TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.08.2008
Michelle Obama's Class

Michelle Obama

David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is the author of Love the Work, Hate the Job: Why America’s Best Workers Are Unhappier than Ever.

Peggy Noonan once wrote that Ronald Reagan had the mannerisms of a “happy working-class guy from his generation.” On the first night of the Democratic Convention, Michelle Obama presented herself and her husband as happy people from working class families from their generation--the youngest baby boomers who came of age long after the turmoil of the 1960s.

By the time the convention is over, the speakers will have used the phrase “middle class” much more than “working class.” But, last night, Michelle Obama used the phrase “working class” at least once, when she said Barack Obama “was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents, and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did.” Earlier, she’d described her father as “a blue-collar city worker” and mentioned that her mother had stayed at home to raise her and her brother, Craig Robinson, now the men’s basketball coach at Oregon State.

Michelle Obama’s emphasis on her blue-collar roots served several purposes. It inoculates her and her husband against the Republican attacks that they’re out-of-touch elitists, in addition to Barack being a secret Muslim, Michelle being “bitter,” and both being anti-American radicals. By revealing her roots in the black working class--and rooting Barack Obama implicitly in the white working class--she refutes right-wing populist attacks that the Obamas look down on working Americans.

Recalling their working-class roots does more than play defense--as Coach Robinson might say, they’re playing offense, too. Obama’s populist appeal is strengthened by the fact that he was raised by a single mother as well as by middle American grandparents, that he studied hard and worked harder for everything he has, that he turned down lucrative jobs on Wall Street to organize jobless steelworkers, and that he married a woman from a working class family.

But, like all authentic populisms, the Obama’s appeals rest on pride, not pity. The stories Michelle Obama told--of her dad taking an hour to get dressed because he suffered from MS, of steelworkers struggling to find new jobs, and of day shift workers kissing their kids goodbye before they went to work the nightshift, too--describe people finding dignity and even joy in difficult circumstances. Implicitly, she dispelled not only the slur that she herself is bitter, but also the memory of her husband’s controversial remarks that some working class Americans are bitter.

Ironically, the last presidential nominee who had to remind the voters that he was raised by a single mom and working class grandparents was Bill Clinton in 1992. Even after he clinched the nomination, surveys showed that many voters assumed he was one more upper middle class ‘60s radical turned careerist. At the 1992 convention, this view was dispelled by the video, “The Man from Hope.” Sixteen years later, Michelle Obama reminded Americans that she and her husband grew up with pride and hope and their share of joy. No doubt, Joe Biden will make similar points about his upbringing. They understand--as Noonan and Reagan did--that working Americans won’t vote for the party of pity. 

--David Kusnet

(Photo: Getty Images) 

Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:52 PM with 46 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Wandreycer1 said:

What a beautiful piece David, someone who finally gets it in media-land.  THANK YOU.

August 26, 2008 12:20 AM

scire said:

Did you see how BIden was conducting himself with his grandchildren (playing with his younger granddaughter's hair, obviously giving his older granddaughter pointers on good manners)? And how he got choked up when Michelle was giving her speech?I'm so glad OBama chose him. And so nice to see the democrats with two guys who represent the American ideal.

Whereas McCain seems totally disconnected from his children and family.

The one appeal of BUsh has been Laura.

And I believe that the reason Rudy imploded was because of his lack of this family thing that the Republicans are so hung up on (you'd think they'd credit the OBAmas for this at least).

The only reason McCAin didn't was because he was the most known entity and the last man standing. BUT he's much closer to Rudy on the family front than he is to Obama.

And their one family guy was Romney. but he was a shiny happy mormon. woud he have done better if he were a shiny happy evangelical?

OR maybe the happy family republican ideal is  a myth?

August 26, 2008 12:22 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

This speech was a five star home run.  

August 26, 2008 12:24 AM

gurdjieff66 said:

So Michelle Obama is being "authentic" when she talks about how much she respects Hillary Clinton and the 18 million people who voted for her against Obama?  

This woman here?:  www.youtube.com/watch

Anyone really think she genuinely loves America, irrespective of how well her husband does this year?   The same woman who wrote her bachelors thesis about how miserable black people admitted to Princeton really are?    

What sort of drugs do liberals have to take to believe these kinds of things?  

August 26, 2008 12:42 AM

ralphnelle said:

*She* is Bill Clinton's heir. Talk about an ability to connect with people. Wow. The woman has incredible, effortless talent.

August 26, 2008 12:49 AM

psantillana said:

I don't think it's effortless. She did a fantastic job convincing everyone that she's American, despite being black, but I think it can't come easily to anyone to have to come before a microphone and justify your existence, and to essentially ask for membership into a club you really should have been born into, but - surprise surprise! - you need to lay out some further credentials at the door, and you still get looked at funny. You can work relentlessly to get your children into Princeton, and then see them have to bend over backwards to please be thought of as hardworking regular people.

Once again, I hate everyone. But gurdjieff66 in particular.

August 26, 2008 2:01 AM

ironyroad said:

G66 writes:  "Anyone really think she genuinely loves America, irrespective of how well her husband does this year?"

What do you mean by "genuinely"?  Something on the lines of "oh yes, and I'm sorry we made such a fuss about that slavery deal -- we just got a bit carried away, you know.  Rankled a bit.  But I'm ok now.  Got OVER IT.  Hey, what's everyone having for breakfast?  Is there any french toast left?"

That's what you're looking for, G66?  Or does she have to weep copious tears and dry her eyes on the flag?  Or maybe sprawl over the figure in the Lincoln Memorial, murmuring god bless! god bless! god bless!

What would put your mind to rest?  It's difficult to know for sure, as you obviously see a direct connection between identifying a discomfort among black students attending a mostly-white Ivy League school and hating America.  What would assuage that?

Maybe Michelle weeping at the Marine Corps band playing the Princeton fight song?

August 26, 2008 2:23 AM

ralphnelle said:

I meant she makes it look effortless. No doubt she spent weeks (with speech coaches, etc.) preparing for this. I'm fine with that: the Obamas put their time in and get it done.

August 26, 2008 2:31 AM

scire said:

what psantillana said.

August 26, 2008 2:48 AM

psantillana said:

I get it now. Hate America = find some fault with some white people at some point in some context, ever.

August 26, 2008 2:51 AM

psantillana said:

Yes! ralph, she did make it look effortless - but actually not too effortless, and because of that it was all the more moving - to me, anyway. When I found out she was speaking, I was all, "I like her, but why is she speaking? Why the wife? I don't get it." But now I get it. The older I get, the sappier I get, too. And the more I care about character and less on the specific details of a policy, or an iffy position. Not that I don't care about the latter, but they weigh less in the scheme of things. That stuff can change, but who you are does not, and it shows up down the line in how you run things. So call me naive, but I have the feeling that Obama will not favor ethanol subsidies if/when he comes to believe that they are worthless, just because Big Corn is contributing to his campaign. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, did some very squirrelly things with enforcement [or non-enforcement] of the Clean Air Act which I will not go into here. I don't trust him. I am now babbling and will stop.

August 26, 2008 3:03 AM

governorjohn said:

gurdjieff66, the answer is obvious: liberals smoke pot. Makes us all philosophical and happy. But it's better than the blow the conservatives have been snorting these last 30 years--just makes them want to blow stuff up.

August 26, 2008 3:10 AM

hemlock41 said:

Gurdjie asks: "Anyone really think she genuinely loves America...? The same woman who wrote her bachelors thesis about how miserable black people admitted to Princeton really are?"

Actually, her thesis was about social alienation, not misery. There's a difference.

And it sounds like you don't know very much about Princeton. Although it's a great school that uses its wealth to give students amazing educational opportunities, the social culture on campus is decidedly, er, un-inclusive. It's like a country club on steroids. Even many of the white students I knew there who were solidly middle class but hadn't grown up in the kinds of setting that imparted the 'right' tastes, attitudes, and cultural opportunities felt somewhat alienated socially. When you add racial difference to the mix, I'm guessing the experience of some social alienation would be inescapable.

To see why, you only need to read up on Princeton's clique-ish "eating club" system. It's the focus of undergraduate social life on campus. The clubs are run by students as private social organizations and are extremely selective. They also have their own private endowments -- some of which are fabulously wealthy. Unsurprisingly, the clubs reproduce the particular culture (to use an overblown word for it) that is dominant on campus. Add to all this the fact that Princeton is not located in a major urban center, which could otherwise give students a social or cultural "escape hatch", and you have a recipe for alienation among those from diverse backgrounds.

In the early 70's, the university built a separate social club so that students of color would have a place to socialize where they wouldn't feel so isolated or alienated. Up until about five or six years ago it was called the "Third World Center."

And if you're still tempted to dismiss the social significance of race in such a setting, then you might read up on Michelle Obama's first year roommate. There were some good newspaper articles about her a few months ago. When her mother discovered that her daughter was assigned to share a room with a black student, she lobbied officials to have her daughter moved to a new room and, eventually, the officials gave in and moved her.

Only someone who lacks even  a rudimentary capacity for sympathy would be unable to see why she might have felt a little alienation in such an environment.

August 26, 2008 5:20 AM

gurdjieff66 said:

No, hemlock, I'll save my sympathy for more deserving people than a woman admitted to one of the most elite colleges in the country on substandard grades and SAT scores (similar, yes, to the "legacy" admittees that you and others are no doubt eager to mention).  I don't think I have an obligation to empathize with her whining about the alienation that comes from having to take classes with the most elite and privileged people her age in the entire country.  And yes, I think the proper attitude for her, and for American blacks, ought to be gratitude.  Gratitude for her and her ancestors having been born in America rather than pre-colonial, colonial or post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa.  (Can you name me a country there which you would prefer to live today over America?  Can you argue that a black African slave was better off under African or Muslim masters, rather than in a country committed at least on paper to the notion that all men are created equal?)  

Funny, having read "The Chosen", about the discrimination that Jews faced and overcame in getting into the Ivies, I don't recall reading of their whining about how alienated they felt from the WASP majority.  They were too busy studying and preparing to join the ruling class.  Whether they managed to join and alter the dominant campus "culture" or not, they simply went about their business and left the alienation issues to Norman Podhoretz, Phillip Roth and others.  

BTW, your comments about her roommate and the Princeton eating clubs reveal your own double standard.  You imply that the segregated social clubs for blacks that developed in the early seventies were a necessary result of their inability to relate to whites on campus.  So -- if Princeton blacks were justified in having their own social clubs (which BTW I agree they are) -- I suppose a black woman like Michelle Obama would also be justified in trying to replace her white roommate with a black one to whom she could relate to better.  (Black-only dorms were a common demand of black militants in that era.)  Yet, a white girl is not allowed to express, or have her parental guardian express, similar preferences of association, without being condemmed as a vicious racist.  

Ironyroad, like I said, gratitude is the proper attitude toward a country were blacks have ALWAYS had either more opportunity and freedom, or (prior to emancipation) at least a better overall quality of life, compared to blacks anywhere else in the world during the same period.  

August 26, 2008 7:21 AM

sdemuth said:

gurdjieff66,

Man, you got an anger problem here.  You want more from a black person in order to admit them into your finer graces than that they come from an intact working class family that did everything in their grasp to put their children through the best schools, that they took that opportunity to become a respected, achieving professional, that they obviously love and respect their spouse and children, and are making a solid family life for them.  No, that's not enough.  They have to never have had or voiced any doubt about this nation's commitment to equality for their race, notwithstanding that when they were born, they were "niggers" to half the country; their father or uncle would be at risk of being lynched in half a dozen states if they so much as said "hey" to a white woman; and no one in their ancestry had EVER had a reasonable shot at a decent education in no small part because of race?

Yes, some white people had and have hard circumstances too.  But I recognize my (white) family's story in Michelle Obama's words.  I had lot's of breaks growing up - some of my parents' making, some because total strangers took an interest in me, and some because I was smart enough to look like a good bet - but like Michelle Obama, all of them would have been meaningless without hard work to put meat on the bones of those opportunities.  And yes, like Michelle Obama,  I had and voiced doubts about this nation (due in no small part to it's unfathomable, to me, willingness to draft me as cannon fodder for an insane war in SE Asia).

We and she nevertheless love this country as much you or anyone else.  We love it enough to criticize its policies where they appear wrong to us, just as we love our kids enough to discipline them when they are or were wrong (mine are grown).  We love it enough to stay, when we've had adequate opportunity and resources to leave.  And we love its principles enough to understand that there is room  even for people as short-sighted and angry as you are, because there is always hope here that you'll pick yourself up and join the rest of us in moving forward.

August 26, 2008 8:09 AM

Political Animal said:

MEET MICHELLE OBAMA.... By most measures, Michelle Obama was under quite a bit of pressure last night to deliver a great speech. She's been the target of some pretty vicious right-wing smears; polls suggest public perceptions of her aren't entirely..

August 26, 2008 8:14 AM

satyendra said:

Last night saw the launch of the Michelle Obama brand, a brand based on substance.  She's good people.  I don't know her family personally, but I know their kind - the backbone of America. I know she was telling the whole truth when she talked about people who worked the day and night shift without complaint.

I'm curious as to why they didn't trot out Barack's grandmother, who's alive and well in Kenya?

Gurdjieff, what's your source for Michelle's substandard grades and SAT scores?

August 26, 2008 8:32 AM

satyendra said:

Oh, I loved Michelle's story about meeting Obama cute.  Imagine Cindy McCain trying to top that one. "I was at one of Daddy's parties, when from across the room I spotted a married father figure..."

August 26, 2008 9:02 AM

Lyn39 said:

sdemuth, well said.  

August 26, 2008 9:11 AM

dbhuff said:

Sdemuth, concur, well said. I would just like to point out that someone who obviously has such hate for Ms. Obama and 66 clearly has some other issues. You don't even know her? You see a couple of soundbites with right wing comentary and bam, she's toast in your world? Hmmm...redemption must be damn near impossible for your god...

August 26, 2008 9:26 AM

Idefix said:

Yes indeed, G66 definitely has other issues. Bitter white man anybody?... I am always surprised at how nice and considerate most TNR readers are, always willing to give someone the benefit of a doubt, even to those who clearly do not deserve it.

August 26, 2008 9:41 AM

ironyroad said:

"Ironyroad, like I said, gratitude is the proper attitude toward a country were blacks have ALWAYS had either more opportunity and freedom, or (prior to emancipation) at least a better overall quality of life, compared to blacks anywhere else in the world during the same period."

You don't think the complete deprivation of any and all civil, legal, and rights on the basis of race (indeed, any racial admixture, quite often) might affect the "overall quality of life"?

If that's the case, one wonders why the American Revolution happened, with all that quality of life under the Crown.

August 26, 2008 10:22 AM

sabatia said:

I watched Michelle's speech(and Teddy's too). It made me so proud to be American and also reminded my of how hard my father, a first generation Jewish American small businessman, worked so that his wife could have a nicer home than his or her parents and so his sons could have more opportunities than he had--by far.

I am a cynical sarcastic older guy--"hardboiled"-- who had tears in his eyes for Teddy and for Michelle. They give me hope that this can become "a more perfect union."

And it was just amazing, truly amazing, to see a working class black woman on the stage on her way to our White House. It was our future. They are our hope.

August 26, 2008 10:46 AM

ironyroad said:

Sorry, typo -- that should read "civil, legal, and human rights . . . "  Not a morning person.

August 26, 2008 10:50 AM

purcellneil said:

The lady made a fine speech that could not have offended anyone.  Anyone who attacks her now is only going to look like a complete ass, as a few of our commenters above have amply demonstrated.  

Neil  

August 26, 2008 10:55 AM

fernandd said:

"or (prior to emancipation) at least a better overall quality of life, compared to blacks anywhere else in the world during the same period."

Whatever you believe about Michelle Obama, that part of the statement is TRANSPARENTLY false.  You must have had the textbooks in school referring to slaves as generally happy and well-treated, which have been completely discredited for factual, not political, reasons.  

August 26, 2008 10:59 AM

csmiller said:

"gratitude is the proper attitude toward a country were blacks have ALWAYS had either more opportunity and freedom, or (prior to emancipation) at least a better overall quality of life, compared to blacks anywhere else in the world during the same period."

I see - colonial slaves had a better quality of life than free Africans in their homeland.  And they should be thankful for being kidnapped and brought to the New World in shackles and enslaved.  These are things for which African slaves should have been thankful.  Hmmm.

What kinds of drugs are YOU taking?

August 26, 2008 11:01 AM

The Plank said:

Michelle Obama's Class by David Kusnet The Surprising Inside Story Of How Obama Scored The DNC Keynote

August 26, 2008 11:06 AM

icarusr said:

Colour me intolerant, but I have a policy of considering anyone who in any way defends the institution of slavery ("the slaves were better off than in their homeland" kind of argument) to be an unreconstructed moron, not worthy of a response.  I mean, how do you "reason" with a person whose basic value system is stuck, at the latest, in 1792? (1793 is when slavery was abolished in the British Colony of Upper Canada by Governor Simcoe, so at least at that date in North America there was someone who realised there is something morally wrong with an indefensible institution.)

August 26, 2008 12:25 PM

basman said:

I have a different take on this speech and on the main post. My problem with the post is that it assumes without demonstrating that the strategic imperatives that drove the speech—such as emphasize the Obamas’ working class bonds and gain that constituency— worked. One can imagine the preparation of the speech, its public relations infusions, and the vast amounts of political calculus informing it. That cuts against its effectiveness. It seemed scripted more than natural or spontaneous.

The Obamas can emphasize their working class roots and I respect both of their impressive achievements. But for reasons that are partially disturbing and partially a product of who the Obamas seem to me to be, I do not detect that her speech, as assumed by Kusnet, forged a link with that constituency. I saw it in Bill Clinton way back when; I saw it in Hillary after she “found her voice”; I see it in Biden. But I don’t see it in Barack nor in his wife.

Time and polls and votes will tell, to state the obvious, which I have a firm grip on.

So I don’t think as does Kusnet that her speech “inoculated” Barack from charges of elitism or being “out of touch”, with that phrase understood as necessarily including an emotional connection with working class Americans.

JFK did not have it; RFK did.

The Republicans will replay the string of comments about “really proud” and “bitter clinging” and “really mean” and for the reasons that are disturbing I think that replaying will be effective. I hope I’m wrong.

Here is a precise example of Kusnet assuming what he needs to demonstrate, as though the speech were a silver bullet:

“By revealing her roots in the black working class--and rooting Barack Obama implicitly in the white working class--she refutes right-wing populist attacks that the Obamas look down on working Americans.”

In a word (or three), Kusnet has conflated intent with effect

August 26, 2008 12:30 PM

ironyroad said:

All political interventions are conflations of intent with effect until one sees the results -- which may not appear for a while.  Nothing unusual here.

August 26, 2008 12:42 PM

gurdjieff66 said:

I'm not angry at all folks.  I am just your typical former white liberal who unlike most white liberals actually has lived and worked with and around lots of black people in urban settings over the years.  As a result, my views more like those of an old southern conservative democrat, of the kind who were thrown out of the democratic party in the sixties, when we became the party of whites with graduate degrees and minorities and we began our streak of losing seven out of the last ten elections.  And if I'm a "racist", I sure am a funny one:  when I pull the lever for Obama this year, in order to try to get some kind of national health insurance and prevent a neoon war with Iran and Russia, it'll be the second time I've voted for a black in a presidential election (first was buchanan/foster in '00).

What I am, however, is strongly persuaded that most "anti-racist" rhetoric is destructive and spurious.  Destructive for one reason because it discourages blacks from seeing opportunity -- why sacrifice and make an effort if the system is stacked against you and you're "owed"?  Spurious because so much of it is based on selective history and hyperbolic conclusions.  Take lynchings.  According to the Tuskeegee Institute Lynching Inventory, in the eighty six years from 1882 to 1968 there were 4,743 people lynched in the United States: 3,446 Negro and 1,297 white, an average of 40 blacks and 15 whites each year.  Why don't you ever hear about those whites?  If the black 73% of lynching victims were victims of racism, what were the 27% who were white victims of?  The fact is that lynching was a reprehensible form of extrajudicial terrorism that affected both whites and blacks, and blacks suffered disproportionately.  But it is not true that all victims were black, or usually innocent of the crime they were accused of, and usually accused of some innocuous misdemeanor.  Rather than being an example of white racism, lynching was an expression of barbarism, just like the actions of the black rioters who have destroyed billions of dollars worth of property and hundreds of deaths in the past century.  

csmiller -- the africans sold to the european slavetraders were already slaves, so their choice was not between slavery in america and freedom in africa.  It was between becoming a slave in america, and being one in africa or arabia, a propsect which often entailed mandatory castration of males.  And even if one is comparing slavery in america to non-slavery in africa, I would be very surprised if the mortaility and illness rates in the antebellum south were not significantly higher than for "free" people sub-saharan africa.  In fact they were probably higher for slaves in the antebellum south in the mid-20th century than they were for potato farmers in ireland, factory workers in manchester, and foot bound prositutes in shanghai, and the rest of the allegedly "free" wretched of the earth.  

satyendra -- my source for claim that michelle had substandard grades and scores was the newsweek cover story on her here:  www.newsweek.com/.../4

August 26, 2008 12:48 PM

hemlock41 said:

gurdjieff66:

Wow. Where to begin in responding to such ignorance, bitterness, and hatred. Obviously there's no point in trying to engage with you on these issues, so why waste my time. I'll just say that I have no double standard: whether it's a black student or a white student, when someone demands to change roommates for racial reasons, the correct response by university officials in my opinion is: "accept the results of our neutral assignment lottery or attend a different school." To bring freedom of association into it, as you do, is laughable. Students at Princeton, as elsewhere, have freely chosen to join this particular "association" and are free to leave. An institution of higher education that cares about its educational mission should not cater to racism in any way, since racism undermines various aspects of its mission. (Addressing merely personal conflicts among roommates, as opposed to racial conflicts, is a different matter and I realize that sometimes it might be hard to tell the two kinds of conflict apart. Still, the principle should stand; there should not be a double standard.)

Having said that, it would be stupid to pretend that that such requests to change roommates do not occur within a broader context of social inequality. The context colors the meaning of such requests to some extent, no pun intended. It would also be stupid to pretend that, back then, black students in such situations were just as likely to request a change of roommate on racial grounds as white students were (even in cases where they might privately feel more comfortable rooming with other black students.)

Incidentally, from what I've heard about Obama's thesis (though it's not published and I haven't read it firsthand), she did not adopt an even remotely "militant" stance in it. It was an academic examination, within a sociological framework, of a particular (local) kind of social alienation. Whether you think this kind of study sheds light on an important aspect of social relations or is mere "whining", it exists in abundance in academia. And just because the one source you mention (!) doesn't engage in such analysis on behalf of Jewish students at Ivy universities doesn't mean that such an analysis isn't out there somewhere. Sheesh.

By the way, the roommate's mother now readily admits that racism, pure and simple, was what motivated her demand for the change. She doesn't try to rationalize or dress it up as an "inability to relate to" someone of a different cultural background. And she now regrets her actions and admires Michelle Obama.

Okay, I'm going to stop wasting my cyber-breath now.

August 26, 2008 12:55 PM

ponty said:

Michelle Obama may have made a good speech but the story related only reconfirms my doubts about Obama and his political pursuits.  The deep trauma of his lack of a father figure and his reliance on strong women in his life only increases doubts about his strength in leading a country in a dangerous and troubled world.  He has a need for approval which explains in my mind his academic success and entrance into politics and his following of Rev. Wright for so many years.  As nice and smart as his wife is, the problem is Barak Obama and the intense need to turn the world into his own mini-drama is frightening and reveals a huge ego with a great hunger for approval which even his wife's adoration won't satisfy.

August 26, 2008 12:58 PM

hemlock41 said:

"You imply that the segregated social clubs for blacks that developed in the early seventies were a necessary result of their inability to relate to whites on campus."

I did not imply this. If anything, the Third World Center was a result -- necessary or not -- of the inability (or unwillingness?) of many white students to relate to blacks on campus. Again, there's a difference. In other words, it was an attempt to help minority students thrive in an environment where they were in a tiny minority, faced a degree of hostility and/or indifference, and had no ready-made infrastructure for social interaction or mutual support upon their arrival (such as, for example, a shared place of worship like a church or synagogue.)

August 26, 2008 1:18 PM

ironyroad said:

"And even if one is comparing slavery in america to non-slavery in africa, I would be very surprised if the mortaility and illness rates in the antebellum south were not significantly higher than for "free" people sub-saharan africa. "

Lord, G66, you just don't seem to get it, do you?  It's not about "quality of life" in the material sense or mortality and illness rates.  It's about the basic incompatability of freedom and servitude.  Chattel slavery denies a person their personhood, the basic freedom of being in charge of his or her own existence.  It tries to make you a different and lower type of human being, one completely in thrall to another.  If it's done on the basis of race (there could be other grounds), then it's doubly evil because race, unlike class, can't in the normal run of things be disguised or adjusted.

Indeed, as Frederick Douglass once pointed out after traveling to Ireland and Britain, the condition of the Irish peasantry during the late 1840s was, by some measurements, notably worse than that of black American slaves.  The more important distinction, however, was that the Irish were not deprived of all civil and human rights, whereas the black slaves were.

August 26, 2008 1:23 PM

basman said:

...Nothing unusual here...

It undermines the logic of his post, completely. Ultimately, therefore. if my take is right his post is incoherent. I find that unusual.

August 26, 2008 1:32 PM

ponty said:

To cut to the chase, leaving slavery aside, the issue being addressed is the idea that negative thoughts and feelings about America, or about one's suffering and disadvantage are not things one can build something positive upon.  It is a fatal flaw to see the world in this way, instead of looking for the basic good that unites all people, to focus on flaws in others inevitably represents seeing flaws in oneself projected outwards.  Barak Obama has an ego and need for approval that is international in scale.

August 26, 2008 1:33 PM

basman said:

about gurdjieff66

I think this guy's a waste of time. He may even be engaged in some Peretzian bad faith chain pulling, just to see what rise he gets.

August 26, 2008 1:34 PM

hemlock41 said:

gurdieff66: I was writing my response to your first post when you submitted your second. I strenuously disagree with what you say in both, but I would not have used the phrase "ignorance, bitterness, and hatred" if I'd seen your second post first. I apologize.  I  think your second post is also seriously mistaken but it makes me realize that your views, as problematic/misguided as I think they are, are not straightforwardly reducible to the anger and hatred that seemed to animate your first post.

August 26, 2008 1:35 PM

satyendra said:

Gurdjieff, oh well, so she was a legacy, affirmative action case upon admissions to Princeton, but managed to graduated from there with honors.

You  must be one of those independent swing voters everyone's trying to reel in.

August 26, 2008 2:03 PM

gurdjieff66 said:

hemlock -- I don't see why you consider it a waste of time to engage with me, my views are politically incorrect but they are not unreasoned or without assertions of fact, whether provable or disprovable.   I make them, you or someone else if you wish can challenge them, bring in other facts or counter-facts that I've left out, then maybe I'll rebut those or perhaps I even agree with you, a little or a lot.  Your problem is similar to but not as bad as icarusr: the idea that anyone with the temerity to challenge the most sacred tenets of contemporary elite thought: the absolute goodness of diversity, the absolute equality of everyone, notwithstanding apparently the moral and cultural superiority of non-whites -- must somehow be an EVIL person, guilty of thought crimes, and worthy only of the sort of AD HOMINEM attack that icarusr throws at me.  Gets what: I try as hard to discern both truth and also the difference between right and wrong as you and everyone else reading this blog.  And I'm open to countervailing facts, and reasoned counterarguments.  

I actually found the article about Obama's roommate.  Incident happened in 1981, and of course there was NEVER any effort made to actually change roommates, or enlist the Princeton authorities in the effort.  (I would imagine that asking authorities to move you out of a room because your roommate was black would be grounds for disciplinary action, or at least public exposition and humiliation.)  Here is the article:  www.ajc.com/.../roommate_0413.html

(I think it is outrageous, by the way, that this woman would humiliate her own mother and grandmother this way.  It reminds me of people in totalitarian countries informing on their parents or spouses.  I think what the mother says however is spot on: "you can't say anything negative about blacks these days.")  

I agree that institutionally at least universities should not discriminate, which is why I am opposed to much of the guilt tripping anti-white propaganda that is taught in the many mandatory "diversity" trainings that students many universities must attend.  And I think it is outrageous when an applicant gets into a school or job with a level of qualifications that another applicant of a different race would be rejected for.  However, the fact is that most people (not all) are more comfortable with people from a simliar social and racial background as themselves.  At the very least, they want to be around people who want to be around them.  So, I am not sure that it would be a bad idea for a white or black person who is uncomfortable with diversity to opt out of an interracial rooming arrangement, quietly and without humiliating the other party.  As you said, the line between racial and personal differences can be blurred, and I would argue  that this is natural.  

August 26, 2008 2:07 PM

gurdjieff66 said:

ironyroad -- I hear what you're saying I just don't get it.  I can envision many scenarios under which being a "chattel" slave would give me more dignity than some other situation in which I am allegedly free but trapped in degrading and unaviodable circumstances.  If I really have inalienable rights as a human being, how does belonging to someone for whom I am a valuable peice of property invalidate those rights?  I'm just trying to think these things true.  

I think being given Christianity, and being taken to the wealthiest, most bountiful country in the world and eventually given full citizenship, over the course of a couple of centuries, is not perfect but is not too damn bad.  Compared to living in a part of the world (sub-saharan africa) that had not yet discovered the wheel.  (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.)  

hemlock -- I didn't see your last note before I sent my prior one.  Thanks.  

August 26, 2008 2:18 PM

hemlock41 said:

gurdieff66:

Did you actually read the article? 1) It clearly says the mother and a friend of hers called everyone they knew who had connections to Princeton to try to have her daughter moved. It's true that it doesn't say that they explicitly told university administrators their reason for the request, and you're right, they were probably more guarded than I assumed they were about doing so; in practice it would probably be impossible for administrators to distinguish racially motivated requests from others.

2) The mother seems to be participating quite freely and happily in the interview for this article -- so much for the daughter's "humiliating" her, or turning her in to the "totalitarian authoritiies" of political correctness. (I'm a pretty consistent critic of the stifling effects of p.c. imperatives on discussion within academic settings, but even I think the comparison to actual totalitarian methods of control is downright silly.)

3) When the mother says that it's become un-p.c. to use negative stereotypes about African-Americans, she seems to be reporting it as an observed fact (which she may or may not think has downsides.) She expresses none of the outrage or intense disapproval that you do of this fact. Indeed, the article clearly says that her views on race have evolved somewhat from the 80's and that she regrets her past feelings.

August 26, 2008 3:00 PM

ironyroad said:

"I hear what you're saying I just don't get it."

That's obvious.

August 26, 2008 6:50 PM

davidcnelson said:

I'll bet gurdjieff66 hasn't read Michelle Obama's senior thesis.  I have.  It does not say black Princeton graduates are miserable.  

August 27, 2008 10:22 AM