Ether.
“I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” – From Michelle Obama’s senior thesis at Princeton
I owe this ether to those very important Pennsylvanians who love and possess America and the word “you’s” which I was told rhymes with “dues” and is the white Eastern Pennsylvanian way of saying “ya’ll”.
Okay, let’s not front; Pennsylvania Joey B. was picked because he is perceived as being a real American, a real possessor of the United States from real Scranton, PA while Barack and Michelle are visitors, real blackish martians. Many folks think that this real American, Joey B. can make real critiques of that real American maverick, Johnny Shoat Arms McCain. But if you buy into that real fake shit, you’re really wack as the anxious motherfuckers who need to think you aren’t a real American. This is our country, too, real Nigga. A ton of old white male anxiety is rooted in their real rabid desire not to share real Americaness with folks who don’t need to really tan. Real talk. Thank you’s for listening!
Ahem, enough with the ad libbing …
You’s know good and gotdamn well that only a shoat armed white American man can graduate near the bottom of his naval class, brag about being an alcoholic ho who never follows the rules before becoming a tortured POW, then become a shoat armed maverick and now be one of two nominees for President. If Colin Powell had Shoat Arm’s comprehensive military record, he’d be that khaki-colored crazy veteran Nigga with the “good” hair and a desk job. And he’d named Colin Who!
You’s know that Shoat Arm’s imperfection and love for his country is rarely questioned and that Michelle and Barack, to varying degrees, had to prove (and apologize in Michelle’s case) to people who say “you’s” a lot that they are as close to perfect and as far from typical Niggas as exceptional Ivy League Niggas can get. The Obamas did an incredible job of that, and more, but seeing those critical, wonderful black Americans synthesize their critical love for the country while Shoat Arms never has to explain his Americaness or apologize for maverick behavior was more than a tad bit sad … as was the site of Cindy McCain, aka the Stepford Wife in the red fo’arm cast.
Michelle Obama is running for first lady because white Americans don’t think America is her country. And she knows it. She knew it over 20 years ago when she wrote an undergrad thesis on the racial divide. Do you’s get what I’m saying? In her DNC speech, she had to sentimentalize her love for the country she’s “visiting” while Hillary Clinton offered a daring critique-heavy address to the country she’s “possessing”. Do you’s see the difference? Do you’s? Michelle, more than Hillary, Barack, McCain had to prove she’s a satisfied American visitor, not an ungrateful Nigga Bitch, while no one gives a fuck what Stepford Wife in a fo’arm cast thinks about this country.
At this point in election, everyone has a script and a role. You’s know it’s true. And Michelle Obama’s role is to apologize for ever having the audacity to critically love America and not kiss the ass of real American white folk. They’re making her say she’s sorry for black American skepticism. “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country.” But active black American skepticism and critical love have historically done more to enable her, Barack, you, me, my Grandma and them to get where we are than anything in our world.
And while there will be all kinds of sexist and sexual critiques of Ms. Gun-Toting Alaska (Ain’t she fine for a wack politician? Yeah, she is, but she ain’t no Michelle Obama, no matter how homely they want Michelle to dress), will anyone in the mainstream press question her love for her country? Will Ms. Gun-Toting Alaska ever have to explain that she’s not a threat to her country? Will people ever overtly or subtextually connect her to affirmative action? Why is this country more hers than Michelle’s, especially when she lives way out in cold ass Alaska? You’s know the answer to those questions and you’s know I ain’t lying.
The Michelle Obama speech was the saddest performance I’ve seen in a while. But it was also a testament to our collective ability to do whatever we can to not only survive, but succeed. I know it sounds corny, but I think Michelle did it for us. And by us, I mean all Americans, especially the one she’s married to and Niggas with equalIy black lips. I hope we never forget what they encouraged and really made that incredible black woman do to become, not the President or Vice President, but first lady of her own fucking country. Never forget. Never Again?
Ether.
P.S. I hope we all peeped Obama’s speech. Lots of us have talked about his questionable love for black people and whether we should expect more. For example, Barack followed a script as well by not honoring history. Say Martin King’s name, Nigga. Don’t just call him a Preacher from Georgia. Say Fannie Lou Hamer’s name. Acknowledge that some black folks died for you to rock the mic, particularly on the anniversary of King’s Dream speech. But let’s keep it really real — when he told McCain that he isn’t the only one who loves his country, he’s was defending his wife, Michelle (in the face of critiques from McCain about her love for her country) and defending his people’s claim to critically love this country. Hate on him or love him, but please appreciate that. And oh yeah, I’ve got a decent ether in the pot for tomorrow’s grits and fake bacon.
You’s truly,
Deez Nutz
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
20 Responses:
August 31st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Wow. I had no idea Michelle Obama wrote her thesis on racial divide at Princeton.
Its too bad she has to follow the role and the script that she has been assigned because she seems like a really real person, more so than Obama I think…
August 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Michelle de/resigned herself in that rhetorical moment into someone applying for a green card. And while she made that concession for Obama’s campaign, which seems to spend a lot of time placating a white America that believes it built this country alone, Obama thanked her by acknowledging that critical love is still love. But more than that, he told the world that critical love is the only thing that furthers the ideals upon which America is founded. It sucks that Michelle had to play the game, but what the DNC taught me was that camp Obama is hyper-aware of its tenuous green card status and willing to do anything not to get deported. So, your post and last weeks’ events have got me wondering if it’s better to buck the system or play the system? In other words, do we hate the game but not the player or do we say fuck the game? black political thought has been approaching some version of this dilemma for at least the past century and a half. Do we integrate, retaliate or emigrate? For all the hope Camp Obama is spinning, are the vast majority of white Americans really ready to live with the fact that black people built this country (too)?
September 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Funny piece. In response to ed, I think the vast majority are ready to live with the fact that black people built this country, but most deep down think and know that black people built it for white people. Not letting them off, just saying that it’s going to be hard for them to think that we built it together when we really didn’t. For most of our time here, we were their property and did what they told us to do. Can slaves integrate into a house they built but didn’t design?
September 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am
king, your point is so on point. i think we think a lot about how black people continue to be haunted by having once been property, but think so little about the sort of effect that fact must have had/still has on white people. what would it be like to know that just by the color of your skin or where you’re ancestors aren’t from (africa), you COULD have owned other humans. i can’t even imagine what that would mean and how hard it would be to escape that sort of privilege in one’s mind. and while i don’t think we have to worry about integrating into the house we built if we really want to, i do know that redesigning the house is in order. the question is are white people ready to gut this place.
this conversation is making me understand better a moment at the end of ralph ellison’s _invisible man_ when the narrator asks what it means and how one can go about affirming the plans and principles of the nation without affirming the men and violence that built the nation. it’s not just a question for blacks, but a question for the nation…which is what the DNC was mulling over last week.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Lots of people right now are asking Palin if she is patriotic, given her former membership in an Alaskan Independence organization back in the 90s. Her whole America First thesis is being severely questioned on lots of liberal blogs. Michelle isn’t alone in begin subject to criticism about patriotism.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Palin’s a secessionist, Bible-thumping, abstinence-espousing, earmark-pimping, oil-first, Creationist bitch. And the liberal left if crucifying her right now. And I’m lovin’ it. She’s being subject to a profound critique, and many on the left are wondering precisely what kind of American she represents!!! I don’t quite get your critique, my man, not all of it anyway. I will watch the Michelle speech again, and see how it feels from a white man’s view (mediated by your critical love and artistry).
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
One more point. Isn’t the sacrifice of authenticity a fact of life for most politicians–white or black or otherwise? Her rhetorical moment before millions of Americans necessitated a beautifully calculated performance. And she delivered. She performed one of her public identities brilliantly.
And, again, this is a sacrifice lots of folks make to come up: you perform for job interviews; you perform for clients.
It’s all part of the hustle (please excuse the white man for using that word).
I’ve read very few critiques of Michelle Obama’s performance, the harshest coming from a conservative columnist for the Washington Post, and what he said was startlingly similar to your comments.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
What did Palin do to be a “bitch?” First question?
You really think people are going to question her patriotism and her right to criticize her country?
Have you really ever read a “conservative columnist” critique the way white entitlement and supremacy (both of which have no party affiliation) dictated that Michelle give a speech free of well-needed critique of her country? Did that same columnist really ask black folk what we’re supposed to do when we’re told to follow a script that necessitates a kind critical neutering, complacent visitor status and synthetic love of your country?
If so, please send me the columnist name. I want to jump on the bandwagon. I’d love to read this person’s shit on the daily. Hook me up.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 am
Okay, I will concede a few things (how motherfuckin’ noble of me–can a white guy use that word?). I used “bitch” because it lends a nice monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon punch to the end of a line. It’s poetic. Like lots of rappers understand. Yes, it’s also misogynistic. And for that part of the line, I was wrong. As much as I abhor what Palin represents, I regret calling her a bitch.
And yes, I think Palin’s patriotism being called into question. Again, it has a lot to do with her and her husband’s affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Group (her exact connection to the group is murky, but there’s a nice video on Huffington where she delivers a warm welcome to the AIG convention in Anchorage). Her secessionist tendencies for me carry the whiff of Southern-like white supremacy–as well as her biblical literalism, her anti-feminist abortion stance, her rather hypocritical abstinence only policies, her creationism (that’s really scary), and every other right wing fashion accessory she sports. And as I said above, people are explicitly criticizing the American First banner behind which she trumpets her loyalty to the American ideal–as a VP candidate. If you look at her critically, her position is really Alaska first and fuck the USA.
Concession number two: it was not a conservative columnist for the Post who penned words similar to yours. Here’s the link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/08/michelle_obamas_sad_transforma.html
His points are similar to what you make above. But read the commentary below his column. 90% disagree with him. Is it one of those airing an unpopular opinion even though he might be right situations? I don’t know. I disagree with him.
A few more points:
1. Obama’s black and he didn’t hesitate to critique McCain and Republican policies during his speech.
2. Hilary was pilloried as a first lady when she became too political. People felt she should have kept her FEMALE mouth shut and acted demure and feminine, and stuck to all the traditional first lady kind of stuff. And that critique came from the right wing. It wasn’t her race that was at issue, it was her gender. Now that she is a politician, she has entered a traditionally male realm, and feels more comfortable, obviously, sounding off and critiquing.
The stifling of Michelle’s critical voice is primarily a right wing political campaign tactic. It’s not universal.
I gotta go teach a class. More later.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
hot when he said “gotta go teach a class” to prove that nuh matter what he’s got status.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am
Part of your argument above links nativity–Joey B’s Scranton origins, and genuine working class roots–to the ability to criticize his country. This claim about “Joey” seems to support the other part of your argument that Michelle and Obama are treated as if they are aliens, hence their inability to criticize their country.
I think this is a false connection. It’s a common ploy in politics for the VP slot to be the attack dog slot (the guy who does the critiquing). The VP carries the brunt of the negativity, deflecting this negativity from the golden boy–whether this is Bill Clinton or Obama–who can remain somewhat above the fray, dwelling in positivity.
So, this dichotomy you make between nativity/critique on the one hand and alienation/inability to critique on the other seems false to me (at least according to examples you’re using).
Another thing, Obama seemed most on point (can I say that?) when he went into attack mode on Thursday–people were expecting this of him, had missed it, and saw it as a shortcoming in his candidacy up to that point–he had always been too deferential, remote, and refined, too sensitive perhaps to appearing like a man bullying a woman. It wasn’t that the white bogeyman stifled him; whites and everyone else were waiting for the attack to start, and he’s begun to deliver (let’s bring on the debate about foreign policy, or so he challenged McCain).
I think what’s missing in your argument about the ability to critique one’s country is gender. Michelle’s intellect–fierce and interesting, and no one is denying that–and her ability to wield that fine mind (am I allowed to praise her?) seem, to the the right wing of this country too masculine for someone in the role of wife to the man playing the traditional male role of leader of this great land of ours. So, isn’t it as much about heternormativity as it is about race? Hilary can fire off a fusillade of criticism because the public has accepted her as a woman sliding into a role typically played by men in a patriarchal culture.
To me the binary opposition at the root of the ability to critique is less about race than it is about gender. Men speak and critique; women sit quietly by their sides and agree with the men.
One more thing: our country has interiorized the prophetic/critical black male voice: it’s a part of our political heritage, and Obama falls straight into that historical lineage. We expect it of him, and we have been disappointed that we have not seen more of it. We want less of the professor and more of the critic bringing fire to the asses of entrenched political resistance (of whatever color).
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Rhetor, while I think you’re right to bring gender into the discussion, I don’t think anyone, particularly a white male, has the ability to make a hierarchy of oppressions. Sexism and racism often intersect instead of competing and we need to explore that without claiming that one has more weight.
I also think you don’t do justice to the full extent of racism and sexism by using a right wing/left wing dichotomy…this paints racism and sexism as something overt and conscious amongst ill-intentioned people, instead of something that constantly and unconsciously helps inform the behavior and assumptions of both people who identify with subordinated and privileged groups, no matter what party.
I think that you need to consider this when you speak on behalf of what the US media is doing or what our entire country is doing. For instance, you say that our country has interiorized the prophetic/critical black male voice. Has everyone? How? Has everybody internalized it the same way? I know where I’m from, while that figure is expected, it is thought of as a caricature and is completely dismissed, viewed as a loony. Who’s country are you talking about here? Similarly, when you say that the media is critical of Palin, you need to ask, “who’s media?” I think that media outlets that target white middle class people certainly are critical of her, but, for example, when I go home and chill with my parents, the tv news they’ve tuned into is largely accepting, even if only by their silence. So why universalize your conception of the media or the nation? Coming from white boys like us, I’d say that racism and sexism, our white male privilege, helps socialize us to do that. Don’t take this as an attack, I only bring it up because I have done, do, and will probably do the same thing thousands of times.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Rhetor, you gonna mess around and get eaten up. Can’t you tell dude is restraining himself? White folks like you want a particular kind of preacher, not the preacher who preaches directly to black folks about themselves and how utterly racist even the best of white people can be. That’s what you don’t get. Yeah gender is all in this but his post doesn’t avoid that. He’s saying that isn’t it crazy that even Hillary and Palin never get their Patriotism questioned and never have to apologize to white people like you for saying that you’re racist as fuck. People like you never have to apologize for being ungrateful. Niggers have no choice.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Pardon me, Rhetor. I meant Niggers who want to be elected have no choice. Son, do you just bounce from essay to essay getting roasted? I saw what S and Danyer did to you over there. Damn! White liberals are funnnnnnnnnnnny how they love to get it from black folks by any means neccessary
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
King,
Hey, I really don’t mind getting “roasted” as you say. And to be honest, I’m getting a hell of an education from this conversation. I don’t want to be afraid to engage, even if I get shot down.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:46 am
white liberals and other boogeymen are boring, regardless of where they’re boogeying.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Yeah, and this blog is like a gangsta intellectual glee club. Rah, rah, motherfuckin’ rah. One tune, no dissent.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Rhetor, you don’t get it. Take a read back over the comments on this blog. People disagree all the time and disagree with the Cold Drank of the day. No one agreed with dude about picking Hillary for veep at the time. You mad because no one agrees with you. But you’re not going to find a lot of black people who agree with what you saying. Right or wrong, most of us know that Michelle is being made to be an ungrateful visitor in her own country because most of us have felt like that. We’re just wondering if the means justify the end in this case. But it’s a question we ask ourselves all the time. I hate when white American males make themselves the center of something that’s not theirs. We disagree all day but we agree that you’re one of those white men who doesn’t get white male power or black survival. But please keep expressing because I know I am.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
To Rhetor, with love:
It’s not always about you. Sometimes that can be hard to comprehend if you’re not used to it, so I send this little note with love.
~ED