What's Wrong With This Picture?
By Keith Boykin
Monday, September 18 2006, 10:59AM
Harlem, NY -- President Clinton met with liberal bloggers last week in Harlem. As several other bloggers (Pam, Terrance, Culture Kitchen) have already noted on the Internet, no one in the group was black or Latino. After a storm of controversy, the organizers acknowledged the absence of blacks and Latinos but said they had tried to invite two black bloggers who couldn't make it.
When I first heard about the controversy, I assumed it was a matter of bad planning. When I worked in the White House, we would have moved hell and high water to get people of color into a meeting like that. If two black bloggers weren't available, we would have asked two more. The point is that you don't stop looking just because the first two people can't make it.
No Blacks In Harlem?
The absence of visible faces of color is all the more striking when you consider the location of the meeting. President Clinton has already been criticized by many in the overwhelmingly black Harlem community for driving up residential and commercial rents and driving out black tenants and business owners. I'm confident he's aware of those concerns, and I'm quite sure he's sensitive to those issues because he maintains close ties with black leaders here and elsewhere.
Also troubling but not surprising was the news that none of the bloggers who were invited to the event seemed to mention the absence of blacks and Latinos either in the meeting or in their stories about it on their blogs. And this was a group of left-wing bloggers. Is this what we mean when we say we want a colorblind society? I hope not.
What has always troubled me about that whole idea of a "colorblindness" when used by whites is the assumption that race or skin color is or can be invisible in America. For African Americans who are consistently overlooked, it's hard for us to ignore the persistent effects of race. But for those who are in the elite rooms where everyone is white, perhaps it's hardly noticeable because most, if not all, of their peers are also white.
But given all that, it's still difficult to understand how a group of liberal cultural and political observers could walk down 125th Street -- the busiest black street in New York -- walk into Building 55, where President Clinton works, and sit down in a meeting where no one was black, and then walk back out of that building onto the same black street, and never mention the racial divide in America.
Bloggers At the Meeting
Feministing
Seeing the forest
Liberal Oasis
AmericaBlog
Mahablog
MyDD
The Carpet Bagger Report
TalkLeft
DailyKos
FireDogLake
Comments conceal
gs
September 18 2006, 11:21AM
And that's just why I stopped voting primarily democratic over 15 years ago. Liberals have taken the black vote for granted for too many years and we still lead the nation in poverty. Clinton's staff needs to be called out about this....thanks Keith!
nOva
September 18 2006, 11:34AM
Yeah, well shit like that happens all the time, even amongst black bloggers.
tismee
September 18 2006, 11:37AM
The Democratic party should be ashamed of themselves! When it comes to the inclusion of all races, they assume they have us already so why do they have to try?
The Republican Party is much more inclusive, even though they have members who use racist retoric.
For BILL CLINTON, the so called 'Honorary Black President' to work in Harlem and have a gathering of only whites to discuss liberalism on the internet....well, it is a crying shame.
aj
September 18 2006, 12:10PM
Why am I not surprised.......
deejay
September 18 2006, 12:12PM
This doesn't surprise me.
I have witnessed the pimping of the Clinton machine up close. The real problem is the territorial cabal of self-absorbed blacks in party leadership. Their only goal is to preserve their lone-wolf status (and gain access for their children) in corporate and politcal circles.
Consequently, I too switched my party affiliation as a lifelong Dem to independent during the last POTUS campaign. That's the only way to stop the madness.
chicago_angel
September 18 2006, 12:34PM
my race of people is in the minority. so i dont always expect us to be the majority in things. I cant stand it when people are used as tokens, which black are all the time so black leaders won't have anything to say.
deejay
September 18 2006, 1:36PM
Meetings get rescheduled at the drop of a hat for far less compelling reasons. Especially ones that, in true Clinton style, got slapped together at such the last minute that there was no time to find available black and latino participants.
I refuse to accept that someone as politically astute as our former POTUS didn't see this one coming? Why hasn't he surrounded himself with people who would see the harm in such a gathering? Moreover, as an earlier poster raised, what type of "liberal" moron attends an event like this and doesn't comment on the lack of diversity?
After all, it's these same "liberals" who love to talk about equal justice and opportunity, right?
Derrick from Philly
September 18 2006, 2:01PM
Since the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, Republicans haven't wanted black voters and make no attempt to include us in their party. In order to get southern white Democrats to switch parties in the 1970s, the Republicans embraced racism, and used it to win election after election. As a liberal, I was never crazy about Clinton or his wife. We liberals have had to settle for "centrist Democrats". We've never had a real liberal/leftist in the white house, and won't get one unless we have an economic collaspe. But hell, we might have one if y'all Republicans don't figure out a way to pay for YOUR war. I've always wanted to ask black conservative Republicans, "just what is it y'all want to conserve?"
ChicagoChild
September 18 2006, 2:43PM
@Derrick from Philly
They don't have an answer, Derrick. But they do PRESERVE the right to beat up on liberals/firebrands such as King and X---who wanted to CONSERVE their right to LIVE and be FREE AMERICANS.
deejay
September 18 2006, 2:53PM
Good question, derrick. I"m neither conservative nor republican.
I'm hoping for a viable third party candidate that will give disenchanted ex-Dems like myself an alternative to the tired "good racist, bad racist" tactics of the current parties.
Truthfully, neither party wants our presence, only our vote. We are merely tolerated. And trust me, as soon as each can get enough of the other folks "politically assimilated" - which was the post Clinton II/pre-Gore I election strategy - our services will not longer be needed.
Troy
September 18 2006, 3:14PM
this is the same sinking feeling I got when I rushed to get Clinton's book and no mention of Keith in it, whatsoever, reality has a good way of setting things, of uh, shall we say, straight...
Can't wait for the makeup article to appease the natives.
Kenneth Winfrey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
September 18 2006, 3:18PM
This breaks my heart. I thought "liberals" knew better.
I admit that I am not always the most politically correct guy in the world. More than that, I have to admit that (if I were a politician, or sorts...) I might have snatched any Black face of the street (in Harlem, no less) outside my door to make sure I had a Black face in that photo!
Well, at least Republicans can't tease them for being overly-PC this time...[grumbles]
chris-leo
September 18 2006, 4:14PM
apalling. i must say it's also an unfortunate reflection of dwindling black participation in the american political process, since the group putting this meeting together didn't even feel a need to try any harder than they did.
but that general attitude can be applied to any number of situations today.
Terrance
September 20 2006, 11:03AM
As one of the folks who initially stirred the pot, I wanted to offer a proposal for moving forward. I hope it stimulate discussion, and I'd appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts.