« stuff i've been tired of for years | Main | a marine, a muslim girl and youtube walk into a bar »

August 7, 2007



I looked over at Pach, a person of color who writes about those issues frequently on FDL, and we both just shrugged our shoulders. [link]

I also mingled and drank with a passel of gay men and women of all ages. I was on a panel with James Rucker of Color of Change and sat with several African American bloggers during one of the workshops. I had a long conversation about immigration with a latino blogger.[et tu, Digby?]

I have to say in Digby's defense, though, that she subsequently updated her ode to the diversity of YearlyKos, copping to the boneheadness of bragging about talking to, like, three, people of color. (This in frickin' Chicago!) Digby's post read as a little wan and forced from jump, indicating she knew there was an issue somewhere, unlike, say, Her Shrugness, who was too busy tabulating her hotel bill to notice anything amiss.

Posted by ebogjonson in race and other identities, on August 7, 2007 12:05 PM


Between the posts by Digby and Amanda Marcotte, I'm inclined to change my mind on this and believe the convention was more diverse than I'd been led at first to think it was. My reasoning is the credibility and thoughtfulness both women have shown in the past on issues of race, as opposed to FDL which, as far as I know, has yet to apologize for one of their members slagging Liza Sabater after she dared question the all-white-blogger Clinton luncheon in Harlem.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at August 7, 2007 3:09 PM

More diverse, really?

Becasue, - based on my job working with bloggers, people in public service, fundraisers and campaigners - its hard for white liberal middle class policy wonks to admit that they are as confused and just as ignorant about prejudice in policy development and racist policy as any GOP soldier and that they need colored people to live up to their platforms.

White liberals still think colored people need *them*, and would do better to realize it.

They still see colored people as useful only when confronting policy about "race" and still fail to see how, for colored people, race is something to be confronted in almost all aspects of public life.


Posted by: ProblemWithCaring at August 10, 2007 10:22 AM

moar pics ... MOAAAAAAAAAAAR!

Posted by: Liza Sabater at August 10, 2007 2:14 PM

First off MR johnson long time reader love your stuff.

And problem with caring . pretty much

And Elayne RIggs I'd challenge one of your people on sensitivity and why is it more to be believed that those people say it's okay than the people of color who say it's not?

Posted by: Blackamazon at August 10, 2007 4:11 PM

My reasoning is the credibility and thoughtfulness both women have shown in the past on issues of race

This is Amanda "Burkagate" Marcotte youse are talking about right?

The woman who retracted her piss poor "Obviously somepeople didn't understand my 'joke', here I shall explain it because my critics are stupid and in the process achieve the magical act of exorcising the racism from the aforesaid 'joke'". which she recanted on nothing less than Lindsay Beyerstein's citing of some seriously asinine Kant style intent based ethics that was justified by a single allegedly "half-muslim" commenter who said he was totally OK with it, ergo it was all cool.

That's who you're talking about?

Are you sure? You're not getting her confused with another amanda marcotte are you?

Actually it hsould be mentioned that, ONCE AGAIN, the problem with this is not so much the actual diversity at YK thing, because it was as diverse as you'd expect such a crappy hyper-nomrative event to be anyway, but rather the really shitty reaction of the attendees to criticism, from DKos writers declaring that moulitsas would never be seen in a parade draped in a black nationalist flag (which is true I guess but...) to this reactionary cry of "nuh uh! Black People Love Us!", as I stated over at my place;

Once again contra-mainstream visibility has been questioned by some sensible people, and for some reason also WaPo, in a way that is, admittedly, trying to make a "oh but the sinister lefties are the real racists/sexists!" point, but the response has been, how do you say? Fucked up.

First of all the correct response by an actually progressive blogosphere to charges of patriarchal caucasoidal hegemonic pandering is to A) accept the fact, cuz it's true (you fuck wits), and then B) deal with it!

Yet this is not what has been done, instead we've had lots of Not As Bad As nonsequiturs, Some Of My Best Friends cliches and Jane Hamsher pointing to some of her horribly racist and misogynistic pals as proof of diversity (which is something that is not good in ANY circumstance, really).

Why is it so hard for people to understand that being patronising to minorities does not help improve your image in regard to minorities!?

Posted by: R. Mildred at August 14, 2007 4:42 PM

To directly address the presence of anyone whose ethnicity differs from your own is fairly perilous for any author.

If you do not discuss their ethnicity or race many readers will assume that all of the attendees at the event were the same as the author. If you specifically mention it many readers will assume you are trying to use them as props, to gain credibility for yourself or you are being condescending.

Digby's response was clumsy but it was a valid response to the claim that the event she attended was made up entirely of 30-something nerdly, middle class white dudes. She also addressed the fact that the attendees were also comprised of middle aged women.

Posted by: ellenbrenna at August 15, 2007 3:09 PM

ellenbrenna writes:

>Digby's response was clumsy<

Yes, yes. Digby was "clumsy." Happy happy, we all make mistakes?

Digby is the brightest light of the liberal blogshphere, I read her everyday, but like a lot of folks she's all thumbs when it comes to a patently straightforward set of questions. Unless you don't believe these issues are straightforward?

Posted by: gary/ebog at August 15, 2007 6:21 PM