For more, see Bint. And hey Nader? Fuck you.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index
45 Responses
Comments are closed.
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- Li on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Officer A on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Sam on Prudie on “real” rape
- EG on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- EG on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Kathy Ashley on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- Anon21 on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Tomek Kulesza on So should we just start calling high heels “body modification”?
- karak on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Brian Schlosser on This Is What Happened to CeCe
Most Commented Recent Posts
- An Asexual Map for Sex-Positive Feminism (138)
- Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet. (129)
- Some Transformative Justice Links (127)
- Prudie on "real" rape (119)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the REAL FEMINISTS edition (77)
- "Kill the Gays" Bill is Back in Uganda (74)
- Facts, myths, and blankety-blank lies about Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation (65)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (63)
- The Annual Post About Sexist Super Bowl Commercials 2012 (63)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the Slutty Slut-Sluts edition (62)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
For wordpress.com support
just for you, a widget as requested
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
It goes without saying, but once FOX News calls you out for being racist, it’s over.
But this horrible comment by Nader illustrates the danger of being politically single-minded, to the point where you’re deeply ignorant about other struggles. That Nader had no clue of the vicious racism of his comment, on a day where we’ve elected the first person of color as US president, speaks volumes about his level of disengagement with the social justice movement.
If he can’t grasp the magnitude of what it means for people of color to be recognized as fully competent leaders and human beings, then what freaking good is he to the movement? I mean damn Nader, just sit down and let us do the work we need to do, please!
Geez, love that look on the anchor’s face when he says “Really.” Not even pretending to be anything other than angrily disgusted with Nader. Also love how later he says “Are you kidding me!?” Okay, I’m going to stop calling out parts I like, because I keep watching and the anchor keeps being great. Except for the last bit, which was especially good. “Everybody’s always mad that we don’t give him enough time. Well there’s his time.” Good for you Fox.
OT, but is Nader disabled at all? I’m just wondering why he blinks with his right eye separately.
Why, Cara, is Uncle Tom a particularly racist pejorative? Of course, it’s central meaning is a question of race-relations, or how race plays a role in relations of domination. Does it beacon its target to “get back in place” or is it intended to be a wake-up call? Nader’s point, whether Obama is going to be a voice for the poor and minorities he otherwise left in silence during his campaign, is perfectly legitimate. Neither this FOXnews anchor nor you apparently are interested in that though, because what matters more than the poor and oppressed minorities is the racial sensibilities of enlightened middle-class (mostly white) people.
As a voter for Nader, I am really horribly disappointed. He did bring up a valid point about Obama needing to fight against corporations for poor Americans of all races, but I can’t believe he would say such a horrible thing, especially on such a momentous day. On another note, Nader does have Bell’s Palsy, which explains the facial paralysis.
While Nader has serious problems, and his Uncle Tom comment is clearly problematic, he is correct in pointing out that Obama has a history of being a friend of corporations and has not done much in the way of social justice work. His choice of Emanuel is also a bit troubling as he was one of the folks who worked on the horrible corporate banking give-away. It is also a bit strange that Fox news and Shepard Smith would be the ones to call him out on this – how often have they/has he otherwise challenged racist and sexist remarks? I’m guessing it could be counted on one hand, which is not to say it shouldn’t be applauded, it was clearly a good thing. But there is something disingenuous about doing it and neglecting to take Nader’s substance seriously.
Lalaroo, I’m not sure what your questioning Nader as disabled is meant to be doing, but I am uncomfortable with the direction it seems to be heading.
Cara, Nader’s comment was stupid, but it’s not true to claim that he called Obama an Uncle Tom. More importantly, I think it’s important to note the double standard that is applied by liberals to Nader in comparison to Democratic candidates. Democrats can have shitty policies, but as long as their rhetoric is inoffensive liberals will offer nothing more than weak, temporary, perfunctory criticism. Nader, whose policies are pretty good for the most part, makes a few ridiculous comments and becomes an object of Two Minutes Hate.
I was wondering when the bloggers would jump on this. My brother emailed me absolutely mortified having seen this live. This, from a man of Lebanese descent who never spoke up when ARAB was used as a pejorative – I guess it was OK as long as it was a slam on Obama. I always thought that Ralphie was just the Semitic version of Jesse “Jealous Man” Jackson and now he’s gone and proven me right.
When I blogged this I actually had a reader complain that I was being to sensitive. Words only have the power to hurt if we let them. In a word BULLSHIT.
Here is the thing, Nader’s descent into racism served to totally obscure the credible class based arguments he was making. What men like him don’t realize is the connection between classism and racism. If you are going to fight for the working/under class you cannot support divisions based on race because the needs of group are the needs of all.
I fully agree that whether or not Obama will live up to his campaign promises and fight corporations rather than join them are good questions. They should be asked; it’s a valid question. And I think that in order to ensure that Obama works for us, it wasn’t just enough to elect him — we need to demand it.
But that doesn’t excuse the language. And there were a million other ways that he could have said what he said without being a complete and total asshat. And let us not forget his comments about Obama “talking white” from earlier this year.
Joe, if you don’t know why “Uncle Tom” is racist, maybe you should read the first thing about the term. But I don’t exactly think you’re commenting in good faith. And LeslieK, I think that saying Obama might be an “Uncle Tom” is more than close enough.
Cara, I read the wikipedia article before even commenting. I do not think that because a pejorative refers in some sense to the color of one’s skin (against the oppressive social relations of certain skin colors) that it reasonable to call it racist. A racially charged word and a racial slur are not one in the same. To call Nader’s Uncle Tom comment racist is to claim that it encourages/endorses/celebrates a certain (oppressive) social relationship between the blacks and whites. This is untenable.
The problem I have with the response Nader got from the FOXnews anchor is that it was hypocritical entirely unconvincing. Nader was invited onto the show so they could smear his point about Obama with their phony concern for his use of a racially charged pejorative. Then your response, Cara, which takes as genuine this anchor’s belly-aching only comes across as an endorsement of the whole spectacle, because heart-felt solidarity with the righteous anti-racist FOXnews anchor is not available to any of us, because he could really care less.
I do not think that because a pejorative refers in some sense to the color of one’s skin (against the oppressive social relations of certain skin colors) that it reasonable to call it racist.
Then, Joe, I imagine that we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You use a word to insult someone in a way that direct refers to their race, and I call that racist. Just like calling Hillary Clinton a “bitch” is sexist. There are many ways to insult people without bringing their oppressed status directly into the picture.
And really, I couldn’t give a shit less whether or not the anchor was being genuine. Whether or not he actually meant it in his heart of hearts, he was right and he said something that needed to be said. He also gave Nader more than enough opportunities to defend himself and to apologize for his use of the word, but like you Joe, he was utterly convinced that there was nothing wrong with it so he didn’t apologize and that’s not the anchor’s fault. Nader just kept on explaining what he meant, which was more of a platform than anyone else gave him. Also, Nader is a big boy and a smart man, and had to know perfectly well what he was getting himself into by going on Fox News. So I really have no idea what you’re complaining about, and how anyone could have the gall to defend poor old Nader at this moment in time. He dug his own damn hole, and he also chose to not accept a hand back out of it.
Nader’s language is clearly outrageous, especially given the context of what just happened in this election. I’m glad that people are outraged. But in my opinion, folks would also do well to check themselves a bit when they jump on a comment like this, because some of it feels to me as though it’s a sentiment leftover from something other than actual anti-racism, eager to cloak itself in anti-racism. And that’s kinda not cool.
Do Nader’s latest critics view themselves as better judges of racism than past Nader supporters such as Randall Robinson, Cornel West, and Danny Glover? Randall Robinson, in particular, worked with Nader in 2000 on his campaign position of supporting reparations for slavery. What is the position of Nader’s critics on this proposal? This might actually tell us more about substantive positions regarding racism than Nader’s latest asshattery and reactions to it.
Malcolm X and Adam Clayton Powell used to regularly call Martin Luther King an Uncle Tom. Obviously it’s different coming from those great black leaders than from an increasingly washed-up and out-of-touch Nader, but I’m just trying to say that we’re all well-advised to be careful about how we discuss these matters and how we drum up and deploy outrage about them.
Having said all that, thanks for the post, Cara, and for linking the amazing Bint, whom everyone would do well to always be reading. ;-)
Cara, do you have more scorn for Nader’s idiotic comments or for the centrist policies of most Democrats, including Obama?
Jonk, here’s what my questioning Nader as disabled is meant to be doing – questioning if he’s disabled. I noticed he only blinked with his right eye, and I wondered if there was a reason for that. It’s not relevant to the post, which is why I said it was OT. Thanks, Ltron, for letting me know he has Bell’s Palsy.
And I really can’t believe that anyone would put forth the argument in good faith that questioning whether Obama will be an Uncle Tom isn’t racist. Really? You really think it might not be racist? Fine, talking about whether he’ll take on corporations is legitimate, blah blah blah, but there is absolutely no reason why Nader had to use a racist term to get that point across.
Randall Robinson, in particular, worked with Nader in 2000 on his campaign position of supporting reparations for slavery. What is the position of Nader’s critics on this proposal? This might actually tell us more about substantive positions regarding racism than Nader’s latest asshattery and reactions to it.
I can only answer for myself of course . . . I certainly do support reparations. I also think that they’re not the most important thing that can be done to make the lives of black citizens better, more prosperous and more equal (nor do I do know that anyone was suggesting they were). From various proposals I’ve seen, it seems to be much more of a symbolic gesture — and symbolism is certainly important, as Obama’s election has shown us — than a long-term plan for racial equality and social justice, but it still absolutely deserves our support for what it is, alongside many other anti-racist initiatives.
LeslieK, I have no idea how your question is relevant. I have scorn for plenty of the Democrats’ policies. Off the top of my head, I’ll say that I have incredible scorn for their lack of support for same-sex marriage rights. I’m not going to sit around and rank my various outrages on a chart for you, though.
“There are many ways to insult people without bringing their oppressed status directly into the picture.”
I think you miss the point if you take Nader’s comment as an attempt at an insult that goes “too far” because it brings “oppressed status directly into the picture.” I think bringing that “oppressed status directly into the picture” that’s precisely Nader’s point, not as a matter of endorsing it, but in terms of a phrase that vilifies it. “It,” of course, is not the black person in question personally on the level of their skin-color, but the positively disgusting symbiosis between (white) power and self-serving or complacent servitude.
One commenter said something about Nader ignoring or not understanding “the connection between classism and racism,” but I think his remarks are meant to show precisely this connection. That Obama is extremely friendly and promises to be friendly towards the historically white-dominated Capitalist owning class – the thrust of the Uncle Tom remark – is where class struggle and racial oppression are both operating.
I’m really sorry if this comes off as ignorant or a troll, but I’m a 17 year old Canadian and I’m not familiar with the term ‘uncle tom’ or the history behind it. Can someone shine a light on it for me?
Nolittlelolita, don’t seem trollish to me at all — the link to the wikipedia article I left in comment 9 is a good starting place.
Joe:
The trouble with a term like “Uncle Tom” is precisely that it cannot be used with the precision you suggest when you say “I think bringing that ‘oppressed status directly into the picture’ that’s precisely Nader’s point, not as a matter of endorsing it, but in terms of a phrase that vilifies it.”
I was ignorant of the term until I read the wikipedia article, but it seems to me that it makes a specific issue of race, and cannot help but be seen as implying that a person is subservient because of their race – it is definitely a slur on a person’s character, and it links that slur to their race.
And to make the point you’re suggesting, there were much better soundbites or terms that could be used. For example:
“Uncle Sam or Uncle Sellout” would have worked well for the rhythm.
Other terms that would have given the same meaning but avoided the racial slur include: lackey, lapdog, flunkey, puppet, lickspittle, collaborator.
Nader could easily have withdrawn the comment that could cause offence, and substituted another term. He didn’t. Either he didn’t realise that it could be racially offensive or else he didn’t care, or he actually meant it to be a racial insult. None of these possibilities are particularly good adverts for the guy’s character!
And finally – if people of colour say they find a remark racist, generally it is very bad form to try to explain why they shouldn’t (or if a woman says she finds a remark sexist, or a gay person finds a remark homophobic, etc). Especially when the remark is so clearly racially inflected as this is.
@SnowdropExplodes…you make an excellent point about Nader have a wide range of terminology he could have used in the the place of uncle tom. There is no doubt that he was being racist. He would not have referred to John kerry for instance as an uncle tom because the term only works when a black person is the referential. Harriet Beecher Stowe did not name a white man Uncle Tom…She named him Simon Legree, which is who Nader is quickly turning into with his continued racialized commentary.
“I was ignorant of the term until I read the wikipedia article, but it seems to me that it makes a specific issue of race, and cannot help but be seen as implying that a person is subservient because of their race – it is definitely a slur on a person’s character, and it links that slur to their race.”
If that’s the case, then I can understand the complaint. Here, as Cara parted ways with me over my view of racially-charged phrases, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I do not see subservience as being implied, much less inevitably, about the person’s race so much as their particularly subservient character as an individual in the context of certain race-relations. This kind of specificity is why some Native Americans have adapted the phrase as “Uncle Tomahawk” to describe similar sellouts.
As far as I can tell, Uncle Tom is a phrase whose meaning grew out of black usage, which is not the same as apologizing for “nigger” by pointing out that black people say it. As one commenter pointed out, the phrase was even used against MLK Jr. by various black activists, like Malcolm X and Adam Clayton Powell. Harry Belefonte in a similar spirit has called Condi Rice and Collen Powell “house-slaves.” It is in the spirit of Malcolm X that I heard Ralph Nader use it, and it is against this potent charge brought against Obama that brings together questions of class struggle and racial oppression that I see FOXnews waging this spectacle. Calling Obama “Uncle Sellout” purges the point of its potency, the nexus of White, Capitalist power and its support by those it oppresses.
@Joe
I see you want to join Nader on the offensive ignorant racist list. The term Uncel Tom originates with the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin written by Harriet Beecher Stowe about a slave that continued to love and respect his psychopathic master despite numerous torturers. Since the term originates with a black man, that is who is applied to.
It is a racialized term no matter who uses but twice as offensive coming out of the mouth of someone that isn’t black. The fact that you could even defend it, is disgusting. Newsflash you don’t get to tell black people what to be offended about.
He couldn’t just say “leader” and “toady” instead of “Uncle Sam” and “Uncle Tom”? Why does he feel it is appropriate to evoke racist imagery in order to make a point? Thanks for putting this up; my Nader-supporting brother-in-law is going to see it, too.
As far as I can tell, Uncle Tom is a phrase whose meaning grew out of black usage,
which is a big reason Nader does not, in my view, have the right to use that term without being considered racist–he is appropriating a term used historically by the black community for the sake of self-policing. I’m not going to get into the politics of self-policing, because I’m white and don’t really feel I understand the issue well enough to comment, but I do think that IF self-policing in this respect is acceptable, it is ONLY acceptable when it is SELF-policing, i.e. white people don’t get to go around policing black people in such a manner.
Another reason I personally would file this under the “totally freaking racist” pile is that, while Nader’s argument is an interesting and potentially valid one, there is NO NEED to use racially charged language. Nader can and probably has made the exact same argument about white politicians; by using racially charged language he is suggesting Barack Obama should be held to a different standard of selling out than white politicians, which I would call racist.
The term Uncel Tom originates with the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin written by Harriet Beecher Stowe about a slave that continued to love and respect his psychopathic master despite numerous torturers.
Historical nitpick: not quite. *puts on professor hat* In the actual novel, Tom loves his first master (which could be a fault since it is in part his loyalty to this master that keeps him from running away rather than being sold–though Stowe was NOT advocating this as an ideal plan for slaves, as the slaves that do run away are treated very sympathetically in the novel and in fact all get happy endings; the impetus for the book was in fact the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act which imposed legal penalties on those who did not return escaped slaves to their masters), who is as benevolent as you can refer to a slave master as being, and has great affection for his second, who again treats him as well as you can say a slave is treated (and with whose consumptive tragic nineteenth-century heroine daughter he forms a very close bond).
However, Simon Legree, his final master and the only one to use force on him, fills him with “revolting horror” the first time Tom even sees him, and the brutality of Legree’s plantation inspires no love for Legree whatsoever. Uncle Tom himself, in fact, while now a synonym for a sellout to the white community, dies because Legree beats him to death for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of two slaves Tom has helped escape. Tom’s nobility in the context of the book comes from his continued pure love not for whites but for Jesus, and what reads today as passivity was a highly regarded form of nobility to Stowe’s deeply religious nineteenth-century audience. (note: this is NOT to imply Stowe was not racist, as she absolutely sees blacks as “other” and very much falls into numerous stereotypes; however, she also did genuinely conceive of Tom as a hero and introduces him in the novel as such).
The evolution of the term into a pejorative has to do with a number of factors, including (as the Wikipedia article mentions) the “weaker” portrayals of Tom in the numerous stage versions of the show that became many people’s only exposure to the story, the changing conception of masculinity and nobility in the early twentieth century to include aggressive action and exclude Christian forgiveness, and the new militancy and assertiveness of black leaders at that time leading to a desire to break with what many of them saw as a past of appeasement to whites (James Baldwin wrote a scathing essay about the novel that makes many good points, very few of which have anything at all to do with the text itself).
–Isabel, who has written not one but two papers about Uncle Tom’s Cabin this semester, and whose TA is doing her dissertation on evolving depictions of Uncle Tom in popular culture
From Alexander Cockburn’s just published interview with Nader.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
AC What about you calling him an Uncle Tom on Fox?
Nader: On Fox I said that as the first African American president we wish him well. The question is, will he be Uncle Sam for the people or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations which are driving America into the ground. Fox cut it off after “corporations”.
He is less vulnerable to criticism and harder to criticize because of his race. When I said he was talking White Man’s talk, the PC people got really upset.
It doesn’t matter that he sides with destruction of the Palestinians, and sides with the embargo. It doesn’t matter that he turns his back on 100 million people and won’t even campaign in minority areas. It doesn’t matter than he wants a bigger military budget, and an imperial foreign policy supporting various adventures of the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter that he’s for the death penalty ,which is targeted at minorities. But if you say one thing that isn’t PC, you get their attention. I tell college audiences, a gender, racial or ethnic slur gets you upset, reality doesn’t get you upset.
Can Obama speak truth to the white power structure? There’s every indication he doesn’t want to. For example, in February he stiffed the State of the Black Union annual meeting in New Orleans. He’s a very accommodating personality.
Since the mid-1990s….I’ve been quite skeptical of Ralph Nader..and said skepticism was only confirmed by subsequent actions such as his accepting funding from GOP contributors….
Moreover, I completely agree with Cynthia McKinney and other Green party members when she said that Nader has destroyed the Green Party. Here’s a video where she said as much.
…What Isabel said. “Uncle Tom” was used not to refer to corporate sellouts or lazy politicians but to people of color who remained complicit in racism. Whatever its justice, it was specific. It’s not like “shill” or “sellout.” I don’t believe Nader chose it for any other reason than the fact that he was referring to a black man.
And this black man just won the presidency. He won it even though his opponent used appallingly racist tactics, and did so with very little censure from the media. That’s part of what’s so galling about this, personally. And Nader’s question to the interview about knowing the historical use of the term. Historically, demanding the franchise could get you killed. Obama didn’t get here through complacency, not his or anyone else’s.
And if Fox News might have a less-than-selfless motive in their decision to spread the story, well, Ralph should know better than to throw chum to the sharks.
Lalaroo, I guess my point is that it is not only irrelevant to the post, but it is irrelevant. As someone in the disability rights community, red flags are raised when someone wants to put a disabled label on someone. As your initial post was critical of Nader – as well it should have been – pairing that critique with a question of whether or not you can pin a disabled label on him seemed problematic. I guess my question is what do you get out of raising such a question? What purpose does asking it – and getting a positive response – serve?
“Another reason I personally would file this under the “totally freaking racist” pile is that, while Nader’s argument is an interesting and potentially valid one, there is NO NEED to use racially charged language. Nader can and probably has made the exact same argument about white politicians; by using racially charged language he is suggesting Barack Obama should be held to a different standard of selling out than white politicians, which I would call racist”
First, I will say I can appreciate the comments about self-policing. I will refrain from commenting on them at this time, too, other to say that I do not feel as strongly about this distinction between what some communities are “allowed” to say or not. I’m not a fan of identity politics.
I’d like to comment on what I’ve quoted above, because I think that Ralph Nader’s comments have a different stake in them than simply pointing out a “selling out” in some general sense. If that were the case, then of course we’d have to say his language was unnecessarily particular with regard to Obama’s race, especially if like SnowDropExplodes you ” cannot help but [see 'Uncle Tom'] as implying that a person is subservient because of their race.” Nader’s comments are racially-charged because the issue is racially charged. He could not make these specific remarks of John Kerry or any other white capitalist-friendly politician, because there isn’t the same issue of rising out of a minority oppressed by white capitalist power only to support it as there is with Obama. Obama’s race and the race of the interests he serves and steps on by cozying up to white capitalist power is exactly what is at stake in Nader’s comments. Who here is going to deny that white capitalist power exists first and foremost for the sake of (a) whites and (b) capitalist power? Who here is going to deny that serving these interests is consistently at the expense of (a) minorities and (b) the poor? To say Nader’s point can and should be desensitized of its racial overtones, is to deny this powerful intersection of critiques, which was exactly the aim of FOXnews bringing him on air.
Franz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks is a great text on how class and racial oppression intersect to produce a kind of “black success” that is no threat to white capitalist power, but precisely a product of it.
I’m not a fan of identity politics.
And so what exactly are you doing on a liberal feminist blog, that is also anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, anti-ableist (etc)? Just doesn’t seem like quite your scene.
What annoyed me in that video, besides of course Nader’s racism, was the anchor constantly interrupting Nader in the middle of a sentence. That came across as pretty unprofessional, as well as the kind of ironic, mocking tone he had. I’m from Europe and thus never watch Fox, but is that their normal way of interviewing people?
Cara,
I am looking to have civilized, engaging discussions. So far, for the most part, that’s what I’ve gotten. That I’m not a fan of identity politics does not put me at odds with anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-sexism, anti-transphobia, anti-ableist causes—all to which I am very committed. I’m no hipster though, so I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t jive to a politics that characterizes itself as a “scene.”
Joe – I appreciate your civility. I am confused by two things:
1) your definition of identity politics
2) how you can first define yourself as against identity politics and then say that Barack Obama’s support of white-owned corporations is somehow different from that of a white politician because of his race. Perhaps this confusion stems from #1.
Your comments about Barack Obama’s “selling out” to (mostly white-owned) corporations are interesting and I admit I may have been a little hasty in saying there was no racial issue at stake here whatsoever (I had had a very long day and was about to go to bed); you are right that selling out to any sort of major power structure is, in our white-dominated society, selling out to a white power structure. And I think I can understand the idea that doing so by a non-white person is somehow worse than doing so by a white person.
However, I would disagree, because I think that mentality paints (in this case) black people as an artificial monolith, always and forever to be seen in light of their relationship to white people. For example, one of my reasons for opposing our current incarnation of the death penalty is that I think in practice, its use winds up being racist. However, to take a black supporter of the death penalty and assume that their motivation for doing so MUST be their submission/capitulation/support of white power structures, and not their belief that some crimes are unforgivable or whatever, would be in my view racist, because it takes away from black people the same freedom to make up their mind about something and have their motivations questioned that white people employ without a second thought.
Moreover, that mentality shifts the focus to where ultimately I don’t think it belongs. The important facts, in my view, are:
1) exploitative power structures exist that are in our white-dominated society white-controlled
2) the fact that a person identifies with a non-dominant group does not mean they can be trusted to work for the interests of said non-dominant group
Whether this last constitutes some sort of racial betrayal, I don’t entirely consider it my place to say, and I think this is where once again you and I part ways. I think to grant Malcolm X’s usage of the term (to use your example) legitimacy requires that you realize he was using the term from the perspective of a member of the community; I do think identity politics is inherent in his usage of the term and that Malcolm X of all people would NOT have appreciated a non-black person calling a black person out on selling out to whites. (I personally do not agree with Malcolm X’s usage, again because I think it paint black people as a monolith, and in the case of Barack Obama who is half-white, half-Kenyan, and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii I think trying to argue that he ought to embody some particular black identity is especially ill-advised).
On a more pragmatic note, Nader (who has shown himself to be more comfortable than I think is warranted when it comes to policing Barack Obama’s black identity) is NOT unaware of the history of the term, he was not unaware of how it would be received, and for him to complain that people always look at language over concepts and THAT’S why no one’s listening to him is a bit ridiculous, because I think if he truly cares about his big important ideas being heard and not just about getting attention, it is on him to phrase those big important ideas in a way that they and not his language, which he KNEW would offend people, take center stage. His failure to do that leaves me skeptical about his motivations.
Shorter a good deal of people on this comment thread: “It’s okay to call Obama an Uncle Tom if he’s acting like one!!!”
Shorter similar arguments that would never see support from commenters on this blog: “It’s okay to call Ann Coulter a cunt if she’s acting like one!!! or “It’s okay to call Barney Frank a faggot if he’s acting like one!!!”
And so on.
If you want to make an argument against Obama’s policies, do so without using racial slurs that should be abandoned to the dustbin of history. It’s not that difficult, really.
Isabel, thanks for the nice explication of the Uncle Tom mythology. Very informative!
What Vanessa said.
There’s just nothing to love in that clip. Ralph Nader being so adamant about his inalienable right to be an asshole that the rest of his message, which is important, can’t get heard. And cynical glib Fox News reveling in the chance to be holier-than-thou about a progressive issue, anti-racism, while simultaneously getting to discredit the concerns about classism.
Ah, Ralph Nader! I think he’s realized every interview is the same – him giving a standard, monotonous spiel of catch phrases about big corporations, offering no concrete solutions or analysis, and talking over the interviewer and audience. This from a man who hasn’t done a damned thing for progressive causes since the early ’70s – since then, he’s rested on his laurels at best and sabotaged his own work on a number of issues just as frequently. This is a man who does nothing but lecture, has not a word of praise for a single human being besides himself, and referred to civil rights for gays and lesbians, and women’s rights to control their own bodies, as “gonadal issues” of no interest to him or, he implied, any serious person. He apparently expects “true progressives” or what have you to overlook his support for the government’s meddling in the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and his efforts to reach out to some “values voters” summits in the years after the 2004 election.
The racism isn’t new, either. He felt justified, over the summer, in deciding that Obama wasn’t “acting black” or “talking black” enough to meet his (Nader’s) standards – remember that brouhaha? (No word on what exactly made John Edwards “white enough” to merit Nader’s precious respect, or how Nader presumably passed his own test for being “Arab enough” to be intellectually honest, etc.) After all this, there’s no sense in hoping that Nader will learn, apologize, or reflect – it’s like hoping walls will learn to recite poetry. But I’m still reeling from the shock of finding myself taking the side of anyone at Fox News – and I wish Nader would retire from politics to spend more time drag-racing vintage Corvairs, too.
I’m all about some of these comments. “Can we really fault Nader for saying that? Why are we spending so much time criticizing Nader for saying it when we should be criticizing Obama for being one?” Classy. Way to get the point.
I have a question, as someone who has spent little time studying what is said about racism in academia: are there nuances in our understanding of what it means to be a racist?
I ask this, because I have mixed feelings regarding whether this was necessarily offensive rhetoric (for full disclosure, I am a white male).
Isabel, your concern about creating a monolithic image sounds spot on, and this would be my one major concern with what Nader said, but is this racist? Was Malcolm X racist when he did this? Are the newspapers with captions like “First Black President” racist? I really don’t know, so I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on this problem of .
Other than that though, while Nader’s statement could be experienced by people as a racist remark, is it necessarily so? From my vantage point, I thought he was trying to wittily deconstruct or demystify the identity politics that may be keeping some from being more willing to openly criticize Obama for not be progressive enough, for not being concerned enough about minorities, and so forth. That’s at least what it sounds like Nader thought he was doing. He wasn’t just accidentally letting some subconscious racist perception slip out; rather he was intentionally invoking identity politics to point out the danger involved in it. Nader of all people spends the vast majority of his time complaining about how the two mainstream candidates don’t talk enough about the actual issues. Of everyone, he’s the one person I see complaining the most about how there is so little substance in political discourse and instead it is too often a popularity contest.
Now, I say all of this well aware that despite what may have been Nader’s unracist intentions in trying to provoke people, many out there still might take offense to what he said. Which leaves me wondering how we define what is racist, or are there differing types of racism? What is racism that primarily lies in the experience of the receiver of a statement for example, and not so much in the intentions of the speaker? Does such a thing even exist, or am I just imagining an impossibility? And if it is possible, and the person recognizes that those words will offend some (as Nader surely must have), is it there then a responsibility not to use them at all? Where does one draw the line in this regard?
I’ll leave it at that for now. I’d love to hear more people’s thoughts though. And sorry I’m jumping in on this convo so late!
Perhaps I should have added another question: are there nuances in our understanding of what it means for a remark to be racist?
I certainly think that someone can have no intention to be racist but still be racist. Of course. I, myself, have done it. And I know from that experience — as well as the many experiences of having prejudiced things said “unintentionally” said to me — that intentions are largely irrelevant. Someone still ends up hurt, and it’s not the job of the oppressed to give the oppressor the benefit of the doubt. And it’s the oppressor’s job to know better, not the oppressed’s job to teach it.
One analogy I often see with regards to the “intention” argument is that of stepping on someone else’s toe. When you step on another person’s toe, unintentional though it may be, it still hurts them, and you don’t get the right to get mad at them for getting mad at you. Further, unintentionally stepping on another person’s toe more often comes from recklessness than pure accident. What Nader did here was recklessly flail around other people’s feet, knowing full well that it was likely he was going to step on some toes — the toes of those he claims to have been standing up for — and then when he did step on a bunch of toes, didn’t feel the need to apologize and in fact got all huffy at the suggest that he should. He stepped on toes due to his own inconsideration and laziness, and then treated other people like they were the ones with the problem.
Thanks Cara. What you said makes sense to me. Any risk of stepping on toes should be avoided. In fact, this is probably a good general principle too, assuming one really wants to provoke someone to think more deeply and reflectively, rather then merely turn them away in anger and disgust. Circumstances and audience would also obviously need to be taken into account, although I’m not sure if this would apply to race as well (not to mention other possible subjects), or whether some rhetoric is simply always unacceptable.
Getting back to Nader then, even if his ultimate criticisms of Obama have value (which I think they very much do — I just saw today that Obama wants to essentially leave the option of torture on the table — the amount of change we are hoping for continues to diminish), he should have been more conscious and cautious about the rhetoric he was using and how it might affect people.
That being said, this also gets me wondering how we should determine whether a person is called a “racist”. In this case, are the two racist statements from Nader this past political season enough reason to call him a racist, or should we rather simply call the statements themselves racist while opting to describe Nader as foolish, inconsiderate, etc. I ask this, because when I look at Nader’s track record in terms of the policies he supports, I would say that he clearly comes out in support of minorities, indeed, more so than most Democrats probably. What do we do with that conundrum?
One other question: I haven’t delved into critical race theory yet, but does anyone here know of any person or group of people in that field (or perhaps any other fields dealing with questions of race) that are working on these kinds of issues?
I really cant believe that most of you are falling for Fox’s trick.
Im a 43 year old black man from Chicago and wile i didnt vote for Nader (voted for the green party’s Cynthia McKinney) i respect him deeply and he was my 2nd choice.
Nader clearly understands what the term Uncle Tom means to the black community at least were i live, so im not mad at him, in fact i have more respect for him because of his shown understanding of the culture of my community and what barack means to us. As in the book toms cabin “Uncle Tom” is someone from your community that sides with the oppressors (the captialists). If Barack sides with the corporations, which he will, he earned the name Uncle Tom.
An Uncle Tom lacks the courage or the will power to do what is right. And that is why Rev. Jessie Jackson said “id cut his balls off.” Now i think that comment was much more inappropriate because there was no political point.
Naders political point is that Obama can ether be for the bottom 85% oppressed (uncle sam), or the top 15% oppressor (uncle tom)
As usual, Jay Smooth comes to the rescue. Chris, I think this clip is relevant to your comment.
http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
Vanessa, I watched Jay Smooth’s video, and I think he’s right to say the focus should be on the actions or words themselves that were committed by the person or group. However, I don’t think this means there is consequently no importance in asking about the intentions of the person, because there is a difference between someone who intends to be racist and someone who doesn’t. Obviously, it isn’t easy to figure this out when we are looking at people who are not outspoken racists, since they can simply plead ignorance regardless of how they really feel and think, but it’s still something worth thinking about and trying to determine. Among other things, this would entail looking at what the persons as said or did, in what context they said or did what they did, whether such actions occurred only once or have a regular history of occurring, as well as whether there are contrasting actions that would go against the notion that such a person is intentionally a racist.
What do you think?
Oh, and I also think it could very well be the case that a person is a mixed bag, being an ongoing racist in some respects, but not in others.