The cover of the just-out April 21st issue of that sophomoric rag National Review has a close-up photograph of Michelle Obama looking angry -- with the headline: Mrs. Grievance: Michelle Obama and Her Discontent.
The obvious aim of the article is to ridicule Michelle Obama.
Before I go on to consider some of the details of the article, I want to make it clear what National Review is all about. It's the late William Buckley's hobby magazine, a place where conservatives foam at the mouth in their hatred of progressives, liberals, Democrats, non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, and anyone who struggles to survive in our free-market paradise. For example, a few years ago, when National Review celebrated its 50th anniversary, the senior editor Richard Brookhiser decided it was time to enlighten the American public with his views about "Happy Darkies". Here's what Brookhiser told us (National Review September 19, 2005):
Happy darkies are most of the world: people with skins generally darker than mine, who live in Africa, most of Asia, and much of the Americas. Sometimes they start at Calais. These days they certainly inhabit every restaurant kitchen in New York. It seems paradoxical to call them happy. They are poor, numerous, and pregnant; if they work, it is to little purpose; their religions span a simple spectrum from witchcraft to wrath, and their societies alternate between tyranny and chaos; they beat their wives, scarify their daughters, and occasionally eat their enemies; they have never read (if they can read) a book that was not holy, or heard a piece of music unrelated to copulation.
What a tragedy that Brookhiser seems so proud of his ideas, so unaware how un-American he is.
The piece in National Review about Michelle Obama is so badly written and incoherent that it's difficult to make sense out of anything but its vitriol. But here are a few pearls:
The author, Mark Steyn, says, "There's something pitiful about a political culture that has no use for Mitt Romney, a hugely successful businessman, but venerates a woman who gets more than 300 grand for running a 'neighborhood outreach' and 'staff diversity' program.
Now, pray, what the hell is this? Are we expected to make Mitt Romney president of the United States because he's a "hugely successful" businessman? Was Mitt Romney rejected by the same people that "venerate" Michelle Obama? Romney was rejected by his fellow Republicans, and if anyone is venerating Michelle Obama, I assure you it's not Republicans. The quoted sentence is so fatuous it jangles one's eyeballs.
In discussing Michelle Obama's Princeton education and undergraduate thesis, Mark Steyn says, "Ah, the benefits of an elite education. The thesis is dopey, illiterate, and bizarrely punctuated, but so are the maunderings of many American students."
Of course, given such a personal attack on a college student's talents, we hunger to read Mark Steyn's undergraduate thesis. No maunderings or bizarre punctuations?
Mark Steyn says Michelle Obama "embodies a peculiar mix of privilege and victimology, which is not where most Americans live."
Yes, indeed, most Americans don't live there, and they also don't live where Mitt Romney lives. But there's no inherited privilege in Michelle Obama, only achievement through intelligence and education, and the "victimology" is that of a black woman living in a thoroughly racist society. Is the mix "peculiar" or merely natural? Does Mark Steyn really believe that if a black woman finds success in America she ought to abandon any resentment at the many years of idiot prejudice thrown at her by the likes of the editors of National Review?
Thanks for the piece, Mark. Here's a toast to you and Richard and perspicacity.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why give the chicken hawk gazette this attention? NRO is simply a cesspool of writings authored by insecure elitist reprobates.
I cut out the first part of the paragraph that I quoted from Brookhiser, but given the arguments here about what Brookhiser meant, here is the first part:
Brookhiser says, "Waugh the anthropologist taught me, or confirmed in me, a belief in happy darkies. Who are they? Happy darkies are most of the world: people with skins generally darker than mine..."
And so on. These are Brookhiser's words, and since he's a writer, a see no reason to assume that he did not choose his words carefully for publication in NR.
Enough said.
"a see no reason" should be "I see no reason" -- and I sign this post Dan Agin.
Yet another reason that I am bitter.It's bad enough when you have the right wing wack jobs swift boating, but now you have Hillary and company too. Think the wackos on the right are afraid to touch the Obamas because of their race? Yeah, right. Calling people "darkies" and getting away with it. Playing "Barack the magic negro" and getting away with it. But we are supposed to bow down to gun slinging, immigrant and gay bashing, people with gentle sensitivity because after all, they aren't bitter. They are salt of the earth. Michelle Obama on the other hand is angry and bitter and horrific.
Let's just tiptoe around the sensitivities of these people because we can't wake them up to the fact that they keep voting against their own interests, and in doing so, screw the rest of us with people like Bush and McSame.
I am sorry for ranting...let me just get a shot and a beer and load up my rifle. Maybe being a "darkie elitist" won't hurt so bad then.
Glad you brought up the name of Richard Brookhiser. Ah yes, another Condescending Whitey who takes Whitey Education for granted, goes to Whitey Clubs with Other Whiteys, has an Overeducated Whitey Wife he porks once a year like clockwork, and shows disdain for anyone who doesn't look and act just like him. The kind of Whitey who thinks all people who believe in progress and compassion are air-headed liberal drug dealers. But then, when Mr. Brookhiser is diagnosed with testicular cancer (oh, now and then nature has a sense of humor) he suffers the agony of real life just like a real person, and relieves his nausea by smoking marijuana! He even testifies before Congress about its benefits! Yes, pain brought Whitey Brookhiser to his knees, then it brought him to marijuana. And being poor would bring him to socially just programs. And being a person of color? Who knows. Maybe that would actually make him human.
Hillary '08
Dan, is that disgusting rhetoric about "happy darkies" all that much different from Mr. Obama's thoughts on the dumb bitter people of PA?
I got a feeling that there is plenty more amo to be used against Obama's wife. Best you Obama supports put on your flack jackets.
Hillary '08
I keep asking this, but none of the Obama-haters will respond: when did he say anyone was dumb? And since when is 'bitter' an offensive term?
In the last weeks Obama has used the words 'bitter' and 'typical' and purportedly many white Americans have gotten upset. I have been called a n*gger about a hundred times in my life, in varying circumstances, from the benignly stupid to the dangerously homicidal.... I'll take being called bitter or typical any day thanks.
I wear a flack jacket all the time, in case of sniper fire. Yours just bounced right off.
Brilliant! Ultra Classic's remarks are ultra offensive. Way to go Hillary supporters. Thanks for the great comeback Cindy...
I never was a fan of William Buckley, and I will not indulge in lampooning someone who is no longer around. Especially since ,unlike his conservative followers, he didn't resort to despicable tactics such as shouting and questionable editing in his tv shows.
My understanding is that he did not like what the "Review" had become, i.e. "....a place where conservatives foam at the mouth in their hatred ... ".
It is a shame. There is place in the political debate for a conservative magazine. Something that would play the same role "The Nation" and "Reason" play for liberals and libertarians respectively.
I have never read Reason, how it it?
Dan -
Interesting article. I have been quite distressed by the bashing of Michelle Obama that I've seen in a lot of places, including the comments at HuffPo, so I'm glad you are taking the National Review to task for this. It reminds me in many ways of how the right wing bashed HIllary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Elizabeth Edwards and Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Granted, I believe Clinton took the brunt of that bashing, but the other candidate wives (and VP candidate wives) were abused as well.
I think this behaviour by the right wing is really appalling. However, the left wing is not pure either (Laura Bush and Cindy McCain as "Stepford Wives"). Interestingly though, the only right-wing spouses in recent memory to have been powerful women on their own (Lynne Cheney and Liddy Dole), weren't subject to these sorts of attacks.
I will also say Dan, that I appreciate the fact that you are reading and responding to the comments.
One of the saddest things about America is Rage. The Rage takes many forms, but it is always stupid and self-defeating. When I (male catching up to 60) was growing up, there were many street fights. Usually, the kid with the rage LOST, even if he were stronger and the better fighter. Rage always seems to destroy who carries it.
Republican Rage, which is the rage of the wealthy and powerful against 95% of the people, is often expressed so pointedly that the 95% think they are part of the 5%.
I think the absurd word "Rethugican" is part of that same stupid rage, as is National Review. When Buckley was not Raging, he was hanging around with Liberals and devoting his life to Culture and Pleasure.
Our American Culture is so pointlessly stupid, and it is no surprise that so many of the Canadiens who do well here, like Pam Anderson and Mark Steyn and David Frum, master the stupidity first.
The Statue of Liberty should say, "Send me your stupid, your right wing Rage Boys, your pompous, longing to cancel out decency."
My grandmother, who was of American native and African ancestry, had a saying for the likes of this cat: Ignore the ignorant. I have throughout the years tried to embellish the phrase when written to: Ignore the RANTS of the ignoRANTS. As one can see, my phrasing is somewhat lacking and forced. I"m willing to bet, and i"m a Black man who does not gamble (to spite Bill Clinton"s claim of dice rolling); i"m willing to bet this idiot"s grandmother was much more of a decent person than he.
When i was growing up in the South Bronx of New York City, we had this phrase:
Take care of my lightweight.
I really hope Sister Michelle uses the phrase so that women like Alice Walker, Randi Rhodes, Whoopie Goldberg with Joy Behar et al, and even Chelsea Clinton do what his mama didn"t do¦
She is pissed. No doubt about that. But she's pretty hot.
But, of course, the reality is; Michelle Obama is angry. Perhaps she got that from the Rev. Wright - but she is a very angry and bitter woman.
Not first lady material.
I just had cocktails with several white people of varying ethic backgrounds, and most of the women and men were angry. They went to school here in the USA as did Michelle Obama, they heard the ideal that anyone can become president; they learned about the land of opportunity, they memorized all of the Amendments to the Constitution, they learned about equality, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and lynchings. They are as angry as Michelle Obama. The as*****s at the national review, Fox (Faux) News, CBS, and other propagandists don't understand how angry everybody in the USA is. Michelle Obama looks like them in every way except skin color. Her anger is somewhat different in origin, and stems from slavery and its after effects, but it is an understandable anger. I suspect that she is also angry about the many of the same things as what those whose company I enjoyed are angry about. There is a unity in anger. BTW, we all have moved from Hillary to Obama in our loyalty. If Hillary gets the nomination, we will be voting for her. McCain garnered on overarching comment: same as Bush. No more Bush.
GH, I think you need to wake up, because if you are not angry, you've been asleep.
Please tell us how you became acquainted with the woman. Surely you are not so stupid that you would come to this conclusion without having ever met the woman.
Who really cares what the national review thinks, only the small minds that try to read it!
It would help if the world knew that the CIA paid for half of the start-up funds for the National Review. (Saunders, "The Cultural Cold War") They made a conscious effort to support the culture and arts of Europe in the Marshall plan and the Cultural Cold War but when they came home they made a cynical strategy to muddy the waters and keep Americans as stupid, racist, provincial and manipulatable as possible. How else can you explain Jonah Goldberg. Digoweli
In principle you're right. But the magazine sits on newsstands with Michelle Obama's face large on the cover and a nasty ridiculing headline. No one needs to open the magazine to see the cover. It's the cover that will stick in the minds of people who pass it in the supermarket. Nasty cover and nasty media manipulation.
Dan Agin
So you are suggesting that they're doing what the rest of the magazines and national mainstream media do and are doing to the Repubicans?
Spot on. As we all know by reading the posts here and elsewhere, there are a lot of headline readers among us. The National Enquirer made millions from just the cover and the headlines.
The National Review is the last refuge of scoundrel right wingers who fancy themselves intellectuals, more or less openly disdain the millions of blue collar workers on whose votes their livelihoods depend, and who are pissed that you can't say these kinds of things openly in this country anymore.
Their pretense makes Brookhiser, Goldberg, Steyn, DeSouza etc. even more laughable than their incoherent ideas.
The day we drummed Mark Steyn out of Canada is looking better and better.
I want to preface my comments by saying that this is a generalization. What do Republicans/conservatives have against educated people? I mean because Michelle Obama had the audacity to attend Princeton and then reflect on her own personal experience there, she is attacked? Give me a break. I haven't read Michelle's thesis, but I can probably guess some of the major themes that she addressed because they mirror my own. While I didn't go to an Ivy league college, I did attend a private school that was predominantly white and I often reflect on that experience. I had never been in that type of environment before, and it took some getting use to. Because of these reflections does that make me an elite/victim? It never ceases to amaze me some of this commentary. I agree with Shauntee. Michelle is fabulous. I had the pleasure to hear her speak recently, and you can tell that she is a force to be reckoned with. She is undeniably proud of her husband, but more than that, you can tell that she is intelligent, articulate, and hardworking. That being said I have nothing against Mitt Romney's success, though I do question the millions he wasted in his campaign.
Michelle Obama isn't attacked for attending Princeton, she is attacked for her stupid comments.
- Telling people we have had it hard paying back loans while bringing in $1 million plus a year
- Not proud of my country comment
- Don't go into corporate America comment
- Weird view of the economy how if one person is successful another has to fail
Overall her comments seem to have a socialistic touch to them.
Tell us about Michelle Obama earning $1,000,000.00 a year. It's news to me. What years?
Obamas = $1.7 million in 2006
Sorry, I can't let you play the sympathy card on paying off student loans :(
Just to be clear she did not say she was not proud of her county. She said for the first time she is proud of her country. Since I totally feel the same way her comment resonates with me. For the first time in my 45 years I have a hope that I live in a country where a person is no longer judged by their race. To be honest unless you are a minority I think its hard to appreciate the importance of living to see this day.
And you somehow think that only a black President can make this happen? Sorry to tell you but people don't listen to the President all the time . . . look around this website :)
I have a small surprise for you. Having a black president is not going to end bigotry and prejudice. Virginia is the only state to ever have a black governor and racism is alive and well here. They won't talk about it to the press, but once the last black or brown person leaves the room, it is an entirely different story. I was shocked at how deeply the racism ran when I moved here. It's going to take more than a black guy with yuppy attitudes to turn this baby around.
Wow. Just, wow. Your unbelievable distortion of Brookhiser's article (not to mention that in the context of the original article, the quote you pulled is not, as you claim Brookhiser's explanation of his own beliefs, but rather his description of the intellectually and culturally destructive beliefs of Westerners before Orientalism became a bad word.) is so far from reality that it borders on slander.
I never thought I would find myself defending anyone associated with the National Review (Which I detest! I mean it takes Fox News and tarts it up with Ivy League snobbery!) but I guess there is a first time for everything.
This post should be removed immediately.
You are wrong if you think my words about Brookhiser are a distortion. In the National Review article Senior Editor Richard Brookhiser (Yale University, 1977) ruminates about the novelist Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966), calls Waugh an "anthropologist", and says that Waugh taught him, or confirmed in him, a belief in "happy darkies". Those are Brookhiser's words. Read the NR article on Happy Darkies if you don't believe it.
Dan Agin
This is a link to a copy of the article.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-141169117.html
Brookhiser is not using the term "happy darkies" as his preferred descriptor of a group of people, but to describe a concept that he himself no longer holds.
Note that the title of the article is "Farewell to Evelyn Waugh." Not just literally farewell to this individual, but also to that kind of thinking. (Subtitle: 'And leave the `happy darkie' to the multiculturalists.') He's using it in the same way other concepts are used by writers who themselves do not endorse the concept - e.g. "model minority," "noble savage" etc. It's about a mode of thought rather than the groups themselves.
Does Brookhiser totally reject Waugh? No.
"What makes the new world hard is that Evelyn Waugh was mostly right. What he described in Abyssinia and the Amazon was true, as far as it went. Culture is mighty; faith blinds and inflames."
But Brookhiser writes that cultures and peoples can change. Waugh was wrong to characterize nonwestern peoples as static and passive.
"What Waugh did not describe were the effects of mobility and (oddly, for a satirist of journalism) media. ... Mobility and media cause flux, even more elsewhere than here, and this flux can turn deadly. But in the flux, people often hope for something better, and sometimes hope for it in ways that will actually lead to something better."
First I don't know what Brookhiser's going to Yale has anything to do with it. As a current Yale student who has taken many classes dealing with the topic that Brookhiser's article addresses, I can attest that no one here would categorize non-Western people as "Happy Darkies."
While he does say that he subscribed to Waugh's concept, he backs away from it at the end (you can tell because he attributes the belief in the "happy darkies" to liberals and 99% whatever viewpoint or concept the National Review attributes to liberals is what they believe is wrong). Furthermore, it seems pretty clear to me that the phrase "happy darky" was conceived by Waugh or his contemporaries, and that Brookhiser is simply using it. I agree that Brookhiser comes off as flippant and gleefully uses such language when he probably didn't have to, but there is no evidence that he coined"happy darky."
That said, you can't present a quote like that taken entirely out of context without at least offering some explanation of what the article is about. Using the quote "Michelle Obama and the Poison of the National Review" and concluding that Brookhiser is "un-American" without explaining the context of the article unfairly makes it seem as though "Happy Darky" is a racial slur specifically against African-Americans, rather than an offensive generalization of the non-Western other.
This is exceptionally lazy journalism, even for the blogosphere.
It's possible you miss Brookhiser's point. Waugh promoted the idea of the innocent savages of what we now call the Third World, which Brookhiser says he agreed with. But after 9/11, Brookhiser says, we see these "happy darkie" savages are not so innocent -- they are still savages, but they hate us and they want to kill us. The "farewell" to Waugh is a farewell to the idea of the "innocence" of the savages, not to the savagery -- which Brookhiser makes plain in the quote. At the very end of the article, RB says let the Left have Waugh's view of the innocence of the savage, they are welcome to it. Brookhiser's view is that "happy darkies' are dangerous savages, not innocent as Waugh described.
Anyway, Brookhiser's words are there, an illustration of how many conservatives view the Third World and American minorities. The comments here from some people that I have distorted Brookhiser's meaning are maybe expected.
Dan Agin
Posted April 13, 2008 | 06:08 PM (EST)