Class

This is cross-posted at TechPresident

Yesterday I wrote about getting Lost In Hillaryland while driving down to Philadelphia to volunteer for the Obama campaign. In that post at Kenneth Cole’s Awearness Blog, I write about how after the mini-adventure of the day, my oldest came to the same conclusion as Joe Trippi : that Obama was going to lose.

My son’s observation was the most interesting part of the whole trip because it lent credit to my recent thinking of “politics as interface”.

Let’s look quickly at the definition of interface :

in·ter·face
(ĭn'tər-fās') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A surface forming a common boundary between adjacent regions, bodies, substances, or phases.

2. A point at which independent systems or diverse groups interact: "the interface between crime and politics where much of our reality is to be found" (Jack Kroll).

3. Computer Science

1. The point of interaction or communication between a computer and any other entity, such as a printer or human operator.
2. The layout of an application's graphic or textual controls in conjunction with the way the application responds to user activity: an interface whose icons were hard to remember.

An interface is a “surface forming a common boundary”, a space that is not only a common space but a mesh of space and communication. As the Java handbook to object-oriented programming explains rather well, an interface is not just the end result of a design process. Interfaces don’t come from the outside of the software process. It is part of the process itself.

So the surface that creates a common boundary is not outside two distinctive people or two distinctive groups. An interface is not something that is given to a “user”. An interface is a meshing of actions or simply put, it’s a two way street.

“Politics as interface” would be the meshing of actions, states of beings and phases between individuals, groups or even systems negotiating power. As a space of communication and as a meshing of actions, states of beings, wills and desires for power, politics as interface is developed all the time.

Politics as interface in Hillaryland is in the box of buckshot lighters gracing the gas station attendant’s counter. Politics as interface in Hillaryland is certainly the senior women holding posters saying “Honk for Hillary”.

Yet Politics as interface in Hillaryland was the absence of sidewalks down Cedar Road, the expansive manicured front lawns with their mansions in the background and the “Hillary” signs cleaving the dirt in the foreground. It was the absence of white people in the small crowds waiting with exhausted looks on their faces for the bus to come. And it was certainly the meshing sights on the road to Philly of million dollar mansions, to quaint family homes to the “We buy ugly houses” signs next to boarded up brownstones and row after row after row of broken down and abandoned buildings on North Broad Street.

When we got lost in Hillaryland, my son was very keen and very much aware of who had the upper hand in expressing power. And it became even more obvious to him when we went canvassing on the 14th Ward.

This is just so unbelievable it feels like I am in an episode of the Twilight Zone's rendition of Lord Of The Flies.

The fact that the accusation has been published in a few newspaper blogs makes it even worse : LA Times and Chicago Tribune are both alleging that Obama flipped the middle finger to Clinton during the course of a speech in North Carolina.

This.
Insanity.
Has To.
STOP!

You know, because he can't have that much class. Obama could have never scratched his face just because. Especially when it is in the middle of one of the snarkiest and wittiest dressings-down of the media and political elite by any presidential candidate in recent memory.

Yes, you read that right. Some idiot over at both the Chicago Tribune, LA Times took the spweage of several pro-Clinton and Republican blogs and ran with it. They actually took the time to slow down the footage to show how Obama's scratching his face is somehow akin to flipping the bird.

It's just ... OMFG ... this is just outrageous!

A brother cannot have class at all. That's basically what these people are saying. How can he take it and throw it back at them with the class, intelligence and snark they only attribute to their own whiteness? How can this negro be a thug without being a nigger? How can he brush it off and still look damn fucking good doing it.

This post was not supposed to happen this way. I was supposed to give a quick and dirty, "you go girl" to Alisa Valdés Rodriguez for her smackdown of Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer. Why? They've written one of the most poorly researched, poorly fact checked, backed by barely just one expert in Caribbean and Latin American history, anthropology or public policy race-baiting piece of drivel about how Latinos will not vote for Obama because they can't relate to his blackness.

In Obama and the Latino Vote, Alisa goes to bat :

The sloppy, inaccurate story goes on for 32 agonizing paragraphs, using the terms “black” and “Latino” as though they were mutually exclusive – which they are not. Historians estimate that 95 percent of the African slave trade to the Americas took place in Latin America.

To this day, the vast majority of people in the African diaspora live south of the U.S. border, in Latin American countries from Brazil to Colombia to Cuba and, yes, even Mexico. The song "La Bamba," in fact, was brought to the Veracruz region of Mexico by Africans enslaved to the Spanish. The song likely has roots in the Bembe (Bantu) culture from what is now the Congo. This is only a stone's throw, geographically, from the Kenya of Obama's father's birth.

How quickly we forget in this country. How brutally we refuse to learn.

The New York Times not only ignores completely the African history of Latin America by positioning "blacks" against "Latinos" as if none of us were both. To do so is enormously irresponsible because it dissolves from public consciousness the fact that African slavery was a crime committed all across this hemisphere, by colonial Europeans who spoke English, Spanish, Portuguese and French. The story also erroneously portrays Latinos as a race unto themselves - an error egregious enough to be stated in our own census bureau's definition of Hispanic as a person "of any race". Including "black".

I was supposed to expand on Alisa by going deeper into the work I have already covered here, most recently with On Why I Hate Hispanic Heritage Month and Blanquito vs. Latino or the Unbearable Lightness of Being Alberto Gonzales. I was supposed to smackdown Nagourney for his complete lack of any understanding of Latin American history, culture and politics.

And then something happened.

I find it incredibly ironic that since the loss of 2004, certain parts of the liberal blogosphere have complained forcefully about how the 'women studies' groups and "those whinny colored people" are destroying the Democratic Party and yet, here we are, almost a general election later and guess what? The emotional baby-eating feminazis and those colored folks who don't STFU are indeed destroying the Democratic Party we've grown to love and loathe.

I don't know if to to laugh or cry a little.

Oh, who am I kidding : Of course I am going to laugh!

Sure, when I started writing this article, I started out of the anger I felt after reading Gloria Steinem's now infamous "Hos Before Bros" editorial. After all, the mother of the modern feminist movement basically says white women are entitled to have their day in the White House before a black man.

Yet the anger turned into more of an outraged amusement. A lot of people around me are absolutely astounded at the transparent viciousness of the Clintons and company. Yet there's those who are kind of sitting back saying, "We were right all along".

Everything in this country, no matter how you cut it, ends up being about race. There is no denying it. There is no escaping it.

To walk away from a discussion about Race is to walk away from the possibility of understanding better the madness that produces Influence, Power and Wealth in this country. To walk away from Race is to walk away from understanding the craziness that produces this set of rules, preferences and practices we call American 'culture'.

The craziness that, for example, makes it possible for white women to compare sexism to racism.

Ahhh ... hmmmmm ... no.

Farai Chideya must love my evil laughter because once again I join another episode of NPRs News and Notes' Blogger Roundtable. And grock knows it's going to be difficult not to laugh. One of the topics we may be discussing? Tom Tancredo.

Tom Tancreado refused to appear on Univisión's Foro Republicano because he's against the "balkanization" of the United States. You can find his intellectually weak rationalization on this TV news interview. While watching that piece of genius, I stumbled upon an actual interpretation of his annoucement put together by a group called "Team Tancredo" (which may or may not be affiliated to the candidate) :

I honestly can't believe these guys are serious. Do we need to remind Tom Tancredo, the son-of-immigrant Italians, and his team to never go there? Two can play that game. Worst part? The following is a "real life" clip :

Little by little I am getting more media traction and, quite frankly, I am down with that. I am going to post about a TV appearance I made on NY-ABC about two weeks ago but right now I am going to point to you to Farai Chideya's show on NPR, "News and Notes". I was on the show's Blogger Roundtable with Baratunde Thursoton in NYC and Avery Tooley in Washington DC shooting the breeze on the black elite's split between Obama and Hillary, on how Obama is redefining blackness and, more somberly, on the LaVena Johson case.

These 20 minutes are, by far, the funnest I have had in a loooong time. I used to be a voice over artist and, quite frankly, if I had to choose between being in front of a camera or microphone and typing, I would go for the talking --because its easier on the body. And as I said that, I still have my issues when it comes to on-camera work, but that's topic for a whole 'nother post.

Click To Play

So who is waiting wit bated breath for Bratz, The Movie?

At first glance, this looks like a mashup of Clueless and High School Musical, yet take a quick look at this trailer and tell me if you don't see this :

When Bratz were first marketed, they were supposed to be the 'urban' alternative to Barbie. These dolls were dripping in ghetto fabulousness with their dark skins, almondish eyes, texturized hair and in your face hiphop vixen attire. What happened with the ghetto dolls of the toy world? They've all moved on up? Not only that but their café con leche complexions have gone the way of a faint whiff of white chocolate with some dripping of vanilla essence tones.

This is going to be really interesting. It seems like the charges against the three Duke University Lacrosse team members will be dropped.

Over at Feministe's No racism here, no sir!, Jill Filipovic is continuing a discussion about race, welfare and class at Jane Galt's blog that was based on another of Jill's posts : A Conservative Trifecta: Fat-shaming, welfare-state-hating, and victim-blaming.

I haven't asked Jill, but it seems she is doing some really interesting work at NYU Law that has led her to write now some really interesting posts about race and class. The conservative trifecta post is brilliant because it really deconstructs all the conservative bull around discussions of welfare; in particular the "work for food" rhetorical scam around welfare.

Yet ... and yet. I am always disatisfied with discussion like these.

As Jill rightly points out, poverty is almost always falsely equated with race. Yet, I feel the next step is to ask why is it necessary to propagate the myth that social class is somehow only the product of biology? Why is it important to have an Polish-American kid from Far Rockaway believe that doors will open to him just because his skin is "white" and his hair is maybe two shades away from a dirty blonde?

Hence, the discussions offered by naysayers end up being about why they should not blamed with having been borh with white skin. For example, one of her commenters, Henry, wrote some of the following :

I have no problem with welfare per se (although I’d prefer it be done at the state level as opposed to the federal level). My issue is with the idea that it’s my responsibility to provide for the poor, as opposed to an act of voluntary virtue, and that somehow I’m a selfish prick because I feel that I should have as much control over the money I earn as possible. I’m all for private charity, and the more, the better. The idea that I owe anyone anything is ridiculous. I didn’t cause poverty, I haven’t exploited anyone, and no one gave me or my family anything. My father worked 10-12 hour days turning a wrench for everything we had, and I’ve worked my whole life. Yet somehow, those of you who support using the power of the state to steal from some people to give it to others are more virtuous than people who give money privately. Which is nice, as it allows everyone to feel morally superior without affecting their wallet directly.

Lovely isn't. That's compassionate conservatism for you. This guy represents the common apolgists for economic apartheid. To him, whiteness is part of a Darwinian natural selection that he has not control over. It would never occur to this guy to go back through history and see how whiteness has been constructed in his country as a socio-economic tool of opression.

Here's what I have to say about that: