The Sunday New York Times Magazine will have a big feature entitled Is Obama the End of Black Politics
Filled with reporter Matt Bai's Obamessiahanism, the piece is unreadable for all intents and purposes. But it is notable for one big reason -- Bai renders black female politicians invisible in his discussion of black politics.
Of the 15 African Americans whose names get a "link" from the Times, there is only one woman -- Michelle Obama. In addition to the "linked", there are other black political figures quoted or mentioned -- none of whom are women.
And there is only one African-American female quoted in the article -- notorious race-baiter and Oborg Cheryl Contee (aka "Jill Tubman" from Jack and Jill Politics), and only one other mention of a woman (Angela Davis, who is referred to in the same breath with Malcolm X as a "60's era revolutionary" -- Malcolm X gets a link, Davis does not).
Indeed, Bai demonstrates his sexism with his only mention of Black women... "This newly emerging class of black politicians, however, men (and a few women) closer in age to Obama and Jesse Jr., seek a broader political brief." To Bai, black female politicians are a mere parenthetical -- despite the fact that they make up 1/3 of the Congressional Black Caucus.
- Paul_Lukasiak's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
No Shirley Chisolm?
I admit I had to Google "Matt Bai". I try not to read the Magazine whenever possible.
Based on this Wikipedia article:
So he embraces the ahistoricity that Obama represents, I'm guessing.
[Well, and according to his own website he's a Yankees fan. Maybe that explains it.]
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
No Shirley Chisholm
No Barbara Jordan
No Carol Moseley-Braun
No Maxine Waters or Corinne Brown
No Sheila Jackson-Lee
No Eleanor Holmes Norton
No "new" black women congresscritters like Donna Edwards or Stephanie Tubb-Jones or Yvette Clarke
they're merely parenthetical.
Does anyone remember which black female politician, when asked whether it was harder to be black or female in congress, said it was being a woman?
That was Shirley Chisholm
"Of my two handicaps, being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black."
And what about Green women?
http://www2.runcynthiarun.org/
Well, of course
All blacks are men. All women are white. There are no black women.
Shocking
Let's all e-mail a quick note to the NYT Mag and Bai and protest!
It is shocking all the women above are not discussed and there are others too.
No time to read right now but surely Donna Brazile has had a very high profile this season as well?
Thanks Paul.
Thanks, Paul
for bringing this to our attention.
The ahistoricity of Bai et al described above seems to be more of a political pose than a genuine belief. Do they really think that when they've finally driven a stake through the heart of both Clintons, and the Gingriches and Lotts on the other side, that Gen Xers and Millenials are all going to hold hands, sing Kum-Bye-Yah, and join together as the Purple Party? My guess is no, and that this is just a political argument rather than an honest intellectual analysis.
Either that, or it's a historical argument that is hopelessly blinkered by white heteroseual male privilege. Who among us who is not male, and/or not white, and/or not heterosexual, would ever suggest that "getting over" all of those debates in the 1960s and 1970s is either possible, or even desirable?
Perhaps one reason that it was convenient to "forget" all of the African American women in congress today is that so many prominent AA women supported Clinton in the primaries. (Tubbs-Jones, and I think Jackson-Lee, IIRC.)
a genuine historical...
...and african american perspective can be found at the black agenda report...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.p...
Matt Bai
Bai wrote a rather good back-story on this race (The Argument); a back-story in which he doesn't paint the PB 1.0 in the best light (though, he also rips the mainstream media, too). It seems, though, that he obvously didn't even take to heart any of his research or even have a grasp of what has gone on, and is still going on at this stage. For a guy that fancies himself knowledgable of the Democratic Party and its history, he doesn't seem to "get" it this time around.
I emailed him about a month and a half ago concerning his thoughts on the disaffected Democrats after the conclusion of the primaries. He told me he doesn't believe them to be a real threat to Barack Obama's candidacy. Go figure.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...