Aargh!

Sometimes, I hate reading the news. Between President Obama's willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare, cuts "which would affect veterans, the poor and the older Americans," and the state of Tennessee's foolishness:

"A Tennessee bill that would cut welfare benefits of parents with children performing poorly in school cleared committees of both the House and Senate last week."

and

Twice a year, Tennessee holds a “health care lottery” that gives some hope to the uninsured residents in the state who can’t afford health coverage. Tennesseans who meet certain requirements — in addition to falling below a certain income threshold, they must be elderly, blind, disabled, or a caretaker of a child who qualifies for Medicaid — may call to request an application for the state’s public health insurance program, known as TennCare.

[snip]

State residents who have high medical bills but would not normally qualify for Medicaid, the government health care program for the poor, can call a state phone line and request an application. But the window is tight — the line shuts down after 2,500 calls, typically within an hour — and the demand is so high that it is difficult to get through. [...]

[snip]

If Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslan (R) opted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, more than 180,000 people would be able to be added to the TennCare rolls by 2019... Haslan has not yet decided whether Tennessee will accept Obamacare’s optional expansion of the Medicaid program, although he has indicated that he may make his decision sometime this week [week of 25 March 2013].

I despair of our ever having a truly effective safety net.

Also, it must be nice to have the luxury of time to decide if 180,000 people who need healthcare can get it. Uh-oh, Governor, your privilege is showing!

What the hell...

...is this?


I can't figure it out. Here are my fledgling ideas on what we are meant to learn from Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll's inane comments:

1) Your long-time single friends are probably gay. (Hey! Stop looking at me! :-)

2) Only black women who look a certain way "engage in relationships like that."

I don't know what that means exactly. At first I suspected she was referring to possibly two things

A) herself as attractive, thus recycling the stereotype that lesbians are "ugly" "man-hating" women who are really gay and bitter because they can't "get" a man and

B) herself as a fairer-skinned (at least fairer-skinned than the woman who says she saw the Lt. Governor in a "compromising position") woman of color, which supposedly marks her as "more" attractive and desirable, bringing us back to point A.

But there is so much more going on in Carroll's words and expressions and laughs. The larger point, I believe, is that she is asserting that people who have "those kind of relationships" look some certain, identifiable way.

And it is not the way "normal" people like her--you know, people who have spouses and children and are physically attractive or whatever--look. Her knowing glances and smiles undergird that--I get the feeling she is saying, "Come on! You know what I mean!"

But what does she mean? That black lesbians aren't mothers or political leaders or don't fill myriad other "normal" roles that are apparently the domain of heterosexual women?

I still don't know what the hell Carroll is saying exactly.

But I do know that, whatever she means, it speaks to a long, hurtful history of othering.

Again...

Thinking about and sadly inspired by Trayvon Martin. More to come.

My Soul Looks Back...

Everything has me weepy today on the observation of MLK, Jr.'s birthday, feeling sentimental as an African American historian and a product of the rural South.

Everything. Like, in the midst of re-reading Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow (I'm teaching it (again) this Spring), I have (previously) run across Cara's review of the book and, just today, this interview with the author and other scholars bearing the grim subtitle "How a Racist Criminal Justice System Rolled Back the Gains of the Civil Rights Era." This article also centers the book and the school-to-prison-pipeline that acts in some of the same systematic ways as the old system of Jim Crow. As I read them, I am disheartened, overwhelmed, teary-eyed. And I thought, "My God, so far to go!"

Everything. Like the fact that I have never watched The Great Debaters but today caught the last ten minutes of it with my boys. I was struck by the young man at the end who spoke of our duty to resist unjust laws, of the fear and shame with which African Americans lived, of a world in which you could stumble upon a lynch mob and do nothing but hide, hoping to save your own life. As I watched, I felt awe-struck, angry, teary-eyed. And I thought, "My God, how far we've come."

Far enough that I, the granddaughter of domestics and sharecroppers, will get up tomorrow and go to my job as an assistant professor at a public university after making sure my kids are safely off to school, once upon a time little more than a dream for most teenaged black boys whose lives were dictated by agricultural needs.

You know, I've never known for sure if the words to that old song are "My Soul Looks Back in Wonder" or "My Soul Looks Back and Wonders." I don't worry about it much, because either is fitting when I look back over the course of the history of people of African descent in this country. So far we've come. Every once in a while, I do take a moment, reflect, feel gratitude, feel strengthened, realize the resilience that comes from past victories and defeats. This is one of those days.

And then I remember, So far we have to go. And I get back to business.

Pull Over, that Ass Is Too Black!

When I first turned on the internet this morning and realized that President Obama had released the long-form version of his birth certificate, verifying that he was, indeed, born in Hawai'i, my first sarcastic thought was, "Bet some people finally regretting how we stole Hawai'i now."

Beyond my sarcasm, though, I think the president has set a horrible precedent. I mean, on a grand scale, he just got pulled over and asked to show papers proving his citizenship. I could be optimistic, I suppose, and think, "Well, maybe now he'll take a firmer stand on the treatment of immigrants and other people of color who are harassed, badgered, interrogated and violated every single day over questions of citizenship. Maybe he'll have this as a reference point." But optimism is not my strong suit.

He is supposed to be, as we so smugly and arrogantly love to say, the most powerful man in the world. This should be a lesson as to how that power is negated? mitigated? birthergated? by race and the equation of "Americanness" with "whiteness." In releasing that birth certificate, President Obama not only validated current problematic (understatement!) immigration policies, he conceded to the historical demand for people of color to "prove" their citizenship and that they deserve access to political and civil rights.

And why? He can't really believe the people who even posit shit like this will ever be satisfied or accepting of his presidency. Instead of saying, "I'm tired of this shit, it's ridiculous, so here is proof," he should've been saying, "I'm tired of this shit, it's ridiculous, and I won't engage with it."

I don't understand how you validate the extremists in the "other" party while always scornfully chiding the so-called extremists (ahem, perhaps actual progressives?) in your own.

Jail Is Preferable

File this under continued vilification of poor people:

Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

I don’t think I can fully break down the classist, sexist, and racist stereotypes/myths embodied in sentiments like these, but just to start:

1. Welfare recipients don’t work outside the home and don’t want to do so. Even before welfare “reform” back in 1996, most recipients worked or sought work. I always wonder if people like Paladino have any idea how paltry benefits are.

2. Being poor/needing assistance is some sort of moral failing that requires institutionalization and constant shame. That people seek welfare assistance is particularly “bad” to people like Paladino—the poor are supposed to suffer nobly and silently. As one commenter romanticized:

[B]ack in the thirties young men were ecstatic to get a job and to develop new skills via the Civilian Conservation Corp. But back then, the poor were tough, honorable folk with intact families… Today's poor aren't poor due to the economy, but the result of hand feeding that created and now sustains society breakdown.

Recently, problemchylde commented on this mindset:

All rags-to-riches (or rags-to-bitches, if you want to get all Boondocks about it) stories start with people who are poor but industrious. Tales of kids eating cigarette ash sandwiches to survive. Tales of people saving mustard packets so they have food that stretches through the whole year. Bonus points if your parent proudly refuses government help, or if you suffer through and survive a vitamin deficiency. You’re a rock star if you live many years out on the streets and still pull down a 4.0+ GPA. You have done poverty correctly.

However, if you take what little disposable income you have and buy sushi, you are doing wrong. Poor people do not want things like smartphones (you’re poor; who are you calling on a smartphone?), televisions (you’re poor; what do you need entertainment for?), nice cars (why wouldn’t you get a modest car to get around when you’re poor), or delicious food (do you know how much ramen you could have bought for the cost of that scone?). Poor people should not take any windfalls or nest eggs or scraped together pennies and expose themselves to luxuries. After all, isn’t that just a brutal reminder of how poor they are any other time? Why not just face the fact that poor is what you are, poor is what you shall be, and poor means that you cannot have nice things?

I’d advise you to read the whole post.

3. Motherwork is not "real" work/not valuable. The only work that is important/deserving of remuneration occurs outside the home. The article quotes Paladino as saying, “Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check.” (Emphasis mine)

4. The mothering of poor women, especially poor women of color, is insignificant/not necessary for their children. As I said at that link,

A discourse has developed in this country to support stealing our children away from us that attacks us as immoral, "illegal," or uneducated. [Remember] black children sold away from their mothers and Native children forced into "Indian schools" so they could be "properly" Christianized and Americanized. In fact, Americanizers of the late 19th/early 20th century spent inordinate amounts of time threatening to take immigrant children from their parents, telling immigrant mothers how their methods of child-rearing were substandard to those of more WASP-y Americans, probably as much time as 20th century welfare critics spent convincing themselves that poor black women did not really love or want their children--they only had them to get more out of the system--and as much time as 21st century anti-immigration proponents spend convincing themselves that Latinas don't really love or want their children--they just want anchor babies.

If most welfare recipients are single moms and you move them into dormitories, who takes care of their kids? Or do you institutionalize the children as well, under the blanket assumption that the state will do a “better” job of rearing them? As Dorothy Roberts said in Shattered Bonds, "America’s child welfare system is rooted in the philosophy of child saving—rescuing children from the ills of poverty, typically by taking them away from their parents," (p 26). Which brings me to another problematic idea…

5. Poor people need to be institutionalized/under constant government oversight because of their deficient character and abilities. We already know that the state intervenes disproportionately in poor families of color. According to Roberts, "the public child welfare system equates poverty with neglect," (p 27). And as the article noted:

the suggestion that poor families would be better off in remote institutions, rather than among friends and family in their own neighborhoods, struck some anti-poverty activists as insulting.

I think “insulting” is too mild a word.

6. Poor people are unclean, all come from disordered homes and, thus, lack social skills. I mean, he’s going to give them lessons in:

“personal hygiene… the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes.”

[snip]

“You have to teach them basic things — taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things”

Related to the belief in the disorder/dysfunction of all poor homes and communities, Paladino asserts, "These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities." To live in... jails. And see how he emphasizes the bathroom/toilet facilities? As if this is 1910 instead of 2010 and people aren't used to them?

As an aside, that comment reminded me of Barbara Bush's assertion, after talking to Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston, "So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." The idea that poor people don't have "real" or worthy communities or family and geographic ties is infuriating.

7. Poor people deserve to have their labor exploited. He’s using prisons to house people to extract low-cost labor. I don’t think this idea is so original.

I'm sure there is more that I could highlight in this disaster of a suggestion, but I think you get the idea.

Concentration

From the Florida AP/Miami Herald:

A candidate for the Florida House of Representatives says "camps" should be built to house illegal immigrants in Florida until they can be deported.

Yeah, let that sink in. Said candidate seems woefully unaware of how similar ideas have worked in U.S. history. Or, you know, maybe she is.

As if that isn't enough:

Marg Baker, who is seeking the Republican nomination for House District 48, says officials could "collect enough illegal aliens until you have enough to ship them back."

The dehumanization in that sentence--as if referring to people as "illegal aliens" is not a clear indicator of her mindset, she actually makes the suggestion that the government "collect" them and "ship" them as if they are cargo.

Baker even threw in a little classism* for good measure:

Baker added the housing would be "regular homes like a lot of poor people live in."

Then, just to be sure the us vs. them sentiment came through (minus words like "undesirable" and "dangerous"), Baker warned:

"We need to have camps because there are a lot of these people roaming among us."

Emphasis mine.

Ignorance hers.

H/T Quaker Dave He found video (that I just saw this morning and as I am on my way out for a while, I can't transcribe right now). Scratch my idea that maybe she doesn't know about historical precedent. She actually says:

We can follow what happened back in the 40s and 50s. I was just a little girl in Miami and they built camps for the people that snuck into the country because they were illegal. They put them in the camps and shipped them back... we must stop them.

Ms. Baker... while you're reminiscing about history, please remember someone else used camps in the 40s.
__________________
*Of course, much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric, particularly anti-Latino immigrant rhetoric, is classist already.

Breaking News!!! OMG! WTF??? XYZ!

Brace yourselves...

Joe Arpaio arrests 'very few' non-Hispanics.

Shocking, right?

Another Item for the "What the Hell, Arizona?" File

What in the world are they up to out there?

From that link:

The Arizona House of Representatives recently approved a provision requiring President Barack Obama to prove that he is a natural-born citizen before the state agrees to place him on the ballot in 2012. He must have his birth certificate approved by the state's attorney general in order to run in the next election.

Oh, Arizona...

Things of which I Am Tired

Number One: Racially-charged/racist incidents on/around campuses. See:

A) UCSD reacts to racial incidents

This began with the "Compton Cookout" party for which hosts "invited students to dress and act in a way that encouraged racial stereotypes, mocking Black History Month." Text of the invitation here, but it included helpful details like:

For guys: I expect all males to be rockin Jersey's, stuntin' up in ya White T (XXXL smallest size acceptable), anything FUBU, Ecko, Rockawear, High/low top Jordans or Dunks, Chains, Jorts, stunner shades, 59 50 hats, Tats, etc.

For girls: For those of you who are unfamiliar with ghetto chicks-Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes... They also have short, nappy hair, and usually wear cheap weave... They... speak very loudly, while rolling their neck, and waving their finger in your face.

When overly-sensitive, politically correct, free speech stifling people [/snark] objected, a campus group called KOALA defended the party on the university's television station, and "one student used the 'N-word' to describe critics of the Cookout."

The university then held a teach-in, but students walked out, feeling that the method was ineffective for addressing or healing the problem or underlying issues like the dearth of black faculty or students.

Then, a student strung up a noose in the campus library. Students, again, demanded that campus officials effectively and actively address the incident.

Let's see what happens.

B) 2 MU students apologize for cotton ball incident The "incident" involved the students "scattering cotton balls outside the black culture center at the University of Missouri in Columbia."

C) A Towson University adjunct, Allen Zaruba, was fired for describing himself, in front of his class, as "a nigger on the corporate plantation."

Number Two: The disavowal of racist intent.

The noose-hanger says she had no racist motivation.

The two students at the University of Missouri in Columbia described their actions as "part of a series of foolish acts."

Zaruba pointed out that he serves in a prison ministry and that his stepfather was black. ("One of my best friends...") And it's not that I believe that Zaruba's intent was like the other two cases, but I resent that he fell back on that trope.

I just have more respect for people who own their shit. In what other context do the first two incidents make sense? Black people protest disrespect, lack of representation and support, and systemic racism, and a noose is hung? That's not even original. Cotton balls outside the BLACK CULTURE CENTER?!

Number Three: How quickly the comments on any post on any of these incidents turn to "This is PC gone mad/this is unfair because white people can't say/do what black people say/do!!!/Is this really a racist incident?" etc. Even in the f*cking Chronicle of Higher Education comments!

Really? Are those the primary issues? That some black people say the n-word or called someone cracker, so we must never protest incidents like these? That it's unfair that *everyone* can't bandy around the word "nigger?" Do you want to? Because if you do, I'm sure you already are.

I just want to fire off a snarky letter that begins with, "I am so sorry that our desire to work and study in less racially hostile environments inconveniences you!"

And to all my academic colleagues defending Zaruba on the basis of the "appropriateness" of his comparison:

Adjuncts are overworked and underpaid with little job security. The circumstances under which many work are appalling and I know that I'm fortunate to be on the tenure track.

But I can pretty much guarantee that being an adjunct is markedly different from being "a nigger on a plantation." For some reason, I'm pretty certain of that.

I am reminded of the exasperation my colleague, an Africanist, feels when people say they are working like a slave. Few of us can even imagine the reality (and horror) of that.

GRRR!!!

Just saw this headline on CNN.com: Biden, Cheney spar via talk shows.

Am I the only one wondering why Cheney's smirking, lying, evil ass still has any sort of platform?

See What I'm Up Against?

Okay, you probably all know the stories of the Texas Education Board's attempts to change the state's social studies curriculum to "downplay the contributions of civil rights leaders, minimiz[e] an 'emphasis on multiculturalism,' and try to 'exonerate' Joe McCarthy." (Follow the links in that article for more details). The Texas Freedom Network has accused the board--comprised of 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats--of "blatant politicization of social studies curriculum."

Well, here comes a new highlight of their efforts:

What do the authors of the children's book Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? and a 2008 book called Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation have in common?

Both are named Bill Martin and, for now, neither is being added to Texas schoolbooks.

In its haste to sort out the state's social studies curriculum standards this month, the State Board of Education tossed children's author Martin, who died in 2004, from a proposal for the third-grade section. Board member Pat Hardy, R-Weatherford, who made the motion, cited books he had written for adults that contain "very strong critiques of capitalism and the American system."

Trouble is, the Bill Martin Jr. who wrote the Brown Bear series never wrote anything political, unless you count a book that taught kids how to say the Pledge of Allegiance, his friends said. The book on Marxism was written by Bill Martin, a philosophy professor at DePaul University in Chicago.

The Texas students subjected to years of what I call "only-white-men-and-war-battles-are-important" history are the ones I get in my surveys, fresh out of high school. A good portion of them will already question my ability, authority, teaching style, etc, because I am a woman of color. Combine that hostility with the fact that I teach the survey from a social and cultural history perspective and emphasize "shifting the lens"--viewing an event or era or concept from diverse perspectives--and you get a situation that makes me dread-until-I-am-sick walking into a classroom sometimes.

And this does not just affect elle, the historian. It affects elle, the mama, as well. Last week, I wrote on facebook and twitter about experiences my son was having in social studies classes. As one of a few black kids in fifth grade, he notices the other students look at him when black people come up during class (last week it was Harriet Tubman and Cinque of the Amistad). I'd point out that that is partially a result of teaching a history in which black people randomly pop up rather than being understood as an integral part of the story of this country. Of course, that is a reflection of a much larger scale erasure and othering--my son exists not as an individual, but as representative of a group in which one can easily stand in for another.

My son, big admirer of President Barack Obama, was also upset by the fact that his teacher talked negatively about "Obama Healthcare," telling the children that it was going to cost a trillion dollars and that even their grandchildren's children would still be paying for it. I already had an encounter with her when she sent out a short, snippity note about how our school district wouldn't be showing Obama's speech to school children a few months ago (ours was the only district here that didn't--probably speaks volumes).

From my position in the Lone Star State, I have to ask, that fear that conservatives had--that Obama was trying to indoctrinate their children--is that called irony or hypocrisy?

Because I'm really worried about what they're teaching--and not teaching--my son.

This Week in "Stuff elle can't f*cking believe!"

Item 1: Mark Krikorian posits that Haiti's suffering is the result of not having been colonized long enough. Haitians didn't have long enough to absorb civ-uhl-eye-zayshen from the French.

My guess is that Haiti's so screwed up because it wasn't colonized long enough. The ancestors of today's Haitians, like elsewhere in the Caribbean, experienced the dislocation of de-tribalization, which disrupted the natural ties of family and clan and ethnicity. They also suffered the brutality of sugar-plantation slavery, which was so deadly that the majority of slaves at the time of independence were African-born, because their predecessors hadn't lived long enough to reproduce.

But, unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn't stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers.

You notice this line: "the majority of slaves at the time of independence were African-born"--yep, no civilization at all.

Item 2: "South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer(R)Compares His State's Poor Children to 'Stray Animals'" and advises against feeding them, lest they reproduce:

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.

And y'all thought negative eugenics was a thing of the past!

h/t Nezua

Oh, Look, Fellow Louisianans!

We finally found something in which we can be number one:

"Louisiana's rate of women murdered by men is marked number one in the country."*

Shortly after that line, the article (from a Shreveport television station) reports: "This news hits us at a time when a local shelter for battered women is struggling to stay afloat."

Some other areas in which we are "notably" ranked (just a select few):


We have the "highest number of deaths of infants per 1,000 births and total infant mortality."

In overall child well-being, we are the second lowest.

We have the second highest rate of child poverty. We are number 49 in the nation, behind only Mississippi. Considering the facts that 1)we were "just" number 48 a few years ago and 2) "analysts see harder times ahead thanks to the still-lurching economy," Mississippi might oughta be worried--we're coming for your position, baby!

But, you know, at least we ain't supporting no crazy shit like shelters and centers for survivors of "domestic" violence**, education and better healthcare!

That would be the real drain on the citizens of Louisiana.

I mean, even if it's unclear what Louisianans are for, we do know what they're against. Trying to maintain political, economic, and racial hierarchies is much more important than the fate of Louisiana's children.

We all understand the un-avoidability of "collateral damage," right?
_________________________________________________

*This deserves a much more serious post of its own.

**That page lists centers, advocates, and support networks in 26 Louisiana parishes. Louisiana has 64 parishes.

One of These Things Is Not Like the Other...

Remember the Loud and Clear post? Consider this an addendum.

Yesterday, the Nixon Library made "more than 150 hours of tape and 30,000 pages of documents" public, much of it online.

One of the things revealed is that, while Nixon didn't make a public statement about Roe v. Wade, he had mixed feelings about the decision. He worried, like so many concerned trolls citizens, that the ability to fuck without one of the biggest "penalties"* would turn women into loose, sex-crazed sluts, thereby unraveling the fabric of the United States:

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.”

But he did recognize that sometimes, women might need abortions (emphasis mine):

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

Because apparently, a white woman having consensual sex with and becoming pregnant by a black man is equivalent to/"just as tragic as" being raped and becoming pregnant. I put it in these terms, not because black women didn't/don't have children with white men, but because this is the combination that has always been seen as "tragic." White southern men, for example, spent many of the early years of the "New South" warning about such relationships and trying to ensure, violently, that they didn't occur.

The newly released recordings also document Nixon's anti-Semitism (as recordings before have done):

The tapes also include a phone call from February 1973 between Nixon and the evangelist Billy Graham, during which Mr. Graham complained that Jewish-American leaders were opposing efforts to promote evangelical Christianity, like Campus Crusade. The two men agreed that the Jewish leaders risked setting off anti-Semitic sentiment.

“What I really think is deep down in this country, there is a lot of anti-Semitism, and all this is going to do is stir it up,” Nixon said.

At another point he said: “It may be they have a death wish. You know that’s been the problem with our Jewish friends for centuries.”

It's funny how Republican leaders for the last 50 years or so have been accusing racial/ethnic/religious minorities of "stirring things up" and provoking the attacks on themselves by demanding to be seen, heard, counted. It's the height of privilege-- and evidence of a sad lack of empathy--to view someone's struggle for rights as an inconvenience to your own life and the source of your righteous indignation.

And as to the part I emphasized, note that he is speaking, what, one generation after the Holocaust? I don't even have flippant analysis for that--he was just an asshole.
_________________________________
* Meaning forced pregnancy and childbirth

Enjoy Feeling Uncomfortable?

That's the question Deron Bauman asks about the feeling created by this video, which I saw on ClusterFlock.




I'm still looking for evidence that this is satire. Has to be, right? Lyrics after the fold, but I just had to highlight a few.

A mildly amusing moment: A young white man who attends Dartmouth raps, "It's not the hand you were given, but how you lay down your cards."

WTF moment 1: Rapping, "Don't matter if your (sic) gay, straight, Christian or Muslim," after having said, "Thank you Miss Cali for reminding us of marriage," and after issuing the warning that "Terrorists were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Now they're in our neighborhoods, planning out doomsday."

WTF moment 2: Rapping, "Everyone can succeed, Because our soldiers bleed"

Just a little musical interlude for your Saturday afternoon.

H/T Laurie, whom you should really, really follow on Twitter


Serious C:

“Yo this ones for all the young conservatives.

I rep the Northeast and I’m still a young con,

Let your voice release, you don't have to be obamatrons.

I debate any poser who don't shoot straight,

Government spending needs to deflate,

Your ideas are lightweight,

Ya careers in checkmate

I frustrate. I increase the pulse rate

I hate when,

government dictatin, makin, statements, bout how to be a merchant,

How to run a restaurant, how to lay the pavement

Bailout a business, but can't protect an infant

Deficiencies are blatant, young con treatment

I stand one man, outnumbered at my college

Thank you Miss Cali for reminding us of marriage

Can't support abortion, and call yourself a Christian

I support life, you're a puzzled politician

Terrorists were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay,

Now they're in our neighborhoods, planning out doomsday

No such thing as utopia,

no government can control ya, baby ya,

Reap the benefits hard work, self reliant


Listen to Stiltz, my dude’s a lyrical giant


Yo Stiltz... make it two time... please”

Stiltz:

“I'm 6'9 head and shoulder above the rest


Liberals playin checkers, I'm playin chess


My conservative view is drill baby drill


You can say you hate me but


I'm praying for you still


My dislike for thee most def is not hyperbole


Taxes are the subject and I will spit them verbally


I'm just livin life a conservative philosophy


Sorry Hilary not a right wing conspiracy


We need more women with intellectual integrity


I'm talkin Megyn Kelly not Nancy Pelosi


My main motto is you best work hard


It's not the hand you were given, but how you lay down your cards


I don't speak lies but I spit the facts


28% the new capital gains tax


Porkulus bill lacks a few stats


The more money we spend, the more mine is worth Jack


The Bible says we're a people under God,


Usin radar for radical Jihad


AIG was hooked up by Chris Dodd


A classy gift ain't an Ipod


The standards of my crew ain’t republicans dude


I'm reppin Jesus Christ and conservative views


Study history and true conservative moves


Every single time they refuse to lose


I’m starting to see a modern day Jimmy Carter


When really nothin but a Reagan era starter”


Serious C:

“Yo, We americans son


Hit ya with some knowledge


The movement has begun


Everyone can succeed


Because our soldiers bleed, for us


I said it in the verse,


now I'll say it in the chorus”


Stiltz:

“We young conservatives son


Hard work is our motto


The movement has begun


EVERYONE can succeed cause our soldiers bleed, daily


My views are rock solid, no chance you can break me”


Serious C:

“Phase me, make me, into something that ain’t me


Serious c... can’t nobody shake me


great like the Gatsby, poppin posers like acne


Don't matter if your gay, straight, Christian or Muslim


There's one thing we all hate, called socialism.


It's loathsome, and America ain’t the outcome,


Raise taxes on the people,


And you’re gonna feel symptoms, problems


I gotta message for a young con:


superman that socialism,


waterboard that terrorism”


Stiltz:


I fulfill the role that's inherently mine


Teaching politics through my rap and my rhyme


I'm signing off this track with a question in mind


How will this country get its precious change in time?


Three things taught me conservative love:


Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged


Saving our nation from inflation devastation


On my hands and my knees praying for salvation”


Serious C:

“Yo, We americans son


Hit ya with some knowledge


The movement has begun


Everyone can succeed


Because our soldiers bleed, for us


I said it in the verse,


now I'll say it in the chorus”


Stiltz:

“We young conservatives son


Hard work is our motto


The movement has begun


EVERYONE can succeed cause our soldiers bleed, daily


My views are rock solid, no chance you can break me”

Loud and Clear

So E Pluribus Unum thinks more African Americans are not Republicans because we don’t listen to them. He suggests to us,

“how about listening? How about listening to what Republicans have to say, instead of what the Democrats say we say? How about listening to what we have to say before booing us out of the building?”

I’d like to argue that we hear very well what you’re saying. The historian in me would like to point out how long we’ve been hearing it.

In the late 60s, when Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon* were both positioning themselves as law and order candidates, with illegality shaped by the fact that the dominant group often criminalizes what they fear, don't like or don't understand in marginalized communities, and lack of order being defined largely as previously disfranchised people pressing for their rights, we heard you.

When Richard Nixon tried to slow down school desegregation, when one of his strategists heralded the use of the Southern Strategy, we heard you.

In the late 1970s, when Ronald Reagan waxed poetically about fictional welfare queens—giving proof, you believed, to your long held beliefs that African Americans were promiscuous frauds who did not want to work—and “strapping young bucks” using food stamps to buy something other than dry beans (poor PoC, in keeping with their sackcloth and ashes attire, should never eat delicacies like steak, especially when white people were eating hamburger!!! Think about all the attention paid to Pres. Obama's "elitist" eating habits), we heard you.

And re: food stamps, welfare, public education—as you’ve engaged in rhetoric over the last, oh, million years, that equates “taxpayers” solely with white people and “taxpayers’ burdens” with PoC, we heard you.

When your hero opened his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, site of the brutal murders of three civil right workers not even two decades before, talking about poor people’s "dependency" and states’ rights, we heard you.

By the way, I’m not sure if states’ right is supposed to be some sort of sooper sekrit kode, but, fyi, we knew what it meant in the 1850s and 60s; we knew what it meant in the 1950s and 60s, we knew what it meant in 1980 and we know what it means now.

When he was elected president and tried to secure tax exempt status for Bob Jones University, supported South Africa’s apartheid government as an anti-communist measure, slashed social programs that assisted the most vulnerable Americans, saw the annual income of the bottom 20% drop, hired aides who reveled in what you thought were the subtleties of the Southern Strategy, we heard you.

We still hear you downplay all that as you to try to canonize the man.

Emboldened by your successful Southern Strategy, you produced lovely ads like the Willie Horton one—support Michael Dukakis and you support scary! violent! black! men!—and Jesse Helms’s “Hands” ad—because no way could a PoC ever be equally or more qualified than a white person and plus, you’d convinced everyone that affirmative action was nothing more than unfair quotas (that's why Bush I had to veto that Civil Rights Act!) that were unnecessary since racism and sexism were things of the past (and your other beloved meme—figments of PoC’s and women’s imaginations). We definitely heard both of those.

You vowed to launch a culture war, in which all of us non-WASP-heterosexual-men were to forsake our cultures, heritage, languages, selves to support the idea that the real U.S. history (and the real U.S.) was one characterized by consensus, that since “Western Civilization” was man’s (yes, man’s) greatest achievement, the ends justified the means—the means being the systematic murder, assault, and oppression of millions of us. Nevermind that your winning the war was predicated on our silence and our invisibility. Yes, we heard you.

We heard you when you made your Contract on with America, vowing “to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement” even as it was becoming obvious how the so-called War on Drugs, with its harsh sentences and sentencing differentials, was disproportionately affecting our communities and feeding us into the emerging prison-industrial complex and when it has long been known that “law enforcement’s” role in our communities is markedly different from the one they play in white communities.

Also in that contract, you promised to encourage “personal responsibility” (which you get to define) by “cut[ting] spending for welfare programs, and enact[ing] a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements” because, damn poor working mothers, they shouldn’t be having sex or babies anyway and because you really believed the lie that most women on welfare didn’t work.** You didn’t give a damn about how those women and children survived “after welfare” as long as you could glowingly report that the state’s caseload was reduced.*** We heard that, too.

And Lord, George W. Bush. When he campaigned at Bob Jones University in 2000, when it still banned interracial dating, we heard you.

We heard you, during Hurricane Katrina, when people were left to suffer, he was clueless, and you all were going on and on about how many people, with little money and no means of transport, should’ve magically gotten out before! The response to Katrina was not proof of egregiously unresolved issues of race and class, not evidence of what has always been a narrow definition of who is “deserving” of help in this country; it was proof of too much government dependency (as you’ve been arguing for forever!).

When his administration tried to downplay a Bureau of Justice statistics report that “found that minority drivers were three times as likely to have their vehicles searched during traffic stops as white drivers,” we heard you.

Other gems from this very century? We heard Trent Lott's plaintive yearning for the victory of the States' Rights (**sigh** here we go again) Democratic Party who left the plain old Democratic Party because of a civil rights' plank in the party platform and a desire to preserve the "southern" way of life (euphemism for segregation).

And you hit poor Harold Ford, Jr with a double whammy, warning Tennesseans to be wary of the African-descended (wherein Africa roughly = uncivilized jungle) guy who might engage in sex with a white woman! Now that one, we're tired of hearing.

And now, so many of you back claims that the first black President is not really American. In your feeble-mindedness, you posit that it is literal—searching for birth certificates and calling him Kenyan. You don’t seem to grasp that what is bothering you is mostly figurative—you live in a country where citizenship and who is “really” American has usually been the domain of whites. Having a black man occupy the highest office in the land is mind-boggling. So when you have your Tea Parties, demanding “your” country back, as if the rest of us are not American, when you hold up signs invoking slavery and images of monkeys, we hear that too.

When you are such navel gazers that you believe your party doesn’t appeal to us because we, African Americans, don’t value freedom, we hear you.

But mostly, E Pluribus Unum, when you write screeds that invite me to check off a racism bingo card—black people are emotional, sensitive, vain, childlike/easily led, angry, unapproachable, ungrateful, unable to recognize their best interests, looking for handouts or special benefits, illogical (and those are just a few of the tropes you recycled and spat forward)—we hear you.

When the comments of said problematic post further tokenize/exceptionalize black people—“Alas, there are a few intrepid, noble savages; we call them black conservatives,” we hear you.

The many African Americans who believe, like me, the words of Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, “Nobody’s free, ‘til everybody’s free,” also hear other things.

We heard you positing building a fence and criminalizing people because you are selfish enough to believe that trade can flow across borders, largely to our benefit, but labor will not follow.

We hear of your exploiting them and tossing them aside, dehumanizing them by making words like “illegal” a noun, casting them as a threat to our economic well-being, our culture (which, despite your self-deception, has never been singular), and our health.

We hear you fighting to continue the deprivation of civil rights for members of LGBTQI communities and continuing to vilify and dehumanize them as well. We hear your rhetoric as members of those communities and as allies.

We hear you—and black women hear you acutely—as you continue to try to define, in the words of Stephanie Shaw, “what a woman ought to be and do” including what we “ought” to do with our own bodies.

So, I suggest you listen, if you want to figure out how to approach the “unapproachable” black strawman monolith you've constructed. This list is in no way exhaustive, and in fact, really only details a fraction of my issues with the Republican Party:

1. Acknowledge and remedy the fact that your party’s strong in the old Confederacy for a reason. Where I’m from, the Republican Party is a refuge for racists. You can dismiss that however much you want, but I’m not the only black woman who sees that.

2. Acknowledge and remedy the fact that a portion of your party’s platform rests upon “misogyny, homophobia, [and] transphobia,” as well.

3. Realize that your glorification of the individual (and the lie that successful people primarily pull themselves up, with no help, by their bootstraps) may not play well in communities with a more community-oriented ethos.

4. Stop pretending that only conservative white people value self-help and entrepreneurship.

5. Recognize why some of us are not as wary of a government that intervenes as you are—and, no, it’s not because we all secretly long to laze about on “taxpayers’ (wink, wink) hard earned money.” You know some other occasions when the government intervened? During the 1870s when the Klan was terrorizing and slaughtering us. During the 1960s, when, despite previous efforts and laws, it was federal officials who had to register us to vote in many southern locations.

6. De-center for a sec. Just look at your party from the point of view of someone from a marginalized community. Prepare yourself by purchasing Dramamine before hand, though.

7. Don’t ever, ever again write racist bullshit such as this.

(crossposted)
________________________________
I am not writing this to position the Democratic Party as the site of some sort of racial utopia.

*I think Humphrey pegged Nixon adroitly here

** Many studies done around the time of 1996's so called welfare reform, demonstrated that most mothers who received welfare worked.

*** And yes, I do criticize the Democratic President who signed the 1996 PRWORA.

The Other Louisiana

Some time ago, I asked what Louisiana does Senator David Vitter, who opposed the S-Chip reauthorization in 2007, live in.

After Bobby Jindal's speech and his rejection of some of the stimulus funds, I have to ask the same of him.

I am really at the point where I can't utter much more than, "How dare his ruthlessly ambitious, selfish, trying-to-score-a-political point ass do that?"

From my micro-viewpoint of the north-central/northeastern portion of the state, I'd just like to point out people in Louisiana are suffering. There have already been budget cuts and guess where those disproportionately occur?

Higher (public) education and health care. This is a result of politics as usual in Louisiana:

Over the years, lawmakers have locked more than half the state's income into specific programs -- everything from elementary and secondary education dollars to wildlife and fisheries funds -- making the money largely protected from budget cuts. When the state faces a deficit, the governor and lawmakers have little discretion to cut those shielded programs.

That situation leaves Louisiana's public colleges and health care programs to take the largest hit in tight budget years. They are the two largest areas of unprotected spending.

[snip]

Higher education and health care could lose more than $380 million each in budget cuts next year because the state is expected to bring in $1.2 billion less in state general fund revenue in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

If you look at that Vitter post you can see some of the dismal statistics re: health care (and access to it) in Louisiana. But here is a summary from LPB's Louisiana Public Square January "Backgrounder" entitled "Guarded Condition: Healthcare in Louisiana":

Louisiana is one state away from leading the nation in:

- Infant mortality, with an average of 10 infant deaths per 1000 live births;

- Cancer deaths, which kill 223 out of every 100,000 Louisianans; and

- Premature death, where poor preventive care practices annually kill 11,000 of our citizens before their time.

Health outcomes like these have placed the state either 49th or 50th in the United Health Foundation’s national health rankings for the last 17 years.

Medicaid and CHIP are (again) underfunded in Louisiana. According to FamiliesUSA, that has translated into a reduction in the number of monthly prescriptions covered by Medicaid for most adults, "delayed implementation of programs that provide services to certain seniors and people with disabilities," and "reducing how much providers who participate in the programs are paid for their services."

As if it is not already difficult enough to find providers willing to accept Medicaid.*

On the education side, Louisiana's public universities have already had $55 million trimmed from their budgets.

What that means in my North-Central Louisiana home area is this:

Louisiana Tech has had to lay off 30 employees and had $2.65 million cut from its budget.

UL-M has frozen hiring and had $2.38 million cut from its budget.

Grambling has had $1.33 million cut from its budget.

Friday, I talked to a colleague at LA Tech who asked me about going to the Organization of American Historians' Conference at the end of this month. Someone from his department was going to go, he said, but then travel funds were frozen. I read somewhere that such is the case on many campuses. And adjuncts, already in a tenuous position, are being fired.

The University of Louisiana System could have as much as $116 million cut from its budget next year. That particular scenario:

would result in the loss of approximately 60 academic programs, 1,500 jobs, 3,000 furloughed employees and a possible drop in enrollment of 12,000 students.

The technical colleges are hurting, too. As noted on the Louisiana Community and Technical College System website

LCTCS institutions have the lowest tuition rates throughout the state per full-time equivalent student, and are the most reliant on state funding. Therefore, across the board cuts have a far greater impact on our ability to serve students.

The restrictions are not enough for some Louisiana lawmakers, though, who actually want to see some of the schools close.

Gotta love our priorities.

Lower levels of education are affected too, of course. mrs. o's high school is probably closing in May, after a bitter, protracted fight. She and I both find it ironic that one of the selling points of closing the school and combining it with the larger high school in the parish seat is the availibility of the dual enrollment program at the local technical college. Budget cuts means there is a lack of funding for the program!

The summer program that I usually work, funded by the Louisiana Department of Education, is cut. I'm not sure if its school year existence (when it is held as an after-school program) is in jeopardy or not.

And then, late last week came the news that Pilgrim's Pride plants in Farmerville and El Dorado are closing. The direct impacts of the loss of the Farmerville plant in North Louisiana, according to that article, are 1,300 in-plant jobs gone by summer and 290 contract growers (and my God, their situation merits a posting of its own) in limbo. I'm not sure the article took into account the Louisianans who cross the state line to work in Arkansas. I've already written about how earlier reductions hurt the region. This will be devastating. As mrs. o told me Friday night, by summer, neither she nor her husband will have a job.

This is the context in which Bobby Jindal takes it upon himself to turn down money. And that speech he gave--I'll be honest and say that I focused, horrorstruck, on that image he tried to paint of Louisiana as "regenerated" in the aftermath of Katrina.

A Louisiana to which many people can't come home (not that they're wanted to come back, of course) because of lack of housing** and health*** and social services.

A Louisiana (particularly New Orleans) in which he admits to abandoning the public school system brags about "opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice."

A Louisiana in which state agencies still report delays, loss, and confusion as a result of the 2005 hurricanes. My own experience has reflected this. Just one example: in September 2007, I sent my son's birth certificate to the Louisiana Vital Records Registry for a change. In April of 2008, I called them. The alteration had just been assigned to someone in February, an employee told. She specifically connected the backlog to Katrina. In June, I received a letter requesting that I send in a new check as the previous one was "outdated." I said forget it and went to a local health unit and paid for another copy. I have never received the original back.****

Many Louisianans are poorly educated, in poor health, have little economic opportunity, and little job security. The fact that Jindal can stand there with his fake grin, crafting tales, and declaring "Americans can do anything" while marginalized Louisianans, ill-equipped to withstand the realities of this recession, are hurting, is disturbing. He's keeping his eye on the big picture, though, right? Too bad for the residents of a little state whose realities are getting in the way of the story he wants to be able to tell.
______________________________________________
*One of the things that strikes me most about the "Oh, no, universal health care is a socialist evil!!!" arguments is the one that says people might have to wait long periods for health care. Not desirable, but totally based upon the experiences of a certain class. Poor people already wait long periods and the health care they receive is often inadequate. The waiting times at "charity" hospitals (I am most familiar with the LSU hospitals in Monroe and Shreveport and the stories of Ben Taub in Houston) are unbelievable. People sit for hours and hours in ER waiting rooms. Getting in for routine, preventative care at the LSU Hospitals or the Parish Health Units often requires trying to schedule months (even a year) in advance. But as long as it's poor people waiting...

**Click through that whole presentation!

*** Though the shortage of healthcare providers is not nearly as acute as it was as late as 2007, there are still issues surrounding access to healthcare.

**** The other major issues for me, as a historian, have been research related.

If Ever I Needed a Friday...

...it is today. Whew.

I'm never one to keep up with the news like I should (Tren's best efforts aside), but the other day, I saw on the front page of one of the papers in the paper machines, "Obama Vows Republicans Will Be Heard." And I thought two things.

1) Why? We heard 'em for eight years and look at us. And their screechy, doom and gloom voices get on my last nerve anyway. Seriously, did any major Republican official between 2001 and early 2009 say, "Let's vow to listen to Democrats?" No, they did like white southerners did in the aftermath of the Civil War--instead of saying, "Hmm, maybe our cause and beliefs are seriously FLAWED. Maybe the times, they are a changing!" they dug in--I mean, even now some of them are talking about retreating further into their lunacy.

2) Damn, maybe I should be a Republican. I mean, when they win elections, it's a mandate that they are to be heard! When they lose elections, it's a mandate that they are to be heard! It's a win-win situation. You can treat people like shit, ignore (until it's time to reinforce their subjugation) the poor, PoC, women, the LGBTQI community and it's okay because GOD IS ON YOUR SIDE and YOU'RE THE ONLY "REAL" AMERICANS!! Aren't those, like, the most perfectly crafted excuses? Hell, anyone who disagrees with you is either going to hell or unpatriotic.

Anyway, I'm tired and so glad it's Friday.

Obama is just as white as he is black.

It's actually a factual comment. So why is it so offensive to many blacks, and somewhat soothing to many whites? I'm not sure there's a easy (forgive the pun) black or white answer.

I'm biracial too. I'm not sure I could say I'm equally black and white considering my German mother's father was Moroccan. Though DNA labs categorize many North Africans as white, I'm not so sure. Never-the-less, I grew up with a parent perceived as white and a parent definitively descended from African slaves in America. So, Elle asked me to give my take on this, and I reluctantly agreed. It's not that I don't have an opinion. I have many. But these opinions - when it comes to racial identity, for me, tend to contradict one another. But that's the problem isn't it. Racial identity and cultural norms aren't pretty, neatly divided packages. And for someone who doesn't fit squarely in one box or another, it's not as simple as just picking one.



Often-times, the box is checked for us. Barack Obama may have been raised by a white mother and white grandparents, and attended mostly white schools, but he looks Black, and, therefore, is Black. This is largely what our societal norms tell us. It's the same for me. I certainly don't look white (though I have often been mistaken for a Black Latina), so I must accept that society will always perceive me as Black. And Obama, clearly, has consciously accepted this norm, as have I, to a large degree. He writes in his autobiography about trying to find his way and teach himself how to grow up as a Black man. I grew up with my Black parent in the house, but still felt the need to adapt or favor my blackness - particularly once I made it to high school in Texas. Prior to then, I'd lived in Germany and California on military bases where many of the other kids were biracial in so many different combinations. My best friends were Black & Korean, White & Korean, Black & German, White & Japanese and Black & Mexican. Even at my high school in Texas these combinations were common - it was a military town too, but the lines between Black and White were much sharper and divisive. Biracial kids with Black ancestry were often asked what they called themselves by other Blacks. If Black wasn't the answer and only answer, you were a sell-out or Uncle Tom, or you thought you were better than non-biracial Blacks.* So I conformed. I fit in. Most of my interests in music, tv, fashion, boys, etc, were in step with my Black peers anyway, and I didn't want to offend, and didn't want to be seen as a sell out or "high yellow" (a new term to me when I moved to Texas). Being biracial is not something I advertised. I knew my husband for years in college before he knew I had a white mom - and he was shocked. His friends to this day come over to our house and ask who the white people are when they look at our pictures (I also have a white brother).

Largely because of societal constructs, it just seems intuitive to think of myself as Black. Having a white mother hasn't somehow mitigated the subtle and not-so-subtle racism I've experienced over the years. Those experiences and the fact that I am a real minority in this country helped bond me to the Black experience on a very rudimentary level. But it's not that simple. I am half white. That doesn't make me better than anyone, it's just who I am. And I like to look at Obama as someone like me.

My mother felt (justified or not) a very real rejection from me when I was a teen. To this day I'm not sure what I said or did - it's not like I had a afro and screamed "black power" every day. But she felt it, all the same. Claiming to be biracial to me is more an acceptance and inclusion of my mother, than a rejection of being black. She married my father before it was legal in all states. She experienced the hatred first-hand for having the gall to allow a Black man to raise her white child. She endured it all and gave life to me. She deserves to be included when I say who/what I am.

But often, many in the black community see it the differently. When Mariah Carey didn't say Black first when she said she was Irish, Venezuelan and Black, there was an uproar. I remember being perplexed at why she should embrace Black first when her Black & Venezuelan father was nowhere to be found. Halle Berry was hailed because she considered herself Black despite being raised by a single white mother. And Tiger...don't get me started. How DARE he not claim being Black. And while I find myself disturbed by anyone who seems to run from the Black part of them, I completely relate to those that simply include other parts of them as well and find myself frustrated with Blacks who can't see it that way.

But it's too easy to simply say that those who are offended or put off by biracial people who don't just pick Black are wrong. I understand the very real circumstances that have created this. I mean starting with "house niggers" and "field niggers" through brown paper bag tests to today's very real social constructs that teach us that the whiter you are the more appealing you are, there are very real reasons for the feelings of rejection for many Blacks. For so long people of color wanted to align themselves as closely to white or non-black as possible: "I've got Indian in my family" "I'm Creole" "I'm Spanish", etc. For so long those with very real non-Black blood in them used it as a tool separate themselves in class from their darker skinned peers (like with the above mentioned brown paper bag tests). I know fair skinned Black people to this day whose family members frown upon them being involved with a darker skinned person. And there are people who think they are better than, prettier than, smarter than, simply because their skin is light or they've got "good hair". The resentment some may feel is rooted in something real, whether I find it applicable to me or not. First impressions of me by Blacks are often that I'm stuck up, rather than simply introverted and somewhat shy.

In the end, facts are facts. Society may see me as black (or at least non-white). I AM both. Now that I have two boys who are light skinned, I don't want them thinking they are better than anyone, AND I don't want them struggling to prove their Blackness. Their grandmother is white. She adores them. They have white cousins - and while they have a gazillion cousins on their father's side, my boys and my other [biracial] brother's children (with Mexican mother!) are the only cousins my white nephews and niece have. I don't want them to grow up hiding that fact nor do I want them elevating that fact to separate themselves or make themselves out to be better. But, in the end, their white grandmother won't prevent them from being pulled over by racial profiling police. And it won't make it any easier for them, should they decide to run for president one day.

Obama is a savvy politician who clearly understood all of this and he smartly navigated a thin line. While I'm sure there is validity to his acceptance of himself as a Black man on his own, he's intelligent and self-realized enough to know that he couldn't be perceived as seeing himself as better than or other than Black by the Black community. What better way to embrace his Blackness than to declare it. But he was also careful to emphasize his real roots with his family. Being raised by a white mother and white grandparents no doubt made him more palatable to some whites with deeply ingrained prejudices. I find it ridiculous that it would, but I'm sure it did all the same.

So, what's wrong with saying Obama is the first Black president? Nothing. He is. Yes, there are a few Presidents that might have had some Black in them down the line, but none had a parent or even first grandparent known to be Black. But there's nothing wrong with saying he's biracial either. He is. To me, it's not a rejection of or separation from being Black, it's an inclusion of all that he is and involves people who were instrumental in making him who he is. But, I'll admit I am conflicted here as well, because I do believe his Whiteness somehow makes him more palatable and his achievement less earth-shattering to many whites. I've experienced this too. Having a white parent somehow explains to some why I'm smart or why my hair is long or why I'm so (here it comes...) articulate.** People actually think they are complimenting me by pointing out how smart and articulate I am for a Black girl. I seem to defy their ideas of racial construct until they find out my mom is white. Nevermind it's my father who has the college degree (that he got at 50) in our family and my mother was brought up very, very poor in Post WWII Germany and only made it through 8th grade.

So Elle, like many biracial people, I find myself on the fence here. I don't like the idea that Obama being half White somehow makes him more acceptable, in fact I find that insulting. But I don't like the idea that he must be considered Black to avoid somehow diluting the amazing accomplishment he's achieved. So, while I find myself taken aback by articles such as this that challenge the notion that he is our first Black president - the author linked believes it should be first biracial President, when I really think about it, the statement is simply fact. It's our convoluted, socialized racial constructs that make it seem like a controversial thing to say. Because somehow we (many of us) perceive that to be a rejection of Blackness rather than an inclusion of Whiteness.

* I say non-biracial Blacks, because, lets face it, Blacks in America, specifically ones descended from slaves are not 100% Black.

** I absolutely HATE that word when used about Black people. It's so patronizing.