It’s not that I think I’m all that swell (and I’ve only got about 500 readers on any given day) there are some really good bloggers who use it Sysiphus Shrugged comes immediately to mind).

Yeah, I’m probably being oversensitive, but there are a lot of perceptive people who choose to use it.

seriously: if you can explain the positive nature of your post, and subsequent comments, i’d really like to know. because right now, all i’m seeing is self-righteousness.

I think that fact is the issue worth discussing. Those bloggers could have asked why that was so little diversity, and help put the photo into context (by blogging about who was invited but couldn’t attend/refused, etc.), but that didn’t happen.

I think that reflects either the “race as third rail” problem, or perhaps even more depressing, a collective opinion that discussing it publicly really didn’t matter.

Pam, it’s a valid question and nobody here has ever said that it wasn’t. I think everyone has said that the politics of inclusion are very important and that the lack of diversity in the blogosphere — particularly in the heavily-trafficked blogosphere — are problematic. Matt Stoller brought up the problem of race at the meeting itself. But I think we all appreciate that Peter Daou is not a racist, he is someone that all of us feel like we can work with in the future, that any problems could have been solved more productively in a private fashion and dragging this out in public in an insulting flame war would do nothing positive other than draw attention to those who really like to be the subject of public attention, no matter how much damage they do to the cause they pretend to espouse.

I once linked to an article by Gene Lyons where he said that if bloggers became the pundit class it would be a better world, and everyone he listed was a straight white male. With deepest respect for Lyons I wrote a post saying it was important to also have women and people of color and different sexual identities represented. I then linked to you as I recall. Lyons showed up in the comment section and agreed with that point. We started an email exchange. It sparked a really positive debate.

That didn’t happen here. I was singled out and stereotyped for being a blond, privileged white women (how would it have played if I’d made a comment like that in reverse?) and then attacked for something I did not do. Liza set the table for the tone and substance of this one and if people don’t like how it played out they need look no further than to her. A very important topic was lost within her own bitterness; you start a flame war, you better be prepared to get one back.

I was quite careful to set the context for my criticism of Lyons’ remarks by saying that he was one of the very best journalists out there and had been so for some time. Nobody has ever bothered to either defend FDL or make note of the fact that we’re probably the only high traffic blog who goes to such lengths to include a variety of voices on our site. No, I’m just a “privileged white woman.” Nor does much of anyone seem to be holding Liza to account for her cheapening of the topic or the coarse bitter insults contained in her post that have nothing to do with the subject she purports to defend.

Jane Knowles, you say that people will remember this incident poorly? Believe me, it will reign in nobody’s memory longer than mine. And I do not see anything positive coming out of it whatsoever that a private note to Peter Daou could not have accomplished to much greater effect, and certainly nothing that a respectful post that took into account that nobody involved probably had bad intentions but a problem existed nonetheless. I’m quite certain it would’ve brought nothing but concurrence from all.

This was not about solving a problem. And it didn’t.

I find it unfortunate that Liza refuses to communicate with me directly on her own site. Since the issues covered therein are regional, for the most part, my connection there will likely dwindle away unless my interests are reassigned.

For myself, I would encourage her to come here should she have an interest in doing so.

Perhaps we could reason together.

darkblack,

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your comments over at Culture Kitchen, which I haven’t had time to respond to directly. But I thought you made a number of fair points and I appreciate your effort to clarify matters. Your explanations definitely helped me see some different angles.

Also, I agree that this particular issue would probably be a lot easier if Liza engaged us — she hasn’t responded to your posts or mine. Maybe she’s been too busy. Maybe this affair has left a bad taste in her mouth for this whole community. Maybe she just doesn’t like to respond much. Who knows.

Anyway, keep up the hefty stream of good work.

Peace.

finally, shame on you, trex, for using the term “betters.” do you truly not understand how loaded and, to be frank, racist that sounds? you just proved liza’s whole point and undid every good point you made. and c’mon- picking on someone for spelling and grammar? that’s pretty weak. it’s not like you’ve never put up a comment or post with a typo in it. lame.

Oy, TRex, you’re a peach, but your passion in defense in pointing out your issues with Liza’s post ratcheted up the heat in a way that has diverted the attention from the problem of inclusion, does it matter (yes), and was a mistake made in the organizing of the event. Most of these comments have devolved into counter attacks that just reflect badly on the left’s ability to address the larger issue.

As I’ve said at my pad many times before, race is a third rail topic for white and POC. Whites are paranoid about discussing it for fear of getting their heads bitten off, POC are defensive because it can get tiring having to point out the obvious — and then they shut down. The end result is the groups go into their corners and fail to communicate effectively. When an issue does explode publicly, then it becomes emotional, not rational. This cycle is so predictable (in the real and virtual worlds), and it disappoints me each time.

428:

My own hypothesis is that people were chosen by the product of two factors: Potential Hillary Positivity X Traffic.

…Some folks like Jane, Christie, Atrios, et. al, are so popular and influential that Hillary’s team can’t afford not to invite them.

Lindsay’s spot-on here — the campaign went for the home run on the first event. Unfortunately, it makes subsequent inclusion of minorities at future sessions appear to be tokenism, which is justifiably decried in the thread. You can’t roll back the clock to stop it from looking reactive rather than proactive. No minority blogger wants to be seen as the “chosen one”, as it were. Been there, done that, for a good part of my life, thank you very much. I’ve been the “first” or “only” minority in so many professional and personal settings (sorry to say, since I’m only 43), that I’m not surprised, just sad that for all the progress that has been made, we’ve all got a long way to go.

So, it’s a good strategy in the abstract, but you have to expect that it’s going to bite you in the ass when the party of inclusion ends up with a photo like that, and none of the bloggers who made it there make note of the problem. The lack of discussion by invitees about the lack of color present at the meeting on the invitees’ blogs themselves was telling, particularly since I’ve been told by one of the attendees that the lack of diversity was raised there among you in conversation.

I think that fact is the issue worth discussing. Those bloggers could have asked why that was so little diversity, and help put the photo into context (by blogging about who was invited but couldn’t attend/refused, etc.), but that didn’t happen.

I think that reflects either the “race as third rail” problem, or perhaps even more depressing, a collective opinion that discussing it publicly really didn’t matter.

I’m not fond of generalisations. Or demonstrated lack of critical, objective thinking. Or feigned clarity in motive.

I mistrust ‘liberal guilt’. It panders, while the tack of opening the door to opportunity and stepping away to let independent growth commence breeds success and satisfaction without an unequal emotional burden.
And those who would exploit such guilt are no better than those who would predate upon the innocent.

I despise those who would judge an individual over the gifts and burdens of their birth, and those who will not let us live free.

My hand is set against mendacity, and the venal criminality which oppresses us all.
Why anyone would wish to put a smaller issue before that, insisting on its grave importance above all else seems incomprehensible.
Yet it happens, every minute of every hour in the day…And one among some must tend to the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

Benefit? No.

Reality? Yes.

I sometimes think that people project their reactions on a world, to a greater or lesser degree, in a fashion that will conform to their personal restrictions, accepting only the return signal that conforms to the narrowed expectations.
Recieve it, and the loop is created that sustains those restrictions enough to block any expansion. And thus growth is prevented.

Whether they seek balance, or debasement…I have made my motives and temperament clear, and I apologise for no one’s actions other than my own, nor will I tolerate others being blamed for my actions.

I find it unfortunate that Liza refuses to communicate with me directly on her own site. Since the issues covered therein are regional, for the most part, my connection there will likely dwindle away unless my interests are reassigned.

For myself, I would encourage her to come here should she have an interest in doing so.

Perhaps we could reason together.

Jane Hamsher @
148

t.a. barnhart @
139

i’m not exactly sure why this post is necessary. as it happens, Liza can actually be reached and spoken to personally. imagine. some people, when attacked in a manner they think unfair, by someone who is actually seeking the same goals (2 minutes at her website proves that), would keep it private. in the spirit of seeking a better community, they’d find out what brought on the original attack and try to find a positive resolution. you don’t indicate you tried that; you don’t approve of talking to people first? of privately making your points and giving her a chance to retract? you may be in the right in terms of the access you give to a diverse group of writers, but this post is pure 8th grade. very disappointing.

but i’m sure the neocon lurkers enjoyed it.

You apply a yardstick to one you don’t apply to the other. Liza didn’t even bother to verify the factual accuracy of her assertions, let alone privately communicate her concerns.

Our neocon lurkers no doubt recognize themselves in your logic.

This time, I’m coming in several floors below ground and presumably largely unnoticed; but for the record, here’s the opening of my take on all this:

The latest flare-up between Culture Kitchen and Firedoglake, despite being a sad display of destructive liberal angst, nevertheless says something real about the state of “race relations” in America today. At the very least, it demonstrates to me that the perceptual gulf between white folks and people of color is vast, profound, and at times seemingly intractable, stuck in a self-perpetuating loop of cascading errors.

Here’s what I can make out, in the most generalized but hopefully clear terms (obviously, not all white liberals see things in similar terms and I certainly don’t speak for all people of color with this “POC perception” device, it’s just my way of explaining my view of constrasting perspectives):

Fact: The first Bill Clinton-blogger meeting was overwhelmingly attended by white bloggers.
White perception: An unfortunate coincidence.
POC perception: Hundreds of years of history and our own life experiences have taught us that racism often works its nefarious magic through seemingly benign cultural norms and all manner of fork-tongued mechanisms that lead to consistently one-sided representation and results.

[…]

But she didn’t do any investigation to find out that there were at least two minority bloggers, Oliver Willis (black) and Kos (Latino), who were invited and, for whatever reasons, couldn’t make it. She also accused Jane of being a monied white elitist who had the leisure time to campaign in Connecticut for Ned Lamont, but who didn’t reach out to black or minority bloggers. That is a patent falsehood as CT Blogger (who’s black) can attest. Again, no investigation, no fact-checking on Ms. Liza’s part. The facts are that Jane went to CT right after her mother’s funeral when she could have been in mourning and that FDL supports and publishes minority bloggers, including women, gays, Hispanics, and yes, blacks.

Liza may indeed be a bright and passionate woman as Jane Knowles says she is, but when she talks shit and lies about other people, she needs to be called on her shit. Hopefully, she’s bright enough not to make the same stupid mistakes again.

I’m sure that Peter Daou and Bill Clinton haved learned something from this tempest in a blogpot, too.