Black and White All Over

If Marx didn’t create identity politics, he certainly memorialized it. And if you wanted a perfect display of identity politics, whereby any reasoned criticism must be an attack on the identity of the object of criticism, Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson provides it. See if you can find the racism directed against Obama that Professor Patterson finds in Hillary Clinton’s "3 a.m." ad.




____________________________________________________

Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson goes off the deep end, making an argument in the op-ed page of the NYT that seemingly would place any reasoned criticism of Obama within the rubric of racism. It is a sophomoric argument and its basis, even he admits, is not obvious:

On first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent "It’s 3 a.m." advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude.

. . . To be sure, [the ad] states that something is "happening in the world" — although it never says what this is — and that Mrs. Clinton is better able to handle such danger because of her experience with foreign leaders. But every ad-maker, like every social linguist, knows that words are often the least important aspect of a message and are easily muted by powerful images.

I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s "Birth of a Nation," the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

Professor Patterson is a man whose vision of the world is so distorted that all he sees he interprets through the prism of black and white – or in the word’s of Marx, the "oppressed and the oppressor." That still does not explain how he can see anything affirmatively racist in this advertisement. Professor Patterson explains for the benefit of liberals still unsure why they should feel guilt at this ad:

The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.

Is this man warped or what? To follow this logic, any communication from a white individual that does not contain some affirmative statement of non-racism is to be considered racist. It is the stain of original sin with the person so stained being guilty unless proven innocent - on a case by case basis.

Finally, Hillary Clinton appears, wearing a business suit at 3 a.m., answering the phone. The message: our loved ones are in grave danger and only Mrs. Clinton can save them. An Obama presidency would be dangerous — and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within.

How is Hillary Clinton answering the phone at 3 a.m. in a business suit the "insidious language of symbolism?" Perhaps this is symbolism only an intensely delusional Harvard Professor can see? It is lost on me, however. I am far more likely to interpret it as Hillary still awake waiting for Bill to return home from a night out with his new best friend, Eliot.

For more than a century, American politicians have played on racial fears to divide the electorate and mobilize xenophobic parties. Blacks have been the "domestic enemy," the eternal outsider within, who could always inspire unity among "we whites." Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy was built on this premise, using coded language — "law and order," "silent majority" — to destroy the alliance between blacks and white labor that had been the foundation of the Democratic Party, and to bring about the Republican ascendancy of the past several decades. The Willie Horton ad that George H. W. Bush used against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a crude manifestation of this strategy — as was the racist attack used against John McCain’s daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000.

This is clearly more of the same delusion, but let me ask in particular about the Willie Horton ad. Willie Horton was a dangerous criminal pardoned by Dukakis who then committed rape and murder, if I recall correctly. Is the incredible poor judgment displayed by Dukakis in that decision somehow off limits because of the color of Horton’s skin? Would that same ad been acceptable to Professor Patterson if Horton was white or asian?

It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

Obviously the fact that Mr. Obama has no foreign policy experience, no military experience, and has threatened to neuter both is not a reasonable cause for concern raised by the 3 a.m. ad. Somehow, the ad effectively convinced a large swath of people not to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. And as I recall, Hillary said that to the best of her knowledge, Obama was not a Muslim. That is precisely the truth and to go beyond that would have been false. Clinton cannot possibly know more than what Mr. Obama has said. But according to the Professor, simply saying the accurate truth is racist.

It is in the areas of foreign policy and the military that Obama is weakest. This is an attempt by Professor Patterson to preempt such criticism by falsely asserting that such criticism is racist. It is the penultimate identity politics argument, whereby any substantive criticism is seen as an attack on the person's identity.

I wrote several weeks ago:

If Obama supporters are allowed to make this next election an unspoken referendum on race and liberal guilt, than this is going to be a bloody Presidential election season indeed. It will be a tremendous disservice to an America where racisim is very much on the wane and equality, imperfect though it may be, is the rule, not the exception.

Obama can’t be allowed to have it both ways. If he is going to run on the platform that the color of his skin is a justification for his election to the Presidency, than he needs to say that publicly and be judged accordingly. And if he is not seeking the Presidency on his genetic heritage, than he needs to publicly denounce efforts to portray criticism of him as racist. He needs to be pressed about this in the MSM, and he needs to be pressed about it now. This is very much a substantive issue.

What I wrote in that post applies directly to what Professor Patterson is doing with his argument above.

On a final note, if this is typical of the intellectual level amongst Harvard professors, than our nation is in a lot of trouble. Professor Patterson obviously sees everything through the lens of racism. He has no business whatsoever passing on his prejudices to our nation’s best and brightest. Or if they truly are our best and brightest, than I hope they realize just how sophomoric and poisonous Mr. Orlando Patterson truly is.

Update: The WSJ arives at the same conclusions as have I:

Already, prominent Obama sympathizers, such as Harvard's Orlando Patterson, are detecting racial overtones where none exist. In a New York Times op-ed this week, Mr. Patterson said a Clinton political ad designed to question Mr. Obama's readiness as Commander in Chief contained a "racist sub-message" because none of the people depicted in the TV spot are black. Counting people of color in an ad about national security is hardly consistent with the Obama theme that "race doesn't matter."

We suppose some of the current back and forth is due to the diversity preoccupations of Democrats. But it bodes ill for an honest fall campaign if Mr. Obama and his allies are going to play the race card to blunt any criticism. A campaign in which John McCain couldn't question Mr. Obama's policies, experience and mettle without being called a racist is not what the country needs. Or wants.

Democrats have repeatedly touted the diversity of their party's White House hopefuls. And it is true that a Clinton or Obama Presidency would make gender or racial history. Americans of all backgrounds can take satisfaction in watching the country field its first black Presidential candidate with a chance to win. But voters also want their would-be Presidents properly vetted, by the media and by each other. To that end Mr. Obama would do better to focus more on answering his political critics with specifics and less on questioning their motives by crying wolf on race.

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

UK Muslim Police, Government Officials & MCB Preventing Action Against "Honor" Violence & Forced Marriages

A study in the UK has documented that some Muslims in the police and in the government are returning abused women to their families and, along with the Muslim Council of Britain, are standing in the way of both ending the practice of forced marriages and a crackdown on 'honor' violence. Occidental Britains in the police and government do not interfere for fear of being branded "racist."



This today from the Daily Times:

Some Asians in the police and in Government jobs have been accused of blocking the crackdown against so-called honour killings.

It is alleged they are not only failing to help desperate women trying to flee abuse and arranged marriages but are actively encouraging punishment for those they believe are breaking traditional taboos.

Terrified victims who seek official help are even being tracked down by a network of Asian men working in Government departments and social services, according to a study written by the think-tank Social Cohesion.

One woman was found by her family after she signed on at a Jobcentre where a member of the Asian community was working.

The report also claims some Asian police officers actually return women to their abusive families or refuse to act against men enforcing 'traditional' roles.

Meanwhile, non-Asian officials and police officers are scared of acting against families who abuse their relatives for fear of being branded as racist, the report says.

The study follows the horrific case of 20-year-old Banaz Mahmod, from Mitcham, South London, whose body was found in a suitcase after she was raped and strangled with a bootlace by hitmen hired by her family.

She was killed for falling in love with a man the family disapproved of – despite unsuccessfully asking police for help five times.

In one plea she recorded a video message that helped convict her father and uncle of her murder.

Controversially, the report accuses one of the Government's closest advisers on Muslim matters, the Muslim Council of Britain, of hampering attempts to criminalise forced marriage.

It said: "The MCB has sought to block legislation aimed at ending honour-based violence. Almost all women's groups interviewed for this report say that the MCB has done little or nothing to end honour-based violence...

"In many northern towns...South Asian women are often afraid to seek help because they know that Asians working in local government believe that women who break traditional taboos deserve to be punished."

Report contributor Nazir Afzal, of the Crown Prosecution Service, added: "Domestic violence is not an issue the Muslim Council of Britain wants to know about."

David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth who is on the Home Affairs Select committee investigating forced marriages and domestic violence, said: "Thousands of girls are being taken to Pakistan every year for marriage, although it is best described as abduction and rape." . . .

Read the article. That things like this are finally getting press in Britain is a small glimmer of hope. But do not expect the Labour government, which just approved an element of Sharia law and has, in an act worthy of Orwell, given cover to the Wahhabi / Salafi / Deobandis in the UK to continue their radicalization, to do anything at all about this. It is a measure of the malignancy of multiculturalist philosophy that occidentals are afraid to speak out or expose specific acts for fear of being branded a racist.

Read More...

Summary only...

Krauthammer Ponders the Friction Between "Black Dreams" & "White Liberals"

Several days ago, I posted on my concerns with the unwarranted interjection of charges of racism into the Democratic primary race. You can read that post here.

I framed my argument in the context of how Obama's campaign is being treated by liberals who seem so enamored at the thought of a legitimate African American candidate that they are willing to unquestioningly accept him based on his rhetoric alone. Indeed, the liberal MSM has given Obama a free pass until now.

But things turned ugly when the Bill Clinton leveled criticism of Obama's stand on Iraq and Hillary made innocuous comments about MLK. Both were portrayed as racist remarks and Obama did nothing to put a stop to it. Indeed, after I wrote that post, Obama ominously embraced the unfounded allegations of racism being leveled at the Clintons. Although the racial issue seems to have receded in the last few days, it has hardly been put to bed, and it now sits just below the surface like some sort of dormant virus.

Today, Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the same topic. Krauthammer takes note of Hillary Clinton's "shock" at these charges of racism, but notes that its really just the chickens coming home to roost:

But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil-rights-era agenda.

Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action, only to be accused of racism, knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item -- hate-crime legislation -- on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous preelection ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George W. Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate-crime legislation?

The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but "our first black president" (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them. . . .

Who says there's no justice in this world?

Read the entire article here. I can truly appreciate Krauthammer's enjoyment in this conundrum of our modern left, but I see in it a great potential for harm to our nation. As I stated in my post a few days ago, if Obama becomes the nominee and allows Republican's to be smeared with charges of racisim for any criticism they aim towards Obama, this portends to become a destructive and bloody Presidential campaign indeed.

Update: Soccer Dad has a very good post on Krauthammer's article today, taking a look at several aspects of the post that I glossed over. See it here.

Read More...

Summary only...

What Ridiculousness (Updated & Somewhat Resolved)

2nd Update: Since I wrote this post last night, Lionheart has reacted more or less appropriately to the situation. See his post here. Clearly he is still mistaking LGF's post stating reservations about the BNP with a personal attack on himself. While I hope that Lionheart will further mull this over, the apology he has issued is, for me, enough to satisfy me at the moment - at least in light of what I believe at the moment to be the reality of the relationship between Lionheart and the BNP, as discussed below. Thus, for my part and as I perceive the facts now, I will, and I urge all people who care about freedom of speech and the assault we face from radical Islam, give Lionheart full support in every possible way. I still see him as a lone voice in a critical situation that concerns all of us, though perhaps in need of better skills in discrimination.


Several days ago, I blogged about the plight of Lionheart, a British blogger under threat of imprisonment in the UK for criticizing Islam. You can see the post here. Between LGF, Pajamas Media, Dr. Sanity and numerous other sites, the post ended up getting several thousand hits. Because of my role in publicizing the situation, I need to weigh in on some very intemperate remarks made by Lionheart since then.

As mentioned, LGF picked up my post linked above and ran the following:

In an absolute travesty of justice, a British blogger who uses the name Lionheart is apparently going to be prosecuted for “stirring up racial hatred”—in other words, for railing against Islam: . . .

There is a good reason why America’s founders strictly limited the government’s power to regulate speech. Modern Britain is an object lesson in the Orwellian consequences of failing to do so, and the inevitable abuse of power that results.

UPDATE at 1/7/08 10:43:47 am:
Konservo notes that Lionheart is a supporter of the neo-fascist British National Party, which leads me to state clearly that by posting about the case, I am not supporting what Lionheart says on his blog—just his right to say it.

LGF does not wish to be associated with or seen as supporting organizations or people who espouse a racist / neo-facist ideology. I am not going to get into the nuances of the blog war between LGF and other sites. I am vaguely aware of what is happening, I don't know the nuances and to be completely honest, I don't care. Agree with it or not, LGF espouses a principled position that needs to be accorded full respect. Further, irrespective of whether Lionheart associated with the BNP, LGF offered full support for his right of free speech.

In a subsequent blog post of which I have just become aware, Lionheart made the following statement in response:

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason - I am sure there are many who would have obliged!

Read the post here. That response shows a degree of immaturity and venom with which I do not wish to be associated.

Since this is playing out on blogs, I must respond here in kind with my two cents. It appears from the comments in LGF that Lionheart has supported the BNP in the past merely because, as he saw it, that was the only political party that was willing to take a stand against the growth of radical Islam in Britain. And that appears to be an accurate reading of the political situation in Britain. In the Telegraph, Britain's conservative newspaper, an editorial the other day explicitly made the point that all three major political parties in Britain are courting the Muslim vote and refusing to criticize Islam in the UK. Lionheart, to his credit, has actively supported Israel and people of all races and nationalities. His support for the BNP appears to be on the sole ground of their stand against the growth of radical Islam in the UK. Lionheart appears a brave person in an ever dire situation.

The way for this to be handled was by way of simple explanation, either by e-mail to LGF asking LGF for an opportunity to explain the situation or an even tempered blog post by Lionheart explaining the situation. This is a situation that cried - and cries - for reasoned response, not histrionics.

Unless and until Lionheart acts publicly to withdraw his remarks and correct this situation, I will no longer support him in any way with the exception that I will support his right of free speech. We all make mistakes and do things that, in the light of day, we wish we could retract. I do hope that Lionheart realizes that he has severely mishandled this situation. Should he choose to respond in a measured way to resolve this situation, I am prepared to again offer him my full support in all of his very worthy and brave endeavors.

Read More...

Summary only...