Friday, December 4, 2009

patronize black people

Right on the heels of the most recent post here, which is about a common white form of condescension toward black people, comes the following exchange between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and April Ryan, a reporter for Urban Radio.

Ryan asked about the role of White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers at a recent state dinner (an event which has been in the headlines because of Tareq and Michaele Salahi's "crashing" of the dinner). Gibbs listens to Ryan and then answers, but when she insists on a better answer, he waves her off. He then makes a belittling comparison between Ryan and an unruly, petulant child.





I doubt Gibbs would have treated a white male reporter this way, but I'd have to study his handling of various reporters to be sure. At the very least, his insistence that Ryan "calm down" and "take a deep breath" is reminiscent of common and domineering white complaints about differing non-white modes of discourse (a form of derailment now known as the "tone argument").

If you were listening carefully, you may have noticed that Gibbs' next statement made the roomful of reporters gasp: "I do this with my son and that's what happens." ("Don't play me," Ryan said in return, "I'm being serious here.") This comment of Gibbs' is also reminiscent of common white abuse of black people, in the form of belittling names (such as "boy" and "girl" for grown men and women, and the insistent use of given names for black adults, even by white children). Common during the Jim Crow era, that is.

Perhaps Gibbs found Ryan's line of inquiry itself unworthy? Brett Michael Dykes, who wrote up the incident for the Yahoo! News Blog, calls her questions "tabloid-y," implying that Gibbs was dismissing the questions, as much or more than the questioner. Does this interpretation make his dismissal justifiable?

Since Ryans' questions were about a screwup at a White House party, rather than, say, the escalation in Afghanistan, America's limping economy, or the health care debate, the topic might seem trivial. But then, the crashing of that party by two uninvited people actually became an issue of national security, since those two managed to get within damaging distance of the president (they were photographed shaking his hand).

Maybe Gibbs has treated white reporters this way, and/or white women. If he has, would that make his treatment here of Ryan okay?

What do you think? Was Gibbs' treatment of Ryan racist? Sexist? Both? Or did she instead deserve such treatment, because she was acting like a "tabloid-y" hack?

83 comments:

  1. I was actually going to write to you about this since seeing the video today, so thank you for being ahead of the game! I honestly thought of you, and this blog and the most recent post when I saw the video. I definitely think he was being sexist, and maybe racist as well. Even if he didn't like or find her line of questioning worthy, he could've handled the situation better. But to talk down to her and compare her to a child, that's down right disrespectful. What gives him the right to speak to her that way? Oh yeah, because he's the white man, and she's the black woman.

    ReplyDelete
  2. *shrug*

    Can't say I'm surprised. That's generally how Black women are usually treated. It's simply rarely caught on camera.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think it was because she was black. It was because she was a woman. He wouldn't have said anything like that to a reporter that had a dick and a pair of nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok there was a little sexism and racism hidden in Gibbs response to April's questions on rumors flying around Washington.But as a follower of April Ryan I say Gibb's response to her was appropriate,she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer of reporters.April Ryan who represent an Urban Radio Network( read black folk) should have been more focus on questions like when is President Obama going to create a jobs program to put people back to work!But no April herself is caughtup in the Washington social game that she has forgotten her mission.

    ReplyDelete
  5. it definitely struck me as an example of racialized sexism. i think if the reporter had been a white female, he may have still felt comfortable in his gender privilege to tell her to take a deep breath and calm down. but i think the comparing her questions to banter he has with his son is, exactly as you said, an example of reducing POCs to children.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think I can agree with you this time. From the looks of the video, that reporter did need to calm down and let Gibbs answer the question. She seemed very agitated when he didn't give her the answer that she wanted to hear, but he's the White House Press Secretary. His job is to spin and control the information that comes out of the that place. You need to accept that if you're going to be a professional White House press correspondent, you're not likely to get a straight answer. I honestly feel like the same thing would have happened if it was a white man who was peppering Gibbs. That woman was acting like a child.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Racist and sexist. I do think there's a chance he would've done the same to a white woman, but no, that doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a dismissive dick. From the beginning of the clip he was already shaking his head and saying no, which I'm sure there was more before this, but I get the feeling she had a millisecond to come off as a submissive slave to him if she wanted him to listen before he cut her off and dismissed her. I do think it was a racial-sexism combo. No doubt in my mind. I'm so disgusted by him.

    It has been my experience that white men (and women sometimes too, but I've mostly seen it with men) treat black women like that often. I've been horrified to witness it. I've been baffled at how readily the tone argument thrown out there. My friends and I have discussed this on a number of occasions. They've been dismissed as "overly emotional," "The Angry Black Woman," "too much," etc.

    There is nothing they could have done to get that man, and men like him, to see them as people deserving of the respect they would show a white man - hell even the reduced respect they'd show a white woman - and see her points as valid. Nothing.

    I think that many white men are so intimidated by black women that they dismiss the notion of having a conversation with them before it even gets started. I think it falls under the slave-master mentality. White = inherently dominant and deserving of immediate and unquestioning respect as an authority (like a parent).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Has anyone given to think that April Ryan's question was more of a desire to find any dirt on Ms.Rogers?
    Maybe April desires to be in Ms.Rogers social circle?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, Gibbs could have handled this situation better, but I find it a stretch to attribute his patronizing attitude to racism or sexism. I am myself extremely disappointed in how the press has devolved into a group of brainless gossips. It is ubiquitous, and I think each and everyone of them should be schooled harshly for asking inane questions.

    Honestly, if he had not spoken-up about this insipid line of questioning, I would say that would be more of a racist statement than otherwise. Just because someone happens to be black and a woman does not exempt her from being called out on plaguing the airways with and contributing to a culture of mindless treacle.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Definitly sexist and racist. Black women bear the brunt of not just being seen as "irrational, hysterical" as women or "uppity" as blacks, but as Angry Black Women. Any time a black woman is assertive and in control, there's always some racist d-bag to dismiss her as being angry and out of control... even when she's the most in control and calmest in the room.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know, I'm part Asian. My father experienced extreme racism when he came to the U.S. and settled in Tennessee. This racism indirectly impacted me and my sisters as women of color in an extremely debilitating manner to the point that I would say two of us have a form of PTSD from growing up with a man who projected so much internalized racism on us. However, I would like nothing more than to see Michelle Malkin, who is an Asian woman, humbled and put in her proper place as an insipid scandalmonger. If a White guy adopted a patronizing attitude toward her, because I think she is an idiot myself, I wouldn't attribute his attitude toward racist or sexist tenancies.

    People doing a disservice to our culture by scandal mongering need to be held accountable, no matter what their color or sex. To exempt them from such accountability would be a very extreme, patronizing form of racism, as far as I am concerned. A person's color or sex shouldn't grant them immunity from being held to ethical standards. Propagating gossip in the press when our democracy is dying due to an uneducated, uninformed, distracted populace is inexcusable. The media have a responsibility to educate and inform the populace. Our democracy is a farce because the press here has become dedicated to distracting the public from important issues while the corporate powers can rape and pillage...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Definitely racist and sexist. His job as PS is to answer the fucking question (it was a simple question), if he did not like the question or felt it inappropriate, then say so, but don't demean someone, especially in a room full of people.

    Him telling her to calm down, what was that all about? appears to me she got assertive because of his dismissive behavior, and in his attempt to put her in her place, he called her a child and an angry Black woman, all in one sentence. Gibbs has been the PS since day one, and I would wager dollars to donuts, that you will not find any instance where he disrespected a white reporter in that manner. Yea, he gets into it with reporters, but he never calls them a 4 year old.

    If she was channeling her childhood, then it's fair to say he was channeling his Alabama roots.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've watched it several times. At no point does he take her seriously. Plus, he's the one who doesn't let Ryan finish her question. He interrupts her several times, but he turned it around to make it sound as though she's the one who interrupted him by saying, "are you done speaking..." Then he answers. She let's him finish his sentence before reasking her question which he seems to be ignoring. But for some reason the impression he tries to leave is that she's the one doing all the interrupting.

    I believe it's racialized sexism. Recently I have been talking to an older white man about certain work related issues and there are many things on which we disagree completely. We both seem to think of the other as being quite biased. But this post has made me realize that at no point has he ever been patronizing towards me like Mr. Dickhead in this video. This video just reminded me of all those times when white men and women have been patronizing towards me, and it helped me appreciate how nice it is when it doesn't happen. This is why I believe this incident is definitely racialized sexism because Mr DH had other ways in which he could have responded to Ryan's question even if he thought they were not good questions, but he chose to be patronizing and infantilizing. I'm surprised people actually think he would've compared a white male reporter to a child.

    ReplyDelete
  15. >> "A person's color or sex shouldn't grant them immunity from being held to ethical standards."

    Of course not.

    It also shouldn't prevent them from being treated with respect.

    The issue here is not Ms. Ryan's journalistic integrity. It is the way in which RodentMan refused to answer her.

    >> "If a White guy adopted a patronizing attitude toward her, because I think she is an idiot myself, I wouldn't attribute his attitude toward racist or sexist tenancies."

    Again, it's not just the patronizing attitude in the circumstances, it is this *specific expression* of that attitude. As the OP points out, relating black people to children is a common belittlement tactic, as is telling women to "calm down." (In my experience, the tone argument is flung at women of all races much more often than at MOC, although I've certainly seen it there, too).

    ReplyDelete
  16. >> "Has anyone given to think that April Ryan's question was more of a desire to find any dirt on Ms.Rogers?
    Maybe April desires to be in Ms.Rogers social circle?"


    A does not lead to B, and your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Note: I didn't watch this particular video because I'm deaf and I assume it doesn't have captions, but I have seen a transcript of the exchange elsewhere.

    Welcome to intersectionality -- I don't think there's any way you can separate out whether this was racism, sexism, or both. White women are regularly infantalized and patronized to, but so are people of color of both genders.

    "Tabloid-y"? I think that's also infantalizing/patronizing. No matter what women or POC choose to focus on (via activism, journalism, academia, etc, etc, etc), they are told there's something "more important," and why aren't they worrying about that. If she had gotten worked up about Afghanistan or the economy, people would be saying, "Why isn't she concerned that two people walked right past Secret Service to shake hands with the POTUS?! What if they had a bomb?!"

    That doesn't sound "tabloid-y" to me...that sounds like a pretty huge issue of security. If just anyone can walk into the White House and get close to various heads of state -- well, shit. I'm surprised Obama *hasn't* been assassinated yet.

    ReplyDelete
  18. RVC,

    Some of these comments are quite familiar. It's always funny (not haha funny) to see the actual aspects in play. Did you catch the "I'm part fill in the blank" derailment, too? As if being mixed, makes racialized sexism justified.

    Yes, this is an example of racialized sexism. Anyone trying to say it isn't, needs to step away from the poisoned punch.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't think it has anything to do with racism or sexism. Isn't the press supposed to get answers? Gibbs is a rank amateur. We should be happy the press is grilling this guy. He would have responded the same way if it was a white male. Go back and look. He's done it before. When the heat turns up on him he starts to sweat...

    I think Obama will replace him next year with someone of more confidence and less arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry I see no racism, just a media hack asking hack questions and getting owned in the process. I also don't see the sexism, I feel he would have owned a dude the same way, but I am not in his head so I don't know. I just think the race fighting blogosphere is reaching with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. imhotep, it might feel good to you to say it, but you're out of your mind if you think the PS's job is simply "to answer the fucking question." He serves at the pleasure of the president, and when a member of the press corps persists with an insipid, gossipy, dumb line of questioning, and does so in an insipid, gossipy, dumb way, it's completely appropriate for him to compare her to a child. My god, the president has announced the deployment of 30,000 more troops this week and this is what she wants to go to the mat for? And this is what people on this blog are upset about?

    There's a fight underway in Washington, "anti-racists." It's happening RIGHT NOW, and the outcome will determine much. It's time to choose a side instead of sniping about trivialities.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Portuguese, it was because she was BOTH. There's this thing called intersectionality where all aspects of a person go into making who they are and how others treat/react to them. Dude may have felt justified to talk to her like that because she was a woman, but her being Black too just sort of hammered it home for him even that she was an inferior.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Of course, the real question is: Would he talk to her like that on the street?

    If the answer is yes, then he's just a prick. If the answer is no, then there's something very White and male and wealthy going on.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ BigmacinPittsburgh

    Sir, I've met April Ryan at the White House, in the press gaggle. She is generous to new colleagues, tough, and whip-smart. As a black woman, she's had the kind of longevity in D.C., through different administrations, that most reporters can only dream of. And don't worry, PLENTY of people have heard her lob tough questions about economic and social problems facing black Americans. In fact, I'd suggest you look up some transcripts of her Bush administration coverage.

    I'm not active in the media scene anymore, but I realized long ago that many laypeople don't always understand the way real reporters approach their questioning, or source relationships. One carefully positioned query, or a rapid-fire group of questions, can open a gold mine. The reaction of the person answering oftentimes provides more than that person's verbalized response. At the very least, the reporter has opened a door for other ways to get the information they want. That's their job. With all of this "viral" Web attention, Gibbs or one of his lieutenants may now have to see Ryan behind closed doors, just to save face. Who knows what relevant, newsworthy information she'll get from this?

    In any case, you have NO idea how Ms. Ryan fits into the D.C. "social game." In fact, wouldn't you say that asking questions about the president's safety and his staff's role (i.e. - Rogers) are just as important as the other subjects you mentioned? I'd suggest that you'd stop hating on something you haven't taken the time to examine fully.

    Last but not least, I'm tired of people expecting women reporters to somehow show more deference during questioning than men. Yes, it may be Gibbs' job to "spin," but the comparison comment about his son was wrong, and I'm glad he was called on it. Good reporters, the ones who care about reporting the news, figure out early they won't be liked all the time because the nature of the job is confrontational. Let's hope Ms. Ryan gets some information that may be useful to us all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There was another post about this and the comments were very interesting. Many of the people who commented thought she was being "ghetto" and many of the people who felt this way were black.

    When I finally watched the video, I was kind of confused. Ryan certainly didn't fit into any "ghetto" stereotype that I have. She simply appeared to be overzealous and a too demanding for the situation.

    Gibbs responses seemed to be rather unprofessional and, yes, demeaning. I did read, though, that she had grilled him the previous day with the exact same questions and in much the same manner, so he may have just been fed up. One things for sure, he certainly should have handled it differently. The reference to his son was particularly uncalled for in a professional atmosphere.

    I've seen quite a few press conferences and if there is a reporter who won't stop talking, the standard response is to simply say, "I've said all I plan to say on that subject. Next!" and to keep repeating this until the reporter in question "gets" it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. White male here, so little to no authority on these things, but:

    The question was about whether the social secretary was overshadowing the first lady and whether the social secretary invited herself to the dinner or was invited. As far as I could hear, it had nothing to do with the security problems at the event. I think that justifies calling the question tabloid-y, and I think it justifies Gibbs trying to dismiss the question and the person asking it, whatever that person's race or gender.

    However, once he'd decided to dismiss the person asking the question, he picked a possibly racist and sexist way to do it. Most of what he said would have been perfectly appropriate to say to a white man ("I do this with my kids", not so much), but it seems important avoid phrases that specifically attack the group of the person you're talking to. There are other ways to say it's a stupid question.

    Overall, I think that if Gibbs uses the same kinds of attacks against white men, then he's just not as anti-racist as we might want. If he saves them for women of color, then he was acting racist and sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Race averse, What does Gibbs serving at the pleasure of the President have to do with him being disrespectful to a reporter? Are you suggesting that’s part of his job description? Ms. Ryan have every right, and I would say a duty, to ask her question. The threat level against this president is 400 times greater than any previous president. During his run for office, he got his security team earlier than any previous presidential candidate. Maybe his safety is trivial to you, but I’ve my concerns. For someone to wander into a White House State dinner uninvited, frankly, that should be a concern to us all. So, thank God for Ms. Ryan’s line of questioning.

    At any press meeting there will be approximately 30 reporters in the room (no all are called on) of the ones that are called, invariably there will be questions regarding either wars, the economy, health care, etc. And an ample amount of follow-up questions as well. Just because she asked a question YOU did not want to hear, does not mean she was derelict in her duties as a reporter, and it sure as hell does not give Gibbs the right to disrespect her. I'm glad she was not seeking white people’s approval with her line of questioning.

    Anti-racism is trivial? Well I guess you have clearly chosen your side, so I should not be surprised about your feelings towards Ms. Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ J. Yasskin

    Yes, Ms. Ryan's original question did cover Ms. Rogers possibly "upstaging" Mrs. Obama socially. Speculative stories in major newspapers have already covered this subject, focusing more on the impact on both Obamas. And, yes, that question may have initially sounded "tabloidy" to some within earshot, but as I wrote earlier, some icky questions often lead to bigger things. All the stories about this possible "upstaging" lead back to what happened at the state dinner, with the uninvited Salahis meeting the president. We know now that no one from the Social Secretary's office was placed with the Secret Service, when they perhaps should have been. Ms. Rogers, the head of the Social Secretary's office, is one of most visible in the nation's history. She has encouraged this high visibility. If you listen closely to Ryan's exchange with Gibbs again, she later asks something like this: "Did (Rogers) invite herself to the state dinner, or did the president invite her?" So in my mind I'm wondering if Rogers is more concerned with profiling than making sure all the I's were dotted and the T's were crossed? Will she be reprimanded for it?

    No one may know until Ms. Ryan actually crafts a story on this subject, but the reality is some unanswered questions are left. And, throughout history, U.S. administrations have been *known* to demote or fire staff despite saying otherwise. This story isn't over, and Ms. Ryan was just doing her job, trying to find out if there's more to it. Her behavior is not "overzealous," "ghetto," or any other way I've heard it described (though not by you).

    ReplyDelete
  29. A few points:

    First, this video is from the far-right "Townhall" website, run by people who are extremely hostile to this administration and which has chosen to air this clip mid-way through Ryan's questions, all of which are based on D.C. gossip and focused on nasty rumors surrounding Desiree Rogers, the (African-American) White House Social Security. Ryan seems to be gunning for the woman -- as are a lot of white, male right-wing bloggers.

    Second, Gibbs had been very patient with Ryan, who was peppering him with comments to justify her line of questioning, subsequently missing many of his answers. Then she says, with attitude, "Answer my question, please." That's when he's had enough, as you can see when he gets that big fake smile and asks if she's done speaking. She went too far, and with some stupid questions to boot. Ryan got what she deserved.

    Third, Ryan is not the first reporter to get smacked down for being rude and/or stupid by a WH press secretary -- especially by Gibbs, who's most famous incident to date has been halting a conference to confiscate the cell phones of white, male reporters who forgot to set them to vibrate. He's also known for talking over reporters and mocking or even insulting their questions (just ask Faux News' Major Garrett, a white male).

    These cries of racism and sexism are not valid here, and do a disservice to more subtle forms of bigotry against women and women of color.

    ReplyDelete
  30. How dare you people say this about a man hand-picked by our greatest president ever Barack Obama. I'm serious. He is one the most well-rounded men to represent our humble leader. Barack Obama wouldn't have chosen him if he were racist and sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ ryking:

    Again, the issue here is not necessarily the fact that RodentMan was dismissive of Ms. King's questions (that may or may not be a problem; I don't know enough about the situation to judge). The problem that most people are pointing to is the way in which he was dismissive.

    It is racist and sexist because his method (calling her a child, telling her to calm down) has such a strong history of racism and sexism inherent in it that the words have become weighted when used against someone in a marginalized group, particularly WOC.

    Like, I can call him RodentMan, and it is okay because he is a WM--the nickname RodentMan indicates that I think he looks like a mouse; it begins and ends there. HOWEVER, if I were to even jokingly compare a POC to an animal, the label would carry with it the long history of POC, especially black people, being associated with monkeys as a way to dehumanize them. It would be commentary on an *entirely* different level.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I thought the Press Secretary's comments to April Ryan and more to do with sexism than racism. Either way, it was rude and he should apologize publicly. Secondly, I really thought April should give it a rest. Partycrasher, though a pending an outcome, is not top priority for the President and his staff at this very momemnt. Im a former journalist and being blown off in Washington is par for the course.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It seems clear to me that Gibbs felt Ryan was being an angry black woman & he didn't want to deal with that. He didn't like the way she wouldn't give up her insist line of question. It's clear he felt that only did her questions deserve no answer, but she deserved no common decency either.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I thought the Press Secretary's comments to April Ryan and more to do with sexism than racism.

    Why do people constantly feel so sure about that?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Or did she instead deserve such treatment, because she was acting like a "tabloid-y" hack?" the fact that a room full of reporters, a profession known for its thick skin, audibly gasped at his treatment of ms. ryan should be a big tip off to him that he was in the wrong.

    however, imo, the treatment of ms. ryan as an individual i've seen happen to women across color lines. but the blatant racism here may well have less to do with the individual he is addressing as the fact that she works for urban radio. would gibbs have reacted this way if she worked for a network that was NOT "the only African-American owned network radio" that "reaches more African-Americans than any other medium in America"

    i find the secondary stories really telling: those critical of obama and his administration in the past seem to either be completely silent or taking up for the press secretary now. also, i have found only one other article / blog treatment of the event that is even questioning the race aspect.

    abc makes an attempt at answering your question about how he has handled other reporters by offering this link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Gibbs_to_Tapper_Did_you_have_more_pertinent_question.html
    the video is unavailable so i don't know tapper's race but i read the transcript and abc is out of its mind if it sees a one to one correlation here.

    the one article addressing race: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=52927
    the author makes the case that gibbs is actually not attacking ms. ryan but defending desiree rogers. and that ms. ryan is a 'crabarrel'. again, i would say that is irrelevant as there are at least a hundred other respectful avenues gibbs could have taken . . . but, it was the only other discussion i found addressing the race aspect.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Notice how in some comments here - especially early in the thread - he is Gibbs and she is April.

    ReplyDelete
  37. no imotep, anti-racism is not trivial. what passes for it in your neck of the woods, though, is trivializing. to wit: denouncing gibbs for "racism" for having compared that childish, bratty woman to a five-year-old is to truly trivialize actual racism.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @ Willow,

    So Gibbs being dismissive of Ryan would have been okay, as long as his dismissal was done in certain fashion?

    You're the first person (that I've encountered) to state that it's not Gibb's dismissal but the type of dismissal that is sexist and racist.

    I have to disagree that; it was certainly condescending, and we can all argue if it was warranted, but condescension isn't out of character for Gibbs; ask any number of white, male reporters who have pointedly asked questions he'd already (or at least felt as though he'd already) answered, and see if they don't feel as if he's condescended to them.

    Ryan did some good work taking on the Bush Junta, and paid for it as Helen Thomas did. But Ryan's line of questioning about State Dinner security procedures at a previous White House press conference with Gibbs, where she asked already-answered questions, hurt her credibility. Furthermore, Ryan has almost three decades of journalistic experience, but her questions about Desiree Rogers at this conference were right out of the right-wing hate-o-sphere's playbook -- as was her defensiveness.

    Again, I'm not seeing Gibbs as the bad apple here -- and I am sooooo not a fan of that man.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @pea knuckle

    I wouldn't characterize Ryan as a "childish, bratty woman," but I would agree that both her questions and her conduct set her up for a rebuke.

    Being a journalist means being confrontational; sometimes a journalist seemingly takes that too far but it yields some surprising revelations, other times it backfires and the journalist gets burned. I think Ryan is in need of some bandages, in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Fact: Dierdre Rogers, aspiring DC diva, and WhiteHouse Social Secretary fucked up. It wasn't the secret service, it was Dierdre, who wanted to be part of the party, and foresook her official responsibilities to play the glam damme with the rich and famous.

    This is all part of the effort to cover that part up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pea knuckle said, "no imotep, anti-racism is not trivial. what passes for it in your neck of the woods, though, is trivializing. to wit: denouncing gibbs for "racism" for having compared that childish, bratty woman to a five-year-old is to truly trivialize actual racism."

    What do you mean by my neck of the woods? How did you get your information about my neck of the wood? Are you making some kind of racist assumption? And if so, am I trivializing your racist assumption?

    You state that I’m trivializing actual racism, pray tell, share with me YOUR experienced with ACTUAL racism.

    For the record, I’m sick and tired of people—mainly white—telling me to temper my claims of racism. For the umpteenth time, You don’t get to define racism or acts of racism! If it was left to your definition, nothing would be racist. So please don’t tell me about trivializing racism, fact of the matter it’s ALWAYS been trivial to white folks, and you throw out the term “trivializing racism” so as to maintain your racist practices and behavior, regardless of the impact that it has on others.

    If you’re waiting for Gibbs to go to the podium wrapped in the confederate flag, and call Ms Ryan a nigga, and only then will you label him a racist, well chances are that’s not going to happen, but it does not mean that Gibbs is devoid of racist tendencies.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If I may, I would like to offer a link to a blog discussing the dire issues facing our country today. It is not an anti-racism blog. However, it covers many social and economic issues that people like this woman in the press are totally neglecting.

    Asking questions about who eclipsed whom at a political social gathering bastardizes and trivializes the role of the press in our society. I know SWPD is not about this topic, but I do think most of the readers here are quite intelligent and could lend their voices to demands that the press clean up its act, no matter what the sex or color of its members.

    http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/courting-convulsion.html

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why do some of these posts seem so familiar? They remind me a lot of what you get when applying techniques from Derailing for Dummies.

    Oh, wait! Because they are!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I also find it very telling that a good chunk of the comments to this post and others often go out of their way to attempt to preserve their image of non-racism and not analyzing or critiquing their own assumptions and habits, which is, I thought, the main purpose of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  45. RVCBard,

    If you are referring to my comments, it would be nice if you could be more specific about your admonishments. I readily admitted that the link I provided was not directly on topic. I don't think derailers commonly do this?

    I come to this blog because racism has impacted my family and because I see how racism affects people around me all of the time. It pisses me off, and I am relieved that people can discuss these issues openly here.

    If you don't think I've earned my anti-racism badge because I don't think this was a clear-cut case of racism, and because I think there are other important issues at hand in this scenario that are being mislabeled as racism and sexism, I don't know what to say. We may just have to agree to disagree about that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. mthgk,

    Why do you assume it's all about you?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Look, regardless of whether Ryan was being professional enough or not, the fact is that Gibbs resorted to tactics which smelled of racism to shut her up. He did not need to call her a child or tell her to calm down. If he didn't like the question and thought it trivial, he should just say so and go on to the next. He did this eventually (by talking about Afghanistan), but only AFTER he had trivialized her as a person in ways which smelled so strongly of racialized sexism that the whole room responded with oooohs. So many in the room thought Gibbs had gone too far. So if you (generic) are denying all of that and focusing on Ryan's professionalism, then yes, you are derailing.

    It's like saying, if a woman dresses inappropriately, then she deserves to be raped. No, she doesn't. That is regardless of how she dresses or acts. Same goes for trivializing people, telling them (often women and poc) they're being emotional (calm down) and infantilizing them (often done to pocs).

    ReplyDelete
  48. RVCBard,

    I don't... Just wondering since several of your comments followed my posts. Hope not since I think I agree with you for the most part on most of these posts!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Racism will exist so long as the concept of race among humans is permitted to exist. I firmly believe the origins of race were done so as to permit a majority the ability to rationalize the continued subjugation, destruction, and manipulation of other groups of people (after a grand document stated "all men are created equal", it was not possible to continue permitting slavery without delegitimizing the humanity and masculinity of slaves i.e. make them less than "men".) If we keep the concept alive, we make it possible for people to continue to exploit simplistic categorization and visual prejudices.

    ReplyDelete
  50. If we keep the concept alive, we make it possible for people to continue to exploit simplistic categorization and visual prejudices.

    Do you really think people of color are so simpleminded that you have to point this out to us as the most important aspect of eradicating racism in the form of White supremacy?

    Do you really think that people of color are so stupid that we never considered this before or that we could not come up with anything better before you pointed it out?

    Do you not realize how ironic your statement is considering the topic of this post?

    Do you not see how your statement reinforces White supremacy?

    Have you ever considered that perhaps you have a lot more to learn than people who are trying to figure out ways to balance the inequities of power created and perpetuated by White people all the time right this second?

    Do you realize how statements to the effect of "everyone should be colorblind" reinforces White supremacy instead of combats it?

    ReplyDelete
  51. RVCBard,

    I don't... Just wondering since several of your comments followed my posts. Hope not since I think I agree with you for the most part on most of these posts!


    Honestly, most of the time a lot of people responding to what I say don't even know what the hell I'm talking about. And rather than asking for clarification (after all, there's NO WAY a woman of color could be talking about something at a level White people don't get, right?), they go out of their way to debate me and other people of color on points we never made, condescend to us as if we don't have the capacity to accurately interpret our own experiences, demand proof from OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES about things we live with everyday, and otherwise act as if they assume we can't possibly know what we're talking about when it comes to racism. It's insulting, annoying, and disappointing to see this behavior tolerated and catered to everywhere I go, even in places where the point is to unlearn those assumptions and habits.

    Why is it so hard for so many White people commenting here to admit how much they really don't know instead of antagonizing and invalidating those of us who are trying to uncover the hidden depths of racist habits and behaviors, as well as their costs to real people?

    What makes so many White people feel so comfortable expecting, asking, or demanding that we be constantly willing to cater to their so-called desire to learn and do better despite the overwhelming ignorance and apathy demonstrated so often in "anti-racist" environments? And before you say "step away from the keyboard" (gee - never thought of that), what is a simple internet discussion to you is, to us, a constant reminder of the shit we have to put up with from White people every single day more or less with a smile on our faces if we don't want to wind up unemployed, homeless, addicted to something, and/or probably crazy.

    Once again, instead of benefiting us, all this effort benefits White people who "just want to learn" but don't really act like it. Because all that happens is that people say the stuff they think they're supposed to say but they keep doing the things that are causing the problems. The underlying assumptions and behaviors are not changing.

    If people want discourse to go beyond "That's racist! - No it's not!" there has to be a shift in discussion from debate to deepening. Instead of rushing to defend an image of Good White Liberal or Nice White Person, why not turn that energy inward? Rather than interrogating us about our experiences, why not focus on what White people do that makes life difficult for us and how you can change it? Before hitting "Publish Your Comment" in response to a comment that challenges White people's ideas about how the world works, why not start with White people and the assumptions they bring to bear in similar situations as described in the original post? Instead of constantly belittling, invalidating, or minimizing the realities people of color live with everyday, how about seeking to understand the impact these behaviors have on our lives?

    In other words, instead of wasting time and energy coddling and protecting Whiteness, how about using the things posted here as a catalyst for self-examination and developing new habits and new assumptions that don't hurt us?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'm not White. I've been directly and indirectly impacted by racism and sexism as a woman with Chinese heritage. I am a woman of color and have always identified as so. I just don't think this is an incontrovertible instance of racism. That opinion doesn't make me clueless or stupid with regard to the plight of people impacted by racism. Anyhow, I'm not sure what you are saying here pertains to me specifically, so I'm not going to comment further...

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Once again, instead of benefiting us, all this effort benefits White people who "just want to learn" but don't really act like it."

    they are not interested in 'learning'. They are interested in feeling good about themselves as they are not 'racist' and pontificating on it. Navel gazing at its' finest.

    "What makes so many White people feel so comfortable expecting, asking, or demanding that we be constantly willing to cater to their so-called desire to learn and do better despite the overwhelming ignorance and apathy demonstrated so often in "anti-racist" environments?"

    I get the feeling that many of them are going through a phase. The crux of the matter is this; These so-called white anti-racists, can, and many do walk away from this when the going gets tough. They can return to their white cocoon when they wish. However, as racialized people we cannot and must put up with this untenable outlook and behaviour in various degrees, from cradle to grave. There appears to be a disconnect going on here. Many are just playing lip service to this anti-racism, they don't really mean it. It is too ingrained, or at least that's the excuse many use, that along with, it's 'subconcious'. They bloody well know what they are doing and saying. However, they want to maintain the myth of white benevolence. White anti-racism is just a prop many use(not all), to uphold this belief to themselves and others. Racialized people have to join together to create a potent force in order to overcome this scourge. Stop depending on white anti-racist to validate racialize people's experiences, most never will. The few that do are vastly outnumbered. Stop making these commenters feel good about themselves. Those who are genuine will understand exactly what you are saying. It will completely go over the heads of those who are playing at being anti-racist. Hence these comments which are essentially clueless in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I deign to answer your condescension, but I will as you seem to be accusing me of the same.

    "Do you really think people of color are so simpleminded that you have to point this out to us as the most important aspect of eradicating racism in the form of White supremacy?"

    No.

    "Do you really think that people of color are so stupid that we never considered this before or that we could not come up with anything better before you pointed it out?"

    No.

    "Do you not realize how ironic your statement is considering the topic of this post?"

    No.

    "Do you not see how your statement reinforces White supremacy?"

    No.

    "Have you ever considered that perhaps you have a lot more to learn than people who are trying to figure out ways to balance the inequities of power created and perpetuated by White people all the time right this second?"

    Yes.

    "Do you realize how statements to the effect of "everyone should be colorblind" reinforces White supremacy instead of combats it?"

    No.

    What is your answer? Keep the concept alive to promote your personal hatred and disgust? Without the concept, what would you "have" to debate about? Is removing "white" privilege by removing the very concept of race going to maintain the status quo or result in a sharing of this privilege until we reach some imbalance based on factors outside of physical attributes? As a homosexual, I'd suggest it may be the only solution. If I happen to disagree with you, you may attribute it to be my being "white", but being as I've had the awful experience of de-racing myself for over twelve years while trying to accept the mind-boggling complexity of any population; I'd doubt you could understand. You are, after all, THE victim, aren't you? And me, what claim do I have besides being called a "ghost" in Chinese (which is slang), being called a honky, being called a faggot, being harassed. That's right, your skin color, according to you, makes you an expert of some sort to perhaps dual consciousness or white supremacy.

    The idea of white supremacy is actually just a result of an ethnic group adopting a system of laws and economics which have overtaken modern society. At one point it was Egyptian supremacy, Persian supremacy, Greek supremacy, Roman supremacy, now an Anglo-German supremacy. Who is next? Perhaps a Brazilian supremacy or Chinese supremacy? You act as though "white" people are the only ones with power. I suggest you tell that to the "white" laborer in the sticks now unemployed unable to pay the bills and struggling to even maintain a roof over the head of himself or his family. I'm sure he feels fully empowered and an enfranchised part of the Good Ole Boys network you seem to believe every "white" person belongs to.

    So what do you want? An end to racism and my statement of the obvious or simply a glorification of your intellect and personal experience? I've got my own mountains to climb and continued injections of racism (from people such as yourself) to medicate. Don't fool yourself, racism is not a "white" thing. It also appears to be "your" thing. Your abrasiveness will do little to better the world. My lengthy response may do no more. Take care.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125830043530149179.html

    The world would benefit from the removal of the concept. I've pondered it and see no way to mitigate the poison. I suppose in China, it is "Chinese" privilege instead of "white" privilege which would underscore the struggles of the Mongolian, Tibetan, "minority" and rural Chinese populations. Stop looking at your microcosm of the world. There is a bigger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Does Markus' latest comment make Bingo?

    ReplyDelete
  56. If it were a drinking game, I'd be hammered by now.

    ReplyDelete
  57. [Dear Anonymous, yes it does matter that April Ryan is a black woman, and no one is saying she deserves "special treatment." Read through this thread carefully, and openly; if you do, you'll learn something.]

    ReplyDelete
  58. "You are, after all, THE victim, aren't you? And me, what claim do I have besides being called a "ghost" in Chinese (which is slang), being called a honky, being called a faggot, being harassed. ."

    Wow! The old 'Arab Trader' argument at work here. Also the classic flipping the script to make the racialized person out to be the racist! A sleight of hands if I ever saw one!

    "If I happen to disagree with you, you may attribute it to be my being "white", but being as I've had the awful experience of de-racing myself for over twelve years while trying to accept the mind-boggling complexity of any population;"

    It is exactly because you are white that you are taking this stance. She has oviously struck a chord, hence this diatribe. The old "It happened to me too" line.

    ". That's right, your skin color, according to you, makes you an expert of some sort to perhaps dual consciousness or white supremacy."

    A load of horse manure if I ever read it. So you went to China and they called you 'ghost'. Do you know what they call black people? What's your point? This is North America, not China. This is a post on condescending to black people. Why veer off topic. Oh I know, it happened to me too! No, her skin colour does not make her an expert on white supremacy? What does? what you tell her? No one is claiming that racism is germane to one group. However, this is not what this post is about, why bring it up?

    "The idea of white supremacy is actually just a result of an ethnic group adopting a system of laws and economics which have overtaken modern society. At one point it was Egyptian supremacy, Persian supremacy, Greek supremacy, Roman supremacy, now an Anglo-German supremacy"

    Read more history. The 'supremacy' you refer to with the exceptions of Persians and Egyptians, are all European in origin. I don't recall the Egyptian and Persians slaughtering millions of people because of their race, nor the Greeks for that matter. Whiteness is a fairly new concept in the historical continuum. White supremacy has been the cause of genocides, slavery, Jim crow, the list is no t exhaustive, and you expect black people to forget this because you suffer too? They accuse black people of being over emotional, whinging and belligerent if they do-not discuss race in a freindly and calm manner. Your diatribe has put paid to that no tion. Instead of understanding what RVC has written, you have chosen to lash out at her. Sir you are a racist playing at being anti-racist. You offer a typical racist viewpoint which is I've tried to "deracialize myself" Bullshit! You are quite aware of your racism. Oh, If I was Chinese, I'd be insulted about your example of going to China and being called ghost as if that exonerates you from your racism, cloaked in martydom. You cannot compare the conditons of unemployed whites to the racism that blacks experience because the racism they experience cuts across class lines. Again you've diverted the post's topic which does not speak to class, but condescending to blacks which you just proven in spades. Thanks for the eye opener!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Just a note:

    I have been to China. Twice. White supremacy is alive and well there too, although not in the same way as in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yeesh, some impassioned non-listeners here. RVCBard made very salient points, but you missed them Markus by taking them personally instead of as an opportunity to learn and broaden your perspective.

    I lived in Singapore for two years, and frankly, White Ghost doesn't begin to compare to a number of other epithets I can think of (going every direction but white). Frankly, whites were shown a helluva lot of respect and trouble normally kept its distance from us. I can't say the same for my South-east Asian and African friends there. I've seen brawls happen out of the blue, gangs picking fights, false accusations of theft, drug-use and trouble-making. We were always a mixed group when we went out, but it was never the whites who were approached and threatened. Ever. We could behave as degenerate as we pleased, and nobody said boo about it.

    Being a woman there was a different story. Still, as a white woman, I was shown more respect than a WOC.

    In regards to the video -- racialized sexism through-and-through. Ryan is a reporter doing her job, regardless of what story she was covering. From what I saw, Gibbs was condescending from the get-go.

    fromthetropics parsed the video very thoroughly.

    ReplyDelete
  61. April Ryan put herself in the position of being called a child. Her questioning was more along the line of gossip. I belive she got what she deserved.


    Would you add us at http://weeseeyou.com/ to your blog roll?

    Thanks,

    SouthernGirl2

    ReplyDelete
  62. I'll have a look and think about it, Justice58/SouthernGirl2.

    Anyone else familiar with that site?

    ReplyDelete
  63. April Ryan put herself in the position of being called a child. Her questioning was more along the line of gossip. I belive she got what she deserved.

    Does this earn a shot?

    ReplyDelete
  64. April Ryan put herself in the position of being called a child. Her questioning was more along the line of gossip. I belive she got what she deserved.

    Does this earn a shot?




    Have you listened to her line of questioning? If April Ryan asked more intelligent, relevant questions, then I'd be upset at Gibbs. But she doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Markus

    ""Do you not see how your statement reinforces White supremacy?"

    No.

    "Do you realize how statements to the effect of "everyone should be colorblind" reinforces White supremacy instead of combats it?"

    No."

    Markus, the "colorblind" concept is an incredibly priveledged option. I've yet to become aquainted with a POC who did not appear fully aware, better than myself to be sure, of the role that skin color plays in all of our lives daily. If you'll pardon the paradox, I'd venture to say that "colorblindness" is the exclusive prerogative of POC, if they choose it. When a white person claims it, they in effect claim their priveledge and a vow to maintain the white-suprecist status quo.
    ----

    "As a homosexual, I'd suggest it may be the only solution. If I happen to disagree with you, you may attribute it to be my being "white", but being as I've had the awful experience of de-racing myself for over twelve years while trying to accept the mind-boggling complexity of any population; I'd doubt you could understand. You are, after all, THE victim, aren't you?"

    Markus, did you see the title of this blog entry?
    ----

    "The idea of white supremacy is actually just a result of an ethnic group adopting a system of laws and economics which have overtaken modern society."

    Markus, what is your point? What do you mean "just"? There's nothing simple about things that are systemic.
    ----

    "You act as though "white" people are the only ones with power. I suggest you tell that to the "white" laborer in the sticks now unemployed unable to pay the bills and struggling to even maintain a roof over the head of himself or his family. I'm sure he feels fully empowered and an enfranchised part of the Good Ole Boys network you seem to believe every "white" person belongs to."

    Markus, lacking priveledge in one aspect of social heirarchy does not imply lack of priveledge in another. Just because a white person is poor does not mean they don't have white priveledge, or that white supremecy doesn't REALLY exist, or that said white person isn't racist.
    ----

    "So what do you want? An end to racism and my statement of the obvious or simply a glorification of your intellect and personal experience?"

    Markus, you sound to me like you are saying you know the magic answer to racism and that anyone who dissagrees with you is stupid and like, gosh, it's just so frustrating that those colored people can't see that they are just extending their own repression by dissagreeing with you. Did you see the title of this blog post?
    ----

    "I've got my own mountains to climb and continued injections of racism (from people such as yourself) to medicate."

    Markus, we all have our challenges. If only embracing a real and humble interest in confronting racism were one of yours, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thank you, Lutsen. Masterful rebuttals like that one make me hesitate to decline publication of comments like Markus', however abusive and disrespectful they may be.

    ReplyDelete
  67. RVC, since Justice replied twice with what's akin to "the dumb nigger bitch asked for it" I'd say that's worth at least a chug.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Witchsistah,

    Oh, yeah. Thanks for the reminder. You taking your shots too? A few more and I shouldn't drive.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Thank you RVCBard, Witchsista, and fromthetropics for calling it out for what this incident was. People keep saying that her questions was trivial but so is majority of the questions that are asked during the White House press conference. People asking Obama about what dog he is going to choose was stupid and trivial and not political at all, however, I don't see people acting condescending to them asking those question. I see she was aggressive in asking him those questions but since when is "aggressive" and "rude" the same thing? People are really tripping me out dogging this woman out and making racialize comments about her actions when it really has anything to do with it.

    Fromthetropics said:

    I've watched it several times. At no point does he take her seriously. Plus, he's the one who doesn't let Ryan finish her question. He interrupts her several times, but he turned it around to make it sound as though she's the one who interrupted him by saying, "are you done speaking..." Then he answers. She let's him finish his sentence before reasking her question which he seems to be ignoring. But for some reason the impression he tries to leave is that she's the one doing all the interrupting.

    Bingo! That's what it is and that's why the reactions has derailed and blaming her. I watched the video numerous times and no where was she rude, he was being rude and laughing when she was speaking. She had to get aggressive because he wasn't taking her serious and was being condescending. The whole "Don't play with me" was an answer to his arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Justice58 said:

    Have you listened to her line of questioning? If April Ryan asked more intelligent, relevant questions, then I'd be upset at Gibbs. But she doesn't.

    Please! that's nonsense with as many reporters asking the president stupid questions, Gibbs oughta be just as condescending to them as he is to her.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Could part of what went very very wrong on this thread be the original "discussion question" itself? i.e.:
    "What do you think? Was Gibbs' treatment of Ryan racist? Sexist? Both? Or did she instead deserve such treatment, because she was acting like a "tabloid-y" hack?"

    Doesn't it sort of set up the sexist vs. racist argument, and also suggest that Ryan "deserved" the treatment she received?

    Was the devolution of this conversation presaged in that question?

    [OTE: I said PART of what went very wrong. I don't mean to ignore or trivialize or give a pass to the huge amount of largely white non-listening that also went on here.]

    ReplyDelete
  72. RVC,

    It's a good thing I'm at home in my jammies so all I have to do is crawl to the couch to pass out.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Julia wrote,

    Was the devolution of this conversation presaged in that question?

    Yes, I think you're right. I thought it would spark a good conversation here to make the post more open ended with those questions, but I see now that the post should have been more focused.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Macon

    "Masterful", eh? Thanks for the cookie. I will say that while it has definitely appeared to be a frustrating experience for some of the regular POC commenters to CONSTANTLY have to deal with such obtuse Whiteness here (and my hats off to them for doing so, since reading this blog is voluntary, unlike say going out in public), it is getting to read those same uber-White comments and the rebuttals to them that have wisened me to much of where I'm at with anti-racism. Sometimes I have to observe something over and over and over for it to really get through this thick skull of mine.
    Thus I appreciate that you've been mentioning a little about why you're rejecting each comment now, so we can keep seeing examples of unhelpful discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Actually, I'd like to see more dismissal and mockery of the stupid questions asked by not-so-bright reporters at the DC press conferences.

    There has been a recent eruption of DC "villagers" who are getting upset at "Who does this Desiree Rogers think she IS?", and Gibbs gave those sorts of outbursts the dismissal it deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "I doubt Gibbs would have treated a white male reporter this way, but I'd have to study his handling of various reporters to be sure."

    Oh, so when you suggest judgement should be held until examining his past interactions to determine the presence of a pattern, it's fine. But when I say:

    "Is this really a racial thing? Maybe they're just incurable know-it-alls, and wouldn't take advice regardless of who gives it. Or have you seen a pattern that they are more accepting of input from other white people?"

    It means I'm a racisty racist demonstrating White Ignorance by saying black people don't know anything.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think Gibbs' behavior toward Ms. Ryan was more sexist than racist, but definitely both.

    I could imagine a white woman being treated this way as well. To talk down to and treat an adult as a child is awful.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I don't think this was racist. The woman's question was frivolous.
    I appreciate your blog, but I think you sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that talking "harshly" to black people is racist.

    I understand that "talking down" to black people has racist undertones, because many think blacks have the mental capacity of children, but Ryan's question deserved that answer.

    ReplyDelete
  79. No, someone. It's simply that we've run out of booze.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mel,

    I appreciate your blog, but I think you sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that talking "harshly" to black people is racist.

    Might come as a surprise to you, but it usually is. And when a White man does it to a Black woman, it's usually both racist and sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I feel like the reporter was being rude and I feel that he responded the way he did because he was offended/irritated. I probably would have responded in a similar manner, and I'm a black woman.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Her question was certainly tabloid-y and irrelevant, but he shouldn't have spoken to her in that manner. As a black woman myself, I don't think he was being racist of sexist.

    You don't have to be racist or sexist to be out of line.

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.

hit counter code