Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election08 News Flash: Caucasian is a "Race"; Male is a Gender

By Kevin Tillman, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2008.


Folks need to get a grip.
tancredo
tancredo

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kevin Tillman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

All this talk of women only liking Clinton because she's a sister and African Americans only supporting Obama because he's a brother is making my head hurt something terrible. There's a kernel of truth in there, of course, but the implication that it's only blacks and women whose votes are influenced by gender and race is really nothing short of idiotic.

Here's the crux of the matter*:

Caucasion is a race. White people's votes are influenced by issues of race all the time. Were it not so, we wouldn't have just one African-American in the senate and Barak Obama would not be trying to become the first black to head a major party's ticket. We have the "Bradley effect," the Southern Strategy, etc., all of which illustrate quite clearly that many white voters are and always have been heavily influenced by identity politics.

Another news flash: male is a gender. Men are influenced by gender issues in making their political choices to no lesser degree than women. If it were not so, there would be no novelty in Clinton's campaign; she wouldn't be vying to become the first woman to head a major party's ticket.

Consider all the blather we've heard about women and blacks in the upcoming South Carolina Dem primary. Earlier in the week, toe-sucking pervert and frequent Fox News analyst Dick Morris warned: "if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton." So, in Morris' view, blacks are "bloc-voting." But according to a poll released this week by MSNBC and McClatchy Newspapers, 25 percent of SC blacks are supporting Clinton -- about 40 percent less support than she gets nationwide -- while just ten percent of white South Carolina Dems say they'll vote for Obama -- fully 70 percent less than his nationwide support. So, who's "bloc-voting" according to race? Are we supposed to believe that the 90% of South Carolina whites who won't vote for the negro are really just unimpressed with his message of hope? You can, but I'm not buying.

And what about gender? Whites may be "bloc-voting" against Obama, but it's a good bet that white men are not breaking the same way as white women. John Edwards, with 13 percent support across the country, is leading among South Carolina whites with 40 percent in the MSNBC/McClatchy poll -- triple his nationwide numbers. White is a race, male is a gender, but Dick Morris and the rest of the punditocracy seem unperturbed by the possibility that those silly, emotional white guys are casting their votes for Edwards based on nothing more than group identity. That's because, unconsciously at least, most people think of white folks as the default humans, while people of color belong to a "race"; male is the standard model, and only women belong to a gender.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, race, clinton, obama

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hey!
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 26, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I use the beer criteria.

It depends what you mean by identity politics. Is it just about physical attributes, or can it be about style and personality? It can get really interesting.

For example, Ron Paul and Kucinich were both geeks and ousiders, but I think you'd find dramatic differences between the geeks and outsiders who formed each of their cult followings.

If you compare Jesse with Obama, Jesse might be considered identity-black, whereas Obama would be considered Cosby-kids black.

It can get very confusing, but it's always interesting, as long as you don't take it too seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Obvious...
Posted by: Afban on Jan 26, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...isn't always so obvious, so no apologies are necessary.

As you well demonstrate, there are exceptions but so many white guys seem to believe that their stranglehold on power is just part of the (dare I say - God-given?) natural order that they can't conceive that a woman or non-white man might have well-thought out reasons for voting for someone who isn't a white guy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should have paid more attention during those sociology classes
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jan 26, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone smarter than I points out via e-mail that "male" is a sex, and "masculine" is a gender. My bad.

I did know, however, that race is a social construct and "ethnicity" is a more accurate word. I used the common term for simplicity's sake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off topic, but...
Posted by: Knowmad on Jan 26, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyway, as Josh says, the topic here is pretty obvious.

Could someone possibly direct me to a site, or article, or anything that breaks down the US election process, and explains how it works - or doesn't - in a sensible fashion? It seems so convoluted and confusing and, well, kind of idiotic, that I presume I must be missing something.

It does make sense...right? Cheers.
~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Off topic, but... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Off topic, but... Posted by: Shey
» RE: Off topic, but... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Off topic, but... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Off topic, but... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Off topic, but... Posted by: Longdream
Male is not a gender
Posted by: Dallas Suz on Jan 26, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Male is a sex not a gender. Male and female are not genders they are sexes. Masculine or feminine is a gender not a sex.

To call male and female genders rather than sexes is to engage in some sort of odd Victorian form of euphemism. It is ni denial of actual physical differences.

When the differences between the sexes gets reduced to gender it becomes easy to punish anyone who strays fro the social construct of ether masculine or feminine as not really being a man or not really being a woman.

At its core the substitution of gender for sex is part of the anti-feminist back lash and the resurgence of the religious right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Male is not a gender Posted by: particle
» RE: Male is not a gender Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Male is not a gender Posted by: Shey
Et tu, Joshua?
Posted by: 2dogarage on Jan 26, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article: "I'm a white guy who's supported Edwards based on the policies he's proposed. But I wouldn't be disappointed to see either Hillary or Obama get the nomination, despite the fact that I consider both to be centrist tinkerers who are very unlikely to bring about the kind of change I want to see. Why am I OK with the idea of my preferred candidate coming up short? Because I think it would be a significant step for the country to have a black man or a woman elected to the nation's highest office."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

News flash: This election should not be about gender or race "equality" but should be about the issues such as the war in Iraq, the economy, education, casting off corporate domination of our government, to name a few.

Many of us think it would be great to have a woman or a black president but we should be making our choice for the nominee based on their position on the issues. To reduce the election process to a question of race or gender is a disservice to the huge swath of citizenry who are actually interested in the direction the country should take and have no interest in making symbolic gestures on behalf of these previously-marginalized groups. Frankly I'm appalled that you of all people would promote this kind of voting.

If Hillary or Obama weren't "centrist tinkerers" with huge corporate backing and no interest in withdrawing troops from Iraq I would be happy to give either one of them my vote.

But they are and I won't. These two candidates are Republicans in Democrat's clothing. Which makes them both liars and cheats in my book. They sure have been good for distraction though as this article proves.

For one thing, the latest CNN poll shows Edwards winning handily over any GOP candidate. The fact of the matter is that a black or woman nominee just won't play well in the land-locked states and progressive Democrats would do well to keep that in mind.

It's not a done deal for the Dems by any means, especially if McCain gets the nomination. He might be a pandering grunt who sings "Bomb Bomb Iran" but he has miles of integrity dating back from his ordeal in Vietnam and flag-waivers (which include all the people who can't bring themselves to admit that our troops are dying for oil) are going to vote for him.

Hell, if Hillary or Obama get the nod I might vote for him myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» One more point (sorry to belabor it) Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: particle
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: particle
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: desidid
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: 2dogarage
» I want to be clear Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Integrity ??? Posted by: Julian
» RE: Integrity ??? Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Integrity ??? Posted by: Julian
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: johngary66
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: t tu, Joshua? Posted by: Shey
» Dear Shey Posted by: 2dogarage
Racial defaults
Posted by: ot on Jan 26, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is also revealing that the default race when referring to someone such as Obama, who is of mixed parentage with a negro father and white mother, is "black".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: acial defaults Posted by: johnclark
» RE: acial defaults Posted by: ot
» RE: acial defaults Posted by: Lauren
» RE: acial defaults Posted by: Joshua Holland
» I see your point... Posted by: Suz
» RE: acial defaults Posted by: Longdream
Wrong definition
Posted by: graffen48 on Jan 26, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such thing as a caucasian "race", or a black "race". Scientifically speaking, there is but one race, and that is the human race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: ot
» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: ot
» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: Longdream
» Oh Snap! Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: Vik
» RE: Wrong definition Posted by: johnclark
Obama is post-identity
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 26, 2008 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We post-modernists invented the idea of social constructs in order to blow them up. It is likely the reason we had to wait until we were adults for Doug Coupland to even identify "Gen-X" & see ourselves in his mirror. Josh, you are dealing with "boomer language" when you cut all this into pieces like you've done here.

I love the pro-Edwards comments coming from straight-white-middle-class-male-... (i could go on dashing forever) here. Maybe even some of them are not identity driven for supporting the Senator. I am SO done with that. My bum index finger is injured from overuse for so many years of finger pointing. I had to give it up.

On Monday, both of the baby-boomer candidates called my man a "young man". I'm the same age as Barack. I take insult with that.

Which brings me to my point. It is as clear as Hillary is female and Barack is beige: this election is a knock down drag out knife fight between the boomers vs the x'ers, and none, not one of the boomer writers can even see it. They don't have the eyes, don't possess the language, cannot understand this, so they just knee-jerk the identity politics they've been feeding us for 35 years (get it, it's a joke).

They cannot see that this "young man" of middle-age is really the most left wing candidate since Wallace in '48 because they cannot see the world as it really is. And ALL of this, starting from "is he Black enough?", to the "McCurkin incident", to the Obama hearts Reagan, all of it IS "Primary Colors" of the Clinton playbook. I pray to Janus that the voters of SC have read the book or saw the movie.

We need to suicide bomb identity, retire the baby boomers with that trillion dollar tax on the poor $100k a yr earners, and TAKE OUR F'ing COUNTRY BACK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama is post-identity Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Obama is post-identity Posted by: johnclark
Changing the subject a little
Posted by: graffen48 on Jan 26, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize this is off-topic a little, but at least we have Democratic candidates who all want to move this country forward in a more realistic direction. Black, White, or Woman, I think the common theme is to knock the neo-cons out of positions of power, and try to restore our country as a world leader in Democracy. Did anyone watch the last Republican debate? Omg, these guys are war mongering lunatics!! Comparing weapons of mass destruction to an Easter Egg hunt??? Stating the war in Iraq is sustainable??? And of course MR. noun, verb, and 9/11!! Help!!! I really don't think people view "race" or gender as the big issue the media seems to portray it to be. I think people just want Republicans to disappear, and would be happy to see any one of the top 3 Democratic candidates in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well done, Joshua
Posted by: Suz on Jan 26, 2008 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, have noticed that there seems to be an almost pervasive assumption that because I am female, I, naturally, am going to automatically be voting female--a sort of tit for twat scenario, if you'll pardon the vulgarity.

It's almost offensive, really, to imply that my intelligence is somehow suddenly stymied by Sparkling Visions of Vagina Power, or that I can't see my befuddled way past someone's genitalia when I cast my pretty pink vote; so much so that the issues that are truly important to me--education, health care, infrastructure, and the environent, among others--just fly out of my silly little head when I see or hear the name, "Hilary".

You know, it's a shame that there aren't TWO women running for office. Then I could make my choice by deciding who wore the cutest shoes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well done, Joshua Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Well done, Joshua Posted by: desidid
Issue driven, what a drag
Posted by: Linda in VT on Jan 26, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Josh, your reaction suggests why the comments of so many of my white female (and male) friends can be summed up by one of them: "What is the world coming to? There's a black man and a woman in the race, and I'm supporting a white guy!?"

We're so bloody tired of candidates who fall all over themselves to appease the "center," and also of having our choices made for us by the media and the "independents"! I'm a Democratic Party activist and county officer who gets royally weary of putting out my waning energies and money, election after election, to put into office someone chosen for me by people who haven't given a penny or a thought to the process and won't give it another thought until the next time comes to pull the lever. Do we want to go on having a party system in this country, or don't we? I was a delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and I have to say, if we're going to go on having these expensive minstrel shows that decide nothing, we're doing less than wasting our time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We've had Black & Women presidents in the USA
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 26, 2008 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First:
Alexander Hamilton (1 drop rule)
Edith Wilson (after Woodrow's stroke)

If you don't believe me, there is a website called google.com that you can use to find information on the internets.

Me, I'm still trying to figure out what the definition of is is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"race" is a false face put on prejudice
Posted by: luzmejor on Jan 26, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Racial purity is something invented by people with a need to feel superior without actually achieving anything other than prejudice.

It's the same with every kind of favoritism based on appearance, sex, education level, riches, class or trifling variations in genetic inheritance.

Don't fall for this variation on the theme of "divide so you can conquer" the whole population. That's what we hear the two major parties in power trying to do to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

$50 million
Posted by: 2dogarage on Jan 26, 2008 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just watched the video posted on Adam Howard's article which features Jesse Jackson estimating what his success rate would have been if he had been the beneficiary of $50 million like Barack Obama is today. (First time I heard an official accounting.) Jesse smiled and suggested that his chances would have been substantially increased.

Folks, where do you think Barack Obama got all his money?

If I had $50 million I wouldn't just talk about reform, I'd pay for it instead of running for 1st World Puppet.

I know the world doesn't work that way, just look at the Rothschild family, worth over 50 TRILLION. Just think of the humanitarian difference they could make in the world. Fat fuckin' chance.

The fact is that big money doesn't give a rat's ass about you and me. The big-money backers of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't give a rat's ass about you and me.

Wake up, America. I am going to be so pissed off if we elect another big-money puppet.

Don't fall for the black or female distraction, progressives are obviously in favor of both minorities being included in the election process. These two candidates represent neither. They are both heavily supported by big money special interests. Do your homework. Look it up. Please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Two Races of Man
Posted by: Longdream on Jan 27, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ones who could sit and eat a full meal in front of a hungry person, and the ones who could not.

I don't remember who said that, but for today's world, it's as good a distinction as I ever heard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Two Races of Man Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Two Races of Man Posted by: Longdream
THE IRRESPONSIBLE MEDIA HAS MADE THIS AN ISSUE; RACE
Posted by: niliadis on Jan 27, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EXPERIENCE IS A NECESSITY!!!
HOW IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT GOING TO DO TO BRING US TO THE ECONOMIC TIMES WE HAD WITH BILL CLINTON. IT WAS THE BEST IN HISTORY...DO YOUR RESEARCH. INSPIRATIONAL SPEACHES ARE NOT GOING TO SAVE OUR JOBS, NOR PAY OUR BILLS. WE NEED TO DO RESEARCH. I HAVE ALWAYS WONDERED WHY OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE Q&A AT HIS RALLYS. HE NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE! AND NOT JUMP INTO THE RACIAL BANDWAGON THAT THE MEDIA SO IRRESPONSBLY CREATED! I WOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA IN A MIN IF HE WAS ON THE TICKET WITH ANY OF THE CANDIDATES THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE. CLINTON OR EDWARDS...IN 8 YEARS AFTER GAINING EXPERIENCE I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM AS PRESIDENT. NOW AT THIS TIME WE THE MIDDLE CLASS IS HURTING AND CAN NOT REALLY RISK AN INEXPERIENCE PRESIDENT. THAT CAROLINE AND TED KENNEDY ENDORSED HIM...WELL ITS OK FOR THE MILLIONAIRS FOR THEY CAN AFFORD THE LUXURY BECASUE THEY CAN LIVE REAL WELL EVEN IF THE ECONOMY IS ON A DOWNFALL. DO YOUR RESEARCH TO VOTE RESPONSIBLY FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT CAN REALLY BRING OUR ECONOMY TO A SURPLUS!!!! AFTER ALL IT’S OUR LIVELYHOOD, THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well put!
Posted by: solson75 on Jan 28, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great to see reasonable discussion of ethnicity and gender. We are long overdue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the issues stupid
Posted by: uncleeddie on Jan 28, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Race, gender, vote blocking, hair, or whatever else unimportant that are at the forefront of the MSM focus is only to be expected as the issues are basically OFF THE TABLE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now, if we can just convince white men about the error of their ways...
Posted by: jimidee on Jan 29, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure that white men a going to take it all that well...I know 'cause I are one! I was paying attention in my Sociology classes (it was my major), and those classes and some introspection under the influence of mind expanding pharmaceuticals allowed me to see the light.

So, I can tell you with some assurance that white men have their macho facade built out of glass, so they are a bit touchy about such challenges and revelations. The insights that Josh have laid out might be too much for most red-blooded American males to handle. Their manly-men psyche would be quite threatened by such info, so it would be played off as just so much liberal mumbo-jumbo.

Another great piece, Josh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]