This Sunday, Frank Rich reported some of the most exciting news that has appeared on the pages of the New York Times in a very long time. According to Rich, Americans are on the verge of transcending the racial and cultural rifts that divided them for centuries. There simply aren't "enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall," the former theater critic insisted. This statement is so true that Rich did not even need to bolster it with actual statistical evidence.
Rich went on to announce that the rancorous street fights of the 1960s over militarism and civil rights have been neatly transmuted into "quieter social activism and grand-scale social networking." "The millennials' bottom-up digital superstructure," he wrote, has enabled economically marginalized ghetto dwellers and indignant campus radicals to air their grievances with the simple click of a button. So sit back in your Aeron chair, relax and blithely tend to your Facebook page.
"There is a heartening undertow," Rich assuredly declared. "We know the page will turn."
To support his confident prediction of a coming cultural utopia, and to make a larger point about the supposedly refreshing dynamics of the 2008 presidential campaign, Rich cited a Times report on protests in Harlem against the Sean Bell verdict. "This is not 1968," Rich claimed, "when the country was so divided over race and war that cities and campuses exploded in violence. If you have any doubts, just look (to take a recent example) at the restrained response by New Yorkers, protestors included, to the acquittal of three police officers in the 50-bullet shooting death of an unarmed black man, Sean Bell."
Unlike Rich, and what seemed like the entire Times Metro desk, I attended the demonstration that erupted in Jamaica, Queens -- the neighborhood where Bell lived and died -- just hours after the verdict was announced. While this protest did not end violently, it was large, brimming with anger, and anything but restrained. At one point, I found myself in the midst of what seemed certain to become a brawl between a faction of furious protesters and a squadron of cops they had surrounded. It appeared from my vantage point that the cops retreated from the melee only because they were badly outnumbered.
But don't take me at my word. Watch the video I produced about the Sean Bell demonstrations, especially the latter half, which depicts the uncomfortable reality that Rich overlooked in his reductionist portrait of an imaginary post-racial America.
Where I live near Atlanta my neighborhood - a middle class one- is equally split with black and white professionals. Thirty years ago my neighborhood would not have contained any black residents and 15 years ago only a few. There is still racism all over this country but far less than what we had in 1968 when our family's cleaning lady lived in a house without plumbing. In the seventies each of her children atttended either college or vocational school and have all gone on to careers where they make far more than their mom and where the subject matter of their work goes way beyond cleaning.
The protests of last week were very tame compared to protests of 1968. That's a fact. Why would you discredit yourself so much but not accepting that fact? The fact that you point out how the Sean Bell protests were still brimming with anger is a straw man - one that worked on some of the weaker minded commenters on this site that love nothing more than to pounce on any chance to criticize someone in the main stream media regardless of the criticism makes any sense or not.
The protests last week were still nothing compared to the violence in the street that was going on in 1968. Even though you're too young to remember (so am I) is no excuse for not understanding this. Have you not read about the protests and riots of the 60's? Have you never seen footage of the events circa 1968? Frank Rich was offering a nuanced analysis of some of the variables at play in this historic election. And, Ironically he was railing against the main stream media for all the ways in which they've gotten things wrong up until this point. Yet, you just lumped him in with the main stream media and ignored all of that. Not too insightful on your part, I must say.
Discrimination still occurs - but is now mostly illegal.
Gotta keep fighting bigotry --- but some things are changing.
I don't think a re-run of the May 31 1921 Tulsa lynching riot could happen today. Even after 9-11 enraged mobs were not running through American cities murdering any people who looked Arabic.
Governors no longer get elected by threatening blacks with ax handles like Lester Maddox in 1966 Georgia. A non white looking guy with a name like Jindar would not be governor in Louisiana a few decades ago. A guy with a non waspy name like B. Obama would not be a serious contender for president even 10 years ago if some serious change wasn't happening.
Sure there's enclaves of ignorance, but they are not as huge as they used to be and becoming more isolated. It's getting harder to play the race card.
As Yogi Berra would have said - some of the improvements are for the better.
It is also true that a double standard is applied in defining racism. When Obama's black support is mentioned by his campaign, it's just stating the facts. But if the Clinton campaign dares mention white support for her, shouts of racism go up immediately.
The media's collusion with Obama supporters has also been obvious.
CI
Williams omits the facts in presenting her theories about class, race, and sex. Read Jonathon Tilove's article on this topic in which he reports the venom that has been unleashed against Hillary Clinton:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004041541_hillaryslurs29.html
Clinton has lost the nomination because she did not conduct herself as a woman of principle nor as a woman with leadership, organizational or management skills.
Not once has Obama maligned women or the women's vote. Clinton, on the other hand, allowed her husband and other surrogates to race-bait early on under the guise of, as you say, "just stating the facts." This culminated with Hillary's own remark that Obama could not get the vote her base of "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Anyway you spin that remark, even her own supporters are admitting, it is a racial slur. (They call it a "dumb mistake" not a slur but then they call a lie a "misspeak.")
If the media playing Rev. Wright 24/7 is collusion with Obama, I would hate to see what they did when they weren't in cohoots with you. In fact, the media has taken its talking points from Camp Clinton's morning conference calls from Day One.
Yet, the media and Obama supporters have been trying like crazy to force her out of the race for the umpteenth time during this campaign.
As far as your accusation that she made a racist comment, I'd like know why it is that when an Obamaphile cites the fact that if he doesn't get the nomination, the black community will sit out the general election, it's not considered racist, but when Clinton simply states the fact that a majority of white blue collar workers support her, everyone eargerly twists her words and starts shouting racism to the rooftops. The double standard here is extremely offensive.
In light of all the above, how can you claim to be a feminist when you're doing your best to undermine the candidacy of the first viable female candidate in the history of the nation?
"Ignorance is strength" 1984 G. Orwell
I can understand how disappointing this news must be for the Clinton campaign.