Having this conversation is throwing a bucket of water on that fire. Even if you do not agree with every word that a POC has to say on the matter, you are making the effort to understand their point of view. If those who were at the event would have this conversation, it would be like turning on the hoses.

Instead as I said they are dismissive and/or ignoring and/or attacking minorities, in some cases removing their posts, banning them, and de-linking. This is creating unnecessary bad blood in the liberal blogosphere. They seem to think that we want their guilt, not so, get past the damned guilt and help us come up with solutions, as amp noted, that are inclusive instead of always excluding and overlooking us (what actually happens), making excuses about what is in their hearts (good intentions).

No one asked or knows whether I’m a person of color. By itself, that’s not a qualification for much. And as a couple comments above suggest, it would be pointless tokenism to qualify contributors in such a way. What we have attempted to capture is a range of opinion and perspective, which is a qualification.

There’s a difference between a blogger who happens to be POC, and one who blogs about racism from a POC point of view. The latter represents opinion and perspective we do not have here, about a topic that interests (some of) us.

Do we have any black bloggers here at Creative Destruction? Have we ever invited any?

No one asked or knows whether I’m a person of color. By itself, that’s not a qualification for much. And as a couple comments above suggest, it would be pointless tokenism to qualify contributors in such a way. What we have attempted to capture is a range of opinion and perspective, which is a qualification.

I will admit that I’m often purple in my perplexity and anger and what I read here, though my emotion doesn’t usually leak into my posts or comments.

Because if what’s consuming a community is “did they invite enough of us to lunch”, then the community’s problems have clearly fallen below a certain threshold.

For POC, their experience as POC will shape their political views and attitudes. It is also true for a white person, but they don’t often think about it. Many times the only time a white person might think about his or her privilege (identity) is when he thinks someone might horn in on some of the action. Like in the immigration (overrun by the brown hordes! egads!) debates…and part of what I was talking about with the reaction, and reaction to the reaction. Many time I heard things like, “well, we are the leaders in the blogosphere”, “only the best were invited”, etc. But if you think about it, they are the most trafficked for white readership. Minorities will read white run blogs on occasion but their favorites will address their issues; therefore the most trafficked for minorities will not be of this group. When I raised that, things got quiet. I could never get an answer from these people, when I was expecting an, “Oh yeah! That’s why we need POC bloggers there!” This is what leads me to believe that white privilege might be in play, but it would be racist to acknowlege it, so they ignore it instead.

There have been many comments on the blogs that have discussed this issue that touch on the power/powerless issues. It appears to me that when people feel powerless they are willing to stand with anyone else who is also powerless to show solidarity, BUT it becomes sticky when one has privilege the other does not and is questioned on it. That’s when the one without power is abandoned. In this case TRex as a gay man would usually side with minorities, but since white privilege is what is being challenged he abandons us.

I remarked that these are the same bloggers who get angry because access to politicians is granted to the powerful, lobbyists, corporations, pundits and big media, consultants; while ignoring grassroots, smaller media, individuals. They didn’t like that caste system, but have no problem devising one of their own. The powerful highly trafficked blog against the smaller niche blogs which may be highly trafficked and respected within their niche. This includes POC but may also include other specialized blogs. For example, I’d love to see someone from Confined Space at that table too, this is a labor/workers rights blog.

I hope you can understand why access to corporations over grassroots and individuals is wrong. You simply can not ignore the voter over the campaign contribution, you need both and must balance that. The same goes for getting the message out through blogs, sure the big blogs are tempting, more bang for the buck, but isn’t this also duplicated? The same people read Atrios, who read Kos, who read FDL. Don’t you think it would be wise to coordinate messaging with Pam Spaulding or Steve Gilliard too (widely trafficked black bloggers for those who didn’t know). Or a labor blog when the message is about workers rights, or an economics blog like Brad Delong when it’s about the state of the economy, or a media blog like Media Matters when it’s about coordinating something like Path to 9/11.

Anyway, I hope Peter Daou is thinking of all of these things for the next blogger meeting.

My being a person of color is not a lens through which I choose to see the world; it’s a construct that has been projected onto me by white people since the day I was born, resulting in a white range of problems you can’t imagine, from physical danger to competetive handicaps to everyday humiliations.

If you don’t like my choice of metaphor, that’s fine, but I don’t agree with you. We all use metaphors everyday all day. It’s part of the basic structure of language (and therefore, cognition). A perspective, a point of view, a worldview are all lenses whether you recognize it or not.

most of us know that the expression “identity politics” itself is usually a way for those in positions of relative power and privilege to marginalize and dismiss the concerns of others

That may be true, but I’m not using the term in that fashion. And I fully admitted (as I always do), that I just don’t get it. Most of your arguments don’t appear to be about what I wrote; instead, they reinforce the truth that racism (one among various “isms”) continues to be a problem. That is absolutely true, which I why I am making no sweeping statement that “it’s all bad and has got to go” or that “we should all just get over it.”

Donna wrote:

It isn’t even about him [Clinton]and the meeting anymore. It’s about the reaction (or non-reaction) of the bloggers themselves, and the reaction to the reaction. This has unearthed some very disturbing patterns of liberal racism that has to be discussed at some time.

So it’s all become rather meta, to be tragically hip (something no one ever accuses me of). The existence of patterns is what I mean by revealing systemic flaws, and the fact that observing these patterns rises to the level of disturbance is what I mean by distortion.

In the U.S., we’re all pretty messed up about race (among other things), whereas in most of the rest of the world, the virulent idea is nationalism. The way the problem has manifested throughout generations, there appears to be little hope of resolution when we continue to draw distinctions that are meaningful mostly because we draw them that way. For instance, to say that a certain perspective is normative, therefore institutionalized, is to miss the point that something will always be a dominant or normal view, which inherently disenfranchises others. In many situations, the norm is defined by a distinct (and sometimes quite vocal) minority, which doesn’t so much erase the norm as reverse it. We have all been in situations where we were the odd man/woman/race/believer/etc. out. That, too, is normal.

It isn’t even about him and the meeting anymore. It’s about the reaction (or non-reaction) of the bloggers themselves, and the reaction to the reaction. This has unearthed some very disturbing patterns of liberal racism that has to be discussed at some time.

Liberal racism has a different face, these racists are quite willing to have us live and work side by side as their neighbors and coworkers, and in fact “some of their best friends are black/latino/etc”. But the basic attitude is paternalism, they will speak for us (although they won’t listen, so how can they speak for us?), they will decide what issues are important for everyone, they will tell us what to do and how to feel, they will decide how to fix our problems without our input. And if we don’t like it? “Know your place” “Mind your betters”. We are children to them, and to the white supremicist types we are dangerous animals.

All we are saying is that as long as racism of any type is a part of the American experience, we need to have our voices heard during strategy sessions, policy making, legislation, etc. For those who dismiss it as ID politics, I’d have to say, our thoughts and proposals don’t always have to be acted upon, we know we can’t get 100% of what we want, the same as any other group of people understands this, but our issues must be considered. In liberal politics, generally women get a hearing, labor gets a hearing, environmentalists get a hearing, consumers get a hearing, etc etc etc…and big business and wealthy campaign contributors ALWAYS get their hearing. We are the only group who overwhelmingly gets the shaft.

Amp, you need a new toaster? LOL I do have a blog, in the 2 1/2 years since I started it I have a total of maybe 4 posts. I find I have too little time and way too many distractions to concentrate when writing. My computer is in the living room and I have a chatty family! I told my husband I would like to move the computer, perhaps then I will make the time and come back looking for a link.

My being a person of color is not a lens through which I choose to see the world; it’s a construct that has been projected onto me by white people since the day I was born, resulting in a white range of problems you can’t imagine, from physical danger to competetive handicaps to everyday humiliations. When I walk into a restaurant, I don’t have to shout “identity politics!” in order for the white folks in the room to give me “the look” and put out “the unwelcome vibe”.

I’d be willing to drop “identity politics” in a heartbeat if our society dropped all institutions of racism and white privilege. Deal?

Of course, most of us know that the expression “identity politics” itself is usually a way for those in positions of relative power and privilege to marginalize and dismiss the concerns of others. The experience and cultural milleu of the privileged is so normalized as to not be considered an “identity”. Only variation from that experience and cultural millieu is defined as “identity”; the lens through which the privileged see the world is simply considered “normal”. Anything else is “identity politics”, and discussing it is regarded as impolite because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Peace,
Kai

Are you saying that all so-called “identity politics” are bad, in all circumstances? That seems a bit extreme. Nor do I understand why whether or not this was an intended photo-op is relevant.

Since you’re asking specific questions to clarify my remarks, I won’t object that you’re putting words in my mouth or misinterpreting me. I’m purposely incomplete treading into these waters. I also don’t pretend to have a comprehensive, well-constructed understanding of the issue. It’s not among my principal concerns.

No, I don’t believe all identity politics are bad or worthless. But I do believe that they’re especially prone to distorting issues. ID politics is a lens through which one sees the world, and that lens isn’t always (or even usually) very objective.

I had once thought that the main point of ID politics was to even the playing field, or to eliminate discrimination and unfair privilege. If that were the case, it would be a lot of consciousness raising to reveal systemic racism, ageism, sexism, etc. and focused attacks on truly bigoted behavior. The photo that has everyone spinning, since it has such as small sample size, is probably an instance of inadvertent omission, or a systemic flaw, as there is little or no evidence of purposeful exclusion. The depth of coverage on this issue is not proportional to its seriousness. Further, the link I provided charges other things, which seems to me grasping wildly since the picture itself has none of the signs of being anything other than impromptu, which is to say, nearly random.

Of course, an even playing field is too modest a goal for ID politics as they’re now practiced. There are too many groups now seeking special representation, accomodation, and privilege — often to redress past grievance — which charges the atmosphere with even greater conflict instead of any hoped-for cooperation and tolerance.

Is there ever an acceptable time to be concerned about whether or not minorities are included, in your view?

Yes, of course. But the constituency has to be of a sufficient size, and more importantly, knowable, before a charge of bigoted omission has any meaning. It’s a large gray area that calls for wisened judgment, but there is certainly a lower threshold where the issue becomes meaningless. I believe that this sit-down with progressive bloggers is fairly unambiguously below that threshold.

So if one is fighting the good fight, it might be worthwhile to pick battles that don’t positively infuriate those who might be favorably disposed or willing to be convinced that such and such discrimination ought not to happen anymore. Calling something relatively inoccuous into question defeats one’s own agenda when the focus might better fall on much greater evils being perpetrated.

Is there ever an acceptable time to be concerned about whether or not minorities are included, in your view?

There’s no good, current info on demographics of progressive bloggers, as far as I know. This person found that 15% of progressive bloggers, and 50% of feminist bloggers, are non-white; but as he cheerfully admits, his methodology is poor.

* * *

Bazzar:

I’m willing to believe that no Latinos were present, but I do wonder how one can conclude that just by looking at the above photograph. Maybe I’m just missing something.

What you’re missing is that Liza’s judgement wasn’t based on just the photos. Almost all the people in the photo are well-known bloggers (at least, well-known if you pay attention to that sort of thing), none of whom self-identify as being Latino or Latina.

Did you hear that? Did you here that, eh? That’s what I’m always goin’ on about: the privileged reception that good spellers get on the Web. You saw it, didn’t you? Come and see the bias inherent in the system! Help! Help! Im being represssed!

Do you have a blog somewhere?

Donna, have you heard the roumor that every time Amp recruits another writer to the blog, he wins a toaster? I’m just sayin’….

Based on presence of a couple chairs in the lower left quadrant of the photo, it clearly wasn’t composed by a professional photographer or regarded beforehand as a serious photo op.

The debate gets even more absurd in this post for putting an attractive female in the front center. The arguments get to be an infinite regress of “who knew,” “what was intended,” and “what should have been.”

This is to me the ultimate tragedy of identity politics (which in general I just don’t get): nothing can satisfy a retrospective analysis of competing niche demands.

Quoting me, “bc” wrote:

Inclusion is the point; the purity of white people’s hearts shouldn’t be the central issue here.

So, I’m going to assume you apply that standard to the Bush administration, then?
(I think both count, but that’s not the point.)

It’s not like there’s a dearth of POC in the Bush administration or appointments, but for some reason, those POC don’t count from the left’s perspective. They’re “tokens” or “Uncle Toms.” Nevermind the inclusion.

This is off-target in several ways.

1) I don’t believe I’ve ever called any Bush administration appointment a token or an Uncle Tom. You seem to be talking to some made-up person in your head, rather than responding to what I in particular have said.

2) Actually, there’s been a huge drop in appointments of POC – and, in particular, black people – since Bush took office. See here, here (pdf link), and the discussion here, for more on this.

3) For the record, I don’t give a damn what’s in Bush’s heart. I care about the results of his policies.

I’m saying that Daou could have avoided the “What’s wrong with this picture?” fallout.

Even so, I think this would have died down quickly if Daou headed it off at the pass and made a post about the meeting, he could have explained that it was thrown together rather quickly, that ironically it was held in Harlem and though attempts were made to invite POC they were unable to attend, and that there would be further meetings with more bloggers in the future. There never would have been the “something wrong with this picture” posts, and most everyone would have given the benefit of the doubt.

You know… For some reason, I really doubt this scenario.

For one thing, the Lewinski parrallels would have still been drawn by the freak-o-sphere (ZOMG0RZ! B00BI3Z R0XX0R!!!). For another, a vast majority of the blogswarm was kept going by the All-Clinton’s-Fault wingnuts of the rabid right.

The blogswarms would have had diminished staying power should, certainly. And if Peter Daou wasn’t too busy preening in public about his job instead of doing his job, it would have been nipped right in the bud. Then again, that’s easy for me to say: Left Off Colfax gets maybe 20 visitors per week, so obviously I wouldn’t know that much about “blogger outreach”. Maybe things look different in the rarified air.

Kos wasn’t there, but he was invited. Oliver Willis was also invited but went to Hawaii instead. (I’d rather go to Hawaii too!) This should not have been the extent of Peter Daou’s outreach. He was hired by Hillary Clinton because he is an influential blogger with connections. He is a networker who goes to conferences and meetings etc. He would likely know the race of many of the bloggers. It’s not like the average commenter or smaller bloggers who stick to anonymity behind the screen.

Even so, I think this would have died down quickly if Daou headed it off at the pass and made a post about the meeting, he could have explained that it was thrown together rather quickly, that ironically it was held in Harlem and though attempts were made to invite POC they were unable to attend, and that there would be further meetings with more bloggers in the future. There never would have been the “something wrong with this picture” posts, and most everyone would have given the benefit of the doubt.

It appears that either it was hoped no one would notice or remark on it, or that no one in the entire group even noticed. Meeting…in Harlem…lunching…on soul food…I dunno seems to be someone would have noticed the irony of the situation?

I also think that if this was Clinton meeting with his favorite bloggers as a private citizen the reaction would be different, but from the posts I’ve seen on the internet it wasn’t. It was about outreach and coordinating messaging, the type of thing that was going on during ABC’s Path to 9/11, where the blogs, the Democrats, and liberal media were all syncronized.

That’s why it should include a diverse group, you still need to get the message out to blacks/latinos/asians/native americans etc. At least if you want to engage POC to vote and be more politically active. Sure you can reach some of them on the mainstream blogs but you can reach alot more on their top blogs of interest.

So, I’m going to assume you apply that standard to the Bush administration, then?
(I think both count, but that’s not the point.)

It’s not like there’s a dearth of POC in the Bush administration or appointments, but for some reason, those POC don’t count from the left’s perspective. They’re “tokens” or “Uncle Toms.” Nevermind the inclusion.

See, you can’t have it both ways. For the record, I don’t see racism at all with Bush, and you sure can’t say he’s only a white man’s man.

I also think FDL sucks, because they defend the “betters” and “eighth grade” drivel as being completely innocent and unintentional, yet vilify George Allen as some kind of crazy racist because he made a smart-assed crack to a paid pain-in-the-ass. They can’t have it both ways, either. If Allen’s a racist, then TRex is too. If TRex isn’t, then neither is Allen if “macaca” is the evidence for his alleged racism. (And for the record, I don’t think either DID mean anything racist by their remarks–I think it’s more a case of their being white making them not even understand the impact their words might have. Of course, it’s true that the only people I saw angry about Allen saying “macaca” were partisan whites, too.

I’m really, REALLY tired of whites using race as a weapon against opponents. It’s not only disingenuous and dishonest, it’s really stupid, bordering on maliciously stupid.

I don’t question your “purity of heart” with regard to race, Ampersand. Not in the least. I’m just saying you shouldn’t be so quick to question your political opponents’ “purity” when they’re essentially speaking the same language and/or ARE, in fact, being quite pleasantly inclusive (whether it’s intentional or not–I personally don’t see any of the Bush POCs as “tokens”).

That’s all.