Okay Geraldine

Eighth grader buys Skittles,
draws detention, and loses
his class presidency.

Okay, Geraldine, I’ve seen your letter of resignation to Clinton, and I’ve also seen at least part of your interview in which you continue to suggest that what you said about Obama was true, and claim to not be a racist. If what you said was true, that Obama is only where he is because he’s black, that assumes (or certainly implies) that he has no other credentials, that he has no past accomplishments that are worthy of consideration, that he is there simply as a result of affirmative action, a token Presidential candidate. Even a cursory view of his record at Harvard and Law School, to say nothing of his public service, should make it eminently clear that he is not just some run-of-the-mill black guy who lucked out because of affirmative action. Thus, if I wish to accept your claim to not being a racist, I have to conclude that you are simply stupid. So take your pick, racist or stupid? As you have at least a 20 year history of racist remarks (remember Jesse Jackson), I am forced to conclude that you indeed harbor racist sentiments and express them in public which makes you in any ordinary definition of the term, a racist. That you persist in this behavior, seemingly unaware of how divisive and derogatory it is, makes me conclude that you must also be stupid. As Hillary refused to fire you, or even seriously rebuke you, I conclude that she, too, is either (a) a racist, (b) stupid, or (c) ambitious to the point of blindness. Perhaps it is all three. To claim, as some are doing, that it is just too difficult to decide between a woman and a black man, is a cop-out. Vote for the best candidate, never mind their gender or color.

I must concede, however, that this race and gender business is complicated and sensitive. As it is built in to our language and culture it makes it difficult to sort it out. For example, this morning in our local newspaper one of the headlines read: “Blacks Propel Obama to Victory in Mississippi.” While I suppose it is possible I find it highly unlikely that we would see a headline that says: “Whites Propel Hillary to Victory in Kalamazoo.” Am I being overly sensitive? How about when someone says, “he only won in Mississippi because of the black vote.” He “only” won somehow implies that the black vote is inferior in some way. Would we see a headline that said, “she only won because of the votes of women over 65”? I suppose we might possibly see a headline that reads: “she only won because of Hispanics.” But it seems to me that would put down the Hispanic vote in the same way as the Black vote. What about describing a black candidate as “clean and articulate?” Would you expect to see a white candidate described in those terms? I don’t think so. Now obviously this is not as bad as “nappy headed ho’s,” or “see macaca over there,” and such, but it is discriminatory all the same. This race business is tricky.

Gender is just as tricky, maybe worse. “She was wearing a tasteful beige pants suit with a lovely and colorful silk scarf.” Would you ever see, “Bush appeared in another fine $2000 dollar suit with handmade $1000 shoes? How about “she has the look of a castrating female?” Or related, “When I see her I just unconsciously cross my legs.” How about, “she’s as tough as a man.” You would certainly never see, “he’s as tough as a woman,” now would you? How about her cackle? You ever hear about a man’s cackle? Then there is cleavage to worry about, not really a problem for men. Then there’s, “she’s really bitchy today, must be her period.” We already know, of course, that women are too emotional, they tend to lack the ability to reason, and etc., etc., etc. Consider what men were writing about women in the not too distant past:

“…All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women, as well as poets and novelists, recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently we may neglect them entirely: (Gustav LeBon, quoted in Langness, 2005:54).

Darwin, himself:
“It is generally admitted that with women the power of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” (quoted in Langness, 2005:55).

You see, we’ve come a long way, baby, or have we?

LKBIQ:
“We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine.”
H.L. Mencken