Race and Gender, Part II

I did it! I don't get my results until May, but just finishing the NY Bar Exam itself feels like a huge load off of my shoulders. I returned to a ton of work at the office, but at least I have a bit of breathing room, and a bit of time to devote to the blog!

In any case, like most Americans, much of my non-Bar related attention has been focused recently on the presidential race, and more specifically, on the Democratic primaries. I should state from the outset that I don't consider myself a Democrat or a fan of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama; but the contest between them has fascinated me for a reason I'm sure many of you could guess (though, of course, it has been rarely addressed in the mainstream media): the echoes of earlier conflicts between black men and white women, and the complete invisibility of black women as a part of the political discourse on the issue.

As we know, much of the white suffragist leadership after the Civil War actively opposed the grant of the vote to the black freedmen under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in crudely racist terms, appealing to white men's sense of race loyalty and white supremacy in an effort to win the vote for themselves instead of the recently freed black man. As Susan B. Anthony wrote about the issue:

While the dominant party have with one hand lifted up TWO MILLION BLACK MEN and crowned them with the honor and dignity of citizenship with the other they have
dethroned FIFTEEN MILLION WHITE WOMEN - their own mothers and sisters, their own wives and daughters - and cast them under the heel of the lowest orders of
manhood.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton warned white men that giving black men the vote instead of "their own mothers and sisters, wives and daughters," would "culminate in fearful outrages on [white] womanhood, especially in the southern states."

Though both Anthony and Stanton had been ardent abolitionists, their opposition to slavery had less to do with a belief in the equality of the races than in the idea that the inhumanity of slavery was not only cruel to blacks, but debasing to otherwise superior whites (just as many "liberal" whites today support affirmative action only to the degree which it provides "diverse" experiences for white students and workers--the primary wrong redressed must always be the threat imposed to the interests of whites). While they did not believe blacks should be slaves, though also did not believe that blacks should have the same rights and social status as whites--which is why, unlike black feminists like Frances Ellen Harper, they did not advocate suffrage for all (including all male and female citizens), but rather, suffrage for white women instead of black men.

Today, Gloria Steinam complains of a similar perceived relative advantaging of black men at the expense of white women as reflected in the Clinton vs. Obama race, asserting in a recent New York Times op-ed:

Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were
allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power,
from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible
exception of obedient family members in the latter).

While many black men seem certain that it is black women who are their traitorous enemies, they are strangely forgiving of white women, who have a long and continuing history of appealing to white men's basest instincts in an effort to maintain a relative advantage over black men--even if it means remaining in an inferior position to white men. In a similar fashion, many black men who seem perfectly comfortable seeing white male and white female CEOs and millionaires grumble incessently about Oprah, and reject any positive claim about black female achievement--while seemingly comfortable with material and social inferiority to any and all whites, they are outraged by black women's attempts to achieve greater wealth, education, and power, seeing any upward movement on our part as somehow being at their expense.

What the two groups share, as always, is their comfort with the invisibility of black women as anything other than as props or as silent, mulish support for their interests. We are not presumed to have interests of our own, separate and distinct from either group's, and our proper role appears to be simply laboring silently on behalf of the "struggles" of whoever chooses to claim us when convenient. If either Hilary or Barack has considered crafting a special message to appeal to black women in order to win our votes, I have yet to hear it--both seem to assume that we "belong" to them, and are only roused from their black woman-induced slumber if it appears there is a revolt in the ranks--in which case they are properly outraged by our "betrayal."

Well guess what: I am a black woman. I believe in equality for all, but I unapologetically advocate for the interests of myself and my sisters first and foremost: I don't "owe" black men or white women my support. I want to see more black women in the professions, in higher education, in positions of political power and business influence. I am concerned about our physical and mental health, and about the special challenges we face as mothers. I am outraged by our exclusion from public visibility, from the political theater to the beauty industry. And nobody gets my support for free. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum sisters, make sure that your support comes with a price. We must properly value ourselves before we expect the same from others--even our supposed "natural allies."