Check out this exchange with the venerable Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. Now I know what bobbing and weaving means. Enjoy!

I'm sorry, Iris, but I simply don't have time for this kind of exchange. I'm sorry you found my response incomplete. Your first email, like this one, was simply too long and rambling to post. And no, it is not a "flip-flop" or at all inconsistent to say that race is of course a factor in the election, but that it isn't nearly as important a factor as people insist on presuming it is, because it isn't nearly as central to our divisions as a society as it was even 30 years ago. Obama understands that, which is why he ran, and which is why he won the nomination. It is one of the great ironies of his appeal that so many of his suuporters seem so invested in this notion of America as a nation of unbending ignorance and venality. Perhaps he'll prove them wrong.
matt

On Sep 20, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Iris Bittencourt wrote:

Iris Bittencourt sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.mattbai.com/contact.

Matt,

I was just about to write you a response thanking you for replying to my e-mail, when I saw that you had published your reply on your site. While I appreciate your public reply and do sincerely thank you for taking the time to read what I am sure is not always the most well-written or coherent stuff, it also strikes me as odd that you would publish your response but
not what prompted your response. I apologize if you found my comments to be contemptuous, which I understand to mean exhibiting lack of respect or rude or discourteous. To a certin extent, I agree with you and apologize for that. I do not need to make ad hominem attacks to prove my point. However, you dismiss the substantive points and questions that I raised in
my original comments, and your response makes me fear that you continue to ignore these questions. Let me show you why.
First, you declare: I don't really understand what the revelation is with this AP poll. That white Americans harbor racial stereotypes? That those attitudes affect people's votes? We needed a poll to tell us that? Well, if you recall, in the article that I responded to you declared that "the biggest deal about racial and gender identity in the campaign is that, especially to younger Americans who live and work in a vastly changed
country, it isn't such a very big deal after all." It seems to me, Matt, that these two statements are inconsistent. Last week, you proclaimed that "our divisions are as likely to be about income and geography as they are about race and gender," and this week you are saying racism exists and affects people's votes. With all due respect, it sounds like a flip flop
to me.
So, after destroying the straw man that you created, you proceed to discuss the "more salient questions," none of which, of course, are any of the questions that I raised in my original comments. But, OK, fine. Let's examine these questions. 1. To what extent are those biases disqualifying biases in choosing a candidate, or are they merely factors among many others? The AP study shows that in the absence of racism, Obama's lead would be at least six points higher. I take it that you do not dispute this finding. By how much did
Bush win in 2000 and 2004? In our current political environment, a six-point handicap would seem to be disqualifying. But, the larger question and one that I raised in my original comments that you did not address, is what is the effect of the extent of racism in society on the lives of everyday black people, including police brutality, equal pay, job
and promotion opportunities, etc. If we focus on Obama only, I believe that we miss the boat. I go into this question in more detail below.
We all know people with racial biases who will vote for Obama anyway, just as we know people with ageist biases who will vote for McCain. Are you equating racism with ageism? Based on your prior article, I would not be surprised, as every "ism" is equal to an other "ism" in your view. Think about what you just said. Do you actually believe that?
The trajectory of progress is generally that what was a disqualifiying factor (i.e., anti_Catholicism bias that existed when Al Sith ran for president) becomes, in time, an obstacle that can be ovecome (i.e. JFK in 1960). The mere existence of a racial bias doesn't make it determinative.
Agreed. However, this is a lot more complex than it appears that you are recognizing. Do you think that if Alan Keyes or Colin Powell or a so-called black conservative were running for president that race would be as large a factor as it is now? Did anyone attack Clarence Thomas in this manner? I dealt with all of this in my original comments. You need to
understand Sambo and Quimbo and there role in white society. Is Clarence Thomas progress in your view?
2. Are there other legiitimate reasons that a moderate to conservative leaning voter might not choose Obama, aside from race? I believe there are.
OK. My question is, particularly with respect to white female voters that supported Hillary Clinton, do you believe that any of these so-called legitimate reasons will matter more than race when they walk in that polling booth. Her royal hiny the baroness Rothschild is a good example. Just listen to all those legitimate reasons that she spouts for supporting McCain and those bitter rednecks.

3. By constantly harping on the idea that white Americans are hopelessly racist--this familiar liberal vision of America as a dark and unjust place--do you make it more or less likely that the voters mentioned above will decline to vote for a Democrat (yet again?).
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do not make it more or less of anything. I am part of the voiceless masses. Are you sure that you are not a McCain supporter. I sort of feel like I imagine Obama felt when McCain blamed him for the financial crisis. Now, because I raise legitimate questions about racism
through a private e-mail connection, I am somehow to blame for white racist voters who refuse to vote for a black man. You can do better than that.

Thus far, none of the poll numbers I've seen put Obama in any
substantially different range with white men than was Kerry or Gore. Neither of them lost because of racism.
Kerry and Gore are now potential victims of racism?
Somebody better warn them. Why didn't you add Clinton? Wasn't he the first white black presidential candidate? It seems that his close relationship with the black community would be more of an issue for white voters than Kerry or
Gore. I could be wrong though. Remember though. Palin was not picked to draw white men. She was picked to draw white women. So, I am not sure what your question ultimately gets at? What has been the effect of Palin's choice on working to middle class white women without a college education? That is the target group.

As you may actually publish my response to your response, I include an edited version of my original comments (I have deleted any contemptuous references).

In your recent piece in the NYT regarding Retro Identity Politics, you recollect "competitions over who remained more oppressed than whom" during college in the 80s and conclude that, unlike then, current "notions of race became jumbled in the faces of children who, like Barack Obama, couldn't
check any one box on a census form." You acknowledge that sexism and racism continue to exist and point to insidious e-mails sent about Obama and Clinton as examples. Yet, you conclude that "our divisions are as likely to be about income and geography as they are about race and gender." To support this conclusion you cite the fact that "although elite men's
colleges began admitting women in the 1960s, it wasn't until 1993, when Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington, that the country got a first lady who was an accomplished lawyer and policy expert in her own right. (Four women arrived in the Senate that same year, representing what came to be
known as "the year of the woman.") Even today, a modest 16 of the nation's 100 senators and only 8 of its 50 governors are women. Among African-Americans, the numbers are even starker; Obama is the only black senator in Washington (a number unchanged from 40 years ago), and currently there are just two black governors." When these numbers seem to contradict your larger point, you posit that "politics in Washington has largely lagged behind the workplace and the local mall in reflecting a more integrated and less rigid America." Without offering proof for this assertion, you then marvel at "how much of an afterthought history has actually been. Obama had already won his first caucus by the time racial tension entered the Democratic primaries; no one ever seemed to question his viability as a candidate in the way they did Jesse Jackson's two decades years earlier." Based on the foregoing, you conclude that "the biggest deal about racial and gender identity in the campaign is that, especially to younger Americans who live and work in a vastly changed country, it isn't such a very big deal after all."
Do you know why in the 80s (as opposed to any other decade in that century or any other century before that) there were competitions between so-called minority groups to see who was more oppressed? The seed of those competitions was sown in 1964 when a cynical Southern senator inserted the
word "gender" in a bill that would later be enacted as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you recall, the principal purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to redress some of the harms suffered by the descendants of black slaves in America both during slavery and Jim Crowism. White women like myself were never slaves in America. To the contrary, we have always been part of a protected class in society, including the right to inherit and pass on the wealth of our parents and husbands and to child support and alimony in the event that we divorce our husbands. How many young black men were lynched for allegedly ogling a white woman? (When you ponder the
answer to the last question, also reflect on McCain's campaign ads that accuse Obama of being disrespectful and on what sexism means in the context of a black male and white female)
Yet, the inclusion of the term "gender" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 equated our struggle, the struggle of white women that have always been in a protected class in America, with that of the descendants of slaves of any gender. More than that, this inclusion gave racist white men an easy choice: either give the opportunity to their white mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, cousins, daughters or friends (or those of their white male colleagues) or give the opportunity to a black person of any gender. Accordingly, what started as legislation meant to redress the harm caused by slavery was effectively hijacked and transformed into a means to maintain or increase the aggregate accumulation of wealth, power and other benefits within the white community (at the expense of the descendants of black slaves). For example, African Americans currently make up about 13% of the US population, but have historically been underrepresented in Congress. Currently 42 members (9.5%) of the House (including two non-voting
delegates) are black, while Barack Obama is the only African American member of the Senate. Only five African Americans have ever served in the Senate. To put this in perspective, there are currently 16 women in the Senate, the highest number in history, and 74 female representatives. You
also aptly point out the disparity between black and female governors. Now, it is important to note that when I refer to blacks, I refer to both black men and black women. When people refer to women, to whom are they referring? Since 1964, other groups in addition to white women have been added to the list of intended beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act and the programs that have been established to redress racial inequality in America, including Hispanics and Asians. Like with respect to white women, white racist men have demonstrated an inclination to offer opportunities to
Hispanics and Asians instead of to African-Americans. Although it took African Americans approximately 135 years to elect an aggregate of five U.S. senators, five Asian-Americans and six Hispanic-Americans have been elected to the U.S. Senate over the last 30 years. The experience in major U.S. law firms is very similar. As aptly noted in an article comparing the progress of women and other so-called minorities in large law firms, "[a]s a general rule, the available literature tends to
focus more on [white] women than minorities in the legal profession." Since 1975, the representation of white women as professionals in large firms has increased by 179.9% from 14.4 percent in 1975 to 40.3 percent in 2002, whereas the representation of African Americans (of both genders) increased
by 91.3% from 2.3 percent in 1975 to 4.4 percent in 2002. (As stated above, Hispanics and Asians of both genders are now classified as minorities and benefit from programs that were developed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address racial inequality in America. Hispanics increased from 0.7 percent to 2.9 percent, and Asians increased from 0.5 percent to 5.3
percent over the same period). By 1982, the percent of white women reported as legal professionals was nearly identical to the percent of white women receiving law degrees in that year, and since then the employment of white women in these firms has remained higher than in the more general work force. Conversely, law degrees earned by African Americans appear to consistently exceed the employment of African Americans as professionals in large private law firms and as lawyers in the general work force. Unlike the employment patterns for white women, the proportion of African Americans (of both genders) employed as lawyers in the general labor market and as professionals in law firms as captured by the EEO-1 data is fairly consistent, and changes in the employment of African American professionals in private sector firms required to file EEO-1 reports lagged behind their increase as lawyers in the general work force and in their increased rate of receiving law degrees over the past twenty years. (Contrast this experience with Asians: the growth in Asian attorneys has been so rapid
that by 2002, the percentage of Asian professionals in Legal Services, 5.3 percent, as reported on the EEO-1 exceeds the percentage of African Americans, 4.4 percent. Degrees conferred to Asians also increased during the twenty year study period. In 1982 just 1.3 percent of all law degrees
are awarded to Asians but by 2002, they earn 6.5 percent of all degrees. Over the past twenty years the rate of change for the percent of Asians reported as professional by Legal Service firms on their EEO-1 reports is 341 percent. The increase in law degrees earned by Asians is even higher at 400 percent.) So, contrary to your conclusions, blacks have lagged behind other groups not just as elected officials, but in the private sector as well. Based on these and other statistics, who were the true beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act that blacks marched and died for? Somehow, we have gotten to a
point in our history where white women, Hispanics, Asians, handicapped people and others are equated with black people in America. When were they slaves in America? You gave us the perfect answer for this conundrum: history has been an
afterthought. What were white women doing while black men and women were slaves? How is my plight equal to that of the plight of the descendants of slaves? I could never understand that and reject it openly. When people talk about equal pay, they speak about equal pay for white women, because both black men and black women earn less than white men, and
black women earn on average far less than white women. If you are a white woman in this country, you benefit from the Equal Pay Act, which requires a woman to prove only that she received lower pay than a similarly situated male. If you are a black man (whose descendants worked for centuries for
free and has always received less pay than whites), you cannot use the Equal Pay Act and must sue under the Civil Rights Act, which requires you to prove both that you received lower pay and that the reason that you were paid less is because of racism (a nearly impossible task, as reflected in
recent civil rights jurisprudence). If it reminds you of the difference in sentencing for possession of crack and powder cocaine, do not be surprised. It is not a coincidence. To show the absurdity of equating blacks with white women and other
minorities, I ask one question: do we equate any of these groups to the suffering of the Jews? After all, the Holocaust lasted for approximately 10 years, whereas slavery in the Americas lasted for 385 years, and for approximately 255 of those years the U.S. participated actively. If Obama
were Joe Lieberman, would white women feel as strongly as they do against Obama? The obvious answer to this seemingly absurd question reveals the racism that underlies the equation of blacks with any other group in America. The McCain campaign itself has indicated that they expect Palin to help him among lower income female voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. In addition, Palin herself made references to Hillary Clinton's glass ceiling and to Ferraro (who herself during this campaign has called Obama an affirmative action candidate who is not qualified) in her initial speech. Get real. With this pick, McCain is calling lower income white
women without a college education (a polite way of saying racist white trash) to a race war veiled in the tattered clothes of the white feminist movement. On what other basis are these traditional Democratic voters going to support Palin --her record? Will the white female Democrats (life-long
in many cases) who vote for McCain do it because they agree with his policies and believe that a McCain presidency will help the plight of women in America? Returning to the points raised in your article, current "notions of race [have become] jumbled" because this serves the interests of white society. The fundamental question in America has not be gender; it has been race. If you step back and look at the world as a whole, the most successful racist society in the world today is Brazil. Why, because they deny that racism is a problem. If there is no problem, then there is no need for a solution. You may not know it, but Brazil has the largest number of blacks
living anywhere outside of Africa and espouses what is called a racial democracy in which everyone is Brazilian. Brazil commenced slavery in approx. 1503 and ended it in 1888. Although Brazil was the first to commence slavery in the Americas and the last one to end it, it was the first country to declare itself a racial democracy. Thus, unlike South
Africa and the U.S. where white racism was expressed in the form of violent segregation, Brazil was able to achieve the same results in a more understated way. Today, Brazilian whites are one of the only groups of white colonialists slave holders that have not been required to share part
of their wealth and power with the descendants of slaves (who make up approximately 50% of the population). Whites in Brazil have a similar standard of living as Kuwaitis, whereas black Brazilian live as if they were in El Salvador. But, this disparity has nothing to do with racism, because Brazil is a racial democracy ...
But just like in Brazil, racism has not gone away in the U.S. just because you say it has. There, as here, numbers do not lie. You cannot simply ignore the disparities in elected representatives and in private sector advancement, especially during the so-called heydey of affirmative action (without affirmative action, what would the numbers look like?). They are evidence of racism. Racism is not, as you allege, insidious e-mails. Who cares? Racism is about power. In a nutshell, it is a concerted effort to deny the fruits and benefits of society to a particular group based on their racial characteristics. In this manner, since blacks have never
owned or controlled anything in America, they by definition cannot be racists. They can react to racism, but cannot in themselves be racist. Give me one example of where blacks have forcefully prevented any other group from obtaining the fruits and benefits of society? From this perspective, it is interesting that a black man is being accused of sexism
by white women (which I read as denying women access to the fruits and benefits of society on an equal basis. Again, if blacks do not own or control anything, how are they being sexist? Calling people names is one thing; denying them a chance to earn a livelihood or to have equal protection under the law is entirely different, and let's not conflate the
two). When have blacks of any gender ever denied white women access to the fruits and benefits of society? Yet, the utter hypocrisy of this claim is too subtle for most to grasp. No, the only group that I know of in America that has been denied (and that continues to be denied) the fruits and
benefits of this society are blacks. To equate white women, Asians and Latinos with blacks is just another attempt to deny (through substantial dilution of) the fruits and benefits that blacks should enjoy in this society in light of their unique sacrifice, history of slavery, qualifications and representation in the population as a whole -- or in other words, racism. The plan has obviously worked like a charm. Spoken like a true Brazilian, you conclude that "our divisions are as likely to be about income and geography as they are about race and gender." When you can show me someone in America whose people were enslaved due to income, geography (outside of
Africa) or gender, then I will agree with you. Until then, your conclusion is pie in the sky wishful thinking that only serves one purpose: to reverse what little gains blacks have made and provide those opportunities to white women and our so-called model minorities, while at the same time undermining any argument that blacks may have regarding discrimination,
etc. Once you get everyone to forget the true history of racism in America, it will be very easy for you to equate the concerns of white women, Hispanics, Asians, gays, lesbians, humpbacks, midgets, dwarves, elves and bearded women with those of blacks in this country.
I went to college in the 80s, and I discovered a strange pattern when writing an article about financial aid: based on a 10-year analysis, the overall amount of financial aid dedicated to so-called minorities did not change (approx. 25%); however, the internal distribution among so-called minorities changed from year-to-year based on which group had complained the loudest the year before. The gripes of Asians, Hispanics and others
were equal to the gripes of the descendants of slaves in America. I wanted to understand how our nation got to such a crazy place. I believe I finally understand why.
Forget globalization. Brazilianization is a greater threat. If "the
biggest deal about racial and gender identity in the campaign is that, especially to younger Americans who live and work in a vastly changed country, it isn't such a very big deal after all," then we may be in even more trouble than I imagined. In fact, your Obama and Jackson comparison undercuts your central argument. Isn't the fact that Obama is bi-racial somehow less threatening than full-blooded Jackson? Wasn't it when white
America began to suspect that (unlike the example you give where people do not know which box to select in the census) Obama willingly selected the black box (look at his militant wife Michelle and his 20-year association with Rev. Wright, after all) that support for Obama started slipping? Had
Obama been clearly against the redistribution of the fruits and benefits of society to blacks, would whites have criticized him at all?
You must remember that Sambo from Uncle Tom's cabin was a black man who did the white man's bidding, even beating Uncle Tom to death. The Clarence Thomas types have never been problematic because they accept the revisionist history and support the continued exclusion of blacks from the
fruits and benefits of society. The 20-point shift among white women in favor of Palin is not a coincidence. The "new" racism is sexism (which conveniently only applies
to white women -- compare the treatment of Michelle Obama vs. treatment of Palin/Clinton) and multiculturalism. Once the U.S. can claim its own Brazilian racial democracy (as you appear to claim that we are close to), the door will close on blacks in America for good. History matters!!!

Matt Bai
The New York Times Magazine
202.237.1218
mattbai@earthlink.net
www.mattbai.com

I wish white women had a stronger presence in canada. I am a white woman and due to massive immigration in canada and minority hiring I cannot find a job. ALmost every job I apply to goes to a nonwhite. There is no work where I am from so I moved to a bigger centre. I find it highly unfair since my family has worked so hard and we came here 400 years ago that I have to live like this on little income and high uncertainly. Just where are the white women feminists and who do they stand up for??