Early on Wednesday 13 December 2017, the Talking Heads were at it. The Chattering Class was busy going on about the Black voter turnout that blew Roy Moore's hopes of representing Alabamans in the US Senate to smithereens. While certainly the turnout among Black voters was something to talk about, I'm not sure that it was the thing we needed to be talking about last Wednesday.
Moore was a less (heh heh heh!) than stellar candidate but his lack of success wasn't on account of his less-than-stellar-ness nor was it because the #MeTooers abandoned him. Nope. The only reason that Moore came in second place was that Black folk said "Hell NAW!" and turned out in magical numbers. Moore's numbers with White voters of all stripes were extremely strong, and rather than stare in wonder at Black voters who voted against him, maybe we should spend more than a passing thought for White voters who were comfortable voting for him?
Rather than talk about college-educated White folk voting in vast numbers for a man who denies science, the reporters chose to tell stories of Black former sharecroppers who brought souls to the polls.
Rather than talk about White Constitution-lovin' Republicans voting for a man who was twice removed from the Supreme Court of his state for putting his version of the Bible above the Constitution, the talk was about Black folk racing to the polls to save Whiteness from its own worst excesses of odiousness....not that it was ever framed thus.
No, we won't talk about any of that cuz that doesn't fit the models of how we talk about Black voters, nor indeed does it fit the the ways in which we typically talk about White voters. The noble savage/working class White voter tropes would not survive an honest discussion and so we don't have those conversations at all. We whistle past the graveyard in which those tropes should be buried.
Insight 1:
As Samuel Sinyangwe points out, if 70+% of POC had voted for a candidate accused of preying on teenage girls, not only would we be talking about nothing else, we'd also be pathologizing Blackness. And yet, the silence on pathologizing the White vote here is profound. Privilege is a helluva thing.
Any one of dozens of reporters could have tried to tease out why White voters in such large numbers could find comfort voting for Moore, but nah, that would have been too much like actual journalism.
Any real journalist could have spent a good 2 minute segment debunking this kind of talk, pulling the rug from under the racists but again, that too would be too much like journalism.
A journalist could have posed the question: "How?" and he/she could have followed that up with the question, "Will there ever come a day when there will be no White commentator who casts aspersions on Black folk?" That would be a great way to pull a thread out of the ugly sweater that is White supremacy thus aiding in its unraveling. But nope, not happening.
Any real journo could have pointed out that Alabammy is a strict voter ID state, and that this magical thing Mitchell wants to suggest occurred simply could not have, but nope. That's not their job apparently. So Mitchell gets to suggest that Black folks cheated because 'Murica! And the vast majority of so-called journalists allows that shite to sit out there unchallenged.
Folk like Bill Mitchell know that diversity is a source of danger for his privilege. Folk like Mitchell also believe fervently that vulnerable people have no real right to opinions (or votes). He knows good and damn well that gaming the Alabama system is damn near impossible, but his ignorant followers don't. And so he wins, Blackness loses, rinse and repeat tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Many journalists are clearly as invested in the system of White supremacy, White rage and anti-Blackness, as everybody else is. They have neither professional reason nor personal incentive to debunk the bullshit.
No Mrs. Bowers. Not quite.
The actual truth is that plenty of White parents voted for said pedophile. Plenty of White women voted for a sexual predator. The only thing that's true in your tweet is that most Black people, ninety-some percent, didn't. They also chose not to vote for an unrepentant racist.
Mrs. Bowers tweet bespeaks the protection of Whiteness. White voters are entitled to vote for whomever they choose, no matter the level of odium the candidate and ultimately, White citizens are allowed to escape the broad implications of their actions. (cf: the global implications of last November's votes for DJT). This is why we will probably never have nice things. White candidates can be as nasty as they wanna be. As long as they are White, voters (and evidently a significant number of them) will find ways to make peace with their cognitive dissonance and cast a ballot.....if they experience any dissonance at all. (again cf the election of 2016)
"None of that will work any more" Mrs. Bowers claims. Somebody please send Mrs. B a breakdown of Moore's voters.
Basically, but for the Black voter, and a tiny sliver of White voters (~30%), Roy Moore would have won Alabama handily. The accusations would have made precisely zero difference, much as they did with Donald Trump.
So while Mrs. Bowers' tweet is interesting, it's not even close to true and the way in which this tweet is untrue also speaks to a reality that we continue to avoid: by refusing to hold White voters accountable for their votes; by looking at the Black vote as the story du jour here, we miss yet another critical opportunity to ask hard questions about how White supremacy is played out in our voting patterns.
Translation: "Screw you Black voters. I may yet vote with the very people who would, and often do, do you harm. Thanks for the gig though!"
There's a lesson here. Many lessons in fact. Would that we would learn them. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm starting to wonder when - or if - class will let out. I'm tired learning this particular lesson. Is there nothing else on the curriculum?
Moore was a less (heh heh heh!) than stellar candidate but his lack of success wasn't on account of his less-than-stellar-ness nor was it because the #MeTooers abandoned him. Nope. The only reason that Moore came in second place was that Black folk said "Hell NAW!" and turned out in magical numbers. Moore's numbers with White voters of all stripes were extremely strong, and rather than stare in wonder at Black voters who voted against him, maybe we should spend more than a passing thought for White voters who were comfortable voting for him?
Rather than tell both the story of Black people voting in tremendous numbers for Jones, and the story of White ones who chose Moore with all his baggage, talking heads have chosen to speak only on one of those stories. No real surprise which one they chose. This is America after all, where race isn't a thing until it is.
Rather than talk about White women voting in vast numbers (63%) for man who allegedly preyed on young girls, the chattering class chose to play up Black folk voting for girls' safety.
Rather than talk about White men, those girls' fathers, who sided with Moore against accusers, 'journalists' chose to wax on about Black women's turnout (ignoring the Black men who turned out in equally impressive numbers).
Rather than talk about White women voting in vast numbers (63%) for man who allegedly preyed on young girls, the chattering class chose to play up Black folk voting for girls' safety.
Rather than talk about White men, those girls' fathers, who sided with Moore against accusers, 'journalists' chose to wax on about Black women's turnout (ignoring the Black men who turned out in equally impressive numbers).
Rather than talk about White Constitution-lovin' Republicans voting for a man who was twice removed from the Supreme Court of his state for putting his version of the Bible above the Constitution, the talk was about Black folk racing to the polls to save Whiteness from its own worst excesses of odiousness....not that it was ever framed thus.
No, we won't talk about any of that cuz that doesn't fit the models of how we talk about Black voters, nor indeed does it fit the the ways in which we typically talk about White voters. The noble savage/working class White voter tropes would not survive an honest discussion and so we don't have those conversations at all. We whistle past the graveyard in which those tropes should be buried.
The shock and awe of the Chattering Class is fine I suppose, but the chatterers are also supposed to be journalists. Clearly when race enters the picture asking for journalistic integrity is too big of an ask. These people are well paid to tease out the real story under the obvious one and report or opine on that, but it has become clear to me that all analysis from White talking heads comes from behind the gossamer thin screen of their privilege. Expecting nuance once race enters the pic? Again, too big of an ask.
Since we can't ask the commentariat to offer insight or nuanced assessment of the vote, let me do it my damn self.
Insight 1:
Any one of dozens of reporters could have tried to tease out why White voters in such large numbers could find comfort voting for Moore, but nah, that would have been too much like actual journalism.
Insight 2:
A journalist could have posed the question: "How?" and he/she could have followed that up with the question, "Will there ever come a day when there will be no White commentator who casts aspersions on Black folk?" That would be a great way to pull a thread out of the ugly sweater that is White supremacy thus aiding in its unraveling. But nope, not happening.
Any real journo could have pointed out that Alabammy is a strict voter ID state, and that this magical thing Mitchell wants to suggest occurred simply could not have, but nope. That's not their job apparently. So Mitchell gets to suggest that Black folks cheated because 'Murica! And the vast majority of so-called journalists allows that shite to sit out there unchallenged.
Folk like Bill Mitchell know that diversity is a source of danger for his privilege. Folk like Mitchell also believe fervently that vulnerable people have no real right to opinions (or votes). He knows good and damn well that gaming the Alabama system is damn near impossible, but his ignorant followers don't. And so he wins, Blackness loses, rinse and repeat tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Many journalists are clearly as invested in the system of White supremacy, White rage and anti-Blackness, as everybody else is. They have neither professional reason nor personal incentive to debunk the bullshit.
Insight 3:
We are committed to missing the lesson and evading any real analysis of voter behavior. I give you Mrs. Betty Bowers.
No Mrs. Bowers. Not quite.
The actual truth is that plenty of White parents voted for said pedophile. Plenty of White women voted for a sexual predator. The only thing that's true in your tweet is that most Black people, ninety-some percent, didn't. They also chose not to vote for an unrepentant racist.
Mrs. Bowers tweet bespeaks the protection of Whiteness. White voters are entitled to vote for whomever they choose, no matter the level of odium the candidate and ultimately, White citizens are allowed to escape the broad implications of their actions. (cf: the global implications of last November's votes for DJT). This is why we will probably never have nice things. White candidates can be as nasty as they wanna be. As long as they are White, voters (and evidently a significant number of them) will find ways to make peace with their cognitive dissonance and cast a ballot.....if they experience any dissonance at all. (again cf the election of 2016)
"None of that will work any more" Mrs. Bowers claims. Somebody please send Mrs. B a breakdown of Moore's voters.
Basically, but for the Black voter, and a tiny sliver of White voters (~30%), Roy Moore would have won Alabama handily. The accusations would have made precisely zero difference, much as they did with Donald Trump.
So while Mrs. Bowers' tweet is interesting, it's not even close to true and the way in which this tweet is untrue also speaks to a reality that we continue to avoid: by refusing to hold White voters accountable for their votes; by looking at the Black vote as the story du jour here, we miss yet another critical opportunity to ask hard questions about how White supremacy is played out in our voting patterns.
The Congress of Chatterers has focused in wonderment on Black voters, and have roundly ignored all the other data points that demand at least as loud consideration and analysis.
And before I had time to collect my thoughts and post my analysis of the Alabama election, Doug Jones said this.........
And before I had time to collect my thoughts and post my analysis of the Alabama election, Doug Jones said this.........
Translation: "Screw you Black voters. I may yet vote with the very people who would, and often do, do you harm. Thanks for the gig though!"
There's a lesson here. Many lessons in fact. Would that we would learn them. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm starting to wonder when - or if - class will let out. I'm tired learning this particular lesson. Is there nothing else on the curriculum?
No comments:
Post a Comment