Karen M's links are a valuable contribution to this discussion. While Liza at Culture Kitchen just came off as ranting to me (nothing wrong with that, just not very enlightening), Kai's "Blackface Joe: Five Grievances" was thoughtful and interesting, while ebogjonson's spreadsheet on when to use blackface was one of the rarest of things (unfortunately)--an absolute hoot that's also quite thought-provoking. Worthy of a Koufax, if not a Pulitzer, if you ask me.

But none of this goes to intent. It does go to effect, as well as to issues of power and self-consciousness, which I think are very important--and that's what I want to work on clarifying.

In my view, people act in terms of their social and cultural environment--"social surround" is a short-hand term I like to use for this. Intent is relative to social surround: you act intentionally in relationship to your environment.

While most people talk of racism in terms of individual intent, this is actually a relatively minor aspect of racism. What is much more significant is the social surround. This is why, for example, you could actually have very well-meaning slaveowners in the ante-Bellum South--and why the very existence of such people did more to sustain slavery than the out-and-out racists. It was the condition of slavery that was fundamental to black oppression. While a well-meaning slaveowner could alleviate some of the brutality, they did even more to legitimate the system.

It's harder for us to see in our own society today, but the same principle holds. There are relatively few overt racists, but drastically unequal conditions by race are the rule in every aspect of life, with very little awareness on the part of most whites. This is simply the way that our national social surround is. In fact, they only tend to notice the rare exceptions: affirmative action is attacked because it's a distinctly conceiveable exception to the rule.

Now to Hampsher and FDL. The social surround in which Hampsher was acting was that of a primary campaign in which a highly unusual confluence of forces converged. The role of blogs in fundraising, reporting, analyzing and publicizing was undergoing further evolution beyond what had been seen in 2004, at the same time that a long-term political tide had turned--though many had still not realized it.

The rising influence of a few major blogs--FDL among them--created a condition in which bloggers with an individualist, citizen/activist mindset were swiftly elevated to much greater levels of influence and power, with no formal change in status. This was only possible for a tiny few, and was a de facto hierarchicy-enhancing shift, even though it took place in a formally hierarchy-flattening medium. People continued to act very much as private citizens, even as their social surround shifted rapidly, so that they were becoming major political actors. A whole series of conflicts erupted at DailyKos which were directly indicative of what I'm talking about.

This whole process--from 2002/3 to the present--also involved a substantial re-creation in cyberspace of the residential and social segregation that is far more pervasive in our society than most of us readily admit. The overall result of this was that we had/have a situation in which we have a much more diversified shared space (cyberspace) in which high levels of segregation nonetheless persist, creating very different social surrounds inhabiting the same space. The social surround that dominated the (white) "progressive blogosphere" in 2006 was intenselt oriented toward the mid-term elections, with the CT primary as nationally-recognized bellwether of what was to come.

This was an extremely focused--and in some respects insular--social surround, much whiter in makeup than its participants usually realize, a fact that was easily forgotten in the heat of that particular time. In contrast, of course, people of color can never forget or take for granted their racial identity.

Lieberman's manipulation, dissimulation, and habitual betrayal of friends, old allies and supporters--exploting loyalties that he himself repeatedly betrayed--were key themes motivating opponents. His record on racial issues was of a piece with his record across the board. He was still presenting himself as a leader on race, based on his involvement with the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, despite a record of numerous much more recent betrayals. All this was part of progressive blogosphere's social surround. And it was from this social surround that the blackface image came--not from any racist intent.

Of course, blacks online have a very different social surround. "Two rich white guys running against each other" is good-enough shorthand for how they might well view the CT primary--which in turn also might summarize their view of Hampsher's social surround. Form this POV, white folks always think that whatever they're doing is more important than anything black folks are doing, so anyone saying, "No, this time it really is true" is not saying anything new. But that's precisely what the subtext of Hampsher's communication seemed to be.

So, who's right? Well, both. And that's just the problem: we have a situation with multiple truths, but inadequate communication (due to the segregtion and segmentation of cyberspace) to negotiate them. The problem we face is too easily misperceived as one of individual attitudes, when it actually resides in our social surrounds, and the lack of sufficient integration of them. (1954 all over again? In a word, yes.)

I'm in no way superior to anyone else in this regard. I was defending Jane from within my own social surround--and within hers. In another context, I would willingly stand back and critique the limits of that surround--as I have hinted at above. But that's not the context that flows from this post by Glenn. It is, however, the context that opens up from the more incisive posts above, in Kai's "Five Grievances" and ebogjonson's spreadsheet.

So, again, thanks to Karen for providing them.