Uhhh...

This time, however, a lot of the old activists stood in the path of an African-American’s advancement rather than blazing it.

This immediately precedes a discussion of black leaders backing HRC.

Gee, I didn't know backing a white woman with crazy ass experience and credentials, and whom you've known and worked with for decades, by itself qualified as standing "in the path of" an African-American man.

Does that mean, then, that everyone who voted for Obama over HRC is standing in the way of progress for women???

Black women have historically been minimized in the black civil rights struggle. Even though we have actively contributed the leaders have all be considered to be men despite the fact that nothing would have been accomplished without the labor of women. I find this particularly disturbing as we are continually told by the black male patriarchy (yes it exists) that we should put aside gender issues in favor of uplifting the race.

Sorry to double comment, but I just noticed this too:

This newly emerging class of black politicians, however, men (and a few women) closer in age to Obama and Jesse Jr., seek a broader political brief.

That's a little... disturbing. It seems like they're basically just admitting that women of color have no say in these issues, and rather than discussing this problem they continue with the ho-hum overdone generation gap angle.

let's also be clear that, in this case, it's a white man minimizing the role of black women in politics (matt lai). in fact, the words women/woman only appear twice in the article (one of those appearances is an obama quote and the other is the aforementioned parenthetical)... because black women (like barbara lee) don't actually play any role in american or democratic politics. riiight.

mind you, i'm sure this writer is a great guy (perused his website a bit and he seems cool), but it strikes me as a little odd for a white guy to write an article about "the end of black politics."

weird.

Noticeably absent from the picture is anyone with a vagina.

I get what you mean with regard to the photo itself, but I think it's sort of misleading to describe what's missing from the photo as a vagina rather than as, you know, a women. Because, well, obviously plenty of people with vaginas aren't women, but to me the statement suggests that people with vaginas = women -- and that people without vaginas =/= women. I bet I'm not the only person here who'd prefer to see a woman in that photo regardless of whether or not she has a penis.

And this in a year when we actually have an African American woman as the Green Party's presidential candidate - Cynthia Cynthia McKinney and her VP pick, Rosa Clemente, are both WOC. WTF NYT?

I find this very odd, because Carol Mosely Braun, who once held Obama's senate seat is barely mentioned. She only was a senator for one term, but Obama himself credits her for breaking the color barrier in Illinois for statewide elections, and being a fairly influential figure in his life. (Make no mistake, Chicago politics is very tight knit.) Obama often credits Braun and Harold Washington (the late Chicago mayor) for paving the groundwork for his own ascension into national politics. It is kind of sad that Braun, who is a perenial figure in democratic politics in Illinois, is barely mentioned. She is a political trailblazer that is often left out of the dialog.

I am still perplexed why she is not getting interviewed more often, because she can shed so much light into this current election, and Barack Obama's politics.

simone,

there was a really intersted new yorker article a month or two ago (whichever was the issue with the dumbass cover) which outlined the roles of a lot of illinois politicians and operators who were instrumental in obama's rise. several of them (both white and black) were/are women of unique stature and political clout. you have a really strong point, there.

interesting. how many ways can i bungle the spelling of one word?

So they have to put in a token woman? And when there are four women we say why no man in the shot? I'm not feeling that

Lala, how is it tokenism to recognize the contributions of people who deserve recognition? What's conspicuous is not simply the absence of women -- it's the absence of women combined with the fact that there are so many prominent women who would fit in PERFECTLY in that photo.

To me if the writer felt like these were the most prominent people or whom he wanted to feature I don't want him to say opps let me throw a woman in. Its just not that big a deal. If he had picked four women that would be cool. I'd rather see someone write about the women they think should be featured rather than come from a position of weakness and dependency.

@law fairy
I'd rather see someone write about the women they think should be featured rather than come from a position of weakness and dependency.
That is just the point, black women are not weak and dependent we are just created as invisible within the civil rights movement despite the efforts we have made over generations This is sexism plain and simple.

I'm just not comfortable with labels and the being a victim thing. I'm not going to call them wrong just because I might do it different.

Renee, I think you were actually responding to Lala :)

yeah, i don't think TLF'd be caught dead saying something like that.

lala, what do you mean? you know the article clearly states:
This newly emerging class of black politicians, however, men (and a few women) closer in age to Obama and Jesse Jr., seek a broader political brief.

the article makes an explicit point of stating that black women only play a bit part in the emerging political landscape and the author is wrong in that regard. further, renee is absolutely right that this comes on the heels of decades (centuries) of black women's voices being silenced in this country.

this isn't about "the being a victim thing," it's about recognizing that black women, women of color and women in general have never accepted the passive role they're often asked to play and yet their role keeps getting diminished in the re-telling. does that clear things up a bit?

also, i think your point is right. you wouldn't want the author to say, "oops, let's throw a woman in," because that's ignoring the question of: why didn't the author think of the scores of women in politics who are doing groundbreaking work? why did they appear to his consciousness and what does that say about how our society values different people?

why, he's got a whole 'nother article there.

Renee,

I hate to derail, but are you the same Renee that said on another blog that "all men benefit from war rape"?

This article misses the point about Black female political leaders.

They, as a whole, are FAR more progressive than their male counterparts.

Here is a study of voting records, comparing the males vs the females within the US Congressional Black Caucus:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/169/169_cover_cbc_report_card.html

The rising star, not mentioned in the article, is Baltimore's Donna Edwards, who defeated the corporate-friendly Al Wynn in the Democratic Primary.

@Biff--minor correction: Donna Edwards represents mostly Prince George's County in Maryland, which is essentially part of the outskirts of Washington, D.C., rather than Baltimore.

But you are more than right about two things: Baltimore has a strong tradition of black politicians, women and men, and Donna Edwards is real awesome.

Jessica you post misses the point.

There are a whole host of black female politicians. Yes. There is a long history of focusing on black men, positing their needs as black needs. Yes.

But let's say that you added Maxine Waters, subtracted John Lewis. Added Dixon from Baltimore, subtracted Nutter.

And then in the course of the article you interviewed the young Kangol sporting representative from NYC (forget her name), and subtract...I don't know. Booker.

What would be the difference, if the central narrative of black generational conflict/succession is the same?

The growth of black female politicians is going to proceed apace regardless of how some NYT writer chooses to write about black politics.

But we should be much more concerned when the very real things that separate some black interests from others are smoothed over in favor of a "pass the baton" narrative. Or is it me?

Jessica you post misses the point.

There are a whole host of black female politicians. Yes. There is a long history of focusing on black men, positing their needs as black needs. Yes.

But let's say that you added Maxine Waters, subtracted John Lewis. Added Dixon from Baltimore, subtracted Nutter.

And then in the course of the article you interviewed the young Kangol sporting representative from NYC (forget her name), and subtract...I don't know. Booker.

Recognition is important. I get that. But what would be the difference, if the central narrative of black generational conflict/succession is the same?

The growth of black female politicians is going to proceed apace regardless of how some NYT writer chooses to write about black politics. Black women are the natural power players in black politics and they will continue to be.

But we should be much more concerned when the very real things that separate some black interests from others are smoothed over in favor of a "pass the baton" narrative. There is a real story to be told here, and Biff hit it on the head.

The surface "why weren't there more women interviewed here" account misses the more substantive issues. And the more substantive ways that gender influences black politics.

(apologies for the double post...if you can, erase the first, as the second is a bit different and more substantive.)

Lester and Biff,

haven't seen you folks around here before (although, as i've said before, i haven't been reading this blog as much as i used to - you know, before i had gainful employment), but those are some really keen insights.

anyways, while jessica's post may just scratch the surface (literally, external presentation) of what's going on, i think lester's right that the very tangible (and quantifiable, as Biff pointed out) divisions within the black political class are where the conversation ought to start.

perhaps this is the space for that... perhaps, feministing editors, y'all can do a write-up real soon on the points lester and biff brought out. or a piece on divisions within female politicians, as i'm pretty sure that the honor roll women showcased in the CMC Monitor's report card far outshine the average congresswoman. and, lester, is there anything on blacksmythe directly addressing this particular gap in objectives?

The surface "why weren't there more women interviewed here" account misses the more substantive issues. And the more substantive ways that gender influences black politics.

Lester, actually, I suspect you and Jessica are saying the same thing in different ways. In these parts, it's often a safe bet that "where are the women?" is shorthand for pointing out not simply that women as individuals are ignored, but that women's perspectives are wholesale ignored. So, while your point wasn't made explicit in the post, I would argue it's there nonetheless.

I have to think about this a bit TLF. And PL i don't think there's anything on the site that addresses this directly, but i haven't gotten around to tagging everything yet.

Here's the issue that TLF was the first to identify. If there haven't been one "end of black politics"/"new generation of black leaders" article there have been a dozen. And these articles do always focus on black male leadership and tension between this generation and the previous one.

Because these types of articles always focus on men we have to acknowledge the possibility that this is a crucial part of the framework itself. That if all of a sudden they focused on women rather than men, that the framework would fall apart.

But I remember when Clinton was trying to repeal welfare. And the CBC stood by and watched. It wasn't just the men. When D.C. was taken over by Sharon Pratt Kelly, or Baltimore by Dixon, the policies didn't change appreciably. It was Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick who suggested the Fox News debate that activists prevented from occurring.

At the level of leadership the article focuses on (big city mayors, national congressional leaders), I don't know if we'd see the types of changes in tone SIMPLY by changing the gender of the people Matt interviewed.

Being a black female politician--just like, being a black male politician--does not automatically qualify you for inclusion into an article in a national mainstream publication.

The reporter would've been looking for the highest ranking officials, people close to Obama, those with recognizable ties to the civil rights movement and, those with name recognition among the national public.

Given the above criteria, the reporter included or mentioned the obvious choices: Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, Michael Nutter, James Clyburn, Jesse Jackson, Jr, Jesse Jackson, Sr.

Name a black female politician who's had nearly as much airtime--and therefore national recognition--as the above over the past year? That's a better indication of why they didn't make it into the NYT article.

And that problem (yes, it is a problem) is not the reporter's to solve.

Carla, i agree with the essence of your comment.

however, i would "name" Maxine Waters, and do so quickly and easily, as on par with Clyburn et. al.

Matt could have, should have, interviewed Rep. Waters. would have made for a more balanced piece.

Solid post on this article over at:
http://rustbeltintellectual.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-black-politics.html

via Lester's blog:
http://blacksmythe.com/blog/

Tom at Rust Belt Intellectual doesn't directly engage the absence of women from the article, but doesn't have to. Check out #3; there are several quite powerful women who are examples of other flaws in the NYT article.