The Lash, Part II

In discussing whether Barack Obama should come out in support of class-based affirmative action (an idea forwarded by Jon Chait), Ta-Nehisi Coates makes a point I hadn't thought of before:

I have a radical theory: If you never address white paranoia, class-based Affirmative Action is doomed. What Chait isn't seeing (and I submit this with much respect, because I am a fan) is that racism poisons everything. The War on Poverty programs were also class-based, but that didn't stop white racists from demonizing these programs a handouts to Negroes. Welfare supported more white people than black, but that didn't stop people from turning poor black women into welfare queens. The theory of class-based Affirmative Action as "great politics" rest on a foundation which black folks have always found wanting--the ability of crucial swaths of white people to not cut off their nose to spite their face. But, in regards to race, this country entire history is based on white people cutting off their nose to spite their face.

In my previous "lash" post, I noted that the term "backlash" is somewhat of a misnomer -- it acts as if the racist White response was a reaction to a particularly policy, differentiable from previous White behavior that was...well, every bit as hostile and racist. The default setting in America -- regardless of what policies we choose or how much or little the White power structure agrees to bend to Black demands -- is for racism to be produced, albeit at varying levels. The trick is figuring out how to produce anti-racism -- and that's something that we've yet to bottle.

I support class-based affirmative action, but only in tandem with race-based AA, because I think they are separate sources of disadvantage that need to be remedied separately. Nonetheless, I have to admit I figured that replacing racial affirmative action with a class-based system would have at least diffused White anger on the issue, and would still accomplish some good given the disproportionate placement of people of color in the ranks of the economic underclass. Hell, that was even an argument the replacement advocates made themselves: class-based affirmative action would still primarily help people of color, so what's the fuss?

But as Coates reminds us, even programs which primarily help Whites (such as welfare) will engender White opposition and "backlash" if they are perceived to be aiding Black people. And perhaps no program has more indelibly been associated with "aiding undeserving Blacks while stomping on the dreams of hardworking Whites" than affirmative action.

I've noted before how racist ideology in America has proven itself to be incredibly mutable -- it can adapt itself to nearly any change in environment, changing its justifications and rationalizations without a hitch. If affirmative action switches from a race to class basis, and it still results in any meaningful assistance being given to Black students, expect the educational equivalent of "welfare queens" to pop up. It's a prediction that's never failed in the past.

Arrivals and Departures

First, the good news: I'm adding Ta-Nehisi Coates to my blogroll. I first saw him when he was guest-blogging at Matt Yglesias' place, and since then he's started popping up all over -- always with good stuff to say. So welcome aboard.

The sad news: dNa of Too Sense is calling it quits. This is particularly sad for me, as I only recently started reading his blog, but it was rapidly becoming a favorite. I'm not deleting it from the 'roll yet, because the site may stay active via a co-blogger, but it's still a sore loss for the blogosphere.

The Lash

The violent, hostile, reaction of Whites to the Civil Rights is often referred to as a "backlash." I'm dropping the "back", because that implies that Whites were rather passive and quiescent until Negro rabble-rousers arrived and started making trouble, and that's just not what happened.

Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland, has a great post up detailing some of the letters received by Illinois Senator Paul Douglas (D), a great liberal champion and supporter of federal legislation to end housing discrimination. They are, to say the least, revealing -- both in how rawly they demonstrate the White hatred that flowed through Chicago at that time, and how the arguments his constituents made echo eerily of those put forward today.

It also helps expand my previous post's notation of Black mistrust of Whites -- how being too trusting could be lethal of you were Black. I used the classic archetype of the racist southern father, organizing a lynch mob against the Black man with the temerity to want to marry his daughter. But this example from Perlstein works just as well: "a teenager answering a job ad walked over the border from Chicago into the all-white city of Cicero, and for that sin and no other was beaten to death."

He trusted. And he died for that trust.

On Trusting White People

I've written on several occasions about my favorite quote by W.E.B. Du Bois, responding to a student who asked: "Do you trust White people?"

You do not and you know that you do not, much as you want to; yet you rise and lie and say you do; you must say it for her salvation and the world’s you repeat that she must trust them, that most white folks are honest, and all the while you are lying and every level, silent eye there knows you are lying, and miserably you sit and lie on, to the greater glory of God. [W.E.B. Du Bois, Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil 102 (1920) (Humanity Books, 2003)]

Many times, I've been told that Du Bois' expressed sentiment here was racist. Even if Du Bois would have allowed individual Whites to prove their trustworthiness (which he did -- Du Bois worked with Whites all his life), his "default" stance of mistrust towards Whites-as-a-class is mere racial prejudice. To which I respond: at what point in American history would it had have been justifiable for a Black person to say that their default position is to be untrustworthy of Whites? I would have thought 1920 would be well within the range, but apparently not. So -- 1896? 1856? When?

Some have strongly implied that there is no such time -- Blacks are always obligated to have a default stance of trust for Whites, until Whites specifically show themselves to be incontrovertibly racist. What these writers do not understand is that, for much of American history, a default stance of "trust" in Whites was not just a matter of having friendly, egalitarian sentiment towards all of humankind. It was, quite literally, a risk to Black lives. Black people who were too "trusting" of Whites -- too trusting that they would treat them fairly, that they wouldn't mind breaching Jim Crow racial "etiquette", that they were the "good kind" of White folks -- these were Blacks destined to get lynched. A Black person in 1920 who -- trusting the fairness of the typical White -- asks a White man if he can marry his daughter runs a serious risk of death. In positions of such power asymmetry, mistrust is a survival skill. There were German rescuers, but the Jew attempting to hide from Nazis in 1942 would be forgiven for defaulting to mistrust towards the average German.

Macon D, a White blogger, has a post up on the persistence of this mistrust as the default setting amongst many people of color:

Unlike a lot of non-white people, most white folks think that the world sees them as trustworthy, reliable, and honest, unless they do something to prove themselves otherwise. White people can dress in a variety of ways or wear a variety of adornments or tattoos that will lower the level of trust other people are likely to place in them. What they rarely realize, though, is that their whiteness itself often provokes mistrust. And that it does so for some good reasons.

Macon put up a picture of a White person at the top of his post -- specifically, one with bleary eyes, a shaved head, a goatee, bruises, and tattoos (including one of a Nazi swastika). He uses it to illustrate an important point: while many people would be fine admitting lack of trust for this White guy, it would not be because he is White. It'd be because of his grim demeanor, or his Nazi tattoo. There are many symbols people can wear that might legitimately provoke mistrust. If I'm walking in my new Chicago neighborhood and I spot a Black man wearing gang colors, I think I am quite justified in not asking him for the time. I would not be so justified in avoiding a Black man in a suit, though. But across American history, Whiteness itself has been a social marker of something to be approached with caution and prudence as a Black person. The only (or at least, a sufficient) signifier for a Black man in 1920 that a person might lynch you for asking to marry his daughter is his Whiteness. No tattoos, no grim visage, no spouting of Klan doctrine. Just his Whiteness.

Whites can, through their deeds, show themselves to be trustworthy (or ratify the original suspicion of mistrust). No mainstream minority writer holds that there is an ontological bar preventing Whites from being trustworthy. But many many would say that it is still wiser for people of color to adopt a default of mistrust. For -- though there are fewer cases of racially motivated violence in America today -- the risks of assuming trustworthiness remain for many people of color. People of color still must be quite guarded around Whites (particularly empowered Whites, such as the police, but also nominal social equals, such as coworkers). Mention that you were stopped by the police and your suspicion that it was racial profiling, and you have to worry about whether your White peers -- who don't believe racial profiling really exists -- will assume you're at best someone who refuses to take responsibility for your own mistakes, and at worst that you're a drug runner. Send your kid to a largely-White school under the presumption that she will be welcomed, and then have to deal with what happens when her "friends" send her a note saying "go back to Africa" (this happened to a family from East St. Louis who managed to get her daughter into a largely White suburban school. She returned to the failing system in East St. Louis -- a system with nearly no funding, crumbling buildings, and rampant crime -- because she was essentially chased out of the White school by racism). And, having experimented with integration, with trusting Whites, watch as you get blamed for its failures. It was that girls fault that she's stuck in a failing school: "she couldn't cut it" with the Whites.

I'm not saying Blacks should (or should not) trust White people. I'm saying that -- as a political matter -- it is unavoidable for Blacks to ask that question. Politically, Blacks again and again are forced to ask themselves the degree to which they want to put their faith in Whites as part of their own uplift. When they decide whether integrated schools are best for their children, they are in part deciding whether they want their children's education to be (in part) in the hands of Whites. When deciding where to move, there are in part deciding whether their White neighbors will interfere with their simple desire to live happy, flourishing lives. When they decide how they want their political strength to be organized, they have to determine whether their interests will be protected in political systems dominated by White people. These are all questions of trust, and moreover in most cases they cannot be determined in the idealized, individualistic, "judge everyone on their own merits" framework. It is about trusting Whites-as-a-class. When deciding what school your daughter goes to, you don't have the luxury of meeting all the students at the nearly all White suburban school and determining whether they as individuals are welcoming, egalitarian, anti-racist folks. You have to determine for yourself whether you trust them to be good people -- and there is nothing that says Blacks have to answer affirmatively. This is, in other words, a legitimate question for deliberation within the Black community.

Many Blacks -- many more than Whites have had any right to expect -- have decided to operate within this framework of trust (even if they do so, as did Du Bois, with strong private misgivings). They have worked under the presumption that if they work hard, play by the rules, stay clean, and make the right moral arguments, Whites will accept them and transcend the racism that permeates our society. The fact that the Back to Africa movement -- which coalesced in the nadir of American race relations -- failed to achieve much momentum is testament to just how much Blacks have been willing to trust the ability and potential of Whites even in the heart of darkness. But at the end of the day, it's their choice, not ours. They decide whether it is better, worthwhile, or even safe to trust us. This is not hate. There is nothing hateful in surviving.

Professional Responsibility

Jack Balkin via the VC: "Legal ethics is to actual ethics as Madison, Wisconsin is to James Madison: the former is vaguely inspired by the idea of the latter."

Ladies and gentleman, my new profession!

Death

Anyone who had a pet growing up eventually learns about death. I, however, never had a pet, so I remain rather unaware. Don't get me wrong: I can understand why things die after serious injury, or illness. Even dying simply from old age makes sense. But I'm confused: why do young, seemingly healthy computers die?

My laptop, may it rest in peace, was not old (two years and two months -- meaning it was two months out of warranty, obviously). It was not dropped. Indeed, the first time it died, it did so while sitting quietly at my desk. Nothing was happening. I was not even in the room. It briefly resurrected itself, only to die again three days later while I was doing nothing more than typing.

What could cause a computer to suddenly experience a massive hardware failure just from sitting there?

Oh, cruel and capricious God....

You Got Destinated!

Playing Prolific (Facebook's boggle application -- I'm addicted), I discovered that "destinate" is a word. According to the Free Dictionary, the definition is as follows:

Des´ti`nate
a. 1. Destined.
v. t. 1. To destine, design, or choose.

Personally, I think the word could have a much cooler meaning: to be acted upon by destiny. As in, "Despite his best efforts, Oedipus got totally destinated at the end of that story."

Feel free to spread the gospel on that one.

Disarming the Discourse

I've been meaning to link to this Hilzoy post for awhile, because it gets at a very important point:

If people want to redefine the word "racist" so that only actual slaveholders count, let them. I'm more interested in the "critical reflection" [Ta-Nehasi] Coates rightly says that the "I'm not a racist" move is designed to shut down; in asking: does race play a role in someone's thought and action that it ought not to play? rather than in asking: does that role reach whatever bar of horrificness s/he wants to say it would have to meet to qualify as "racist"?

I've tried to make this point in my own work with my distinction between "finding the evildoer" and "solving the problem" in racial discourse. When engaging in dialogue on issues of race, I am not particularly interested in figuring out whether my interlocutros are Bad People, even if I disagree with them or think their views/policy positions are part of the structure which reinforces racial hierarchy in America. I'd much rather, as Hilzoy and Coates say, critically reflect on the manner in which those views intersect with race and racial inequality in the hopes that we can come to just solutions to the issue. I am more than willing to "sacrifice" calling these people racist in exchange for having that conversation.

But the corallary to this is that a lot of people tend assume that any liberal critique of their views on race is akin to calling them a racist. Over the past few years of attempting to avoid this pitfall, I'm beginning to think its inescapable: no matter how I phrase my inquiry, there will be a class of people who will huff "are you calling me a racist?!?!?" and there ends the discussion. It is, I suspect, a psychological defense mechanism to avoid grappling with the intricacies of the subject matter. Making the question "am I a racist" (which, in this frame, is synonymous with ultimate evildoer) allows the interlocutor to deflect attention from the particular moral or policy dimensions of the object of discussion, and instead change the inquiry into "am I an awful person?" Since most people are relatively persuaded of their status as not-awful-people, they can then react with offense that "I am implying" that they are. Having established that they are not awful, it is assumed that the original critique has been "answered", and nothing more needs to be said. So long as any racial discussion that involves more than the most perfunctory critique can be derailed in this manner, there is simply no hope of discussing these questions in any substantive, meaningful fashion.

So, new rule. Unless I specifically say the words "you are a racist", I am not calling you a racist. That can be our safe phrase: unless I actually say them, you can be assured the point of my conversation is not to label you a racist.

All clear? Excellent.

Quote of the Day

Grace Jantzen, "In Order To Begin: Death and Natality in the Western Imaginary," in Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Bloomington: Indiana UP 1999):

Arendt was painfully aware that one of the features of a totalitarian regime is that it seeks not only to eliminate its victims, but also to eradicate even the memory of their lives, wiping out their stories so that they sink into 'holes of oblivion' as if they had 'never existed at all'. This makes it it all the more imperative for the survivors to try and recover the lost memories of the victims, to tell their stories, so that the totalitarian regime shall not have the last word. Though Arendt does not draw the comparison, many feminists will find in her emphasis on reclaiming the stories of victims of oppressive regimes resonances with the efforts to reclaim the 'dangerous memories' of women who have been silenced, oppressed, and consigned to the oblivion of the unrecorded past. It is indeed in part the feminist work to give voice to these voiceless ones, whether in the past or in the continuing oppression of the present; and as we have seen, the possibility of women learning to speak as women is in reciprocal relation to becoming (women) subjects. (148)

I think it parallels my post on the need to recognize the Armenian genocide very nicely, and I think the extension to feminist (and, I think, all anti-subordination theory) is likewise quite insightful.

The Wrongs of the Right Critique

Phoebe Maltz takes on the right-wing critique of academia, explaining why it's demeaning to the very principles the right purports to be defending.

My favorite part was when she mentioned how the "reforms" the right plea for echo classic liberal call for diversity, "verging on demands for affirmative action." I, good liberal that I am, have been sympathetic to the idea of ideological affirmative action in academia for awhile (and not only as a tactical stance to chide conservatives for their hypocrisy). But I do seem rather alone in explicitly and consistently calling for it.

In any event, the article is very good, and I highly recommend it.

UPDATE: Phoebe responds to critiques of her article at the National Review's Phi Beta Cons blog. Who would have thought that the National Review would be terrible at this sort of thing?

Ezra Klein Loves Blood

Don't we all.

Video Games and the Paradigm Shift

Thomas Kuhn was a trained physicist, but he is most famous for his theories on the manner by which science progresses -- often known as the "paradigm shift". The standard view of science is that, as it progresses, it solves new problems in a relatively linear fashion: the more we do science, the more knowledge we accrue. Kuhn, though, says that science proceeds in terms of "paradigms" -- overarching organizing theories by which information is categorized, and through which scientists conduct their research. Inevitably, the paradigm will not be able to explain everything, and as anomalous results build up, eventually the paradigm hits a "crisis", and someone proffers a new paradigm (the revolution). Once this occurs, the paradigm "shifts," and the cycle begins anew.

But importantly, paradigm shifts entail at least some loss of knowledge. Even though the new paradigm presumably possesses greater explanatory power than the old, there will still be some types of knowledge or explanations which work under the old theory but not (or not yet) under the new. Hence, progress also entails loss -- a key element of the Kuhnian paradigm shift.

It is this observation that I want to link back to video games. As gaming technology increases, we don't just get better games, we fundamentally change the type of games we get to play. And some elements of old games are lost, not because they were not fun, but because they don't fit within the new paradigms of gaming which emphasize, for example, good graphics and 3-d environments.

Take, for example, the Final Fantasy series. Up through Final Fantasy IX, all the "speech" in the game was text based, in those stereotypical blue boxes. In Final Fantasy X, however, the developers managed to make the characters actually "talk", hiring voice actors to say their lines. This is "progress", and I agree, but it entailed loss as well: in the case of the Final Fantasy series, it meant that you couldn't name your own characters anymore (because the names had to be set for the voice actors).

Similarly, if one looks at the original Super Mario Brothers game, up through Mario Three (and even Super Mario World), it's pretty clear that they are operating within a similar paradigm (though each game tries to improve on the last). But today, even though everyone thinks those were stellar games, you would never see a game released that is of the same basic form as Super Mario World (a 2-d platformer). It doesn't make sense within the current gaming paradigm -- it is a design that is no longer available to game developers.

Again, not saying this is a bad thing, just an interesting observation.

Pound It

The Obamas rock the fist bump after cinching the nomination. Some conservatives went crazy, but I think most of us found it cute. Also, I agree that while Obama has had to take pains to prove he isn't "too Black" for the ever-skittish White voters, he's also demonstrated that -- even in timid form -- he is able to push boundaries and increase what is socially acceptable for Blacks in America, and that's important.

Also, Wes Clark apparently beat him to the dap (I've never heard the term "dap", but apparently it's in use. I'm so old!). Another sign that he's right VP choice? It was in an ad featuring Clark's views on Outkast, after all.

The Anticlimax

Incidentally, today (well, yesterday now) was my last ever day of classes at Carleton. Kind of bizarre, when I think about it. I have to admit, it didn't feel that weird walking out. Maybe because it didn't really register.

But still, it feels worthy of note.

They'll Do It Every Time

Didja ever notice? On discussions on race, White folks love to keep the focus on themselves. Liberals on how much pain they feel about the persistence of racism, conservatives on how awful and epidemic "reverse racism" is. But try and focus the discussion on what obligations racial dialogue and progress requires of Whites, and suddenly they can't turn the focus away from Whites fast enough.

Today I guest-presented in an African-American history class about Black Conservatism and how White folks can engage with it. It's not that there were no useful contributions, but I fought a persistent (and losing) battle to try and figure out what Whites had to do to engage this group. And yet, the responses kept being "Black people need to enter into coalition politics" (but Black Conservatives are skeptical about the utility of coalition work) or "Blacks need to work with and trust White people" (which begs the question and doesn't properly put the onus on Whites to earn back the trust they've lost) or "Black Conservatism antagonizes White people" (well, maybe it's Whites that should stop throwing temper tantrums, then?).

It's like pulling teeth, trying to get Whites to even think about anti-racism strategies in which they are responding to Black concerns, not dictating the terms of the debate.

Samantha Power is a BAMF

Not that you needed me to tell you that. But still, I envy the folks at Pitzer.

Priestly Power Politics

Rev. Michael Pfleger has been asked by the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, to take an (involuntary) leave of absence to reflect on his comments regarding Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The comments, which sparked Obama's resignation from the Trinity United Church of Christ, mocked Clinton's "tears" in New Hampshire and accused her of having her "White entitlement" violated when Obama ran for President.

I found Pfleger's sermon to be in very poor taste, and tinged by more than a hint of sexism. It was condemnable, and Obama was right to condemn it. That being said, Pfleger did apologize, so I'm not sure what purpose this leave of absence serves except political grandstanding by Cardinal George. Particularly since George has feuded openly with Pfleger in the past, this strikes me as quite an opportunistic move. I would think that the needs of Pfleger's congregation -- where by all accounts he has served with unusual distinction -- would take precedence over a bit of political showmanship by the Cardinal.

The Other Stories

This is a great article documenting the experiences of other Black law students at Yale around the time that Justice Clarence Thomas attended (Thomas famously regretted attending Yale, claiming his education was worth "15 cents" and that firms would not take him seriously after graduation, assuming he got in via affirmative action).

Thanks to PG in the comments for the pointer.

Radical Review Part One: What Causes Civil Rights Progress?

If there is anything I've learned over the past few days, it's that most people have a weak grasp -- if any -- on the actual arguments being made by non-mainstream theorists and philosophers. This, of course, doesn't stop them from making bold claims about what "liberals say" (or whatever). And that, in turn, infuriates me, and I occasionally flip out. It's particularly bad when folks act as if they don't need to know a group's actual argument and analysis in order to wax lyrical about how awful it is.

Hence, the "Radical Review." It's what it sounds like: I'll review the actual arguments of relatively out of the mainstream thinkers (generally on race) on a particular question or issue that seems to stick in the craw of the mainstream. By and large I am not offering my own opinion here -- just laying out the argument in a (hopefully) accessible, unprejudiced, and informed manner.

Today's issue can be summarized as follows: If America is "structurally racist", what explains civil rights progress over the past 60 years or so?

Excellent question! Radical writers on race have several hypotheses on what might be the cause of racial reform. But before we get into them, it's important to note that few would describe America's racial history as a straight forward progression. We have advances, but we also have relapses. Many would argue that, while things are better today than in 1958, they might be worse along some axes than in 1978. The legal protection afforded to race and commitment to overthrowing racial hierarchy, for example, has been beating a steady retreat for the past several decades. Some writers, such as Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, would say that we are in a period of "retrenchment", during which racist structure rearticulates and reestablishes itself in the wake of liberal attacks. Furthermore, whatever progress has been made has come from a pretty high baseline. Insofar as momentum has stalled today, it has done so well prior to where we could say that systematic racial disadvantage has been rendered a thing of the past.

That having been said, few would deny that important strides were made in the 1960s and the civil rights movement. What caused this?

Perhaps the most important radical theory on this topic is Derrick Bell's "interest-convergence" theory. Interest-convergence holds that Whites only accede to Black civil rights demands when it is in their interest to do so. Brown v. Board, for example, was not a case of White people just "coming to their senses" finally. Rather, it was a direct response to Cold War pressures -- the U.S. was being killed in its diplomatic efforts to sway the non-aligned states by our well-publicized segregation and discrimination. The State Department was receiving a flurry of screaming memos from our foreign ambassadors to this effect, and that prompted the U.S. Federal Government to intervene on behalf of a civil rights plaintiff for the first time. In her book Cold War Civil Rights, legal historian Mary Dudziak did the historical legwork and found that Bell's hypothesis was largely accurate, in that Cold War pressures did seem to play a significant role in convincing the American government to reconsider its racist policies.

However, several authors, such as Paul Finkelman and Rachel D. Godsil have identified several cases and actions where White actors seemed to protect Black civil rights when no immediate benefit was to be had. To this, Bell would respond that these constitute "contradiction closing cases" -- one's in which the dominant order was not threatened, but White actors could seek to prove that the deck is not stacked, that the legal system and the judiciary could be trusted to be be fair and neutral. Godsil's example, for instance, are the "race nuisance" cases around the turn of the century, where Whites sued arguing that the presence of Blacks nearby (in homes or churches or businesses) constituted a "nuisance" under the law. Blacks often won these cases. Godsil argues that there is no immediate interest Whites possessed in ruling such, and hence an exception to the I-C theory appears. But Bell would presumably respond that by Godsil's own admission, "nuisance" rulings were not necessary to preserve America's segregated environment, so courts could afford to be "neutral" on them secure in the knowledge that there would be no practical effect on the Jim Crow structure they represented.

So that's interest-convergence. But it is hardly the only theory out there. In their book "Black Power", Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton argue that Black progress only occurs in situations where Blacks have "closed ranks" so as to express sufficient political power to achieve their needs. Government responds to political pressure, only when Blacks are in a position to provide such pressure does true progress occur. As an example, they cite the establishment of the Tuskegee Institute (where Booker T. Washington spent most of his career). Tuskegee came into being because a local Democratic politician needed the votes of the Black community. He asked a local Black leader what it would take to deliver his community's votes. The man responded by requesting funding for a normal school. The candidate agreed, the votes were delivered, the school was built, and Tuskegee was born. Only because the politician felt he had to be responsive to the political power of Blacks, did Blacks see any material benefit. Whatever gains Blacks see in America's political arena today are directly correlated to the amount of political pressure they can bring to bear as a community. The 1960s saw a huge increase in the political mobilization and unity of the Black community, leading to positive governmental response. When their power as a group is diluted (gerrymandering, inability to elect the representatives of their choice), they lose influence.

Relatedly, James Cone argues that Black progress has historically occurred through a sort of "good cop/bad cop" mentality between various elements of the Black community. Martin Luther King was seen as a rabble-rousing radical by much of the White community -- until the Black Power movement began to arise in full force. At that point, the implicit argument made by the "mainstream" civil rights forces was "deal with us, or you'll have to deal with them." Civil rights progress only came into being because of the more radical "threat" Black Power posed in the background. Without the "bad cop", the "good cop" of idealistic liberal reform would have remained on the margins.

So, those are a few of the theories floating out there, explaining mechanisms for civil rights progress to occur while still taking account of the persistence of racism. Rather than civil rights being a case of Whites "seeing the light", the discourse is better seen as a struggle between the entrenched racial order and various responses by the Black community which managed to distress but not dislodge ingrained structural racism. If one believes Bell, racial progress stops at the moment where it ceases to be in White interests; if one believes Carmichael & Hamilton, racial progress stops where Blacks no longer possess the political power to enact reformist agendas; if one believes Cone, racial progress stops where there is no backdrop of serious radical challenge to force Whites to come to the bargaining table with "moderates."

Update on the Computer

It's in God's the SCIC's hands now. They say they won't know anything by Thursday at the earliest. Right now, it appears the hard drive may have blown out, which I presume to be a bad thing. They will see if a) that is, in fact the problem and b) try and fix whatever problem it ends up being. If they can't, step next is trying to salvage my data.

Fortunately, I backed up most of my important information on Friday, when it crashed the last time. And the fact that my computer managed to bring itself back from the dead once gives me hope that it can defy death once more.

Anti-Anti-Intellectual

Rich Hills proclaims himself "certainly an anti-intellectual." Undoubtedly this is in part a function of my current mood, but though deliberate obscurity can be very annoying (and quite bad things), whatever tendency (certain classes of?) intellectuals have towards that sin is far, far, far outstripped by the anti-intellectual "I don't need this 'knowledge' crap to know that someone's argument is [racist, sexist, anti-American, anti-family, stupid]" trope. The people who will make bold pronouncements about what a person says or means -- not only without a gesture towards actually reading them, but with a smug assertion that they don't need to -- represent potentially the most aggravating sin in America's public discourse.

It takes the convoluted abstractions of a Carl Schmitt or a Heidegger to offer apologetics for Hitler; a Sartre, to temporize about Stalin; a Foucault, to defend Khomeini.

Umm...no it doesn't. All three found plenty of sustenance in the more mundane "anti-intellectual" defenses and support of their cohorts.

Computer Died Again

This time I was there when I watched it slowly sputter and freeze. I restart, and nothing but a gaping, black void (empty screen). Time to bring more pleas, prayers, and a burnt offering to the SCIC...

God I Hate Misbehaving Two Year Olds

Look at this one! He had the temerity to immigrate from Armenia to America (the article doesn't make it clear if he was legal and his visa lapsed, or originally illegal). Sixteen years later he has virtually no knowledge of his "home" country -- but did become valedictorian of his high school class.

I agree -- the only proper response is to deport him. If you don't crack down on toddler misbehavior, they'll never learn. And if there's one thing America needs less of, it's really smart people.

Pet Peeve

Articles that are stapled incorrectly. Staples in the upper right corner of an article are only appropriate if the article is in Hebrew. This article is not in Hebrew. Angering.

Bahrain Appoints Jewish Ambassador

This is kind of neat. And apparently there are rumors it might presage the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain. Which also would be kind of neat.

Beach Week

The Washington Post takes on a DC high school tradition: high schoolers who take to the Delaware beaches en masse after graduation to, er, celebrate for a week.

Despite not being a drinker myself (indeed, about 20 of my friends and I decided to go to the Outer Banks for beach week instead, for a quieter atmosphere), I don't really get worked up about it or think it is the scariest thing in the universe. The impetus to respond to it as if it were a menace to society grates me far more. Here's Rehoboth Beach police chief Keith Banks:

"In one call last year, the parents were upset and crying and telling me I've ruined their child's [future] because they had a college scholarship revoked because of an arrest. I had one parent tell me, 'My child was just drinking beer and didn't even buy it in your town.' I said, 'How did they get the beer?' And the parent said, 'I bought it for them.'

"I ask you: Is that a responsible parent?"

Perhaps not, but it sounds far more like over-policing to me.

"She started hanging out with white people, and she started smoking meth."

The WaPo has an interesting article up about race relations and the Black community in Utah. The verdict from the Black community there seems to be that folks aren't mean-spirited as much as they are incredibly, incredibly naive. But I have to say, a lot of the things they described (folks randomly tugging on their hair, Katrina victims being frisked as soon as they deplaned) sound like things that require less a sophisticated knowledge of racial dynamics and more just basic awareness of how to treat human beings with dignity. A state senator called a bill a "black baby" and described it as "a dark and ugly thing." When the Black community responded with outrage, he (of course) got defensive:

He complained of being persecuted by a "hate lynch mob" and finally asked, "How do I know what words I'm supposed to use in front of those people?"

Eventually he did apologize.

Anyway, the whole article is good, and hopefully it will really stress to the high heavens the limits of the "I have good intentions" catch-all response to the idea that racism exists.

How I Read Rev. Wright

After I wrote my well-received post on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Black Conservatism, my former history professor contacted me and asked if I would like to lead a seminar on it for his African-American history class this term. I happily agreed. But when I met with him a few days ago, he said that we might have to change the topic. "Wright is old news," he said.

But it seems he spoke a bit too soon. While Obama's resignation from the Trinity Church was not precipitated by Wright but by comments from Rev. Michael Pfleger (who is not completely unknown to me but with whom I am far less familiar with), it certainly has brought back into the limelight the Black Liberation Theology that Trinity preaches.

The knowledge of politically engaged people is, as a rule, wide but not deep, save for a few issues. I include myself in this. Even though I consider myself relatively engaged, my knowledge of most issues is basically what a reasonably intelligent person would glean from reading The Washington Post or The New Republic. That's enough for me to feel reasonably okay talking about Iraq, or foreign policy, or economics, but it's more accurate to say I possess information rather than expertise. It is rare that I would feel confident second-guessing the "factual" coverage on these issues, for example.

By contrast, I do consider myself to have a pretty deep knowledge of Black Political Thought -- to the degree where objectively I simply have a stronger background than most of the mainstream media coverage of it. I've read from most major American Black political thinkers, left and right: Fredrick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, George Schuyler, Stokely Carmichael, Huey P. Newton, James Cone, Derrick Bell, and Clarence Thomas (the only major missing name is Thomas Sowell). I'm sure economists want to gouge their eyes out when they see how the mainstream media covers budget questions, because I'm feeling the same way about how Black Political thinking is being utterly butchered throughout this whole campaign season. Unlike most people, I've actually read more of Jeremiah Wright than you'd get on YouTube or CNN clips. And having both that direct exposure to his works, as well as the background in Black Political Thought (and Liberation Theology specifically) to put it in context, makes all the difference in the world. It bothers me that people who have no relevant background in the field, have done no reading of the thinkers in question (not even Wright himself -- let alone Cone or Carmichael!), feel so confident in making assertions on the subject. Do people do this in economics? I ask this seriously -- I would not, I think, venture such bold opinions on an economics question, because I know I am no economist. Yet it seems when the subject is Whites talking about Black Political thinking, this restraint does not apply. And that is worrisome -- it implies that Whites assume they automatically (by virtue of being White?) possess all the relevant knowledge by which to cast judgment.

A while back, I received in the mail two collections of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons: What Makes You So Strong (1993) and Good News: Sermons of Hope for Today's Families (1995). I was supposed to review them, but never got around to it -- so consider this my review. Over the past several months I've been perusing them, and it has created a strange disjuncture between the portrayal of Rev. Wright and his Trinity Church, and the actual words he's spoken and commitments he's made as a pastor.

I obtained the books as part of a project I am working on regarding Black Political Thought, and I opened them expecting Wright to be a pulpit-version of the controversial founder of Black Liberation Theology, James Cone. But quickly, I discovered that this was not the case. Though he has a doctorate, Wright is not an academic theologian. He is a minister, and as such his concerns are more localized. The vast majority of his sermons focus on personal and collective uplift. It is, in this sense, quite (Booker T.) Washington-esque -- strikingly so, when read (as I did) side-by-side with Washington's writings. He wants Black parents to demand their children succeed in school. He urges Black families to stay together -- and that Black men show commitment to their spouses and children. He works against the scourge of drug addiction and gang violence. Whatever relationship that has or does not have to White racism is not his primary concern.

Does Wright discuss White racism? Absolutely, though not at the once-every-three-words clip that Fox News implies. But the context is not "hate Whitey." It's really more, to be crass, "screw Whitey." As in: White folks aren't going to solve your problems (why on earth would you be foolish enough to trust them to? Have you noticed a kind of pattern in that regard for 250 years of American history?). You have to solve your problems (Clarence Thomas has cited this same logic as his reason for embracing a libertarian-conservatism, saying "It reminded me of the mantra of the Black Muslims I had met in college: Do for self, brother."). And that's the bigger theme: personal responsibility and racial uplift. Wright tells parents they have the "right to demand excellence" as well as obedience from their children. He urges that interdenominational disputes in the Chicago religious community be cast aside because

You need every last one of those preachers. We need one another. We have enough crack cocaine in our community and enough ignorance in our community to be working from now until Jesus comes. Those aren’t your competitors. Those are your companions.

This, incidentally, is why Trinity has forged relationships with Louis Farrakhan, who for all his faults (and they are a legion) has done tremendous work in terms of criminal rehabilitation and drug treatment -- the same reasons why conservatives such as Robert Novak, Dan Quayle, and Jack Kemp urged Republicans to ally with Farrakhan in the mid-90s.

Sometimes, "screw Whitey" takes the form of turning the other cheek to White insults. Whites say Blacks don't have a history independent of White America? But Blacks do have such a history -- proud and glorious. Whites call their speech differences "dialects" but Black linguistics "bad English." Bogus. Wright believes that racial pride is a precondition to racial uplift -- you have to love yourself in order to make something of yourself. It is a profoundly conservative observation, indeed, precisely the mentality White Conservatives have been urging Blacks to adopt for years. It is a mentality that Whites hold tensely -- we want them to not depend on us, but still trust us and love us. But there is not much ground we have to demand the latter two qualities. White Conservatives want Blacks to be only partially independent because they see it only with regard to the broader White political project of small government; it requires no severance with broader American society or norms. Blacks, if they so choose, will declare independence because that's what they feel they need to do with survive -- and that remains just as true with regards to American society as it does American government. This is not hateful. There is nothing hateful about surviving.

So no, reading Wright's sermons, I never encountered anything that was hateful to Whites. I found a lot that urged Blacks to ignore Whites, and admonishments (backed up by considerable history) not to depend on Whites, but nothing that was incitement to violence or bigotry (unless it is bigotry on the part of Blacks to not put their stock in White magnanimity). Now, one could argue that the collections I read are biased -- that they would not contain Wright's most inflammatory material. There's a little to that (the "God damn America" sermon, for example, was not there -- I believe it was delivered after the books were published), but ultimately I find that prospect doubtful for at least four reasons. First, the books were published in the early- to mid-90s, well before anyone could have predicted that Wright would have the attention of the entire media. Second, the books do contain plenty of condemnations of White racism, it just isn't the focus. Third, Wright's claim to fame as a public figure when he was writing these (i.e., before he became "Barack Obama's pastor") was as a Black Liberation Theologian -- he had no incentive to downplay his radicalism in his published works. And finally, if there is one thing we know about Rev. Wright, it's that he does not exactly view discretion to be the better part of valor. Outspokenness is a pretty well-established character trait of his -- there's no reason to believe he'd pull his punches in his collected sermons.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the "God damn America" Jeremiad. This is, in many ways, an apex of Wright's preaching -- it is not an outlier, but, like the sermon delivered by Rev. Pfleger, nor is it simply the repetition of the dominant themes of Trinity's sermon (Of course, I'm 100%, absolutely positive that Michael van der Galien made that statement after a good faith analysis of a solid, representative cross-sample of the last 20 years of Trinity's sermons. It would be horribly irresponsible to say such things without having even looked at the evidence.).

Jeremiads are interesting -- they have a long and distinguished pedigree in the Christian tradition, and one defining feature of that pedigree is that the targets of the sermon are never keen on being so identified. Conservative pastors launch Jeremiads all the time, condemning America for being too tolerant of homosexuals and abortion. Wright's Jeremiad condemns America for being too tolerant of racism, sexism, and homophobia (Wright, incidentally, has been a key leader in trying to rid the Black Church of its homophobia -- a serious problem for which he deserves great accolades for tackling). For my part, I do not know how effective Jeremiads are (don't they usually get ignored until God Herself starts raining down the hellfire?). But I certainly do not object to the point that America needs to be awakened as to the reality of racial injustice here. And I do not believe America possesses some inherent quality making as immune to damnation. We, as everyone else, have to earn our blessings.

Recall what I said earlier -- about how Wright is urging his flock not to hate Whites but to ignore them. That is the linchpin of this sermon as well. It is crushing to be told you have to love your abuser -- physically, emotionally, spiritually. America has abused Blacks (physically, emotionally, and spiritually). Why should they praise America? "What, to the Negro, is the Fourth of July?" (as Fredrick Douglass so memorably put it). Why should they count on America to look out for them? It hasn't, and Wright believes, it won't. God damn America represents spiritual and psychic release from an abusive relationship. Freed from the shackles of having to love their abuser, Blacks can love themselves and lift themselves.

One might gather from all of this that I agree with Rev. Wright on every point, or at least every point I've discussed hitherto. I do not, although my position is more complicated than that makes it out to be. I've noted that, as a White person, I cannot ethically place anti-racism practice as "screw Whites". I have an obligation as a White person to break down the belief that engagement with Whites is a waste of time. But the bridge must be over my back -- I have precisely zero credibility with which to demand such engagement. So in that sense, I would hope that Rev. Wright would come to see Whites as a partner in the project of uplift, but I cannot "disagree" with him if he does not see us so.

Having made that concession, I can still indict certain strategies for Black uplift as unwise or even potentially immoral (as I've done, for example, with regards to his words on AIDS). But the basic acknowledgment of autonomy and self-determination: that Blacks have the prima facia right to determine how they want to pursue their project of liberation, has to come first. And part of allowing Blacks autonomy in this project means allowing them to say "screw Whites -- we're doing this alone."

Obama Resigns from Trinity

Interesting news. Interesting timing, as well -- what on almost any other day would be a bombshell may manage to get drowned out by the resolution of the Florida/Michigan delegate controversy (it tickles me that what is essentially an obscure committee vote on a technical question of DNC rules might dominate a news cycle over something that -- for better or worse -- has served as the juiciest bit of media gossip this campaign season about Obama).

I'll be keeping an eye out for what Obama's reasons are, if he gives them publicly, and what the media commentary is like.

Fuck You Google. Seriously

I typed in "map of Maryland" into Google, and obviously the first hit is for the Google Maps link. So I clicked on it, and this is what came up (click to enlarge):



It's hard to tell, but the arrow is pointing a little southwest of Annandale. Annandale , Virginia.

I zoomed in, and yep. Definitely Virginia.

Oh, Hell no.

UPDATE: Hey wow -- this is on the first page of results for "fuck google" on Google. Neat.

UPDATE #2: I should note that Google has fixed the problem. Hurray!

The Gitmo Effect

One of Matt Yglesias' cobloggers (Alyssa) wonders if the attention garnered by Gitmo and our other extra-legal detention centers have served to deflect attention from prison abuse at home. I had always assumed, though, that the effect ran the other way: I never really though about prison abuse in any serious fashion until the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib came to light -- and particularly their lack of significant distance from the stuff we tolerate in domestic prisons.

I suppose I might be biased in that I'm the type of liberal hippie who responds to an assertion that our prisons resemble Abu Gharib with a "oh God" rather than a "hell yeah!", but still -- I'd think the public has been moving towards the position that even really bad people -- including terrorists and criminals -- deserve certain rights, and that's due in no small part to the Bush administration's overreaches.

SCIC

I just want to salute the Carleton SCIC (our computer tech support people) for fixing my computer when I thought it had died. They not only got it back from a blank black screen in about ten minutes, but the explained what likely caused the problem and how to avoid it. HP tech support, by contrast, not only misidentified the problem, but wanted to charge me $50 to tell me how to solve it by myself over the phone. I mean, I could understand it if I needed to send the machine in -- but $50 to talk to a technician over the phone? That's bogus.

So thank you SCIC, for saving me a lot of heartache.

Senior Banquet

Walking down the stairs to dinner tonight, I had, of all things, the "Ribbon Dancer" jingle stuck in my head. Ribbon dancer was some toy marketed towards elementary school girls which ran a ton of advertisements when I was a kid. I never had one, and I don't think I ever knew anyone who had one, but still, there was the song. I found it amusing that -- in spite of being normally incredibly forgetful, I could remember a totally random ad jingle from the 1990s with perfect clarity.

I got to the bottom of the stairs, and observed there was an event in the Great Hall. That happens rather constantly at the end of the year, so I didn't think any more of it, until I entered the dining hall and discovered that half of it was closed for the event. I asked off-hand what was going on, and someone said "I think it's the senior banquet."

To which I, a graduating senior, replied: "God, I hope not."

I rushed upstairs and sure enough, it was senior banquet. I didn't know what to do. Everyone was dressed up, I was in a t-shirt and shorts. Everyone had a name tag, I had, obviously none. It seems ridiculous, but I sort of panicked -- I assumed I'd miss the whole thing -- a really important element of senior year, and I blew it.

And then, two old friends of mine -- one from my pre-frosh trip, one from my freshman floor -- saw me. Both demanded I attend. I demurred. I was late, I wasn't dressed, I had no name tag, and the hall was already packed. They said if I RSVP'd, the name tags should be downstairs, and that I might be able to sneak in and grab a seat if I was lucky anyway. And then they reiterated that I had to attend -- that my presence was missed by my friends.

I ran upstairs and put on a golf shirt, then down six flights of stairs to check to see if I had a nametag. I had forgotten if I had RSVP'd, then forgotten about it, or forgotten to RSVP altogether. It was the latter -- no name tag for me. Oh well. I wandered into the Hall, and found a table filled with my old freshman floormates, a gang that remains very close even today.

And then, something funny happened. I still expressed awkwardness that I had no nametag. So, impulsively, my friend Lauren peeled hers off and gave it to me, and shooed me over to the food line. After I ate, Mandy came over and, seeing that I was not, in fact Lauren (nametag notwithstanding), she gave me her nametag. Then Mikaela followed suit. At that point, people started noticing, and as the event broke up and people started saying goodbye, more and more started giving me their nametags. My freshman year roommate did, as did a friend of mine who I've known since pre-school, and two people who I don't think I had ever actually met before. In all, I am now currently wearing 12 nametags -- all which were a simple but incredibly touching testament to the kindness and friendship I've experienced from the Carleton community, and so many individual Carls, for all four years I've been here.

You are all such wonderful people. Thank you.

I met a girl who kept tattoos for homes
That she had loved
If I were her I'd paint my body
'til all my skin was gone....

Price Waterhouse and Clinton

PriceWaterhouse v. Hopkins is one of the most important sex discrimination cases in recent history. Ann Hopkins was denied partnership with the Price Waterhouse accounting firm. Testimony established that she was caught in a double-bind: while the general culture of PW demanded a sort of hyper-masculinity to succeed, when Hopkins attempted to emulate this norm, she was castigated for being insufficiently feminine. It was ruled that this bind constituted actionable sex discrimination. This situation exists in broader culture as well: society articulates the routes to success in male terms, but when women attempt to follow them they find that traditional gender norms are strictly held against them. While everyone is to some degree boxed in by social conventions, women have a far smaller box to play in than men do.

I was reminded of Price Waterhouse and the more general ailment it signifies when reading this editorial by Margaret M. Russell and Stephanie M. Wildman. They are answering the charge that women supporting Obama represents a sort of betrayal of the sisterhood, and point out some reason why women might legitimately prefer Obama over Clinton. One passage stuck out at me, though:

We value his explicit and repeated emphasis on the language of diplomacy to solve problems, including his own; conversely, Clinton’s threat to “totally obliterate” Iran, as well as her metaphors of Rocky Balboa and boxing gloves, leave us cold.

I find this distressing, because it seems clear to me that Clinton has been pressured into adopting these tropes specifically because she's female. Certainly, the "man card" form of identity politics is nothing new in American elections, but there's a reason that Clinton is not the one challenging it, just as there's a reason Nixon was the one to go to China and not LBJ. I'd love to push political deliberation beyond the current "who can down more shots at the bar" standard, but Clinton can't press the issue too much because she's a woman -- she's ultimately the target that these patriarchal norms are designed to suppress. A male candidate might be able to effectively critique these norms from the inside, because his success would performatively indicate that men can still succeed under the new regime. A female critique directly threatens the male privilege these norms are supposed to protect, making backlash inevitable. Hence, women trying to succeed in a patriarchal world often times are forced to prove they are "one of the guys", rather than demonstrate that things can go just as well even if she remains proudly a gal.

In such a world, criticizing Clinton for adapting the classical male tropes that we typically demand our politicians adhere to represents one of the key enforcement mechanisms of sexism. It's like when Barack Obama was being indicted for not being enough of a "fighter" -- he has to adopt the soaring, conciliatory posture that he does because if he shows the slightest bit of passion he immediately will be cast as the "angry Black man." At that point, criticizing him for being not-John-Edwards enough totally misses how racism operates in public context. Likewise with Clinton. That patriarchal structure forces her into postures that are not to our preference is not a fair indictment of her -- it blames the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator.

Satisfaction

This felt so, so good to read. In the wake of the latest campaign "flap" around the fact that Obama's great uncle liberated Buchenwald (it was only a slave labor camp!), not Auschwitz, a far right blogger emailed the curator of a website dedicated to preserving the legacy of the 89th infantry (in which Obama's great uncle served), with the intention of digging up some more dirt. The owner replied:

Please crawl back under the rock you came out from.
Good day
Raymond Kitchell, veteran 89th Inf Div

Oh thank you! Thank you!

More from The Carpetbagger Report.

Geographical Elitism

I am a geographical elitist. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have it, and I admit it. I am a geographical elitist.

In politics, there is a lot of talk about elitist folks on the coast (east and west), but it is primarily presented as a class issue, or an urban/rural divide pitting the cities of the east against homespun, heartland folk. But that doesn't quite get at what I feel. My geographical elitism centers around the fact that I live near the capital, which is in one corner of a very sprawling nation. It feels very imperial: there is the capital, and then there are the provinces -- like the difference between Rome and Gaul or Lycia. Other East Coast cities (the Washington -- Boston corridor) at least feel like they are part of the same segment of the nation (they are all Italia). Get much beyond that, and things start to become strange.

I spend time sojourning in Minnesota, with their strange customs (ridiculous quantities of politeness), dialect ("ofer cute!"), and food (lutefisk?), and it's difficult to resist the sentiment that I'm approaching the borders of the imperial reach. The Twin Cities are a charming little outpost. And I know it's not an urban or population thing, because I have similar views of Chicago, even though it is nearly 5x larger than Washington. They are far-flung tendrils of the American civilization, but when the empire falters and begins to crumble, they're going to be the first to go. By the time Washington is sacked, they'll have been long lost to the Canadians.

It's a very bizarre feeling, but it's very much there. D.C. is very central to my identity, and it feels very much like the center of the world. So I apologize to all my friends who are not east coasters. I mean no disrespect, and since I've signed on to another three-year tour of the mid-west, maybe it is a character flaw I can outgrow.

Diet of Humility

Some Carleton students, for the past two years (at least) have organized this nice thing called "diet of music." Basically, you make a mix CD, put it in the organizer's mailbox, and they anonymously pair and redistribute them. After a few days, they reveal your "partner". It's a great way to expand your musical "diet".

So I got my CD today, and tonight one of my closest friends at Carleton IMs me to talk about the respective mixes we received. Here is an excerpted rendition of our conversation:

XmatthewXcoleX: did you do the musicla diet thing this year
dsadevil: ya
XmatthewXcoleX: how is the mix you got?
dsadevil: not my style
dsadevil: one song i kinda like
XmatthewXcoleX: mine would be good
XmatthewXcoleX: if the middle 14 songs
XmatthewXcoleX: werent awful
XmatthewXcoleX: there's a rob zombie song thats cool, and some kind of electronica thing near the end
XmatthewXcoleX: the wrest is generic angsty nu-metal
XmatthewXcoleX: generic angsty post-grunge
XmatthewXcoleX: and generic angsty emo
dsadevil: so...i'd love it?
XmatthewXcoleX: i dont know if id say that
dsadevil: its tough to go wrong by underestimating my taste in music
dsadevil:
dsadevil: my mix had a lot of R&B and 70s-style "rock" (aka, crooning)
XmatthewXcoleX: i associate 70s style rock
XmatthewXcoleX: with Led Zeppelin and David Bowie
XmatthewXcoleX: so, awesome
dsadevil: it had one Led Zep song
XmatthewXcoleX: i can see my person liking maybe 3 songs on the mix i made
XmatthewXcoleX: that makes me sad
XmatthewXcoleX: i was aiming for life chaning
XmatthewXcoleX: *changing
dsadevil: i am skeptical that my partner and i will overlap nicely
XmatthewXcoleX: mine also ahd random film music
XmatthewXcoleX: so it was like eclectic
XmatthewXcoleX: but an eclectic mix of things that are middle-brow and bad
[...]
XmatthewXcoleX: mines a girl
XmatthewXcoleX: i can tell from the cd handwriting
dsadevil: im guessing mines a guy
XmatthewXcoleX: based on what?
dsadevil: i dunno ... the R&B feels very "i'm a sensitive and moody guy"
dsadevil: until i mentioned the Lauryn Hill song on it, everyone thought I got Rob Hildebrandt's cd
XmatthewXcoleX: ok lol
XmatthewXcoleX: this out of control
XmatthewXcoleX: i have a hypthesis that we got each others cds
dsadevil: oh god i hope not
XmatthewXcoleX: hahhaa
dsadevil: the Rob Zombie song -- its not "Reloaded" is it?
XmatthewXcoleX: i couldnt say i just recognize his voice
XmatthewXcoleX: but if the Lauryn Hill song is "Every Ghetto, Every City" and the LZ song is "Since I Been Lovin' You".....
dsadevil: oh god
XmatthewXcoleX: hahahhaa
XmatthewXcoleX: omg
[...]
XmatthewXcoleX: this
dsadevil: is hilarious and awful
XmatthewXcoleX: well, if there was any doubt
XmatthewXcoleX: we have further confirmed that we do not share much musical taste

Ah yes. Good times.

The People and The Candidates

Guest-blogging at Matt Yglesias' place, Ta-Nehisi Coates makes an important point regarding the proclivities of Black and female voters to support candidates of their respective race/gender (he also notes that this whole discourse has taught us that Black Women Do Not Exist. Separate point).

This whole notion of masses of people "excited about a black president,"in particular, ignores the fact that since 1984, we've had a black person at least declare for president every year. In 2004 we had two--a black man and a black woman. I don't recall there being much excitement around the notion of President Al Sharpton, amongst blacks or whites. It's true that there is a great deal of excitement now about electing a black president--but that's because the prospect is Barack Obama. Ditto for Hillary.

This idea that Blacks are mindlessly flocking to Obama because he's a Black face (or women, to a lesser extent, for Clinton) is unbelievably patronizing to everyone involved. Blacks have proven themselves to be more than willing to vote for White candidates -- including against other Blacks (recall that Clinton lead Obama amongst Blacks early in this campaign). Same with women. Same with Black women for that matter (Carol Mosley-Braun all the way!). It is Whites and men who have historically shown far more ... reticence at straying from the bounds of identity politics over America's electoral history. The reason we see high support for Obama and Clinton is because they are both fantastic candidates.

Given that it seems Blacks and women have been far more willing to evaluate candidates "on the merits" than Whites and men, perhaps, come the general, we might deign to wonder as to the cause if Whites (I'm assuming Obama will be the nominee at this point) don't follow along. Who has shown the more neutral, dispassionate judgment in the past?

No Scarf For You

Dunkin' Donuts caves into radical right bloggers protesting an ad where the actress wears .... a scarf. Not just any scarf, mind you. A black and white scarf. Which might be (but in fact, is not) a kaffiyeh. Which could be taken as a symbol of Islamist Jihad and the Intifada. Logically, the only proper move was to boycott.

Now, I'd like to just giggle at how these bloggers are making fools of themselves (mixed with a bit of chiding for Dunkin' Donuts for giving in), but unfortunately as Modern Mitzvot reminds us, when folks such as this (who get a disproportionate amount of attention directed to those who "support Israel") advocate in this manner, it makes all the rest of us look bad. By which I mean crazy.

How Can You Guilt Me In The Afterlife When You Cannot....Speak?

Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, just issued a statement regarding Catholics supporting pro-choice politicians. If they were to do so, they would need a "proportionate reason" to justify it.

What is a 'proportionate' reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

I have to admit, the fact that aborted fetus' neither have the mental capacity to comprehend a "motive", nor the physical ability to communicate acceptance or rejection of that motive, makes this thought experiment slightly less compelling in my mind.

Via MoJ.

Guesswork Originalism

No matter what branch of originalism you subscribe to, it seems pretty clear that it requires a pretty heavy engagement with primary source historical texts which can illuminate the original intent/meaning/understanding of the clause in question. If law only carries normative weight via its original "construction" (which I'm using as a catch-all for these three variations), then there is no substitute for knowing this history.

But I have to say: the number of putative originalists out there far, far outstrips the amount of people who I can even optimistically imagine to be such history buffs. Some originalists undoubtedly do know the history like the back of their hand -- many originalist academics, perhaps many originalist judges. But in the public arena, I am very skeptical that official adherence to originalism is matched by the knowledge base necessary to make valid originalist claims.

By itself, this wouldn't be a problem: one could adhere to originalism, and, knowing one's relative ignorance of the pertinent history, declare one's neutrality when various politically-charged decisions come down. What grounds do they have to judge -- they have no idea what their own theory is telling them the law should have said! But of course, that doesn't happen. It seems many nominal originalists do engage in bitter recriminations against court decisions they dislike, even though they exhibit little to no knowledge of the historical circumstances that would give their critiques weight.

Guesswork originalism is thus the practice of assuming what original construction is in absence of specific knowledge of the relevant history, and then stating claims on basis of that guess. It is, to be blunt, an embarrassment to the originalist project (at least when it is not called out), because guesswork originalism is rarely anything but politics and wish. They hope the 14th Amendment's original construction mandates the recognition of interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), but they don't know it. Contributing to public discourse in such a way is an act of bad faith -- it makes claims on the basis of particular warrants that the speaker doesn't actually know exist. Since their interlocutors (who, not being originalists, are even less likely to know the history) can't cross-check, it leads to a debate that is entirely hypothetical even as it purports to be concrete.

Color-Conscious Adoption

CNN has a neat article up on the request by several major adoption-advocacy groups for the US to adopt more "color-conscious" policies regarding adoption. The current "color-blind" approach, which prohibits race play any consideration in deciding who the ultimate adoptive parents are, and also prohibits any special training for parents who are undergoing a trans-racial adoption, was designed to help reduce the inequality by which Black children languished in foster care for far longer than their White peers. The agencies want at least some consideration to be made encouraging same-race adoption (not a rule, just a preference), and, more importantly in my view, want to enact special training for parents adopting a child of another race.

A few years ago, I was at a meeting at the Black Student Union at Carleton where this precise issue was discussed. In fact, one of the students' parents worked at an adoption organization that specifically grappled with the issues of trans-racial adoption, and was very clear that it poses special problems under which parents might need a helping hand. One illustrative example, precisely because it is so mundane, has to do with hair-washing. The student mentioned that Black hair doesn't need to be washed everyday -- in fact, to do so is bad for the hair. Most people in the room (who were Black) nodded knowingly, but I was surprised -- it simply never occurred to me that hair-washing regimes would differ for straight versus kinky hair. And then he continued, as if he was talking about some exotic people, "apparently, White people need to wash there hair everyday," and now it was the Black students who looked surprised. It's no knock on any of us -- when's the last time you've thought to ask someone about how often they wash their hair? -- but it does illustrate the fact that there are things even well-meaning, engaged parents might need to be told with regards to trans-racial adoption.

The bigger problem particularly for White parents adopting Black children is getting them prepared to handle their child facing racism. Most Whites underestimate the amount of racism in the world, but having a Black child offers a rude awakening on that score. Knowing how to respond and give support to the child is absolutely essential, and is not something that necessarily comes naturally to White folks who do not experience racism daily.

All that being said, I recognize that there are dangers in raising screening requirements and onerous training burdens, and these shouldn't be overlooked. I merely want to raise the fact that these topics aren't as simple as we'd like, and problematize this lovely, idealistic notion that color-blind policy solves all ills.

Obama and the Racists

A bizarre meme that's been cropping up recently has been conservatives complaining that if they don't vote for Obama, they'll be called racists. Mark calls it "A theme I'm guessing will repeat somewhat tirelessly until November." Perhaps, though so far it's one I've only heard from conservatives complaining about it, which makes me suspect that it actually represents a struggle with their inner demons about what it means to vote against Obama. The social psychology research on these sorts of problems is fascinating.

But I digress. Of course it's possible to vote against Obama without being racist. There, are, of course, racist reasons to vote against Obama, and thus far it seems that much of the discussion on this issue has stemmed from examinations of cases where there is, in fact, good reason to suspect racism is playing a role in voting behavior (Appalachia, for example).

Pollster: It seems that racism played a major role in Obama's loss to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia.

Republican Voter: Are you calling me a racist!

Pollster: Umm...no. You're not a Democrat. And you're from New Mexico.

Some might say this is defensive behavior.

But I digress again! Some guy named Kender claims that, though he's not a racist, he's not voting for Obama. We know he's not a racist, because he says so: "I am not racist." My experience is that when people feel the need to presage their remarks with that comment, the likelihood they're about to say something racist increases exponentially. So why is Kender voting against Obama?

Now, I don't dislike obama because he's black. I dislike obama because he's a socialist and will lead this country down a very dark path, one we may not recover from, one that will destroy our economy, steal our freedoms and make us all slaves to the state.

Alright then. I think it's fair to say that if you believe that "taxation is theft", then Obama is not your man (nor is McCain, really, but that's another matter). Nobody would say that this person's vote against Obama is motivated by racism. Motivated by extreme and inane views about economics and governmental legitimacy, perhaps, but those are different sins. I question who, upon encountering a voter such as this, would say "were Obama not Black, this guy would be voting Democratic!"

So quit the defensiveness. Nobody's calling you racist except yourself (and I suppose Freud, by extension). We know that the reason you're voting McCain is because you're off-the-rails crazy.

Everybody happy now?

Walter Jones is a Piker

Though at the moment Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) is known as the most prominent Republican defector regarding the Iraq War, at one time he was best known as the man who brought "freedom fries" to the House cafeteria. It was a ridiculous display of jingoistic "patriotism", designed to insult the French for being, well, right, as we now well know.

But it could have been worse. Kathleen Bergin was reading some old newspapers and came across this gem that was proposed in Mississippi:

[T]humbing through the Dothan Eagle as I sometimes do, that is, the March 26, 1948 edition, I came across this headline: Mississippi Balks Move to Outlaw "Missouri Waltz." Apparently, lawmakers wanted to make it a felony to play or dance the waltz anywhere in the state. First offenders would receive a $1,000 fine and a prison sentence of not less than 5 years. Use a piano and the fine increased to $10,000 and life in prison. Gheeze.

The background here is that the measure was introduced after President Truman called on Congress to pass comprehensive civil-rights reforms, including "communistic measures" as the Southern Block referred to them, like anti-lynching and anti-poll tax laws. Truman was from Missouri.

A fine tradition Jones continued (at least, thankfully, in diluted form).

Also, I'm 100% sure each Mississippi legislator who supported this bill was 100% the most qualified for their position.

Memorial Day

Carleton doesn't give us days off for holidays, making it easy to forget they exist. Today is Memorial Day -- a day that takes on special meaning now, when our troops are out in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world. We pray for their safe return, while remembering the sacrifices of those who did (and will) not.

When Gibberish Goes Wrong

The head of the Carleton Conservative Union sent me a link to a piece called The Post-Left: An Archeology and a Genealogy, calling it "provoking". For the sake of the college I am leaving behind, I can only hope he meant something other than "thought provoking", or if that's too much to ask, "provoking thought about how awful it would be to believe this is worthwhile scholarship", because otherwise I have serious fears about what my dear Carleton conservatives consider to be a compelling argument.

[Update: Thus far it appears my prayers have been answered, as all the responses from the CCU listserve I've received have been in agreement that this article is only "provoking" in the sense of making me want to throw something.]

The author of the piece is one Gabriel Noah Brahm Jr., and the outlet he published it in is known as Democratiya, a journal dedicated to book reviews. In their own words:

Democratiya aims to be accessible to 'the common reader'. The discipline of the plain style, and a refusal of the obscurantist prose of contemporary academia, is today a political act of the first importance. We seek good writing, less adorned and more luminous, as well as thoughtful analysis, and a bit of style. Anyone seeking a model should look at Dissent. Careful exposition of the central arguments of the book under review is important. But so is the critical response of the reviewer. Authors will have a standing right of reply and reviewers a standing right of rejoinder.

I give this brief prologue just to highlight all the more the ridiculous manner in which Brahm writes. Here is a sentence from his "review" (I never did figure out what precisely he was reviewing -- an observation which rapidly took on multiple layers of meaning as I muddled through). Not just any sentence either: the very first sentence:

A synchronic (structural) and diachronic (historical) analysis of today's anti-Western left is sorely needed.

And here is the first sentence of Part I ("Archeology of the Post-Left: The Case for Discursive Regime Change"):

Post-left thought is an exercise in ressentiment unhinged from politics in the Aristotelian sense of politike, or the 'art of the common life.'

"Common reader", indeed. Now, I like good old fashioned jargon as much as any fine leftist. And I know it when I see it. So tell me: Is there any doubt at all that Brahm is trying to mimic the very "obscurantist prose of contemporary academia", that of the very leftists (or post-left or whoever it is he's talking about -- more on that in a moment) he's reacting against?

So the review is a catastrophic failure of style (is this a political failure "of the first importance"?). Perhaps it can do better under the "thoughtful analysis" or "careful exposition" rubrics. It'd be an easier task for me to evaluate if I had any idea what Brahm is reviewing, but it is never specified -- Brahm appears to want to take on the entire "post-left" writ large. Not quite a "review" then, but still, maybe Brahm can make some insightful argument on what the "post-left" is, and why we should care.

Or maybe not. Brahm does, to his credit, give a reasonably (for an obscurantist academic, anyway) coherent list of six tenets held by the "post-left":

1. Inverted Exceptionalism. Take the old 'exceptionalist' idea and flip it. America is unique among nations – just not uniquely good, that's all. The horrid US, with its crude consumer culture, unparalleled racism, and war-mongering politicians, is to blame for everything.

2. Post-Zionism. Ditto the above for Israel. One is the tool of the other in the US-Israel relationship, though it's not clear which is which. For Walt and Mearsheimer, Israel manipulates the US. For Chomsky, it's the reverse. In any event, Israel's right to exist is put in question (at best).

3. Third Worldism. The wretched of the earth ('multitudes,' whatever) are not just unlucky but morally superior to the earth's beneficiaries. Empowered by powerlessness to take the place of the proletariat in conventional Marxist doxology, the Third World Other can do no wrong. It's all 'resistance' whatever it is, up to and including terrorism. In this salvation myth, any two-bit despot – from Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hasan Nasrallah, even Osama bin Laden – can be seen to represent a salutary rebuke to American Capital and The West. So the millenarian imagination persists, after 'the end of history'.

4. Cultural Revolution. It's Manichean also. Because of #1 and #2, a complete transformation of consciousness is needed to wipe away all the micro-corruptions of US-led capitalism, and replace these with more salutary (revolutionary) habits of mind (to be discovered thanks in part to #3). Eventually, everything 'bourgeois', 'white' and 'male' will have to go. For now it can all be 'deconstructed'. Stir in to this 'methodology' heavy doses of Sixties-style antinomianism and Seventies-style New Ageism, and you have a heady cocktail: the mind slips its moorings.

5. Totalitarian Ideology. Ah, but moorings are so very reassuring when one finds oneself adrift! In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt outlined the closed-world world-view of the totalizing mind and its self-serving auto-validating procedures. She was talking then about Stalinism and Nazism, but it works for the post-left too (if that sounds like a harsh comparison, see #6 below). [4] For inside the cramped and airless theoretical space of the post-left one finds that (a) every question receives an exhaustive total explanation, situating the smallest detail of an argument within a vast theodicy with no outside and little room for ambiguity or surprise. Nothing escapes and no light gets in, while (b) such explanations are independent of and resistant to experience. The post-left's is an entirely 'a priori' structure of thought. And this inclusive, arbitrary narrative without a referent is also (c) ultra-consistent. Why not, when you're making it up as you go along? Not only does everything fit that gets in, and nothing gets in that doesn't fit, but the results are always the same: the same demons, the same victims. And finally (d) we find the ascription of collective guilt to 'enemies'. The condemned in the post-left scheme of things will be judged not according to what they do or say or think but what they are. The post-left, in short, offers its followers a tidy picture of a messy world, suitable for lazy and credulous minds.

6. Islamism. With #1-5, the nascent post-left prepared the way for the embrace of radical Islamism after 9/11 as a form of 'resistance', indigenous to the Third World (#3), aimed at a guilty US (#1) and Israel (#2), striking a blow for 'difference' (#4), that simply had to be good in some way (#5). And it was this final element, I suggest, that catalyzed the other ingredients to produce the post-left proper.

Hopefully that dispelled any doubts that my mockery of its style resulted from passages out of context! In any event, I read this section, and I am at once illuminated and confused. Illuminated, because I think I've got what Brahm means by "post-left". Someone is "post-left" if they think that America and Israel do everything wrong and are the supreme evils, that the "third world" can do nothing wrong, that we need a revolution to correct these corruptions and erase every vestige of them, in a narrative is totalitarian and all encompassing, and that the immediate political manifestation of the whole deal is an embrace of militant Islamism. None of these elements are cited anywhere, of course, despite the fact that the essay is footnoted.

Confused, because while I certainly can think of people who embrace some of these elements (though rarely in the cartoonish version Brahm lays out), and perhaps can conceptualize someone adhering to all of them, I am given no serious reason to believe that this nexus of views represents anything approaching a movement, much less an influential one, even amongst "the left". Though "post-left" would seem to imply something "beyond" or "after" the left, it is clear Brahm believes the ailment he so meticulously describes to be some sort of malignant sub-species of leftist discourse. At this point in my read, my feeling was that even if this argument was being robustly maintained, I have no idea what it has to do with "the left". Would it not be just as sensible to say that these "post-leftists" hate the "conventional(?)" left, and vice versa, and proceed from there? Not if the purpose is to engage in the academic S&M that constitutes supposedly liberal folks flogging "the left".

It's possible I am wrong, of course, and the "post-left" infestation is in fact running wild through left-wing circles. Already, however, there is reason to be skeptical on this accord. If the plague were so wide-spread, one would expect it would be easy to find examples -- and once found, they would be, you know, "left." Alas, this appears to be too much to ask. Of the three people he identifies as indicted under this model, only one can in any true sense be identified as of the left at all. Noam Chomsky is most certainly left-wing. Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer most certainly are not, unless neo-Realism is suddenly a leftist ideology. Why they are persistently lumped in with the left eludes me, save the fact that they nourish the idea that only leftists have problematic views with regards to Israel -- hardly sufficient reason for the categorization. There goes "intelligent analysis." But it was a flippant reference anyhow. Maybe if we keep going, we will see how post-leftism is a persistent thread throughout the theorizing of the left academy.

No, as it turns out, our original instinct was correct after all. To buttress his argument that the "post-left" as he describes it is a salient force, Brahm cites to ("engages with" would be far, far too kind) a grand total of four people (not including the aforementioned one-off for Chomsky, Walt & Mearsheimer): Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (who should really count as one since they co-wrote the book in question), Saba Mahmood, and the ever-present Judith Butler. It is not even worth our time to "address each in turn," for the simple reason that even if they all had co-written a book together arguing precisely this "post-left" ideology that Brahm says is so prevalent, four people are not enough to prove even a trend, let alone a worrisome one. In fact, from what little I know of them, I would not be surprised if both Hardt & Negri, and Mahmood, would fit roughly under Brahm's post-left frame. H&N are old-school Marxists, of course, and old-school Marxism has fallen somewhat out of style amongst the rest of the left, as Brahm might have noticed if he had stopped fighting the Cold War along with the rest of us. Mahmood I've been singularly unimpressed with when I've come across her, but that does not happen often. Regardless, even with this meager cast of characters Brahm does not actually link back the words of these authors to his six-element list of post-left tenets. One might think that if you're struggling that mightily to find a soul to fill your scarecrow, there might be larger problems afoot.

It's Butler, however, that deserve special mention here. The citation to Butler comes not to one of her academic texts, but to an answer she gave during a Q&A session after delivering a speech, as reported by a blog, so already we're on shaky terrain. This is the sentence Brahm devotes to her: "Judith Butler, professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley, and leading figure of the post-left, endorsed Hezbollah and Hamas as 'part of the global left'." (But are they "post-left"?) Now, recall Brahm's third element of what constitutes "post-left" -- that the third worlders (of which Hezbollah and Hamas are presumably a part) can do no wrong. Now, append the part of Butler's quote which he leaves out, but which is quite present in the blog post he links to in the footnote: "but [it] doesn't stop us from criticizing them."

Selective quotation is a grievous academic sin, particular when it leaves out such important modifiers like "but". In this case, the "but" seems to knock Butler conclusively out of the "post-left." The third world, it seems, can do wrong after all! Butler specifically says that their membership in the "left" (however defined) doesn't preclude that. In other words, her argument is the precise opposite of the typology Brahm puts her in. This is borderline academic misconduct -- though perhaps his peers will take into account the entirety of the article and conclude its actually parody. To be blunt, it's his only hope.

To be very, very kind, Brahm is shadow-boxing at a nearly non-existent foe (and losing). To be less kind, he's trying to smear a wide swath of "the left" via association to this phantom via a menagerie of dodgy argumentative practices. One of Brahm's early complaints about the "post-left" is that its "explanations are independent of and resistant to experience." Experience teaches us that virtually nobody is making the arguments Brahm is talking about, and that those who are possess virtually no influence. And experience has now continued to teach us that -- when writing and reacting to the arguments of the left in all its diversity and splendor -- we should look to brighter and more sophisticated thinkers than Gabriel Brahm.

That Would Have Been Bad

Headline from Ha'aretz: "Israeli warplanes almost shoot down Tony Blair's plane."

Blair, the former Prime Minister of the UK and now a mid-east peace envoy, was flying to Bethlehem from Cairo, Egypt. Unfortunately, his plane's communication equipment malfunctioned, meaning that it did not respond Israeli requests for identification when the plane crossed into Israeli airspace. Assuming the aircraft was a hostile, fighters were scrambled, but fortunately were able to establish contact with the plane before anything bad happened.

And how bad it might have been. The Israeli air force shooting down Tony Blair's plane? It'd have been a conspiracy theorist's wet dream!

Hebrew University To Award MacKinnon Doctorate

The Hebrew University in Jerusalem will be awarding Catherine MacKinnon, one of the legends of feminist legal theory, an honorary doctorate in recognition of her work advancing woman's rights and human rights.

Take that, Washington University.