Privilege blocked the path toward a united front.
Looking back on the Democratic race some have already begun to make excuses. They have already attempted to re-write history in the familiar "he didn't win, she lost" mold of narcissism that clings to the petty desire that the defeated might yet snatch joy from the psyche of the victor. If you can't beat 'em, delegitimize them. Unfortunately, this decision by some Hillary supporters will do more damage in years to come because it furthers the chasm between the movements of civil rights and gender equality.
Yet at the heart of this revisionism lies the culprit of division. . . white privilege. Inherent in this privilege is the utter disbelief that someone like Obama could snatch a perceived entitlement without cheating or getting a free pass. As such, Hillary and some of her supporters feel free to exercise a second privilege. . . simply put, the privilege to vent one's grievances.
Senator Clinton has complained about sexism and "the all boys club" in ways Obama could NEVER talk about racism and "the man keeping a brotha down."
No doubt, white women have been oppressed in our history. But not necessarily in the same way as other groups. The Cult of True Womanhood was an oppressive era. But it was still an era that placed white women on a pedestal, even if as a trophy.
Here's the deal. . . you protect a trophy. You praise a trophy. You honor a trophy. Sure, that trophy has no value beyond that which its owner gives it. But its value is intertwined with the desires of its owner. The trophy is a symbol of a greater power (white men) that must be preserved at all costs. To besmirch said trophy is to delegitimize the power and authority of the person it belongs to.
Bill Clinton's power was at stake. Hillary (updated clarification: the success of her would-be presidential run) was his trophy. She ran on his name and his record. And it baffles the mind that so many self-proclaimed "feminists" can't see the trouble with such an arrangement.
People don't like a dirty trophy. They like to keep it clean and shiny. Thus, they're more tolerant when the trophy complains than when others do the same.
If Obama complained about racism half as much as Hillary has about sexism he would have been written off as just another Al Sharpton candidate months ago. Even now, many seek to tie Obama to associates who may be more radical than he is. Isn't that something? Obama isn't even allowed to know a "radical" black man, let alone be one. We had people going through his associations in a way that people never went through Clinton's. They were and still are looking for any signs of black radicalism, even if it's someone else (and NOT Obama) who's saying the words.
Which leads to the next issue: Fear of a black planet. Society simultaneously represses and reveres white women. At the same time, we oppress and FEAR black America (particularly black men).
Black men aren't a trophy, we're a threat. As history has it, our inherent threat of black beastiality is often viewed as a danger to the very trophy that white men treasure. . . white women.
This not an attempt at pity Olympics. I have my view on who's had it worse, but I realize that each culture, sexuality and gender has a past that I may never sympathize with. So I'd rather keep it simple: Each oppression is real and unique unto itself. There are similarities, but there are also a lot of differences that are key if we are to deal with oppression as a wider systemic illness.
This Democratic race presented an opportunity to forge rather than divide our fights against oppression. But such unity never happened, in part, because some white women never reconciled their privilege with their repression.
It was their choice. . . to bask in the Cult of True Womanhood or realize that said trophy treatment is antithetical to everything that they've fought against in the fight for gender equality.
Enough (not all) chose the easy route. And to this day, many might not realize that the success of this recent charge against sexism maintains strength only so long as the object of such disdain is a black man.
That's why such specious arguments stick. . . this idea that it is ok to punish Obama for the sins of the media. . . this privileged assumption that Obama had an affirmative duty to defend Hillary Clinton's honor (realizing that Hillary, herself, never stuck her neck out to defend Obama against racism. . .but, then again, I was never so privileged to assume that such an obligation exists).
Some feel justified in their anger precisely because the dynamics are so familiar. It is Melissa Harris-Lacewell's "Scarlet O'Hara" complex that makes victimhood a virtue with tangible benefits and a heightened (though ultimately subservient) position on the totem pole of oppression. It's that constant and familiar refrain that says "I'm still better than you" that allows this disturbing sense of entitlement and outright shock that someone didn't wait his "turn."
For many, Obama's true sin was that he disturbed the order of ascension. She was supposed to be first. Her kind was supposed to be first. But not him. He and his kind can wait. For many, the mere idea of he before she was illegitimate.
But he had more legislative experience than John Edwards. He has more legislative experience than Senator Clinton, herself.
In an alternate universe, would Senator Clinton have used "experience" against a rival John Edwards? Would she have used the commander and chief test? Would her campaign have embraced the emasculating comparisons of "cajones" and "testiculary fortitude" if her opponent were not a member of a group so historically emasculated?
This was a golden opportunity missed. The truth is both "black" and "woman" are historical and contemporary pejoratives in national politics.
The difference between the two candidates is that while one tried his best to avoid making gender a central theme of his opponent's campaign, the other did her best to remind the country that race was an inescapable (and at times valid) consideration of his.
The true sin lies in comments that have no alternative than to convince the public that we aren't ready for a black president. It was Clinton's camp that, through Ed Rendell, said conservative whites would not vote for the black guy. It was Clinton's camp that compared Obama's SC victory to the only candidate who has a negative approval rating among white Americans, Jesse Jackson (Bill Clinton also won SC. . . why didn't he compare Obama to himself?). It was Clintons's camp that, through Senator Clinton herself, touted her "hard working white vote" as an Obama weakness indicative of some inherent "pattern," although neither she nor her campaign were willing to say just what that "pattern" actually was (wink, wink!).
Obama isn't perfect. But he can at least rejoice in the fact that he never made gender a central theme of Hillary's campaign.
His pollsters never released a statement outlining the various groups that would be hostile to a woman candidate. He never bragged about the black vote. He never marginalized Hillary's candidacy by comparing her to some similarly inspirational yet inherently flawed female predecessor whose mere name association raises hostilities in male voters (the way Jesse Jackson does with white voters).
Obama had no choice but to be deferential. He had no choice but to be gracious. He had no choice but to be as non-threatening as humanly possible.
Why? Because "you're likeable enough" is a death sentence for people who didn't like the tone of his voice. Why? Because black confidence is easily misconstrued as black arrogance. Why? Because "he's not one of us," is and will continue to be Obama's biggest hurdle despite the fact that this country grew to love and accept an equally unknown figure in a young white governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton who had no national recognition before his presidential campaign in 1992.
Like Bill Maher said, Obama had no choice but to be the Jackie Robinson of politics. He has no choice but to bite his tongue. He has no choice but to be as charming and eloquent as humanly possible. Anything less is unacceptable in a nation where "unapologetically black" is just as if not more hostile than "white power." Some still don't get the difference between pro-self and anti-other. . . between positive and negative voting. And, until they do, Obama will have to grin and bear a lot of double standards that many others might not see or have an interest or appreciation to recognize.
Hillary had a choice. Not necessarily in how she positioned herself as a fighter (there are obvious gender implications as far as that's concerned). But she did have a choice in how she decided to treat a fellow oppressee.
Like Obama, Hillary at least had the choice to say, "there's a line that I will not cross." She had the choice to recognize the history of this moment. . . that win/lose/or draw both she and Obama would breach that barrier together.
Yet when that very barrier was breached last Tuesday, Senator Clinton couldn't even bring herself to recognize the moment. This was not about a concession. This was not about an endorsement. This was about recognizing the special and historic moment that had just taken place. She couldn't even do that. And although her speech on Saturday was well received, the fact that her own supporters forced her hand will forever taint her moment of grace and reconciliation. For even then she needed an extra push to realize something that has been so apparent to those of us who dream to be a trophy one day. . .
That our struggle is just as important as hers. Our glass ceiling is just as imposing as hers. Our trailblazers are just as strong and have just as much fight as she. And the fact that a black man is finally in a position to achieve the unthinkable is not the result of sexism, or white guilt, or affirmative action. But that it's the result of the very same things that have always pushed through historic and societal barriers. . . hard work. Focus. Determination. Humility. Strategy. Blood. Sweat. Tears.
This is not a time to mourn. This is a time to celebrate. And the thought that Obama and his supporters should, in any way, feel ashamed of this historic occasion speaks volumes of just how much further this country has yet to go.
0 comments:
Post a Comment