Ta-Nehisi Coates

Although there are several great ones in that "black spokesperson" thread, I give it up to Susan Brooks Thistlewaite:

The New York Times would have us believe, however, that Senator Obama should have fixed this by now. “Obama isn’t closing the divide on race”, reads the accusing headline. Right after turning water into wine at the next reception he attends, Senator Obama will get right on eliminating 250 years or more of racial disparities

Seriously people, I love this argument put forth by stupid white folks who somehow clamor to say nigger and have black people smile, and even stupider black folks who claim that my use of nigger somehow empowers aforementioned white folks. The logic is just laughable, in that it basically asserts that words have the same meaning, no matter who says them, and no matter what the context. I'm sorry, if I called your woman "honey" you'd have a problem with me. Me saying, "But I just heard you call her that!!" probably wouldn't stop you from trying put me in the reconstructive surgery wing of a hospital. My partner and her closest female friends have been known to sling "bitch" around in playful banter. A quick way for me to lose custody of child and take up residence at the local singles bar would be for to address her in that manner. My father's mother used to call him "Billy" (His first name is William). But he'd have a big problem if I did the same.

I never thought that because Toby Keith made a record called White Trash With Money, that somehow gave me the right to address random white people in the fashion. I never thought the fact that there was a magazine called Heeb gave me the right to address my Jewish buddies as such. More to the point--I never wanted to. So this is what I don't understand--What's the big beef? Why is that in "Blackworld" the normal laws of human interaction somehow don't apply? I don't get white people who have a hard time with this--you call your mother "Mom," I call her Ms. Phillips--same deal here. Nigger means one thing when used amongst a group of people with similar experiences, and something else when used by people outside of that experience. Nigger when used by black people, is a lovely, lovely thing. I will believe that till the end of my days. It can be beautifully ominous ("Nigger, what?") and just plain beautiful ("Ta-Nehisi, that's my nigger").

Now a quick note of qualification--I am of that group of black people who've never had a white person refer to them as nigger, at least not to thier face. Frankly, we're I grew up there weren't any white people to say it. I once had a drunk white guy amble over to my table and claim his dog was a nigger, but that's about it. I was grown then, and he was obviously a fool. He didn't scar me one bit. But listen--there are black folks, who had to hear that word constantly as kids. I think there are less of them these days, but they obviously came up different than me. I have great sympathy for them and how they feel about the word. I understand why they don't want to be referred to in that way, or why anyone else wouldn't want to me. I just don't want them policing me.

UPDATE: In response to comment below, I--personally--have no problem with white people saying "nigger" while singing, say, a rap song. Also, I hate the phrase "n-word." I feel about "n-word" the way a lot of folks feel about nigger. Seriously, too many people in this world sit around waiting to take offense.

You have to believe Barack's people were spinning this whole idea of a cash-flow problem, no? I mean $52 million...

Given that media seems to function best when only having to deal with one person who can sum up the hopes and ambitions of black folks, I asked for nominations for black spokesperson. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both seem so 1995. Please vote your conscious, and say a short word in support of your vote.White people, have no fear, you may vote too. Furthermore we shall hold a contest for your spokesperson next week. I have to say that the Black Eyed Peas seem to be early favorites in the race to speak for All White People, though we must keep in eye darkhorses like Toby Keith

Props to Andrew Sullivan for this link. It features a fascinating debate between feminist pro-choice folks and Democratic evangelicals who would like to reduce the number of abortions. I call it fascinating because I can't quite understand what the pro-choicers are pissed about. They say they resent the implication that having a child is more moral than not. I don't quite know what that means. Moral by what standard? Furthermore, I went and read Wallis's pitch. He's claiming you can reduce abortion by alleviating poverty, mandating paid parental leave, and upgrading access to contraception. What about that threatens pro-choicers? I don't quite understand this fight. I guess there's a libertarian/fiscal conservative critique of Wallis, but somehow I don't think that's what they're getting at. Also, I must say, Wallis's memo seems like great politics. For whatever that's worth.

Their headline boys and girls, not mine. Is anyone surprised that only 6 percent of black people and 4 percent of black people think Sharpton and Jackson speak for them? I guess I'm surprised more said Sharpton than Jackson. But yeah, this is stupid. I reject the idea that anyone can speak for black people. And I reject the implicit idea that white people are so stupid as to need an anointed translater to understand South Central. The only people in need of a "black spokesman" are lazy-ass reporters who can't afford to lose any shoe-leather. Sorry, I guess this is bash the press week. Eff it. It's always underestimate black people week in the press.

UPDATE: Following on Zach's nomination for "black spokesman," we will be taking names. Zach says John MacLaughlin. I think Pat Buchanan best speaks to the dreams and aspirations of black people. Can I hear a second? Who else could translate Ebonics for us? We are so mysterious, you know...

Sorry, but this article is pretty stupid and well critiqued by the Obama campaign. The older I get the more I think that journalism--daily journalism, especially--is simply incapable of dealing with something as nuanced as the black-white relations in this country. They just aren't capable, nor despite their claims of objectivity, are they unbias. Take it from a journalist--good journalism needs conflict. No conflict, no story. But while the artisan searches for the natural conflict inherent in life itself, the hack has some polling firm call a bunch of people, and then writes a headline overstating the results.

We now have John McLaughin, a font of ebonics if there ever was one, telling us that black people think that Barack Obama is an Oreo. It's true that black people, like any other group, have their bouts of essentialism. But it's always interesting to be accused of racial jingoism by the same folks who bought us "Freedom Fries" and would have the Dixie Chicks banned. But that's fine--attacking black people for putting on their pants one leg at a time has a long history. But you really should file Oreo, along with Whitey and Ofay, in the box marked "Things Black People No Longer Say, But White Pundits Wish They Did," Now, let's be clear--black folks can say some pretty mean things about each other. See below where Jamie Foxx destroys an innocent up-and-comer--"Maybe I should talk about how black people have to struggle. Yeah, that'll get em on my side"

Not so bad. Though she completely schooled me when went to cap-and-trade.

Good piece from Jelani Cobb, on ATL, Barack Obama and the New South:

In ATL, a thicket of race, success, vanity, poverty and glamour is packaged with great municipal swagger. If BET could design a city, it would look a lot like this one. Both the cable TV network and this city have prospered thanks to black music -- and by marketing a vision of black success and conspicuous consumption. In 2005, Mayor Shirley Franklin, a Philadelphia-raised transplant, undertook a branding campaign that actually commissioned music producer and longtime resident Dallas Austin to create an R&B song called "ATL."

A friend of mine who moved here, opened a successful business, bought a huge house and married a beautiful woman said that he came to the city because he "knew that as a black man, there was nothing that you couldn't achieve in Atlanta." You can see why he believes that. In 2007, Georgia's capital had the second-largest black middle class in the country, teeming with college graduates...

The large number of black Atlanta homeowners contrasts with the highest percentage of children living below the poverty line in any major American city. According to the most recent U.S. Census data, 48 percent of Atlanta's children and about 24.4 percent of the total population live below the poverty line. The disproportionate number of blacks with master's degrees coexist with one of the country's least efficient school systems.

In 2005, the majority-black city council passed a resolution banning panhandling in the downtown tourist districts -- an area that includes the King Center, a memorial to the civil rights leader's legacy. Thus the doctrine of progress has made it possible for a homeless person to be arrested for begging in front of the Gandhi statue on Auburn Avenue

Needed a day off. That NAACP speech madness kinda got to me. But I'm back. Let's go.

TPM has the text. Pretty heavy on generational praise, a good bit of policy (education, EITC, jobs for ex-offenders etc.) and some of the personal responsibility stuff. Fine by me. I'll be very interested to see if we get another "Obama Scolds Blacks" headline from media folks. TPM thought that was the most important part of the speech, so who knows.

UPDATE: Thanks for the links guys. I'll have a longer response tomorrow. I find those headlines depressing. It says a lot more about media, and possibly--though I'm not sure of this--the broader country, than it says about Obama's speech.

UPDATE#2: That "Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility" is borderline racist. I try not to throw that charge around much, But I can't see how anyone who doesn't think black folks are a bunch of roaring baboons could write that. I just don't get it...

UPDATE#4: I promised a long post analyzing the stupidity of the coverage of Obama and "personal responsibility." It's just not worth it. I can't spend the next few hours working out some nuanced explanation for why that headline is stupid. I'm hoping it speaks for itself. I don't have the energy to fight this battle anymore. If media wants to pit Obama against this strawman who sits around shaking his cup, demanding reparations and yelling "Whitey did it" there's not a damn thing I can do to stop them. And at the end of the day, who really cares? I'm too tired for this...

So I'm making my way through Paula Giddings wonderful biography of Ida B. Wells, who may well me the mother of all black journalists--and even that understates her significance. But the incident that really kicks off Wells's career is a race riot in Memphis. The blacks in the town, fearing such an occurrence, had organized themselves into a fraternity/militia called the Tennessee Rifles. And you know who sold these cats guns? A local merchant who just happened to be a member of Memphis relatively small Jewish community, who defied his fellow Southern whites. Now that's what a call a black-Jewish coalition. Screw getting our asses kicked together, lets get some guns...

David Remnick flatters himself when he claims that the Obama cover is "Colber in print." Heh, you wish brother. That said, people who are canceling subscriptions are ridiculous. I am obviously biased, but seriously--I'll take Jane Mayer over Wolf Blitzer any day.

So. Looks like we've been blessed with a few links from the blogging gods. Grateful as always. But I'm sensing the anger level in a couple of these posts bubbling. Lets make sure none of this devolves into a a bunch of people yelling at each other. In other words--Do. Not. Feed. Trolls.

I don't think we've reached the stage where the Imprimatur Of Ta-Nehisi Coates means much, but if it did I'd offer that imprimatur to Obsidian Wings. What a great blog. Somehow I missed this beautiful post form Publius analyzing the implicit racism of the phrase "Sista Souljah moment":

Remember that Obama didn’t even say anything – the “moment” was created entirely by Jackson. Obama had nothing to do with it. But there were a bunch of black people involved, so let's call it Sister Souljah.

But anyway, the larger point is that the use of Sister Souljah here strikes me as a tad racist. Again, what idea exactly is Obama distancing himself from – castration? No, there’s nothing substantive here. The only thing that Obama is distancing himself from is Jesse Jackson – a black man who lots of white people (and the press) dislike and caricature unfairly.

If you dig a bit deeper though, something else is going on -- something that goes well beyond Jackson. I mean, maybe Jesse Jackson remains a central figure in Democratic politics, but that would be news to me. No, what’s really going on is more depressing. When I hear many people talk about what good politics all this is for Obama, what they are really saying is that “it’s good politics to be distanced from black people.”

That’s a pretty disgusting concept, so it gets dressed up as a “Sister Souljah moment,” which links it to a safe and more bland political science concept. Using the same label for both concepts masks the uglier aspects of its use. Hell, even if we’re talking solely about the benign concept, the relentless use of the name “Sister Souljah” to describe it probably subconsciously reinforces the notion that black people are a group that savvy candidates must distance themselves from.

Basically. I think this is what's at the root of the way the press covers Obama's interactions with African-Americans. Basically, they're just waiting for him to kic the folks to the curb. Some think Obama subtly plays on that. I'm not sure. Either way, this is why you hear about "Chastising" Bernie Mac or "Rebuking" black fathers. Implicit is a kind of cynical Dick Morris logic that holds you can't actually be close to black people and get white voters.

So he's addressing the NAACP convention tonight. It's tough for me to see him redoing his fatherhood speech again. I think that would be overplaying his hand incredibly. It's good to be seen as the guy who's the anti-Sharpton, but I think that has diminishing returns. Another "Obama Chastises Teh Blacks" headline won't help, and will really begin to make this thing look cynical. I'm sure they'll be some nods to "personal responsibility," but I'd be really suprised if he doesn't lean on the structural reforms he's outlined in his platform.

One constantly overlooked fact about Jesse is that he--quite literally--made Barack Obama possible. People often say this in a really hazy, metaphorical way, pointing out that Jesse "paved the way" or "knocked down doors" for Barack. But those sort of weak homilies actually understate how much Jesse did for Barack. After losing in 84 and 88, Jackson's people, Harold Ickes being principle, fought for proportional representation in all states:

Jackson, who made his first run for president in 1984, complained at the time that the rules had been "stacked" against him by organized labor and Democrats aligned with Kennedy and former vice president Walter Mondale. In the 1988 election, Jackson complained that in Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, and other states that awarded delegates on a winner-take-all basis within each congressional district, he had been deprived of his due share of delegates.

"We raised hell about the unfairness of the system that was in play," said Steve Cobble, Jackson's delegate director.

Dukakis eventually agreed to many of the changes Jackson wanted. Jackson's negotiators, Ron Brown and Harold Ickes, won an agreement to remove DNC members as superdelegates and mandated proportional representation as the only permissible method for states to apportion their delegates.

If you recall in the primaries, half of Barack's strategy was to keep it close in states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania, thus keeping Clinton from rolling up tons of delegates. It helped, of course, that Clinton's people basically ceded the caucuses allowing Barack to roll up huge leads in those states. Still, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that had Jesse Jackson not fought for those rule changes, Barack wouldn't be the Democratic nominee. Young cats--myself included--need to remember that when we tee-off on the guy.

More »

...if you're looking for Red Skelton.  I get that you're a politician and you've gotta play it safe, but there's a simple way out--don't book Bernie Mac. Did you not see the Kings of Comedy?

At this very moment, me and Kenyatta are debating New Yorker cover. She's a little more pissed than me--particularly about the Michelle Obama pic and the Afro. I think the problem is that it's very hard to satirize the rumors around Michelle and Barack. Satire needs overstatement. But the cover doesn't actually overstate the beliefs of the scaremongers. Indeed its the sort of image you'd expect to see at one of the nuttier websites or publications, and so in that sense it doesn't work very well. 

I think "offensive" is bit much, but I can see that we do have the makings of a problem. Bearing that in mind I've come up with a compromise. White people--step away from the sepia-toned crayons. Black people--recognize that incompetence and epic fail may be the only things more common than bigotry.

UPDATE: So David Remnick went ahead and talked to Huffpo about the cover and why he chose to run it:

>What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's -- both Obamas' -- past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are...

I think this basically true, except that, again, satire doesn't just reflect it actually exaggerates to comical effect. Sadly, that picture exaggerates nothing--that's exactly what a slice of Americans believe about Barack Obama. Expect that image to be on tee-shirts within two weeks. Later in the interview Remnick compares this to Colbert's lampooning of the Right. Um, no. Again, Colbert is so exaggerated that only an alien could think that he was actually a right-winger. Watch Colbert at White House Press Corps dinner. He is very clearly mocking the president and his allies. I get the intent of the picture, but I think it just fails. It's hard for me to believe that the New Yorker literally set out to push the worst right-wing smears. It just looks like poorly executed satire.

UPDATE#2: Below, Gussie argues for the NYer cover being a clear exaggeration. I understand that point, and to the NYer's core reading audience, it probably is. But in the broader body politic, it just isn't. 13 percent of people actually believe that Obama's a Muslim. That number seems small, but in the right states, it will turn an election. Much worse though is the Michelle Obama attempt. No less than Christopher Hitchens--who exists well within the world of NYer readers--has argued that Michelle really is a Stokely Carmichael disciple who pushed Barack into Trinity--this despite the fact that Barack joined Trinity, like, five years before he knew Michelle. "The Whitey Tape" was the work of Hillary supporters, not the right-wing smear machine. At this moment there are Hillary-supporters, over at No Quarter, clamoring for Obama's passport. At the very least, the Michelle Obama caricature exists--not just among right-wing nuts--but amongst the thuggish Neandrathal wing of the Democratic party.

My point is that that this cover actually does reflect--not exagerate, not satirize--the views of a sizeable portion of Americans. That image is exactly what Fox News thinks of Barack and Michelle. Compare that, again, to Colbert. No real conservative actually thinks bears are the greatest threat to America. But that's not the point. Steven Colbert's threatdown/bear riff exagerates the right-wing stance on the enviornment. That's why it works as satire