We’re still dealing with the fallout of the meeting with Bill Clinton. Yesterday I provided some links to the Boobapalooza Brawl; here are some more: My buddies Julia of Sisyphus Shrugs and Lindsay B. at Majikthise, as well as Jessica herself, offer opinions. I have nothing more to add.
A more legitimate criticism is that all of the attendees were white. I think it was a major gaffe that Steve Gilliard wasn’t invited, although Steve says he wouldn’t have gone, anyway. “If the choice is loyalty to a politician or loyalty to my supportive, generous and desperate for information readers, that isn’t really much of a choice is it?” he writes. That’s fair, but that was not the choice offered by the meeting. Mr. Clinton neither asked for our loyalty nor said anything particularly surprising or newsworthy in the off-the-record portion of the meeting.
The most controversial things Mr. Clinton said involved mild criticism of some other Democrats (although no one currently running for office) and some nudges at the Right in general. None of this was a big whoop-dee-doo, so why off the record? Because, I suspect, if there’s a massive blowup over somebody’s boobs, for pity’s sake, what would rightie bloggers do with nudges at the Right? Or any mention in any context of Republican politicians? Or suggestions that maybe so-and-so made a mistake when he campaigned on such-and-such an issue? And may I add that Mr. Clinton didn’t say anything that wasn’t extremely mild and tolerant compared to the stuff I say about the same people.
But did he say anything off-the-record that was really blogworthy? That you readers would find fascinating and illuminating?
Not really. Of course, you’ll have to trust me on that.
The overall purpose of the meeting was to open more dialogue between liberal bloggers and the Democratic Party. And when I say dialogue, I mean dialogue. As in a two-way conversation. Clinton praised liberal bloggers — not just the ones in the room — for our ability to respond quickly to the Rightie Media Noise Machine with facts and logic. He’s come to realize that the Democratic Party is nuts to treat us merely as ATM machines and believes the Dems should start listening to what we have to say.
This is all good, I say, for all of us, whether at the meeting or not. This is what many of us have wanted from the Dems for a very long time. We’re all hoping the meeting was only a first step in a process that will involve a far larger group of bloggers in the future.
(And may I also say to those who want to fight about who was invited, and who wasn’t — I choose not to participate, thanks. I’ve got quite enough neuroses of my own to manage without trying to deal with yours, too. So, feel free to snark away, and I will continue to ignore you.)
Christy Hardin Smith says that she checked with Peter Daou, who told her some African American and Latino bloggers were invited but could not come on such short notice. The meeting was thrown together quickly. I had known for about a week that a meeting was being planned, but didn’t know for sure if it was really going to happen (and where, and when) until the day before. I suspect a lot of people had to make a mad dash for the nearest airport to be there, although for me a trip to Harlem takes about 17 minutes on the Metro North Railroad.
There’s one seriously misreported detail I want to correct — I say it was red devil’s food cake (with cream cheese icing), not cherry cake.
On to the main issue: The question of how the Dems and liberal bloggers might work together is problematic. The Right Blogosphere more or less functions as the web auxiliary of the Republican Party. That’s not a model I want to follow. Yet when we — liberal bloggers and Dems — do pull together on an issue (the recent “Path to 9/11” flap being a good example) we’re a whole lot more effective than when we work separately.
As Peter Daou wrote in the first “triangle” essay:
Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step in creating the kind of sea change we’ve seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom. This is partly a factor of audience size, but it’s also a matter, frankly, of trust and legitimacy. Despite the astronomical growth of the netroots (see Bowers and Stoller for hard numbers), and the slow and steady encroachment of bloggers on the hallowed turf of Washington’s opinion-makers, it is still the Russerts and Broders and Gergens and Finemans, the WSJ, WaPo and NYT editorial pages, the cable nets, Stewart and Letterman and Leno, and senior elected officials, who play a pivotal role in shaping people’s political views. That is not to say that blogs can’t be the first to draw attention to an issue, as they often do, but the half-life of an online buzz can be measured in days and weeks, and even when a story has enough netroots momentum to float around for months, it will have little effect on the wider public discourse without the other sides of the triangle in place. Witness the Plame case, an obsession of left-leaning bloggers long before the media and the political establishment got on board and turned it into a political liability for Rove and Bush.
The larger question surrounding the meeting is who is using whom? I’ve been amused, but not surprised, at the number of people who assume the meeting was about Hillary Clinton’s alleged presidential ambitions. Let me be clear. First, the Senator’s political career was not discussed at all. Second, most of us in the room have long been on record that we do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential candidate in ’08. I can’t speak for everybody, but no amount of fried chicken is going to change my mind on that.
Of course, some people are still going to interpret either Clintons’ every bleat as part of their campaign to re-take the White House, no matter what I say.
Other complaints can be found in this comment thread at the Guardian “comment is free” blog. Like this guy:
The Usual Suspects were present for the soiree with Clinton because they represent the “left” that constitutes brand-name consumers. They would vote for *anything* labeled ‘Democrat,’ and Clinton knows it.
Yeah, like we all supported Joe Lieberman … oh, wait …
As I wrote in the same comments thread, why is it everyone assumes Bill Clinton is using us? Why can’t it be equally true that we are using him?
Yes, the man is flawed. Yes, he did things as President I think he shouldn’t have done, and I’m not just talking about conduct, but policies, as well. But I if the man offers himself as a tool to enable my agenda, why not take advantage? Access to power, even a tiny bit, doesn’t exactly fall into my lap every day.
If you look back at history, you see that everyone who has ever accomplished anything was flawed. Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Isaac Newton, the father of modern science, messed around with alchemy and astrology. Most of the great men of history, including the historical Buddha, were sexist. Show me somebody who accomplished anything who was without flaw or foible, and I’ll show you someone who paid off his friends to keep their mouths shut.
So to those who claim we bloggers somehow sold out our feminism or liberalism or anything else by meeting with President Clinton, I say: Bite me.
So what is my agenda? As I also wrote in the comments thread, I got into blogging to help restore some sanity to America’s sick political culture, which has become so skewed and twisted we can no longer engage in rational political dialogue, never mind make rational political decisions as a nation.
More than 50 years ago the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that the hard right-wing fringe of American politics was creating “a political climate in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible.” Folks, they have succeeded.
The Right’s got a big chunk of the electorate conditioned to vote against their own self-interests. Mindless repetition of Republican talking points has replaced dialogue. The mainstream news media shuts out true liberalism, and in the heads of most “pundits” the extreme Right is now the “center.” Our political institutions are dysfunctional except as engines to move power and money into the hands of those in control.
In truth, the federal government of the United States of America is no longer functioning as a representative democracy. Congress and the White House are just going through the motions. If we don’t turn this around, pretty soon they won’t even bother to go through the motions.
Restoring enough sanity to my country that it can function as a representative democracy again is my cause. Beyond that, I hope that once people remember what government is supposed to be about they will stop being afraid to use government for progressive ends, such as establishing national health insurance. I want to move the political center back to, you know, the center. I want to see balance and responsibility in news media. But the overall aim is healing the sick political culture so that the government can be a government. What happens after that is, well, what happens after that.
Blogging is a means to that end, as is the Democratic Party and Mr. Clinton. But blogging or Mr. Clinton or the Democrats are not my cause. My cause is my country.
“The federal government of the United States of America is no longer functioning as a representative democracy.” In my book, Maha, that is the crux of our problem.
It has been pointed out that Presidentialism (our system) has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted except the US. Today, that exception seems short-lived.
That aside, I think Gingrich’s GOPAC through countless campaign seminars, workbooks, audiotapes, years of grass root organizing became the Republican Party’s preeminent education and training center and made it the power-house it is today. The famous GOPAC tapes in particular GALVANIZED Republican activists and candidates. (I stress galvanized because I think it’s the one big missing ingredient in the Democratic Party.)
No reason Clinton couldn’t create and run a Democratic Party something-PAC, is there?
“A more legitimate criticism is that all of the attendees were white.”
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
This is what I’ve been saying, on every blog where I could find energy to comment.
The non-diversity of this gathering is certainly a more pressing and real critique considering the Demos want to be the “big tent party” and Daou & co. were well aware that the group pic would be plastered all over the ‘net. And I can see where it could be legitimately discussed and dismissed (my husband had a good argument against it, which I mention in my post about it from yesterday). But not to discuss this AT ALL, while at the same time going WAY overboard in the cheap, easy, site-hit-grabbing mockery of over-the-top right-leaning loonies and their breast obsessions? That has me somewhat steamed.
This is what I’ve been saying, on every blog where I could find energy to comment.
I do not believe it was intentional or even thoughtless, since bloggers of color were invited, and I do not believe it discredits the meeting. I don’t think making a Big Deal out of it is helpful to anybody, however.
I mean no disrespect to anyone but for crying out loud!,now the attendees were the wrong color?Hold on folks, the beef industry will be all up in arms next because (gasp) chicken was served!(we can only hope there were no breasts on that chicken or that will be next)Please Maha if you have knowledge of chicken breasts,leave it off the record!I noticed a diet coke can on the table and I am waiting for a rightie pepsi drinker to go on a rampage over the wrong color can…oh the horror!!!!
Does everyone know something that I do not?Was there some memo declaring this “THE” one and only meeting between bloggers and Bill Clinton?IF Clinton were to have a lunch next week with only bloggers of color will all the whitie bloggers scream”why are there no white folks?”?
Is there some rule that liberals are not allowed to eat lunch unless they have at least one person of color at the table?It’s a shame when you have to ask about your lunch guests color before inviting them to be sure they are not all the same color.Maha, how did Clinton know you were white?Or any of the other bloggers for that matter?When you “got the call” did your race come up?Did they ask what part of the chicken you wanted or if you were on a sodium free diet?Were you told what to wear? (ie no knit, it doesn’t wrinkle and we don’t want you to look good?)Did the secret service give you the once over?….I have a feeling whatever the answers SOMEONE would be mad…the leg people will be mad if you say thigh…the salt lobby will freak if you say sodium free…the cotton people will be at war with the knit folks and both will be angry at you evil group of leftie bloggers who took lunch with bill who once got oral sex…HOLY CRAP!
Next each religion will be up in arms because everyone was not invited.You better hope Bill invited a evangelical and a Hindu but they declined or there is another weeks worth of crap.
Let me be the first to start a brand new problem.Why didn’t Bill invite anyone from IOWA to this lunch? We eat lunch.I am formally mad at all leftie bloggers for not getting IOWA a seat at that table…from now on you tell Mr. Clinton you won’t have lunch if I can’t come too or I will complain about it and if you don’t point out how wrong it was that Bill forgot MY invite well, you are just meanies.
It was lunch people! Lunch and a group photo.I am willing to bet ex-presidents do it most everyday.Get a grip people.Perhaps bloggers who are upset that they were not invited could network with bloggers who were instead of being bitter.But lets not demand quota’s at lunch.MANY many social classes were not invited to lunch with Clinton and we were not invited today either so lets not dwell on one lunch.Perhaps we could get mad about the lunch he will have without us tomorrow…at least it would be fresh.
justme — yeah, that was kind of my reaction. I realized when I saw the group that Somebody would say Something about the all-white crew, but I made a conscious decision not to be the first.
And may I add that I really, really hate identity politics. Why it is that some liberals can’t see the big picture is beyond me. That’s one thing the righties have got on us; they can form coalitions and (for a while, anyway) put aside invididual agendas for what they see as the greater good. Too many of us get into a snit if Our Personal Agenda isn’t being sufficiently honored.
To be fair, I had met Peter Daou at Yearly Kos, so he had seen my blue-eyed mostly Celtic self. He probably knew what everybody looked like.
The diet Coke was the Big Dog’s, btw.
“Restoring enough sanity to my country that it can function as a representative democracy again is my cause. Beyond that, I hope that once people remember what government is supposed to be about they will stop being afraid to use government for progressive ends, such as establishing national health insurance. I want to move the political center back to, you know, the center. I want to see balance and responsibility in news media. But the overall aim is healing the sick political culture so that the government can be a government. What happens after that is, well, what happens after that.
Blogging is a means to that end, as is the Democratic Party and Mr. Clinton. But blogging or Mr. Clinton or the Democrats are not my cause. My cause is my country”
Hear, hear!
Thank you, maha, for another eloquent post, and a most admirable statement of the cause.
Your link to Majikthise points to Sisyphus Shrugs.
[nitpick nitpick]
Restoring sanity to our country is a very ambitious undertaking, but a noble one. Great post Barbara.
Where can I find the IDs of the people in the photo?
I want to comment on the question “Who is using whom?”
This is kinda like asking when 2 folks are in the physical throes of passion, which one is making love?
In a good relationship, both are in it for themsleves and they are in it for their partner. This will have to be the case if there is any future between liberal bloggers and the Democratic Party.
IMO, the liberal blog owner(s), at least the ones I read, will NOT be saddled and ridden by the pary machine. On the other hand, the Democratic Party can’t promise any more than to listen -REALLY LISTEN – to the blogging community, because we can’t agree (for example) how much females are obliged to disguise or downgrade their umm.. attributes.
More seriously, I don’t completely buy into ALL the planks of the Democratic Party, and my free-thinking is symptomatic of Dems and bloggers. All of which is to say; the party can’t satisfy all of us, but they can LISTEN to all of us.
One plank I would like liberal bloggers to agree on is that we will ROAST the party if they ignore all of us, and cater to the good-ol’-boy network, and cave to the moneyed interests who write big campaign checks at the expense of the voters.
On the issue of minority representation. IF things go to the next stage, there will be more time to be sure a variety of points of interest are included, and this will probably balance out the picture. However, if I was a minority (and I’m not), and a blogger, I would be PISSED if I was invited to make the picture more colorful.
However females of any ethnic background with the proper qualifications should be in the front row for the picture. I’m just KIDDING!
Maha, the big picture is that the Democratic Party has already stopped going through the motions for us, by that I mean people of color. That’s why the outrage. We see the hypocrisy. Every blogger who sat at that table would have gleefully pointed out the whiteness of a conservative meet-up but we’re supposed to be color blind when liberals do it?
I guess we are supposed to just shut up and let the white folks decide what issues are important and will get worked on without any input from us. Because that is what I am hearing on this issue. The big picture is vote for Democrats even though they don’t give a hoot about you, because at least they aren’t as bad as Republicans. How about instead the Democrats do listen to our concerns instead of ignoring us and temporarily pandering to us when they need to get us to the polls?
Daou asked ONE black blogger to that meeting. That’s probably good enough for those who were there, they got their access and that’s all that really matters.
It really makes me want to cry. I’ve been reading this type of thing all over the internet these last couple of days. I really can’t believe progressive bloggers think this is about having a token for the picture, no it’s about listening to our perspective, letting us have a say in our destiny. This is only one lunch, but then there was the conference a month ago, or the strategy session three months ago, and the meeting a year ago etc etc etc. We’re always left out, or there really is only a token who isn’t allowed to speak.
I have no blog. I have no expectation of ever getting an invitation. This isn’t about sour grapes. I wish you could see that even those who do have blogs and complained meant it from the heart. I mean, was it just envy when white bloggers complained that only Washington power brokers, lobbyists, and consultants got access? It’s the same thing. I bet you didn’t like the caste system when it didn’t include you either.
I guess I have one question for you and the other posters here. Would it have been different if it was all white men at that table? Would you have accepted excuses like, “On the internet you can’t tell if someone is a man or woman.” or “we invited one woman blogger but she couldn’t come” or “I hate identity politics. We’re all in this together. Look at the big picture.” Do you really think women shouldn’t have any say in policy making or strategy sessions, and that just because the men are progressive they can decide what is best for you without your input?
Restoring sanity to our country is a very ambitious undertaking
Yeah, to say the least! Here’s a little snippet from a gathering of Nobel peace prize recipients to illustrate the task…
The Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who praised the U.S. for its fight against South Africa’s apartheid and its history of justice and democracy, also had stern words for the Bush administration.
“You taught us no government worth its salt can subvert the rule of law. We believed you,” he said. “That’s part of what you have as a gift for the world. Then how can you commit Guantanamo Bay? Take back your country.”
Every blogger who sat at that table would have gleefully pointed out the whiteness of a conservative meet-up but we’re supposed to be color blind when liberals do it?
I say that if the people at that table are your “oppressors,” your life is gravy. Everybody should have such problems.
Peter’s Triangle article is an important piece of the puzzle. Since most people are informed by the traditional new media and the MSM (which is broader than the news outlets) connecting blogs and the media is essential. The Spotlight Project is part of closing the triangle.
Maha – I sent you an email about Spotlight a couple days ago but I am sure you receive a deluge of email… You can check out Spotlight on FDL and C&L.
Thanks
Off topic…But I need some help with my daily crossword puzzle. 13 across has 7 letters, the third of which is R, the clue is: a program of agressive questioning/ progressive techniques.
Anybody got any ideas for what the word might be? I’m stumped.
I didn’t think the people sitting at that table were my oppressors, at least not at the time I saw this picture, nor even after the first rumblings of discontent. I am wondering now. I really did expect different from you personally. I may not comment often but I do read this blog everytime I get online. I do respect your opinion, and enjoy your posts. I really would like to hear what your perspective would be if it was all white men sitting at that table, would it really just be identity politics then?
Maha,
There are many issues that the black community faces which are perpetrated against them even by Democratic politicians. The war on drugs is disproportionately harmful to the black community, the number of black males who are imprisoned for possession is far higher than for whites, even of those who are arrested and charged. This leads into further deterioration of conditions where a single mother is forced to care for her children without the father. I could go on, but I hope you take the point. This isn’t a good thing.
I understand that this was just a first meeting and there will be more. So it’s not a big deal in the long run, if this is kept in mind for the future.
Sorry, the lack of bloggers of color was just one of the things wrong with this whole: ‘Lunch with the Big Dog’ kerfuffle. The ‘Big Dog’ and his ambitious wife are part of the past. The Bush administration has ruptured for the foreseeable future the old ‘go along to get along’ routine that the current stakeholders in what passes for the Democrat Party have relied on to keep their fat jobs as staff, consultant and even donors.
Both parties are bankrupt. The Republicans because they have and are following a man who would be Dictator. Who knows so little of how the world actually works that he has been accurately labeled a moron. The Democrats because they have stood by and done nothing while the treasonous enemies of our nation have brought it low.
I would have rather cut off my little finger than attend a meeting with either of the Clinton’s where my blogging activity was my passport to entry.
The racism inherent in this fuckup is obvious. Too bad those who attended didn’t stop to think how they would be used by the ‘Spineless’ Dems and in the being used lose credibility.
Next time think before you cosy up to the political aristocracy that has besmirched this nation’s birthright of freedom and honor. That considers what it does as inherently right and above criticism.
Remember Bill and Hillary both campaigned for ‘Rape Gurney’ Joe.
Swami, are you sure about that letter R? It sounds like it should be debrief, but the R would be the 4th letter not the 3rd.
“I say that if the people at that table are your “oppressors,†your life is gravy. Everybody should have such problems.”
I absolutely cannot believe you made that comment! In case you were not aware, this is America, land of intense cultural and economic racism, where an entire socio-economic system has grown from the torture, dehumanization and exploitation of an entire group of people based on the color of their skin. Thanks to people like you, this socio-economic system, which in fact is global, thrives unabated.
Does the ‘maha’ tag in your blog title make you suddenly able to opt out of awareness of this elephant in the room? Do you have special “Down with it White Person” credentials that allow you to act like a Billy-Bob asshat drunk on his race given superiority and the chance to flaunt it? Or are you one of the million white ‘progressive’ bloggers who absolutely, steadfastly refuse to examine their own white priviledge and how they play into the oppression they claim to ‘be down wit’ so much?
How dare you, absolutely how dare you mock this woman who came here and was honest, poured her feelings out to you in an effort to be heard. How dare you do such and call yourself progressive!
Look at your response, your obvious and successful effort to belittle, dismiss and not hear, listen or make any attempt to understand. Good going ‘maha’, strike another score for the billionth ones made everyday for the existing social order in America, which obviously you enjoy and have no interest in changing.
“Home of the American Resistance” what a goddamned joke. People like you disgust me.
I have been enjoying blogs for several years and I am sad to confess until this year I never bothered to read the profiles of bloggers.I guess I was more interested in reading their views than knowing their age,sex,race,ect.
I am ashamed to admit how many blogs I read daily, much less how many I just breeze by weekly…lets just say I am an addict and leave it there(is there a 12 step for political blog junkies?)..I have my favorites(you know who you are)…I don’t know if this is how it happened but if I can find my way to the best blogs I would venture to guess Bill Clinton could too. Maybe , just maybe Bill Clinton said to Daou like”hey here is a list of some bloggers I really like since you know them could you reach out and set up a lunch”?…before Clinton decides who he enjoys reading does he have to check to see their balanced by race?And is that just race? Why not every religion,state,ect?(I am still mad Iowa was not invited..we never get a seat either)..Do we know Clinton doesn’t intend to hold other lunches?(although given the reaction to this one why on earth would he want to?)..
Maha said that she had met Daou at Kos convention,and perhaps he also knew what the other bloggers looked like, should he have said “No bill you can’t have lunch with this group of bloggers because I happen to know they are all the same color.”?
What if Bill doesn’t happen to enjoy any bloggers who happen to be black…isn’t that ok.?..what if he just doesn’t like the writing?..I am certainly not saying this is the case, but doesn’t he have that right? I don’t enjoy Russian blogs and I didn’t see any at the lunch but I bet there are Russian American blogs…just because I have never run across a Russian blog that I enjoy that does not imply that I therefore think they should have no voice.But can’t a person pick who he wants to have lunch with based on who he wanted to eat with that day rather than race?
Does my blog addiction need to meet a diversity test? To tell the truth I look to see if I am interested in the content before I even notice the author at “group effort ” blogs and it has never occured to me to check race or sex or where the blogger resides or bra size .Frankly I have never taken a poll of the blogs/writers I read to see that I read men and women evenly.Or make sure my Jewish to christian ratio matches up.I would go batshit insane trying to catagorize it by race…
I wish more voices of every color would enter the debate Lord knows stupid white men have been screwing it up for far too long(sorry guys) But where does it end? Does anyone really believe Bill Clinton ordered Daou to be sure it was an all white lunch?Really?
What did the GOP distract us from discussing while we are busy talking boobs and Blacks?Hmmm could it be torture???????
The man (Clinton) gave the entire country 8 years service.He could sit on his ass now and do nothing but he continues to serve humanity by working on the AIDS crisis in Africa.Until anyone complaining can match that record of service they should show enough respect to let the man have lunch with whomever he pleases.Suggesting Bill Clinton has forgotten about folks of color given his work in africa is a pity at best.
Ps Donna in WI for the record Culture Kitchen has a letter from Peter Daou confirming it was in fact 2 people of color that were invited.And his letter also says this was the first lunch not THE lunch to end all(although I can’t imagine WHY on earth he would do it again, I certainly would not)
I enjoy Liza’s blog but it looks like she reacted before she had all her facts as Daou pointed out in his letter.IF Bill Clinton does not enjoy her writing I hope no one is suggesting he must have lunch with her anyway.I don’t know of any other bloggers of color complaining ,did I miss anyone?Would it be ok if she wasn’t invited because he dislikes her writing?
I really did expect different from you personally.
I know, and I knew I’d catch hell for that comment, but I think it needed to be said.
Let’s try an exercise. Pretend for a minute that you are a white woman who went through years of sexual and emotional abuse, and you’ve spent a large part of your life struggling with overwhelming fear and emotional pain to the point that it’s a challenge just to be minimally functional unless you stay on your meds. Now, consider how you might feel when a middle-class black person who doesn’t know you at all tells you that you cannot possibly know what it feels like to be oppressed.
Clue: Most likely, your first reaction would be to get pissed off and think, “bleep you.”
There were a great many other people not at that table. There were no native Americans, nobody suffering physical disabilities, no woman getting the stuffing beat out of her by her husband every day, no homeless people, etc. There were a pack of college-educated white people, who cannot understand intimately what it’s like to be a racial minority or homeless or crippled or battered. And minorities, and the homeless, etc., have all been shortchanged by politicians, including Democrats, including Bill Clinton himself. It’s not just racial minorities who have gotten the short end of the stick. This is a fact. I am not insensitive to this.
It’s not always visible, but life handicaps everybody in some way or another, just as life hands out privilege cards to people who don’t deserve them. We’re all blind and deaf and stumbling around in the dark, and yet our challenge is to help each other anyway.
I hope to enable change in the political culture to help everyone have more access to power and to get their needs addressed by government. But to do that you have to work with power as-it-is. Too many on the Left think that if they organize enough protests and hand out enough fliers, somehow that’s going to make a difference. Once in a great while this works, but most of the time it doesn’t — like for the past forty years or so. You have to deal with the people in a position to enable your cause, even if they don’t exactly walk on water.
This is why, if we continue to think like A. Citizen in comment #17, righties will continue to run America.
That everyone was white was not as it should have been, but the meeting was thrown together in a big rush. Were the organizers supposed to call us all up that morning and say, sorry, we have to call it off; we can’t find a black blogger who can show up? And I had no idea who else was going to be there until I arrived. Should we have walked out? Or should we have said, in the future, please make a bigger effort to include bloggers of color, and then go ahead and have that FIRST meeting?
What the black bloggers are saying to me is we don’t trust you, because you’re white. And that hurts. I understand that they’re in pain, too, but lashing out in anger to hurt others who may be ignorant but have good intentions is not a useful or expedient way to rectify the problem. It just puts up bigger barriers between us. It certainly was natural and normal and justified to speak up and say, you really need to be sure that doesn’t happen again. But more than that is counterproductive for all of us.
Regarding identity politics — it killed liberalism. Just plain killed it. I saw this with my own eyes. That’s why I hate it. It’s also a deluded way to approach issues; it leads to various “identity” groups competing with each other for attention and privilege, instead of building power coalitions, which is stupid. Liberals have been doing this for years, and its another big reason why righties run everything.
I’ve observed that people who get caught up in identity politics get their egos all wrapped up in their almighty identity issues, and they are insensitive to everybody else’s issues. And I really, really hate that.
Finally, from a Buddhist perspective, race and gender are only temporary conditions. They aren’t who you are.
There’s a great parable in Tibetan Buddhism about heaven and hell. In hell, people sit around a big bowl full of soup, and they have spoons attached to their arms, but they go hungry because the spoons are too long and they can’t bring the bowl of the spoon up to their mouths.
Heaven is exactly the same way, except that in heaven people feed each other.
What the angry ones are telling me is that they don’t trust me to feed them. I understand — really, I do — why they distrust a white person (although, in fact I am not a “white person”), but we have to trust each other, anyway, to help each other, and the trust has to go both ways. That’s how it is.
A social scientist might point out that computer ownership and internet use co-varies with race and social class, so it’s not shocking that whites are overrepresented in any given group of bloggers. There are ways to talk about the overrepresentation of privileged and less privileged groups in different social forums without having the Great Race Debate of ’06.
kate – is what you wrote parody or do actually believe that maha is somehow complicit with torture and exploitation (“Thanks to people like you . . .â€), has no interest in changing the existing social order, and steadfastly refuses to examine her own white privilege? Look, there are other ways to marginalize yourself without attacking other leftists – the 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem to be popular these days – why don’t you run off and join them?
Ever notice that the issues which most affect people have a real sticky quality? Our unsolved issues stick in the mind and the heart and get touched off again and again by whatever is happening, so much so that they [the issues] seem to always seek a ‘place to light’ in which they [the issues] can hope to [at last] get attention…. and even some relieving resolution.
I think it would be wise to just simply understand this dynamic as we go about trying to improve upon our imperfect world. Holding that understanding, and holding the issues from sticking onto every new event might just be a valuable exercise in reading the big picture and developing some patience about timing.
Yes, some lady has big boobs, yes, it was an all white meeting, yes, the Democratic party needs more spine, yes, there is a world of work to do on many fronts. But hey, let’s not overwhelm this new baby before it draws breath! What a wonderful beginning that the Democratic ‘big guy’ met with bloggers!
Maha, your comment in #22 was beautiful.
PS: Isn’t Clinton, whose office is in Harlem, fondly thought of as a ‘black man’ by blacks themselves?
Ever notice that the issues which most affect people have a real sticky quality?
Years ago, for some reason, I went to a “co-dependency” support group shindig. At one point people sat around in little groups to talk about their personal issues — kind of “Hi, I’m Marsha, and I’m an enabler” stuff. As I listened, it struck me how much they all had their egos invested in their bleeping neuroses. Some people in the group were competing for the title of Most High Drama and Suffering Poohbah. The experience would have made a great Seinfeld episode.
And, yeah, they were mostly middle-class white people who most likely didn’t have shit else to complain about, although one suspects at least some of them had experienced some kind of genuine abuse. But they weren’t serious about improving their personal relationship skills or letting go of their pain. They just wanted glory points for it.
Make of that what you will.
Donna asks: “Would it have been different if it was all white men in the photo”?
Well…Nobody would have been bitching about anyone’s tits…
(‘Cept for maybe a few Log Cabinites)
Finally, from a Buddhist perspective, race and gender are only temporary conditions. They aren’t who you are.
Tell that to the women in Darfur.
Tell that to the women in Darfur.
Not knowing who we are is the source of all bigotry and cruelty. It’s because people mistake temporary conditions for identity that the women of Darfur suffer.
Saying that race and gender are temporary conditions or social constructs is not the same as saying that they’re unimportant (as #28 seems to indicate). It’s precisely BECAUSE they’re transitory, arbitrary, provisional, constructed, etc. that powerful groups can attach meaning to them and thereby sort people into hierarchies. To see race or gender in an essentialist way (“Tutsis are naturally inferior to Hutus because . . . .†“Men are better than women in science because . . .â€) is a key source of bigotry.
Some of the criticisms on this comment thread remind me of the micro-political fights in Berkeley. The Maoists at the Revolutionary Bookstore were always feuding with the Trotskyist Worker’s Party, but both hated the Democratic Socialists for not being revolutionary enough. Meanwhile, all three groups castigated those of us who worked for “Cal Students for Clinton†for being colossal sell-outs and for deigning to involve ourselves with “reactionary†party politics at all. It’s pathetically self-defeating to find sources of micro-conflict instead of consensus on big picture issues. Yes, race, class, and gender issues are monumentally important when discussing netroots politics – but lefties didn’t invent race-based disparities in internet use or access, nor does Daou or maha bear the sole responsibility of rectifying those disparities.
maha, what if certain people expect their counterpart to feed them from the bowl until they are full, then turn around and give one or two spoonfuls to the other person and say, “I’m so full I need a nap. And my arm is sore anyway. That’s plenty for you. I think we are done here.” This goes on day after day and the other person is grumbling and angry, the first person says, “If it wasn’t for me you’d be dead. Be grateful I give you your spoonful a day and sometimes I even give you two!” This is more like the “heaven” that POC experience with the Democratic Party and liberals. Unfortunately we realize the Republican “heaven” would gang up on us and beat us with their spoons unless we feed them, while they don’t have to feed us at all, so most of us are smart enough to stick to the Democratic “heaven”.
Two bad choices. Some decide to walk away, yes they know they will die, but why doesn’t our Democratic counterpart see that he will die too, and maybe give us 3 or 4 spoonfuls at least?
It isn’t just the minority constituencies that are giving up on politics and walking away, it’s also labor for instance. I was shocked to read that some 40% of union members vote Republican. That should never happen. But they have bad choices too, neither side cares about labor issues, it’s all corporate welfare, privatization, deregulation, to all of them lately, so instead they walk away and are dazzled by “conservative family values” or some other nonsense. The same might apply to a black woman who attends a conservative church. She knows neither party gives a damn about her identity issues, so she might vote for the Republican who will “protect marriage” instead of the “decadent immoral” Democrat. People usually do have more than one issue, if both parties ignore their top issue they go to the next one, it might mean voting for the other party, or if all their issues are being ignored, they will sit it out.
I guess what I am saying is that giving us a seat at the table is giving us another spoonful, actually listening to us is another spoonful, doing something that actually advances our cause is filling our stomach too.
I hope you see that I am not actually making a big deal of this one lunch. The lunch is a symptom of something much larger, how we are taken forgranted and overlooked all the time. It’s also a warning, the Democratic Party needs minority votes, they also need labor votes, they also need the votes of people with little or no healthcare, etc. The Republican Party does not ignore it’s constituencies, it may pay lip service (give them one more spoonful), but not completely ignore.
We have the choice of being driven over the cliff at 55 with the Democrats, or pedal to the metal with the Republicans, it’s not much difference to us since either way we are dead so maybe we will sit it out. It might make a difference if we knew there was someone, anyone, we could vote for who wants to put on the brakes, but we aren’t seeing it. Yours wasn’t the only dismissive attitude, I’m shocked to see the majority of liberals online really don’t care, don’t want discuss it, hope to sweep it under the carpet but later I’m sure they’ll mouth platitudes about social and economic justice and affirmative action and diversity having meaning for the Democratic Party. (Oh boy! We got our second spoonful today!)
I vote Democratic because I have more than one issue, and so far there is enough worthwhile for me to vote in the elections. The warning is that for identity voters, they may not have more than one or two issues, and you have lost them by not doing the right thing. Not even pandering, or lip service, but actually doing the right thing, but it’s too much to ask for sometimes. NAFTA is more important, or grandstanding about being tough on crime, or welfare…while real people’s lifes go to hell, but they are supposed to keep going to the polls so they can be betrayed again and again.
Correction: Maha’s beautiful comment was #23
Maha’s story in #26 made me think of Carolyn Myss’s thesis in her book, Why People Don’t Heal. To sort of paraphrase what Myss said, ‘Some folks will not heal because they don’t want to give up the pattern of using that pain to manipulate those around them.’
I do not apply Myss’s words to the social inequalities of our world, but I can sure see those words applying to some folks’ never-ending physical/emotional pain.
Not knowing who we are is the source of all bigotry and cruelty. It’s because people mistake temporary conditions for identity that the women of Darfur suffer.
I agree that we are all divine. But these women suffer because they are poor and female and African. For instance, would white women in France or NYC be allowed to suffer in this way. (We know that black women in America probably would, even in a major American city ala Katrina.) Isn’t identity formed from our experience?
Boy what a kick in the teeth for those bloggers who attended lunch with BC.They have worked hard.Hard enough that they were recognized by the Big Dog.They were proud no doubt.
Blogging is a thankless job(how many here have taken the time to thank their favorite blogger for all their hard work?)…yet these folks are in the trenches every day.Someone throws them a bone and before they can even enjoy it the entire blog community pisses on it..Nice.I have even heard one blogger of color say that a certain blogger didn’t belong there at all .The bloggers who did attend are being degraded and treated like shit in general.This friggin sucks.
I am sick and tired of watching other bloggers who were not invited act like bitter petty bitches(yep I said it).I read the other bloggers in question and I am telling you if I got a chance to lunch with Maha or one of them I would lunch with Maha because she is a better writer.It is just a fact, deal with it!Lets hold the race card for a moment because it is just possible in a blind test, with both bloggers writing side by side, Maha was enjoyed better then blog “b”….I don’t give a rats ass what color you are.I either enjoy what you write or I don’t.And I can certainly tell between 2 writers who is the better writer.Playing the race card hurts less than admitting Bill Clinton may just think your writing sucks ass, I guess.No one has bothered to consider BC may have been bored to tears reading other blogs…Naw, it couldn’t be because the writer sucks it has to be color.Newsflash:Clinton is a citizen .He is allowed to like or dislike whatever he wants.You can’t play the race card just because Bill Clinton didn’t invite every blogger good or bad.Maybe the blogs of color didn’t meet his standards…He is allowed to have standards for what he wishes to read or not doesn’t he?
Donna in WI, start a blog, I will read it.If it is good, Bill will too.But if you want a seat at a table with some of the best writers on the internet, then be one too..if you are one of the best and you don’t get a seat I will scream with you…there are some really good blogs of color out there..but.it is up to the writer to make them great…you don’t get a seat with the best of the best unless you have a little “best” of your own to bring.
I have a list of the top 100 people I would like to have dinner with(maha is in the top 10) if you want to join the list I welcome you, but you have to be good enough to bump someone who already has a seat from the table.
The way that certain bloggers has handled this situation is nothing short of insulting to those bloggers who attended.I am very proud of those who were asked to attend.It’s a shame others cannot show the same class.
I agree that we are all divine. But these women suffer because they are poor and female and African.
No, they suffer because they are oppressed. And they are oppressed because of the delusions of their oppressors. And the delusions of their oppressors are rooted in a misunderstanding of who they (the oppressors) are. When people know who they are, they are not oppressive.
It’s interesting that you say “we are all divine” but you’ve blanked out the oppressor in the equation. This tells me you aren’t getting it. See, for example, “Please Call Me by My True Names” by the Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:
I am the frog swimming happily
in the clear water of a pond.
And I am the grass-snake
that silently feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks.
And I am the arms merchant,
selling deadly weapons to Uganda.
I am the twelve-year-old girl,
refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate.
And I am the pirate,
my heart not yet capable
of seeing and loving.
I am a member of the politburo,
with plenty of power in my hands.
And I am the man who has to pay
his “debt of blood” to my people
dying slowly in a forced-labor camp.
There’s a man who knows who he is. You are all of those things, too, btw. It’s important to understand yourself this way.
When you know who you are, it’s no guarantee other people won’t be cruel to you. However, when you know who you are, you understand the experience in a different way. Pain is, well, painful, but when the pain stops, let it go. Don’t drag it around with you for the rest of your life. That’s neurotic.
And whatever you do, don’t assume that cruelties done to you give you license to piss on others. Nobody gets glory points or a “it’s OK to piss on others” game card because of anything you have experienced.
Isn’t identity formed from our experience?
Experience and culture and delusion.
while real people’s lifes go to hell, but they are supposed to keep going to the polls so they can be betrayed again and again
There’s no question that African Americans have been hideously betrayed time and time again, and it’s understandable for a black person not trust anybody white. Knowing American history as I do it’s amazing to me that most African Americans are as tolerant as they are. Yet I ask for your trust and tolerance. It’s outrageous, but I do it, anyway.
i have wondered about this for a long time. yes, clinton as a married man should not have done what he did, but NO MARRIED MAN should have done this!!!!! those people who agree that mr. clinton should have been thrown out of office for this conduct, how many of you would start attempts to throw your boss out when you find out he/she has been fooling around with others in the office?????? and if this behaviour is ssssoooo disgusting and immoral, how many of you would get up, quit your job, walk out??? religion is religion until it hits your wallet!!!!! in the movie “cabaret” liza and joel grey sing a song called “money makes the world go round” or maybe it is just called “money” but the words are so true for EVERYONE. we all do this when it costs us MONEY!!!!!!!
Let’s stop talking about a meeting starring the most visible representative of the Democratic party in HARLEM (which is the epicenter of Black American culture) meeting involving only WHITE bloggers, and in the spirit of TRUE (not white liberal directed) dialgoue, because you “choose not ot participate because you have too many neuroses of your own”
Sounds like a clear case of “don’t bother me with the details, I have already made up my mind”
Once you have managed your self-indulgent neuroses and find the time for introspection about your own “isms” and issues, perhaps and your readership you might benefit from consideration of the following:
1. Realize that you and most folks on this site have a lot of learning to do about the “other” that you claim to so vehemently (underscoring an imbalance of power) support, as evidenced by your belitting dismissal of Black concern.
2. Why when Blacks raise a concern that suggest that your “progressive” nature needs attending to or at least examination, is that concern considered “petty”? Is it any wonder the racial divide is deepening in the Democratic party?
3. Again, I stress that this was in HARLEM, the fact that a meeting with the most visible Democrat could take place there connotes a concerted disregard (which I believe is intentional, but that’s debatable) for the demographics of the neighborhood. But really, what’s new with Liberals? This is de rigeur.
4. This is precisely why the Democrats are losing traction in minority communities. When we see a Condi Rice or Colin Powell doing their thing, whether or not you agree with it, you have to ask yourself, do we really need the liberal “we’ll throw you a pity party, but you can’t participate in the planning” model of race relations? If this is such a “progressive” party then explain the race relations in the South and the fact that the highest ranking Blacks in American history are both Republican appointees.
The chasm between your theory and practice grows wider…
And you continue to lose key elections…
Maybe it’s time to self-examine? That is, if you really want to know the truth.
Keep the Face,
Just another Black girl that doesn’t need your pity.
(There are many of us.)
Sounds like a clear case of “don’t bother me with the details, I have already made up my mindâ€
The person I was addressing that comment to is white.
Just another Black girl that doesn’t need your pity.
That’s grand; I hadn’t offered you any. Sounds like you have quite enough already.
“I say that if the people at that table are your ‘opressors’, your life is gravy. Everybody should have such problems”
Oh yes, Maha. My life is just gravy! I mean it’s not like having incurable cancer, having Lupus, being a woman of color with disabilities living with America presents any problems for me as one of those “blacks” you’re talking about. No, it isn’t true that everyone should have such problems. Only you. Maybe then you might be able to exhibit some empathy for these blacks who you think have to trust you.
By the way, did you ever consider the idea that maybe the reason why these “blacks” don’t trust you isn’t because you’re white but actually because you haven’t given us any REASON to trust you?
Your comments here are absolutely horrid. Exactly how did you, sitting on the other side of the world from the women in Darfur, come to be such an authority on why they suffer? Have you ever asked them or are you just assuming that you can tell what someone’s going through without knowing them at all? I know of nothing in Buddhism that would justify or excuse all of the assumptions you’ve made in just this post alone and even if there was, it couldn’t make what you wrote here any less unethical.
I mean it’s not like having incurable cancer, having Lupus, being a woman of color with disabilities living with America presents any problems for me as one of those “blacks†you’re talking about.
I gave you incurable cancer and Lupus? Wow, I didn’t know. Sorry.
The point was that if your worse problem is having me as an oppressor, you don’t have much to complain about. Just tell me what I can do for you, and I’ll do my best.
On the other hand, I rather resent being an all-purpose punching bag for black persons who want to take out their resentment on all the awful things white people have done to them in the past.
Interesting, very interesting. I would think that the fact that several “bloggers of color” (novel phrase, that) were actually invited, but were unabvle to attend, coupled with the fact that this lunch was meant to be the first of several meetings, would end the debate about this particular lunch dead in it’s tracks.
Not so, apparently.
Still, it maybe has served to open a dialog on racial issues .. a little good from anything and everything.
Gah, then again, maybe not. Been sitting here writing and re-writing myu thoughts, and can’t seem to condence it down to something that would fit in a blog comment. I would love to debate this issue in depth with “Donna in Wisconsin” and “kate”, but not on somebody else’s blog. Ah well. I just don’t understand why this has played out the way it has.
-me
Of course you didn’t give it to me. You only claimed that my life is gravy. That made a lot of sense considering the fact you don’t know these “blacks” you’re speaking about at all, right?
I am glad you’ve finally admitted that there are some things you just don’t know.
Optional — people in pain lash out at other people. That’s human nature. However, I refuse to be anybody’s punching bag. I’m just sayin’ If you hurt, don’t take it out on me.
That made a lot of sense considering the fact you don’t know these “blacks†you’re speaking about at all, right?
And you don’t know me, either. I am just a White Person to you, not a human being.
Exactly how did you come to this conclusion that you “just a White Person” to me and “not a human being”. You know, perhaps if you stopped assuming that you know what us “blacks” think, you might actually be able to find out. By the way, “White Persons” are human beings too.
OK, maha, sorry I couldn’t resist this one … after this I’ll shut up now, I promise 🙂
bint alshamsa … please point out to me, precisely, where maha said that “your life is gravy”.
I realize that phrase was used in one of the sentences she wrote, however, it was not an unconditional statement. In fact, it was attached to a rather strict condition. IF in fact you DO INDEED meet the conditional in the statement … then I would tend to agree, your life is gravy.
If you do not, which I rather strongly suspect, then the “your life is gravy” part of the sentence simply doesn’t apply to you.
Perhaps moving back a bit and realizing that the only point of the sentence in question was to say, in effect … don’t you have other, more important things to be offended about? I’m certain you do, there is plenty of bigbig stuff out there that *I* am offended about, and I’m certain as a black person there is plenty of bigbig stuff for *you* to be offended about as well … soi why are you offended by *this*?
I understand, I think, that you mean this to be an illustrative point about a much deeper problem, but considering the fact that black bloggers *WERE INDEED* invited, and were not there for the sole reason that they could not make it, doesn’t that mean that this no longer illustrates your point?
-me
Maha,
Don’t ask people to just trust you. Say what you will and let them agree with you or not. There is no room to give up our own divinity and place authority in another person to speak for us.
So far as I have seen you do not pay attention to the issues that are important to black people. I brought some of them up and it did not merit a reply from you. That is fine as this is your blog, I have my own and I rather like reading yours. I even link here from time to time. But you are still ignoring what matters to a lot of people, and asking them to trust you nonetheless is really asking for way more than you are entitled to.
Trust is earned.
By the way Maha, when you were magically determining what I think about “White Persons”, I’m surprised your psychic feed into my brain didn’t also reveal to you that I am part white and so is my partner and my daughter and all the other people in my family.
I guess you disconnected too quickly to find that part out, hunh?
Why it happened in post thirteen, of course. Did you miss that one? As a matter of fact, I do meet that condition she gave. I guess your erroneous assumption stems from the fact that you don’t know me from Adam.
By the way, are you only capable of feeling offended by one thing at a time? What you presented here is a false dichotomy. There’s no reason why I should ignore ANYONE’S unethical behavior.
From what you say you understand my point to mean, it seems that you actually did not. I meant exactly what I wrote. Maha’s statement about all of those who feel that those in this picture engage in oppressive behavior was utter nonsense. Since my issue has never been about whether bloggers of color were invited, the fact that one black person was invited does nothing to affect what I’ve had to say about this issue.