Betty: Ava and C.I. have a wonderful TV commentary and they're covering three shows which is a lot of ground to cover. I caught one of the shows and had strong objections to one speaker in particular. They grab some of her nonsense, but not all so I wanted to bring this up in the roundtable. Bill Moyers Journal Friday was the usual one-sided garbage with the added bonus of high-yellow Patricia Williams, Professor Patti, of The Nation. She was crass, she was vulgar and she was right-wing as she attacked bi- and multi-racial. She sounded like Rush Limbaugh going to town on diversity. She's an ugly, ugly woman. And Ava and C.I. call that out but, as a very dark skinned Black woman, I took especial offense to Professor Patti's comments regarding my race. Light-skinned Patti was insisting bi-racial Barack was Black and decrying this alleged special 'authenticity' and 'hiearchy' when it came to being Black. If you have one White parent and one Black parent, you are not Black. That's pretty simple. In addition, as a woman darker than anyone Bill Moyers is comfortable having on camera, let me point out that snippy Patti's a damn liar. High yellow knows damn well that the special benefits in 'rank' come not to me or any other dark-skinned Black woman or man. The special benefits have always gone to the light-skinned Blacks. They've always had an easier time assimilating and being accepted into society than have the people who look like me. And I'll be damned if some little liar is going to tell White America that it's just so unfair to the light-skinned. Shut the hell up, Patricia. Until you can admit that you have reaped special benefits in this society, shut the hell up. Your lighter skin has allowed you to pass and you know that. It was hysterical to watch light-skinned Patti with her processed hair on the TV talking about the 'suffering.' I'll be damned if someone who's had it easy is going to turn around and disrespect those of us with dark skins who pay a special price in society that high yellows like Patti never have to.
Cedric: Let me jump in. I'm listening to Betty and reading the transcript because I didn't bother to watch that garbage. I knew it would be garbage with professional liars like Patti Williams and Melissa Harris Lacewell. I'm reading it. and, yeah, as a dark skinned African-American, I find Patti's 'creative' revisionary work insulting. Someone needs to tell that woman her lies don't play and she needs to have the doctor check her for a thyroid problem.
Marcia: I'm laughing because I saw it and Patti does look like she has a thyroid problem in need of treatment. Okay, on the darkness scale, I'm about as dark as Betty, right? I mean that's how I see myself. Am I wrong?
Betty: I think we're pretty close. We're close enough that we could share foundation.
Marcia: Okay, good. I didn't want to be in the middle of my reply and have someone say, "Uh, Marcia --" But it is insulting to hear Patti, a light skinned woman, try to claim the mantle of suffering. Climb off the cross, cross-over, before you fall down.
Ty: I think I'm the lightest skinned of the five of us -- Betty, Marcia, Stan and Cedric. I'm not as light skinned as Patricia Williams. I'm about the same shade as Melissa Harris Lacewell. But if the five of us went into any store in America, I wouldn't be surprised -- and Cedric and Betty wouldn't be because we've seen it happen with the three of us -- at all when the White clerk made a point to address me and not the others. And true of some African-Americans as well.
Cedric: True that. Good point.
Ty: So I am fully aware that as a medium-darkness African-American -- is that the term "medium-darkness"? -- I get better treatment as a result. Now contrast what I get from White America and some of Black America with what Professor Patti -- much, much lighter than me -- gets and that's just appalling for her to have made those statements. How honest do we want to be here because I'm ready to just let it blast.
Marcia: Go for it.
Ty: What Patti was really doing was whining. She was whining that because she's light-skinned -- and because she processes her hair and tries to look White -- some people don't consider her authentic. She's not authentic. But that's what it was really about. That's what was behind all her crap. And when you're a crossover with no ties to the community, of course you want to bring in bi-racial Barack as "Black." Makes Patti feel like she's Pam Grier.
Cedric: Amen. Ty's exactly right. That's what it's all about and someone tell Imitation Of Life Patti Williams that nobody gives a damn in the African-American community what her tired ass thinks.
Stan: I'd agree with that and I'd point out that she's hardly our friend. She's never there. I'm thinking of when Peter Griffith on Family Guy finds out he's bi-racial and insists he's Black. He gives this speech about how he was there when Tootie got braces and the Jeffersons did this and all this other garbage. But the point is, when was Patricia Williams ever there for the Black community?
Marica: This is the woman -- this is the light-skinned woman -- who compared dark-skinned African-Americans to dogs, using People magazine as her 'scholarly' research, remember. That little piece of trash needs to be called out.
Jim: Betty, do you want to add anything?
Betty: Just that I agree with what everyone's said. I'm glad I brought it up because if I'd tried to write about it my site, I wouldn't have remembered what Marcia did -- that offensive instance where Patti Williams thought she could get away with comparing Black people to dogs. I wouldn't have made some of the connections Ty, Stan and Cedric did. I find Patricia Williams highly offensive. She does not speak for me. She's not part of the community. Only with bi-racial Barack has Patricia suddenly discovered 'Blackness.' She didn't defend any of the Jena kids. Now we defended the Jena Five and left the nonsense of you know who for others, but she didn't defend one of them. Nor does she cover Black America in her droolings in The Nation. She's not a part of Black America. Suddenly she wants to rush over and pretend she is to argue that bi-racial Barack is Black? It's disgusting.
Marcia: I'm jumping back in on something maybe related, maybe not. Ava and C.I. rightly noted early last year some very real hostility towards White women on the part of Melissa Harris Lacewell and wondered whether that included anger at Barack's own mother. As we're discussing Professor Patti, I'm flashing on how Melissa repeatedly insists -- and has done this for two years now -- that Barack is Black because he chose to marry Michelle. To Melissa this is a huge thing. And I want to come back to that in a moment but I think you could hypothesize that this is rooted in Melissa's anger at Barack's White mother. Her constantly insisting that Barack chose Black by marrying Michelle seems to reveal a tremendous fear that Barack could have, as his father did, chosen a White woman to marry.
Cedric: But who you marry -- unless it's some sort of a racist -- doesn't say a thing about your race itself.
Wally: Cedric, cutting in to say you should break your news.
Cedric: Yeah, good point. I got married at the end of the year. I didn't want to make a big deal out of it online. Everybody participating [in the roundtable] knows about it and community members know because my wife's doing a column for Polly's Brew -- and maybe we can talk her into doing a blog? I'd said at the time that I'd bring it up online at some point which is why Wally's prompting me now. Now, back to Melissa's lunacy. If my wife were White, that wouldn't make me White. My wife is African-American and I'm not Black because I married her. I'm Black because both my parents were. If I had married Ava, I wouldn't be Latino. That's such nonsense and goes to the fact that, no, Barack is not Black. If he were Black, Melissa Harris Lacewell would not have to offer such stupid notions in order for him to be seen as Black. He's bi-racial. Get used to it.
Dona: We've got a bit of a pause so I'm jumping in. I know that the TV commentary this week wasn't easy for Ava and C.I. to write and they first wrote it in long handed with non-stop cursing. They were that angry with the garbage. As Ty can tell you, we receive many of the most beautiful e-mails from bi- and multi-racial readers, many of whom have found us just because of Ava and C.I.'s strong defense of the bi- and multi-racial movement that they've done for over a year now. And an issue that comes up a great deal in the thank-you e-mails is people writing that they must get tired of doing that -- of repeatedly being the ones defending the bi- and multi-racial movement. So could one of you address that?
Ava: C.I.'s nodding to me. Does it get old defending the bi- and multi-racial movement? Not in the sense that we're thinking, "Oh, we've got to do it again." It does get old in terms of the refusal of 'alternative' media to stand up. This is the diversity movement and in the 90s, it would be defended in the very outlets that now ignore it -- that now ignore it because they have some reason to present Barack as Black and not bi-racial. You will find more exploration, more discussion in the MSM than in 'alternative' media. It's not as bad as it once was -- in terms of feeling like no one else would speak up publicly -- but we do realize we are among a small number who will publicly address the issue, we are aware of how big the diversity movement is and we are aware that we have a duty to speak up. As for the e-mails, that's what turns our duty into an honor. In terms of this week's commentary, we actually did have a line in there about being tired. But it was about we are so tired of having to go over Melissa Harris Lacewell's many lies. I think we ended up cutting that portion out. But we're happy to defend the bi- and multi-racial movement. We are aware it is the present and the future and that history will look unkindly on those who slamed the movement. So when we're exhausted or bothered by the silence from others, we always remember that history is on our side.
Jim: Ava's Latina and I just want to ask her about whether she feels under any special obligation as a result?
Ava: To be aware that it's not an entirely White and Anglo world? Yes. To present my own case day after day? No. I think one of the best things I can do as a Latina at Third is be a strong voice that takes a place at the table. If there's an issue that I feel needs to be addressed, I grab it. That may or may not be an issue directly effecting Latinos. Now remember that C.I. and I write for El Spirito which is Latino focused so I've got that outlet. But also true is that I don't want it to be seen as "Ava pushes her own little group."
Betty: Do I come off that way?
Ava: Not at all. But the difference there is that -- there are a number of differences. First off, you are one of five voices in this roundtable addressing the issues of the Black community. That's a discussion. I would not be one of five Latinas in this roundtable. Second of all, the issue of race is one you long ago staked out at Third. You were the first to point out Barack was bi-racial at this site. Now one reason I've offered since 2005, still true today, is that I am not the one to go to on all things Spanish speaking. There have been times when Jim's tried to push me into that role early on and I've refused. The Latino community is highly diverse and I would not pretend to be able to speak for all issues effecting all. We are more diverse than the Black community though Professor Patti seems unaware of that.
Betty: I agree with you on both things -- Patti being unaware and that there is more diversity. And that's one point that you've established very well. I'm Atlanta born and raised so I wasn't exposed to a huge cross-section of Latinos. And you really, here, have underscored that Cuban-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, Spanish-Americans, Hondurans, etc. are a widely diverse group.
Ava: Exactly. Even within Cuban-Americans, you're talking about a huge diversity that goes beyond age. Equally true is that many Latinos are in various forms of generations. Some are first, some go much further back. I'm referring to, for example, first-generation American. I don't know that we have the intense and concentrated shared history that so many African-Americans do. And I used "African-American" on that because Black America includes what Patti was offering, which is non-African Black people from other areas.
Jim: I'm jumping in. First, Ava's correct, I did attempt to use her as our Ambassador to All Things Hispanic. I would try to get her to translate constantly and try to assign her topics --especially during The Third Estate Sunday News Review pieces -- that were on Latin American countries. She stood up and had no problem steering me wise. Second, I know Betty and I know she's going to wonder this topic, puzzle it for some time so let me make clear that our readers love the fact that we address the topics of race and they love that Betty is never afraid to weigh in.
Ty: Yeah, after Ava and C.I.'s TV commentaries, we're probably best known for Betty's comments in these roundtables on race. And, as Ava pointed out, there are five people participating from the African-American community. Betty was talking earlier about how she wouldn't have thought of what Marcia did, for example. And that's the exchange we can have by having five people who can speak on the issue. If someone's brought Blackness front and center at Third, that person would be -- and he won't see this as an insult, nor is it intended as one -- Cedric.
Cedric: I agree with you. And, no, I'm not insulted. I really understand what Ava's saying. And I agree with it 100%. It would be a pain in the butt, which she didn't point out, to be the one going, "Okay, let me give you the remedial course" week after week. Betty's always been a strong Black voice for this community. When I came along, what Ty's talking about, when I started helping out here, one of the first things I did was get with Betty and Ty before each writing edition, I'd call them up, with something in the Black community and get their thoughts on it in terms of is this something worth addressing? If it was, we came into the edition with that pitch. That's what Ty's talking about and I agree with his call.
Ruth: If I can come in here, that is actually reminding me of a point Marcia made right after she started blogging.
Marcia: I was thinking that too. Part of the reason I finally blogged was the non-stop attacks on Hillary and I was glad to be an African-American woman standing up publicly and saying, "I'm supporting Hillary." There was a real effort by the likes of Melissa Harris Lacewell to silence women and men like me. But another benefit, as I'd told Ruth, was that I could get in on the discussions at Third, and I especially meant race. I agree with Cedric that Betty's been a strong voice and we all love Betty for that and much more. But Betty, Ty and Cedric being able to bounce off each other? I mean reading that, back before I ever participated, that was just a joy. A site where African-Americans actually got to share their opinions? Do you know how rare that is unless it's an African-American only site? So the lure of participating in some of those discussions was strong as well.
Ruth: And to toss in another aspect to what Ava is talking about, there would be a great deal of pressure. As the only Jewish person participating, I often forget that. I am often piping off and Ty will pass on an e-mail where I have offended someone who has gotten the impression that I think I am the final voice on Jewish America. I am not that and it is my fault when I fail to convey that. So with Stan, Marcia, Cedric, Betty and Ty participating, there is a discussion and you have five perspectives. That would not be the case for Ava and it is not the case for me.
Jim: I'm wondering how much those kind of e-mails have resulted in Ruth usually being rather quiet during these roundtables? Okay, let's move to another topic which resulted in seven e-mails from seven supposedly different people last week who all just happened to write the same, exact e-mail, word for word. When are we going to accept Barack Obama is the president? That's the thrust of the e-mail.
Jess: Let me jump in on that. I wasn't aware we were in denial. We've called him president-elect since the election. Last Sunday's editorial not only called him president, it noted we made it through eight years without doing that for the previous White House occupant. While there's no question that the nomination was stolen, none of us have ever questioned the general election. The seven 'people' e-mailing that garbage are illiterate and don't know what they're talking about.
Jim: Jess is pretty disgusted.
Jess: I am very disgusted that someone would waste our time with that. I'm semi-disgusted with you, Jim, for bringing that crap into the roundtable.
Jim: Jess isn't joking and he's over at the stereo. I'll explain why I brought it in one-on-one. Does anyone else want to comment?
Kat: Well, Jess made it very clear that no one's in denial that Barack's the president. Not only is no one in denial, this site and all the sites in the community take the approach of "You wanted to be president, now you are so get to work." I don't see how anyone could interpret that as us being in denial. Or how any sane person could interpret that as us being in denial.
Rebecca: I'm thinking the 'seven' are arguing that Barack is president and that we need to embrace that and hug him and love him and breast feed him and wipe his little bottom. In other words, what they're really pissed at is we don't believe And Barack Created Women . . . We don't see him as God and aren't rushing to worship him.
Stan: I agree with Rebecca's take. That's what I took away from it as well. That what they were calling denial they really meant was we won't drink the Kool-Aid. If I can add something else, Jess is the only Green Party member and I believe since we killed a Green Party feature this edition, it might be better to try to bring one of those topics in here.
Mike: I would absolutely agree with that.
Jim: Okay, let's do that and that's probably why Jess is angry. We don't have time for the Green Party but we can address this nonsense question. Is that it?
Jess: That's exactly it.
Elaine: Let me set this up. C.I.'s tackled some serious issues with the Green Party in snapshots last week. Let me add that I should have found a way to do something on the topic myself. Green Party member are part of the community. There is a tendancy to leave it all up to C.I. To expect C.I. to do everything. I do understand Jess being upset that we've got time for a nonsense e-mail written seven different times when we're not making time for the Green Party. I also grasp that Jim's not trying to brush off the Green Party. Jim is just -- as he's always been -- more interested in the e-mails from cranks. Mike's done a Google News search on "Green Party" and there's only one item on the front page that's the US Green Party, that's reason enough to be alarmed. Are they being silence by the US media or are they in that much disarray?
Jess: Who's the author?
Elaine: Bakari Kitwana.
Jess: So it's not about the Green Party at all. It's more garbage from the brain dead.
Cedric: I'm laughing because it's that "Hip Hop" voting bloc. I'm so sick of them and think someone needs to tell them, Grow the hell up. Seriously, my folks weren't in "The Quiet Storm" voting bloc. You ever see them ['Hip Hop' 'Leaders'] on TV and the first thing you notice is they're all a bunch of out of shape, middle-aged guys.
C.I.: For the record, Kitwana is forty-years-old.
Betty: As Cedric said, he needs to grow up. I love how this so-called 'Hip Hop' movement is about 'youth' and all the 'leaders' have beer bellies.
Elaine: Okay, hold up. Mike and I have something. Alex Keefe's "A Green Party first: contested primary in race for Emanuel's seat." I'm tossing to Mike.
Mike: Okay, the point of the article is that, since Greens got over 5% of the 2006 governor's race, of the vote, they're now in a position to make the ballot easier. As a result, you have non-Greens running for the Green Party nomination. So you've got Democrat until two weeks ago Matt Reichel trying to run as a Green and Deb Gordils who says she's an independent and the reporter explains, "But both Reichel and Gordils said their decision to go Green also came down to campaign calculus."
Rebecca: That's complete bulls**t and why the Green Party is not getting anywhere. I am embarrassed for them just hearing Mike summarize that article. That's so insane and goes to the fact that there is no interest in building a party. You manage to gain easier ballot access? You start plugging in the farm team you should have already built. If all you are is a way for Democrats, Republicans and Independents who couldn't win the nomination in their own groupings grab your Green nomination then you're not a political party at all, you're nothing but a place holder, I'm disgusted.
Jess: What's most appalling to me is that they don't even feel the need to disguise the realities when speaking to the press. Democrat until two weeks ago and going for the Green slot? What the hell's going on? I'm looking at the article and when Elaine was reading the title, I was upbeat. I was thinking, "Well maybe my party's getting their act together in one state." And the fact that we didn't even -- not even to get some news attention -- push our own candidates for any of the Senate appointments, I was thinking, "Well, at least we're making a run for Rahm Emmanual's House seat." Then it turns out "we" aren't. I'm looking at the article and it's like Mike outlined it, a bunch of non-Greens wanting to run on the Green spot. C.I.'s not going to speak here, on this topic, because last week there was a non-stop flooding of the inbox to the public account by Greens and Green Party officials. I'm not quoting their e-mails or naming them. But I will quote C.I.'s response to one Green Party member which was that if the Greens can't convince America they are different than Democrats, there's no reason to vote Green. If Pepsi wants to take out ads saying, "We taste just like Coke!" -- who will buy Pepsi? If it tastes just like Coke, unless Pepsi's cheaper, people will buy the original. And this article really does underscore all the e-mails C.I. was exchanging. At some point, my party either needs to get serious or needs to close shop.
Rebecca: I can imagine the e-mails that were coming in because C.I. was hitting hard on the importance of a third party offering something more than, "We love Democrats! Yea!" I mean, it goes to brand. You either have a brand or you don't. You can't copy someone else's brand and be unique. If you're a political party attempting to emerge and you can't clearly define what you
stand for and, most importantly, how you are different from another political party that's already established, you're not going to line up voters.
Wally: I'm not disagreeing but why did you judge the differences as most important?
Rebecca: The differences are where the defining takes place. In corporate America or political America, they both give the hazy explanations of what they stand for that are rarely specific. They offer their specifics when they draw lines between themselves and their rivals. And for most people, a list of what the Greens stand for would get the response of, "Yeah, yeah, the Democrats are for that too." So its in the defining of the differences that a political party can actually recruit.
Wally: Just to explain, Rebecca was very successful in public relations. That's some free advice that would cost a great deal.
Jess: Yeah that is free advice and maybe because it's free it will be ignored? I agree with what Rebecca's saying. But I've yet to see my political party do a damn thing to seriously define itself.
Jim: Okay but what about "The First 100 Days." C.I. highlighted that at The Common Ills this week and we'll make a point now to include it in some form here -- besides the link in the roundtable -- but what about that? That provides actual differences.
Jess: And, as C.I. noted in the same snapshot, Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot," that there were others rushing to wall paper over any differences in what Greens stand for and what Democrats stand for.
Wally: Which goes back to Rebecca's point and also goes to the point of place holders. Does the Green Party stand for something? Yes? Well then why are they allowing non-Greens to go after the slots they should be filling?
Stan: I'm not a Green, I'm a Democrat, so keep that in mind if some Green disagrees with what I'm saying. Here's reality for a lot of Democrats, we are outraged by what was done with the nominations. The floor vote was stopped by Nancy Pelosi at the convention and that happened after strong arm tactics didn't work. We know there was real concern that the Super Delegates would go to Hillary because she demonstrated she could carry the states needed. Barack stole that nomination and my feelings aren't uncommon. As a result of that and as a result of the Barack Kool-Aid in the Democratic Party presently, I am more open to the Greens than ever before. But if I go to one of their sites and read how wonderful Barack is, I'm not interested in them.
Jess: Those comments were made by C.I. in about ten e-mails last week. C.I. was explaining repeatedly that there is anger due to what Stan just spoke of and that the Greens could be picking up voters. But that when people go to these sites and find Greens saying Barack's groovy, they're just going to move on.
Stan: That's what I do. I did it on inuaguration day in fact. I was visiting Green Party sites trying to find some group on the left I could connect with. And I couldn't because it was all about wonderful Barack.
Elaine: If I had suffered the losses the Green Party did in 2008, I doubt very seriously I'd be sitting around wasting everyone's time propping up the Democratic Party. If they want to be seen as a political party and different than the Democrats, they're going to have to start establishing that they are. That means when Barack's doing his centrist dance, they're calling him out the same way they would a Republican on doing a conservative dance. This could be the greatest period for the Green Party if they'd use it. Every day they could be demonstrating how the Greens stand for something and the Democrats cave.
C.I.: Jim's been hitting my foot throughout and I'm going to speak to get him to stop. First, as Jess pointed out, I'm limited in what I'll say here because I've been exchaning e-mails on this topic last week. Second, what Elaine said is really important and goes to Rebecca's advice earlier. The Green Party has the basis for regular free advertising if they use it. The media is looking for -- Real Media -- critiques of Barack's administration to balance the gooey love-in. The Green Party, so often ignored, could get a lot of press for being a strong critic of Barack. And there are no excuses for Democrats. They control the House, the Senate and the White House. If I were a Green, I'd be using every day to remind the country that they have the votes required to pass any legislation the party wants and that they have their guy in the White House to sign off on it. I would then make the point of, "So where's the action?" The only thing stopping Democrats are Democrats. There are no excuses. And Greens could be constructing that argument every day.
Jim: There's frustration in your voice so I'm guessing this is a point you've raised repeatedly. Without naming names, can we get a sense of the reaction?
C.I.: For Green Party officials who've been writing, it's been split. Half react to statements similar to what I just said with, "I can't call out Barack!" and the other half see that, yes, this is a golden opportunity.
Dona: Because of the control in the White House and Congress and I'm jumping in on that because C.I. made a face I'm reaidng as, "I'm not dominating this roundtable." It is a golden opportunity. Greens say that they are a real political party for the left and they complain that the Democrats -- except apparently The Virgin Barack -- are corporatists. Okay, the present situtation allows Greens the context to reinforce that argument due to the control of Congress and the White House that the Democrats have.
Kat: The Virign Barack. I love that. That's a good one. I see C.I. responding to some of those e-mails and hear the groans of frustration. Here's reality. It's not our job on the left to educate Barack and it's not our job on the left to teach the Green Party how to walk. In both instances, we're allegedly dealing with grown ups.
C.I.: I'm jumping in to note we started this roundtable at 6:00 a.m. EST because Kat's statements are very similar to something I sent out at 1:30 EST. Her statement about Barack. And Kat didn't know about that e-mail before the one it was sent to starts wondering.
Kat: No, I haven't read anything. It's all I can do to keep my eyes open to participate in this. I don't go near a computer on the weekends unless they need help here, at Third, typing. Was it the Barack comment?
C.I.: Yeah.
Kat: Well you discussed that with a group we spoke to Thursday or Friday. You made the point that there's this attitude that we have to show Barack the way. You asked if he was just born? You pointed out that he was billed as the left candidate during the primaries so why all the sudden is he a stranger to left issues? You pointed out that he ran with a number of lefties in Chicago during the nineties. And you did it very well, you had everyone laughing so I was stealing from you but from your presentation earlier this week.
Wally: I'm jumping in because Dona slid me a note telling me I barely participated. I was there for what Kat's talking about and it did go over very well. And it was true. Barack's over forty-years-old, he's attended multiple colleges, been a community organizers -- as we heard over and over, and suddenly we have to teach him to speak liberal? What the hell is that? It's more garbage from a cowardly left.
Jim: Wally, I'm stopping you because there's a feature article I want us to work on and I think you're next comments would lead us into that. Also true we went past the time limit for this roundtable. So we're going to wrap up right here. Rush transcript.