” Never. Never. NEVER.

Unless, of course, you’re a racist trying to defend friends from people of color.

It is possible to describe criticism coming from people of color in a way that doesn’t equate words with violence. The criticism is fervent; it’s angry; it’s passionate; it’s vehement. If one disgarees with it, one could call it overblown, exaggerated, vicious, cruel, unreasonable, stupid, ridiculous, douchebaggy, mean-spirited, made in bad faith, irrational.

Who is the primary target of historical and present racialized violence? People of color. Black men lynched; black women raped; Chinese men slaughtered; Native American’s scalps collected and turned into the government for cash; Native American women systemically sterilized against their wills until 1975 so that 1/3 of child-bearing aged Native American women had undergone a (usually involuntary) hysterectomy; Chinese women imported for prostitution; Japanese people caged ni internment camps; Indigenous peoples all over the globe shoved aside to make room for colonial conquest; and so, so much more.

Amanda and Seal Press are being critized. Their lives are not in danger. Their physical integrity is not in danger. They are not being dragged through the town square. They are not being “handed a rope.” They are not being lynched, wilded, or raped.

This language suggests actual physical threats that are historically and presently used against people of color in general, and particularly people of color who stand up against racism. It uses that language to suggest that citicism from people of color is equivalent to these actions. Black men are slaughtered by policemen who fire into a car full of unarmed men and white women are criticized with harsh, unflinching language.

These are not equivalent.

And even if you think it’s clear as crystal that Amanda and Seal Press are being unfairly and hyperbolically impugned, it should be really easy to see why.

See also my original post about hyperbolic language being used to describe criticism coming from people with less privilege than one has.

(Feminist, anti-racist commenters only.)

Heart would like the world to know that there really are no problems with the racist illustrations in It’s a Jungle Out There because those illustrations happen to have been called out on this blog:

On the day that Ampersand, of Alas a Blog, gets taken to task for — every single blessed day – benefitting from the sale of blatantly racist, misogynist pornography on his website, advertised not just by way of text but with pornographic imagery, photographs, maybe on that day I’ll take all of this outrage against Amanda, by people who suck up to Ampersand (and others who share Amp’s views) every single day, posting or commenting to his blog like they have some shred of sense, decency, or concern for female persons, seriously.

…On the day that Maia recognizes the seriousness of the presence of misogynist, racist pornographic images and text on Alas – where she regularly blogs – I’ll take her concerns about Seal Press and Amanda’s book seriously. When any of the crowd currently excoriating Amanda Marcotte begins to take racist, misogynist male pornographers and their apologists to task, I’ll view them as possibly having some shred of credibility, a leg to stand on, in criticizing Amanda Marcotte.

Apart from the fact that it’s obviously fallacious to assume that because someone disagrees with her — or is even provably wrong — on one subject, that will automatically taint their perspective on any other subject, I find this a pretty facile way of ignoring the problems that other feminists have raised outside Alas, many of them predating our postings.

It should be noted that I’m the only one calling Heart hypocritical and full of shit. Barry, for some reason unfathomable to me, actually has a great deal more respect for her than I do. So, if you’re offended, be offended at me, not him or Maia.

(Shocker: Feminists, anti-racist comments only. Probably best to assume any further posts I make to this site are such.)