Sunday, July 25, 2010

Sunday Radical Roundup: Surely The Obama Presidency Means We Are Now Beyond Race

To paraphrase Leslie Nielson in Airplane (1980), "No, not if we are firing black people in public service for talking about race -- and don't call me Shirley." Even out in Minnesota, where the Radical family was taking a vacation from all things political, everyone was aware that it wasn't a great week to be Shirley. Read good commentaries in today's New York Times from Frank Rich, a particularly lucid Maureen Dowd, and Van Jones on the Shirley Sherrod affair.





Sherrod's firing and rehiring by Tom Vilsack, a Midwestern progressive who should have known better (and a West Wing that either signed off or insisted on it) is a teachable moment. Ponder, if you will, what this event tells us about the cynical use of race in contemporary political culture. Why the Obama administration can't do better than it does, particularly given the historical lessons of the Clinton years in which accomplished black women routinely took it on the chin and were then hung out to dry by their allies, is something academics might want to think about too. Has anyone noticed that as women and people of color are breaking through to higher ed. administration in unprecedented numbers, yawning hiring, tenure and salary gaps persist, and are usually explained as the outcome of discrimination that only existed in the past -- discrimination that could not possibly be corrected in the present by women, people of color and self-proclaimed feminist men who now have the power to do exactly that?

But returning to the kamikaze political life that seems to be shaping the nation's destiny, I would like to add a few observations. As someone who is currently working on the history of radical feminism in the 1970s, it seems quite obvious to me that the political right learned to do this from the political left. Look at any New or Old Left social movement, and you will see a kind of winner-take-all viciousness in which a large scale ideological attack often took the form of taking a remark, or a political stance, as a thread that would then be used to unravel the opposition's whole sweater. Look at the dirty politics internal to mid-century American Communism; trashing in radical feminism; the decades-long success of the AFL-CIO in suppressing organizing among non-industrial labor; the internal struggles that ended with the expulsion of whites from SNCC (and the subsequent, less heralded, resignation of many black members of SNCC); and the number of queer organizations that have been founded, and then turned on, by Larry Kramer. In other words, there is some shared responsibility for the development of these practices and for the strategic deployment of dirty tricks, particularly statements that are spun out of context to "prove" a foregone conclusion.

This is not to say that the left is worse than the right in this regard: only that they shared in pioneering this behavior; that it has now been fatally merged with racist right-wing political tactics dating from Reconstruction; and that it is now being perfected in an age in which a media story can be transmitted in nanoseconds.

I would also observe that this is not just a political problem, it's a cultural problem. It is the kind of $hit that occurs daily on blogs: blogger writes a six or seven paragraph essay, and some a$$hat latches onto a sentence out of context, gives it a hateful spin, and writes a "comment" that is actually just a personal attack intended to discredit the blogger wholesale. The idea? Who cares about ideas? You would have to read the whole post to grasp the ideas!!!! How much easier just to move on to the next blog, knowing that the writer is exactly the putrid idiot you knew s/he was before you started reading.

Which is all to say: we have become Adderall Nation. Even our intellectuals and journalists often lack the attention span to read or watch anything all the way through. We tape everything on TV so we won't have to watch the commercials; we subscribe to Twitters from politicians so we won't have to read their position papers; and we read or view something just long enough to have -- not even an idea, but a reaction - and then we express our outrage as a character assassination of the person who provoked us.

Is it about the technology? In other words, if information could not be spread unchecked through blogs and other free social media, would a good woman like Shirley Sherrod have been assaulted in this way? Certainly the technology makes it possible -- but like any other phenomenon that has a history, it doesn't make it inevitable or necessary.

And as my mother used to say, it's the thought that counts.

Crossposted at Cliopatria.

6 comments:

Comrade PhysioProf said...

tl; dr. unsubscribering.

Tenured Radical said...

Dude!

Knitting Clio said...

Speaking of Shirley -- "surely" we are beyond gender too? Seriously, I can't help thinking that it was easy to treat this employee as expendable because she's female.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

AHAHAHAHAH!

Historiann said...

Clio: Shirley we're beyond knitting? (What's CCP on, and can I have some?) I agree with KC, except that no one says even a snippet of something that Andrew Breitbart can edit into sounding like radical feminism these days. (Or ever, really.) I think this is due to feminism's failure to arm itself sufficiently as a political movement and have a truly radical wing. (As in, militia groups and armed separatists.) The only political movements that get taken seriously in this country are armed to the teeth.

Brilliant connection between modern politics and the non peer-reviewed $h!tstormosphere. Hope you had a great vaycay!

Urban Exile said...

Great post, TR, which I have forwarded to others.

Eloise and Roger Spooner, the farmers from GA who Shirley helped, are simple people who speak clearly and we should listen to them. Shirley, she says, is their friend because she helped them. Things have been hard, she says, because they haven't had rain and they can't get a good price for their produce.

Such basic problems have been endured by so many for so many decades thanks to the greed of agribusiness. This is where the conversation needs to be focused. I can't help but think that the hours of airtime focused on this awful abuse of a federal employee would have been better served by demonstrating in detail what farmers go through every day trying to keep afloat.

I don't know whether Shirley was treated as expendable because she was female or black. It is easy to imagine it, but I don't know that it's true. I do think however that the Obama administration showed me with this event that it has lost its way, or that the President is not in charge somehow. I can't imagine Senator Obama participating in such a scary and abusive scenario!

To cure yourself of malaise, watch Shirley's face as she listens to Eloise speaking in this clip. It is beautiful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGp2ni6B1I