Reply #188: Interesting... [View All]

[OneGrassRoot]

We all have such different (and valid) perceptions of what both of these women wrote.

Here are the first two paragraphs of Joan Walsh's piece (for those who haven't followed the links):

The Nation's most-read article this week is by my friend Melissa Harris-Perry, "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama." Perry doesn't mention any white liberals by name, nor cite polls showing a decline in support for President Obama among white liberals (as opposed to white voters generally, where his approval rating has dropped sharply). But her piece touched a nerve because of the widespread perception that white liberals are, in fact, abandoning the president.

I'm not sure how to argue with a perception, which is by definition subjective, but I'm going to try, because this is becoming a prevalent and divisive belief. When I say Melissa Harris-Perry is my friend, I don't say that rhetorically, or ironically; we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously. That's why I think it's important to engage her argument, and I've invited her to reply.

You, fishwax, interpreted that thusly:

The paragraph starts out by saying MHP's perception is divisive. Then it talks about friendship for several sentences, and then says "that's why I think it's important to engage her argument." So MHP's beliefs are incorrect and divisive, but she's a friend so I'll engage her argument.

I didn't interpret it that way at all. I started off with equal respect for both of these women, having admired both of their opinions for a while now.

I interpreted it as Joan saying that the impression that white liberals may be abandoning Obama due to racism -- not specifically MHP's comments -- "is becoming a prevalent and divisive belief."

(Edit to add, for clarity, that there is a difference to me -- though I realize semantics can really drag this whole discussion down an unnecessary path. To me by acknowledging it as a more widespread impression, and not MHP's alone, made me feel THAT is largely why she was responding, and not as a focused attack (sorry, can't think of another word) on MHP herself, though she understandably proceeds to respond to what MHP specifically wrote in her rebuttal.)

Yes, it's obviously a belief she disagrees with, and she went on to explain why. Her explanation of how she viewed their relationship didn't seem condescending at all to me.

That said, as I have said repeatedly throughout this and other threads, my life experience isn't that of MHP's, so I WOULDN'T have the same reaction to what Joan Walsh, nor truly "get" everything that led to her writing her original piece.

But I want to listen and understand it more, just as I would hope both Joan and Melissa are open to listening and understanding the other's perspective more, in spite of this awkward entrance into the discussion.