Nah, this wasn't in response to your post. I've just seen so much of this nonsense come across supposedly-legit blogs and other media that it's driving me up the wall.
Not to sound like the poor whiny white chick, but in a way, this is frustrating for me, because I'm caught in this position of feeling strongly that I should try to set the record straight--purely on the purpose of getting the truth out there--and then also getting the response from some that since I'm not a PoC, I don't get a say. I suppose if I were defending Obama from accusations of sexism (which I would do), I'd have a say?
But of course, even the PoC who have lined up to talk about how ridiculous this is are getting labeled Uncle Toms, so I guess no-one's allowed to talk about it at all. No-one's allowed to question Obama's experience, his understanding of the political process in DC, his lack of time spent outside of an educational environment, etc. either. Calling any of his qualifications into question is apparently racist. So how are his opponents supposed to point out his shortcomings and why they're the better choice? Is there any way possible for a white candidate to run against a black candidate without insinuations of racism?
Likewise, I don't think it's fair to ignore questions of exactly how much 8 years as First Lady really qualifies Hill. Obviously, she had a ringside seat to a lot of stuff, and that is important, but she wasn't exactly working in an official capacity. There's also the question of whether she'd have gotten as far as she has if it weren't for being married to an ex-president. Is it sexist to ask those questions? I certainly freaking hope not, because they're legitimate questions that the candidate for the biggest job in the country should have to face.
I'm reminded a lot here of Catherine Tate's Lauren Cooper character: Lauren turns even the most innocent comment into a personal attack, and spars in an increasingly hostile way--but only to loudly declare how entirely not bothered she is about the percieved slight. She creates the controversy, picks the fight and screams and yells while the other person can't even get a word in, and then proudly says she's above it. Silly.
I'm not versed in every thing that might be percieved as racist (I only discovered yesterday that the term "cakewalk" is insensitive. Had no clue.) But I am willing to learn, and perhaps far more important, willing to fight in every way possible to ensure that everyone is on equal footing and has an equal chance of success. I would like to think that that counts a lot more than someone who scrupulously vets everything he or she says--and then does jack shit to actually work for positive change. Or worse, just panders to get votes and then ignores the people who voted in good faith (welcome to how most queer folk feel about a lot of candidates.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 01:53 am (UTC)Not to sound like the poor whiny white chick, but in a way, this is frustrating for me, because I'm caught in this position of feeling strongly that I should try to set the record straight--purely on the purpose of getting the truth out there--and then also getting the response from some that since I'm not a PoC, I don't get a say. I suppose if I were defending Obama from accusations of sexism (which I would do), I'd have a say?
But of course, even the PoC who have lined up to talk about how ridiculous this is are getting labeled Uncle Toms, so I guess no-one's allowed to talk about it at all. No-one's allowed to question Obama's experience, his understanding of the political process in DC, his lack of time spent outside of an educational environment, etc. either. Calling any of his qualifications into question is apparently racist. So how are his opponents supposed to point out his shortcomings and why they're the better choice? Is there any way possible for a white candidate to run against a black candidate without insinuations of racism?
Likewise, I don't think it's fair to ignore questions of exactly how much 8 years as First Lady really qualifies Hill. Obviously, she had a ringside seat to a lot of stuff, and that is important, but she wasn't exactly working in an official capacity. There's also the question of whether she'd have gotten as far as she has if it weren't for being married to an ex-president. Is it sexist to ask those questions? I certainly freaking hope not, because they're legitimate questions that the candidate for the biggest job in the country should have to face.
I'm reminded a lot here of Catherine Tate's Lauren Cooper character: Lauren turns even the most innocent comment into a personal attack, and spars in an increasingly hostile way--but only to loudly declare how entirely not bothered she is about the percieved slight. She creates the controversy, picks the fight and screams and yells while the other person can't even get a word in, and then proudly says she's above it. Silly.
I'm not versed in every thing that might be percieved as racist (I only discovered yesterday that the term "cakewalk" is insensitive. Had no clue.) But I am willing to learn, and perhaps far more important, willing to fight in every way possible to ensure that everyone is on equal footing and has an equal chance of success. I would like to think that that counts a lot more than someone who scrupulously vets everything he or she says--and then does jack shit to actually work for positive change. Or worse, just panders to get votes and then ignores the people who voted in good faith (welcome to how most queer folk feel about a lot of candidates.)