Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson, who is black, interprets Hillary Clinton's 3 a.m. ad as -- you knew this was coming -- racist. Excerpt:
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.
I'm sorry, but this is paranoid crackpottery. I hadn't even noticed the race of these children ("Ah, but that only goes to show the subliminal evil of the ad!"). Is Hillary Clinton allowed to raise any questions about Barack Obama's fitness for office, or anything else, without standing accused of racism?
I used to think that the one unambiguously good thing about having a President Obama would be that it would be good for racial healing. Now I'm starting to think just the opposite, that any criticism of him, which is to be expected, will be interpreted by no small number of his backers as open or cloaked racism. And if he should fail in office, it will be because racists set him up, and we'll never, ever hear the end of it. "Race doesn't matter!" the Obama crowds in South Carolina chanted, but in fact, race is about to matter more than ever, whether candidate Obama wants it to or not.
Depressing.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I think this type of blog is a no-win situation. Perhaps there are those African Americans who think there is a racist under every rock. Then there are those Whites who believe that they should be able to raise any issue regarding minorities without fear of backlash. I guess if you're White you should get to decide what racism is or isn't without any fear of criticism or reprisal. But if you dish it out, you should also be able to take it as well. Free Speech, either way, no?!
Brian, if Obama had been in the Senate I believe strongly he would have voted the same way for the authorization to use force as Hillary did. Granted this is unapprovable. A decision to oppose the war made by someone who was not yet in the Senate, even if he was running for the Senate, does not carry a lot of weight. The more he harps on Hillary's Iraq vote, the less seriously I take his criticism.
Alicia & Community:
Concerning Ferraro's recent comments, I'd like to ask the following:
Would Hillary be a NY Senator and Presidential candidate if she was not married to Bill?
Alicia,
What do you think of Hillary's vote for making Iran a terrorist state (I think Obama was smart to vote no)? She voted this way when the Bushies had a year left to wage war. We know Iran's government is abysmal, but we also know the Bushies wage wars for corporations located in the Caymen Islands.
Thanks, Brian. Without Hillary's considerable talents, I don't think she could have become Senator from NY or a serious Presidential candidate. Sure, it doesn't hurt to have been First Lady, just like it doesn't hurt to be the President's son if one is planning to run for President.
But need I point out that Hillary is the first First Lady to do this? The connection obviously helped, in fact it might even have been a necessary condition for her becoming a legitimate presidential candidate but I would argue it wasn't a sufficient condition. It was her talent and tenaciousness and good reputation as a senator that got her the rest of the way.
I found Ferraro's comments extremely muddled, by the way. If she was trying to say that some people would rather vote for a man, of any race, than for a woman, she should of just said that.
About Iran, I do think Iran qualifies as a terrorist state in many respects. But it is an enormously complicated society, and I don't think the Bush Administration position relative to Iran has been successful. To say the least.
hillary would not be in running or even in the senate if she was not a women or first lady and most important the little blue dress.that is what ferraro was saying and included herself.obamas campain is the who searched this out to the public.she did not say his being black got him everything in his life it helps him out in this race as it does hillary further more this topic had already been discussed and agreed that this is true by some of the same people who are saying different now.the 3 am ad praised and frowned upon but not for racism.obama and the media not all but most are in love he makes some of them cry.hardball and countdown is starting to look like fox.not obamas fault but at this pace how is anybody going to make it through november without being called a racist.the media loves john too should be interesting.i support hillary so does this mean i am a racist i guess this means i cant vote for obama after all you would not want racist hillary supporters voting for obama too bad i will anyways i know who i am.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.