Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor at Princeton, went all Tracy Morgan/Jordan this morning at The Root, dropping a truth bomb of an essay in which she rails against the reductive analysis of the African-American women’s vote on Super Tuesday, where pundits simply claimed that for black women “race trumped gender.” In attacking that assessment, Harris-Lacewell does something no one writing for the mainstream media is ever supposed to do: she brings an historical awareness to the question, and an awareness that ain’t that pretty at all.
“Throughout history, privileged white women, attached at the hip to their husband’s power and influence, have been complicit in black women’s oppression. Many African-American women are simply refusing to play Mammy to Hillary.”
We’ve excerpted more choice bits at length after the jump.
There’s been a lot of talk about women and their choices since Super Tuesday, when African-American women overwhelmingly voted for Sen. Barack Obama, while white women picked Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some pundits automatically concluded that “race trumped gender” among black women. I hate this analysis because it relegates black women to junior-partner status in political struggles. It is not that simple. A lot of people have tried to gently explain the divide, so I’m just going to put this out there: Sister voters have a beef with white women like Clinton that is both racial and gendered. It is not about choosing race; it is about rejecting Hillary’s Scarlett O’Hara act.
Black women voters are rejecting Hillary Clinton because her ascendance is not a liberating symbol. Her tears are not moving. Her voice does not resonate. Throughout history, privileged white women, attached at the hip to their husband’s power and influence, have been complicit in black women’s oppression. Many African-American women are simply refusing to play Mammy to Hillary.
The loyal Mammy figure, who toiled in the homes of white people, nursing their babies and cleaning and cooking their food, is the most enduring and dishonest representation of black women. [...]
Privileged, Southern white women were central in creating and propagating the Mammy myth. In 1923, the United Daughters of the Confederacy were nearly successful in lobbying Congress to erect a statue on federal land to honor “the memory of the faithful colored mammies of the South.” The desire to memorialize Mammy reveals how Southern white women reveled in the subordinate role of their darker peers. These black women were vulnerable to the sexual and labor exploitation of slaveholders and household employers. These women masked their true thoughts and personalities in order to gain a modicum of security for themselves and their families. The Mammy monument was meant to display black women as the faithful, feisty, loyal servants of white domesticity. [...]
Black feminist politics is not simple identity politics. It is not about letting brothers handle the race stuff, or about letting white women dominate the gender stuff. The black woman’s fight is on all fronts. Sisters resist the ways that black male leaders try to silence women’s issues and squash female leadership. At the same time, black women challenge white women who want to claim black women’s allegiance without acknowledging the realities of racism. They will not be drawn into any simple allegiance that refuses to account for their full humanity and citizenship.
Lacewell’s article in quite interesting. The only thing that concerns me is her unstated implications about those African American women who ARE voting for Clinton. She writes:
“But those who claim that black women are ignoring gender issues by voting for Barack just don’t get it. Hillary cannot have black women’s allegiance for free. Black women will not be relegated to the status of supportive Mammy, easing the way for privileged white women to enter the halls of power.”
Her well taken points about the over-simplification by the media in their analysis of the Black female vote notwithstanding, one can only the conclusion that she feels those who support Clinton are unwittingly placing themselves in a subservient position by assisting a privileged white woman to attain the Presidency. This seems to dismiss out of hand the notion that some African American women might be think that Clinton may be best able to end the war, expand health insurance, improve schools, etc.
Yeah-ya! There is that in the heart of the argument and probably part of the reason why it hasn’t been stated so baldly elsewhere! But I think also implicit is that, according to the logic of the mainstream analysis, black women who choose to vote for Clinton have moved beyond racial politics— maybe only as far as gender politics but still somehowe moved beyond. Whereas black women who choose to vote for Obama are viewed as merely considering race. I like how strongly Lacewell makes the point that for black women in particular, perhaps, the two issues are intertwined and have to do with issues of power and history, especially in a figure like Hillary…. ?!
Of course, it’s not just black women. Race the gender are infused into the analyses of the voting patterns of almost all demographic groups. Perhaps that’s one reason this is such a fascinating race. Race and gender are always simmering just beneath the surface. I think it was Chris Matthews who was speculating about why lesser-educated voters preferred Hillary and he let it slip out that it was because they were more likely to be racist. Perhaps it’s true, but it was stated without a shred of evidence. Then there are the Latinos, whom the mainstream press quietly assumes are anti-black. It’s usually stated that Latinos are strong supporters of Hillary. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
From a statistical perspective, there’s no doubt that race and gender are major factors in the choice of candidate across the board. Blacks are voting for Obama over Clinton in extraordinary numbers. However, lest we forget, previous black candidates for president never garnered numbers like this from black voters. It’s not just that Obama is black. It’s not just that he is viable. It is because he is extraordinary. If we assume that there is a certain amount of racism in whites and Latinos against Obama, imagine the kind of numbers he would be getting if he were white!
Lacewell’s commentary is ridiculous. If Obama were not in the race, she would have been leading the charge for Hillary. Instead of just admitting that she preferred Obama, she feelt the need to demonize Hillary because a strong debate on the issues was not to Obama’s advantage. Instead she diverted the subject to Scarlett and Mammy. Newsflash: Hillary is not Scarlett and black voters are not Mammy. This is not political discourse. This is tantrum throwing. Where are the important discussions about healthcare and the economy? Where is Cornell West!
To Carlos Vasquez: The whole Latinos are “racist” meme was just the media projecting its own history of race onto Latinos. If you look at the exit polls by state, Obama lost the white vote, and not just in the South. (See link below.) But the media don’t report that. Latinos pushed him over the top in states like Florida and New Mexico, but also in unexpected places like Virginia and North Carolina. Bottom line: white liberals and blacks do not make up a big enough voting bloc to win Presidential elections. Latinos were integral to Obama’s win, and will probably be integral to his reelection. Let’s see if he delivers.
http://www.slate.com/id/2204464/sidebar/2204528/