Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

This week we bring together two distinct concepts.  Chris Matthews and Naomi Campbell.

Chris Matthews has been featured here before for his prowess in playing the race card.

This week Matthews also designated the word "European" as a potentially racist term based on nativist hostility, at least when it is used in reference to Barack Obama's policies. (via The PJ Tatler)



Notice how Matthews says "let’s keep race out of it for five seconds ..." and uses the term "nativist" as a cue for Ed Rendell to term the phrase "a slur."

Shift over to Naomi Campbell, known for throwing things at the help and generally being a spoiled celebrity.

Picking up on that image, Cadbury chocolate in Britain (owned by Kraft) ran an ad for an upscale chocolate bar with the phrase (but no image of Campbell) saying ""Move over, Naomi, there’s a new diva in town... I’m the world's most pampered bar."

Campbell may have a claim for the use of her name for commercial purposes without permission, but that is not enough, she's screaming racism because the ad was for a chocolate bar:

"I am shocked. It's upsetting to be described as chocolate, not just for me, but for all black women and black people. I do not find any humour in this. It is insulting and hurtful."

The model's mother, Valerie Morris, backed her daughter, saying: "I'm deeply upset by this racist advert. Do these people think they can insult black people and we just take it? This is the 21st century, not the 1950s. Shame on Cadbury."

Disgust at the ad prompted members of the public to complain to the campaign group Operation Black Vote (OBV), which has called for Cadbury to apologise. OBV's Simon Woolley said that without an apology, the "only recourse black people have is not to buy its chocolate". He has written to the American civil rights activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to ask them to mobilise the country's Afro-American population. "I want them to know what their parent company is doing in Europe. I've asked them to support us."

Mr Woolley said that, for black people, being likened to chocolate was as bad as being called a golliwog. "Racism in the playground starts with black children being called 'chocolate bar'. At best, this is insensitive, and at worst it demonstrates Cadbury's utter disregard for causing offence. Its lack of apology just adds insult to injury. The Eurocentric joke is not funny to black people.

Campbell is considering suing, and Cabury has apologized and pulled the ad:

"Cadbury understands that our latest advertising campaign for 'Cadbury Dairy Milk Bliss' caused upset to Naomi Campbell and her family. Cadbury takes its responsibility to consumers very seriously indeed and we would never deliberately produce any marketing material we felt might cause offence to any section of society.
"It was not our intention that this campaign should offend Naomi, her family or anybody else and we are sincerely sorry that it has done so.

"We can confirm that the advertisement is no longer in circulation and we will not be using it in future marketing....We have been in discussions with Naomi's solicitors and can confirm that they have accepted our apology on her behalf as a conclusion to this issue."

Let's talk about all this.

First, since when did calling something or someone "European" constitute a racial slur?  Politically in this country, where we love economic freedom, calling an economic policy "European" may be a slur because it implies government policies meant to control individual economic freedom, but it is not a racial or racist slur.

Second, there may be uses of "chocolate" which have a racial reference, such as when Ray Nagin referred to New Orleans as a chocolate city.  But Cadbury clearly was not using Campbell's name in a chocolate ad because of or in reference to her skin color.  Campbell was mentioned because of her high profile spoiled-brat image.

So the non-racist racist term of the week is:  European Chocolate.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Think Progress  is reeling from being punked by the Navy Seal Anchor Baby hoax.  But Think Progress needs to earn its keep, so it soldiers on.

Think Progress continues its the never-ending quest to find someone (preferably a Fox News employee, a Republican politician , a Tea Party supporter, or as a last resort, someone who knows one of the foregoing) making a racist statement.  And once again, Think Progress steps in it.

Eric Bolling, someone I had never heard of before, apparently is under consideration to replace Glenn Beck on Fox News.  So that makes Bolling a public enemy to Think Progress.

Bear with me here, you have to make several logical suppositions and factual assumptions.  So I'll take it in sequence. 

Obama was in Ireland.  Obama chugged some brew.  Bolling commented about it on Facebook, and Twitter, saying "Obama chugging 40's in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO."


According to Think Progress, this tweet was "racially-tinged":

“40′s” is a slang name for 40oz malt liquor bottles. But Obama drank from a pint glass (not a bottle) of beer that doesn’t come in 40oz bottles. Why did Bolling say Obama was “chugging 40′s”? As even some of Bolling’s Facebook commenter note, it’s an eyebrow-raising choice of words, given the beverage’s long-time association with African American stereotypes.

I'm not so sure Think Progress is correct about this. 

One of the retweets of Bolling's tweet was by @40ozMaltLiquor which runs the website 40ozMaltLiquor.com devoted to 40 oz. malt liquor (is the internet great, or what?).  The website features images of 839 different bottles of 40 oz. malt liquor.  Whatever stereotypes were in the minds of the Think Progress editors and writers, I'm not sure you can say the 40 oz. malt liquor phenomenon was limited to one racial or ethnic group.

And to prove the point, I'd like to relate some personal high school history.  Since I was not of legal drinking age until the end my senior year in high school, this information is based solely on what a friend told me.

This friend told me that he and his friends would use a fake i.d. to buy big bottles of Colt 45 Malt Liquor.  Although my friend did not specify, I'm pretty sure they were 40 oz. bottles.  My friend and his friends had heard that Colt 45 had a higher alcohol content than regular beer.  I don't know if that was true, but my friend and his friends believed it, which really was all that mattered to them.  My friend and his friends then would go to the beach or a house where the parents were away, and chug 40s of Colt 45.  With the strobe light on.

The point of this story is that the people doing the chugging of 40s, according to my friend, were all white.

So when I heard that Eric Bolling used the term "chugging 40s," I didn't see it as racially-tinged.  Just funny.

But what do I know, I've never chugged 40s.  Although I've heard about it.  From a friend.



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

I previously wrote about accusations by Princeton Professor Cornel West that Obama was racist. Against blacks.

Now West lays into Obama again.  It speaks for itself, and is causing all sorts of liberal angst:





Joan Walsh, who has played and had the race card played on her, sums it up:

But there's a way in which this whole controversy looks like progressives devouring their own tail.

Indeed. This is what happens when you coddle and encourage false accusations of racism for political and website traffic purposes. When what went around comes back around, you really have no defense. If George Bush hated black people because (insert standard nonsense reason here), why not Obama? It's absurd, of course, but the natural result of the race card industry.

But I'm not going to get in the middle of it, defend it, criticize it, or otherwise. I'm just going to sit back and watch the show.

Pass the popcorn.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

You owe me.

No really, you do.  I had not realized how much you owed me until I saw this call for solidarity among minorities.



What's my claim to minority status? No, not religion.

You know.

I will not be denied my due.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Think Progress, via its Wonk Room blog, thought it had the story of the year. 

Not just the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy SEALS.

No, it was so much better, the killing of bin Laden by a Navy SEAL team which included "Rubén Mejía," the American-born child of illegal Mexican immigrants.

The original report was from a newspaper in Mexico, and was dutifully reported by Think Progress, which used the story to argue in support of the DREAM Act, Navy SEALs Squadron That Killed Bin Laden Included Rubén Mejía, The Son Of Mexican Immigrants (emphasis mine):

For a long time, Latinos were underrepresented in the armed forces. Yet, this started to change dramatically as the Army launched “a vast recruiting campaign targeting Latino youth, placing ads in Spanish-language media, including magazines, radio, and television.” In fact, several military experts have come out in support of the DREAM Act which would legalize undocumented youth who go to college or serve in the military precisely because it would significantly increase the pool of qualified recruits in the Latino population — which comprises the majority of undocumented immigrants and is more likely to enlist and serve in the military than any other group....

Meanwhile, many also claim that Latinos are being left out of the military’s highest ranks. “In the last 75 years, there have been only three (Latino) officers on active duty with three stars and just one with four. What’s the problem? We’re as capable, competent and educated as any other segment of society,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez stated last year. If the hundreds of Latinos who have died serving our country abroad aren’t enough to change that, hopefully Rubén Mejía’s brave and historic actions are.

Think Progress was responsible for sending the story viral with this tweet:


Hundreds of tweets linking to Think Progress, including by Markos Moulistas of DailyKos and Perez Hilton, sent the story soaring.

Paul Reyes of USA Today, writing in HuffPo, beamed with pride:

As an American, I'm relieved that the hunt for Bin Laden is over. As a New Yorker, I finally feel some sense of closure, nearly ten years after September 11. And as a Latino, I am proud that Ruben Mejia has set a heroic example of the innumerable contribution of immigrants to the United States.

It was the perfect story with which to beat supporters of immigration enforcement over the head. The most heroic of actions by a so-called "anchor baby."

But the story turned out to be false, which Think Progress noted after several updates. 

There was much embarrassment around the internet from people who ran with the story because Think Progress ran with it.

But what if the story were true?  Would it have proven what Think Progress wants, which is passage of the DREAM Act? 

Considering that the DREAM Act is directed at persons not born in the U.S., it's apples and oranges.  The fictitious Navy SEAL Ruben Mejia would not be affected.

And even as to children who were brought here illegally, service in the military as a pathway to citizenship is non-controversial; the controversy over the DREAM Act was that it was so broad in its application that it amounted to a wide-ranging amnesty.

So in many ways, the story even if true was a non-story.  But it provided Think Progress with an irresistible play of the race card.  Too irresistible to fact check before running with it.

I think I'm going to start charging for popcorn.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

And on the 75th episode of the Saturday Night Card Game, we again ponder how we have reached the point where words or expressions which have no connection to race have become a tool by which the race card players stalk Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party supporters. 

For those of you who are new to these parts, here are some prior words or terms which have caused problems:

• Baa Baa Black Sheep
• Black Friday
• Black Hole
• Providence Plantations
• Rejigger
• Gobbledygook, and 
• "No Asians," 

The latest example is the nontroversy over Mitt Romney's play of the common phrase to "hang an albatross around his neck."  That metaphor was used frequently during the 2008 campaign as commenters throughout the left-blogosphere wanted Democrats to hang George W. Bush around John McCain's neck.

Romney used this metaphor yesterday in New Hampshire when referring to our economic misery index, which he substituted for the word albatross, and then applied it to Barack Obama:



You can guess the rest, media buzz and cries of racism because in the games of the race card players, hanging the misery index around Obama's neck or hanging Obama with it, just like it was hung around Carter's neck, is exactly the same thing as saying "let's lynch the black guy."


Really. Here is some media/blogosphere reaction to what is being portrayed as a major "gaffe":

• HuffPo: "Mitt Romney's camp is attempting to do damage control after the presidential aspirant made controversial remarks in criticizing President Barack Obama during a stop in New Hampshire on Friday night.
• Boston Globe: Romney clarifies as he proposes to 'hang' Obama with misery index.
• Raw Story: "In a speech at the pro-GOP Americans for Prosperity dinner, former Massachusetts governor and contender for the GOP presidential nomination Mitt Romney said he would "hang" Obama, then immediately realized his gaffe and tried to smooth over his mistake."
• Politico: "Any reference to hanging — however unintentional — would be especially loaded in a campaign against the country's first black president, as Romney apparently recognized."
• Daily News: "Mitt Romney scrambled to do some damage control after he suggested it was time to "hang" President Obama in a speech in New Hampshire Friday night.

What lunacy.  It's become a mind control game.  These people are not addressing actual racism, they're just playing word games and gotcha.

The Obama campaign doesn't need to do a thing, it just needs to sit back and let the media do its job for it.  Fairy tales do come true when you are up against the media's love affair with Obama.  (By using the term "affair" I do not intend any subtext or tinge.)

Romney should not be apologizing.  He said nothing wrong.  He was not suggesting a literal hanging of Obama and he did not use racial terminology.  But recognizing the way in which race-neutral words would be twisted against him, Romney clarified the remarks on the spot.  There is no story here.

Oh, by the way, the phrase I used in the title to this post is taken from the quote attributed to Lenin (although it's not clear if he actually said it) that:

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them."

No offense intended to capitalists, or to Obama.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

This is a follow up to two prior posts on the attempt by the mainstream media and left-blogosphere to frame the issue of Obama's constitutional qualification to be President as rooted in racism.  Obama is being challenged, the argument goes, only because he is not white.

As I pointed out, however, the race card as to Obama's constitutional qualification does not hold up because there is a long history of white presidential candidates and presidents being challenged, including allegations of a concealed birth in a foreign country:

• They Will Not Let The "Birther" Issue Drop Against That White Republican President
• Your race card narrative does not fit, so you must acquit 

Nonetheless, the meme goes on day after day in the mainstream media, without so much as a peek at history.

Tonight it's Fareed Zakaria's turn to declare (emphasis mine):

Then there is the ‘birther’ issue. I regard this as coded racism, frankly. I don’t think there’s any other word for it.

For goodness' sake, George Stephanopoulos displayed Obama's Certificate of Live Birth on network TV and this rumor still doesn't die. Put it this way: If the President was a white man named John Smith with the other background issues being the same - foreign student father, mother in Hawaii, etc. - would there be any of these dark insinuations? Trump should be ashamed of himself. But then, I suppose, he wouldn't be Donald Trump.

To a very, very limited extent Zakaria is right.  We have no evidence that a white man named John Smith would have his citizenship or birthplace challenged.

But we do have evidence that white men with the following names would not be so lucky: 

Chester A. Arthur
Barry Goldwater
John McCain
George Romney
Lowell Weicker, Jr.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr.

-------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
If Gov. Neil Abercrombie Really Wanted The Records ...
They Just Can't Let Go Of The Birthplace And Religion Issues
The Bizarre "Birther" Intellectual Dance

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Two weeks ago I explored the accusation by Leonard Pitts, Jr. that the only reason Barack Obama's birth certificate was being raised as an issue was because of inherent racism, "Your race card narrative does not fit, so you must acquit."

I pointed out that numerous white presidential candidates in the past had their qualifications for office challenged on the basis of citizenship or birthplace, including one candidate (Chester A. Arthur) who was alleged by Democratic Party opponents to have been born in Canada, a rumor which persists to this day:

Nearly 123 years after his death, doubts about his US citizenship linger, thanks to lack of documentation and a political foe’s assertion that Arthur was really born in Canada - and was therefore ineligible for the White House, where he served from 1881 to 1885....

The focus on his place of birth became an issue in the 1880 presidential campaign, when Arthur was tapped to be the running mate for Garfield.

According to historical accounts, Republican bosses wanted him to provide proof of his birthplace, but he never did.

Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, alleging that he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield. Hinman traveled to Vermont and Canada to research Arthur’s past, eventually concluding that Arthur was born in Canada but appropriated the birth records of a baby brother who was born in Fairfield, but died as an infant.

He later incorporated the findings into a book titled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States.’’

You mean Democrats played the "Birther" card against a white Republican from Vermont?  But Mr. Pitts and so many other people are telling us that this only happened to the first black president:

"He needs to stop saying that racist bulls**t birther s**t," [John] Legend told told Vulture last night in New York City. "Quote me please. He should be ashamed of himself. It's awful, really."

As proof that questioning Obama's citizenship must be based on racism, people point to the fact that nobody ever worried about or tried to obtain Bush's birth certificate, right?

• Ya'll never asked to see George Bush's birth certificate
• "Someone should ask Trump why never asked Bush, Clinton, Reagan or Carter for their birth certificat­es.”
• Where were the Republlicans when George Bush never was never asked about his Birth Certificate?
•  I never heard any white president asked to be shown the birth certificate

Wrong:

Four days before the runoff, Reese produced a copy of Bush's birth certificate and accused Bush of omitting the fact that he was born in New Haven. A Bush aide insisted it was an error of "punctuation" – not deliberate deception. The brochure had said: "Born July 6, 1946 and raised in Midland, Texas."

The year Bush's birth certificate was obtained and passed around by an opponent for political gain was 1978.  Which may explain why no one asked for Bush's birth certificate in 2000.

Oh well, no one ever said you needed consistency to play the race card.

-------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

I warn you, this is hard to follow.  I'm not even sure I have the sequence down.  But as with many fights in which accusations of racism are thrown around loosely, I'm not sure the precise sequence matters.  And toss Twitter into the mix, and it becomes near impossible to unravel.

What does matter is that there is a massive fissure in the Democratic Base (more on that later) in which Joan Walsh, one of the Grande Dames of the Professional Left stands accused of racism and white privilege after a comment over who is Obama's "base."

The history is laid out in almost incomprehensible posts at The Angry Black Lady, The Extreme Liberal, and Salon.com. 

For simplicity sake, some background is summarized at The Atlantic, Joan Walsh Sparks Twitter Brawl Over Obama And Race:

The Players: Joan Walsh, Salon.com editor-at-large; numerous outraged Twitterers

Opening Serve: Joan Walsh commented on the state of American progressivism in a Salon article this week, in which she wrote, "I deeply resent people who insist that white progressives who criticize Obama are deluding themselves that they're his 'base,' when his 'base' is actually not white progressives, but people of color."

Return Volley: A tweeter by the name of Truthrose1 took offense to Walsh's comment and wrote, "@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of the Dem party and ignore AA's, we are even," sparking a back and forth between Walsh, Truthrose1, and several others that continues to drag on. Walsh attempted to defend herself by noting, "Not saying white progressives are THE base; opposite. But I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE. Wrong," but Truthrose1 shot back instantly with the comment, among others, of "PBO is not your lap dog, thank god Gibbs called out the liars in the progressive media, u have done nothing but act like baggers."

I'll admit, it's hard to follow all this, as is the case with most Twitter wars, but I repeat myself.

What is clear is that there is a growing fissure in the Democratic "base" over criticism by the (mostly White) Professional Left, as reflected in this Twitter exchange:


And this one:

And this one:

And this one:

And this one:


And this one:



Even Jane Hamsher's name was dragged into this, showing there is a deep resentment not only towards Walsh, but also another Grande Dame of the Professional Left:


Who won, who lost? I have no idea, but a fairly extensive list of the tweets involved is at Chirpstory. 

Bring plenty of popcorn, and tell me the ending, I don't mind a spoiler.

Update:  Until the Twitter war above, I had never heard the term "Firebagger."
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Donald Trump has pushed the issue of Barack Obama's birthplace and citizenship back onto the front pages.

I'm not going to revisit the merits of the issue, but I will note the continuing tendency to treat any questions as to the issue of Obama's eligibility as inherently a reflection of racism.

This time from Leonard Pitts, Jr., writing in the Detroit Free Press (emphasis mine):

"So it is time to call this birther nonsense what it is -- not just claptrap, but profoundly racist claptrap....

It is telling that the white candidate who was, in fact, not born in the U.S.A. (Sen. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone) did not face these questions, while the black one who was born in Hawaii has been unable to escape them....

Frankly, I wish Trump and his fellow birthers would just go ahead and call Obama an N-word. Yes, it would be reprehensible and offensive.

But it would be a damn sight more honest, too."

Actually, John McCain was challenged on the issue of whether he was a natural born citizen.  It's even on the internet, so it should not have been very difficult for Mr. Pitts to find. 

And such questions didn't start in 2008, McCain was challenged on the issue in the run-up to the 2000 primaries, as reported in the early days of the internet by a columinst for The Washington Post:

John McCain has more pressing worries than eligibility on the road to the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. After his lead role in pushing campaign-finance and tobacco legislation, both anathema to the Senate GOP leadership, the Arizona senator may have to spend a lot of time trying to prove his party credentials before he ever gets to Iowa or New Hampshire.

But is he constitutionally qualified to become president?

And the issue came up again in 2008, as reported at MSNBC.com:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer....

And at The NY Times.com:

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming....

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

There also this thing called the United States Senate.  And it has a website too.  And if Mr. Pitts had searched really hard, Mr. Pitts could have found a document.  And that document was a Resolution.  And the Resolution, co-sponsored by Barack Obama, declared that John McCain was a natural born citizen.  You see, questions about whether John McCain was eligible to serve as President were so prominent that the United States Senate took up the issue (although I'm not sure it's determination is binding).


Wait a second.  This does not fit the narrative.  All these white people had their eligibility challenged or at least questioned based on birthplace or speculation as to birthplace.  And it's even on the internet.

But didn't Mr. Pitts just tell us that this only is happening to Barack Obama because Obama is not-white?  Is it even remotely possible, in Mr. Pitt's wildest imagination, that some people actually take constitutional eligibility requirements seriously?

And while we're on it, who exactly would play politics with such things?  Only conservative racists? 

Note that the MSNBC article quoted above pointed out that questions about John McCain's eligibility were being raised in the liberal blogosphere.  Like at Crooks and Liars, which posted a clip from CNN on the issue, and then wondered: "It's a question for legal minds now, but how funny would it be if after all this, John McCain would be forced to bow out of the race on grounds of ineligibility?"

Your race card narrative does not fit, Mr. Pitts, so you must acquit those you have charged with racism.

Update 4-3-2011 - Reverand Al is singing the same tune -



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

The District of Columbia has a special status that does not provide it with full voting representation in Congress, due to its unique history. 

Until recently, D.C. did have a vote on something called the Committee of the Whole, a not particularly important device in Congress. 

In early January 2011, the new Republican House made a rule change which took away D.C. representative Eleanor Holmes Norton's vote on the Committee of the Whole, and there were screams of racism from David Dayen at Firedoglake, who wrote

"it wouldn’t be a Republican majority if they weren’t taking an African-American’s voting rights away." 

Teddy Partridge, also at FDL, wrote:

But by so doing, House leaders signal to their non-racist teabagger base that they will do anything they can to ensure that DC residents, majority African-American, are less well represented in Congress than they were yesterday. And that they will do it first of all!

In fact, much of the argument for statehood for D.C., or at least full congressional voting, has centered around the alleged racist implications of the non-represented status of a majority black city.  An article in Ebony Magazine in 1990 argued that D.C. was being treated differently due to race:

But why all the fuss over making the district a state? The fuss, insiders say, isn't really over statehood. It's over power. Major league national power. Full political equality for a state, with a 70 percent Black majority.

This is the bottom line, then: If the district becomes a state, it would be entitled to elect two senators - senators who would almost certainly be Black and Democratic. And when you talk about giving Black people that kind of power at that level, simple solutions become very complex, very fast.

"It is obvious that racism and political bigotry are what really block the way to statehood for the District of Columbia," nationally syndicated columnist Carl Rowan says. "When Hawaii was up for statehood, the opponents mostly whispered that there ought not be a state run mostly by Asians. Now the bigots are saying openly that statehood for the District of Columbia would produce the `disaster' of two Black members of the U.S. Senate... and Jesse Jackson probably would be one of them. Why should America have a Senate in which there is not a single Black voice...? It is time we got national leaders...who will show the guts to stand against racism and... do for D.C. what others did for Hawaii and Alaska."

As the comments by Dayen and Partridge reflect, portraying D.C.'s lack of representation in racial terms still is the party line, including by D.C.'s "shadow" Senator Paul Strauss:

Strauss hints that past attempts to make the district a state were blindsided by racism, since its populace was and is predominantly black.

He admits the last two years – with a liberal black president and an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress – were the best shot at achieving statehood.

“It sure should have been,” Strauss grumbled. “We lost an opportunity to accomplish what was essentially our moment. Somehow we thought if we asked for less democracy we would get more. We ended up creating more diversion than solutions.”

I don't believe that for a second. 

Not only does D.C. have a unique history, the opposition to statehood or full representation in Congress stems from the fact that the residents of D.C., regardless of race or ethnicity, would vote Democratic Party.  It is a purely political issue, with Democrats seeking an advantage and Republicans content with the status quo.  The use of the race card really is just a tawdry attempt to sway the debate to the advantage of Democrats.

But a funny thing happened on the way to playing the race card when it comes to D.C. representation.

The just-released 2010 census numbers reflect that the percentage of non-Hispanic blacks has dropped to 50% and is falling, and non-Hispanic blacks are heading to minority status in D.C.:

Non-Hispanic blacks are on the verge of losing their majority in the District of Columbia as their population is being pushed out to the south and east of the city while the central city becomes increasingly diverse and whites concentrate in the western half of the District, new census data show.

Non-Hispanic black residents have dropped by more than 39,000 people and now account for just 50 percent of D.C.'s population. By comparison, non-Hispanic blacks comprised 70 percent of the District's population at the peak of expansion in 1980, according to Benjamin Orr, a Brookings Institution research analyst. Meanwhile white, Asian and Hispanic populations are all on the rise.

The shift follows a trend seen in other cities, especially in the north, of blacks leaving urban environments while other races' populations grow.

So if D.C.'s racial makeup has changed and it no longer is majority black, the race card alone is not going to work.
 
Partridge, in the link above, hinted at what may be the new strategy.  Denying D.C. statehood or at least full congressional representation is both racist and homophobic:

55% of these residents are African-American. More than eight percent of adults in DC are LGBT....It’s important to track the backwards steps this GOP House takes to satisfy its non-racist, non-sexist teabagger base. This disenfranchisement of African-American and LGBT DC residents is the first of many of these steps.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Aaron Worthing of Patterico's Pontifications and Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress had a bit of a spitting match this week over this Yglesias' post titled Stuff White People Like: Republicans (emphasis mine):

"A good series of charts by Lee Drutman shows that one of the best predictors of declining Democratic partisan ID between 2008 and 2010 is the number of white people .... I used to hold to the view that the growing non-white share of the electorate would, over time, tip elections to Democrats. I now think the system will remain near equilibrium and what we’ll instead see is white voters growing more Republican as Democrats are more and more seen as the party of non-whites. Mississippi and Arizona, after all, have very large minority votes but they’re hardly hotbeds of liberalism. Instead they’re hotbeds of very conservative white people. This does mean, however, that politics will become even more abstracted away from “the issues” and questions of identity will become even more central."

Worthing wrote that Yglesias was race-baiting:

"And just in time [for this post], Yglesias and Think Progress publish this tripe. Here’s a hint, you cheap race-baiter. Just because the majority of people wanting something might be white, doesn’t make it automatically racist. Indeed, the belief that a view is necessarily racist unless there is a rainbow of colors supporting it is itself racist."

To which Yglesias responded:

"I defy you to read my post and find any instance of me calling anyone a racist. The hyperactive response here does, however, remind me of one of the signal qualities of modern American politics, namely conservatives’ absolute conviction that overzealous anti-racism is a major social ill. Personally, I don’t see it and I’m genuinely staring across a void of incomprehension when I see this sentiment from the right. But it’s clearly the major driver of conservative movement thinking on race in America."

Worthing's further response is here.

The important thing for tonight's Card Game is not to get in the middle of someone else's blog war (I've had my own issues before), but to wonder how Yglesias stares "across a void of incomprehension" when he sees conservatives react to what he calls "overzealous anti-racism."

Yglesias' formulation begs the question. Why is it "overzealous anti-racism" or even "anti-racism" to reduce everything to race?

Focusing on race as the explanation for politics is something Yglesias does with great frequency, as reflected in these posts:

• Stuff White People Really Like
• Stuff White People Like - Disapproving of Barack Obama
• Progressive Urbanism - Stuff White People Like
• The (White) Kids Are All Right
• White Men Are Not Very Progressive

Yglesias is not alone, nor is he the worst.  The liberal media obsesses about how Tea Party events are "overwhelmingly white" and with the number of non-white faces at Sarah Palin book signings.  Here are some prior posts on the subject:

• Obama Bitterly Clings to Bitter Clinger Stereotypes
• An Allergic Reaction To The Race Card
• White Privilege Syndrome By Proxy
• I'm Not Racist, I Know People Who Voted For Obama
• Diversity for Thee But Not For We

Is this focus on the whiteness of conservatives, Tea Parties, and opposition to Obama in general merely reporting facts or even part of a greater anti-racism effort?

Yglesias is being too cute at least by half.  By focusing on the whiteness of crowds or groups, Ygelsias and other liberal media make an implicit charge of racism without actually using the word "racist," thereby leaving themselves an out when challenged.  And that is how Yglesias reacted to Worthing, insisting he never called anyone a "racist."

The focus on race is a means of putting conservatives and Tea Parties on the defensive, by suggesting that the skin colors in a crowd reflect racial preferences of the participants.

The best proof that there is no neutral motive to the focus on race is that it is a one way street.  Race is an obsession of the left only to the extent the crowd is "overwhelmingly white," not when the crowd is "overwhelmingly not white."

Yglesias just can't seem to understand that we do not view the world through a racial prism, and we resent it when others impute such a view onto us.  We care about what is in the mind and heart, not skin color.  I realize that is incomprehensible to those who are schooled in the ways of racial politics, but that is their problem, not ours.

Here is a video I have posted before, which sums it up better than  I ever could.  The reporter also stares across a void of incomprehension:



Update 3-20-2011 - More from John Rosenberg, Anti-Racism, Anti-Anti Racism, And Liberal White Guilt.


--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

If you have followed this series, you have seen the absurd depths to which liberal pundits and political operatives will go to inject race into non-racial situations, and to explain almost all opposition to Obama as implicitly if not explicitly racist.

This stereotyped view of opposition to Obama derives not only from liberal dogma, but from Obama himself.

Obama's view was evidenced in April 2008, before it was even clear he would defeat Hillary Clinton, and long before substantial anti-Obama sentiment grew in the country. 

At a private fundraiser which Obama did not know was being taped, Obama expressed his disdain for Democratic primary voters who opposed him with the now famous "bitter clinger" comments:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Remember, Obama made his bitter clinger comments before there was a Tea Party movement, before there was opposition to what would become Obamacare, before Sarah Palin was a national figure, and before Obama had even won the nomination. 

In fact, in April 2008 there was support among Republicans for Obama as a means of stopping Hillary, as reflected in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos and other efforts to make the Democratic primary more competitive for Obama.  To the extent there were any questions being raised at that time regarding Obama's birthplace and citizenship, such questions were being raised by other Democrats. 

The theme that racism was the source of opposition to Obama was prevalent throughout the primary season and general election.  It was a theme used to Obama's great advantage against Hillary and McCain:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Fast forward to May 2010, and Obama asserted a view of the Tea Party movement which was very similar to the bitter clinger view Obama took in April 2008 toward Democratic primary voters.

As reported in U.S. News, at a private dinner Obama asserted that racism was a primary motivation for the Tea Party movement and for opposition to Obama's policies:

In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.

While Obama says he wants a post-racial American, in fact Obama bitterly clings to bitter clinger stereotypes.

It seems unfathomable to Obama that people actually oppose his policies on the merits, and he seems not to care that each play of the race card is insulting and infuriating and tears the country a little bit further apart.

We do not cling -- bitterly or otherwise.  And we don't like being accused of being something we are not.

[Note:  I made a correction as to Operation Chaos because, as a commenter pointed out, the goal was not to help Obama but to keep the Democratic primary competitive, although it defintely was true that for a long time Republicans were focused on stopping Hillary, not Obama.]

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
"Race" As Political Weapon
An Allergic Reaction To The Race Card

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

And now we go deeper into the linguistic gymnastics which are required to avoid being called a racist. 

Having covered Black Friday, Black Hole, Providence Plantations, Rejigger, Gobbledygook, and "No Asians," among other words and phrases, we will now move on to rhyme.

The subject tonight is the 200+ year old English nursery rhyme, Baa Baa Black Sheep:

Baa, baa, black sheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir,
Three bags full.
One for the master,
One for the dame,
And one for the little boy
Who lives down the lane.

The rhyme has nothing to do with human races.  The 1744 reference to "black sheep" actually appears to be a reference to black sheep.  The claim that the rhyme contains a reference to slavery is disputed by someone who has studied the subject.
 
But that is not good enough for some school administrators in Australia, who are so politically correct that they are teaching school children to sing "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep":

"BLACK sheep are on the endangered species list as some children in north Queensland learn to sing Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep.

The English nursery rhyme may have survived for 200-plus years but political correctness could finally put it out to pasture.

Some schools in Britain have banned the song for being racist, but Pelicans Innisfail Child Care allows children to sing about black sheep or rainbow sheep.

Director Pam McLaughlin said some teachers sang the changed lyrics, and some children already knew the changes....

Ms McLaughlin said she thought changing the lyrics was a bit confusing for children. "You can get a black sheep but you can't get a rainbow sheep.""

Apparently the controversy is not new.  There have been repeated attempts  in Britain to stop having school children recite the rhyme. 
 
There are Facebook pages for both  Baa Black Sheep and Rainbow Sheep devoted to debating the topic, in case you want your voice heard on the subject (but not until you join my Facebook page!).

Just don't drink any black coffee while commenting, or you will be in big trouble.



And be sure to put a rainbow cat bumper sticker on your car so that you are not mistaken for one of those racist Tea Party supporters (via reader PapaTodd):


You have to be proactive on these matters, because gossip spreads like, well, you know.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Paul Daniels is a famous British magician, who among other things, performance a Crusher Illusion:
 


But it's going to take some special magic for Daniels to win the Saturday Night Card Game tonight, because Daniels stands accused of racism for these two tweets he made a couple of days ago joking that the term "Brit" should not be used since "Paki" also was a derogatory term:



These seemingly innocuous tweets, questioning why one ethnic abbreviation is acceptable while the other is not, have landed Daniels in a controversy from which he will have trouble escaping.

As reported by The Telegraph, Paul Daniels accused of racism after 'Paki' tweet:

Daniels, 72, wrote on Twitter during the Brit Awards ceremony last week: "What's this about 'Brit' awards? Surely not? Isn't that like calling someone a 'Paki'? Not PC dahlings."

He quickly added: "Hey, all I am saying is that I don't understand why one abbrev is OK and another isn't. It's all how you say it surely, not the ab itself."

Sam Tarry, campaign organiser with the anti-racism group Searchlight, said: "The word 'Paki' is offensive and racist, it is not something that can be compared to the word 'Brit'.

"It has been used not just to define people from Pakistan, but Asian people in general, and it has a long, nasty history. In the 1970s people used to talk about 'Paki-bashing'."

In response to someone who called him racist on Twitter, Daniels struggled to explain that merely mentioning the word "Paki" was not the same as using the word in a derogatory manner:


Daniels should have learned by now that logic and reasoning are no escape in this politically correct world.
In the future, when talking about that word which starts with "P" and ends in "i" and is considered an offensive ethnic slur by some, Daniels should use the phrase "the 'P' word."

Wait, that will not work, "P" already is taken. [link content warning]

Uh-oh.  I knew this day would come.  We've run out of letters to substitute for bad words.

How do we get out of this one?

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

I could have taken the easy way out this week, and put up a quick post about the supposedly racist Pepsi commercial during the Superbowl.  Instead, I will jump back into the pool of "white privilege," which was the subject of a post 51 weeks ago.

Let's start with the concept of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSP)(emphasis mine):

Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSP), a type of factitious disorder, is a mental illness in which a person acts as if an individual he or she is caring for has a physical or mental illness when the person is not really sick. The adult perpetrator has MSP and directly produces or lies about illness in another person under his or her care, usually a child under 6 years of age. It is considered a form of abuse by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. However, cases have been reported of adult victims. (The term "by proxy" means "through a substitute.")

People with MSP have an inner need for the other person (often his or her child) to be seen as ill or injured. It is not done to achieve a concrete benefit, such as financial gain. People with MSP are even willing to have the child or patient undergo painful or risky tests and operations in order to get the sympathy and special attention given to people who are truly ill and their families. Factitious disorders are considered mental illnesses because they are associated with severe emotional difficulties.

Then, let's meet the Coalition of Anti-Racist Whites:

CARW is a group of white people in the Seattle area working to undo institutional racism and white privilege through education and organizing in white communities and active support of anti-racist, people of color-led organizations. We support the self-determination of people of color, honor their leadership and are held accountable to people of color-led organizations.

And then let's apply CARW's Working Definition of White (emphasis mine):

CARW believes that whiteness is an invention that has shifted throughout history. Below is a working definition of what it means to be white in the United States. To be white is to have ancestral origins from Europe and/or experience white privilege and/or experience internalized racial superiority.

Ancestral origins from Europe: Rooted in legacies of European colonialism, the white race was initially created by English-speaking men of wealth in order to consolidate power amongst peoples of European origin. In the context of the United States, many ethnically marginalized European immigrants have come to reap the benefits of whiteness through the process of assimilation (e.g., the Irish and Italians became white over time). More recently, many have argued that Latinas/os and people of “Middle-Eastern” origin are white. CARW does not believe these populations reap the privileges of whiteness in the United States, recognizing that communities of color are racialized in distinct ways in relation to whiteness.

Experience of white privilege: Institutions provide benefits to groups of individuals based on their whiteness. As white people experience white privilege, people of color experience racial oppression. Throughout history, whiteness has been constructed as a means to inequitably distribute resources. Contrary to popular belief, white people do not experience racism (i.e., “reverse racism” or otherwise). While we acknowledge the existence of colorism, which serves to divide communities of color based on skin tone; this “light skin privilege” is not the same as white privilege. Additionally, we respect the self-identification of people of mixed heritage and do not see it as the role of white people to determine if individuals “pass” or “don’t pass” as white. Lastly, whiteness operates differently across gender, class, sexual orientation, ability, religion and other facets of social identity.

Internalized racial superiority: In this culture, white people are socialized to internally believe we are superior to people of color. This internalization is seldom acknowledged or overtly expressed, but is nonetheless present in our thoughts and actions. Whiteness operates as the norm within our society and we often believe we are racially neutral. As anti-racist white people, we see it as part of our work to name and challenge this internal process within all of us. [See also, What It's Like To Be White in Ithaca.]

The concept of white privilege as applied by CARW, an organization of only whites (irony alert), reminds me of the diagnosis of MSP. 

The white people at CARW seem to have an inner need for racism to appear to exist in other whites, so as to garner attention for being anti-racist whites.

Whether racism actually exists in any quantifiable or verifiable manner doesn't matter.  CARW has devised a fluid definition of whiteness and white privilege which cannot be contradicted by evidence.  White no longer is a skin color or race, it is a concept.

The more the evidence points away from actual racism based on skin color, the stronger the white privilege argument gets, because failure to recognize racism is one of the hallmarks of white privilege.  (See for example What's It's Like To Be White In Ithaca.)

To use the analogy of MSP, it matters not whether the child is sick, what is important is that the child be seen as sick so that the parent can gain the attention and sympathy which accrues to the parents of sick children.

Because the nation never can be cured of its white privilege, the opponents of white privilege never will stop getting the attention they crave as anti-racists.

*   *   *

And now for some comic relief.  Want an example of white privilege in action?  How about the treatment of Sarah and Bristol Palin. 

According to the self-appointed anti-white privilege commentator below, the Palins had their personal privacy respected whereas people of color in similar circumstances would have been demeaned and subject to ridicule (foul language alert):



Like I said, sick in the head.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
White Privilege Conference
Counting Non-White People at Palin Book Signings
I Am Veit

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!