Racism on Daily Kos - The Blacks and The Jews

Let me start off this diary by saying I'm neither Black nor Jewish.  While reading some of the diaries yesterday I noticed what seemed to be a distinct difference between how diaries on racism from those two viewpoints were recieved here.  A black man wrote a diary that accused the Hillary campaign of being racist with its recent dive into the gutter of negative campaigning.  A Jewish person wrote a diary titled AIPAC, Israel and the Joos that discussed how the tendency for some people to equate AIPAC as "the Joos" was racist.  So we had two people discussing racism from their own viewpoints.  Essentially saying, "In my opinion, when X happens, its racist".  Personally, I'm going to take them at their word.  I think we all can think of examples of "isms", be it classism, ageism, sexism, etc where we "know" when it is happening.  Sure their are shades of gray but you know this stuff when you see it.  What interests me is how the daily kos community reacted to those two viewpoints.

Now, how about you guess which diary received these comments.

Absolutely ludicrous diary.  The fact that this thing is on the rec list proves that DKos has jumped the shark.  Recommended just to show the sheer lunacy of all this, for all to see.

Only people who are racist see relevance in someones race. bullshit.

If anything needs a tr by your def it's this diarist.

This is over the top.

Ever hear of links that substantiate charges? Ever hear of actually saying what your specific charge IS other than vaguely blathering about racism?  There's nothing inaccurate in this diary--because it is all about your subjective opinions.

Why don't you delete this diary, and re-write it, with examples and an argument.

Your diary relies on your own feelings and what you think is meant by her and her supporter's comments. You infer that she is a racist without any real tangable proof. I'm pretty embarrassed that this made it to number 3 on the rec list. Not surprised though.

Ok.  The last quote gave it away.  The diary by the black man discussing racism and the Clinton campaign is littered with comments like this.  Now try to imagine these same comments in the diary written by the Jewish diarist.  There are some people who disagree with the diarist but there are no comments telling them that they have no proof and should keep their opinions to themselves.  Why is it that some people here feel completely comfortable telling a black person they are full of shit by saying something is racist but there is no such reaction to a Jewish person doing the same thing?

Reading both diaries yesterday the difference really jumped out to me.  Of course, that is just my own opinion.  I would like to finish with a comment from the diary that summed up my feelings quite well.

Anyone who downplayed TMP's feelings is a fucking asshole and I'm disgusted to have to share the label "progressive" with the likes of you.

My feelings exactly.

•  Links?

  If you're going to write a diary trashing other diaries, you need to link to the diaries and comments in question.

  by Sharon Jumper on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:40:45 AM PDT

  •  i'm not trashing

    any diary.  I'm discussing comments.  I think both were good and valid diaries.

    I see i forgot to link to the first diary.  I will correct that.

    Thanks

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:45:56 AM PDT

    •  The attitude seems to be "if you are offended

      get over it."

      I don't like this attitude when it comes from the right and it is 10 times worse when it comes from this community.

      by Yoshimi on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:03:44 AM PDT

  •  He isn't trashing TMP's diary

    In fact the opposite. He is highlighting the racist comments there, however.

    by Overseas on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:51:56 AM PDT

•  Well said

  Excellent diary and excellent point.

  In both cases, the diarists aptly described racism from the POV of the person experieincing it.

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:44:09 AM PDT

  •  As per a comment below ...

    take a real look at the two diaries, which are rather different in many real ways. Also, one diary has 104 (or so) comments, the other nearly 1200.  Is it perhaps likely that a 1200 comment diary is more likely to have 'outlier' comments than a 100 comment diary?

    by A Siegel on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:32:39 AM PDT

    •  Why not just compare the first 104 comments?

      What is happening in the first 104 comments in each diary then?

      by jhutson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:34:18 AM PDT

      •  The black diarist was slammed IMMEDIATELY

        and his feelings were negated INSTANTLY. You don't even have to count up all of the first 104 comments. There was a knee-jerk reaction right off the bat.

        by jhutson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:37:32 AM PDT

        •  comment #1 calls the diary nonsense - 46 uprates

          No this post is unfair (46+ / 2-)

          It is not accurate and a real bash of out of thin air nonsense really.

          by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:41:32 AM PDT

        •  It wasn't a knee jerk reaction

          it was a pretty well coordinated and spinned assault. There seemed to be a common theme to thwart TPM's diary.

          by tazz on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:15:20 AM PDT

          •  Unfortunately for that effort

            TPM's diary ended up on the rec list and they all came off as racist assholes.

            - Albert Einstein

            by Walt starr on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:24:07 AM PDT

        •  In fairness

          there had already been several diaries before that, in which the arguments had already become heated. So it was a topic that was well primed for just such a response -- when diary after diary is written on a topic that gets people worked up, each is going to involve angrier comments than the last on all sides. That's been true here for a long time.

          by Spit on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:24:44 AM PDT

          •  i'm not sure

            i accept the "I was really angry and thus dismiseed racism" defense.  I believe Michael Richardson tried that route.

            However, if that is the case, perhaps when they calm down they can write an "I'm sorry if my comments made in anger helped to pour fuel on the racism fire" diary.

            by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:31:06 AM PDT

•  ????

  Why is it that some people here feel completely comfortable telling a black person they are full of shit by saying something is racist but there is no such reaction to a Jewish person doing the same thing?

  I guess you don't frequent the IP diaries much..

  I see no point to your diary except to stir up a ruckus.

  by Radiowalla on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:45:29 AM PDT

  •  well

    my point is that when its ok for people to dismiss a black person saying they are experiencing racism, then its a whole lot easier for that racism to continue.  

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:51:14 AM PDT

    •  There has to be a middle ground

      If someone declares some of our Democratic leaders are racist, no one is allowed to disagree?

      by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:09:44 AM PDT

      •  is middle ground

        telling them its bullshit and it should be deleted.

        I have no problem with the disagreements.  I have a problem with the dismissal of the man's opinion.  

        by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:24:27 AM PDT

        •  No, that's one extreme

          I'm just saying there has to be room for disagreement.

          by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:40:19 AM PDT

      •  One may disagree without being disagreeable

        A good question to ask, when one person sees racism and another one doesn't:

        Well, although I see it differently, I'd like to hear more about why you see the situation as you do. What experiences and values inform your perspective?

        It is helpful to assume that parties in conflict are acting in good faith. But we all bring our own lenses and filters. No two of us will see the same situation and have the exact same reaction. That doesn't mean that someone who doesn't "get" what we see is a bad person. It just means we see things differently, and that's okay. Where the dialogue tends to break down is when one party negates the feelings of the other.

        What lessens conflict is to validate another person's feelings: "While I don't share your perspective, I can see why you would feel the way you do. Your feelings are valid and I respect you."

        by jhutson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:28:24 AM PDT

      •  Don't take the bait

        they're laying the groundwork to blame any mistep by He Who Must Not Be Named on his race, which has nothing to do with why he won't be our next president.

        They are fair-weather supporters, you saw how fast they imploded yesterday at the first mention of his name or background.

        I'm beginning to think the Senator From Illinois will come in third or maybe even fourth in Iowa because his camp won't show up.

        by Jim J on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:54:35 AM PDT

•  TMP's diary was a candidate diary.

  And, when someone calls a candidate a racist it's bound to generate comments that are out of hand.

  The AIPAC diary was not a candidate diary - and, these days, even AIPAC diaries are mild compared to candidate diaries.

  Good points though... I can't wait for primary season to be over.

  by Sanuk on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:47:26 AM PDT

  •  You're right, and I had that thought, too.

    I have found it interesting in the past week how many Clinton supporters have made comments like those above, however. I've seen comments that were more racist than some of the original remarks by Clinton surrogates.

    I understand the need to defend one's candidate. I don't believe that perpetuating smears and re-emphasizing racist rhetoric is an appropriate way to do that.

    by casperr on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:52:29 AM PDT

    •  and on anti-union threads, too

      Last week, there was a massive jumping on JR Monsterfodder who has been posting on Wal-Mart's anti-worker anti-unionism for years.  He happened to pull in some info on Clinton and damn if he didn't get 50 some comments.  Since he's been off Dkos for months, I was just excited to see his new material, but when I read the comments, well, I wondered where all the Hillary supporters came from.

      Over the years, we've lost good African-American contributors due to diarists not being banned for racism when other diarists are banned for anti-semitism.  I believe Fabooj was the latest to leave, but I do hope she's returned recently.

      by Bendygirl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:28:49 AM PDT

      •  I sure am glad our GLBT Democrats are so

        thick skinned. We're all better for it.

        by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:21:28 AM PDT

        •  Uhm, I don't consider

          someone posting blackface and racist parody speech on this site and later admitting that it was supposedly just a way to get back at Obama for his handling of the Donnie McClurken thing is being thick skinned.  No, I'm not trying to paint all of the GLBT Dems here w/the same broad brush, but let's not forget, there are thin-skinned, racist, gays as well and some of them are Democrats. Also, don't forget there are gays still fighting over whether to acknowledge the transgendered as part of their struggle, so don't make it sound like it's all good in the gay community.

          dKos loses black contributors due to the perceived hostility and racism of this site all the time. Someone writes a handwringing "oh why won't they stay" post, and then it gets forgotten. Blacks don't stay here because when they voice opinions that have to do w/racism, people descend on them to tell them that they're oversensitive, not seeing what they think they're seeing, paranoid, etc.

          Just sayin'

          by DemInCville on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:40:54 AM PDT

          •  Actually, I was making a generic comment

            and had forgotten what precipitated her leaving. So my comment can be misconstrued because of that coincidence. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

            As someone who is always up against prejudice the atmosphere here is indeed no different than other groups. I suspect people create false/hopeful expectations that it's different and so a person may leave when confronted with their threshold. I am a very forgiving person luckily, and so thick skinned at this point I could sit on hot coals. I almost always prefer fighting from within while I have the resources.

            by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:18:39 PM PDT

        •  I'm glad you remember

          when it was that Fabooj left.  I hope you've visited her blog as well.  Her contributions are missed by me and a number of us.  I do hope you're among those who miss that contribution.

          by Bendygirl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:10:07 PM PDT

          •  Indeed

            And I was speaking generally, certainly not referring to her. Her site?

            by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:12:19 PM PDT

            •  her site

              http://faboomama.blogspot.com/

              by Bendygirl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:14:47 PM PDT

              •  Thanks!

                by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:19:02 PM PDT

              •  thanks for the link

                I didn't even know fabooj had left or why she had.  I took a few months off from dkos (probably going to that again shortly).  

                That is really a shame but reading that diary yesterday I sure can see why someone would bow out.

                by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:29:19 PM PDT

                •  read her note on her site

                  serach the archives in October and read her comments and the response she got from the admins.  

                  I have never read the Harvey Milk diary.  When it was posted I think I was either out of town or not on a computer.  It took a few days until I'd also heard about it and I think it was another diary on race and Dailykos that drew my attention.  It was in that diary that Shanikka or might have been blksista who said that Fabooj had left.  

                  All in all, it was a very sad moment in history for this site and reminds me of the pie fights but in a much more personal way as the ones who left this time were voices I miss now, like Fabooj.

                  by Bendygirl on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:09:25 AM PDT

                  •  The whole situation was ghastly

                    But just my 2 cents, I think Fabooj's response was precisely what Harvey was feeling at Obama's offense. Harvey created a ghastly sample of bigotry intentionally to demonstrate the precise feelings Obama was raising. In the end, so sad about Fabooj's decision, I really blame Obama. Bigotry has very long tentacles...That said, I'm not aware of the "history" Fabooj refers to...Thanks.

                    by kck on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:35:40 AM PDT

                    •  history

                      I am.  I've seen diaries that are not only ignored but where the diarist is told to get over it, but in a much nicer tone.  

                      I've never read the Harvey Milk post and I don't ever intend to.  The title alone makes me ill.  A friend of mine in the GLBT community happens also to be African-American and he supports Obama, only recently coming to that decision.

                      My issue with how this was all handled by the admins is that Fabooj was right that clearly racist diaries like the Harvey Milk diary should be deleted and the diarist banned.  I completely agree.  There's no place for it here.  No matter what a candidate does or doesn't do to piss off one group or another, clearly racist rhetoric has no place here.  

                      by Bendygirl on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:35:20 AM PDT

•  A few points

  Reading both diaries yesterday the difference really jumped out to me.  Of course, that is just my own opinion.

  First, one of them was a candidate diary, where people are repeat players an are already worked up.  That diary (and comments) described Democratic leaders as being racist, or at least promoting racist ideas.  The other diary wasn't about specific people, so it's easier to discuss in the abstract.

  Second, one of the diaries had hundreds of more posts--both in agreement and disagreement--than the other.  

  Third, there were some ugly posts in the Joos diary, too.  For example:

  If every discussion trying to debunk neocon assertion. be it terrorism, nuclear weapons, middle east or Israel policy are in the end answered with 'anti semitism'

  one can only conclude the ideas they are defending is Jewish values and tied to ethnic identity.

  by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:48:41 AM PDT

  •  it was a diary with AIPAC and "the joos"

    in the title.  I would expect there would be some comments disagreeing with the diarist.

    There were none telling the diarist their point was bullshit and the diary should be deleted.  

    I'm sure you and would both agree that if someone write that in the AIPAC diary it would be considered racist.

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:54:10 AM PDT

    •  I don't think the diaries are comparable

      The AIPAC diary basically said that Israel and AIPAC do  bad things, but it's unfair to equate their actions to all Jews.  

      The other diary claimed specific Democratic leaders were using racist tactics.

      Those aren't comparably controversial claims.

      by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:00:38 AM PDT

      •  very true

        but they are both diaries that are essentially the diarists opinion of what constitutes racism.   The diarist says that by referring to AIPAC as the Jewish Lobby that is racist.  I think the diarist has a point and in the past I've made it clear that no one should equate AIPAC to jewish people or Israel but people often do.  That is big mistake.   However, to follow the line of reasoning of the people saying, "its not racist to use Obama's middle name or to talk about his muslim grandfather because those are true things so why are Obama's supporters denying them...what are you afraid of the truth?"  we would then have to say, "Isn't AIPAC a lobby that represents interest of the Jewish people and isn't it made up of a lot of Jewish people and thus doesn't it make sense to refer to it as the Jewish Lobby...what are you afraid of the truth?"

        by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:13:45 AM PDT

        •  No, AIPAC reps Isreal, not Jews...

          ...a country, not a race. No?

          by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:25:05 AM PDT

          •  I don't think

            AIPAC even represents Israel, in my opinion.

            by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:30:58 AM PDT

            •  Well, it's just a PAC

              so I agree, they have their agenda... like GOP PACs or Democratic PACS relate to supporting the US.

              by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:40:04 AM PDT

              •  actually its not even a formal pac

                the AIPAC stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee

                the reason I don't think AIPAC looks out for the Israeli people is due their agenda.  here are their top priorities on their website.

                Seek Assurances on Arms Sale
                Support Sanctions Against Iran
                Support Military Aid to Israel
                Support Divestment from Iran

                I know who the people in this country are who are only out for war with Iran and more military spending.  I'm quite sure they aren't looking out for the American people's best interests.

                by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:00:48 AM PDT

                •  Yes, there is a reason "American" is the

                  first word in their name.

                  It's all about military industry $$$ for the U.S. of A.

                  by arielle on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:11:00 AM PDT

                  •  So, it's not so much about support for Isreal...

                    ...as support for what some faction of Isreali supporters believe is required/desired from the US in terms of resources or positioning? Is that more accurate?

                    by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:17:32 AM PDT

                    •  I'm not sure what is accurate

                      but you will have a hard time convincing me that AIPAC's purpose is to work for the benefit of the general population of Israel.

                      by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:52:04 AM PDT

                    •  It's probably closer.

                      It pays to keep in mind, as well, that AIPAC is not a monolithic group.

                      I know both right wing and left wing members.

                      It will never be a progressive organization, but it leans more rightward currently because the world is leaning right currently.  

                      by arielle on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:02:14 AM PDT

                      •  Thank you.

                        I am so optimistic about the world today...we're not all connected yet we have the means to be (e.g., electronically, economically, pathologically, and financially. While there's still violence, genocide, poverty, and war, I do believe we know what is to be done and how to avoid these plagues. They are no longer "natural" as if always will be...I am optimistic about the chances for the next generation and emerging powers (China) to use resource limitations and our interconnectedness to trigger taking the right risks rather than simply going to war. And the age of geopolitical positioning will look so barbaric and primitive.  

                        by kck on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:46:45 AM PDT

                        •  I wish I shared your optimism.

                          I have reached an age, I think, where muttering quietly under one's breath, "Shit!  It's all just SHIT!", isn't looked at askance.

                          by arielle on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:54:04 AM PDT

•  Your diary would have been a better read had you

  not tried to compare the reaction of posters in each diary. If you had just made the case that racism is in the eye of the beholder and that each diarist was justified to express their feelings, I would concur. But you tried to imply people argue against black racism and don't argue when it's a Jew calling it racism. I've read too many I/P diaries to know better.

  by tazz on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:49:59 AM PDT

  •  well

    I made the case you describe in the intro.  What bothered me was the comments in the one diary.  

    And the Jewish diarist even admits to having included the spelling "joos" in the title to try to stir things up.  

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

    •  I don't think you are going to convince

      avid die hard Clinton supporters their idol or her campaign is wrong in anything they have implied or said regarding Obama. When my son comes over to watch a boxing match and he favors one fighter over the other, he only sees his favorite land any punches. He never sees the opponent scoring with quick, crisp jabs and overhand rights. He only sees his fighter doing the damage. When the fight is over and the judges score the fight for the opponent by a unanimous decision, he goes ballistic. The fight was fixed, he was robbed, you name it, the expletives fly. It's no different when it comes to politics, religion or race. We see things we want to see.

      When I read comments on this website that I don't agree with, I reflect on my own reactions, and some of them I am actually ashamed of. There is one thing that reading so many diaries and comments about race on this website has reinforced in me, racism really is in the eye of the beholder. What I see as racism in comments or innuendos by one campaign, others who have an emotional, vested interest in seeing their hero win see something completely different.

      by tazz on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:22:05 AM PDT

•  Yeah, some of the responses

  in that diary were out of hand. But I also see plenty of anti-semitism around here. Even more than that, I don't think there's any reason to pit racism and anti-semitism against each other like this. The larger point is that it's just rude to tell someone their feelings don't matter and that they probably don't know what they're talking about. Especially if that person has a lot more life experience with the matter.

  by brklyngrl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:53:34 AM PDT

  •  i agree

    that there is anti-semitism here and everywhere.  

    I've been around dkos long enough to not let rude comments bother me.  I make plenty myself.  But I believe these cross the line and support racism by telling a black man he doesn't understand racism and that if he only better understood what white people meant, then he would see it wasn't racism.

    As I mentioned in the intro, if you are on the receiving end of an "ism" you know it when you see it.

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:05:46 AM PDT

•  Not comparable

  sorry, but the Obama diary called HILLARY a racist based upon statements by BOB KERREY.  People did not question the diarist's perception of what constituted racism.  Rather, they questioned whether you could validly identify Hillary as a racist for another person's comments.  That is a far cry from calling somebody an anti-Semite for what that person actually said or wrote.

  Let me give a perfectly on-point example.  I do not believe Obama is an homophobe.  Can I call him one because of Donnie McClurkin's statements?  Do you think the diarist in the Hillary diary mentioned above would consider that valid?  No?  I didn't think so.  End of story.

  by dhonig on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:53:59 AM PDT

  •  With all due respect,

    people did both. There are a lot of comments in that diary.

    Also, plenty of people called Obama a homophobe when the McClurkin thing went down. Its mellowed somewhat in the intervening months - now people use more precise language - I expect that will happen here too.

    by brklyngrl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:59:40 AM PDT

    •  And a lot of people were outraged

      when Obama was called a homophobe.

      by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:02:34 AM PDT

      •  I'm not really sure what your point

        is here. That its a perfect parallel? And therefore you can understand why Black people would be really, really pissed off? After all, we have one or two gay posters here who are still very upset about the McClurkin thing and say they won't vote for Obama in the general election. And they also say that the way some Obama supporters trivialized and minimized and spun the wrong that was done contributes to their continuing hurt and anger. So what can we learn from that?

        by brklyngrl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:07:32 AM PDT

        •  I think I completely agree with you

          Especially your earlier comment that some mellowing will follow.  Emotions are, rightfully, running high right now.

          My point was that this diary is complaining about the people who objected to the racism charges, which I think is a parallel to the people who rejected the homophobic charges.

          by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:12:08 AM PDT

          •  Okay. I can accept that.

            There were a few Obama supporters that were really extremely rude and dismissive during that time.

            I think the incidences are different, because McClurkin was one bad misstep, and this is a series of things, but perhaps it is a matter of perspective.

            by brklyngrl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:25:36 AM PDT

      •  I seemto recall

        that some major Obama backers here were livid over the McClurkin fiasco. Adam B and Geekesque specifically come to mind.

        I might have missed them, but I don't recall a similar burst of outrage among the chief Clinton supporters over the drug dealing thing.

        by MBNYC on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:09:50 AM PDT

        •  I think you're misremembering

          In fact, I remember a specific diary from Geekesque accusing everyone who was upset over the McClurkin thing of being, essentially, racist.

          by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:17:03 AM PDT

          •  He changed his mind

            Denounce Donnie McClurkin (I volunteer personally to write that speech, Senator Obama, should you go that route)?

            by Mikey on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:19:27 AM PDT

            •  Plenty of Clinton supporters, including myself,

              have called on Clinton to denounce Shaheen.

              by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:20:47 AM PDT

          •  Perhaps

            But I distinctly recall Adam B saying this,  and I distinctly recall that Geek publicly disclaimed advocating for Obama for a good while. I especially remember Adam's comment, because I thought it spoke of true class.

            by MBNYC on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:24:31 AM PDT

            •  I think what Adam said a bit further down

              I'm not jumping ship over this; I know what's in the man's heart, and I know his commitment to gay rights is firm.

              But he needs to speak out on this, and I trust that he will.

              Is the basic attitude most Clinton supporters had.  Some people were satisfied with the way Obama ultimately handled the McClurkin thing, and some people were satisfied with Clinton's personal apology to Obama for the Shaheen thing.

              by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:27:49 AM PDT

              •  Here's the thing, though

                it's not just Shaheen. It's those Iowa Muslim emails, now, it's Kerrey, it's Mark Penn talking about cocaine, and it's the gleeful spreading of all that here.

                For the comparison to be entirely valid, Obama would have had to use McClurkin to re-animate the rightwing smear of Hillary as a lesbian. Which, frankly, in the SC primary, might be helpful to him. But he's not doing that, nor should he, nor do I see any of his supporters here spreading that story.

                By contrast, many Clinton supporters here have tied themselves into knots trying to make the ongoing Muslim smear - sad that that's a smear, but there you have it - appear benign. One of them told me yesterday I just wasn't sophisticated enough to understand Indonesian mores, by way of example, when we all know what's going on.

                by MBNYC on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:47:35 AM PDT

                •  Sigh

                  The Shaheen thing was disgusting.  Very few people disagree.

                  The volunteers who sent the e-mails were fired, and I think it's tough to argue an Iowa volunteer forwarding a e-mail to 11 people is part of some grand strategy.  But, yes, they should be denounced.

                  Kerrey has been saying the same thing about Obama for over six months.  Whether you you think it's a smear or not (I happen to think it's clumsily states optimism), it's tough to equate that to a Clinton pattern.

                  by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:54:17 AM PDT

                  •  Well

                    the sum total of it does add up to a pattern, I argue. I've heard the exact same arguments being made by Clinton backers I know personally, Hillaryis44.com is aflame with this stuff (and I hold privately that that site is linked to the campaign), and so on and so forth.

                    Every available bit of evidence suggests the Clintons are trying to bring Obama down - they're even talking up Edwards. So the objective is not, I respectfully submit, at issue; it's the means. And if I'm right, there will be more of it.

                    We shall see.

                    by MBNYC on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:05:54 AM PDT

                •  And I don't know what to think

                  about the Young thing.  I'm sure Hillary wasn't so happy about it, either.

                  by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:54:51 AM PDT

                  •  Every move by the Clinton camp

                    is under extreme scrutiny both here and in the MSM.

                    If we did the same Eye of Sauron bit with the Senator from Illinois, would he actually have substantially less "gaffes?" I seem to recall a certain incident involving an extremely homophobic supporter....

                    by Jim J on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:05:04 AM PDT

    •  Actually, my recollection is

      that nobody called Obama a homophobe.  Several people, myself included, accused him of hypocritical triangulation, speaking on behalf of GLBT rights while making McClurkin the headliner in an Obama event to Black evangelicals.  

      by dhonig on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:07:10 AM PDT

      •  Well. I don't have too much time to dig.

        But here's one that's not from lorelynn or HarveyMilk. I felt like that would be cheating.

        by brklyngrl on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:12:49 AM PDT

      •  I saw people call him a homophobe

        with which I disagreed, and I also saw people utterly disregard, insult, and try to squish those of us who were upset with Obama, even if we did not think he was a homophobe.

        It was a whole lot of ugly, that. But what's interesting about it to me is that a lot of the exact same people -- I refuse to name names, but I dug some for my own curiosity last night -- who are flinging the "surrogates speak for the campaign" argument are folks who argued the exact opposite point of view regarding McClurkin.

        Makes me laugh, a bit, and frankly serves as a reminder not to take people here too seriously during primaries.

        by Spit on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:29:21 AM PDT

•  Great, more faux outrage

  can't get enough.

  by Jim J on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 06:55:53 AM PDT

  •  so jim j

    do you agree with those commentors?

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:01:31 AM PDT

    •  Ha, nice try

      Yes, I'd love nothing better than to get baited into a red herring discussion of race, which has nothing to do with why Obama will not be your next president -- though it certainly suits his supporters to pretend that's the reason.

      by Jim J on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:22:54 AM PDT

      •  Jim doesn't give a crap about what democrat gets.

        ...elected.

        His comments from yesterday make clear that he'd take an axe murderer in the WH as long as they had a (D) next to their name. No standard for honesty, ideology, experience...nothing. Just the (D) and that's good enough for Jim.

        by malharden on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:33:15 AM PDT

        •  Au contraire

          I just happen to think any one of our current field would make an awesome president.

          Unlike you, I am not blind to the clear excellence of our '08 field. I do have preferences -- Biden first, HRC second, Edwards third -- but I just think they pretty much all fucking rock.

          It's too bad for you that you don't appreciate all this, really. You might not see such a field again in your lifetime -- which judging from your attitude probably hasn't been very lengthy so far.

          by Jim J on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:41:15 AM PDT

          •  The search tool is your friend

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            As recently as today:

               

            * [new] Good Diary, Ellinorianne (9+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:Inky, grannyhelen, edgery, LynneK, TomP, happy237, Guadalupe59, Ellinorianne, BBelle
            This is good to see.

            I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn more about Edwards. I am still open minded and I still appreciate that we Dems have such a great field of candidates to choose from.

            Diaries like this are why I like being a part of this community.

            The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous. -Frederick Douglass

            by malharden on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:08:42 AM EST

            [ Reply to This ]

            And if you're so gung-ho on our current field, why would you support our candidates hitting each other below the belt (e.g., "madrassa")?

            by malharden on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:50:08 AM PDT

            •  I don't 'support' that or not 'support' it

              It's irrelevant to me. Not so to you obviously. If you were so worried about all this perhaps you should have thought of how to handle it previously.

              by Jim J on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:17:07 AM PDT

    •  Jim thinks we are all too sensitive.

      The funny thing is that when you rip on him, he whines like a baby.  Ironic eh?

      by Yoshimi on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:07:42 AM PDT

•  Racism

  Your title sparked my interest.  I am Black (multi racial) and my housemate is Jewish.  We discuss racism quite a bit.  Actually, I am part of the Anti-Racist Alliance in NYC.  Have been part of the Peoples Institute for Survival and Beyond for many many years.

  What stands out in your article is the lack of a clear definition of racism.  I strongly feel that part of the problem of undoing racism is that there are too many definitions of what racism is.  This ambiguity allows for confusion in defining racism.  From my training, the definition is Race Prejudice + Power..(economic, militaristic, media, education etc...)  Without the power to impose your prejudice it is difficult to call peoples of color racist.  Prejudice/bigot possibly, but racist...NOT

  Part of my discussion of racism surrounding the Jew question is that question:  How do you selectively call anything contrary to Israel as racist or anti-semetic?   Actually my question has always been how do you enjoy White skin privilege here in the US and cry Anti Semetism when Israel is questioned?  The best of both worlds it seems....Differentiating between Zionism and being Jewish is becoming a blurred line...A large part of the Israel population is in fact Russian.  There is also the fact that those of color in Israel from "black" jews....

  I personally think that the issue of racism is under reported and that the need for universalizing definitions of racism is much needed....

  by Hannibal Lectures on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:00:15 AM PDT

  •  Can you expand on this?

    Differentiating between Zionism and being Jewish is becoming a blurred line...A large part of the Israel population is in fact Russian.  There is also the fact that those of color in Israel from "black" jews...

    I don't see how the last two sentences follow from the first.  Thanks.

    by Partially Impartial on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:04:33 AM PDT

    •  explanation / response

      The right to return and the love for the Land of Israel is inherently part of being Jewish.  Zionism has used this sentiment and institutionalized it into a power structure which functions within the power structure of the US as well.  

      A large part of the population is in fact Russian.   I said this to indicate the "identity" of Jews is defined    differently.  My lady freind is Russian, Ukrainain, Jewish, White.  She admittedly uses these designations in different circumstances.  I speak about the Russian population because I know that most of those immigrants from Russia never practiced the religion of Judaism.  Their identity came from family names and segregation.  Their understanding of the Torah, Talmud is very limited if non existent.  They are Russians who used the "Jewish" designation to leave Europe and settle in Israel, where they began education in religion.  

      When I referred to Black Jews, I was referring to those Jews that are indeed Semetic.  Racial prejudice is very active in Israel.  Color prejudice is very active.  Ironically, this same prejudice is masked when the cry of anti-semetism is used as a tool.  The question that always arised in my thinking is:  How can you cry anti semetism and at the same time enjoy white skin privelege?

      by Hannibal Lectures on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:41:48 AM PDT

      •  "Race Traitor" on Zionism

          One of the more radical leftist journals in, "whiteness studies, " founded by Noel Ignatiev aka Ignatin, an old New Leftist active in sds back in the 60's.
         http://www.racetraitor.org/
        >...RACE TRAITOR #16, Winter 2005.
        From RACE TRAITOR #16 - "The 'Jewish' population of Israel includes people from fifty countries, of different physical types, speaking different languages and practicing different religions (or no religion at all), defined as a single people based on the fiction that they, and only they, are descended from the Biblical Abraham. It is so patently false that only Zionists and Nazis even pretend to take it seriously."

        The White Anti-Racist Is an Oxymoron: An Open Letter to the "White Anti-Racist" >... That said, I want to begin with what has become a realization for me through the help of different politically conscious friends. There is NO SUCH THING AS A WHITE ANTI-RACIST. The term itself, "white anti- racist" is an oxymoron. In the following, I will explain why. Then, I will begin to detail how this impacts non-white people in organizing work specifically, along with how it affects non-white people generally.

        by mosealison on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:51:49 AM PDT

        •  Whiteness Studies

          I am familiar with Race Traiter from the mid 90's.  I am also familiar with ARA.  Anti-Racist-Action.  I studied with Ron Chisom of the Peoples Institute.  I am a anti-racist activist.

          The Whiteness Studies curriculum is proliferating throughout the higher institutions of learning.  I wonder why?  Is this another attempt to define and make acceptable the idea of the White race designation?  Race is a social constructed designation.  It is "the" system of identity in the US and S. Africa from birth and it is institutionalized.  It comes from ponerology.

          by Hannibal Lectures on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:05:03 AM PDT

        •  That is completely anti-Semitic and false.

          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:22:47 PM PDT

      •  A very odd question

        How can you cry anti semetism and at the same time enjoy white skin privelege?

        It ought to be evident that there is more than one form of discrimination extant in our society. A person may benefit from one prejudice and suffer from another.

        A person does not ask to be discriminated against.  Similarly, a person may benefit from discrimination against others without asking for that privilege. It is automatically built into living in a racist society.

        A relevant question is: how does an awareness of anti-Semitism affect Jews' awareness of the white skin privilege that comes from racism in our society? The answer appears to be that Jews have been particularly sensitive to the evils of all forms of discrimination, as reflected (for example) in their support for the civil rights movement.

        by word is bond on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:44:19 AM PDT

  •  What's the point in making the distinction?

    In this context, what's the point in distinguishing between racist and bigoted based on comparable levels of power?

    If someone says they hate the Blacks and Jews but the speaker have no power then they're bigoted but not racist?  Is one less reprehensible than the other?  That seems awfully patronizing.

    by nightsweat on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:05:13 AM PDT

    •  patronizing?

      Racism is systemic.  Perhaps if you lived under the negative energy grid of Racism you would know this.  

      One less reprehensible?  I would not frame the words in that way.  Racism is systemic.  (institutionalized)  prejudice is a individual character flaw.  Prejudice gains power by having a system to impose the prejudice.  

      I am not giving my opinion I am giving the results of a deep analysis.  This analysis is the best explanation for the social ills that have resulted from racism.  Ironically, many Jewish organizations and institutions of human service are embracing this analysis espoused and developed by the Peoples Institute for Survival and Beyond.  The challenge is to universalize the definitons and eliminate the ambiguity of terms.  This allows for confusion which allows the continuation of the dynamic.

      by Hannibal Lectures on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:50:47 AM PDT

      •  The flaw in your argument

        is that you assume that power is binary... whites have it and blacks don't.   The reality is that power comes from wealth, education, race, beauty, position, family and more.  Power (like electricity) is relative to the surrounding, the ground.

        For example,  as a teacher, I have power relative to my parents and students but my principal has power relative to me.   In my case, my principal is black and I am a white Jew.   My principal has made anti-Semitic statements about me AND has kept me from religious observances while at the same time making religious statements at a faculty meeting.  Any white privaledge I may or may not have is meaningless in this environment; my black principal has all the power.

        by Pumpkinlove on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:32:54 PM PDT

    •  The purpose is to

      absolve all Blacks  of any racism while painting all Whites as racist.

      by Pumpkinlove on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:24:43 PM PDT

  •  Former Senator endorsing a Presdiential Candidate

    That does seems to be a pretty good place to transmute bigotry into power: it seeks to legitimize people who don't want a black/Muslim President.

    by Mikey on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:05:41 AM PDT

  •  Some points.

    Criticizing Israel in and of itself is not anti-Semitic and since every Jew in my family and acquaintance criticizes Israel it's a silly argument that is made way too often online.

    The line is crossed when "Israel" gets equated to "Jews", when "AIPAC" becomes the "Jewish Lobby", or when dual loyalty accusations are thrown about (for example, Joe Lieberman (R-Israel) or the phrase Israel Firsters).

    The line is crossed when people accuse Israel or Jews of running the U.S. government, or complicity in 9/11, the Irish Potato Famine, or of the events in Darfur.

    The majority of the population in Israel is Sephardic so the whole "white skin privilege" things is odd.

    The right wing racists do not consider me "white".  Jews are "mud people".

    We have been denied entrance to clubs, denied memberships in societies, denied, until fairly recently, entrance to specific universities, and denied employment (still) in certain industries.

    Zionism itself is a nationalist movement for a state for the Jewish people and the vast majority of Jews in this country are Zionists who feel that Israel has a right to exist while eschewing Israeli expansionism.

    by arielle on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:18:11 AM PDT

  •  Some additional points

    Every person has the right to define their personal identity. When people presume to define another person's racial, ethnic or religious identity, they are engaging in institutional racism (as in South Africa) or personal bigotry.

    After centuries of having their nationality stated  as Jewish (not Russian) on their identity cards, centuries of discrimination on that basis, and decades during which their religious practices were stymied, Russians of Jewish descent have every right to identify as Jews whether or not they have studied the Talmud, etc.

    It is clear that Jews define themselves as a people, an ethnic group, a community with common roots in history. To define Jews only as practitioners of a religion is to strip away part of a Jew's self-identification. That is a form of anti-Semitism, saying "your definition of your own identity is invalid".

    For that reason, criticism of Israel and Zionism becomes anti-Semitic when it goes beyond the actions of the Israeli government, and extends to denying the legitimacy of Jewish self-expression in the form of a nationalistic movement. In a world that respects national movements of self-determination, denying the legitimacy of the same impulse among Jews is discriminatory.

    Evidently, some people believe that Jews should be identified as Jews when that entails disadvantage and discrimination, but can no longer identify as Jews if there is any benefit in it.

    by word is bond on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

  •  Just as entire populations are not racist

    neither can entire populations be said to have power or to be powerless.

    by Pumpkinlove on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:02:08 PM PDT

  •  Mind you

    my black boss has made anti-Semitic and racist comments and actions

    by Pumpkinlove on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 04:04:12 PM PDT

•  differences

  One was a candidate diary with nearly 1200 comments.  The other was not a candidate diary and had about 100 comments.  Obviously, you are going to find a lot more heated comments in the first one.

  by markw on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:10:25 AM PDT

  •  well

    while there were plenty more comments in the one diary, it only took the first one to dismiss the diarist and call the diary nonsense.

    No this post is unfair (46+ / 2-)

    It is not accurate and a real bash of out of thin air nonsense really.

    by onemadson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:31:49 AM PDT

•  Sorry, I have to disagree.

  The black diarist was inferring racism from positive comments.  To me, that's just illogical nonsense.  When you maintain that anyone who feels a racist insult has been subjected to racism, that's a false definition.  

  The analogy would be someone who feels insulted by a misperceived remark.  Since we've all been teenagers, we can relate to that kind of incident.  As we experience these perceived insults, we learn to take things less personally and look for the intent behind what we've perceived to see if there's a valid reason for complaint.  Someone who doesn't learn to do that is considered thin-skinned, defensive or whiny.

  I didn't read the AIPAC diary so I have no comment on that.

  by lizpolaris on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:11:03 AM PDT

  •  "Positive Comments"

    Do you honestly take Bob Kerrey at his word, that his thinks this is great and is saying it just to praise Barack Obama?  Note that the Madrassa story originiated in a far-right smear rag and was repeatedly debunked: did Kerrey just miss that whole part of the story and thought it was the truth?  

    Note also that the Clinton campaign had to ask for the resignation of another prominent endorser because he insinuated that Obama may be a drug dealer, and had to fire multiple staffers in Iowa who were passing around "Obama is a scary Muslim" e-mails?  Does this suggest to you that maybe they've voided the benefit of the doubt?

    Finally, think about what it means when you complain that black people who feel as though they are the victims of racism are "thin-skinned, defensive, or whiny" or emotionally analogous to teenagers.  Even though you hide it by using the passive voice.

    by Mikey on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:16:19 AM PDT

    •  Code words are used because they're effective

      

      by jhutson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:19:22 AM PDT

      •  Sure are

        After all, nobody said that Willie Horton was black.  I can only imagine people saying then: "I don't see race!  The fact that you think this ad campaign is racist just proves that YOU'RE a racist!"

        by Mikey on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:20:32 AM PDT

    •  Yes, I do take Sen Kerrey at his word.

      I base that conclusion on looking at his actions and statements in the past.

      And yes, I am saying that folks such as the original diarist are overly sensitive.

      As a woman working in the tech world for over 20 years, I've been subject to some discrimination as well.  In my experience, spending a lot of time complaining about it doesn't get you far.  Yes, it exists; yes, work to do something about it; but no, don't get your knickers in a twist over everything.  There will be enough big ticket items to worry about - don't sweat the small crap and don't look for insults that aren't there.  That's my experience.

      by lizpolaris on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:24:35 AM PDT

      •  How do you effect change

        By pretending the problem doesn't exist?  

        And I don't doubt that it's effective for you to not complain directly about discrimination - it's effective for Obama too, which is why he isn't doing it.  But while this is a public forum, it isn't a place where we have to hide our feelings because they might not be politically effective.  

        by Mikey on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:31:01 AM PDT

        •  In this case, a change isn't needed.

          I'm not pretending there isn't a problem - there actually isn't one.  When there is a problem, address it.  In this case, Sen Kerrey's positive comments aren't a problem.

          by lizpolaris on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:36:24 AM PDT

          •  If black people see a problem, there's a problem

            And if white people negate black people's feelings about the problem, there's a problem.

            by jhutson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:40:50 AM PDT

            •  That's the exact definition that I'm saying is

              illogical.  

              For example, just because you feel paranoid doesn't mean people are out to get you.  Similarly, just because someone feels insulted or feels discriminated against or feels like there's a problem doesn't mean one actually exists.  It does mean that the person has feelings to deal with.  

              So I'm not negating anyone's feelings.  But I'm advocating that the first thing you do with your feelings is take a step back and see what's causing that.  There may not be an external problem causing it - it could be within the person's own perceptions.

              by lizpolaris on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:51:22 AM PDT

              •  Paranoia is a heightened state of awareness

                that promotes survival.

                Given that systemic racism is a reality in America today, and given that white people make a concerted effort not to see systemic racism -- because to do so would be to begin to undermine a system of privilege that benefits white folks -- I don't see why African Americans would not feel some degree of paranoia.

                by jhutson on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 07:58:40 AM PDT