Obsidian Wings

100 years on

by liberal japonicus

This popped up, be sure to check out the youtube video in the article

Bloody Sunday massacre at Croke Park still resonates in Irish sport 100 years later

On Racism and other isms.

by liberal japonicus

This is prompted by wj's query about what kind of racism I've seen in Japan. A caveat, I was finishing this up and I went back thru the comments and found I had skipped over a section, in particular, Donald and Russell's comments to the comment that started this out. I thought about going back and revising this, but it was too hard. So please don't take any of what I say as a direct response to what was written. I will address one point, Russell said that he wasn't 'hating on black people'. When I discuss this, I'm not accusing anyone of hating on anyone else. If racism were simply hatred, it would be a lot easier to deal with. But it isn't, it is a systematic way of looking at things that ends up causing problems. Anyway, onward.

I've said any number of times here, I think everyone is racist, including me, and overcoming that requires constantly checking what you are thinking and saying and doing. Or doing, saying and thinking. Because thinking about one's thinking is most important for the individual, but stopping the doing and then the saying, in that order, is most important for society. So if anyone takes umbrage at what I point out, know that I'm saying I'm subject to the same flaws. Recasting what I say as 'so you're telling ME I'm racist' is wrong. I'm saying that WE are all racist.

If you disagree with that, fine, but nothing I have seen in my 60 years on earth nor has anything anyone said here convinced me otherwise. I think because it is baked into our society and our lives in so many ways, and because it can be reinforced by any sort of communal differences, it's not going to disappear.

The argument of class v. race is an interesting one, but class is so protean that you aren't going to be able to trap the differences. That's because upper class enjoys pretending it's lower class, pulled myself up from my bootstraps, it was all me. Those designer distressed blue jeans don't sell themselves.

I've been reading through Adolphe Reed, who is a class not race theorist. Here's a paragraph

So, we saw Rennie Davis traipsing around behind a pudgy, improbable guru and Abbie Hoffman exposing himself in the pages of People and Viva to reassure us that his underground tour—inspired by flight from a prison term for selling cocaine—had shown him balance in the "heartland of America" and a new awakening on the horizon. Jerry Rubin, lauding the "inner revolution," was equally sanguine about the lessons of his meandering journey within, announcing that he could now revel in his ever-youthful, evanescent Self—which thereupon became a stockbroker/consultant. Bob Dylan resurfaced as a fundamentalist Christian gospel singer; Mike Klonsky lingers as a de facto agent of whatever faction rules in China; and the FBI—four years before the Nyack, New York, Brinks robbery—proclaimed the Weather Underground to be no longer even worthy of prosecution. Obituaries of Marcuse, Sartre, and Paul Goodman were written also as obituaries of opposition. At the same time, on the other side of Du Bois's veil, Eldridge Cleaver—ever the media creature—returned to America as a latter-day Cold Warrior, holy roller, advocate of wife-beating (a mellowing of his earlier defense of rape?), and designer of pornographic pants. Huey Newton's name came to evoke suspicions of drug-dealing, murder, and extortion, and Bobby Seale was showcased as a nightclub comedian and cookbook author. H. Rap Brown returned to public view as a Muslim small businessman, consuming his time in prayer to Allah, Martin Luther King became a holiday and a postage stamp, a meal ticket for his widow and hobby for Stevie Wonder. In each case the message rings clear; opposition is the property of the image of "the Sixties," and it is, therefore, like bell-bottom pants, dashikis, and long hair, no longer appropriate.

While I think there are some interesting points, he seems to be animated by a spirit of no one is doing things right but him. Reed famously dismissed Obama with an example here

Yet the past 4 years of racism and resurgence leaves him convinced that he was absolutely right, and Obama was wrong. Sure, Obama should have pushed harder, he didn't always pick the right fights, but to fail to acknowledge that he wasn't hemmed in by this undercurrent that is now pretty clear for most to see, is to be blind to one's own blind spots. Reed's a racist insofar as he doesn't think race matters. And while that makes racism as protean as classism, classism is supported by the way everyone values themselves and then envisions that everyone else thinks like they do. Race, on the other hand, can dictate how people value (or fail to value) themselves, but I don't think it requires massive societal changes to get people to see value in what they bring (cf my post about the covid vaccine creators)

And a side note about sexism, it's also a problem, but since society has had a lot longer to deal with that, there has been a lot more time to find ways for women to develop alternative strategies. None of this is to suggest that racism is somehow worse than classism or sexism (or vice versa), but for me, it does suggest to me that racism is what society has to deal with first, with the caveat that mileage will definitely vary. Colbert's line (that I'm sure he didn't think of, he just amplified it) of 'I don't see color' doesn't really work as a punchline for classism or sexism. I guess a common fear among conservatives is that young people will start saying 'I don't see gender' (oh noes!) but this is where intersectionality is important, even though some don't want it explained to them.

But returning to the original prompt, there's a phenomenon here in Japan where white people here suddenly become aware of the 'micro aggressions' and begin to take umbrage at, well, everything. It's a real conundrum because the saying moves to doing quite easily, but the accusations are often 'This upset me' rather than 'this is something that will translate into actual problems so it would be nice if I could get you to stop it'. This intersects with the Japanese love of harmony and any disturbance of that is viewed as problematic. This can leave pretty atrocious ideas in place as long as they do not disturb the surface harmony. This can sometimes be like one of those Thanksgiving family dinners from hell, where everyone is compelled to keep away from the topics that are going to result in broken crockery.

As I have said before, I'm not sure if I'm taking the best approach, I leverage my father's side of the family and some often draw overly broad conclusions. 'Ahh, that's why your Japanese is so good' when they find out I have Japanese antecedents. Err, no, though I do realize that knowing what I was eating when I was a kid and wanting to communicate in the language of my grandparents has given me a leg up. But there are kids now who know a lot more than I did FOB just from a diet of manga and anime and often know a lot of things about Japan that I don't. For people with whom I want to continue to engage with, I try to suggest that what they are basing their notions on isn't quite right, but I definitely pick and choose who I open that can of worms with. I know more than a few people who get mad when the taxi driver speaks to them in Japanese. Or speaks to them in English. Or speaks to them. Or doesn't say anything. And I don't want to be one of them.

This sense of aggrievement can be taken too far, and privileging the injured, while the right thing to do, can often encourage people whose injury is slight to overstate. That it is often white people who are doing that troubles me, and often times, I see this vicious cycle where a person becomes angry and behave in ways that they feel justified but has Japanese pull back from them and a feedback loop occurs that eventually results in the person actually having a lot of cause for complaint, especially when they are running up against Japanese administration, which will never admit it is wrong.

These administrative issues can really be bad news because once the powers that be decide how they want deal with an issue, there is often very little that can be done. But they happen in a restrained fashion and are set up so that if you get angry and lose your temper, you've lost.

The kind of horrific events, like a George Floyd or an Ahmaud Arbery don't happen here for the most part、 which has Japanese feel that there isn't a problem. And you often get a phrase kubetsu ha sabetsu ja nai, which means making differences is not discrimination.

All this results in a situation where I don't have lots of horrific stories about racism. What I see is this tilt that makes sure the house wins. In fact, a casino is really a really good metaphor: The casino doesn't hate its customers, but it certainly isn't trying to make them rich. A 1% edge to the house that accrues over time.

These sorts of posts are difficult not because I lack things to write about, they are difficult because it is so hard to finish them. I realize that some readers here could assume that I am obsessed with race and they wouldn't be wrong. I tend not to claim I am bi-racial because I don't know what that means. But for me, thinking about racism is a way for me to figure out who I am. In fact, it seems like for me to get to that point, all roads run thru a consideration of it. If you are interested in considering it with me, join in. I'm not sure if it's a better discussion that talking about the state of the Democratic party, but it is a different one.

A paean to diversity in a headline

by liberal japonicus

This Guardian article caught my eye

Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci: German 'dream team' behind vaccine

Those accents didn't get there by themselves...

About that interview

by liberal japonicus

Unfortunately, not good tidings of great joy, just some talk about the latest internecine struggle. Oh well...

As promised, here's a discussion of AOC's interview, found here

I should also note that this is an edited transcript and I wonder if any reordering took place. With that caveat in mind

The interview starts off with AOC saying

We know that race is a problem, and avoiding it is not going to solve any electoral issues. We have to actively disarm the potent influence of racism at the polls.

Can I hear an amen? I don't think any honest observer can fail to note that racism is the horse Trump rode in on and he stayed on it the whole time. But the next bit is where things start to fray

But we also learned that progressive policies do not hurt candidates. Every single candidate that co-sponsored Medicare for All in a swing district kept their seat. We also know that co-sponsoring the Green New Deal was not a sinker. Mike Levin was an original co-sponsor of the legislation, and he kept his seat.

Not socialism, Medicare for All and Green New Deal. Admittedly, Biden edged away from those, but my feeling is something with national insurance and something linked to climate change has to get done. So I'm not sure about the vapors here.

I think it’s going to be really important how the party deals with this internally, and whether the party is going to be honest about doing a real post-mortem and actually digging into why they lost. Because before we even had any data yet in a lot of these races, there was already finger-pointing that this was progressives’ fault and that this was the fault of the Movement for Black Lives.

I'm hoping to see some reporting on this, but I don't think AOC is a fabulist. If she says there is finger-pointing, (and I've seen some articles, but with the whole shitshow election, it is hard to evaluate them clearly), I don't think she's making it up. Admittedly, it's not like being called a bitch on the Capitol steps, but I don't think her radar is busted

I have been defeating Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-run campaigns for two years.

Ouch! But details?

Some of this is criminal. It’s malpractice. Conor Lamb spent $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election. I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet.

And I’ve looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you’re not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders.

So this is precisely what Cleek was pointing out. I think she picks the example of Conor Lamb because he won. He is PA-17 encompassing Pittsburg. So I think, sub rosa, she is pointing out that better organization would have been able to totally erase the possibility of Trump claiming a win there. And it's not that she doesn't say Conor Lamb didn't support the right policies, she specifically says that he wasn't organized. There was no reason on earth that an incumbent in a swing state should _not_ be doing everything they can because every vote he brings out is another one in Biden's column. So I think that AOC has a lot more sophisticated understanding of what is happening than some are giving her credit for.

There’s a reason Barack Obama built an entire national campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic National Committee. And there’s a reason that when he didn’t activate or continue that, we lost House majorities. Because the party — in and of itself — does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that.

Again, it's easy to shut down conversation by asking if people if they have actually read the interview, but I'm wondering, did everyone read this? Sapient says that AOC is "not a freaking expert on the southeastern swing states", but in the article, she never says anything about particular states, she talks about the inability for the national party to lead. I admit, I didn't look at it too closely, so when cleek said 'socialism', it triggered me. But it isn't so what's the problem? If this is an issue of 'tone', well, haven't we had enough of those?

bobbyp chimes in with this post from Loomis at LGM, which is very related to these discussions. Exactly how does the National party move into these local elections in a meaningful way? That's an important conversation to have, but claiming that AOC is not addressing that is misreading this article. And if we get to Feb and not everyone knows where these potholes are, we'll just drive into them again.

We had Beto O'Rourke and Julian Castro were begging for more attention in Texas, in Mississippi, Mike Espy was trying to tell everyone that he had a chance, but the National Party only caught on in Oct. Whatever was the thought process, it was sub-optimal.

Again, maybe AOC is just telling porkies, but I shudder when I read this

Is there a universe in which they’re [institutional forces in the Democratic party] hostile enough that we’re talking about a Senate run in a couple years?

I genuinely don’t know. I don’t even know if I want to be in politics. (emph. mine) You know, for real, in the first six months of my term, I didn’t even know if I was going to run for re-election this year.

Really? Why?

It’s the incoming. It’s the stress. It’s the violence. It’s the lack of support from your own party. It’s your own party thinking you’re the enemy. When your own colleagues talk anonymously in the press and then turn around and say you’re bad because you actually append your name to your opinion.

I chose to run for re-election because I felt like I had to prove that this is real. That this movement was real. That I wasn’t a fluke. That people really want guaranteed health care and that people really want the Democratic Party to fight for them.

But I’m serious when I tell people the odds of me running for higher office and the odds of me just going off trying to start a homestead somewhere — they’re probably the same.

This twitter thread by Richard Cooke lays out the problem in detail

The comments @aoc is making about Democratic ground-game weakness are being dismissed. I have seen, up close, exactly what she is talking about.

Covering the 2018 election, I decided to report on key swing seats. FL-26 and FL-27 were at the top of my list. If Dems faltered, Miami-Dade would be written up as a missed opportunity.

After arriving in Miami, my first task was perfunctory: find out where and when candidates were speaking. For Republicans, this took around 15 minutes. For Democrats, it took five days.

That is not five days spent waiting for Facebook updates to be posted, or emails or calls to be returned. I drove all over Miami, visiting every Democratic campaign office I could get to in person.

What I found was a stunning level of disorganisation. No-one was in charge. No-one knew who was in charge. Even entry levels of enquiry like "who is your press contact" were unanswerable.

More senior staff (when people knew who they were) were AWOL, not on the trail but at home or on leave. I kept being told a particular individual "knew everything"; when I finally found him (it took several days), he was a backpacker volunteer who had been living in Spain.

(Needless to say, he didn't know anything). Meanwhile, GOP staff were sharing booth-by-booth early voting totals with me. Their granular understanding was impressive.

When I asked a Democratic staff member about this, she said (on the record!) that "Republicans are a lot more organised than we are".

There were almost no other press there, and no-one (apart from Republicans) with a sense that these seats could decide the election if it was close.

Driving around polling locations, the physical GOP presence at polling booth, in terms of signage, personnel and voter information, dramatically outweighed their opponents.

When I finally heard Debbie Mucarsel-Powell speak, I was contacted by someone from the Democratic campaign in Washington. They were unhappy about my questions to the local campaign (after days of being messed around, I was also letting my frustration show).

I asked them questions about what I had seen, and was surprised when they berated me. The campaign was excellent, they were going to win, lawn signs don't matter, etc. They would speak to me after the election, and I would see they would win FL-26 and FL-27.

And they were right - they did win those seats. Only Andrew Gillum, the Demoractic candidate for Florida governor who had been a polling favourite, lost a narrow election because of weak turnout in... Miami-Dade.

You can imagine that now, in 2020, the Democrats losing FL-26 and FL-27 is absolutely unsurprising to me. And the Democratic establishment response to those who impugn the ground game is the same thing I heard: you are wrong.

So, something to talk about. Have at it.