Would the reaction to Prof. Perry's piece have been the same if it was by a white commentator?

[Empowerer]

Serious question.

This thread is not intended for kneejerk reactions or foodfights. Please think hard about my question and think carefully before writing a response. We've had too many accusations, nasty retorts, casual throwing around of shallow claims and diatribes. I'm interested in thoughtful discussion.

[Better Believe It]

1. It would not have been identical had it been written by a different commentator of any race.

Her political background and history comes into play when people respond to her attempt to shut down debate and discussion.

Some who buy her "white liberals are picking on President Obama because they are racists" pitch might suggest that white liberal critics would have been kinder and gentler if the exact same commentary had been written by a white person.

That's not an exact quote of hers but I think it accurately sums up her marketing pitch.

[Empowerer]

2. What about her political background and history make a difference?

And please - there is no need to get into any characterization of her "marketing pitch." There are plenty of other threads in which you can engage in back-handed swipes at Prof. Perry or anyone else, but they are neither germane nor helpful to the discussion I'm trying to foster in this thread.

[Better Believe It]

3. Are you suggesting by your question that white liberals would be easier on her if she was white?

Well, are you?

[SidDithers]

4. Why not just answer the question?...nt

Sid

[These Eyes]

7. It's too much like right.

[Empowerer]

5. I'm not "suggesting" anything

I'm asking what YOU think.

[Marnie]

63. So that you can reject our thoughs.

[EffieBlack]

65. The OP hasn't rejected anyone's thoughts in this thread

She's asked for people's opinions and has not risen to the bait of some pretty obnoxious comments.

It looks to me like you're just looking to start some mess.

[emulatorloo]

12. You are misrepresenting her argument. Which is not surprising.

[dionysus]

75. if there's anyone here with a "marketing pitch", it's you.

[treestar]

82. .......

:rofl:

[Enrique]

6. here's one difference I would expect

I noticed many of the responses in the Nation comment thread for example were qualified with some variation of "I respect you and love your work, but...". If it were a white writer those niceties would be dispensed with, imho. People would directly launch into their critique.

[young but wise]

9. +1

[Empowerer]

10. Interesting - thanks

[vaberella]

71. Interesting...is it fear of being labeled a racist?

Because I can say---some of the responses were down right fuckin' racist---by those who claim not to be.

[CTyankee]

8. As a white woman and an admirer of both perry and walsh, I think that walsh

should have thought through her "friend" language. It would have served her purposes equally well to refer to perry as a colleague and ally and fellow progressive. And I think there should have been an acknowledgement that as a white woman, she cannot know and will never know perry's perspective. Wouldn't it be enough to say "I think we should take perry's views quite seriously" and proceed from that viewpoint?

[vaberella]

72. Excellent point CTyankee...I agree with you.

That's why I felt Perry's response wasn't too harsh. It was actually slightly insulting Walsh's usage of Friend before she began her rebuttal.

[CTyankee]

74. Further dialog (and intense listening) would be helpful here.

We need to get off the "Is so!"/"Is not!" aspect of this debate. Let's get into the specific areas where white liberals have disagreement with Obama, and let's talk about where white liberals got off the bandwagon for Clinton. I'm old enough to remember those days, what I liked and didn't like, what the liberal community was actually saying and doing, getting Robert Reich into the conversation (I think he resigned in protest over the welfare issue).

More debate and harder thinking is needed...

[ljm2002]

85. Joan Walsh started her article with...

..."The Nation's most-read article this week is by my friend Melissa Harris-Perry". In the next paragraph she refined what she meant: "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."

Perry's response to this was:

"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." followed by, "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."

So basically, her description of their professional friendship and Walsh's description of it are virtually identical. But Harris-Perry took Walsh's use of the term "friend" as using the "I have black friends" strategy. I disagree. I think Ms. Walsh was speaking about Harris-Perry as an individual. She was responding to an article by Harris-Perry -- in other words, she was not saying "I have black friends" in response to an article by a black person, but rather she was saying "Melissa Harris-Perry and I are friends" in response to an article by Melissa Harris-Perry.

It is important to note that Walsh did refine what she meant by using the term "friend" -- she did not try and portray them as intimate personal friends. That is why I found Harris-Perry's response a bit harsh. On the other hand, it probably would have been better had Walsh used a phrase like "Melissa Harris-Perry and I are on friendly terms professionally" or some such. Racial politics is still a very thorny area, when two such admirable women can become entangled in it like this. Very sad IMO.

[Supersedeas]

88. is it possible for the facts to be manipulated to sensationalize and

manipulate their followers

[Prism]

11. My reaction would have been

For three years now, the LGBT community has been called racist for daring to speak up and agitate for their civil rights and simple respect.

Three. Years.

It is allowed to go on and on and on in the most insulting, insensitive, and denigrating terms. It's practically a sport here on DU. Examine any lengthy thread on an LGBT issue, and you'll eventually uncover the snarky little comments intimating teh gheys are racist.

It's a tired refrain, and it is intended to shut LGBTers up.

So I am naturally unsympathetic to the argument that antipathy towards President Obama by liberal constituencies is generated primarily by race. I think it's important to explore privilege and constantly rethink how our perceptions of people are shaped by our own privileges that are not immediately obvious to our conscious mind. Any reminder to do that is a good one.

But some of the President's supporters reach for the racist drum first and foremost and unrelentingly, no matter what the occasion, and I am just plum tired of it.

When people dared tell me and my brothers and sisters that our fight for equality and holding this President to account was pure racism, I'd had enough.

Shit, it's still going on in the threads over the past few days.

[yardwork]

13. +1. And it's been going on here at DU for much longer than 3 years.

In 2004, when I started reading on DU, many threads and posts on DU directly blamed GLBTQ people for losing the election. Apparently it was our fault that the Republicans put anti-gay constitutional amendments on state ballots, thus turning out the bigot vote and helping w get re-selected (he had to steal the election in Ohio anyway).

By our very existence we were at fault. And so it still is.

I have no doubt that this post and the one to which I'm replying will be deleted as a violation of DU rules, while entire threads currently running in GD-P that accuse all LGBTQ DUers of racism are left unlocked.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Note to Prism: The LGBT Community includes blacks, Hispanics, Asians,

American Natives, and all stripes, colors, and ethnicities.

Is there racism in the LGBT community? Sure is. Just as there is sexism and surprise: self-loathing homophobia as well.

Is there racism in the black community? Sure is. Just as there is sexism, homophophia, and bigotry of all forms.

Is there racism in the white community? Sure is. Just as there is sexism, homophophia, and bigotry of all forms.

And yes, there IS racism in the liberal/progressive community!! Just as there is sexism, homophophia, and bigotry of all forms.

[Prism]

15. Which is why the tactic is so bone-jarringly stupid.

And why the constant refrain that the gays are racist is so revealingly racially homophobic. Because every single time I see that intimation, I realize the person making it thinks the LGBT community consists primarily of frivolous, fey, affluent white men. That homosexuality (or at least the LGBT movement) is a culturally white problem with effeminate white values. Trust me, the subtext is all there, and every single time the "gays are racist" attitudes bubble to the surface, that rich racist homophobia is gurgling away right along with it.

You're answering a statement no one has made. Nowhere have I said there isn't racism and bigotry among liberals - or any other group for that matter.

Nowhere. So why answer with that?

I'm answering a specific rhetorical tactic, which is to dismiss and denigrate LGBT concerns by cynically and maliciously employing race against the community.

Which, as I've mentioned before, not only gets to the heart of a racist homophobic sentiment primarily directed at gay white males, but it leaves LGBTers of color hostage and broken in the process.

And look, I volunteer with homeless youth. Many of them are LGBTers of color, and you'll never ever guess which attitudes I've decribed above permeate the rationale their families used to cast them out. So you can put a lid on the cutesy "Note to Prism" because I know more about how LGBTers of color are treated than you ever will.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. But why are you comparing attitudes towards LGBT with attitudes among blacks?

I can assure you that to do so is dismissing a very large LGBT community that is black. That was my point.

I hate it when my black brothers and sisters do it. I hate it when LGBT folks do it.

[Pab Sungenis]

17. It's not being compared to attitudes among blacks.

It's being compared to attitudes among people who assume any criticism of Obama must be based on racism.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prism]

19. If you hate it so much, you should speak up more

Because DU isn't bereft of examples. And celebrated LGBTers of color in the community have written on this topic endlessly. Pam Spaulding and Keith Boykin are two of the best writers on this issue, to name just two of many.

The OP asked a question. Would I feel the same way towards the Perry article if she were a white writer? I answered yes, because the assertion she is making and how she is making it vividly reminds me of hundreds of comments, articles, and snarks that have made that same assertion - that Democratic discontent with President Obama is a racial thing.

Having stared at the LGBT community being subjected to that argument without reprieve for three years, yes, my reaction to Perry's column would have been exactly the same.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. Interestingly enough, I do! In fact, I belong to several blogs related to various aspects

of black American life (for instance, health issues affecting black women), and when I see ignorance on these sites targeted towards the LGBT community, I speak up LOUDLY. Even if I am in the minority of opinion, I don't back down when it comes to ignorance on this issue.

Not that it should matter but I my father is a wonderful gay man who I adore and am extremely proud of. We fight against all forms of bigotry. My family has always been very politically active.

If white liberals and the white LGBT community are asking others to stand up against bigotry, to be more mindful of it, to not dismiss it when it occurs, when black Americans and black liberals like myself and Melissa Harris Perry are asking you to not dismiss the way we feel, to be more mindful of those feelings, and to attack racism when it rears its ugly head.

[Whisp]

25. that is one thing where equality exists in all of us.

we are all equally able to have unattractive human qualities and no one 'group' is exempt.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. I agree with this, and if all of us really care about bigotry, none of us would dismiss

how others feel when confronted with these issues.

[Bobbie Jo]

23. In the same Three. years.

Blanket accusations of homophobia have been "allowed" to go on "unrelentingly."

Yes, it IS insulting.

[Prism]

24. Defend anti-gay actions and policies and . . .

What do you expect?

And the fact you think the dichotomy is an even one tells me all I need to know there. LGBTers objected to actions and policies that affected their lives and families. Whereas the racial accusations objected to . . . whether or not LGBTers liked Obama enough.

Yeah, so they're totally equivalent.

Thanks for the reveal.

[Bobbie Jo]

27. Thanks for the demonstration.

[Prism]

28. The shallowness of the comparison speaks to the point quite nicely n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

31. The knee-jerk assumption and subsequent dismissal demonstrate the point

quite nicely as well.

[Prism]

33. Is there a point?

Is defending anti-gay actions and policies not homophobic?

I've yet to see any evidence underlying this point you seem to think you're making. I'm all ears.

[Bobbie Jo]

34. I made reference to

Blanket accusations of homophobia. You constructed the straw man from there to take me to task. Who here is DEFENDING anti-gay policies or actions.

Perhaps you could provide evidence of your point?

[Prism]

36. The DOMA incident for one

The DoJ's actions and behavior were defended here to the hilt and LGBTers bashed to hell and back when the DoJ put forward that brief. In the fullness of time, of course, it turns out the administration did have a say over how the DoJ handled DOMA.

In the end, LGBTers were 100% correct.

But we certainly took a shellacking for sticking up for ourselves.

That's just one example among many, but it reverberated on DU for over two years.

And I'm sorry, but if you defended the DoJ's nonsense in that and bought into the excuses that President Obama had no power whatsoever over it (which, turns out, he did), then you were enabling homophobia at the very least.

And that's the best case description.

And you know what, Bobbie Jo. I want you to think on this exchange. Right now, many African-Americans and others on DU are arguing that whites and other privileged classes aren't listening, are dismissive of racial bias, don't understand where black people are coming from.

Go back and read your words and tone in that exchange. I'll wait.

Now. How are you any different towards LGBTers than some white liberals are towards blacks?

[Bobbie Jo]

45. As instructed

I reread the exchange. and you have yet to address the double standard in terms of insinuations and blanket accusations that are too often accepted as truth. That it IS insulting and unfair no matter WHO is throwing them down. I spoke up in this thread because I have seen many a DU'er ripped to shreds and unfairly labeled as "homophobes" End of discussion....do more listening was advised.

Now here we have an African American woman attempting to express her thinking based on her experience in this world, and by the time her words were twisted beyond recognition, ALL WHITE PROGRESSIVES ARE RACIST. I mean WTF?

Then, I see your post, and a number of other lgbt'ers weighing in, incensed at the idea of being wrongly labeled as "racists," and the double standard operating here was just too difficult to ignore.

Point being...blanket accusations serve no purpose but to further divide, and perhaps we should all do more listening and less twisting and finger-pointing.

Glad you asked, and waited....

I'll await my inevitable stoning now.

[These Eyes]

47. +1000!

[Prism]

48. More avoiding the question

You keep saying "blanket accusation." In what context? Can you cite specifically (or even generally) when a blanket accusation of homophobia was laid down? Or was it, rather, in the context of defending an anti-gay policy or move by the President that was detrimental to the LGBT community? I have my theories.

And I see you've ignored the details, yet again. Just as MHP mislaid the details in her piece. She has a feeling racism is at play. That is a fair feeling. She tried to compare how the Left treated Clinton and Obama and came up wanting in her research.

You claimed you've never seen a defense of homophobic behavior here. I offered up a gigantic example of how defenses of anti-gay policy and behaviors were defended here.

Crickets.

There's no double standard. Again and again and again, you cannot wrap your mind around what LGBTers go through while remaining stymied at how some white individuals behave.

Do you want to know how some white liberals can't understand racial problems because they are blinkered by their privilege?

The answer is simple. Examine your own attitudes towards LGBTers. They are one and the same.

[Ignis]

56. So which is actually worse--homophobia or accusations thereof?

I know which I'd vote for.

[Empowerer]

57. That's a great question

And one I often ponder when it comes to discussions of racism and homophobia.

Some people will scream bloody murder whenever anyone attempts to point out instances of racism and homophobia yet dismiss/ignore the underlying instances that are being complained of as no big deal, a misunderstanding, misinterpretation. And, of course, this includes attacks on the people who have the nerve to point out the racism or homophobia for being the REAL culprit since, according to them, they are crying wolf, causing racism/homophobia to continue, and, of course, unfairly smearing everyone within earshot as a homophobe or racist.

Very strangely, on this board and in many other places in society, it is considered MUCH worse to be accused of being a racist or homophobe than to be the victim of one.

[Ignis]

68. OT: Props.

While I disagree with the approach you've taken to framing this debate--GDP and all--I applaud you for the effort.

I just wish the tavern owners of DU would get a little more skin in the game re: this conversation--but I'm hopelessly romantic.

:shrug:

[Ignis]

69. I hear you, but which side would you come down on?

Given a binary choice, I'll give credence to the fact that any minority group knows that it is being abused / spoken down to / discriminated against more than the majority can recognize.

Call me biased if you like, but it's a firmly Liberal bias. :hi:

[cigsandcoffee]

18. That shold be Prof. Harris-Perry. n/t

[Mr Deltoid]

20. Another circular firing squad OP

Phony, made up, non issue.

[Empowerer]

21. Asking people for their opinion is not an invitation to a circular firing squad

. . . unless DUers have become incapable of having a rational discussion about anything.

If you feel that an intelligent exchange of opinions is a circular firing squad, you are welcome to refrain from participating in the discussion. There are plenty of other threads here that might better suit you.

[Union Scribe]

62. It fits well in the new GD:Race-Baiting forum this has become. nt

[rury]

22. No it wouldn't have been the same

just like the criticism of President Obama would not be the same if HE were white.
The bar is ALWAYS higher for us and the pushback is ALWAYS greater when "we" get angry or upset.
That's a fact, though many here will continue to deny it.

[Akoto]

26. My only issue with the whole thing ...

... is that I think Harris-Perry was too harsh on Joan Walsh. The whole 'friends' thing was taken out of context. I think Walsh said it because she genuinely thought she had a professional friends relationship with Harris-Perry.

Other than that, HP's views are what they are, and I will keep my opinions on each point to myself. She is wholly entitled, as are we all.

[Supersedeas]

87. that's not small issue if you think about the substance of it

[karynnj]

29. NO

I did consider the possibility that even on the left part of the willingness to criticize Obama was racism more seriously because she is one of the people on TV that I like best and I respect her analyses - and that of at least one poster here who I know well. I just don't see it as being a big part of the negativeness - though obviously there likely is some leftist somewhere for whom it is true.

I would ask either of them if they think that John Kerry or Al Gore would (or were) treated better. They are two white men, born into socially elite families. My guess is that if either had become President and had the same success Obama did - enough to infuriate the right, yet not enough to satisfy every left wish - added to a bad economy that really is hurting a large proportion of the country.

Remember that Nader - referring to Gore could see no difference from Bush - and Joe Trippi called Kerry Bush lite. Yet both men are treated as left wing fringe radicals by the right. I don't think either could have NOT had the left wing angry over something they did or didn't do.

Looking back to the 1990s, if you look at the left magazines, they had major problems with Clinton and they did not treat him better than Obama. One magazine I saw from 1995, while cleaning out bookshelves, was hoping Wellstone would primary Clinton.

There is one other possibility of why this seems different. President Obama is really the first Democratic President in the internet age. Though the internet existed in the Clinton years, it was nowhere what it is now. I think the closeness of the primaries and the way the internet facilitates communities with similar positions might explain part of it as people, including many in the media, who lost their dream of a President Hillary Clinton might still hear echoes of things said in the primaries. This likely goes beyond the PUMAs to people who did shift to back Obama and worked hard for him.

[Empowerer]

35. Thanks for the input about the substance of MHP's piece - much appreciated

but my question really went to a different issue. Do you think the REACTION to her piece would have been different if a white commentator had said the same things?

I'm not asking whether President Obama IS being treated differently or whether MHP was right or wrong in saying that he is or whether you agreed with her. I'm asking whether people would have reacted to her piece in the way they did - negatively or positively - if the points she made had been made by a white writer instead.

I hope you'll respond.

Thanks.

[karynnj]

42. To me it made a difference

To make it personal to me. I am Jewish. I don't usually respond seeing attacks as antisemitism when a Jewish Senator is attacked, but I am more sensitive to "codes" that are negative and used because he/she is Jewish. That may be happening in some of the criticisms of Obama - and I am not picking it up. That, and because I respect her, did make me stop and try to see what she was seeing.

But, in general, the depth of my reaction is more correlated to the amount I care about the person. (In fact, I am far more likely to jump on an attack on Senator Kerry than Schumer or my favorite NJ Senator, Lautenberg.) It may be that many - not just blacks - have an attachment to Obama that is stronger than for any past President in decades. (For a Democrat, this is easy.)

[Supersedeas]

58. very well put karyn

[These Eyes]

30. No...

I believe had the article been written by a white person the response would have inspired more thoughtful discussion. Here's why...

We live in a society where paternalistic attitudes toward certain groups still exist. If Tim Wise had written the article, for example, we would be discussing racism as defined by a white man. The article, based upon his definition of racism, would have been seen as thought-provoking, worthy of rational discussion. I doubt that anyone would have seen it as a blanket indictment of all white liberals as racists. It certainly would not have morphed into an accusation of an attack on all GLBTQ DUers as racists. But it was written by an African American woman whose understanding of racism doesn't come from mere observation, but from the raw experience of being the subject and the target of racism. Yet, it is this definition that so many on this board find offensive. It is this definition that so many white liberals have taken as a personal affront. It is as if we are not allowed to define our own life experiences -- they must be sanitized through the filter of the white experience. Let someone use the term "tar baby" and you'll see whites on this board telling blacks that it's not racist, and then proceed to give a definition of the term. Yet, they have never been called a tar baby, or spear-chucker, or Aunt Jemima (I still won't buy their pancake mix), or bur head, or any of the other 'terms of endearment'.  As Americans, we may share the same history, but we certainly don't experience it the same way. When you live with a thing, you're able to discern that thing.

I understand why MHP's article got the response it did. I understand it, but I don't get it.

[Empowerer]

37. This is very interesting - real food for thought. Thanks!

[Beacool]

32. I think that the premise of her article is flawed.

If Obama were to be 100% white, liberals would be howling just as loud or even louder. What does his race have to do with the policies that he has supported or enacted?

Lord knows that there's plenty of racism in this country, but there are legitimate issues and some that are not so.

There seems to be a pattern. If liberals criticize Obama, it must be because they're racists. If AA people criticize him then it must be because they never loved him in the first place (accusation thrown at Reps. Waters and Cleaver).

When is it OK then to criticize him? Part of treating someone as an equal is to be able to dole out criticism to an individual without being accused of racism. No one batted an eyelash when Clinton, Bush and every other president before Obama were criticized by the opposition, and in many occasions, by members of their own party.

:shrug:

[Empowerer]

38. Thanks!

[Mimosa]

39. I didn't know until right now that she is black!

I doubt my opinion would change.

I recognise there is a lot of antipathy towards the President which is racial in origin. But I bet the majority of liberal supporters who worked to elect Obama aren't griping about the president's few failures because they suddenly began channeling their inner racists!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

76. She's bi-racial; black father and white mother...

and is quoted as saying she doesn't identify as being white.

We all have "issues" -- MHP included.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Arguably

If the commentator had been a white progressive, he or she would have had firmer basis to lecture other progressive whites on their biases and attitudes.

I have a better cultural understanding of other whites than I do people of color.

MHP said that she's learned to shut up when GLBT people are talking. When people are talking about what they feel, one should shut up and listen. When people are talking about how YOU feel... not so much.

[Better Believe It]

41. So do you think that white liberals would be "easier" on Perry if she was white?

And that white progressive criticism of Obama is a result of anti-Black racism infecting liberals rather than policy differences.

[Empowerer]

43. You keep answering my question with other questions

I asked a simple question - and asked it of you twice - and welcome your answer if you are so inclined to provide one.

[Better Believe It]

46. So you decline to answer that simple question. Gee .... I wonder why?

"What about her political background and history make a difference?"

Because all of us, including her, are shaped and views are developed as a result of their education, political history, personal experiences, career goals, etc.,

For example. does she have a personal, career or economic stake in the re-election of Obama.

I don't know.

Maybe.

Maybe you know!

But, she has failed to provide the slightest shred of evidence backing up her claim that progressives oppose Obama because they are racists and their criticism has little or nothing to do with policies differences.

Of course, she did publicly admit later that she might be wrong with that assessment. Good for her. She is wrong.

[Empowerer]

49. Thank you for finally answering my question.

I'll answer your question after more discussion in this thread - I'm really interested in what people are thinking and don't want to turn this into a thread focused on what I think.

But I promise to answer your question later - please remind me if I forget to do so.

[Better Believe It]

50. Good. I look forward to reading your response to my question.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

77. She's half white...

so I guess nasty ol' white liberals are being only half "hard" on her. Same with bi-racial Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

44. No. And I seriously question whether Sirota would have

characterized her premise as "arrogant". That in and of itself raised flags to me.

I suspect that a white commentator would have been afforded more credibility by some readers to speak to a theory about white voters - just as some in other demographics feel that someone from outside their demographic has no standing to address or even comment on issues specific to their rights or needs.

I think there's also an element of a white commentator, ironically, being seen as more 'thoughtful' on a subject and not coming from a personal agenda. Harris-Perry was lambasted for playing the 'race card' for speaking, IMO, about someone outside her race. That's an extension of the concept I just mentioned, whereas a white person can extrapolate on any subject and be regarded as an "expert".

The inverse of that was seen yesterday. I saw a post that basically stated that Obama's poor performance would ruin race relations and cast a poor reflection on blacks. Yet GWB's dismal performance - FAR MORE SO than President Obama's first three years - carried no such baggage. A white person's actions are accredited, by some, only to that person. But a black person, nonsensically, carries the weight of representation for the entire race. 'As one goes, so must go the rest.' That was a key example of the kind of race-based misperception/assumption that persists in society and poisons the well of race relations.

[Empowerer]

54. Very interesting

I'd like to dig down a little deeper into one of your points:

"I think there's also an element of a white commentator, ironically, being seen as more 'thoughtful' on a subject and not coming from a personal agenda. Harris-Perry was lambasted for playing the 'race card' for speaking, IMO, about someone outside her race. That's an extension of the concept I just mentioned, whereas a white person can extrapolate on any subject and be regarded as an "expert".

Often in these discussions, the views of African Americans are dismissed as "playing the race card" while similar observations by whites are seen as "truth-telling." This seems to be based on an assumption that blacks bring an automatic bias into any discussion about race by virtue of their blackness, while whites do not have a corresponding bias - that their views are objective.

I've seen this in many other quarters as well. For example, several years ago during the Democratic primary, Howard University hosted a debate, moderated by Tavis Smiley with questions being asked by black journalists. Several other journalists, including one from the Washington Post, raised the question of whether the fact that this debate was being held at a predominantly black school with black journalists asking the questions meant that Barack Obama would have an unfair advantage over the other candidates. However, not once prior to any previous debate did I ever hear the question raised over whether the white Democratic candidates would have an unfair advantage over Barack Obama because the debates were being held at predominantly white institutions with mostly white journalists asking the questions.

There is often an assumption that black journalists and commentators bring a bias into their work, solely by virtue of their being black while white journalists have no bias by virtue of their being white. In reality, we ALL have biases based upon our background, experiences and environment. This means that the truth/objectivity is probably somewhere in middle, not - as is often assumed - on the "white end" of continuum with the white perspective being the objective truth and everything else that diverges from it being somewhat suspect.

Do you think that that phenomenon is at play in this discussion? If so, how do we change the conversation so that people will be more willing to give more credence to the views and perspectives of minorities, rather than treat them as biased observers?

[CakeGrrl]

60. I do think that phenomenon is in play, to wit

response #55 just below mine. The belief that a white journalist would have received more direct, honest criticism over a black journalist for whom feedback must somehow be 'tempered' is a prime example.

The challenge is that there has to be a recognition that there IS an issue. A lot of people here will deny that there could possibly be something more to Progressive attitudes toward the president other than the most noble wish to see him support "Progressive values", as if there is a standard definition of such.

If one doesn't think there IS a problem, they won't participate in an analysis or discussion of it.

[Enrique]

55. the answer is "yes" in Sirota's case

that is the way Sirota writes. He would 100% aboslutely say the same thing about a white writer.

My answer, above, is pretty much the opposite of what you just posted, and I think is closer to the truth. If it were a white writer, more people would sound like Sirota, fewer people would "soften" their critique the way Joan Walsh for example did. I prefer Sirota's approach, personally.

[CakeGrrl]

59. Your response implies several dynamics at work.

"If it were a white writer, more people would sound like Sirota, fewer people would "soften" their critique the way Joan Walsh for example did."

Your implication is that the black writer needs to be treated with kid gloves, or put another way, the white writer would be able to handle more direct criticism - assuming, as you do, that the white writer would enjoy the RESPECT of honest, direct criticism. There are biases at work in the implication that a black writer should receive a different level of feedback and in the reasons some believe that s/he should be subject to a different level of feedback/criticism.

Do you hold the same view for the beliefs of other minority demographics?

It's clear that you share Sirota's viewpoint, as you were one of the people who created an OP around it to provide a rebuttal. You're entitled to your opinion, but some do not share it, nor can you truly know "100%" what Sirota would have done. Agree to disagree is probably the order of the day here.

[Enrique]

64. I think we agree

I didn't say whether I liked those niceties I was talking about, and in fact I prefer the honest, direct approach regardless of race, and apparently you do too. So maybe we should agree to agree, on that point at least.

[Marnie]

61. Name one white commentator who would have considered

such a claim to be factually sound?

It would be laughable.

The only reason Perry is receiving any credence is because she is partly Black and becasue she wears the robes of academia and supposedly opines based on facts.
She has really damaged her intellectual credence with this fact less and very divisive accusation.

We voted for Obama. We did not vote for McCain. Any liberals to whom Obama's half Black genetics mattered, didn't vote for him in 2008.

She and Obama should go beat up on them. After all they, if indeed any such actually exist, already didn't support him, therefore they have not turned against him since the election because they turned against him before the election, based on his mixed racial heritage.

Perry's premise is nonsense. Americans had a choice between a 100% white and a 50% white candidate. So those Americans, of any ethnic background for whom the candidate's genetics mattered enough to be the deciding factor for their vote made their choice in 2008.

Among other damage Perry's feckless claim causes is to create an atmosphere in which the "racist" liberals of 2008 are extremely likely to look at the way Obama treats their literalism, and the way he caves on issues of importance to them as less than appealing. So she and Obama reduce the number of those votes that Obama might swing his way in 2012 by insulting them, along with the rest of America's liberals.

[EffieBlack]

66. Tim Wise

Tim Wise writes about bigotry and white privilege regularly and often calls out these issues among progressives. But I have never ONCE seen him subjected to the oncoming that Professor Harris-Perry has had hurled at her in the last week.

[CakeGrrl]

67. I had a thought about that in post #44.

[These Eyes]

73. I agree...

Isn't it sad, though, that he could write the very same article and it wouldn't be seen as threatening or accusatory because he's white? See post #30.

[treestar]

81. What about the standards Obama is held to?

Why do we hear so many claiming they voted and worked for his election whine on about how disappointing he is? He's like other Democratic Presidents. Why do we keep hearing the opinions that other Democratic Presidents were much better? I don't recall Clinton being bashed as not FDR-like. Or even worse, not LBJ-like (often these critics seems to want a bully to be President and don't like that Obama is not one).

[Ganja Ninja]

70. So now you're racist if you aren't happy with Obama and you're ...

racist if you disagree with Melissa Harris-Perry.
:eyes:

[Mr Deltoid]

78. Stupid

Isn't it?

[EffieBlack]

79. It's stupid only if you have a comprehension problem

[Mr Deltoid]

86. The longer this goes on

The clearer it becomes.

[treestar]

80. Not at all

It would not have raised nearly as much of a storm. Which is sad to say. But there are many white people who just can't seem to deal with hearing black people on this issue.

[Empowerer]

83. What think you of this response to Professor Harris Perry's article?

<snip>

Furthermore, unless you're black, you can't possibly understand. Yada, yada, yada. This unfortunate obsession increasingly resembles a photo negative of KKK racial thought. It's useful for intimidating tenure committees staffed by Ph.D.s trained to find racist symbols in the passing clouds. Otherwise, Harris-Perry's becoming a left-wing Michele Bachmann, an attractive woman seeking fame and fortune by saying silly things on cable TV.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/28/obama_fights_republicans

[treestar]

84. Sounds like right wingers and their defensiveness

and their claim that the black and white races can somehow in the US given its history ever be "equal" in suffering racism. The "left wing Michelle Bachmann" shows that - the writer seems to be saying you can be a left wing Michelle Bachmann on racial issues in the U.S. - how can that be when white people just don't have a history of being enslaved by black people, Jim Crow laws, etc. And that snide reference to "finding racism in the passing clouds" to me shows that the writer thinks that some claims have been made that he considers to be absurd and he's not willing to consider it.