OH DAMN: Melissa Harris Perry re: Joan Walsh's comment "We are not friends."

[wndycty]

UPDATE: Walsh has apologized to Perry

@MHarrisPerry I certainly apologize for saying we were friends, Melissa. I did not deploy it as a shield, but to acknowledge my affection

http://twitter.com/#!/joanwalsh/status/118370715891281920

I want the two of them to have a public dialogue about this, we could learn a lot. I do consider Walsh to be an imperfect ally to the Black community. Before you criticize me for calling her imperfect, focus on my calling her an ally.

The Epistemology of Race Talk
Melissa Harris-Perry on September 26, 2011 - 10:46am ET
I logged onto Twitter on Sunday night and discovered that my recent article for The Nation was causing a bit of a stir. Some members of the white liberal political community are appalled and angry that I suggested racial bias maybe responsible for the President’s declining support among white Americans. I found some responses to my piece to be fair and important, others to be silly and nonresponsive, and still others to be offensive personal attacks. But those categories are par for the course.

I make it a practice not to defend my public writings. Because I often write about provocative topics like race, gender, sexual orientation and reproductive rights, if I defended every piece I wrote against critics I would find little time to sleep. But the responses to this recent article have been revealing in ways that I find typical of our contemporary epistemology of race. Often, those of us who attempt to talk about historical and continuing racial bias in America encounter a few common discursive strategies that are meant to discredit our perspectives. Some of them are in play here.
-snip-

2. I have black friends

Which brings us to a second common strategy of argument about one’s racial innocence: the “I have black friends” claim. I was shocked and angered when Salon’s Joan Walsh used this strategy in her criticism of my piece. Although I disagree with her, I have no problem with Walsh’s decision to take on the claims in my piece. I consider it a sign of respect to publicly engage those with whom you disagree. I was taken aback that Walsh emphasized the extent of our friendship. Walsh and I have been professionally friendly. We’ve eaten a few meals. I invited her to speak at Princeton and I introduced her to my literary agent. We are not friends. Friendship is a deep and lasting relationship based on shared sacrifice and joys. We are not intimates in that way. Watching Walsh deploy our professional familiarity as a shield against claims of her own bias is very troubling. In fact it is one of the very real barriers to true interracial friendship and intimacy.

Interracial friendship should, ideally, encourage the desire to investigate one’s own racial privilege and bias, not to use the identity of one’s friends against any claim that such bias even exists. As an ally in LGBT struggles I have learned this lesson repeatedly. As an ally my role is to speak up for LGBT issues when in heteronormative environments and to shut up when being spoken to by gay and transgendered persons. I was harshly criticized for my failure to account for trans-phobia and trans-hatred and trans-violence in my discussions of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Marriage Equality. My critics were absolutely right. My cis-privilege had blinded me to the ways that power was operating very differently for trans-citizens.

Friends certainly criticize friends, but allies also pause to listen. It is completely possible that I am absolutely wrong about white racial bias on the left against President Obama. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong in my political analysis. But listen to this for a moment white allies: many African Americans (not all, but many) feel that the attacks on President Obama are racialized on both the right and the left. This feeling has meaningful implications for the quality of our national, political fabric. When we tell you that the attacks are racially troubling, painful we would like you to take our concerns seriously rather than working to simply defend yourself against the claims.
-snip-

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163629/epistemology-race-talk

[OneGrassRoot]

1. Wow. I'm heading to the link now....

but I must say once again what I say repeatedly, and get dissed for saying: Racism is alive and well in the United States, and we MUST HAVE AN OPEN, HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT IT or it will never heal.

First, however, we must be completely honest with ourselves in order to have an authentic discussion with others.

I admire both of these ladies. Thanks for the post. I'm off to read the specifics involved, but my point here is the same, regardless of what Ms. Walsh or others said.


K&R

[Jakes Progress]

172. Apples. Oranges.

Yes racism exists. Nothing wrong with an open discussion.

But the point of the article was that the reason Obama was losing support from liberals is because he is black and they are racist. That is bullshit.

The premise is so destructive and logically dishonest that some try to say that Walsh said there is no racism. She didn't.

This is another ploy from the ever-faithful to stifle any criticism of Obama. If you complain, you must be a racist. That is so beneath contempt and runs counter to everything the civil rights movement stood for.

If you disagree, then perhaps you could name the DU members who have become disenchanted with Obama because they are racists.

[OneGrassRoot]

175. Are you posting in response to me?

As you can see, I was the first response, and I made it clear I hadn't read all the content. I was just grateful that it seemed a dialogue about this topic may start.

This is another ploy from the ever-faithful to stifle any criticism of Obama. If you complain, you must be a racist. That is so beneath contempt and runs counter to everything the civil rights movement stood for.

If you disagree, then perhaps you could name the DU members who have become disenchanted with Obama because they are racists.

My god, the accusations and knee-jerk lashing out on this board are astounding.

I have never stated nor intimated anything of the sort.

I advocate a discussion about racism and bigotry in this country -- not even specifically as it concerns Obama, but the subject in general.

[Jakes Progress]

186. It was a reply to your post. It was not

a reply pointing to you. You did indeed point out that you had not read the article. My reply was my position on that article in the light of someone who had evidently not picked a side from which to "lash out".

I could have been more clear with my use of the pronoun "you" If you read the quote you selected from my post, you will see that I conditioned the post with the reference to the "ever-faithful". The you that followed was referring to those who complain about any of Obama's decisions. Those who take this position - that to complain means the complainer is a racist - are the ones beneath contempt.

The last line was for you. I simply suggested that if you disagreed with the premise that accusing dissenters of racism is repellant, you could move things along by naming those DUers that should be labeled racist. This, of course, was a cap on the argument. It was not a claim that you had decided to use the low class strategy, but an emphasis of where such a tactic would lead.

I have no problem with a discussion of racism and bigotry. It is overdue and much needed. This campaign strategy of calling dissent racism is not that. It is a method being used to stop political discussion.

Have you read the articles now? Do you have an opinion on Perry's claim that white liberals are trending toward non-support for Obama because of their inherent racism?

[OneGrassRoot]

187. It may be easier for you to peruse the posts below, as I commented frequently....

after having read everything.

I'll try to summarize my thoughts, though I don't have time to quote specifics from the various articles at the moment (though I did in other posts throughout this thread).

1. I absolutely agree with MHP's Point #1 in her original article, with regard to institutional racism in this country.

2. I do not personally agree with her Point #2 in which she compares Obama's presidency to Clinton's. For a variety of reasons (many of which I believe Joan Walsh spoke of in her response), I don't feel that comparison is accurate. We're simply a different country, a different party, different individuals now.

3. I did NOT interpret what MHP wrote, in response to Joan Walsh, as suggesting that Joan Walsh is a racist (though I do comment below about my reaction to the "not a friend" comment).

4. I definitely did NOT interpret what MHP wrote as painting with a broad brush as others have interpreted it. I did NOT come away with the message that she feels all white liberals who no longer support Obama are doing so based on racism.

What I DID come away with, which is THE most important point to me in this brouhaha, is this:

If MHP (or anyone else) feels racism (or bigotry) plays a role AT ALL, it is worthy of discussion. Whenever anyone feels racism or bigotry are involved in a situation or interaction -- regardless of whether other people disagree or feel it's misplaced -- I firmly believe it should be discussed.

When those words enter into the conversation, it should be the BEGINNING of discussion, NOT the end.

I don't share MHP's or anyone's life experience unless they're a white, self-employed, single mom. I happened to grow up in an extraordinarily racist, bigoted environment, so I'm hyper-vigilant about such things. Even if my initial personal impression is that, no, racism isn't the prevalent cause of any white liberals who criticize or no longer support Obama, I don't doubt that in some instances that may very well be the case.

And to ignore those "some instances" and not even discuss it calmly and respectfully -- as though racism and bigotry within the community of progressives/liberals/democrats doesn't exist and it's taboo to say it, with some people interpreting such comments as blanket statements that it pertains to ALL progressives/liberals/democrats -- is a huge disservice to our society in general, in my opinion.

I also think it's a disservice to President Obama, specifically, at this point in time. (Edit to add that I include this because many have voiced their opinion over the last few years that any discussion of racism is damaging to Obama and is a distraction.)

I think everyone should have a voice about these issues and have the chance to be HEARD, to explain their perspectives.

Even if it starts off awkward, as in this case with the whole "not my friend" dust-up, it's worth continuing the discussion and getting to the heart of why people feel the way they do.

[Jakes Progress]

193. Thank you for a reasoned reply.

It is not the normal case in such issues.

A point of disagreement that we have is over whether the MHP piece does use a broad brush approach. See. I am an old coot. I walked in a dozen civil rights marches in my youth. I stood against the police and rod in the vans. I have worked with and for minorities most of my life. My volunteer work now is primarily based on fighting for the most basic civil rights for the unemployed and homeless. My life is richer in so many ways because of the diverse nature of my friends and colleagues. So, when I am told that my motives are because of my deep-seated racism, i feel broad brushed.

That is only my personal little problem with the piece. The broader issue is that it removes the discussion from the political. Although we need a continuing discussion of the racism, sexism, and homophobia in the country, I don't think that attacking white liberal racism as the cause of Obama's problems with the progressive base is at all a productive way to do that. It is much more a matter of shutting down discussion. It is saying, "If you complain about Obama, you are a racist" as a means of stopping dissent. That is not productive and uses the civil rights movement as a political trick. It is demeaning to the memory of those who fought for the advancements we have now.

Obama needs to hear what the progressive base has to say. He doesn't need to be told to ignore it because it is just from some closet liberal racists. Until he hears what is wrong, he won't make the changes in his third-way politics that will reunite him with the millions that swept him into power before. If he stays the course he has charted for two years, he will be a one-termer.

You have shown an open and inquiring mind about the whole issue. There is a small but highly vocal coterie of those on DU who have used this article in the worst possible ways. It is just one place where the wrong-headed and ill-timed article has been used to further divide when unity is needed.

[OneGrassRoot]

194. Thank you...

:hi:

A point of disagreement that we have is over whether the MHP piece does use a broad brush approach. See. I am an old coot. I walked in a dozen civil rights marches in my youth. I stood against the police and rod in the vans. I have worked with and for minorities most of my life. My volunteer work now is primarily based on fighting for the most basic civil rights for the unemployed and homeless. My life is richer in so many ways because of the diverse nature of my friends and colleagues. So, when I am told that my motives are because of my deep-seated racism, i feel broad brushed.

Yes, I simply interpreted her piece differently. We have ink blot tests in action every day. Thank you for the work you've done throughout your life. You have every right to be upset if you felt slighted, given your life experience. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way; again, I honestly don't believe that is what was intended, but I'm not the author, so I don't know....

That is only my personal little problem with the piece. The broader issue is that it removes the discussion from the political. Although we need a continuing discussion of the racism, sexism, and homophobia in the country, I don't think that attacking white liberal racism as the cause of Obama's problems with the progressive base is at all a productive way to do that. It is much more a matter of shutting down discussion. It is saying, "If you complain about Obama, you are a racist" as a means of stopping dissent. That is not productive and uses the civil rights movement as a political trick. It is demeaning to the memory of those who fought for the advancements we have now.

Surely how something is done makes all the difference in the world as to whether or not it opens things for discussion or shuts it down. Then again, in my experience, the mere words (racism, bigotry, homophobia, social justice, etc.) are enough to shut down conversation because most people just don't want to deal with it. It's not an easy conversation to have. I guess I don't understand the reaction most people have to those words.

There is a tendency (and this comes from my own experience in trying to have calm discussions) for people to react to the mere mention of the words as though they are a personal attack, when that is honestly not my intention whatsoever. I don't understand that, but I definitely don't assume that it's because the person is a racist/bigot/homophobe in denial. Do I think that's the case sometimes? Absolutely. But any broad brushing, or the misplaced perception of broad brushing, seems to always take us off track altogether. I hear you.

Obama needs to hear what the progressive base has to say. He doesn't need to be told to ignore it because it is just from some closet liberal racists. Until he hears what is wrong, he won't make the changes in his third-way politics that will reunite him with the millions that swept him into power before. If he stays the course he has charted for two years, he will be a one-termer.

I agree. He does need to REALLY LISTEN to the progressive base, and I would hope he wouldn't be advised to ignore it, painting all criticism as racial, regardless of where it's coming from (other than teabaggers). If the concern is that this discussion, and any perceived broad brushing of white liberals (by Obama and his advisers), will prevent him from listening, I totally get that. Thanks for pointing that out.


The lack of unity, and incessant in-fighting, is so....demoralizing. We all feel demoralized already, for a variety of reasons. Some talk about finding common ground with others who don't identify themselves as Democrats because, unless they're really wealthy, we're all victims of the system. That would be great, but we can't even maintain common ground amongst us.

:(

Thanks again, Jakes Progress.



edit for typo

[grasswire]

2. ouch

Melissa is a gem.

[hlthe2b]

3. Wow...

If I am following her, then she really is suggesting that one must totally belong to the "club" to understand the club's issues--whether it be one of LGBT, race, ethnicity, gender. Ok... Let's accept that premise. Then why is it that she believes she can delineate white racial bias? Since when are all white progressives/liberals/democrats homogenous in their views towards Obama, towards race, towards progressive goals, expectations, objectives?

If those who have been long term "residents" of this and other progressive forums have learned anything, the disquiet that some on the left feel towards President Obama is based on a myriad of factors and complexities. While I don't deny in any way the continuation of racism in this country--even among those who fight hard to move past it, to suggest that that all disappointment towards Obama boils down to racial bias? Unless I have misinterpreted her point, I am left very disappointed and somewhat baffled. I really though Melissa Harris-Perry to be above such shallow thinking.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. It's worth reading her article at the link...

I'm reading it now and trying to absorb it myself, with an open mind. Whether the type of racism she is speaking of is in play or not -- and she did say she could be wrong, but that she's expressing her opinion -- I personally think the presence of racism in this day and age is something that should be discussed more openly.

You make great points though.

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

25. I did.... And to suggest Clinton got a pass, while Obama is not...

and that that is attributable only to racial bias is to exclude that gargantuan difference-- Obama is facing enormous challenges at a time when the stakes are so much higher than during the Clinton years. We face not only a worldwide recession (and very likely a double dip that in retrospect in future years may end up looking more like a true "depression" ), but an accompanying collapse of the middle class and an overwhelming increase in poverty. We have an aging lay-off prone population facing age discrimination in hiring and a youthful population facing an equally dismal job market. More and more of our population have lost any hope of home ownership after seeing the blatant criminality of the banking industry that has seized homes in foreclosure at a record rate, with little attempt to work out solutions. Not to mention the grinding pain from two wars... If American progressives are less "forgiving," less willing to give benefit of the doubt, it is arguably because the stakes are so damned higher now.

Had Clinton had the same level of "success" and conversely "failure" in against a recalcitrant and obstructive RETHUG congress during his tenure while ALSO facing the same level of economic and societal "pain", I sincerely doubt he would have face less criticism and diminished support than Obama. Yet where is this factor in MHP's analysis? Racism seems to be an all-too easy default explanation, but a highly simplistic one. Someone of Harris-Perry's intellectual caliber should know better.

I am not abandoning Obama, but I have my share of disappointments and concerns. While I acknowledge that none of us can be free of race as an influence on our thinking, I can say without reservation that if Clinton were President today with the accomplishments, failures, and challenges of Obama's current record and pursuing the same strategies and policies, I would view him (Clinton)with the same disappointments and concerns.

[OneGrassRoot]

28. Several things...

I read Melissa's original piece and Joan's article, to which Melissa is responding in the OP link.

Here's Joan's article: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/09/25/white_liberals_obama


I agree with Melissa's points about the validity of institutional racism, and that we'd all be better served to open a dialogue about racism, and to do so with the intent to listen, rather than defend ourselves.

I also agree with Joan's points as to why the comparison of Clinton and Obama isn't really valid, since so much time has passed and WE have changed, as a nation, as liberals, as individuals. I agree with what you have said here, hlthe2b.

I agree with all three of you. :)

But to speak to any racism that may or may not exist within the so-called liberal community towards Obama, I can't say that it absolutely does NOT exist.

Yes, there are many reasons beyond racism for people to be disappointed in Obama. And while I don't feel it's accurate or the right thing to do to paint with a broad brush saying discontent is due to racism in some way, I do think it's worth stepping back and seeing if it exists at all, and discussing it.

Actually, the only thing I disagree with within all three articles referenced is Melissa's comment about Joan and friendship. Beyond that, there is a very, very good discussion to be had as a result of their interactions, imho.

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

34. I think we are in broad agreement...

And, yes, it is sad that MHP had to include the snarky comment about "friendship" with respect to Joan Walsh. As unnecessary and non-conducive to useful discussion as the post that started out to me that "they did not expect me to understand."

Those kind of tactics just cut off constructive dialogue from the "get go".

Thanks for including the link to Joan's piece. I will go read that now.

[Empowerer]

13. I don't think that's what she's saying at all

I think she's saying that some people have unique insights by virtue of their personal experiences (what you call membership in "the club") and that those insights should be considered rather than dismissed just because someone else hasn't had similar experiences. Those insights are an important part of these conversations but all-too-often, rather than giving them any credence or even basic respect, some people - usually those with the luxury of being in the dominant majority - tend to discount them and treat those of us who try to share them as part of the conversation as if we've brought flies to the picnic.

[Hutzpa]

26. Not that I expect you to understand

but there are numerous examples to look at if you are trying to find answers on what she is referring to,
my suggestion to you would be to keep in mind all that this President has accomplished in comparison to Bush
and Clinton, yet there is this great misconception floating around that Obama has not done enough even
though majority of the people saying this are well aware of the circumstances he is confronted with, eg
Congress refusing to pass anything that will benefit the people of America, yet all this is ignored and
Obama is attacked on his integrity and accomplishment.

Frenchie posted Obama's accomplishment in pictures just so people with low comprehension can see what this
president has done, yet people on this forum are posting on that thread their discretion and ill feeling,
pointing out how Gitmo is still open and we still have the troops in Iraq.

Bill Clinton did little compared to Obama but is hailed as one of the best democratic president ever.

[hlthe2b]

29. Starting off a post to me "not that I expect you to understand"

is so offensive, I will not even bother.... You might have intended a constructive discussion, but instead resorted to provocation and flame-baiting.

[Hutzpa]

37. Ok, point taken point made

I should not have stated in that tone so my apologies to you, yet I will like to hear your opinion on
this debate.

[hlthe2b]

39. thank you for recognizing that and replying..

[alsame]

55. Only Centrists consider Clinton to be 'one of the

best Democratic presidents ever.' Most liberals and progressives think he was/is GOP-lite/DLC/Third Way. I'm talking about people in real life, not what the media pundits say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. Yes, you have mis-interpreted her point ...

"While I don't deny in any way the continuation of racism in this country--even among those who fight hard to move past it, to suggest that that all disappointment towards Obama boils down to racial bias?"

Yes, you have mis-interpreted her point; but at the same time you prove her point. MHP has said time and time again that not all, be certain some of that which President Obama is experiencing, e.g., the double-standards, the dimunition of accomplishments, etc, can be attributed to racism.

By casting her point as all or nothing, you are doing exactly what she is talking about.

[hlthe2b]

154. That is absolutely NOT what I am doing...

Normally, I enjoy extending a welcome to new DUers... but normally new DUers don't come right out of the gate making such unwarranted insinuations. :shrug:

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. What is it about some DUers ...

That feel entitled to dismiss the comments of others out of hand and think that's okay?

And that is what we are talking about here ... Isn't it?

[Empowerer]

5. Wow - this is exactly the point I was trying to make in my OP in another thread

riends certainly criticize friends, but allies also pause to listen. It is completely possible that I am absolutely wrong about white racial bias on the left against President Obama. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong in my political analysis. But listen to this for a moment white allies: many African Americans (not all, but many) feel that the attacks on President Obama are racialized on both the right and the left. This feeling has meaningful implications for the quality of our national, political fabric. When we tell you that the attacks are racially troubling, painful we would like you to take our concerns seriously rather than working to simply defend yourself against the claims.

She said it SO much more clearly and eloquently than I did!

Thanks for posting this!

[wndycty]

6. I wonder if and how Joan Walsh will respond

:kick:

[OneGrassRoot]

8. That really is a key point. I'm still reading, but this passage...

hits home as well (from the link in the OP, which hyperlinks to other articles I'm reading as I stumble upon them, to get the full picture here):

"The implication is if one cannot produce irrefutable evidence of clear, blatant, and intentional bias, then racism must be banned as a possibility. But this is both silly as an intellectual claim and dangerous as a policy standard.

In a nation with the racial history of the United States I am baffled by the idea that non-racism would be the presumption and that it is racial bias which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt."


I agree with her #1, now I'm on to read #2.....

[Enrique]

7. people say "my friend" in public life a lot

Walsh made perfectly clear what she meant, no one could come away with the idea that she hangs out with Harris-Perry. Saying "we're not friends" is way too harsh, I don't see the point of it.

I'm going to read this whole thing when I get a chance, this part looks promising, " It is completely possible that I am absolutely wrong about white racial bias on the left against President Obama." I think Melissa Harris-Perry is learning from the responses she got that a lot of people think that's the case. (except for the "absolutely" part, nothing's absolute).

[OneGrassRoot]

16. That's the only part of what Melissa said that I disagree with....

I just read most of Walsh's piece to which Perry was responding. Walsh wrote this:

"When I say Melissa Harris-Perry is my friend, I don't say that rhetorically, or ironically; we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously. That's why I think it's important to engage her argument, and I've invited her to reply."


I think Melissa's comment about friendship was unnecessary and slightly mean-spirited, to be honest, and it takes away from the sound discussion that should be had about these differences of opinion.

I still really, really like and admire both of these women -- as women and as professionals.

[boston bean]

22. It was petty. And she basically called Joan a racist. I don't agree with that.

[vaberella]

91. I'm with Harris-Perry on this. I took Joan Walsh's comment literally.

So I don't care what Walsh tried to mean, if it's not a fact Harris-Perry had a right to state it and she stated it clearly. She wasn't harsh. She was clear and concise. That's how I roll.

[thereismore]

9. An awesome blog. nt

[Pisces]

10. I love that she called Joan Walsh to the carpet. Friends are different from social colleagues. Why

Attack Melissa Perry for pointing out how many African Americans feel and interpret the aggressive criticism of the President.

[OneGrassRoot]

19. I think it's really helpful to read both pieces that led to what Perry wrote here...

I see both points. I have definitive opinions about some aspects of what is discussed, yet don't have a definitive opinion about other aspects.

It's a good discussion to have, imho.

But here is what Walsh wrote regarding the friendship thing:

"When I say Melissa Harris-Perry is my friend, I don't say that rhetorically, or ironically; we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously. That's why I think it's important to engage her argument, and I've invited her to reply."


I think Melissa essentially dissing Joan regarding the friendship comment was unnecessary. Other than that, I completely agree with what she (Melissa) wrote in the original piece.

On the other hand, I don't think Joan attacked her at all, but this is such a touchy subject that it's nearly impossible to have a calm, intelligent discussion about it, especially in mixed race discussions.

But we really, really must learn to, imho.

I do agree that being mindful of how the other person feels -- the one who has experienced the racism or bigotry -- is more important than trying to defend oneself.

We need to really, really listen to one another about this.

(Sorry, this is a subject that is foremost on my mind these days, so I tend to ramble, even in comments to others' posts...lol)

:hi:

[boston bean]

27. Joan probably won't reply. I probably wouldn't. There is no place to go, once someone

basically calls you a racist.

How could either side ever get over that.

There is just nothing left to say. So, so much for the conversation.

[wndycty]

30. She apologized, I updated the OP to reflect that

:kick:

[boston bean]

32. Walsh apologized for calling Melissa a friend, and that settle it? nt

[Supersedeas]

163. She'll know better next time.

[OneGrassRoot]

31. I'm hoping they both have the emotional wherewithal to move beyond it...

They're both very intelligent individuals, with perspectives and insight of value and the ability to express it well.

We need to have this discussion. I hope they move beyond it and continue this discussion.

[wndycty]

33. I hope they don't and dialogue . . . I trust both will approach it constructively

:kick:

[boston bean]

35. If someone thinks you are a racist, what conversation is there to be had.

Who would want to, and why, have a discussion with someone who you think HATES you, or you feel is a racist?

Is Joan Walsh a racist?

[OneGrassRoot]

41. I simply disagree

I think there is a significant conversation that needs to be had, and both of them opened the door to it quite brilliantly.

I don't think Melissa was calling Joan a racist, nor does it seem that Joan took it that way.

Personally, I don't think conversations should END when the word racism or racist come up; the conversation should BEGIN there.

That's just my opinion.

[Hutzpa]

51. I completely agree with that assessment too

the conversation should not end there but should start from there as too many times people have
shied away from or if you like swept the word racism under the carpet one it is mentioned.

So lets go Joan, lets see you defend yourself.

[wndycty]

52. I don't think its about Walsh defending herself, its about Walsh and Perry having a diaglogue

:kick:

[boston bean]

53. Joan should defend herself, from what the racism accusation?

Joan Walsh is not a racist.

You cannot defend yourself when someone calls your or intimates you are a racist.

[Hutzpa]

56. MHP did not intimates Joan is a racist

she stated that very often people have used "I have black friends so I'm not a racist" as a way to project their
biasness towards a divisive issue. Melissa is taking an issue with statements such as that.

[boston bean]

57. I have always understood, the i have black friends, to be a cover for being a racist.

So, to say Joan Walsh did that is to intimate she is racist.

[Empowerer]

70. I don't see it that way at all

Instead, I see the "I have black friends" often used as "proof" that the speaker has absolutely no biases at all.

[boston bean]

71. Same thing. If a white person says they have black friends they are laughed at, and

are considered racist, bigoted. as if having a black friend means one is not racist.

So, we are saying the same exact thing.

Melissa flung it, and obviously it stuck with you. You agree. Joan must be a racist for saying she considered a black person her "professional friend".

We all know what it means, no matter what spin is put on it.

[Empowerer]

76. No we are NOT saying the same thing

Not by a longshot.

You seem to believe that anyone with any bias is, by definition, racist. I do not. You obviously either don't know what racism is or don't understand the difference between prejudice and racism. And, notwithstanding my repeated efforts to explain it to you, you refuse to even consider the distinction.

Or maybe you're just not capable of it.

Either way, we are NOT saying the same thing.

[boston bean]

81. Yes, we are. Bias against what?

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. I suggest ...

You stop trying to explain something that another is unwilling to hear. But I recognize your frustration in trying to communicate that this person is exactly the person MHP is talking about.

And no ... I am not calling BB a racist; only observing that he/she is willing/feel entitled to discount the life experience of another without considering THAT person's point of view, as of equal value.

[Hutzpa]

77. I think you're trying to use

semantics to stymied the conversation, you have to have experienced these types of behavior to understand what Melissa
is writing about. If you have not then it is going to be difficult to see how this can be construed as covertly
racism.

[Supersedeas]

160. wow, the mine fields that we tread upon even when using terms of endearment

of course none of us directly experience anything that another human being feels subjectively.

If we take your conditional statement at face value, we have to conclude that it is amazing that we can communicate at all. Are you suggesting that it is best for all white folks not to use terms like friends and friendship with respect to professional acquaintances as that is a covert form of racism?

Semantics, indeed. I can see all kinds of conversations being stymied.

[fishwax]

133. I don't think MHP called JW a racist

MHP said that in emphasizing their friendship, JW was employing a strategy often used to deflect discussions of racial bias. That's not the same as calling her a racist. I don't see any reason at all that Walsh should feel Harris-Perry "HATES" her.

I don't think one is a very good friend or ally if a "friend" who is a member of a persecuted minority can't, in the midst of an argument, say something like "what you just said sounds rhetorically similar to rhetorical devices that have historically been used to dismiss my concerns about bias against my community, and that angers me."

When I read JW's essay originally, I found the extensive discussion/emphasis on friendship to be a bit condescending. The paragraph starts out by saying MHP's perception is divisive. Then it talks about friendship for several sentences, and then says "that's why I think it's important to engage her argument." So MHP's beliefs are incorrect and divisive, but she's a friend so I'll engage her argument.

[EffieBlack]

136. Well said!

[boston bean]

157. no, she said Walsh used it to

shield against claims of her own bias is very troubling.

That is very different that what you said:

I don't think one is a very good friend or ally if a "friend" who is a member of a persecuted minority can't, in the midst of an argument, say something like "what you just said sounds rhetorically similar to rhetorical devices that have historically been used to dismiss my concerns about bias against my community, and that angers me."


Huge difference, Perry said Walsh used it to shield against claims of her own bias, not that it sounded similar to rhetorical devices that others have used to dismiss concerns about bias.

Please read the words, they do mean something, and they are not meaning what you say they do.

[fishwax]

158. I've read the words. I don't find the difference as significant as you do.

You claimed that MHP called Walsh a racist. It's true that MHP did not say exactly what I said, but I think what she did say is much closer to my interpretation than yours.

[OneGrassRoot]

188. Interesting...

We all have such different (and valid) perceptions of what both of these women wrote.

Here are the first two paragraphs of Joan Walsh's piece (for those who haven't followed the links):

The Nation's most-read article this week is by my friend Melissa Harris-Perry, "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama." Perry doesn't mention any white liberals by name, nor cite polls showing a decline in support for President Obama among white liberals (as opposed to white voters generally, where his approval rating has dropped sharply). But her piece touched a nerve because of the widespread perception that white liberals are, in fact, abandoning the president.

I'm not sure how to argue with a perception, which is by definition subjective, but I'm going to try, because this is becoming a prevalent and divisive belief. When I say Melissa Harris-Perry is my friend, I don't say that rhetorically, or ironically; we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously. That's why I think it's important to engage her argument, and I've invited her to reply.

You, fishwax, interpreted that thusly:

The paragraph starts out by saying MHP's perception is divisive. Then it talks about friendship for several sentences, and then says "that's why I think it's important to engage her argument." So MHP's beliefs are incorrect and divisive, but she's a friend so I'll engage her argument.

I didn't interpret it that way at all. I started off with equal respect for both of these women, having admired both of their opinions for a while now.

I interpreted it as Joan saying that the impression that white liberals may be abandoning Obama due to racism -- not specifically MHP's comments -- "is becoming a prevalent and divisive belief."

(Edit to add, for clarity, that there is a difference to me -- though I realize semantics can really drag this whole discussion down an unnecessary path. To me by acknowledging it as a more widespread impression, and not MHP's alone, made me feel THAT is largely why she was responding, and not as a focused attack (sorry, can't think of another word) on MHP herself, though she understandably proceeds to respond to what MHP specifically wrote in her rebuttal.)

Yes, it's obviously a belief she disagrees with, and she went on to explain why. Her explanation of how she viewed their relationship didn't seem condescending at all to me.

That said, as I have said repeatedly throughout this and other threads, my life experience isn't that of MHP's, so I WOULDN'T have the same reaction to what Joan Walsh, nor truly "get" everything that led to her writing her original piece.

But I want to listen and understand it more, just as I would hope both Joan and Melissa are open to listening and understanding the other's perspective more, in spite of this awkward entrance into the discussion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

134. Something to think about ... Or not ...

If you are willing to discount what another person (who is Black) is saying with respect to their experiences regarding race/racism, without considering it; then it is quite possible that you may be acting out of a racist impulse ... whether you recognize or admit it, or not.

[Supersedeas]

144. it has a nice tautological ring of non-falsifiability to it...doesn't it

[1StrongBlackMan]

181. Huh????

I pride myself in my language skills, e.g., my vocabulary, my ability to turn a phrase, etc., but I must confess ... without a dictionary (which I refuse to fetch ... I'm watching a Tevoed epispode of Suits), I have no idea of what you are talking about.

So did I did good?

[a kennedy]

113. and we "white" people can not begin to understand the whole

concept of BEING BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!!! JMHO

[1StrongBlackMan]

143. If that was not meant to be sarcastic ...

No, you can't ... no more than a man can understand what it is to be female; or, the generic "you" can understand the generic "me's" life experiences.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. She's so well written

I think (like me):-) she's probably still stinging from all of the white women in America 'feeling good' about that black friend they had once in the second grade and how seeing/reading The Help helped them to understand black women's struggles in America and their black friends struggle back in the second grade. :rofl: (have a sense of humor here okay). You have to have read her analysis of the movie to get the joke. ;-)

That's why point two (2) is so striking. Is Walsh a Sister Blister? Maybe - don't know her. But it appears Melissa doesn't like being Walsh's 'black friend though not in the second grade'.

Read the entire article - she makes good points. But she drew a line in the sand of: Until you are in my home, or I'm in yours . . . we aren't friends sweetie.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. It's a shame to see this back and forth between them

I really like both Melissa Harris-Perry and Joan Walsh.

This doesn't do anybody any good.

[wndycty]

15. Maybe it does. . .hopefully Walsh will respond in a constructive manner. . .

Acting like we all get along is the problem.

[Zen Democrat]

14. It absolutely exists. My white uncle voted Democratic in every election of his life, until Obama.

He begins every conversation about Obama with, "It's not because he's black," and then continues on to express perplexity ... "I don't know why I don't like him, I just can't stand him." He first told me he didn't vote in 2008, then admitted to voting for McCain and Palin. He's old, he's white, he's a racist.

Sad, sad, sad.

[Frustratedlady]

40. I always point out that Obama is also half white. You can see the lights turn on...

They never bring it up again. They just refer to him as Obama or the President. At least it gets them to thinking.

[seaglass]

44. But this is about white liberals ABANDONING Obama. Your uncle was never on board,

he didn't vote for him - therefore he couldn't abandon him.

[Doctor_J]

45. Then he's not one of the ones who's "abandoned" the president

I thought Perry was talking about those who voted for him and now are discouraged by his appeasement and right-wing policies. I can tell you that I would be just as pissed if a white Dem president kept trying to find common ground with the Repukes while abandoning unions, teachers, and seniors.

[yardwork]

118. Note that your uncle did not vote for Obama in 2008. The racists already showed their cards.

This argument is about whether or not white liberals who supported Obama are now abandoning him because they are racist.

I can see an argument that posits that people who are somewhat racist might have supported Obama in 2008 and are now quick to turn on him, quicker than they would have turned on a white president who did all the things Obama has done (and not done). There is some of that at work.

But to assume that all or even most of the progressive disappointment in Obama is based on their racism is dangerous, imo. It's dangerous because it lets Obama and the DNC ignore the very real likelihood that many of us are disappointed in him because of what he's actually done and not done, and while he and the DNC are calling us ungrateful racists, he's losing the election.

[Cigar11]

17. From a Black Perspective

Nothing pisses-off White America more than the suggestion that Racism still exist.

Well I’m Black, and the last thing I would ever do is suggest that I know what it’s like to be White in America … because I don’t have the slightest clue.

But fact is, I am Black and I know Racism when I see it and no one is going to tell me it doesn’t exist when I have decades of personal experience.

[wndycty]

18. Welcome to DU cigar

:kick:

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. It absolutely does, but liberals current treatment of Obama isn't exemplary of it.

Welcome to DU.

[OneGrassRoot]

24. Welcome, and I couldn't agree more....

It pisses me off when anyone dismisses that racism still exists, but it most definitely is mainly white people in America who do it.

And I'm white.

I've been surrounded by it my entire life; I know it when I see it, and I've been battling it my entire life as well. In fact, I have literally cut all ties with my "family" because of their racist and bigoted views and actions.

I don't have to have experienced it personally to see the dehumanizing effects of racism and bigotry. Witnessing it, for anyone with a conscience, is enough to see it exists and must be dealt with, not swept under the rug yet again.

:hi:

[okieinpain]

58. thank you. I was going to write a long list of crap but why bother.

the shit is the same as it's all way been.

[Mr Deltoid]

66. 'Racism still exists' is not the issue

Unfounded blanket accusations of racism against Democrats who disagree with Obama is the issue.

[OneGrassRoot]

178. But that's the point: Many of us...

black and white, don't see the "blanket accusations of racism" that you and others are perceiving (or it seems that may be your perception).

Some are interpreting the suggestion that racism may play a role on the left in some way as meaning that "all white people on the left don't like Obama because he's black."

That's not what is being said nor intended at all, but one can't control how others choose to perceive things.

That's why a discussion is needed.

But DU is not a place for authentic discussion. It's simply a place to vent and to share information.

[vaberella]

92. Amen. I live in New York City---Harlem---and every day I prepare myself for racism.

Because every day someone says something stupid.

[a kennedy]

115. Thank you Cigar11....

and welcome to DU. :fistbump:

[boston bean]

20. wow, she took Walsh's words about their professional friendship like that?

Here are Joan's exact words:

I'm not sure how to argue with a perception, which is by definition subjective, but I'm going to try, because this is becoming a prevalent and divisive belief. When I say Melissa Harris-Perry is my friend, I don't say that rhetorically, or ironically; we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously. That's why I think it's important to engage her argument, and I've invited her to reply.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Then I have far fewer friends than I thought I did. n/t

[Empowerer]

42. I can understand why you have a problem w/Prof Perry's response regarding the "friendship"

But, again, consider her perspective.

African Americans are frequently pointed to as "friends" of whites even when no such friendship exists. And usually those kinds of mischaracterizations are used when a white person is trying to prove how open-minded they are. It's very annoying to be used in this way.

I have often had white co-workers or acquaintances claim me as their friend in such circumstances. Yet they have never invited me to their home, I have on several occasions been the only "friend" from work not included on their wedding guest list, they've never asked my opinion about anything other than race, etc. Yet they love to claim me as their friend when it suits them.

I have no doubt that Prof. Perry has similar experiences, so Walsh's claim may have stung more deeply than meets the eye.

I also wonder whether Walsh normally prefaces her criticism of other journalists' opinions with a pronouncement of her friendship with them.

I'm glad that Prof. Perry called her on this. It's an important learning experience for those who are open to learning more about these issues.

[boston bean]

49. Yeah Joan Walsh meant to say, I have black friends so I am not a racist?

She never said that, nor implied they were close friends.

I guess what Melissa is saying is that no white person could really be a friend to a black person, unless said white person totally and 100% agrees with you 100% on what political viewpoints are racism and what are not. We are just to accept that if there is a difference of opinion, that there is racism involved? Then we can remain friends.

Joan Walsh offered a counter point of view. Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED and he was white for goodness sakes.

Seeing racism in every shadow is non productive. One must also look to see if there are other reasons for peoples viewpoints. If someone really wants to have a conversation about race, leave off calling them a racist until you have fully pondered and examined the reasons for their feeling a certain way. Calling or itimating someone is a racist is a sure fire way to end the conversation that people say they want to have.

Intimating someone like Joan Walsh a racist is completely out of bounds.

[Empowerer]

73. What is with this obsession with turning every discussion about bias, prejudice and sensitivity into

"STOP CALLING (her/him/me) A RACIST!!!"

Prof Perry did not call, claim or imply that Joan Walsh is racist. I made no such claim in my reply - which, unfortunately, you seem to not have grasped or even read with any insight at all.

This is not about whether anyone is a racist - no one is making such an accusation. Ironically, it is YOU who seem to see racism in every shadow - at least you and several others on this board seem to see "YOU ARE A RACIST" in every discussion about race.

Your defensiveness and obtuseness on this issue is very unfortunate - if you just for a moment actually paid attention to what is being said, rather than kneejerk yourself into the "STOP CALLING ME A RACIST" hysteria, you might actually learn something. Otherwise, you are getting nothing and adding nothing to this discussion.

[CakeGrrl]

74. "Intimating someone like Joan Walsh a racist is completely out of bounds."

Why?

What does it mean to be "someone like Joan Walsh"?

She may not be a racist, but what characteristics make it "out of bounds" to dare imply that her motives are less than the purest and most noble?

[Empowerer]

75. And no one "intimated" that she was a racist

It fascinates me that some people will dig and dig and dig to infer the most egregious accusations and intentions from the most innocuous comments and behavior, but when someone tries to note that someone's comment or action might be racially insensitive, they insist that, unless it's blatantly racist, no one has any right to challenge it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. ...deploy our professional familiarity as a shield against claims of her own bias is very troubling.

That's not innocuous.

[Empowerer]

80. Bias does not equal racism

Not by a longshot.

Insisting that no one can or should talk about bias because that's tantamount to an accusation of racism betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what racism is, a blindly naive assumption that decent human beings are incapable of racial bias - or both.

I have, as I've written, repeatedly been subjected to the "I have a black friend" used as a shield against bias. I know that this does not mean the person using it is a racist. But it is a common and rather insensitive tactic that people frequently use, without realizing how insensitive it is. We do them no favors by ignoring it. And pushing back with the "Stop Calling Her a Racist!!!" accusation is ridiculous and tiresome.

No one called Joan Walsh a racist, no matter how many times you say that, against all evidence to the contrary.

But it is very interesting to me that you are so sensitive to the possibility that Perry may have offended Walsh by criticizing her use of the "my friend" tactic - accusing her of calling Wash a racist when she did not - but seem to have absolutely no interest in the fact that Walsh may have offended Perry with her use of the "my friend" tactic.

Let's assume that both women are genuinely offended by what the other said. Why are you only concerned with Walsh's sensitivities, but don't evidence any interest in Perry's? Is it that difficult for you to even consider the possibility that Walsh's comment could be interpreted as offensive to anyone - even after several African Americans right here on this board have tried to explain why this is offensive? Do our opinions and perspectives matter so little to you?

[boston bean]

82. I am glad I am so interesting to you. Are you bias? and what is your racial bias?

[Empowerer]

84. I have all kinds of prejudices, as do most human beings

The difference is that I admit them, confront them and try to overcome them.

So, for example, when I see a thread that accuses someone of being homophobic, I don't immediately jump in to attack the person making the accusation. Instead, I read what they have to say, carefully consider and try to see things from their point of view. And, most important, I use it as a check on myself, to do some self-analysis to determine if possibly I AM engaging in the kinds of thoughts or practices that they're calling out. Sometimes I realize that I am or may be. Other times, I think I'm not. But I always try to respect their perspective, knowing that they come from a different place and experience than I do, but their view is just as valid as - and sometimes, under the circumstances, more relevant than - mine.

I don't have a problem with people with biases. I do have a problem with people who pretend they don't have any - and who then deign to lecture the rest of us about our efforts to address racial and other biases that I know all too well continues to exist in America.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. Introspection.

Here's my deal.

I live where there are very few people of color. The school district is 95% white, for instance. Consequently, I don't have any black friends.

But I do know many gay people and have GLBT family members, most of whom I respect a great deal. I am often on my guard when defending GLBT people for fear of being seen as playing the "I'm friends/family with" card. But at the same time, I've found it difficult to befriend GLBT people because there's a barrier of mistrust of my motives.

If I were Joan Walsh, I'd consider this a grevious insult.

[Empowerer]

85. That's very interesting

I guess a big difference between us is that, if I were Joan Walsh, I would not consider that an insult. I would try to step back and consider whether there's a basis for what Perry said. For example, I would speak to other black people about it - and I bet you that if she does, she will hear something similar to what Perry said, since the "I have a black friend" is a common pushback in these situations and it is often very offensive, even if we don't say anything.

Remember a few years ago, the brouhaha that ensued when Joe Biden referred to Barack Obama as "articulate." You may remember that much of the criticism was not based on the fact that being called articulate is in and of itself insulting, but over the fact that intelligent black people are often called articulate when it is taken as a given that accomplished, smart white people were articulate and that no one ever made an effort to call it to anyone's attention.

That's a similar case here.

Black folks get insulted almost daily. But when we do, we're expected to just suck it up. And when we DO say something, we're told that WE'RE the problem, WE'RE making things worse, WE'RE over-sensitive.

So now a black woman said something that some white people don't like. They feel that Joan Walsh should be insulted. But instead of being insulted, Walsh should take this as a learning opportunity.

This is, in my view, hardly a "grievous insult." It's a disagreement.

[Little Star]

103. Maybe if MHP had not humiliated her in PUBLIC it wouldn't have been a insult.

[Little Star]

101. I have much more concern for Joan's feelings because MHP is the one...

who gave the PUBLIC smackdown.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Or perhaps Walsh simply overestimated the value of "a few meals" with her.

I've never been insulted by someone calling me a friend, so it's hard to understand that perspective.

[1StrongBlackMan]

140. Maybe ...

it's hard to understand that perspective BECAUSE you have never experienced the insult of false familiarity. Or it could be that you'be never experienced having someone point to their "friendship" as a way to show they couldn't be racist ... despite their saying the most racist things.

In short, maybe that's because you have never experienced what MHP is talking about.

[OneGrassRoot]

156. You're right. Perspective (and perception) are everything...

agreed with MHP for the most part in the Part 1 of her article regarding racism in this country, and I definitely didn't interpret her "friend" comment as insinuating Joan is a racist. Yet it did strike me as odd, even mean-spirited.

But you're absolutely right: I've never experienced what MHP has, nor experienced the "insult of false familiarity." So, it's simply something I can't relate to. We all have had unique experiences, though some groups have overlapping similar experiences, so it's very hard to make assumptions as to why people react the way they do to anything.

I already learned something very important in another similar thread, reinforcing my strong feeling that we need to have more open discussions -- with sincere listening -- about this issue, without people feeling so defensive.

:hi:

[Karenina]

165. "Yet it did strike me as odd, even mean-spirited." WHY?

"I've never experienced what MHP has, nor experienced the "insult of false familiarity." So, it's simply something I can't relate to." But YOU feel fine expressing the judgement that MHP is "mean-spirited."

WHY?

Have you any understanding how it feels to be USED in this way? Or of how many times those of us who have tiptoed through the tulips have had to endure the "affections" of those who consider themselves our "betters?" Just a perspective from a different corner of the intersection. :pals:

[OneGrassRoot]

168. No, and that was my point, Karenina...

I DON'T have any understanding of how it feels to be used in that way. Yes, based on MY perspective and MY experiences, that one aspect of their exchange struck me as odd and mean-spirited.

But what I'm also saying is that, because I don't know MHP's experience or anyone who has been subjected to this strategy, as it keeps being referred to, I'm trying to step away from my first impression, which is based on my experiences, and instead try to understand how MHP saw it and how she interpreted what Joan said.

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. And that ...

my Democrat/Progressive/Liberal brother(sister) is all that this Black man would ask of you (and is what MHP and the majority of Black posters to this discussion have been saying).

[Karenina]

183. AMEN! Thank you OneGrassRoot!!!

:loveya:

[OneGrassRoot]

189. ...

:hug:

[Supersedeas]

162. Another truth that can set you free?

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. I feel the loss of some more keenly than others. n/t

[vaberella]

93. That's not a friend. I don't know where this professional friends BS comes from.

From Harris-Perry's statement they are more so passing acquaintances not friends. Why is it Harris-Perry is getting beef for stating her point?

[Bluenorthwest]

132. Compare how they each describe their relationship:

Joan wrote:
"we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously."
Perry wrote:
" Walsh and I have been professionally friendly. We’ve eaten a few meals. I invited her to speak at Princeton and I introduced her to my literary agent. We are not friends."

Both say virtually the same thing. Yet Perry is freaking out about it. Strange double standard there.

[Supersedeas]

159. Drawing a clear line in the sand

[Supersedeas]

190. professional friends bs?

[Enrique]

36. "I make it a practice not to defend my public writings"

when I first read the column, and all the great responses, my reaction was, Prof. Harris-Perry should stick to TV, where no one can talk back to her.


Also, did anyone ele think of "Letter from Birmingham Jail". I wonder is this a deliberate allusion, or subconscious?

Harris-Perry:

I make it a practice not to defend my public writings if I defended every piece I wrote against critics I would find little time to sleep.

MLK JR.:

...Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work...

[chill_wind]

120. Letter from Birmingham Jail. Nice eye. Hard to guess.

She really does rely on her offense taken to the "Professional Friends" point as a sizable chunk of her rebuttal, with which she is still trying to prove some part of her earlier argument. It's not particularly convincing and surprising how much space she wants to give to that.

[polichick]

130. Good catch! I wonder if it was deliberate or subconscious too.

[Prism]

38. Well that was taken wildly out of context

Walsh referred to Perry as a professional friend. I have "work friends" who I wouldn't put on the same level as my personal friends. They're colleagues, people I get along with, share meals with, work with on professional issues, people I may be enormously fond of. But they're not the ones I'd run to with, for example, family problems.

I think Walsh's use of that term was exceedingly clear, and Perry's defensive broadside against it (and egregious reading into it as Walsh saying "I have black friends") incredibly unfair and beneath her.

I respect Perry enormously, and I'm going to see her speak in Oakland next month. But she wrote herself into a corner, I think, and muddied the discussion on race by picking an ill-thought out example.

Two things can be true at the same time here. Perry could have used a poor example of liberal racism by not really understanding fully how progressives reacted to Clinton (which Walsh delineates nicely), and there can be a segment of liberal America that is treating President Obama through a privileged, race-informed lens.

These things can both be true.

Perry's not acquitting herself well with this response. It's only going to make further discussion of this particular issue impossible.

[OneGrassRoot]

43. Well said, Prism. I only disagree with the very last sentence....

I do believe it's possible, and necessary, for the conversation to continue from this point.

They have the capacity on all levels to do it, and we need to have this discussion.

:hi:

[Prism]

46. They're both very intelligent women

And I hope their dialogue continues and charts a constructive course towards understanding. I've been reading the exchanges so far with great interest.

[OneGrassRoot]

50. You should read their Facebook walls. LOL n/t

[Mr Deltoid]

47. Looks like the circular firing squad has now ascended to the punditry

Not a good thing for Obama's reelection.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Perry is spot-on. Walsh did overreach with her "I have black friends" strategy of argument.

This also resonates:

"many African Americans (not all, but many) feel that the attacks on President Obama are racialized on both the right and the left. This feeling has meaningful implications for the quality of our national, political fabric. When we tell you that the attacks are racially troubling, painful we would like you to take our concerns seriously rather than working to simply defend yourself against the claims."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=781975&mesg_id=781975

[OneGrassRoot]

54. I disagree.

First, I wholeheartedly agree with the excerpt you quoted. :)

However, to say that Walsh employed a "I have black friends" strategy of argument doesn't appear to be true at all to me.

And I'm someone who is hyper alert to racism and bigotry.

Here is what Joan wrote (emphasis mine):

"The Nation's most-read article this week is by my friend Melissa Harris-Perry, "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama." Perry doesn't mention any white liberals by name, nor cite polls showing a decline in support for President Obama among white liberals (as opposed to white voters generally, where his approval rating has dropped sharply). But her piece touched a nerve because of the widespread perception that white liberals are, in fact, abandoning the president.

I'm not sure how to argue with a perception, which is by definition subjective, but I'm going to try, because this is becoming a prevalent and divisive belief. When I say Melissa Harris-Perry is my friend, I don't say that rhetorically, or ironically; we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously. That's why I think it's important to engage her argument, and I've invited her to reply."


No doubt Melissa had her own reasons for reacting as she did, but I do think it is a gross misinterpretation to say that Joan employed the "I have black friends" strategy.

I honestly don't get that at all from what she wrote.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

59. I respect your opinion but I stand by what I said.

They are professional colleagues, not "professional friends" which is an odd term I have never heard used before by anyone I know. From what Perry says, they are very casual work acquaintances, not by any stretch "friends" of any sort. To imply otherwise is incorrect and misleading.

Thanks for the civil dialogue, anyway. :hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

60. Okay

:hi:

[emcguffie]

88. Anyone you work with is a colleague.

When I still worked, I had many professional friends, who to me were more than colleagues. They were the colleagues I went to with problems, or colleagues I had meals with, spent time with, sought out in general.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but I think what Joan Walsh said was quite clear. As well as what she didn't say. She did not say "Melissa Parry is a close, personal friend of mine," which would have meant something quite different from "professional friend."

[xultar]

61. Melissa went off the fucking deep. She can't write something like that...

and in the piece say..."I may be wrong" totally diss all her white peers and not expect them to get upset.

But then to respond by going off the deep on them? Wow.

Joan apologized so that is a good start but maybe I'm a white liberal racist but I didn't see where Joan did the 2. I have black friends thing. Did I miss it?

Wow. This is nuts. I wonder what Maddow thinks.

See y'all on twitter!

[wndycty]

62. ;)

:kick:

[xultar]

67. Y U so crazy? Rofl. I just saw u a sec ago!

[hlthe2b]

63. Xultar... haven't seen you in eons...

I don't do twitter, but glad to see you check in now and then. ;)

[xultar]

68. xoxoxo

[MadHound]

64. When all you have is a hammer, every problem you encounter looks like a nail

I think that is the problem that Perry is running into here with her original piece and its aftermath. She writes passionately and proliferately about race, and this is a good thing. However, it seems to me that she has lost the ability to look at any problem or issue without using the lens of race as her guide. Thus, every problem is about race. She writes about how white liberals are abandoning the President, and looks at the "white" part and sees a racial problem. She ignores the "liberal" part, which is a political problem.

I think that she needs to take a step back and reflect on her writing. Not everything in this world is about race. Clinton lost support among white liberals when he was in office, and it certainly wasn't about race. Obama is losing support among blacks as well, is that also about race?

[Beacool]

72. Bingo!!!

Very well said. I see this back and forth more as an attempt to muzzle the left than a genuine grievance over perceived racism.

Image if Clinton had been AA? An AA president getting impeached over lying about oral sex? Yet, lily white Bill was impeached over it. His wife became the first presidential spouse to be dragged in front of a grand jury. The right despised the Clintons and the left did too in somewhat a smaller measure.

:(

[Little Star]

102. I agree MadHound except it started with her mouth about...

The Help (which Oprah & Michelle Obama both liked). She has been on the defensive since then.

She just needs to sit down and shut up for a while and get herself some help. She doesn't like to be questioned or be wrong.

[wndycty]

105. Started with her mouth? Are you calling her uppity? Seriously dude/dudette. . .

. . .started with her mouth?

That is fucked up!

[Little Star]

110. pffftttt

[Empowerer]

108. She disagreed with Oprah and Michelle so she needs to sit down and shut up?

Because all black women must think alike and if one doesn't agree with the ones YOU think are right, you tell her to sit down and shut up?

EXCUSE ME?!

[Little Star]

111. She thought she spoke for all black women and was embarrassed

when people called her on it both with The Help and with her first controversial article. She has a problem with criticism & anger and she is lashing out because she is out of control.

So just keep enabling her if you want. :eyes:

[EffieBlack]

139. You know what she was thinking? And you know that she thought she was speaking for all black women?

Wow.

Considering she neither said nor implied anything of the kind, your assumption is bizarre to say the least.

And your claim that "she has a problem with criticism & anger and she is lashing out because she is out of control" says much more about you than it does about her.

[fishwax]

137. "She just needs to sit down and shut up for a while and get herself some help."

:wow:

[tammywammy]

151. "sit down and shut up"

[Supersedeas]

192. she certainly didn't give much credance to the political side of this

[Enrique]

65. i.e. "I don't drink with you"

anyone have a link to that classic DU thread? ;-)

[yardwork]

119. Perfect!

[Little Star]

69. IMHO.....

MHP's actions were mean & petty. And how she categorizes her friends is not the same that many others do. People do have deep friendships with some people they work with, including sharing family secrets.

MHP needs to get help because she has some serious anger management issues and is striking out at the wrong people.

[COLGATE4]

90. I don't think this is a question of anger management on MHP's part.

Rather I think it's a typical example of the type of intellectual snark that professional academicians specialize in when they try and crap on their colleagues. And yes, it's mean and petty, and you can see this type of behavior around the country at institutions of higher learning every day. Just another day at the office for MHP.

[Little Star]

99. I'm sorry but I see it as a deep held anger. Snark is way to mild for

something as hurtful and humiliating as that was to Joan. Also the fact that it was the public berating she gave Joan in order to make her argument she was out of control.

That anger came out sideways, imho. And I stand by my opinion that MHP needs some help for her anger issues.

[polichick]

124. She went off on the film "The Help" recently too...

I read the book and the film stayed true to it.

Maybe she's not feeling well or something.

[Vinca]

86. Ms. Harris-Perry needs to take a chill pill.

Oops . . . I bet I'm not "allowed" to say that, white liberal that I am.

[wndycty]

87. Oh brother

:kick:

[vaberella]

94. I'm with you. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

89. Yeah...who the hell does she think she is, speaking her mind and all.

I'll just leave it at that.

[CakeGrrl]

96. You wouldn't be suggesting that she "sit down and shut up", would you?

There's no racism around here! NO ONE is racist against the POTUS, so what's wrong with her?

Well, David Sirota sure put her in her place with her "arrogance", didn't he?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2006275

And plenty of DUers are lovin' it.

:eyes:

[These Eyes]

97. People are turning themselves inside out on this...

Being this defensive is telling in and of itself.

[Vinca]

100. If you're a liberal Democrat and white, you, too, may be considered a racist.

I don't know why I'm even commenting on this again. If Democrats want to latch on to this meme, Obama 100% or you're a racist, I must not be a Democrat. I always thought it was Republicans who were lemmings going over a cliff following the leader, no questions asked. Now, if you're not a lemming, you get called a horrible slur.

[These Eyes]

109. That has never been the meme...

Which is why I am baffled by the responses. No one has said that either you're with the president 100% or you're a racist. That's just silly. But there is, as many have posted, a racial element to SOME of the criticism. Some folks constantly pile on and wil go as far as to take info out of context, or simply just make crap up. racism isn't always as blatant as burning a cross on someone's lawn. Usually, it's far more subtle. The thing is, when a black person points out something as racist, don't blow it off as nonsense. Most black people have experienced enough racism to know the difference between someone being a jackass and someone being a racist jackass. Racism is very real and it's something black people deal with daily, in its various forms.

What's more, even the most well-meaning, kind-hearted liberal white person can have attitudes that have been steeped in racism. You cannot grow up in a society that was founded upon the oppression of people of color and not have been influenced in some way by it. It doesn't make you a bad person, it simply means there's an area in which you have an opportunity to grow. We all have something in us that needs to change. And when light is shone on it, that's the time to do introspection. We, all of us, should ask, "is it me?" I realize it's not any easy process. I swear there are times when I see something in myself I don't like, it's as if I'm in physical pain. But we need to become familiar with our shadows. We all have them and to deny that just gives them more power.

[CakeGrrl]

148. And this is the reason I'm taking issue as well.

Every time a theory is posted, a LOT of people immediately either 1) jump to the conclusion that it was written is if the author was speaking face-to-face with THEM, or 2) make the incorrect assumption that the author has come to slap all Progressives collectively in the face.

And then the resentment and anger and threats to withhold support for the President because either he hates Progressives or his "supporters" are mean to them ramp up yet again.

And for no actual reason.

At this rate, I'm anticipating a claim that the President himself is now playing the race card against Progressives as the latest expression of his never-ending distaste for "his base".

It's plain crazy.

[OneGrassRoot]

179. What you said. n/t

[fishwax]

191. who is saying "Obama 100% or you're a racist"?

MHP's essay doesn't come remotely close to anything like that. I haven't seen anyone say anything like that on this thread. I have, in the past, seen some posters imply or suggest something similar, but nothing approaching a "meme."

[Vinca]

98. No, I'm not. I'm suggesting she be a bit more civil to people.

Joan Walsh calling her a "friend" isn't the crime of the century.

[polichick]

123. LOL - that's ridiculous!

[CakeGrrl]

147. Oops, you're right! That was way back up there at post 105.

I just love how, on other topics, people were getting hysterical over the incorrect implications that they were being, yes "told to sit down and shut up", and now it's literally being suggested.

:rofl:

[polichick]

122. Now you've done it, you racist you!

:sarcasm:

[Whisp]

95. big rec.

[ProSense]

104. Here's a perfect example of Perry's point

David Sirota's criticism of Perry, posted here. From his piece.

Taken together, we see that Obama -- as opposed to Clinton, who at least paid (often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism -- has proudly and publicly stomped on the very progressive promises that got him elected.

Got that: Clinton's empty rhetoric was special and deserving of some praise, but Obama, who has achieved much of what he promised, is different and deserves to be roundly criticized, even rejected, because he didn't pay "(often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism."

[Enrique]

106. I don't remember Clinton's liberal rhetoric

I mean, he was a Democrat and he did and said the liberal things you'd expect any Democrat to do, but did he "pay rhetorical homage to liberalism" any more than Obama did? I see them as both triangulators, both taking pains to distance themselves from "traditional big-government liberals". (That quote is from Obama by the way, and he didn't mean it in a good way.)

[ProSense]

107. Well

"I don't remember Clinton's liberal rhetoric"

...Sirota does, it's part of his excuse.

[Phx_Dem]

112. That's kind of rude of Perry. Pols and pundits often say that as a

matter of courtesy. She's like bitchy calling her out on it.

[Marnie]

114. Obama was elected because he was not Bush

and not McCain.
His race was not a factor in how votes were cast by the 100% Whites who voted for him.

That we elected a half White person as POTUS is a factor we can be proud of, but if Obama were 100% White instead of only 50%, he still would have been elected, becasue he is not Bush and not McCain.

Also, too, we are disappointed in both his 50% White half and 50% Black half equally, since the two are inseparable.

To contend otherwise is totally illogical, and is stated with absolutely no basis in fact except the racist attitude of Harris.

She sees his race and thinks it matters to the 100% Whites like me who elected him becasue of his promises, and because he, then, reassembled a liberal,and becasue he wasn't Bush and wasn't McCain.

Her claim is Bull Shit and is divisive and destructive.

[Honeycombe8]

116. I'm white & was an early supporter of Obama. I did NOT vote for him because he wasn't Bush r McCain

That's an insult to my intelligence and political decisions.

I voted for Obama because I thought that out of the field of candidates, he was the best one to be nominee. I voted for Obama in the general election because I thought hands down he'd make a better President. I was right. I've been disappointed in some things he's done (VERY disappointed), but I do think he was the best person for the job, out of our selection field.

Race played no part in my decision. I think too much is made of that factor, although I realize it IS a factor (one factor) for many people.

The fact that he was half black was a perk, I guess you could say. I thought it was great that someone other than a white male win the Presidency. But that had nothing whatsoever to do with my vote. And the fact that he wasn't Bush or McCain...I would've voted for him for those reasons, as well. But in my case, that wasn't the case. I voted for him because he was the best one.

[treestar]

127. So you'd be saying that of any white Democrat?

Hillary or other?

[Honeycombe8]

117. Whoa. Perry's pretty rude, huh? Something must have really gotten to her. nt

[Chan790]

121. I'm more inclined to hold this rebuttal against Perry than Walsh.

One has little control over who considers one a friend and accused of it, there is nothing less social appropriate than to rebut the claim publicly.

It makes her seem catty and it does more to damage the credibility of her initial assertions than anything Joan Walsh said.

[kiranon]

161. Agree and believe this hurts Perry professionally more than Walsh.

Some people have a more expansive idea of "friendship". It is the calling out of Walsh by Perry publicly about their friendship or the lack thereof that seems petty. If these two intelligent, caring people cannot get along, heaven help us.

[Number23]

125. I'm liking MHP more and more every day.

This is a great piece. I like Joan Walsh too even more for her ability to take what MHP said and apologize.

You're right. We could learn much from both of these very smart women.

[Number23]

126. I just read through this thread. Don't know why I did.

Feeling more than a little sick. And really fed up with some of the shit around here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. Why can't some white people ...

just accept that they are not the arbitrators of the Black experience? Instead, they prove over and over again that many of our suspicions, i.e., to them, my life experiences somehow count for less than their's.

And more troubling, they refuse to see the problem in that; while telling us that they value equality/equity/racial harmony.

[EffieBlack]

146. And these folks don't seem to recognize the absurdity of

accusing black people of overreaction and hypersensitivity when we say we're offended by a particular comment . . .

and then whining and complaining and bitching and moaning that the black people who say they're offended by a particular comment are being mean to them . . .

[young but wise]

155. +1

[Mimosa]

166. There are more on this thread who act like arbiters than I would have expected

1Strong (mind if I shorten your posting name to keep carpal tunnel pain subdued?) I see what you mean. Yet I believe most everybody who cares about racial discrimination has at least tried to think deeply on the issues.

Some say this country avoids serious conversations about race. I disagree. Many of us have conversed deeply and often over decades. I'm old enough to have walked down Auburn Avenue behind MLK Jr's funeral cortege. I was a very young woman then. That's neither here nor there, except to point out my perspective.

I doubt any DUer of long standing and especially sincerity would believe your life experiences count for less than their own. We're each unique individuals with different backgrounds and experiences.

In general there is -or should be- more which unites us than divides us when it comes to our nation's well-being and our common future.

There is a strangeness to making a mountain out of the disagreements between these two professors. I'd not heard of either until these incessant topics on D.U. although I've occasionally read The Nation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. I agree ...

There is (or should be) more that unites us than separates us.

But re-reading this thread, I am struck with two observations: first, we can never have an honest discussion on the topic of race, so long as so many Democrats/Progressives/Liberals reflexively ascribe to themselves the suggested indictment directed of the few. It seems that whenever a Black person suggests that a Democrat/Progressive/Liberal's conduct MIGHT be interpretted as racist ... DUers close ranks, with great vigor and passion, dismissing the claim as unfounded.

But reading the defenses, they are mostly cast in terms of absolutionist terms, as if suggesting one Democrat/Progressive/Liberal of acting in a manner that can be interpretted as racist, is an indictment of all Democrats/Progressives/Liberals, and that specific DUer in particular.

Secondly, and relatedly, (and here my conspiracy theorist leanings show through brightly) we all know that republicans have been attempting to drive a wedge between Democrats/Progressives/Liberals, and it appears to be working. This, and other threads on the subject, show that Democrats/Progressives/Liberals CAN be divided on the issue of race.

It is my greatest fear that white Democrats/Progressives/Liberals will be a little less likely to support this Black president because "after all ... they called/think me a racist, anyway."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

171. MARRY ME!!! +1,000,000,000!!! n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

176. Get in line!!!

I :loveya: him.

:hi:

[Mimosa]

174. We think alike. ;)

The very accusation of racism makes many people recoil. Not because they are guilty but because real progress was actually made by our parents and grandparents.

1StrongBlackman, we now live in an era in which being called racist is a very bad insult. That wasn't so in our grandparents early lives. ;) Do you ever watch old movies in which there's a phrase "That's very white of you"? I don't know exactly what that means but I sense it wasn't good for people of color!

I trusted Obama early on. I think I can trust him to correct course when it is called for. I do not believe he is or was a hypocrite. I do sense there are powers he has to deal with which might scare the bejesus out of you and me. Somebody a couple of days ago posted about that Ned beatty/Peter Finch 'come to Jesus' TRUTH moment in Paddy Chayefsky's "Network". I sense that is what the president must deal with. But he also needs to be true to US, no matter the risks. He signed on for the job. :)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

180. I make my young political science studies watch "Network" every semester.

I don't care how bored they are, either!! :)

[tammywammy]

149. +1 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

128. Melissa Hariss-Petty

She says all of this to defend a person who is openly prejudice against another minority group. I guess when she claims to be a 'friend' to the glbt community, she must use that term very loosely indeed. She is a full time defender of a man who hired hate preachers and ex-gays to preach against us at campaign events while Harris Perry said nothing at all about it. She's a self serving hypocrite and a nasty, petty person.
Friends like her, we do not need. She can go to hell. She allows McClurkin and Caldwell to go unchecked. The 'gay people are vampires' thing was fine with her, but she has to call out liberals. Not the guy who said 'they are trying to kill our children'. Why? You tell me, Melissa. You tell me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

150. "Black clergy vow: No gay marriage in N.C."

http://thecharlottepost.com/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=News&refno=3945

I wonder if MHP, the Patron Saint of GD: P, has taken a strong stand in support of marriage equality and condemned the clergy in opposition. You know, civil rights and all...

[These Eyes]

152. I thought you liked her assessment of the Prop 8 decision. I thought you said...

She was spot-on. She can't be for you and against you at the same time. So, which is it?

[John Agar]

129. I think Dr. Harris-Perry has mishandled this one.

Joan Walsh is no racist, and he only think I think she's "guilty" of is presuming that Dr. Harris-Perry was in fact a colleague and professional friend.

I would never treat a co-worker or colleague this way.

She looks petty, and it's Joan Walsh who deserves an apology.

[blueclown]

135. Sad that it is coming to this.

I'm sure Melissa Harris-Perry could find better examples than Joan Walsh. And it's sad to see two progressives going at it. Petty, really.

[wndycty]

141. well you do realize Joan Walsh called her out

:kick:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[swilton]

153. This is more of a discussion of celebrity journalism

and gossip than a discussion of the presidency - it belongs elsewhere.

[Mimosa]

167. ITA!

These topics are getting stupider the longer they go on, generating heat but no light. ;)

[OneGrassRoot]

177. If anyone is serious about having an ongoing discussion about racism and bigotry...

not specifically as it pertains to Obama, but the subject of racism and bigotry in the US in general, and would prefer to do so in a private group rather than a public message board which seems to invite belligerence just by the nature if it BEING a public board, please let me know.

I can create a private forum, and I would be so grateful for such a gathering of people willing to listen to one another and share our perspectives and experiences, ask questions, etc.

[1StrongBlackMan]

182. Count This Black Man In! n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

185. Yay! Thanks. :) n/t

[BzaDem]

184. I think Perry in at least one place is arguing with a straw man. Most of the criticisms of her piece

focused on there being very plausible alternative explanations for Obama criticism. But that is very different than demanding proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" before even considering racism.

In other words, the standard does not need to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" for inferring racism (as Perry correctly points out) or ruling out racism as a factor (as many of her critics point out). But she goes after her critics as if they are advocating for the former standard, when they manifestly are not. Her critics are merely pointing out that one should not automatically assume racism when they see different treatment for different Presidents, when there are perfectly plausible (and in some cases likely) alternative reasons for such different treatment (or perhaps reasons why Perry is wrong about the treatment being really all that different).

In my view, while Obama's critics act like they are criticizing Obama and Obama alone, the substance of their criticisms apply to every modern President. I believe Perry underestimates the amount of liberal criticism past Presidents have received. I think there is a pattern of many liberal critics criticizing everyone, but then years later backing off that criticism of past presidents so that their criticism of the current President (Obama in this case) becomes more credible. I wish such liberal critics would be more up front about how their criticisms apply equally (if not moreso) to all past modern Presidents. But I do not accuse them of being closet racists to any degree, and I do not think Perry has adequately made her case in the piece she wrote here.

[iamthebandfanman]

195. Wow, tries changing the story right off...

"Some members of the white liberal political community are appalled and angry that I suggested racial bias maybe responsible for the President’s declining support among white Americans."

No, we were appalled that you said LIBERALS were racist because they disagreed with the president and happened to be a different colour!! NOT WHITE PEOPLE IN GENERAL!