There have been a lot of articles published in recent days with man-on-the-street quotes from West Virginia along the lines of, "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist."
Now, I’m not denying that this sort of sentiment is a problem for Obama, nor am I necessarily denying that it’s a particularly severe problem in West Virginia. But can we please take this reporting with a little grain of salt, at least? I’m not sure whether these sorts of quotes tell us all that much about the electoral dynamic in West Virginia, as opposed to the psyche of the reporters writing the stories.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that, if you’re a reporter, and you conduct enough man-on-the-street interviews, you can find some idiot to say "Obama’s a Muslim" — or even "Obama’s a n***er" — anywhere. You can find racists and xenophobes and conspiratorial crazies in California, New York, Texas, Illinois; you can find ‘em all over the damn country.
Can you find them more easily in West Virginia? Perhaps. But you’re also much more likely to publish their quotes in a story about West Virginia, because it fits the storyline perfectly. Indeed, such a quote is precisely what these reporters are looking for when they start conducting the interviews in West Virginia. Whereas in California or New York, they’d probably ignore the random racist quote, in West Virginia they go out, they turn on the yokel-detecting radar, they hold up a microphone to the redneckiest-lookin’ redneck they can find, and — voila! — journalistic magic happens.
Again: I’m not denying the real, genuine significance of racism as a factor in Obama’s problems, nor am I suggesting that Appalachia is devoid of racists. But please, let’s not jump to the conclusion that, when Hillary wins tomorrow’s primary by a margin of 70% to 30%, it means that 70 percent of West Virginia Democrats are racists, just because we read a handful of cherrypicked quotes that seem to validate that preconceived notion.
Hillary Clinton’s supporters prefer her to Obama for a whole bunch of reasons, some of them cultural, some of them political, some of them overtly racial, some of them subconsciously racial, and some of them falling into various other categories. While I disagree with their choice (and I strongly disagree with Hillary’s conscious or reckless exploitation of the prejudices that do exist), it’s an insult to those voters to paint them all with a broad brush and assume the only reason they’ve voting for Hillary is because they hate black people, or people with the middle name "Hussein," or whatever.
It’s possible to condemn prejudice without engaging in it, and that’s what’s called for here. Some people in West Virginia (and elsewhere) are voting on the basis of racism, and that sucks. Most others aren’t, and we shouldn’t assume that they are. And that’s all I have to say about that.
UPDATE: Poblano writes:
I do want to write a little bit more about the
notion that West Virginians are racist. … [T]he short version is: yes,
there are racist voters in West Virginia, but there are racist voters
in every state. The primary determinant of the extent to which racism
tends to be more manifest is education levels, and so the effects may
be more noticeable in West Virgnia, a state with poor academic
achievement. But there is no reason to believe that West Virgnians are
particularly racist, relative to their education levels.
That seems right to me.
|
Categories: Election 2008, Notre Dame
|
May 12th, 2008 at 7:35:03 pm
Because we all know moonshine drinking, NASCAR-watchin’, gun-totin’, gay-hatin’, snake handlin’ country folk would be votin’ for Hillary in November if they had the chance.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:11:43 pm
While I disagree with their choice (and I strongly disagree with Hillary’s conscious effort to take advantage of the prejudices that do exist)
I don’t think that’s true at all. The black community abandoned HRC, not the other way around, and HRC’s rhetoric the past few days, while poorly verbalized, certainly bears that she has been stung by that abandonment and no longer gives a flip about the black vote. But that does not mean she is appealing to racial prejudices in her non-black audiences. She is simply pointing out that Democrats will get the youth and black vote anyway, and that she has a much broader base of swing-voter constituences (the largest of which is the “working class” white vote, which tends to overlap with other swing-group categories like blue-collar labor voters and Catholics), with which to mount a majority-capable campaign against McCain.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:15:26 pm
Plus - don’t Obama-supporters have to take these things with a granola of Fair Trade sea-salt ?
May 12th, 2008 at 8:39:12 pm
What effort has Hillary made to take advantage of prejudice? I’m not saying that she hasn’t, but, like Andrew, I’m not sure that she has. Just wondering if you can back that statement up with an example or two.
Also, while I thoroughly enjoy making fun of West Virginians, I’m wondering where you’re getting the idea that it is EASIER to find crazies in West Virginia, as opposed to New York, Illinois, Texas or California. Or…wait…are you just taking advantage of a common prejudice against West Virginia?
(and if you are, welcome to the club. I think any state that consistently reelects a lunatic like Byrd is certifiably insane. Don’t even get me started on Massachusetts or California!)
May 12th, 2008 at 8:54:12 pm
Um, okay Andrew, explain to me how the “black community” abandoned Hillary? You know, as opposed to being repulsed by Bill’s obvious commentary on comparing Obama to Jesse Jackons? Because nothing makes black folks happier than when a white man says they look all alike. Heck, all he needed to add was “boy” and things would’ve been complete.
We won’t even get into the fact that the “black community” has also noted (despite making references to Nabisco snack products whenever their names come up) that Bill was in office for 8 years and appointed how many people of color to cabinet positions? In contrast, those evil Republicans have gone out and appointed Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas…well, you get the idea.
I think the “black community” got tired of the Clintons running around like they could completely disregard African-Americans. Furthermore, they got tired of so-called black leaders (see Sharpton, Al) basically acquiescing to the bludgeoning of Obama. Add on to the BS Hillary’s been throwing around lately and I’d say that this reckoning is not only well-deserved, but overdue.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:17:47 pm
Ah, Youngblai-grasshoppa, you have much to learn.
Either you’re really naive or you’re not paying attention. Right up through Iowa, HRC was winning with blacks over Obama and Edwards. After all, her husband had been the “first black president”. HRC also once commanded the youth and latte-liberal votes, but Obama used the Iowa caucuses to steal that base from her. By the time HRC got to South Carolina, Obama was getting 78% of the black vote and also winning among young and liberal voters.
But what was also going on behind the scenes is that Obama’s people were calling up the black leadership supporting HRC, telling them, “Do you really want to be against what could be the first African-American presidency?” One by one, her AA backers abandoned her. By Super Tuesday, Obama was getting 85% of the black vote, and by a month later, 90-95%.
While Obama has effectively usurped HRC’s original base from her, HRC has not been getting killed in youth and liberal vote as badly as she has been with the black vote. If you think it is presumptuous of me to assign some of the blame for that to Obama and other blacks who are lining up behind him for racial reasons, it’s equally presumptuous of you to posit that Billary turned racist and that is what caused the defections.
HRC’s natural response to all of this has been, “So you want to be the black candidate? Fine, I’ll make you the black candidate then!” and using that to marginalize Obama and build a broader coalition (unfortunately for her, it’s too little, too late to reverse the inevitable). Is not turnabout fair play?
However you want to look at it, getting 95% of the vote of one racial group is not pretty — it definitely speaks to some unpleasant underlying political realities. And to assign HRC and her husband as the de facto cause of that massive divide is just insane and wishful thinking. Really, Billary’s embitterment is classic lashing out from feelings of abandonment and betrayal — how dare blacks turn against us after all we’ve done to curry favor with them! As you rightly point out, how much the Clintons have actually done for blacks is highly debatable, but that doesn’t alter the order of the chicken and the egg here. If blacks suddenly woke up and felt betrayed by the Clintons and the Democrats (were they not one and the same entity until this past January?), reason would suggest that some of them would turn coat and start voting Republican. But guess what? That ain’t gonna happen.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:56:20 pm
I’ve read this blog for a while, but never commented.
Although I grew up elsewhere, I’ve lived in or near the Appalachians all my adult life.
In my experience, the most accurate generalizations about Appalachian people are:
Funny, smart, kind, loyal, generous. They are the people I would most want around me in an emergency — they’re competent, have lots of common sense, and I trust them.
I’ve been astonished at the contempt shown towards Appalachia by people who comment — and post — on otherwise insightful blogs.
When you write about the African-American voter, why not put up a picture of Little Black Sambo and write “coon” under it?? Your picture in this post shows an equal degree of insensitivy.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:17:28 pm
Actually, Janet, I think Brendan is attacking those who portray Appalachians as idiots.
Andrew–remember that Obama was trying mightily not to mention race in this campaign to avoid being Jacksonized. Moreover, it wasn’t until he proved he can win in Iowa that many African-Americans began to believe he had a chance.
Now, I won’t disagree that the man is getting 90-95% of the vote speaks of issues, but he wasn’t pulling that amount in the AA community until Bill made it an issue. 50%+, yes, but not “Okay, every African-American who didn’t somehow benefit from Bill Clinton’s time in office is now voting for Obama.”
And of course her AA supporters, especially superdelegates, started to back away. Why? Because most of them come from predominantly black districts and, yeah, you don’t want to be the Congress critter who decided to back the Clintons over a black man in predominantly black districts.
Now, personally, the whole thing sickens me. If you’re going to vote for a candidate, skin color should be immaterial. However, I don’t think the Dems should be surprised identity politics has up and punted them in the crotch. If you make people think of themselves as ___, then they’re going to reflect this at the ballot box.
As for blacks changing sides…well, one could always hope. Of course, that’s a whole different conversation. More African Americans than you think vote Republican, but certainly not the wholesale numbers one would expect given the shenanigans pulled of late by the Dems.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:18:24 pm
I canvassed for Obama in Montgomery county, Maryland. It is about as blue an area as you can get, with plenty of Trader Joe’s stores and a whole lot of political correctness.
And I *still* found people who said this. And remember I only spoke to registered democrats, since it was a closed primary here.
One of my favorites was the woman who informed me that she had no problem with Obama himself being President, but she knew that the rest of the blacks would just get out of control if he won.
And yet, he still won by a large margin here. And he won in Iowa, and Idaho, where there are plenty of white people. I think that while racism plays a part, I don’t think it’s as large as some people think.
Although, who knows, I guess it’s possible that certain groups of white hicks are more racist than others.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:20:35 pm
I have to agree with janet a bit here. And since my grandpa was born in West Virginia, I should probably get riled up because of my genes.
I recall visiting Brendan in Knoxville and learning that Eastern Tennessee was largely loyal to the Union and had no interest in slavery. This was apparently true for all of Appalachia and is what drove West Virginia to split from Virginia. Given that Appalachians apparently had no history of slavery and no Confederate sympathies, I wonder what is behind the general assumption that West Virginia is teeming with racists.
I haven’t studied the history of Jim Crow in the state, but I can’t imagine it was as bad as Alabama and the rest of the South where segregation was so entrenched. In fact, my guess is West Virginia’s history of segregation and racism isn’t much different from the industrialized Northeast and Midwest. The only difference is that, while Appalachia has remained poor, the Northeast and Midwest had a period of relative prosperity (which is what drew blacks there in the first place — to find jobs).
But apparently, if you’re white and poor and “backward”, that means you’re probably racist. Meanwhile, if you were born in a suburb in Michigan or Connecticut, you’re a more enlightened, tolerant white person? It’s odd these stereotypes of white people and regions we’ve created.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:26:54 pm
What is more troubling? The fact that only 40% of White people vote for Obama or the fact that only 5% of Black people vote for Clinton?
Which is a more racist stat?
Why is it OK for Blacks to vote for Obama because he is Black, but not for Whites to vote for Clinton because she is White?
May 12th, 2008 at 10:29:31 pm
it’s an insult to those voters to paint them all with a broad brush and assume the only reason they’ve voting for Hillary is because they hate black people
I would like to go on record as saying that it is unfair to assume that the only reason 95% of Black people are voting for Obama is because they hate Whites.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:30:41 pm
Youngblai, we’re largely in violent agreement but for two small points.
One, while Obama wanted to avoid being painted as a Sharpton or a Jackson, that doesn’t mean he steered clear of AA identity politics. Read the article I linked to earlier — there was plenty going on behind the scenes.
Two, I’m not contesting that Bill put his foot in his mouth in South Carolina, but if you read that article, Obama’s people are the ones who made that a racial issue; Bill was making a logical comparison based upon the electoral results and Obama’s people spun it into their favor. All is fair in love and war, and politics is simply war by other means. What I am contesting, though, is the cause-and-effect relationships. I am asserting that the sequence is, HRC started with the black community’s support, blacks started going for Obama, Obama made it racial, more blacks deserted, HRC lashed out in bitterness and essentially said to blacks, “Screw you, I’m writing you off!”. IOW, HRC is not racist and she’s not race-baiting, she’s just lashing out at the folks who she thinks have become disloyal and stabbed her in the back. This is a far more plausible explanation for her behavior than suggesting that, after decades of being very progressive and being married to the “first black president”, HRC suddenly is doing her best Nixon and playing the race card to win white votes. While her guile and evilness suggest she’s up to any tactics that favor her, her political history casts doubt in this being a plausible explanation for what she has said.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:38:36 pm
I would like to go on record as saying that it is unfair to assume that the only reason 95% of Black people are voting for Obama is because they hate Whites.
I would like to go on record as saying that the notion that black people are voting for Obama because they hate whites is absurd, because by definition blacks cannot be racist — they’re just tired of being kept down by da man, and now they finally have their Shaft. Can you dig it? Baaadassssssssss!
May 12th, 2008 at 11:20:34 pm
Youngblai at 10:17 –
The post makes its point — there are racists in places other than WV and not everyone in VW is voting for HRC because they’re racist (or at least not consciously….) Then it mentions the yokels/rednecks in the Heart of Darkness could have reasons other than racism for their vote.
If that’s all ironical, OK.
But I think an opportunity was missed here to speculate a little more about any reasons and motives beyond racism that might influence WV voters.
And I can’t portray the ‘Black voter” or the “Jewish voter” as a caricature — no matter how ironical I’m being — without a lot of people being justifiably offended. But for some reason, it’s OK to caricature West Virginians. Nobody objects….
May 13th, 2008 at 2:06:17 am
Brendan,
You write that if Hillary wins by a margin of 70 to 30, it simply means 70% of West Virginians are racist. That’s a strong assertion, and the clear implication is that all of Hillary’s supporters (at least in West Virginia) are racist!!!
Is it possible that a West Virginian could like Hillary and NOT be a racist??!! Or is that impossible?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:06:23 am
Brendan,
You write that if Hillary wins by a margin of 70 to 30, it simply means 70% of West Virginians are racist. That’s a strong assertion, and the clear implication is that all of Hillary’s supporters (at least in West Virginia) are racist!!!
Is it possible that a West Virginian could like Hillary and NOT be a racist??!! Or is that impossible?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:48:40 am
“Why is it OK for Blacks to vote for Obama because he is Black, but not for Whites to vote for Clinton because she is White?”
gahrie, for a while I puzzled (very Skeptically) over the same question. / Then one day the Answer occurred to me ~ albeit rather Belatedly, perhaps because I am a typical inbred Moron from New England. (Hi janet :)
Here is Why. (It is Simple, really.)
(1) It is “OK for Blacks to vote for Obama because he is Black”, because: despite the enormous contribution of Blacks to building, sustaining, improving, and defending this nation (and their enormous Suffering in the process), there has Never been ~ until Obama came along ~ a Black seriously-Potential major-party presidential Nominee, let alone a Black seriously-Potential President. / Therefore, under the circumstances it is OK for the American Black tribe to vote overwhelmingly for Barack for tribal reasons: it is high Time that a [well qualified, keenly intelligent, charismatically eloquent, extraordinarily nimble, and of course Clean :] member of their Tribe had a chance at it.
(2) By the same token, it is Not OK “for Whites to vote for Clinton because she is White”, because: concomitantly with the enormous contribution of Whites to founding, building, sustaining, improving, and defending this nation (and their very considerable Suffering in the process), there have to date been 43 White Presidents of the United States, selected from among a Cumulative field of Serious contenders who have also been 100% White. / Therefore, under the circumstances it is quite Questionable for the American White tribe to vote heavily for Hillary for Tribal reasons. Our tribe has hardly been Excluded from the Presidential opportunity. We don’t exactly Need to elect (the well-qualified, smart, tough & tenacious) Sen. Clinton (nor, for that matter, the heroic, patriotic, resolute, & worrisomely-mercurial Sen. McCain) in order Finally to consummate our tribe’s collective full Citizenship. / Iow, WE don’t need to demonstrate that indeed here, for Us too ~
That’s why.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:00:32 am
Joe:
I could maybe buy that except for one thing. The basic premise is that when we come to America we leave the tribalism behind. If we are going to endorse, or even tolerate, tribalism then we are going to quickly devolve from E Pluribus Unum to me and mine first.
As we look around the world, isn’t it clear that tribalism is at the root of most instability, atrocity and oppression?
May 13th, 2008 at 7:24:59 am
WBV, good lord. Did you READ my post? I just argued against the very thing that you claim I asserted!!
Pay attention!
May 13th, 2008 at 8:49:22 am
Yeah, I think that the fact people are having to have this discussion means Obama’s toast (barring a total meltdown by McCain) in November.
Personally, I don’t plan on voting for the man because he’s unqualified. However, yes, there is that pressure within the African American community to “vote for one of us.” Which, as I mentioned, p*sses me off because racism is racism no matter how you slice it.
Now, as to the 2 points we disagree on, Andrew:
1.) I tend to disbelieve “behind the scenes” commentary. Sorry, but I’m a firm believer in someone being able to provide specifics, not a general innuendo. I’m not saying I _can’t_ see some of Obama’s followers doing this, as if there’s one thing I’ve learned about the man is he can’t hire good help. However, the fact is _Obama_ was not doing this.
2.) Which leads to the next point. Bill is not some yokel campaign worker running off at the mouth behind the scenes–he’s a former President. When he, for no apparent reason, mentions Jesse Jackson it is for calculated effect. Either that, or the man cannot control his impulses. (I’m willing to buy either one at this point.)
However, even if you buy that the black community fled wholesale to Obama and this inspired her bitterness (a hypothesis I’m willing to entertain), what cannot be denied is her current actions should disqualify her to run as dog catcher. It is one thing to write off an entire (heretofore loyal to the party) demographic in _private_. It is quite another to stand up and say, “Well, those lazy (censored) can vote for Mr. Obama all they want, but y’all know come November white people ain’t voting for the black man.” That’s funny, but I thought the reason we still remembered Nixon’s Southern Strategy was because of how f-ed up it was–so why does she get a free pass because she feels “betrayed”?
As I said–I can’t look at either of them and find qualifications to be President. Obama likes to attempt to spin any attack on his person, associates, or past as “racist” or “old-style politics,” Hillary is fiddling with materials and powers which can rapidly turn loose ugly, uncontrollable things upon the world. I’m not a John Edwards fan (in the least), but things are rapidly reaching the point where I think he’d have a better chance of winning in November than either of the two others.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:14:22 am
Can you find them more easily in West Virginia? Sure.
Brendan,
I know you are arguing against stereotyping here. I also know you don’t engage in stereotyping here or anywhere else. But the above statement doesn’t suggest that.
I grew up in the rural Midwest. I have been at the receiving end of the above contention — but directed toward downstate Illinois — all my life. I don’t think one will find more white racist voter attitudes, polling responses and/or voting patterns in any given region of the U.S. Some journalists may assume so, but, to my understanding, this statement isn’t about them.
Leanna
May 13th, 2008 at 9:22:28 am
Hmm. This is interesting. The response to this post is the polar opposite of what I expected. The reason I threw in caveats like “Can you find them more easily in West Virginia? Sure” is because I figured people would react along the lines of, “Oh, Brendan, don’t be so naive. Everybody knows there’s a lot of racism in places like West Virginia.” So I tried to pre-emptively guard against that criticism by framing my point in a way that acknowledged that conventional wisdom, which I thought was uncontroversial.
I guess I was inadvertently acting as if my blog audience consisted of my dad. :)
Those caveats are not central to my argument, indeed they are clearly detracting from it, and upon reflection, I’m not sure if I necessarily believe they are true, as stated. So I am watering them down. I’m changing
“Now, I’m not denying that this sort of sentiment is a particularly severe problem for Obama in West Virginia”
to
“Now, I’m not denying that this sort of sentiment is a problem for Obama, nor am I necessarily denying that it’s a particularly severe problem in West Virginia”
And I’m changing
“Can you find them more easily in West Virginia? Sure.”
to
“Can you find them more easily in West Virginia? Perhaps.
And I’m changing
“Again: I’m not denying the real, genuine significance of racism as a major factor in Obama’s problems in Appalachia.”
to
“Again: I’m not denying the real, genuine significance of racism as a factor in Obama’s problems, nor am I suggesting that Appalachia is devoid of racists.”
With those changes, I think the post more accurately reflects the central point I was trying to make, and prevents people from misinterpreting it as perpetuating the very stereotypes that I’m trying to argue against.
Cletus stays, however. I think he’s freakin’ funny. He is also ambiguous: you can interpret him as mocking the stereotype, or as perpetuating it. But really, I just think he’s funny. And if someone wants to come up with a caricature of an effete Yankee voter looking down his nose on the population and voting for Obama, I’m fine with that.
Oh, but I am removing the “Heart of Darkness/Appalachia” comment. That was purely tongue-in-cheek, as I thought everyone would realize, but I can see how it might contribute to the sense that this post is double-edged. In fact, as a resident of Appalachia for nearly a year now, I think it’s great, and I think the people are wonderful. I have almost literally nothing bad to say about my experience in Appalachia. Nor do I look down on the people here in any way… I really just think they’re fantastic. So I’m taking out that little joke, lest anyone be misled.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:33:43 am
Amen to Cletus.
On a slightly different note, this article urging Republicans to nominate Hillary is good stuff.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:04:27 am
Oh, and as long as I’m watering things down, I’m changing “Hillary’s conscious effort to take advantage of the prejudices that do exist” to “Hillary’s conscious or reckless exploitation of the prejudices that do exist,” with a link to a Salon article by Clinton admirer Joe Conason, with a subhed referring to the Clintons’ “reckless exploitation of racial division.” You can read the article for yourself, but Conason at one point says:
Referring to the exploitation as “conscious or reckless” more accurately reflects my position, which is that I don’t actually know what the Clintons’ motivation is, but at the very least, they’re being reckless.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:00:54 am
Some folk’ll never eat a skunk but then again some folk’ll…
May 13th, 2008 at 1:28:27 pm
Jeffrey Goldberg recently interviewed Obama re. his views about Israel and the Palestinian conflict.
Respond to that, and accompany the post with a cartoon of a “Republican, pro-Israel Jew.”
Your readers (and the ACLU and the ADL) would object, and rightly so.
Those of us who grew up in the South and/or Appalachia are long accustomed to the “white trash-ignorant redneck” stuff and nobody pays much attention to it.
But I’m assuming that Obama’s supporters support his goal of “uniting” the “United States”. And I’m not sure how contempt for, and ridicule of an old and lovely culture like Appalachia gets us very far down that road.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:54:43 pm
Janet, did you read the actual substance of my post? I am defending Appalachia against the assumption that people here are a bunch of racists! That’s the whole point of this post!
Moreover, I already modified the previously objected-to caveats, which I had previously included in order to ward off criticisms that I was being naive, but which, upon reflection, I realized were stated too unequivocally and didn’t reflect my actual beliefs on the matter. So I’ve already changed and retracted those, as noted above. I also removed the “Heart of Darkness” reference, which, as I said, was intended purely tongue-in-cheek and was never meant to be an actual statement of opinion about this lovely part of the country. If you’re a regular reader, you know I love silly plays on words, and that’s all that was.
That leaves Cletus from The Simpsons, with his Hillary pin added by yours truly. Now, if you want to say my use of that cartoon is insensitive, that it crosses the line of good taste (notwithstanding that, in context, it can be interpreted as mocking the stereotype at least as readily as it can be interpreted as perpetuating the stereotype), then fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I think, in context, it isn’t offensive, but I respect how you might disagree.
But “contempt for, and ridicule of an old and lovely culture like Appalachia”? That’s a bit much. I’m not ridiculing the culture of Appalachia, much less demonstrating contempt for it. You’re talking to someone who loves bluegrass, who’s been to numerous cultural events of various sorts while living here in East Tennessee and has enjoyed them thoroughly, who has had almost universally positive experiences with the people of this part of the country, and who stated earlier in this thread that “as a resident of Appalachia for nearly a year now, I think it’s great, and I think the people are wonderful. I have almost literally nothing bad to say about my experience in Appalachia. Nor do I look down on the people here in any way… I really just think they’re fantastic.” And you conclude, apparently, that all that’s a big lie, and I actually feel contemptuous ridicule for this fair land, all because I had a little fun with a picture of Cletus from The Simpsons, in the context of a post defending Appalachia? Give me a break.
If you’re a regular blog reader, you know that I like to poke fun at things, including things I agree with and like. This is just another example of that. Are there certain lines one shouldn’t cross in making jokes that touch on cultural hot-button issues? Sure, more of them than I wish there were, because to be honest, there’s a lot of good humor in cultural stereotypes and regional jokes, so long as everybody knows it’s all in good fun. But society imposes certain politically correct restrictions on what one can and can’t say, and I try to abide by those when they’re clear. I don’t think Cletus falls into that category. You think he does, or should; fine. I disagree, because I prefer to shrink that category, when possible, rather than expand it. I really hate the P.C. police and I really like a good laugh. And I think it’s possible to have a good laugh, and also discuss a serious issue, without being distracted by a silly, funny little cartoon that was obviously intended in good humor and not meant to hurt anyone’s feelings.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:02:55 pm
P.S. Re: “the ‘white trash-ignorant redneck’ stuff” … did you miss how I specifically took journalists to task for perpetuating this “stuff” by seeking out walking stereotypes? That was the whole point of this paragraph:
As I said: “I’m not sure whether these sorts of quotes tell us all that much about the electoral dynamic in West Virginia, as opposed to the psyche of the reporters writing the stories. … [so] please, let’s not jump to the conclusion that, when Hillary wins [today]’s primary by a margin of 70% to 30%, it means that 70 percent of West Virginia Democrats are racists, just because we read a handful of cherrypicked quotes that seem to validate that preconceived notion.”
That’s the point I’m making in this post. I understand how it may have gotten lost in the original version, because of my poorly worded caveats. However, in the modified version, with only Cletus standing as a potential, arguable counterweight to my argument (and I don’t think he even is), I’m not sure how you can reasonably interpret this post as an assault on Appalachia.
And incidentally: the analogies to cartoonish representations of Jews or blacks really aren’t apt, because those are racial/religious stereotypes, rather than regional or cultural stereotypes. There’s a huge difference there. Racial and religious stereotypes are much more taboo. A better analogy is the one I made, to the Yankee/coastal nose-look-down elitist stereotype. And, lo and behold, wasn’t Obama recently the subject of much mockery and consternation for his remarks in, of all places, San Francisco, which were perceived as “elitist”? And I have I not posted several mocking riffs on the “elitist” stereotype? I even mocked myself this morning for being an out-of-touch Yankee snob. That’s the better analogy, and I’m perfectly willing to play that game too. Like I said, if someone comes up with a good cartoon of the Yankee snob Obama supporter, I’m perfectly willing to post it.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:21:40 pm
“As we look around the world, isn’t it clear that tribalism is at the root of most instability, atrocity and oppression?”
Yes, it is, gahrie.
“The basic premise is that when we come to America we leave the tribalism behind.”
No, it isn’t, gahrie. / Well. Theoretically, hypothetically, in an idealized, Thought-experimental, and (I suspect) Genome-modified world ~ Sure it is. But in the Real word, fuggedabout it. Humanity is approximately as close to leaving Tribalism behind as we are to leaving Warfare behind (which, come to think of it, is at least Half a Redundancy right there). Nation-states are tribes, gahrie ~ Megatribes comprised, as Ours is, of various friendly & unfriendly, serious & frivolous, competitive & cooperative, Subtribes. / Yes it’s gonna be a Hard reWiring job to leave all That behind.
“If we are going to endorse, or even tolerate, tribalism then we are going to quickly devolve from E Pluribus Unum to me and mine first.”
No we aren’t, gahrie. We are going to continue, as we always have, to E-volve in the context of the messy, uneasy, entertaining & dynamic Coexistence of Both principles.
(IOW, try looking at it My way. “Out of many, Me.” :)
May 13th, 2008 at 2:56:23 pm
Yes but what’s your Point? :} Like I just told gahrie: E Pluribus, Meus. ;>
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22:27 pm
“it’s an insult to those voters to paint them all with a broad brush and assume the only reason they’ve voting for Hillary is because they hate black people, or people with the middle name “Hussein,” or whatever.”
why not? as a black person I have had to continusly answer the question, “are you voting for Obama just because he is black?”
why should I not ask the entire 70% voters to answer this same question? its not the politics because they are identical and its not because of Bill as she has gone to great lengths to stand on her own two feet, except for when she loses a primary.
I think it is a fair question just as the people of South Carolina was asked, why?
The people of West Virginia should be put on front street and let the rest of the country hear the answer to that question.
IMHO
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22:27 pm
“it’s an insult to those voters to paint them all with a broad brush and assume the only reason they’ve voting for Hillary is because they hate black people, or people with the middle name “Hussein,” or whatever.”
why not? as a black person I have had to continusly answer the question, “are you voting for Obama just because he is black?”
why should I not ask the entire 70% voters to answer this same question? its not the politics because they are identical and its not because of Bill as she has gone to great lengths to stand on her own two feet, except for when she loses a primary.
I think it is a fair question just as the people of South Carolina was asked, why?
The people of West Virginia should be put on front street and let the rest of the country hear the answer to that question.
IMHO
May 13th, 2008 at 3:33:57 pm
Huskers, whereas you seemingly argue that neither assumption is offensive, I would argue that both assumptions are offensive.
And I think you actually agree with me, given that you seem to take umbrage over the fact that “as a black person [you] have had to continusly answer the question, ‘are you voting for Obama just because he is black?’”
I think you’re right to take umbrage. I think you’re wrong to then say, in essence, “Because I have been asked this offensive question, other people should also be asked similarly offensive questions.”
What I said, and you quoted, is that we shouldn’t assume people are voting a certain way because of race. The question you’ve “had to continually answer” assumes, wrongly, that race is your sole motivation for voting for Obama. Shouldn’t you be offended by such assumptions, whether they’re directed at whites or blacks?
And yet here, you are disagreeing with my statement that we shouldn’t “assume the only reason [white people in West Virginia are] voting for Hillary is because they hate black people.” How on earth can you disagree with that?
Your position makes no sense to me, except as a misguided expression of pique (”I have been subjected to something improper; therefore others should be subjected to it, too”). It’s not a principled position, unless you’re actually OK with that question you’ve “had to continually answer” about Obama.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:40:14 pm
That said: I think asking questions about people’s motivations is fine, so long as the questions don’t presuppose the answers.
It’s assumptions that I object to, not questions, per se.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:50:42 pm
Brendan
you read my post correctly I am expressing outrage at being forced to entertain that question from people and sit and watch cnn or fox debate why obama has such a high black turnout.
you and I both know that this situation will not resolve itself in our life time and I do not have the energy to attempt to especialyl with the 1st black man and 1st white woman running for office and both have a legitmate chance to win.
I take umbrage yes and am sick and tired of it and if I should have to answer the question so should the people of WV as well as white women in Ohio.
I was listening to liberal talk radio on sirius the other day and a latino woman from los angeles said flat out she would not vote for obama because of the gang situation in her neighborhood! as if the two are somehow connected but it does not surpise me because my brother is married to a mexican woman and for the first 3 years of their marriage her father and mother did not want to have anything to do with him…that is until he was dieing of cancer and needed my brothers money and navy medical benefits then he was “son”.
Black people did not abandon Hillary in as much as begin to see thru her and her husbands lies after being bamboozled by them for the last 10+ years. Bill must have some good kool aid he has been serving but I was never drinking his crap.
finally, the people of WV should be able to vote for whomever they think will best serve the interest of the country and their state the best.
Andrew, to say that black people abandoned her when it was black people in congress and the senate who stood up for Bill and Hillary thru all of their legal trouble is just crazy. I remember sitting watching those hearings and wanting to tear sheila jackson and dude from Tennessee’s head off as it seemed it did not matter that Bill lied to a grand jury it was as if that was small stuff to the job he was doing for the country as whole. including putting us thru his impeachment hearing. and it made me feel as if those leaders were somehow saying that what Bill did with Monica was ok because a real black president would have done the smae thing. thats why I cant stand Toni Morrison for that statement.
but we all know that there will be a few who think that when/if Obama is elected he is going to run to all the jails in the country and free all the “opressed and wronged” black men in there, I am wrong?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:50:42 pm
Brendan
you read my post correctly I am expressing outrage at being forced to entertain that question from people and sit and watch cnn or fox debate why obama has such a high black turnout.
you and I both know that this situation will not resolve itself in our life time and I do not have the energy to attempt to especialyl with the 1st black man and 1st white woman running for office and both have a legitmate chance to win.
I take umbrage yes and am sick and tired of it and if I should have to answer the question so should the people of WV as well as white women in Ohio.
I was listening to liberal talk radio on sirius the other day and a latino woman from los angeles said flat out she would not vote for obama because of the gang situation in her neighborhood! as if the two are somehow connected but it does not surpise me because my brother is married to a mexican woman and for the first 3 years of their marriage her father and mother did not want to have anything to do with him…that is until he was dieing of cancer and needed my brothers money and navy medical benefits then he was “son”.
Black people did not abandon Hillary in as much as begin to see thru her and her husbands lies after being bamboozled by them for the last 10+ years. Bill must have some good kool aid he has been serving but I was never drinking his crap.
finally, the people of WV should be able to vote for whomever they think will best serve the interest of the country and their state the best.
Andrew, to say that black people abandoned her when it was black people in congress and the senate who stood up for Bill and Hillary thru all of their legal trouble is just crazy. I remember sitting watching those hearings and wanting to tear sheila jackson and dude from Tennessee’s head off as it seemed it did not matter that Bill lied to a grand jury it was as if that was small stuff to the job he was doing for the country as whole. including putting us thru his impeachment hearing. and it made me feel as if those leaders were somehow saying that what Bill did with Monica was ok because a real black president would have done the smae thing. thats why I cant stand Toni Morrison for that statement.
but we all know that there will be a few who think that when/if Obama is elected he is going to run to all the jails in the country and free all the “opressed and wronged” black men in there, I am wrong?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:30:50 pm
Corny, unfortunately it is going to be a lot more than a few that think that way.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:10:43 pm
http://wonkette.com/390031/west-virginia-voters-we-salute-you
For the comments.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:22:18 pm
http://wonkette.com/390031/
west-virginia-voters-we-
salute-you
May 13th, 2008 at 8:38:08 pm
To Brendan @ 2:02:55 PM - how about this ? (“Like I said, if someone comes up with a good cartoon of the Yankee snob Obama supporter, I’m perfectly willing to post it.
“)
(Ya did ask … (grin))
May 13th, 2008 at 8:48:17 pm
Hahahahaha.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:22:37 pm
Andrew, to say that black people abandoned her when it was black people in congress and the senate who stood up for Bill and Hillary thru all of their legal trouble is just crazy.
Cornhusker, you’re making my point for me. Billary saw how the black leadership stood behind them in the 1990s, and continued to support them in HRC’s campaign for president. When blacks started defecting, HRC began lashing out at them out of her perception that she was being abandoned and her AA support was going turncoat on her. Why blacks always supported Billary so strongly, and why they finally gave up on them and went to Obama, is almost beside the point — the key is that HRC expected black support even against a black candidate, and when her black supporters started leaving to support Obama instead (and the AA votes followed), she got angry.
Bill is not some yokel campaign worker running off at the mouth behind the scenes–he’s a former President. When he, for no apparent reason, mentions Jesse Jackson it is for calculated effect.
Youngblai, again, if you’d just read the damn article, you’d see that there was a perfectly logical reason for Bill use Jesse Jackson as a comparison:
As for your point that you don’t give much credence to “behind the scenes” commentary, dude, get with it — this stuff is every bit as factual and relevant as what the candidates themselves say. Read the friggin’ article for chrissakes, and if you want to refute the argument made by the author, have at it! But please, I don’t want to see any more of this kind of namby-pampy fingers-in-your-ears BS response.
Humanity is approximately as close to leaving Tribalism behind as we are to leaving Warfare behind (which, come to think of it, is at least Half a Redundancy right there). Nation-states are tribes, gahrie ~ Megatribes comprised, as Ours is, of various friendly & unfriendly, serious & frivolous, competitive & cooperative, Subtribes. / Yes it’s gonna be a Hard reWiring job to leave all That behind.
Joe, the point of the “melting pot” is that, when you leave these former tribes and nation-states, you become an American first. You are essentially excusing the continuance of this “tribalism” and saying that whites must live up to this higher standard and not vote based on tribalism, but that it is okay for blacks to do so. Must I levy the charge against you that you are peddling the soft bigotry of low expectations? America’s history of slavery and Jim Crow does not justify a set of double standards — one for blacks and one for whites. Every race, every religion, every ethnicity, should be held to the same standard.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:50:57 am
“Joe, the point of the ‘melting pot’ is that, when you leave these former tribes and nation-states, you become an American first.”
Correct, Andrew. Your principal Tribe ~ the Big one ~ becomes: America. Your prior Memberships recede to the secondary, tertiary, and So forth: all bubbling-&-troubling around amongst all the Other ingredients competing to rise to the Top of the mighty mulligan stewpot that IS ~ America. (And yes, sooner or later this tribal transformation occurs even if your ancestors were driven to “leave these former tribes and nation-states” in chains or in the famine ships, or on the Reservations, or howsoever ~ for Regardless, just as Randy Newman sang: “Y’all gonna be an American.” )
“You are essentially excusing the continuance of this ‘tribalism’ and saying that whites must live up to this higher standard and not vote based on tribalism, but that it is okay for blacks to do so.”
Well. / Entirely apart from the evolutionarybiological probability that “essentially excusing the continuance of this ‘tribalism’” is rather like Basically condoning the persistence of the Reproductive instinct: No, it is True (as we’d say in the gaelic :) that I am Not. :>
I am Saying ~ indeed, I “essentially” already Said ~ that it is Okay for a major American subtribe, no member of which has EVER managed to bubble up to the very Top of the American mulliganPot, to Support the 1st one to seriously portend to Do so; whereas, it is Not equally Okay for the dominant American subtribe which has thus far Won the series 43-0, to “support” the Wannabe 44th simply (or if you prefer, “essentially” :) for the sake of Extending the Streak.
“Must I levy the charge against you that you are peddling the soft bigotry of low expectations?”
No.
:}
May 14th, 2008 at 2:30:57 am
Joe:
I disagree with your position, but for the sake of arguement:
Is it OK for the subtribe to continue to support their own after a member has “reached the top”? Or do thry have the right to do do until they have reached numerically parity? Or some form of proportional parity?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:07:02 am
Revered Elder Loy - answer us this one, if you can …
There is one sub-tribe, amongst all the others which have suffered great hardships which has made amazingly little progress …
It’s not the Irish (in spit of all the anti-Mick bigotry and indenture) …
It’s not the Polish (in spite of the all the polack jokes) …
It’s not the Jews (in spite of the assorted anti-Semitisms of the past few hundred years on this continent) …
It’s not the Sassenachs (tho the Good Lord *knows* they deserve it (grin)) …
It’s not the Chinese or Japanese (in spite of Internment Camps less than 100 years ago, and laws preventing them voting or owning real property) …
A hint … the sub-tribe has high melanin content … and the “leaders” they respect are self-serving Reverends …
Why ?
I will also point out that Hillary isn’t even of the same species of humanity as Lincoln or Roosevelt (either) or Washington or Coolidge … she even manages to make Millard Fillmore look good ! So HRC-as-President doesn’t continue *any* streak … except possibly, that HRC may well be the third in the streak started by Gore then Kerry …
May 14th, 2008 at 9:11:45 am
Andrew,
“Why blacks always supported Billary so strongly, and why they finally gave up on them and went to Obama, is almost beside the point — the key is that HRC expected black support even against a black candidate, and when her black supporters started leaving to support Obama instead (and the AA votes followed), she got angry.”
This is exactly the point! once it became clear that Obama was in fact a viable candidate then all the AA’s had to do was look back at all of the support they gave these two people and what they received back in return. it would not be hard to tell that it’s nothing to brag about as the school, health care and jobs situations are no better today than they were pre 1992.
In fact, Harold Ford is the name I could not remember yesterday, it is safe to say that the only AA’s that benefited from this un-godly assosciation were the people closes to them ever hear of Vernon Jordan, Sheila Jackson, Maxine Waters and John Conyers? please tell me how the people they represent benefited and the answer is short and sweet, they did not.
so when these constituents had a chance to disect Obama’s candidacy and they began to realize that he actually could win then they switched to him. what is wrong in that? it is Hillary’s fault that she took the AA vote for granted and it is Bill’s fault for minimalizing Obama’s chances the way he did.
we all now that as soon as Bill did what he did there would be a sense of pride rise up to say, “hey, where do you come off comparing this new guy to Jesse Jackson?” that was as calculated a move if there ever was one and Bill and Hillary are way too smart and clever to come out with the misspoke crap, but of course they did.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:11:45 am
Andrew,
“Why blacks always supported Billary so strongly, and why they finally gave up on them and went to Obama, is almost beside the point — the key is that HRC expected black support even against a black candidate, and when her black supporters started leaving to support Obama instead (and the AA votes followed), she got angry.”
This is exactly the point! once it became clear that Obama was in fact a viable candidate then all the AA’s had to do was look back at all of the support they gave these two people and what they received back in return. it would not be hard to tell that it’s nothing to brag about as the school, health care and jobs situations are no better today than they were pre 1992.
In fact, Harold Ford is the name I could not remember yesterday, it is safe to say that the only AA’s that benefited from this un-godly assosciation were the people closes to them ever hear of Vernon Jordan, Sheila Jackson, Maxine Waters and John Conyers? please tell me how the people they represent benefited and the answer is short and sweet, they did not.
so when these constituents had a chance to disect Obama’s candidacy and they began to realize that he actually could win then they switched to him. what is wrong in that? it is Hillary’s fault that she took the AA vote for granted and it is Bill’s fault for minimalizing Obama’s chances the way he did.
we all now that as soon as Bill did what he did there would be a sense of pride rise up to say, “hey, where do you come off comparing this new guy to Jesse Jackson?” that was as calculated a move if there ever was one and Bill and Hillary are way too smart and clever to come out with the misspoke crap, but of course they did.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:03:39 pm
gahrie: In the order in which you propounded the questions, the answers are Yes, No, and No. :>
OK, look. Obviously we all “have the right” to vote for ~ OR Against ~ anybody we want to, for any Reason that might occur to us. (For an anecdotal example, *See Below :) I just feel that when we venture onto the minefield of “race as a factor” in our Exercise of that right, there is not necessarily a Moral Equivalency among all of our various & sundry race-relevant Reasons. In particular, I hold in Suspicion the racially-motivated vote cast merely AGAINST the candidate of the Disapproved ethnicity: wherein the voter searches out somebody ~ Anybody ~ of a Less Disagreeable hue on the ballot, and selects him/her simply as the Vehicle for the Veto. (And Yes, such ballotbooth-blockingmaneuver Racism can be, and doubtless sometimes Is, committed by voters Of Color as well as by us Euroes.) // OTOH for the subTribally-motivated vote that is genuinely FOR the fellow-tribesman, without animus toward The Other, I will cut more Slack. // And No, I do not think that the “For” and the “Against” are the same Thing. Not at all, at all.
(*Now for the Anecdote. / I can recall my dear maternal grandmother, Helen Mary McNamara nee Quinn, God rest her, pronouncing candidate John Fitzgerald Kennedy “a little Irish upstart, gettin’ above his Station” and further declaring that his Eyes were set too close together, a sure sign of untrustworthiness. / In the end she voted For him, of course :}. Nothing subTribal about it I’m sure, to be Sure ;>, no thought of Al Smith’s Revenge or anything like that; just that under the circumstances, mortal Sin being a serious matter, one couldn’t be certain a Nixon ballot wouldn’t be cast at the Peril of one’s immortal Soul. :)
May 14th, 2008 at 2:45:47 pm
Because, O thou selfless, egalitarian & wise Mullah Alasdair (blessings be upon your friendly Sheep :), the Arabs are always too busy battling with each other to bother about the Advancement of Muslim People.
[Paddy “Lowmelanin” Muhammed shuffles off to Motown, grinning dazzlingly & clutching his 40 of Murphy’s Stout… :]
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03:30 am
Well I will simply cite Gov.s Wilder, Richardson and Jindal as examples of minorities that large numbers of white folk were willing to vote for, even if they are unwilling to vote for Obama.
Methinks the large numbers of whites voting against Obama can be as easily explained by an aversion to his far left politics, and questions about his dubious associations as they can White racism, especially at a time when no one is questioning the support of 95% of Black voters for one candidate. The combination of Obama’s association with a church that explicitly espouses and endorses a “Black culture and theology” while at the same time attacking middle class values, the US government and White people and the support of 95% of Black voters is surely cause for discussion at least?
Unlike you, I have the same expectations of people, regardless of their tribe or skin color.