Cindy Sheehan and White Supremacy

The catapulting of Cindy Sheehan, the white, middle-class soccer mom, to the head of the anti-war movement never did feel right.  In the article below, Tamara Nopper does a great job taking on the issues involved.

"Cindy Sheehan & White Supremacy"
By Tamara K. Nopper
November 23, 2005

The anti war movement has been acting like crouching tiger, hidden white movement waiting for a white light to help them get through what they perceive as a movement growing too fixated with race.  They found their heroine in Cindy Sheehan: a white mother who lost her son Casey in the Iraq War and who is now willing to take on big, bad Bush. 

Now with Sheehan, the white sect of the anti-war movement can finally say fuck you to the race people: no more having to hear complaining minorities claim that war is connected to racism and no more talk about the large numbers of disenfranchised non-whites who must struggle with the enormous choice of either going into the military or surviving.  If this is the case, how do you explain Cindy, poor Cindy, whose poor white son died in Iraq? 

But Sheehan is more than just a sad, crying white mother.  She is a fighter!  For the anti-war movement, this white woman is no shrinking violet.  Rather, this is the perfect white woman—one who can claim a personal intimacy with the trauma of war and who is also willing to take bold stands, stands that are normally associated with non-white women.  It is this "boldness" of Sheehan that the white anti-war movement is really excited about. 

Finally, a white woman who is willing to not act like a white woman.  No, not this tigress!  Rather, Sheehan doesn’t just cry; she will pitch "Camp Casey" outside of Bush’s ranch for almost two weeks and make pronounced statements about the erosion of civil rights and imperialism.  The fact that Sheehan was never arrested when she cam ped outside the president’s ranch (or that she was seen smiling on camera when she finally was arrested in DC during a weekend of anti-war protests) speaks volumes.  Also speaking volumes is the fact that she was able to take such a bold stand with the support of various organizations, some of them who received a great deal of donations to help Sheehan.  And Sheehan’s arguments about the erosion of civil rights is simply an act of white nationalism—now we must act as a nation because the white citizen has lost her son.  Finally, Sheehan’s talk of imperialism has been enticing for those who are just grateful to white people that will say imperialism even though you can go to any protest and find a white stepford lefty who will talk about imperialism without discussing white supremacy. 

And it is this unaddressed white supremacy that has helped Cindy Sheehan become the celebrity and current face of the anti-war movement.  The death of Sheehan’s son and her subsequent pain has become the catalyst of a renewed anti-war movement to the point that non-white families have to align themselves with her to even get a modicum of the attention that she does.  Rarely, if ever, have white people had to connect their struggles to non-whites in hopes of getting some sympathy or support.  Further, the excitement that people are expressing towards Sheehan’s stand reveals a hidden but all too often present dimension of activism: the economy of gratitu de towards those who "challenge their privilege" rather than those who take bold stands without the insurance of such a safety net.  Finally, Sheehan has been able to avoid important questions about where her white son stood on important political issues and whether or not people should even care about his death.

But Sheehan is not totally to blame.  In many ways I am also moved by her struggle. However, the anti-war movement must be interrogated for how excited it is to have a Cindy Sheehan.  Although in many ways, the answer is pretty clear: she is white, after all. 

Now some will suggest that my critique of Sheehan and the anti-war movement is unfair and unprincipled and will surely ask whether I am willing to take the stand that Sheehan has.  Well, I would protest if I was able to be funded by a variety of people so inspired by me breaking the law (read: if I was white).  I would protest if I could get a blitz of media attention over a sustained period of time to keep my story and political views in the media (read: if I was white).  I would protest if I could get organizations to hold a series of vigils for me and caravan to wherever I go (read: if I was white).  I would protest if I could get organizations to give me time on their websites and engage in sustained support activities (read: if I was white).  I would protest if the loss of my child could be the basis of public agony and sadness (read: if I was white).  I would protest if I could frame my child’s life rather than have it framed for him (read: if I was white).  I would protest if I could get white celebrities and celebrity activists (and some non-white ones) to be inspired by my cause (read: if I was white). 

Until then I will be on the sidelines with the rest of the world chanting the Cindy Sheehan solidarity battle cry: "When white people die, we all cry!  When white people die, we all cry!"

Tamara K. Nopper is a writer and counter-military activist living in Philly.  She can be contacted at tnopper@yahoo.com

Comments

[lynx]

< sarcasm >

i love how the author assumes there are no poor white people and that no white people join the military for the college money or because of a lack of other options. the assertion that since sheehan is white she must also be a white supremecist is also highly intuitive, i wish i was that good at instantly ascertaining the truth about everyone just by looking at them. it's that kind of highly principled, logical, and factually-accurate writing that helps build movements and heal divisions after all...

< / sarcasm >

is white america more ready to sympathise with a middle-class white woman then a working class white person or a person of color of any class? Probably.

does that make Cindy Sheehan a white supremecist? No.

Does it mean that Sheehan has distracted attention away from social justice issues? Maybe. but if so it's not for a lack of effort on her part, as anyone who paid attention to her comments on Katrina (for instance) would know.

Does it mean that the sympathy she's managed to win from mainstream politically retarded america is a bad thing? No.

like it or not, until white middle class americans begin to think of the war as something that could potentialy affect them the war is not going to stop. Sheehan is usefull because she looks and talks like them. that doesn't make her a white supremecist, it makes her a middle class liberal.

if your gonna talk shit about someone, at least have the good sense to talk shit about them for something they've actually done fer fucks sake!

[scott]

I disagree. The article isn't saying Sheehan is a white supremacist, it's saying that she is a beneficiary of white supremacy.

And it is because she neutralizes any fears about race and class and gender that the white, middle class, liberal "anti-war movement" has put her on a pedestal. And that's problematic.

If the point is to get people white, middle class liberals to oppose this one war and only this war, then that's fine. But that's not my agenda, so these types of articles are important.

[lynx]

ending the war is hardly the extent of my agenda either, but I don't expect the antiwar movement to fulfil my agenda so i can't realy hold that against them. it's a single-issue campaign around one particular manifestation of american impirialism, the fact that it doesn't take on other aspects of the system is regrettable, but it's not an indictment of the movement per se so much as a reminder of what the anti-war movement actually is. calling the liberal wing of the antiwar movement white supremecist because they don't want to deal with race or class is like walking up to a duck and calling it a turkey because it's not a goose and you wanted it to be a goose... i can understand the frustration but it's kind of pointless and doesn't do much to advance anyone's agenda.

if Cindy Shehan had been adopted as the posterchild of the anarchist wing of the anti-war movement and was having similar effects we could legitimately criticize that movement for sidelining race and class issues BECAUSE anarchists have made a commitment to deal with those issues; but to criticize people who never claimed to give a fuck because they don't give a fuck is just silly. we shouldn't expect liberals to act like revolutionaries any more then they can legitimately expect us to at like liberals.

that's my 2 cents anyway, for whatever it's worth. it's your blog though so do your thang man...

[blackademic]

all white people in this country, rich or poor are benficiaries of white supremacy.

[adwred]

Scott, where do you get these goofs like Kings? Weird.

Anyway, I have to agree with Lynx's second post; I think the author of this post misunderstands the nature of the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon and the anti-war crowd in general. The MFSO / Iraq Vets / counter-recruitment etc. are all driven as single-issue organizations that are closely related amongst leader activists in the socialist left. Sheehan has risen above clearly because she provides a white face, a sympathetic face, and a face that asks a palatable question for major media: why the fuck are we in this war? Its a liberal transitory demand -- not revolutionary.

That said, of course the anti-war "movement", if it can be described as a monolithic event, ignores issues of race and class to its detriment -- but that can be said of any and all movements in this country, up to and including many African American led movements.

If it is a question of consciousness, yes, we have a problem; but then the development of the Left is so pubescent here that such an observation is too obvious. You might as well just post "America is a racist, classist, and sexist society". Well yeah, but... what do we do about it?

The author I think fails to understand the nature and strategy of this anti-war impulse, and ends up bashing a relatively successful movement direction without providing much hope for future efforts.

[Roger]

I hate when self-righteous fools get up on their shaky pedestals and just scream, "It's all corrupt! Tear it all down!"

[scott]

I see what both lynx and adwred are saying and I agree with you up to a point. At the same time, I guess I don't have as much a problem with the author calling Sheehan and her supporters to task.

The "anti-war movement" clearly has no race or class consciousness and not even a really thought-out analysis of the war. But when the middle-class, white, liberal segment of the movement makes the agenda, sets the tone and tactics, all of which they're capable of doing because of their privileges, I think they should be called on it.

adwred, you're right that in that I guess it's a bit too obvious, but I felt it was still worth being put out there. I dunno, maybe I have that leftist penchant for shooting down "our" leaders. :)

[Sex-pos fem]

If she kept bringing up black troops, would you say she was "co-opting" and "appropriating" issues that don't concern her? Maybe she doesn't feel it's her place to do anything but the personal interest story.

[kale]

I dunno. I feel like playing 'who's more oppressed than who' is is a bit of a circular game. white people oppress black people (among others). men oppress women. straights oppress queers. christians oppress non-christians. rich oppress poor etc. so straight black middle-class christian and gay white poor non-christian woman...who's the oppressor? sure, white girl has all the benefits white supremicist racist society affords her, but black man, well, he's a man. he gets to decide what happens to his body. plus, he has money, which gives him all kinds of access and privilege - not as much as a white man in the same place, but more than a poor one. of course he's more likely to have his ass arrested and thrown in prison, cuz he's black, and the legal system is white and racist. but once he's in prison, he's prolly less likely to be raped and beaten constantly than the faggier prisoners are.
so yeah, I don't think it's that easy to separate out so neatly. and I think so much of the oppression in america (an elsewhere)is so interconnected with other oppressions...ie. 'white maleness' is more a the dominant ideology than 'whiteness', and much of what is racist is also sexist and vice versa. but that being said, of course it still needs to be addressed. just because white supremicist racism is so interconnected with other oppressions doesn't make talking about it any less necessary. so yah, I'm kinda conflicted.