Condoleeza Rice - the next Secretary of State
After two days of spouting platitudes to a Senate committee, Dr. Condoleeza Rice will be confirmed as the next Secretary of State.
Dr. Rice’s biography is not typical of black American women who face the most severe discrimination and obstacles in our society. She was born and bred to succeed in a white dominated society, and has learned extremely well how to seem to ignore race as a factor while in fact using it for her own gain. She has been aptly called "interracially fluent", knowing how to operate in a white dominated society by making her white associates feel comfortable without them even realizing she is doing it. She has accomplished much in her life and deserves great credit for what she has achieved.
An apparent dilemma for successful blacks in America is how to enjoy the fruits of success without ignoring the plight of the less successful black Americans. Some blacks, usually entertainers like Oprah and Bill Cosby, manage to enjoy the fruits while still helping and sharing. Others make the lifting up of black brothers and sisters their life’s work, usually wining awards and sometimes paying the ultimate price, as Dr. King did. "Why should I have to take time away from the enjoyment of my success to concern myself with other blacks; let white people spend their time on that and let black people take responsibility for achieving their own success like I did", is the answer given by some, including Condi Rice.
My criticisms of Dr. Rice fall into two categories, one race related and one not. The non-race related complaints against her are the same as those against all the Bush chicken hawks, for whom she has been an especially compliant front person as previously pointed out in this blog (http://sensefromseattle.blogspot.com/2004/11/condescending-condoleeza-rice.html#comments)
As for race related criticism, as a white man, I have to be careful in criticizing a black woman. But a critical article, written by a black female journalist, Betty Baye’, speaks to much of what my racially related concerns are about Condi Rice. The article is at http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/columns/baye/baye20031002.html.
Here are some interesting facts about Dr. Rice: she is an only child, third generation college grad; at age 15, she enrolled at the University of Denver, where her father was Vice Chancellor; her early collegiate academic mentor was the father of Madeline Albright, the Clinton Secretary of State; she has held corporate directorships at many large corporations, including Chevron, which even named an oil tanker after her. Here is the Wikipedia bio on Dr. Rice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
Dr. Rice’s biography is not typical of black American women who face the most severe discrimination and obstacles in our society. She was born and bred to succeed in a white dominated society, and has learned extremely well how to seem to ignore race as a factor while in fact using it for her own gain. She has been aptly called "interracially fluent", knowing how to operate in a white dominated society by making her white associates feel comfortable without them even realizing she is doing it. She has accomplished much in her life and deserves great credit for what she has achieved.
An apparent dilemma for successful blacks in America is how to enjoy the fruits of success without ignoring the plight of the less successful black Americans. Some blacks, usually entertainers like Oprah and Bill Cosby, manage to enjoy the fruits while still helping and sharing. Others make the lifting up of black brothers and sisters their life’s work, usually wining awards and sometimes paying the ultimate price, as Dr. King did. "Why should I have to take time away from the enjoyment of my success to concern myself with other blacks; let white people spend their time on that and let black people take responsibility for achieving their own success like I did", is the answer given by some, including Condi Rice.
My criticisms of Dr. Rice fall into two categories, one race related and one not. The non-race related complaints against her are the same as those against all the Bush chicken hawks, for whom she has been an especially compliant front person as previously pointed out in this blog (http://sensefromseattle.blogspot.com/2004/11/condescending-condoleeza-rice.html#comments)
As for race related criticism, as a white man, I have to be careful in criticizing a black woman. But a critical article, written by a black female journalist, Betty Baye’, speaks to much of what my racially related concerns are about Condi Rice. The article is at http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/columns/baye/baye20031002.html.
Here are some interesting facts about Dr. Rice: she is an only child, third generation college grad; at age 15, she enrolled at the University of Denver, where her father was Vice Chancellor; her early collegiate academic mentor was the father of Madeline Albright, the Clinton Secretary of State; she has held corporate directorships at many large corporations, including Chevron, which even named an oil tanker after her. Here is the Wikipedia bio on Dr. Rice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
posted by Tom Blake | 1:31 PM
5 Comments:
Hi Tom,
Your post regarding Dr. Rice are very intriguing. I think we heartily disagree on Dr. Rice's attributes and her ability to give critical input to the President and the rest of the Cabinet.
I am curious about one comment you made, and that is "as a white man" you have to be "careful in criticizing a black woman."
Why?
I think that criticizing Dr. Rice on her foreign policy views, her abilities as a potential member of the Cabinet, and everything else about her as a public official is just fine regardless of race. I think the attitude that you have to be careful about criticizing a person for things that have nothing to do with race is unnecessary, and an example of political correctness run amok.
Just a thought. Enjoy reading your blog.
I think I follow your point Matt. You are saying as long as my criticism is about matters that have nothing to do with race, then there is no reason for me to be concerned that Dr. Rice is a black woman. Your statement makes sense on its face, but I do think there is a calculated racial factor involved in Republicans elevating certain blacks to positions of importance - in this case Dr. Rice and even more notably, Clarence Thomas.
Let's face it, to the vast majority of blacks, the practices and positions of the Republican Party have very little to offer compared to the practices and policies of the Democrats. As I recall, there still are no black Republicans in Congress. The one black Senator and all the black members of the House are Democrats. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Bush only got 8% of the black vote in 2000, and with 25% more blacks voting in 2004, the "wartime" President still only got 11% of the black vote. But that extra 3% of blacks was a significant gain in a close election.
Dr. Rice is not a token, though I believe her race was a factor in the Republican Bush insiders choosing and grooming her. The factor involved was not affirmative action - Republicans are definitely opposed to that. The calculated factor was to show what self-discipline and hard work can do for a black person and how affirmative action is not necessary.
Clarence Thomas is somewhat of a token. The Republican calculation in his case was to choose and groom an arch-conservative black and put him in positions where he would have authority to block affirmative action efforts - first at the EEOC and then on the Supreme Court. Rice and Thomas are both fiercely loyal sycophants, showering their groomers with praise that, if examined objectively, actually seems to indicate that ability and hard work alone are not sufficient for a black to succeed, but that some white benefactor to fawn over is the final ingredient.
The Bush strategists see elevation of blacks like Rice and Thomas as a triple win situation. A loyal ideologue is empowered. A few more black voters are swayed. Liberals are stymied, blacks feeling that to oppose the elevation of a black may result in an even worse white being elevated, and whites like me worrying about being seen as politically incorrect for opposing a black.
History will have the final say. Law students reading the Court opinions of Clarence Thomas, so devastagingly unfavorable to the interests of blacks, will have to find out in a surprising footnote that this man of Southern roots was in fact a black man and not a white supremacist. Political science students will also wonder why Condoleeza Rice, a black woman, seemed to invest all her energies on aspects of Pax Americana, while largley ignoring the social and health problems plaguing the dark skinned people around the world.
Contrast Colin Powell. Aided by affirmative action, he applied his sizeable abilities through diligence in the most racially open part of the governement, the military, gaining such experience and eminence that, upon his retirement, he was under serious consideration for a Presidential run. Powell was not groomed, as Rice and Thomas were. He was co-opted by the Bush campaign to join Dick Cheney in shoring up a George Bush who was presidential in name only.
A final irony. If Colin Powell had been born with the darker skin color of Rice or Thomas, I think his rise would have been more difficult and I doubt he would have been considered as viable a Presidential possibility. And if Rice or Thomas had been born with the lighter skin of Powell, I wonder whether their groomers would have been as interested.
Tom,
Your final irony is illuminating if true, but beyond my experience to judge. I would never have imagined the irony you describe. What made you see this? Is it from your readings or from your own experience?
John from Phoenix
Both reading and experience have shown me that degree of darkness is something of which persons of color are even more aware than are caucasians. A good read on the subject is "The Sweeter the Juice; a Family Memoir in Black and White", by Shirlee Taylor Haizlip.
I think it is also interesting that almost all African-Americans elected to Congress are very dark skinned.
Rice got 13 no votes in the Senate, the second highest in US history against a Secretary of State nominee. The objectors expressed concern for her lack of candor in response to questions during her confirmation hearing.
Senate Majority Leader Frist rebuked the Rice opponents, not for being anti-black female, but for being anti-American senders of a disunity message to our opponents in time of War.
Senator Hatch, a key player in using race to get Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, has already trotted out his racial rhetoric for the Alberto Gonzales vote to come, saying a vote against him would be anti-Hispanic.
Post a Comment
<< Home