If he didn't know what it means, then how did he know to use it? It's not like macaca just rolls off the tongue. It's not a common word. I don't know that I have ever heard the word before. Either he thought he was just making something up (I doubt it but still racist, or at the very least very insulting, in that context) or he knew very well what he was saying.

I'm willing to believe that the senator would have pointed out a white person from the crowd who had been following him around and taping him for the rival campaign; but I don't think he would have called the person "whitey" or "cracker" and welcomed them to America.

More bullshit:

On Monday, Allen spokesman Dick Wadhams said the name "Macaca" was a variation of "Mohawk," the nickname Allen campaign staffers gave Sidarth for his partially cropped haircut. Allen, however, said Tuesday that he made up the name himself.

Hm. I'm not finding this clip especially convincing. While it may be true that he has serious racism problems, the clip makes it appear that someone has told him that the man's name was Mr. Macaque, or something close. Whether or not he's racist, I haven't seen any evidence that he's mind-bogglingly stupid as well, which is what it would take to deliberately hurl a racial slur on television in the middle of campaigning.

I'm going to speculate wildly that someone close to him who is even more racist and who did know what the term meant referred to Sidarth as "that macacque", and Sen. Allen picked up on it as the man's name.

The only evident racism comes from singling out the only person with dark skin at the entire rally as a token.

Zed, come on now! You can't be serious. What's more likely? That a staffer of Allen reffered to the young man as an obscure French racist term, and that Allen picked up on it? Or that Allen--who was frigging raised by a French Tunisian--saw a face of color in the audience who he knew was working for his opponent and called him a racial slur that he suspected no one would know? He does not look like someone who thought this guys' name was Macaque...he looks smirky and pleased with himself. Plus he told him "welcome to america." I'd say it's pretty goddamn clear what happened. Why are you making excuses for him?

As a person of Indian descent, and also given his pro-life stance while holding stock in Barr, I'm definitely not inclined to show support for this guy anytime soon. But I'm going to toss this out there:

He's going on about how his opponent is meeting with Hollywood types and won't come to "real" places in Virginia like the one where this takes place. Is it possible that by "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia," that's what he was referring to? Then again, I watched Almost Famous yesterday, so Penny Lane's "real world" thing is still in my head.

Even allowing for that, macaque is way too uncommon a term here for him to say it without knowing what it meant, and him making it up makes no sense. Nor does him thinking it was his name, because he probably would have tossed a "Mr." in there.

Jessica, prairielily:

Perhaps you are a substantially better judge of faces than I, but I remain exceptionally wary of trying to derive too much meaning from someone looking pleased. In any case, I would have hoped it would have been clear enough from my comments that I tend to be as focused, if not more so, on the strength of arguments as much as their conclusions. I find this particular bit of evidence a very tenuous support at best for a claim of a deliberate racist insult. I'm sincerely sorry if that makes me frustrating to talk to.

It just seems utterly unrealistic to me that a relatively seasoned politician would deliberately brand himself that way at a recorded public event. This isn't someone's seedy side showing when he things nobody is looking. Your theory means one of two things: he's so incredibly stupid or politically naiive that he didn't think anyone would notice, or that he's so completely insane and shortsighted that he was willing to take the hit to his campaign simply to get in a cheap shot at the only dark-skinned person in attendance, who (if I am interpreting correctly) is actually holding the camera recording for Allen's opponent, and is thus going to be handing that material over to be used in the most hostile manner possible. And in fact, that's what's happened -- it's showing up in the papers as evidence of racism.

I mean, is there anyone here who (knowing what that term meant) wouldn't have been able to predict that outcome if you had been standing among that crowd right when it happened? A direct racist attack on the cameraman of the competition? If this was really intentional, forget the racism -- everyone should be looking at the astonishing stupidity.

It is precisely because the term is uncommon that he could have said it without knowing what it meant -- and he wouldn't have tossed in a "Mr." if he thought it were a first name or a nickname -- and in fact, Allen comes off to me exactly like someone who's been handed an unfamiliar name and is trying (badly) to be personal with it ("... Macaca, or whatever his name is...").

Oh, and don't make too many assumptions about language knowledge coming from a parent. My father is a 1st-gen Pilipino immigrant who actually even spoke Tagalog and Bikol in the house when I was very, very young, though it didn't continue long. My sum remaining knowledge amounts to a couple of dirty words in Tagalog and the Bikol word for 'peanuts'. I wouldn't recognize a slang insult today if it were being used on me.

Given Allen's previous incidents, I will cheerfully concede that he is probably a racist asshole. But every time I've heard his name come up before has been in the context of him being a smarmy, conniving, two-faced type who works at manipulating his audiences, and he's been on tour deliberately trying to undo some of those impressions. Self-sabotage seems completely out of character for him.

I mean, I could well be wrong -- it wouldn't be the first time that I've seen a politician say something completely mind-numbing straight into a camera -- but I find cluelessness significantly more plausible than malice here, especially if he is racist, and is thus likely to be making use of racist assistants with less well trained political sensibilities.

So in short, yes, I find it significantly more likely that a staffer passed it on than that Allen did it deliberately.

... and no sooner do I write that and refresh my aggregator, than I find an article about Allen's 'apology'.

The man doesn't know when to shut up. I take it all back. I find his claim that he "just made the word up" because it sounded similar to "mohawk" completely unbelievable.

I guess he really is that stupid. He's going two for two now, in terms of stunningly idiotic things said publically in a row.

Hey Zed, thanks for the explanation--though I still disagree. I think he knew exactly what he was saying...and while I think he's a dumb ass, I think he's an arrogant dumb ass more than a naive dude just spouting off. But hey, I don't know any better than you...

Did everyone read the apology article Zed posted? I was shocked. He used to keep a NOOSE in his office. Along with a Confederate flag. A NOOSE.

Gawd, can you BE more insensitve???

yeah that came from the ryan lizza article (full disclosure, lizza is my cousin). crazy shit though, right? it's hard to believe anyone could pooh-pooh that kind of stuff. "oh the noose?...that's just historic. yeah, that's the ticket."

EJ:

Specifically, a noose hung from a tree, lynching-style. Which he said "represented his law-and-order stance on criminal justice". (This is from the link in my other comment.)

...

Alright, so maybe I should have clued in earlier that his wattage was a little low.

Will someone explain to me what a NOOSE, as in LYNCHING, as in VIGILANTES, has anything to do with JUSTICE?!?

Gawd. That's all I can say. What a wanker. Has anyone actually voted for this guy or did he just hang the opposition?

Most conservatives are racist even though they conceal it. Good article and I hope that the voters vote Allen down in November.

How did the conservatives (i.e. republicans) get to this point, ooc?

My dad (a stanch repub, at least prior to these Bush years) used to say that the repubs freed the slaves. Fair enough.

But, uh, how did they do a 180 like this? The mind boggles.

I just blogged about this on my personal site. What a creep.

Cheers,

TH

I'd like to reiterate (this is also in the linked articles) that "Mr. Macaca" (actually Mr. Sidarth) is a born-and-raised Virginian himself, from Fairfax.

The whole "Welcome to America" bit is sickening.

Um, I hope everyone here realizes that this was just a "slip." Most white Republican politicians in the South are obviously racist.

As a Mississippian, Viktor, I'm sad to say that I completely agree with that assessment. He had that Confederate flag flying in his home, and the noose hanging in his law office, because they were conversation pieces. Three guesses what those conversations were about.

Cheers,

TH

"My dad (a stanch repub, at least prior to these Bush years) used to say that the repubs freed the slaves. Fair enough.

But, uh, how did they do a 180 like this? The mind boggles."

Because they actively courted southern racists in the past century, who make up a pretty powerful voting bloc. It's the same people who were Dems back then. It's not a 180 so much as a shift of one group of people from one party to another. Make sense?

this may be out of topic, but being a french tunisian doesnt necessarily mean being dark-skinned. A large majority of north africa is relatively light-skinned compared to the rest of africa.

This man is obviously racist. I've see him before, and I read about stuff like this on the political websites every day because it is relevant. Nothing new to me. It always makes me quite angry.

But how exactly is this relevant to a feminist website? I mean, isn't it a little off topic? Racism is a favorite topic here, but it is usually discussed along side woman and feminist related topics.

I'm just wondering. Because if we want to save the world, then I'd like to see some more posts about homophobia and gay-bashing. Which, by the way is inflicted by white and people of color. I see very little topics about homosexuality here by comparison.

MsJane, I think it was just a slow news day. :)

Jess was just giving us the heads up so we'd hae _something_ to bicker about while we wait for the next abortion article. ;)

MsJane, racism and mysogyny go pretty well hand-in-hand (Allen's other records show this in this particular case).

I think the reason Allen was dumb enough to do this is because he knows his voter base won't be offended... which is probably even scarier to me. He knows his voter base will be behind his remarks -- after all, who needs to be concerned with the feelings of a man of Indian descent when we should be worrying about the good white Americans in this country -- and I also believe that Allen is completely deluded (as are many Republicans like him) into believing that everyone thinks the way he does.

And mistskies is right; being North African can often mean that the person is relatively light. But doesn't that make it worse? This racial slur was developed to be used on anyone with even SLIGHTLY darker skin than your average colonial Frenchman. *shudder*

this may be out of topic, but being a french tunisian doesnt necessarily mean being dark-skinned. A large majority of north africa is relatively light-skinned compared to the rest of africa.

mistskies: Yes, you are correct. Indeed, I remember right after the World Cup final, when there was speculation that what triggered Zidane's head butt was a racist comment. Some people on message boards (people who don't follow soccer and were unaware of Zidane's Algerian Berber background) were puzzled - after all, he has light skin and green eyes!

HOWEVER, Allen's mother grew up in a French colonist family in Tunisia (which seems to be much like the pieds-noirs in Algeria). Allen had to have learned the slur from her.

And Allen - well, he deserves a head butt ... and then some. His "I don't know what it means" remark sounds an awful lot like Materazzi (the Italian player who received the head butt) claiming after the World Cup that he couldn't possibly have called Zidane a terrorist since he didn't know what a terrorist was.

This part sounded sinister:

Speaking to a largely white crowd in the southern reaches of the state...“Welcome to...the real world of Virginia.�

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/opinion/16Wed3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Ms.Jane, Andrea said it already, but I'll second that emotion--racism is a feminist issue. As is homophobia. And I'm not going to play the which-oppression-is-more-feminist game. But if you want to read some posts on queer issues, click here (or check out the one this week on homophobia that was categorized under international).

Oh, it just gets better: Allen's newest defense is that he meant to call the guy shithead, not use a racial slur.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/a_new_explanati.html

Andrea, racism and Misogyny are completely different things. They CAN occur together and often do. But they often don't. You can even have a combo....a person who is racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and misogynist. It does not mean all those things are the same.

Jessica, if homophobia is a feminist issue then let's see some posts about it. Because as far as I've been here it's probably been zero. Unless you count Bornstein as a MTF trans and the conversation about being a freak.

I tried your link, and there is one gay topic in August - Bornstein. In July you list a gay dog poster, an interview with Nancy B. on the gay games, a sperm article (not really a gay issue), the Breines interview (no gay issues), and a same-sex marriage issue announcement.

Some of those articles are gay themed, but homophobia is not explored. Even with the Nancy B. interview, it was all "how much do you love winning" kind of thing.

So that's the last 2 months. If I go back further there's more stuff, but again, it doesn't count unless the issue of homophobia is really discussed, any more than an article which happened to feature a woman of color would be considered a discussion on racism.

And by the way all races are homophobic. Some posters here have once or twice mentioned the problematic homophobia and sexism existing in black communities and churches, but no posts show up about it. Nothing about rap lyrics being anti-gay or anti-woman, either. Talk about misogyny. You had an article about an MTV cartoon lampooning Snoop Dog’s treatment of women on a leash. But you never blamed Snoop or any of the rappers. You blamed the network.

What's the deal here?

I ran into some of the same reaction on blac(k)ademic's comments field, and frankly, it baffles the heck out of me. I'm glad Feministing is covering this, and I hope Jessica and company continue to discuss issues like this in future blog posts.

Cheers,

TH

If one clicks on the Queer link, there are a total of 84 articles on the site. Add two from last week (one about AIDs and another about drag queens and homophobia) under International which would be 86 articles.

Click on Racism and Women of Color and there are a total of 53 articles on the site.

So in reality, there are more Queer articles than Racism and Women of Color issues.

Also, about 30% of American women are of color and about 70% of women worldwide are of color. I am not up on the issue, but about 10% of women are Queer. So the site probably needs more articles about Racism and Women of Color.

If you average the number of women of color in the US and in the world, 30% plus 70%, one gets 50% so I think Feministing has been very wise to have chosen 50% women of color mods.

WRT communities of color, there are new developments. Alternet today had an article about last month's influential Second National Hip Hop Political Conference where gender figured very prominently. This is new and what happens in the black community WRT gender usually influences other communities of color. Gender was taken very seriously at this conference.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/40441

So femininists lead the way but communities are not fear behind.

"Add two from last week (one about AIDs and another about drag queens and homophobia) In reality, there are more Queer articles than Racism and Women of Color issues.

Also, about 30% of American women are of color and about 70% of women worldwide are of color. I am not up on the issue, but about 10% of women are Queer. So the site probably needs more articles about Racism and Women of Color."
Posted by: nonwhiteperson

An article about AIDS??? In Africa?? That is what you consider a gay article? How stupid do you think I am.

And "in reality" no, there are NOT more queer articles here than women of color issues. You don't even have to be able to count to realize that. And besides I was referring to discussions on homophobia not queer articles. Racism is discussed here constantly. In fact, it's not limited to official posts, we discuss it with many posts, so you shouldn't feel cheated.

Also, your last comment was frankly disturbing. By your reasoning, the percentage of topics should be the same as the ratio of people it directly effects. Therefore, since gays and lesbians are a minority in number behind people of color, they should get substantially less coverage. That sounds pretty discriminatory. With that reasoning, we can question why, since a small minority of women get abortions, half of the posts are devoted to abortion rights.

And getting back to AIDS, if you want you can check out blackademic's rant on an ad campaign to help AIDS in Africa (sweet jesus not the GAY AIDS!). I ended up there, unfortunately, because TH said something about it. I didn't find the article he referenced, but the one about AIDS made me want to throw up with it's anti-white slurs and misunderstanding of the original ad. But you might love it, check it out.

The DSCC is noting that Allen's comments are, in fact, adversely impacting his campaign. If he thought his voter base wouldn't be offended, he was very wrong -- two thirds of them were.

(How did this turn into a debate over what kinds of articles Feministing should be allowed to post?)

msjane,

you really ought to check yourself. you were really disrespectful on nubian's blog and are being pretty thickheaded here, where you usually have something valuable to say.

as far as there just being one "gay" article in august. so fucking what? there was only one article on "racism" between january and march.

and your point is?

also, i'm sorry if you haven't been reading feministing for very long, but there have been articles on here about even the more amazing of artists out there (particularly sizzla) and their homophobic/ mysoginist lyrics and what that means.

as far as you railing on nubian putting words in her mouth ("GAY AIDS!"), you should really shut the fuck up.

she's talking about a rich, white, north american woman dressings up "tribal" with face paint on and a tag line that says "i'm an african". she's not criticizing the posters because they're rallying support for people with aids in africa, that's just your delusional spin.

realize you're talking about a writer whose blog used to say "black lesbians say what?" right under the "blac(k)ademic" title.

as far as you saying feministing doesn't cover homophobia, what about all the mess about the "questioning" billboards in june (when there were 11, ELEVEN, postings under the "Queer Issues" tag) or the macy's manequin removal?

i mean, really... what's gotten you so pissed off?

you seem to be looking for an excuse to fight and shout down women of color and it's not okay.

peace and blessings

one more thing, could you please specify what you mean by "anti-white slurs"? because the only slur i found on that thread was you comparing nubian and other posters on there to monkeys via your shit-slinging comment.

I'm not an admin here by any stretch of the imagination, and thus have no authority whatsoever, but for the sake of having a readable community environment, could the both of you please tone it down some? As in, a lot?

This is incredibly unpleasant and doesn't seem to be contributing anything useful.

What Zed said. Flamewars are inevitable. Flamewars that spill over from one blog to another and bewilder everyone who only reads the latter blog aren't.

Wow. o_O A flame war without me in it. Is it possible?

The super-weird thing is that everyone in the flame war is usually really cool and intelligent.

HAS BUSH FINALLY MADE US SNAP?!? IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE WATER?!?

Ahem. Sorry about that.

Seriously. I'm not gay, but it seems to my hetero eyes that we get lots of LGBT articles on feministing. And, yeah, we get some WoC articles. And then we get some that are kind of far out and weird but funny at the same time.

I don't think Jess et al claim to be comprehensive - that's why there's a huge-ass list of other good sites on the main page.

I also don't think Jess et al should have to justify why a certain article was posted. If you aren't interested in the topic, then you don't have to post. And if you find a bitchin' homophobe article, why not submit it to Jess? Doesn't she have an email address around here somewhere? Better yet, if you write up your own scathing, witty commentary (that I know you are capable of MS Jane - you're very talented, you know), then she'll have more time to hunt for more articles to post and everyone wins! :)

MsJane...I meant to respond to you earlier but this weekend was a bit crazy. First of all--as always, thanks to Puck and everyone else for your supportive comments.

MsJane, I've tried to explain before that creating a hierarchy of oppressions isn't useful and it's not something I'm interested it. I think you were pretty rude from the outset on this thread, but I let it go...but I really have to say now that you should take a step back.

We work hard (and on our free time) to blog here, and we don't need someone being nasty about us writing too much about race. I mean, really!

Also, I'm not going to sit here and count up the different categories of our posts. How exactly does this work towards bulding a better blog/community/activism?

You might want to give some thought as to why feminists disucssing race bothers you so much. Because if this was really just about a lack of coverage of queer issues, you could have just said that. Or, as EJ pointed out, you could have emailed me with that concern or sent me pertinent articles you'd like to see discussed.

If you really have a problem with the issues we cover or the level of our analyses, well, there are plenty of other feminist blogs that might be what you're looking for. I'm not trying to be nasty. I just don't like to see people coming here lecturing me about what is appropriately feminist and what isn't--not to mention bashing other bloggers.

Puck is right, you were disrespectful on Nubian's blog and I don't need you bringing that here. So please, keep your comments to the discussion at hand and refrain from insulting us and other bloggers. Thanks.

What EJ said. Oh--and as a white guy, I love Nubian to pieces and read her blog on a regular basis. She's definitely on my Bloggers I Would Like to Meet in Person One Day list. Though I tend to skip the comments field because they are inevitably (and inexplicably) full of nasty personal attacks against the blogger.

One of the educational things about my civil liberties site is that, because my photo isn't up yet, not that many people know my ethnicity. So I've had the N-bomb dropped on me no small number of times simply because I'm concerned about black civil rights. I have yet to be flamed on this particular site for supporting gay rights or abortion rights (though I've only had it for five months, so I'm sure I eventually will). Take that for whatever it's worth.

As for George Allen: I'm sure it's adversely affecting his polls in terms of the base, but he knew exactly what it means to call someone "Mr. Macaca" and say "welcome to America," regardless of whether he knows what macaque means (and I'm personally sure that he does), and he knew that volunteer had a video camera. What he's trying to do, I'd wager, is the same thing he was trying to do when he praised the Confederacy and hung a noose in his law office: classic Southern Strategy stuff. Say ambiguously racist stuff, call it a wardrobe malfunction or whatever, and it'll be red meat to rural whites but everyone else will accept the surface-level explanations and assume it doesn't mean anything. A great way to shore up some early support for the 2008 primaries in Southern states without saying anything that crosses the line blatantly enough to be a problem with moderate voters (it didn't scare John McCain away from campaigning alongside him a few days later, for example). I live in Mississippi, and that sort of thing still happens down here all the time. It's a tightrope that, if walked carefully, can easily give a Southern politician the edge. Don't underestimate Allen, and certainly don't feel sorry for him. He knows exactly what he's doing--and has just demonstrated to me that he is (terrifyingly) much smarter than I had ever given him credit for.

Cheers,

TH

I have yet to be flamed on this particular site for supporting gay rights or abortion rights (though I've only had it for five months, so I'm sure I eventually will). Take that for whatever it's worth.

It's probably not worth anything... different people attract different kinds of flamers. My former blog's sole racist comment to date was a self-parodying Holocaust denial, compared to a few MRA comments from late 2005. It's not because gender attracts more flamers than race or anything, but simply because of coincidence. I certainly wouldn't use it an an anecdote illustrating differential treatment of race and gender online, but maybe that's just me.

You might want to give some thought as to why feminists disucssing race bothers you so much. Because if this was really just about a lack of coverage of queer issues, you could have just said that. Or, as EJ pointed out, you could have emailed me with that concern or sent me pertinent articles you'd like to see discussed.

I don't claim to read Ms. Jane's mind, but since a similar thing happened to me a few times, I think I can explain. Sometimes, an entirely mainstream idea - say, anti-racism - gets appropriated by people who aren't particularly mainstream. Then, even moderate manifestations of the idea become suspect.

For a concrete example, I've never been a patriot. Patriotism is one of the rare issues on which I agree with the Marxists. But for the first two or three years after the Patriot Act passed, I went into anti-patriotic overdrive, bashing every blogger who mentioned patriotism, even bloggers who opposed Bush. In 2003 I'd never have supported a candidate whose PAC is called Progressive Patriots Fund. Here a mainstream idea, patriotism, suddenly became associated with right-wing extremism.

I'm not going to get into whether it's justifiable, but it's understandable if people who Nubian flamed in a comment thread on Feministing about an interview with her about race, suspect pernicious motivations when Feministing deals with racial issues afterward. Every innocent mistake becomes a manifestation of extremism; every possible imbalance in the number of posts in each category becomes evidence of a special focus.

The one way you have of ending this - publicly putting down Nubian - is impractical, disproportionate, unnecessary, and heinous. No matter how Nubian has behaved in the past, you shouldn't do it to placate anyone.

Jessica,

I want to address this.

The old post where Nubian was, in my opinion a little disrespectful to one of your guest interviews, was approved of. The second time she appeared, which was on her own interview here, she was incredibly disrespectful. But one of the bloggers came on and defended Nubian, and threatened to ban the posters. Even though there was ample evidence of misconduct. Even though a few of us in addition stumbled across cross-blogs which stated things like "whiteness must die." I mean, Really.

Then on this thread, while I am being completely respectful, puckalish flames me by saying I'm delusional and tells me to shut the fuck up. Instead of calling her on that, just like before, you endorce the bad behavior and "thank" puckalish.

And you have asked me to step back and perhaps find another blog.

None of this is surprising to me. It was all very surprising in the beginning, but as it continued, I began to understand where the cliques are, where the loyalties lie, and where the bias is. It's a stacked deck.

I'm used to many of the kind of techniques used here from listening to the Republican party for years. Name calling. Non-validation. Single-mindedness. Exclusion. Word traps. And when you dare finally assert yourself, you get a Dick Cheney "go fuck yourself" special.

And by the way, the attack from pucklish accusing me of calling someone a monkey of all things, is beyond the pale, and something else which was not addressed here. If anyone wants to check to see what I really said, they can. If my posts are still there.

In regards to criticsm of Nubian. She is a public figure, with a soapbox of her own. She was also chosen as a guest interview here. It is entirely fair to question or criticize her actions in relation to feminism. Because I don't think the two were compatable. If this website chooses to endorse her, fine. But if anyone claims that criticism is not allowed or is unfair, they are wrong.

Jessica, I have heard what you're telling me to do, and this time I'm going the take the hint. As, I assume others have before me.

MsJane, I'll be sorry to see you go given the high quality of your posts on other topics--but if you're going to jump on Jessica and company every time they say something about black civil rights, then you're basically doing a white privilege version of the Hugo male privilege act.

Oh, and I'm in complete agreement with Nubian that "whiteness must die." Whiteness--the idea of a "colorless" and "ethnicity-free" category of people, the infamous "unhyphenated American"--is a concept that needs to die. That doesn't mean that all white people need to die (as a white person, I find that prospect decidedly unappealing), but I get what Nubian is saying and I'm in total agreement with it.

Sorry for continuing this tangent after I've been asked not to. Jessica, I won't be pissed if you delete this, but I felt like I needed to say it.

Cheers,

TH

Tom, the people who are most likely to have no group identity aren't the unhyphenated Americans (who generally possess a strong American identity, even if they are sure American culture is the default one). Rather, they're rootless cosmopolitans like me, who have lived in many countries and just don't find themselves identify with any nationality or ethnicity.

Also, it may be just a question of semantics, but if I were trying to say that white Americans need to stop regarding themselves as just American, I would most definitely not say "whiteness must die." On the contrary, I'd use that phrase if I wanted to argue against a conscious white identity. If I'd lived in the Southeastern US in the 1950s, I might have used that phrase. But maybe it's just me, again...

By the way, I have no idea what "I certainly wouldn't use it an an anecdote" means. I'm not sure whether the first "an" was supposed to be an "in" or an "as," not that there's much difference in this context.

Alon writes:
Also, it may be just a question of semantics, but if I were trying to say that white Americans need to stop regarding themselves as just American, I would most definitely not say "whiteness must die."

It's not so much being just American as it is belonging to an imaginary "default" American culture, which one presumes those of other ethnicities will never be able to participate in American culture except to the extent that they are like oneself.

The problem with racism is the concept of whiteness. If we eliminate the concept of whiteness--whether we're restless cosmopolitans or just identify with a bunch of long-immigrated European-American ethnic groups--we need to get past the idea that whites are not in any sense persons of color, that whites have no ethnicity, that whites represent the backdrop against which all non-whites are evaluated. That backdrop is called white privilege, it is the essence of institutional racism, and in order for institutional racism to end, the concept of whiteness must die. And everyone--including folks like myself, who think of themselves as white--will be better off when it does.

Cheers

TH

I don't think this default American culture is at all imaginary. It existed concretely at a certain time in history; the idea is to make it open to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. This program has already partly succeeded, since it's no longer restricted to Anglo-Saxons even though it used to be.

Although rootless cosmopolitanism is often identified with the West or with white people, it's a coincidence. To wit, the people in my sister's multiracial circle of friends are all as cosmopolitan as she is, and I don't know that any of them has ever given a damn about her friends' national or ethnic origins. Rather than changing non-white people to fit white norms, whatever that means, cosmopolitanism encourages abandoning all sense of ethnic or national identity, be it American, Indian, Chinese, or Kenyan; white, black, or Asian.

I disagree, Allon. I think there's a significant difference between race, which is a socially constructed hierarchy, and ethnicity, which has to do with cultural heritage. The first is harmful, the second, in my opinion, is not, and asking people to sacrifice their heritage is not only asking too much for many of us, but would be a loss, as the vibrancy, variety, and dynamism of urban culture is usually based on the different combinations of ethnicities. Further, cities develop their own cultures: the idea of "rootless cosmopolitanism" inherently suggests that cities are places in which nobody has roots. As a fourth-generation New Yorker, I must register disagreement with that; I am deeply invested in NYC's culture, and deeply rooted in it.

"Rootless cosmopolitanism" is an inherently loaded phrase, in any case, and one that I don't think we should throwing around. As I'm sure you know, it was Stalin's euphemism for Jews, and was part of an anti-semitic campaign that culminated in the railroading of Jewish doctors in a trumped-up poison plot straight out of Elizabethan England. Because Marxism disavows racism and anti-semitism, officially, Stalin couldn't come right out and say "Let's get rid of those dirty Jews"; instead he used the term "rootless cosmopolitans." But everybody knew what he meant, and the results were the same: persecution of the Jews, loss of jobs, and death.

Not a nice term, not one I'm eager to embrace, and not one that is accurate with respect to either Jews or to those of us living in big cities.

Gotta agree there. I'm also not sure if there's anywhere on Earth where ethnicity doesn't matter, so I don't see how being cosmopolitan can make one post-ethnic.

Cheers,

TH