Racist impulses of an editorial
Wilfredo Gutiérrez | 21.11.2004 04:51 | Analysis | Anti-racism | World
Rush Limbaugh’s racist treatment of Condoleeza Rice is no surprise; but the unspoken implications of The New York Times Editorial on Nov.17, “The Friends of George,” should be. The editorial reflects a wrong and prejudiced preoccupation about Rice for her nomination as Secretary of State.
“Our concern about Rice” – the editorial says – “is not that she makes the president feel comfortable. It’s that as national security adviser, she seemed to tell him what he wanted to hear about decisions he’d already made, rather than what he needed to know to make sound judgments in the first place.”
In my understanding, Dr. Rice is a highly educated and qualified person to do the job and her attributes probably goes further than merely “willing to travel” or wanting an “exalted title.” But my disagreement with the editorial is for other reasons. And the fundamental one is the hidden implication that Rice is a “yes sir” person because of her racial condition – and this, besides being a nasty flaw, involves racist impulses.
In his book, Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol (1991) affirms that tokenism within the power structures serves three functions: It offers symbolism, enforcement, and scapegoat. As we can see, this is a valuable mechanism of power to protect the Bush administration against charges of racism, to impose a more severe imperial agenda, and to assign rewards and punishments depending on the circumstances, especially in these times when Rice will replace Powell. In line with this ugly power-tokenism amalgamation, the charge of “yes sir” attitude should not be a criticism, since that is precisely the fabulous attribute that, regardless of race or sex, President Bush was expecting from all his subordinates.
Otherwise, how do you explain that two officials of different races, Powell and Cheney, for example, played a “yes sir” role to support the infamous WMD story? “I am absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction and the evidence will be forthcoming,” said Powell (May 4, 2003). “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” said Cheney (Aug.26, 2002). Dr. Rice, of course, is not the exception in the crowd: “We do know that there have been shipments into Iraq of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to nuclear weapons programs” (Sep.8, 2002).
Was not this perhaps the type of political discourse precisely that president Bush “wanted to hear” from his “knee-jerk loyalty” staff? If such subservient attitudes are not a patrimony of race or sex, where is, then, if not in the racial prejudice, the significance of the New York Times editorial’s preoccupation?
--Wilfredo Gutiérrez.
------/
See also:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/17/opinion/edrice.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/opinion/17wed1.html?oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position
http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137798/index.php
----/
“Our concern about Rice” – the editorial says – “is not that she makes the president feel comfortable. It’s that as national security adviser, she seemed to tell him what he wanted to hear about decisions he’d already made, rather than what he needed to know to make sound judgments in the first place.”
In my understanding, Dr. Rice is a highly educated and qualified person to do the job and her attributes probably goes further than merely “willing to travel” or wanting an “exalted title.” But my disagreement with the editorial is for other reasons. And the fundamental one is the hidden implication that Rice is a “yes sir” person because of her racial condition – and this, besides being a nasty flaw, involves racist impulses.
In his book, Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol (1991) affirms that tokenism within the power structures serves three functions: It offers symbolism, enforcement, and scapegoat. As we can see, this is a valuable mechanism of power to protect the Bush administration against charges of racism, to impose a more severe imperial agenda, and to assign rewards and punishments depending on the circumstances, especially in these times when Rice will replace Powell. In line with this ugly power-tokenism amalgamation, the charge of “yes sir” attitude should not be a criticism, since that is precisely the fabulous attribute that, regardless of race or sex, President Bush was expecting from all his subordinates.
Otherwise, how do you explain that two officials of different races, Powell and Cheney, for example, played a “yes sir” role to support the infamous WMD story? “I am absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction and the evidence will be forthcoming,” said Powell (May 4, 2003). “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” said Cheney (Aug.26, 2002). Dr. Rice, of course, is not the exception in the crowd: “We do know that there have been shipments into Iraq of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to nuclear weapons programs” (Sep.8, 2002).
Was not this perhaps the type of political discourse precisely that president Bush “wanted to hear” from his “knee-jerk loyalty” staff? If such subservient attitudes are not a patrimony of race or sex, where is, then, if not in the racial prejudice, the significance of the New York Times editorial’s preoccupation?
--Wilfredo Gutiérrez.
------/
See also:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/17/opinion/edrice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/opinion/17wed1.html?oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137798/index.php ----/
Wilfredo Gutiérrez
e-mail:
bwg2001@hotmail.com
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
NOT racist (a misreading of the criticism)
21.11.2004 13:34
Bush is NOT being acused of surrounding himself with weak toadies for advisors who agree with him in the sense that "yes men" do. He is, however, being acused of selecting individuals whose ideas are so closely in tume with his own that there is danger he will hear no contrary advice.
Of course Rice is highly qualified and experienced. What Bush knows about foreign affairs SHE taught him. The point is that she is replacing one of the few "dissenters" in the previous cabinet and there is danger in that. SOMEBODY in the room may need to at least be able to play "devils advocate". In the US, that is often "state" for a very simple reason. The careerists of state look at international affairs without being hobbled by internal US politics -- can express opinions about what (they think) would be good for the country in the abstract, forgetting in a way that a country has no interests (the PEOPLE living there do).
Thus a president is often making decisions (whatever advice, the buck stops on his, or perhpas one day her desk) based upon political considerations instead of this abstract consideration. More Americans might want policy X than policy Y in foreign affairs, but maybe the folks who want X are going to vote for the other guy for president anyway but the folks who want Y will decide based on this issue. In other words, "state" is the seat most often at variance with internal politcal ocnsiderations.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm mtdata.com
Need to read again
21.11.2004 19:20
Luis