May 23, 2008

Sexism alive in Indian country

Is gender playing a role in Montana's Indian vote?

AnalysisA growing number of female Indians from Montana are wondering whether some of their male colleagues and leaders are supporting Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton largely due to his gender.

"There's definitely a division among Indian people in terms of male and female support," said Democratic state Sen. Carol C. Juneau. "It's a really interesting division. And I wonder if Indian people are seeing it in other states."

Over the past month, three high-ranking male Native officials who work in both Montana state and tribal governments have told Indian Country Today during background political conversations that they view Clinton in a derogatory manner. Additionally, one said he didn't believe that the senator from New York could "hold her own" against Sen. John McCain, while another added that he just "couldn't see" a woman leading the U.S. out of the Iraq war.

Just as in America at large, sexism in Indian country is still alive and well.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see how the Gender Vote splits between Hillary and Obama. like the past elections though, the Montana tribes generally vote like their Statewide Republicans.

I don't think they know how much clout they could have at the polls. They may learn something from the Black population support of Obama.

Withput his overwhelming Black support, Obama would not even be in consideration.

dmarks said...

The sexism has been alive and well in the Clinton campaign. I have heard too much of "vote for her because she is a woman, first and foremost". That's sexist. I don't recall Obama ever saying or supporting the racist version of this, which is "vote for me because I am black".

Ulnu, your last sentence made no sense. Black voters made little or no difference in Obama's victories in places like Iowa, where there are too few black voters to count. All in all, only a small percentage of Democrats are black. It is Obama's strong appeal across races that have made him the real-world Democratic Party nominee....

Real-world as opposed to the situation where Hillary seems to hang on as long as she can in the hopes that she can cook up some sort of new dirty trick or a new attempt to get a boost by playing on white fears of blacks.

Anonymous said...

The Dean and Obama teams partnership to deny the vote of two Democratic swing States is a form of Racism. Disenfranchisement and discrimination are the hallmarks of Racism.

Disregarding any issue, good or bad and marking your vote based on Color is a form of Racism. By this definition, gender-power is also a form of Racism.

YOUR QUOTE: "All in all, only a small percentage of Democrats are black. ". I think the percentage overall is somewhere aropund 12 percent BUT they are concentrated in critical States for Obama. However again, a closer look at Obamas States that he won are Republican Red States. A weak win for the critical November election fight.

dmarks said...

Ulnu: I agree with that Howard Dean's ridiculous shut-out of Michigan and Florida Democrats is rather outrageous.

dmarks said...

By the way, Ulnu? You claimed racism as a reason for the DNC decisions on those two states. Do you have any evidence of it?

Anonymous said...

Pardon me for digressing from strictly Native American Indian Issues. However, these topic personalities could have some impact on future Indian Issues.

REPLY TO MARK:

dmarks said...
By the way, Ulnu? You claimed racism as a reason for the DNC decisions on those two states. Do you have any evidence of it?

Ulnu claims this opinion:

""The Dean and Obama teams partnership to deny the vote of two Democratic swing States is a formof Racism. Disenfranchisement and discrimination are the hallmarks of Racism. "" I did not claim "racism as a reason for the DNC decisions". The powers in the back room could have had any number of reasons for the Democratic decision NOT to count the votes.

Here is some evidence of the Dean Obama Partnership.

"May 6, 2008, hands down the most revealing result of the evening came from a heated exchange between CNN Democratic consultants Donna Brazile and Paul Begala, with the money quote coming from Brazile:

... I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater."

At least one blogger notices that Barack Obama's campaign blog is being run "by some of the same people who were involved with the Howard Dean adventure." The plan is in play.

It's now June 1, 2004, and a blogger comments about the Obama campaign blog's Memorial Day event schedule: "I guess my question is how old time democrats are responding to the influx of 'Dean Heads' (yes I know all Obama supporters are not Dean Heads) at these and other events?"—then asks "What happens if the 'Dean Heads' develop real power in the Democratic Party in Illinois?"

The plan is moving forward, as should be obvious. Don't believe it? Well, here it comes, the Barack Obama campaign plan of today. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the Obama campaigns for 2004 and 2008 gained significant momentum following the embarrassment and humiliating loss by a single candidate early in the 2003-2004 primary season—Howard Dean.

The strategy for Obama's current campaign appears to have come straight from Howard Dean's playbook, which was explained in some detail in a study published in April 2004 by a journalism and media studies professor at a prominent U.S. university who conducted extensive research using press releases, emails to supporters and issued by MoveOn.org, political ads, interviews, ground study, media reports, and other data during the 2003-2004 U.S. presidential primary between November 2003 and March 3, 2004, the date of the ten-state Super primary.

It is as clear as day. Howard Dean drops out of the presidential race on February 18, 2004. Super Tuesday is on March 3, 2004. By this time, the plan is in hand and already in motion. Within weeks, Illinois bloggers are aware that Dean bloggers are at the helm of Obama's campaign blog and "Dean Heads" are showing up at Obama campaign events.

Is there more to this story? Absolutely. But for now, the following highlights from an obscure study clearly indicate how the plan for Obama's candidacy evolved from Dean's 2003-2004 primary campaign. It should also be obvious that Dean's stamp is clearly imprinted on Obama's campaign, a fulfillment of Dean's dream towards what Donna Brazile referred to on May 6, 2008, as a "new coalition"—it is grounded in the plan.

Please note that the study says nothing about how to actually win an election, just how to manipulate voters and the mass media.
SOURCE: http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/rezkowatch-electability-2008-dean-plan.html

dmarks said...

Nice, but no evidence of racism in it. You switched the argument to evidence of a "Dean Obama partnership".

I also don't see Obama has very Dean-like. He doesn't seem to hate half of America (as Dean said he did) and he has yet to blow his stack during a campaign appearance like Dean did.

Anonymous said...

Form form FORM FORM, understand the meaning of the word "FORM of"

QUOTE: The Dean and Obama teams partnership to deny the vote of two Democratic swing States is a form of Racism. Disenfranchisement and discrimination are the hallmarks of Racism.


The OVERWHELMING percentage of the Colored Vote going to Obama is a FORM of RACISM. The HIGH percentage of women voters for Hillary is a FORM of RACISM.

No one has clearly DEFINED what a Racist or what RACISM IS!!. I feel that my definition above is clear enough for the purposes of this topic. The NUMBER of Gender or POC voters is numerical evidence.

Now if you wish to play with words, read my reply to the rest of your reply. Have fun.

(dmarks)I also don't see Obama has very Dean-like. He doesn't seem to hate half of America (as Dean said he did)

(ulnu)BUT OBAMAS' OTHER HALF STATED IN AN INTERVIEW THAT SHE NOW LIKES AMERICA. She hated all of America and is half of the Obamas.

(dmark)and he has yet to blow his stack during a campaign appearance like Dean did.

(ulnu)OBAMA HAS effectively blown his top with the way media analyzes his wife MICHELLE.

dmarks said...

Colored Vote??? Colored? Now you resort to terms that are so outdated and quaint that their use in modern times has one of two explanations: the person using it has come forward in a time machine after missing 40 years, or the person using it is some sort of racist. The latter seems much more likely.

"The OVERWHELMING percentage of the Colored Vote going to Obama is a FORM of RACISM. The HIGH percentage of women voters for Hillary is a FORM of RACISM. "

.... not sure I really buy your argument, but didn't you mean the last word to be SEXISM?

"She hated all of America and is half of the Obamas."

She is not running for office. Nor are his two daughters or other relatives.

Anonymous said...

dmark, are you a POC? (Person Of Color). Common usage in Craigslist.org.

((Colored Vote??? Colored? Now you resort to terms that are so outdated and quaint that their use in modern times has one of two explanations: the person using it has come forward in a time machine after missing 40 years, or the person using it is some sort of racist. The latter seems much more likely.))

Study american history DMARK. Quite a few North American Indians, Federally Registered or unregistered have MORE Afro-American BLOOD flowing through their veins than Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama has NONE. He has African Kenyan blood in his veins.

He claims in his book to be a half-breed. Okay, I agree: he is white where the sun don't shine. I'll take some linguistic liberty and reword Michelle Obamas' distain for Whitey that she too is correct. Many, but not all, Whiteys are a$$holes.

MARK, could you define what a RACIST is? May the Great Spirit forbid that I step on someones toes.

Rob said...

Without her overwhelming support among whites, Clinton would not even be in consideration.

Nor would she be in consideration if her last name wasn't Clinton. I.e., if she weren't riding her husband's coattails. Being First Lady doesn't necessarily qualify someone to be president.

Your presumption that black votes somehow count less than white votes is vaguely disturbing, Ulnu. If blacks provide Obama's margin of victory, so what? If you don't like their influence, move to a nice white country like Finland.

It's ridiculous to interpret Michelle Obama's "proud of America" remark as evidence of anti-American hatred. In fact, it's ridiculous to interpret any criticism of America as "hatred." I covered this topic in What Michelle Obama Meant and The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel.

I don't think you can say black voters are racist because they overwhelmingly support Obama. Perhaps they're more open to Obama's positive qualities because they're not racist. You could make a case that black voters are racist only if Obama were clearly an inferior candidate--which he's not.

I've read several articles in which white voters explicitly said they wouldn't vote for a "colored" candidate. I don't think I've read any in which black voters said they were voting for Obama even though they thought Clinton was better. Find us some quotes along those lines and then we'll discuss it.

Regarding your use of the word "colored," let's be charitable and say you were referring to all people of color in that paragraph, not just blacks. We wouldn't want to wrongly accuse you of racism. But note that "colored" is considered offensive these days.

So what if Obama has an Internet-based grassroots candidacy of the type pioneered by Dean? That literally has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's decision not to seat Florida's and Michigan's delegates. Nor have you provided any evidence to the contrary.

Here's a news flash for you: Both Clinton and Obama agreed at the time that the Florida and Michigan primaries wouldn't count. Where's the evidence that a Dean-Obama conspiracy forced her to accept this decision even though she was the frontrunner? Answer: It's nowhere because it doesn't exist.

The decision happened because the Democratic Party didn't want Florida and Michigan to advance their primaries. It had nothing to do with race and everything to do with party politics. Clinton accepted the decision then and is only trying to change it now because she's a sore loser.

Rob said...

Here's a definition of racism for you, Ulnu:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist

rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/
–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Anonymous said...

Well, Rob and dmark. "The Great Black Hope" team and supporters wholesale usage of the label RACIST and RACISM is stifling to conversation. The Race Card is alive in America.


The term, "the great white hope," reflects the racism and segregation of the era in which Johnson fought. It could be argued that Johnson, the first African American to hold the World Heavyweight Championship title, was the best fighter of his generation. Yet, white reaction against Johnson's win and his very public relationships with white women was so strong that, in 1912, the United States Congress, concerned that scenes of Johnson pummeling white boxers would cause race riots, passed a law making it illegal to transport prizefight films across state lines.[5] "The great white hope" referred to the white boxer whom whites hoped would finally defeat Johnson.
William Warren Barbour, who won the American and Canadian amateur heavyweight championship in 1910 and 1911, was "Gentleman Jim" Corbett's choice to be "the great white hope," but Barbour declined to take up the mantle. Some thirty years later, it was Barbour who, as U.S. Senator (R) from New Jersey in 1940, worked successfully to repeal the 1912 law prohibiting interstate transportation of boxing film footage.[5]
The first "great white hope" to accept the challenge was Jim Jeffries, who came out of retirement to fight Johnson unsuccessfully in 1910. Johnson's title was eventually lost to Jess Willard, a white boxer, in 1915. There was, apparently, some controversy surrounding Willard's win, with Johnson claiming he threw the fight. In part because of white animosity toward Johnson, it was twenty years before another African American boxer was allowed to contend for the world professional heavyweight title. In 1937, Joe Louis, greatly respected by both blacks and whites, defeated James J. Braddock, "the Cinderella Man," to become the second African American to hold the world heavyweight championship title.[1]

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope

dmarks said...

@ulnu: "dmark, are you a POC? (Person Of Color). Common usage in Craigslist.org."

Why, because only blacks object to racism and racist terms? Is that what you are thinking?

The rest of your comment seemed to be a mix of racism against Blacks, Whites, and Native Americans. I could not quite tell what you were saying.

Rob said...

As far as I know, DMarks is white, if that helps any.

I didn't call you a racist, Ulnu. You asked what the word "racist" meant and I told you.

Of course, you were the first one to mention race in this thread, with your comment about Obama's "overwhelming black support." If you didn't want to talk about race, why did you start?

I also told you the dictionary defines "colored" as offensive. If you don't like that, take it up with the lexicographers, not me. I have no say in what they determine to be offensive.

Are you sure you're not Russell Bates in disguise? Like him, you ignored my points and made your own unrelated point. Ducking the issues is a typical Batesian strategy.

Now that you've given us the history of the "great white hope," what do you have to say about your misrepresentation of the Florida and Michigan decision, which had nothing to do with race? Or your misrepresentation of Obama's supporters as primarily black and racist? Anything?

dmarks said...

I did call Ulnu a racist because of his use of the term "colored". Maybe someone might have had an excuse 20 years ago, but not know. Rob is right about what it says about it in the dictionary.

Not only that, he seems fixated on Obama's skin color.

(An aside: one reason I oppose any sort of quota or preference-based affirmative action (that which advances people because of skin color not ability), is that as long as it is present, people like Ulnu use it to attack any black at any time, with arguments like "he's not qualified, he's only there because of affirmative action". Blacks of such differing backgrounds and philosophy as Clarence Thomas and Barack Obama have been attacked in this fashion)