While Mona has at least twice said exactly what I would have (a rarity, but it has happened before between us), her luck ran out on the third time:

@JudeanPeoplesFront

I believe that black people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about who and what is racist. They don't require the aid of anybody, even people whose fathers are English professors.

Yeah, and Catholics like Wm Donohue, or Protestant Xians like the hordes complaining about the War on Xmas, are perfectly capable of deciding what is anti-Catholic or antiXian. We should all abide by their exquisite sensitivities and demands.

The formal equivalence works as a caution, perhaps. But the implied equivilence is unfair, Mona. You are citing people with a proven history of bigotry from a position of power.

JudeanPeoplesFront was talking about diverse people with a history of being dictated to, and having that history to critically reflect on.

While I would challenge the notion that any of us has an ultimate lock on the one true right and only way, it is certainly necessary to give space for listening to those who have been silenced in order to learn what they can tell us about our own blindness. It's the only way we can possibly expand the scope of future understanding beyond fixed limits whose existence we cannot even clearly see by ourselves.

JudeanPeoplesFront:

On intent

[Me]: I chose specific terms that would give a rough thumbnail sense of how widely certain stories had spread.

You think "servers" is a specific term?

If so, you're just not being honest, and we have nothing to talk about on this point.

It's not ideal, to be sure. But it's reasonably specific, and as good as I could get to target the sorts of stories I was looking for. Say there are 90% false positives. That still leaves the Lieberman/server story over 13 times more common than Hamsher/blackface.

[Me]: So, really, what I want from you is simply to prove that I'm wrong. Show me a reasonable argument the image was racist in intent.

Ah, the old "when you're wrong, change the question" tactic.

No, not quite. I've specifically framed this question in terms of intent throughout.

The reason I made my original post is simple: I believe that black people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about who and what is racist. They don't require the aid of anybody, even people whose fathers are English professors.

Sure, they can make up their own minds. But--like anyone else--they're a hell of a lot more likely to get it right if they engage in the widest possible range of discussion and debate.

This is especially true when it comes to drawing distinctions involving intent.

I think that Kai and Ebogjohnson make important points. But look at the quote that you yourself select from Ebogjohnson. It talks about the wisdom or folly of using blackface imagery. So, Jane did something stupid. Stupid. Not racist.

That's the point that matters for Glenn's post. It's in the interest of the Republicans to fan false accusations (General Franco is still dead), and even moreso to present them as coming from a wide range of Democrats (again, still dead).

While others obviously disagree with me, I think it's a good thing to revisit the original event. It's good for white people to be more aware of how people of color saw it. And it's also good to realize that even some of the sharpest criticisms amounted to calling Jane an idiot--not a racist.

Bottom line: If Clinton wanted to avoid a forum where the proprieter had never done something stupid, she'd be SOL. There is no such place.

Thanks.

I was just as guilty of misreading you at first. Fortunately, we both kept an open mind as well as a quick lip.

Thanks again. The links were more than helpful. I've never seen the spreadsheet equivalent of early Richard Prior before. Never even imagined it was possible.

I'm going to try to clarify, and hope I don't open more cans of worms in the process.

The curious thing to me, Paul, about your argument is that you keep focusing on intent, rather than effect-- the opposite of what Glenn does. He acknowledges he cannot know anyone's motives, only their public behavior.

Well, I'm usually the one arguing the effect side in racial matters, precisely because I'm so familiar with the history of white self-deception. But when the claims in play are all about intent, then it seems obvious that that's where I have to go.

That is what is being argued in this case. Few people probably believe that Jane Hamsher is a racist; more likely they think she just doesn't get that she also lives in a bubble that is exclusive to whites.

But that's not what Akers believes--or, more precisely, pretends to believe. After all, what's the least controversial about having done something stupid? Everyone's done that.

Still, it was pretty unbelievable that she didn't foresee the reaction to that particular type of image, which is so loaded that there is really no way that any white person can use it and not get called on it.

It's only unbelievable if you've never gotten swallowed up in a campaign. If you have, then I'm afraid that it's all too believable, unfortunately. Tunnel vision is the name of the game.

Again, thanks.