I was not going to bother saying anything.
But here goes:
This expectation that we black people have to explain ourselves to the satisfaction of white liberals is tiresome and demeaning.
Well, I was not going to bother saying anything, but as a black man, I find this diary to be powerfully offensive, petty and free of substance. Even the title, “Black People don't have to explain why they vote Hillary”, is a straw man argument dripping with condescension and faux black victimhood in order to promote a presidential candidate who has strongly supported policies that have decimated the black community for her own political gain.
In the 1990’s, simultaneously, the Clintons destroyed the manufacturing job base with NAFTA, ended “welfare as we know it” and got “tough on crime” with 3 strikes laws and much harsher sentencing for crimes involving crack as opposed to cocaine. Therefore, legal means of income for poor communities were severely restricted and the punishment for illegal means of income became harsh. This was a war on lower income Americans generally and the on the black community in particular. We are still suffering from it today. The Clintons made billions for big corporations by enabling offshoring and showed they could be as tough on minorities as the Republicans to gain favor with the racist, white conservative base. The consequences of these right wing policies have been so severe and the Clinton role so undeniable, that Bill has recently publicly apologized… now that "they” are running for office again. Hillary was not the president then, but she gave full-voiced support to all of these policies — on camera, repeatedly.
This sudden concern for … our hurt feelings over some remark Hillary made twenty five years ago is remarkable and terribly transparent.
Hillary’s “superpredators” remark was not merely something she said twenty-five years ago. This was the most powerful first lady in history, the most powerful woman in the country, a national leader, saying on television that America was right to be afraid of a certain group of children that were less than human. They weren’t just “gangs” of kids anymore. They lacked empathy and conscience and therefore did not deserve to be treated as human beings. These words came from an occupant of the White House. This dehumanization is inherently racialized. White America did not hear this message and think of their own sons and daughters — and they weren’t intended to. And now, Hillary has the audacity to stand next to black mothers whose children have been slain by the police in cold blood and be offended… while running for office.
Then there was the ugly racism in her campaign against Obama in 2008.
Now the original diarist comes to this forum, the purpose of which is the open exchange of information and opinion in pursuit of moving the country in a more liberal direction (at least that’s how I see it) and claims she does not need to explain her choice to support Hillary because… racism.
I think this part of the original diary is my “favorite”:
I would answer your queries, but honestly it has been answered a million times, by hundreds of thousands of black people, and if it is not understood by now, it never will be.
So the original diarist does have (secret) reasons why we (of all races) should overlook the ugly truths about Hillary and race, but she is above articulating them on a Democratic forum because that’s giving in to white people??
Okay. I’ll play. I’m black, and I sure as hell want an explanation. I missed the meeting where these hundreds of thousands of black people explained it millions of times. I’m not the only black person who feels this way. Are we racist too? I find it deeply troubling that Hillary Clinton (of all people) could become president of the United States - primarily due to the support of black Americans.
Racism is far too serious and consequential a thing to be misused this way. It is petty to broadly accuse (likely liberal, Democratic, even progressive) white people of racism just because they are curious why a large number of black people appear to strongly support a candidate with Hillary's record. The question has merit. The original diarist is free to decline to explain her Hillary advocacy (obviously, which is why the title is a straw man), but it is unseemly to try to suppress the discussion with vicious ad-hominems and charges of racism.
The paternalism of those we call allies, who rant and rage and lash out on us with a mighty fury, ‘for our own good!’, to help us desperate, uneducated, ignorant, uninformed, needing of their guidance souls, become as enlightened as they and finally, finally by GOD vote in what they know, from their pedastal of progressive purity, is in ‘OUR BEST INTERESTS!’ is demeaning and horror inducing. See, they know much better than our dense, weakminded selves what is best for blacks. They remind us day after day how much they know about what we should think, do and want, and how we should vote. How could they not?
This indignant and angry claim not to need to make a case for Hillary, on a political blog, combined with the weirdly intense personal attacks on Bernie supporters strongly suggests that the diarist’s (absent) argument for Hillary is lacking.
UPDATE: My first diary and it's on the Rec List!! I'm honored!! Thanks to everyone for the open and lively discussion from all camps. That's what I was hoping to see.
UPDATE #2: Let me make clear that, as I mentioned in the diary, I’m not saying that anyone owes anyone else explanations. Period. The previous diarist was trying to stifle discussion with charges of racism. I strongly resent that. However, anyone who chooses not to discuss their politics (even though this is a political discussion board) obviously has that right.