Blogosphere: press release calls out Congressman for his “jungle fever”
CVK
Wow, just spotted this on Gawker. I’ll just copy and paste it. No comment required, really.
————
Today in Racist Public Relations Work
The following flackery, courtesy of a major public relations firm, has indirectly landed in our box:
SOUTHERN SELL-OUT
Offspring to one of the wealthiest southern political black families, Congressman Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee has stated in the past that he believes he personally benefited from the affirmative action at the University of Michigan. But last night, the young bachelor was seen kissing and holding hands with a white brunette woman at the hot meatpacking restaurant Sascha the other night. The two were dining on the Gansevoort terrace with another inter-racial couple and passersby on Gansevoort who are familiar with the representative were upset at the jungle fever since the Ford political family pride themselves on their black southern heritage and obtaining more rights for the black citizens in the backward state where many blacks still feel discriminated.
This is real, and it did not come from Alabama. Someone in New York City actually wrote this shit, put their name on it and sent it to media outlets. We’ll leave it to you to figure out what, exactly, is being pitched, but here’s a hint: the publicist really isn’t flacking white hoods.
————
UPDATE: Gawker just revealed who the press release came from and what it was trying to promote. I’m not surprised. Rubenstein PR (the spin-off started by Richard, not the flagship firm that Howard and his other son Steven) flacks for people like Don King and Star and Buc Wild. Not surprising they’d attempt this kind of race-baiting bull:
So what in God’s name was this publicist trying to promote, other than racism? One Gawker commenter guessed correctly: this awful gibberish was actually a pitch for Sascha, disguised as some sort of horrid gossip item. And Sascha is represented by — wait for it — Rubenstein PR. Good thing they’re so renowned for their crisis management skills.
Gandalf Mantooth wrote:
Well, the Congressman is an aquaintence of mine, something that has placed me on the bad side of the “progressive” community down here in TN(opposed, rightly, to his intial support of the Iraq War, they supported his primary opponent). Much of their attacks on him during the primary were to my mind, edging racist, especially those that smacked of the “uppity n-word” flavor. There’s a bit more to that but that would have to be an off the record thing. I’m extremely interested to hear where this came from, though.
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 2:31 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
OBVIOUS GUY SAYS:
I think they really are flacking for white racists!
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 4:28 pm ¶
dcase wrote:
One of the commentators suggested that the release was racist:
“I think it’s racist, but not the white hood racism. Rather it’s the Al Sharpton kind; it seems to be racist against whites. They’re basically saying Harold Ford sucks because he’s “selling out” and debasing himself by dating the dreaded white woman. Am I misreading it when I find it to be actually anti-white?”
An odd interpretation,wouldn’t you say? I swear some people are getting just as bad as Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson in suggesting everything is racist against whites. I had an argument with a guy several days ago who argued that it was white males that are the only oppressed group in this society now; every other group is either racist or sexist against them and they have to fight to just stay afloat. Huh?
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 5:00 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
dcase:
it helps ‘em sleep at night.
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 6:12 pm ¶
brad wrote:
First: This is completely sick and EVIL! Who the hell is this PR firm to release such a disgusting press release? I hope someone is tarred and feathered over this–figuratively.
Second: Has anyone ever seen a picture of Harold Ford and/or his family?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford
He’s as obviously mixed-raced as they come. So, why would anyone have a problem with him dating a white women?
Third: Ford is in a heated battle for seat in the U.S. Senate. I hope this doesn’t affect his campaign negatively. Although I disagree with some of his policies, I think the U.S. Senate could use another well educated Democrat.
Fourth: I AM SO SICK OF HEARING ABOUT WHITE MEN AS THE VICTIMS OF RACISM. That is such a crock of false self-pity that is utterly cynical, ignorant, and reprehensible. Some idiot in college tried to push that crap on me and all I could do was stare it him in shock. After asking him if he knew of a single non-white or white female president of the U.S., then asking him to name off the top of his head any non-white CEOs of a Fortune 500 company, and other assorted questions he scurried away.
Fifth: What the hell is with pushing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the exemplars of racism? That is crap. Jackson is a real Civil Rights Era hero. Yes, he’s flawed and imperfect (the cheating on wife debacle was tacky) but the guy sure as hell has never called on burning crosses on anyone’s lawn. Given the level of racism when Jackson came of age and became successful, I can’t blame him for his anger but I can thank him for his work to improve the lives of people of color, women in general, farmers of all races, the working class, negotiating the release of downed American pilots, and taking a stand against homophobia.
Sharpton isn’t racist; he’s a typical weaselly NYC politician. I wouldn’t vote for him. But Sharpton in terms of racism, the man doesn’t rise (or lower) himself to Rudy Giuliani’s level. When Giuliani was labeled “America’s Mayor” I wanted to puke. Throughout Giuliani’s tenure of mayor before 9/11, he was known for his racist statements and policies (and cabal of corrupt cronies). When people discuss his running for president, I laugh.
Why is it that some people so easily bring up Sharpton but not Pat Buchanan or Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond or a legion of real racist politicians who have made the lives of Americans difficult? If I compare Jackson’s “Hymietown” statement to Ronald Reagan’s “I’m for States Rights!” statement in Philadelphia, MS, where Cheney, Schwerner, and Goodman were murdered, I can see two politicians who said ignorant and prejudiced remarks. However, only one of them made a concerted effort to overcome his prejudice–Jackson. Reagan went on to iconify and vilify the image of the overweight, black welfare queen, supported federal funding for a university that supported a ban on interracial dating, and pretended AIDS didn’t exist.
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 6:41 pm ¶
Gandalph Mantooth wrote:
Well, no the Congressman is not exactly mixed as we use the term in common parlance. It is his grandmother who is biracial, though this has been a point of controversy in the race, too. Appearances can be deciving I suppose . . .
I’m glad to see this is not a political ploy, though we don’t know for sure yet do we?
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 7:10 pm ¶
dcase wrote:
GM:
This goes back to the question I posed I several weeks ago to the board: how mixed does one have to be to be considered mixed? Is it limited solely to people who have parents who identify with two different races? Or is it based upon phenotype, or being able to identify other race ancestors in your family tree? Is mixed a useful term without limits? Would Ford be challenged if he was to say he was a mixed candidate rather than a black one?
I think these are an interesting questions in their own right given that we are a society that is truly embracing, however tentatively, the idea of multiraciality. I say truly because the one-drop rule has generally been selectively applied in the past to certain groups and not others.
Also,earlier this year, there was a report on NPR about some controversy in Rep. Ford’s campaign when he suggested that his grandmother was white to a white audience but his family argued that she was black but mixed. Some took it as him being disingenuous in pandering the audience.
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 10:23 pm ¶
Gandalph Mantooth wrote:
That’s why the term “mixed” is confusing. I don’t hear many people who aren’t black using it, so it’s kind of culture specific and localized as well. Getting too specific becomes unwieldly, though. Once you get past mullato people would start to look at you funny.We need a linguist up in here, where’s Chomsky when you need him? And of course, “mixed” tends to mean black + white. Ever notice how when another race is involved some black people have to specifiy? “He’s mixed with Asian.”
Yes, the one drop rule is selectively applied, yet also selectively imposed, kna’mean? Phenotype is important to some people, and in a place where phenotype can be end all be all, one can see how one group might think it important and another does not.
Not only would Ford be challenged, it would become a story for a few days, especially in the Memphis papers. I’m sure he gets a pass with some, but some very powerful African American female legislators in Memphis are quite opposed to dating “outside the race.” That’s why I was pretty concerned with the PR release. It would seem not to be that problematic, yet it would be and not for the reasons some think. For people interested in race and politics the Ford campaign is a good study, as well as the race for his old Congressional seat, seeing as the major white candidate for the seat has pledged to join the Congressional Black Caucus if he is elected.
“Mixed” will probably stick around for awhile even after multicultural people start asserting themselves and defining themselves.
Posted 21 Jul 2006 at 11:54 pm ¶
Ben wrote:
Ooh, ooh, I’m a linguist! And I recently filled out a survey that said “You MUST be multiracial to complete this survey” so I asked the professor if she had some objective measure of multiraciality or if just thinking I was multiracial was ok. She responded in the latter (no surprise.)
So how mixed does one have to be to be considered mixed? Depends on who’s doing the considering. Just like any exploration of racial subjectivity, some people have to see it in your face, some people have to see it on a family tree, some people (bless them!) will just take your word for it.
I recently had the epiphany (on ATR, actually) that subjectivity is a double-edged sword. Because race is subjective and socially constructed, I can identify however I want - black, white, mixed, mulatto, whatever. But then others can identify me however they want. If someone says “you are not black” then they’re right. If someone says “you are black,” they’re right too. Obviously they have different ideas of what constitutes blackness, both of which are probably different from my own. (”I am whatever you say I am - if I wasn’t, why would you say I am?”)
I’d apply that to Mr. Ford, but I’m gonna guess he doesn’t agree with me OR Eminem on the issue.
Posted 24 Jul 2006 at 12:23 am ¶
Laura wrote:
The lady who made the PR was fired
http://www.gawker.com/news/rubenstein/rubenstein-fires-jungle-fever-flack-lori-brown-189461.php
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 10:43 am ¶
Ann wrote:
Black people in America are mixed already:
Sub-Saharan African blood
White/European blood
-Native American Indian blood
Just because the “bloodline” is old as in Black/White parents who were bornin 1950, 1940, 1930, etc., does not make them not mixed.
Anyone who considers the present race of black people in America as not mixed does not know the history of excess miscegenation that occured during slavery and during Jim Crow.
Of course much of that mixing came from rape of black women by White and Native Indian slave-holders.
To say that “Black” people in America are not “mixed” is to deny all the race-mixing that has gone on in this country, especially in the American South.
Of course, on the other hand, not many Black people born before 1967 (year of the rescinding of the anti-miscegenation laws) will publicly acknowledge White blood ancestry.
Of course, how many Black people want to publicly acknowledge White or Indian rapists blood that may flow in their veins?
Posted 30 Jul 2006 at 4:30 pm ¶