16 posts tagged “racism”

There is a commercial for either the Yellow Pages or a company called Southern Plumbing here in Wellington. Now, it doesn’t give a phone number (kind of ironic if it is for the Yellow Pages) otherwise I’d have called them the minute I heard this on the radio.
   The ad begins with a southern American woman talking about how she had coons, and she threw the Yellow Pages at them. It goes on with her complaining about coons and how she has to get rid of them, and the last sound in the scene is her priming her shotgun.
   I can’t see the connection to plumbing because for most of the broadcast I am in total shock.
   Yes, she uses the word coon.
   I know you can be ignorant and assume that coon is short for raccoon, which is bound to be what they will say, but why then did the woman need to have a southern US accent? Maybe the Americans reading this can inform me if there more raccoons in the south.
   I just thought of the Ku Klux Klan.
   The Yellow Pages company in New Zealand was recently bought by an American corporation so I don’t buy the argument that with the new management no one knew about the racial connotations.
   It paints the whole image of the Klan, lynchings and murders of black Americans.
   If the Southern Plumbing I linked is the firm that has put this ad out in conjunction with the Yellow Pages, then I would be seriously worried.
   I have written to the firm. I would like to think this ad was done out of sheer ignorance but there are way too many coincidences here. If they realize they have few African-ethnicity clients on their database it sure won’t be down to the small number of people of African descent in New Zealand.

PS.: The term is used in Australia, too, referring to Aboriginals:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22931249-5001021,00.html

which makes me wonder just how many New Zealanders made the same connection.—JY

I wish that was a joke, but it isn’t.
   I went to preview a New Dowse exhibition on transsexuality, intersexuality and the transgender community with its communications’ officer Mandy Herrick and coincidentally, was told by a friend last night about a situation at a gym in New Zealand.
   They had two intersexual (‘hermaphrodite’) clients and other patrons petitioned the owner to remove them, otherwise they would not pay their fees.
   Shame on us as New Zealanders.
   We go around saying how open-minded we are, scoff at other nations, point out how we had the world’s first transsexual MP—but no, when we confront intersexual people in our own neighbourhood, we do exactly what pre-US Civil Rights racists did when they hung out ‘Whites Only’ signs.
   For crying out loud, these two clients were born this way—and you’ll be even more shocked to learn that the gym opened itself to a human rights’ violation by cancelling the two people’s memberships.
   Imagine if they were taken to court and how much business they would have lost if word got out.
   Wouldn’t it have been better to have pointed out to the prejudiced clients that if they couldn’t accept the situation, then they could take their business elsewhere?
   Or go so far as to build an extra changing room and encourage more open-minded clients all round?
   I was pretty shocked that this went on. 
   I am not prejudice-free and I will freely admit to thinking, ‘That looks a bit odd’—as I did when I looked at some of the work that the New Dowse will be showing. I don’t know anyone who has told me they are intersex, hence my surprise. Then again, I don’t go around asking. I get over it. I accept that this is part of God’s plan and everyone is created in His own image.
   And there is a clear right and wrong in this case. Hopefully as time goes by more of us will look at this story and equate it to the racism of earlier times.

The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
   He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
   Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
   In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
   While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
   I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
   The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
   I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
   I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
   This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
   The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
   In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
   They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
   They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
   Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
   Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
   If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
   Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
   This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.

[Cross-posted] Vogue’s April 2008 cover with the Cleveland Cavaliers’ LeBron James and Gisèle Bündchen has been branded by some as being racist. As noted by the Plain Dealer over in Cleveland, Ohio:

LeBron shares the April cover of Vogue magazine with supermodel Gisele Bundchen. It’s been noted by some that his open-mouthed screaming face and the way he is cradling a blond woman in his left hand has racial overtones in its resemblance to an old movie poster of King Kong and captive Fay Wray. Vogue says it chose the photo because it’s “expressive, fun and upbeat.”

   Once I got over the bad typography, I had to wonder if this cover furthers stereotypes. Being a minority, I personally didn’t make the connection that Margaret Bernstein and Sarah Crump reported on above. If I imagined the races switched, I also didn’t get much of a reaction—except to note that it would have been unusual for Vogue to feature a woman of colour on its cover, let alone a man of any colour.
   However, I wondered: would a black man who isn’t a basketball player have made it? Or one who isn’t dressed as such?
   I don’t think it’s necessarily the pose, but whether there is a stereotype at play here. While Mr James has his own line of clothes—which he is modelling in the cover photograph—would a cover showing him in more conservative attire have been chosen?
   One blogger gave other examples, and reacted to the photograph:

A tuxedoed LeBron James out on the town with a stylish Gisele photo shoot would do. A Lebron on a couch with a magazine full of him and Gisele on the same couch with a magazine full of her; signifiers that they are man and woman at the top of their professions photo shoot would do. Or, the two in full nightclub gear with him watching her trying to dribble in the low light of an empty Quicken Arena. The possibilities are endless.
   And yet LeBron James allowed himself to be captured interminably not as the King James of his profession and rising player in the business world, but as a human King Kong, The Great Nigger whose fame is inextricably tied to how proficiently he puts a leather ball through an iron hoop.

   Others rebutted:

Calling it a modern-day interpretation of King Kong and Fay Wray, Feministe website writer Ali Eteraz referred to the image by Annie Leibovitz as “King James Turned Into King Kong.” She also said the cover “fulfills every racist stereotype in the world: primal screaming, white-girl carrying, black beast.”
   Are they seeing something that has escaped the rest of us? It’s the “Shape Issue,” remember? The contrast of the 6-foot-9 James and 5-foot-11 Bundchen seems like nothing more than an innocent pop culture poke at celebrity. Do we really need to read more into it?
   As for the comparison to poor Fay Wray, does anyone see Bundchen looking remotely stressed in this shot?

   James is the third man to appear on a cover of Vogue (after Richard Gere and George Clooney), and the publisher has defended its choice because it is an issue devoted to size and shape. From the Associated Press:

“Nobody says more about fashion size and shape than Gisele and LeBron,” Vogue spokesman Patrick O’Connell said. “LeBron is an amazing star and athlete that has crossed over into a cultural phenomena.”

   To me (being neither black nor white), the King Kong connection, isn’t obvious—but the idea of “the black American good only on the basketball court” seems to be cemented here. Sad, in a year where Americans could be voting in their first black president.
   Whatever the case, Vogue seems to have benefited hugely from the publicity, from the blogosphere and sports’ fans who might never have commented on the magazine.

I see Sen. Clinton has resorted to even more attacks on Sen. Obama, all of which smack of desperation and come through to me 7,000-plus miles away as tiresome. God only knows what the American people have to put up with on a far more frequent basis, especially if it is in my consciousness in a foreign country.
   The Clinton camp has not denied sending out a picture of Sen. Obama on one of his many visits back to Kenya, wearing traditional elder garb. Its intention: to show how “foreign” Sen. Obama is. More to the point, to show how “un-American” he is. Wear traditional costume? You are not wholesome enough to be American, in that Ward and June Cleaver way.
   You see, there is a theory that the Clinton side must have in that it is considered culturally sensitive for a white American to adopt his or her host’s costumes, but it is considered odd for a black American to do the same.
   Despite the large African-descended community in the United States, traditional African costume has not entered the general consciousness of the country. Sen. Obama, wearing the costume of his father’s homeland, looks very different to the well suited figure that Americans have seen during the campaign. He has tried to be race-neutral for the most part, rightly resisting to use that aspect in a campaign that is heated enough.
   The Clinton campaign is hoping this photo will be the undoing of Obama in Ohio and Texas. I do not think so. Americans are just too darned smart for this to work.
   There is nothing wrong with the image but for the fact that it may have come from the Clinton campaign, released with an obvious belief that it is scandalous.
   It shouldn’t be, of course, but Clinton has now made this campaign about race—or her own racism. (I suppose it might not be as bad as showing your tax liabilities.)
   Nevertheless, having a black campaign manager is not going to make her look whiter than white on this issue, if you will pardon the one attempt at humour in this post.
   These attacks have fallen flat before. Anti-Obama types and anti-Islamists stressed that his middle name is Hussein. That proved ineffective for numerous reasons. Earlier in the year, in stressing her credentials, Clinton said that it took a president (LBJ) to make the Civil Rights’ Movement effective—which was seen by many as undermining the work of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. For me, that brought up the 2004 incident when Clinton joked that Mahatma Gandhi was someone who pumped gas for a living in St Louis, Mo.
   While I tried to give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt on her incidents, I am not so sure about the newest—and it wasn’t helped by the Clinton campaign’s reactions. Skemono, a fellow blogger, expresses it better than I could, quoting campaign manager Michelle Williams. I imagine that Skemono is better versed on the topic, being inside the US.
   Put these incidents together and it paints a sorry picture of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s élitism and what she regards as “American”. Obviously Indians need not apply, even the great man Gandhi. I imagine in her view blacks need the white hand to help, the freedom of the Civil War given to them benevolently, and civil rights by President Lyndon Johnson.
   Even if Sen. Clinton is not a racist, and it’s actually likely she isn’t, I believe she is not above using race for political capital.
   However, she has miscalculated things. The United States of America is founded on immigrants. It all depends on when one arrived. Even the native American, the first one there, probably migrated from Asia.
   If Sen. Clinton had a good grasp on the Hispanic vote, then I suspect she lost some potential supporters today.

Obama, the role model
Why should not Obama, whose father was an immigrant who made good on the American Dream, adopt the clothing of his homeland? Many of us who have the privilege of visiting the country from which our ancestors came would do the same. It shows Barack Obama to be a proud man, and if he is willing to celebrate his heritage, then he comes with a sense of self-respect.
   A person who is willing to celebrate their heritage, at Barack Obama’s level, can be a good role model for many others who did not consider it.
   You are only as good as your dignity, and Sen. Obama has shown that.
   While I will defend Sen. Obama, I cannot be said to be a fan of his. I do not agree with all of his policies, and I even agree with Sen. Clinton that he lacks specificity to field a credible campaign if he were nominated. I am unsure of his foreign policy credentials and how he will deal with régimes that attack the values of freedom and democracy—on that Sen. Clinton should attack him. There are signs, which conservatives are prepared to cite in their opposition, of Obama’s extreme left tendencies.
   However, I would rather see a dignified man enter the White House than a woman who resorts to playground bully tactics. Though out of the current front-runners I would rather not see any of them enter.
   Campaign and attack all you want—but do not take it down to this level.

Experience
Today on National Radio here in New Zealand, Sen. Clinton stressed her foreign policy credentials, saying she did not need an instruction manual or advisers to deal with the matter.
   The last time I looked, Sen. Obama had 12 years in elected office versus her eight.
   On a day like this, I am not sure if it is worth much—even if I agree with Sen. Clinton that she has been clearer on her foreign policy during her campaign. (I won’t bring more of her prior positions on foreign policy into this yet.)
   And if she refers to the years as First Lady and wishes to count them as part of her ‘experience’, then she must stand by her decisions at that time. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton only stands by the ones she thinks makes her look good.
   Her Wal-mart support for cheap Chinese labour and her pro-NAFTA stance were fairly consistent positions during her time as First Lady of Arkansas and as First Lady.
   If Americans are upset by what they saw as a preemptive strike by President Bush on Iraq, perhaps they need to be reminded that President Clinton did the same in Kosovo. If she supported that as the President’s wife, and she supported the war on Iraq, can Democrats and those opposed to the war trust her?
   This is not a campaign about substance, as Sen. Clinton has stressed that it should be. And she has had a major hand in taking that substance away.
   Reading the blogosphere I have found Democrats who believe Clinton has ‘swift-boated’ Obama.

These tactics aren’t presidential
I would not want, as a citizen of a western country that has a history with the United States, and which sacrificed lives for the sake of freedom alongside members of the US armed forces, to think that Sen. Clinton’s pettiness and pit-bull tactics will affect the way I do business as a New Zealander.
   And being part of a family that has been in the US for a century, I do have a stake: to ensure my cousins and an aunt are not living in a place that has a questionable, élitist leader with dictatorial tendencies.
   The in-fighting can only be good for the Republican Party, whose lead candidate, Sen. John McCain, has not captured the public’s attention as well. Attacks on him have not really held up, either. A divided Democratic Party is just what the GOP needs, and they have Sen. Hillary Clinton to thank for it.

New Zealanders and Americans are divided by a common language, it seems.
   All the reports I read about the US election said that the economy is the number one issue on Americans’ minds. Why, then, did Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton do so well in the Super Tuesday primaries for her party? She has just taken California, I see.
   As a Wal-mart board member, Mrs Clinton was quite happy to be anti-union and see jobs outsourced to Red China. That was her position from 1986 to 1992.
   By the time she was First Lady, her husband presided over an administration that saw this trend continue in full force, satisfying the technocrats. That was her position from 1993 to 2000.
   Today, while Sen. Clinton says Wal-mart no longer represents her beliefs and that she respects the right of workers to unionize, she still took $20,000 in campaign contributions from Wal-mart. That is her position in 2008.
   Add the 2004 joke she made about Mahatma Gandhi being some guy who pumps gas in St Louis, and it’s plain to see that Sen. Clinton is no friend of the American worker. She spent only a year working with a non-profit—certainly her record is not as grand as she would like voters to think.
   Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks along élitist lines and that is the one consistent position she has had throughout her life. Watch any speech she gives: she thinks she’s better than you.
   If it’s about the economy, stupid, to borrow a 1990s phrase, then she would be the last person whom I would associate as being a friend of the American worker.
   Or of any worker.
   Sorry, Democrats, this guy sitting in New Zealand just doesn’t get it.
   Mind you, if she gets her party’s nomination, this sure is ammo for the Republicans to use.

Meanwhile, Spain has its share of undesirables. This sort of behaviour is inexcusable in 2008 (not that it was ever excusable, really). From the BBC’s Anglophenia:

At this weekend’s pre-season auto race in Spain, spectators wore blackface and hurled racial abuse at British racer Lewis Hamilton. The Times reports, “The McLaren driver, 23, was subjected to racist comments and was faced with a group of spectators wearing wigs, dark make-up, and t-shirts with the slogan ‘Hamilton’s Family’ on the front during pre-season testing near Barcelona.” The FIA has threatened to strip Spain of Formula One Grand Prix races if the racist incidents happen again.

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has taken South Carolina, I am hearing from some media reports (the MSM seems to be very pro-Hillary Clinton) that he only won because the state has so many black Americans.
   Bollocks.
   Did Washington state once have an Chinese–American governor because it had so many Asians there?
   Obama won because people are suffering from CFS: Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. He is right: people associate the Clintons with a partisan past and younger and more cosmopolitan voters are sick of it.
   As we go into Super Tuesday, there are media claims that Sen. Obama will not take them because these are places where Sen. Clinton polls well.
   My belief is that he will take them because people will vote for someone who looks victorious, and bugger the issues. I am sorry for all the bloggers who think otherwise, but remember, if you are blogging fluently, you are probably already part of the smarter group of citizens that analyses the issues. Most people, sadly, do not even think about the issues and can be swayed by rhetoric and appearances.
   Sen. Obama is facing an MSM that wants a Hillary win so badly that it will look for justifications for why he won nearly double the number of votes that Sen. Clinton did. We are already seeing headlines about voting machine rigging.
   How out of touch the MSM has proven to be so far on this presidential race—and how they look like they are still wrong.
   While I am not so naïve as to think that Sen. Obama’s skin colour won’t be an issue for 100 per cent of the population, it’s far less of an issue than the white, middle-aged, male management of the MSM believes.

A few disclaimers first. One: I am not Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan. Two: I am in a racial minority. Three: I am not an American, even if my great-grandfather settled there 95 years ago, and I do not pretend to know everything about US history.
   There has been some furore over Sen. Clinton’s quotation, where she has been reported as saying, ‘Dr [Martin Luther] King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …it took a president to get it done.’ This has been branded as a case of a black man being unable to do something without a white man’s help.
   However, here is the full story, from what I understand. Major Garrett on Fox News quoted Barack Obama, who had said, ‘Did JFK look up at the moon and say, “Ah, false hope. Too far. Reality check. Can’t do it”? Dr King standing on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial, looking out over that magnificent crowd, the Reflecting Pool, the Washington Monument: “Sorry, guys. False hope. The dream will die. It can’t be done”?’ He asked Sen. Clinton to respond. She said:

I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said, ‘We are going to do it,’ and actually got it accomplished.

   I don’t know. The shortened quotation, while not 100 per cent accurate, and the full thing, both could smack of the idea that Dr King could not do it. I realize that Dr King could not do it alone—but you could still read in a tinge of a benevolent white man handing something to a disenfranchised black man, something which has got some people, of all races, upset in the US.
   Historically, I seem to recall that the American Civil War, in which blacks and whites fought equally courageously, was later branded by some commentators and cartoonists in the immediate post-war era as an event where the freedom from slavery was a gift from whites. It could well be a case where Sen. Clinton’s remarks are seen in the same light.
   The more optimistic reading of both quotes is that the comment, ‘it took a president to get it done,’ refers to any president, male or female, black or white (or any other colour). Note that Sen. Clinton uses the indefinite article: she does not refer specifically to ‘the President’ or LBJ here. While of course that is who we have in mind given the first part of her sentence, it can be read more positively. She believes that it is executive power that could drive through the Act, regardless of the colour of the person who holds that power.
   For me, both the full and edited quotes say virtually the same thing. One could take them either way. Both opinions are being reflected online at the moment, with more for the positive interpretation in terms of original blog posts (based on a very cursory examination of the first few pages). An interesting cross-section of opinions on both sides were unleashed earlier this month at The New York Times’ website. (Anti-Hillary readers may enjoy comment no. 5. A feminist paraphrasing at comment no. 491 is interesting.)
   I am more disturbed not by the one comment, however, but whether it is reflective of a pattern.
   Maybe I am kicking up old stuff here, but wasn’t Hillary Clinton the woman who once said that Mahatma Gandhi ‘ran a gas station down in St Louis’ in 2004?
   She backpedalled that time and said it was a lame attempt at humour, but I wouldn’t even make such a joke that would suggest one race is more predisposed to working at petrol stations than another.
   Yes, Senator. Indians pump gas. Black men need white men to help them. So much for these ‘35 years’ experience’.

This is not a popular view but here goes. In the United States, some Jaguar dealers are upset that the Ford-owned unit will go to an Indian company.
   Never mind that Tata is solvent and can afford greater investments on the cars. Never mind that Tata owns Corus—British Steel to us oldies. Never mind that Tata has promised to keep UK manufacturing jobs for both brands.
   No, these dealers are upset probably because Indians are not white. Not part of the old world or the new world, but, oh my goodness, they have different skin colour.
   European dealers are reportedly more relaxed as the most important element is not where the parent company is based.
   No one in American retail ever seems upset that Donna Karan is part of French conglomerate LVMH or that Stella McCartney is part of Gucci. No American consumer seems to jump up and down at the thought that Lamborghini and Bentley are owned by Volkswagen.
   These parent companies are well capitalized, have good management and a long history—just like the Tata Group.
   It smells like it’s down to skin colour to me.
   Sure Tata does not have a history of managing luxury brands, but did Toyota have one when it created Lexus?
   And when it comes to consumers, people are still going to buy Jags and Land Rovers for exactly the same reasons as before.
   For years, no one batted an eyelid when these brands were American owned. They were still considered English and never American, and that’s not going to change in 2008.
   It sounds like a few dealers don’t understand their consumers very well, motivated by some redneck element that’s hardly representative of Americans in general.
   They’d better give up wearing Polo Ralph Lauren at their country clubs then. Polo? Ain’t that some kinda Injun game?