Condi's Childhood
I am a big admirer of Condi Rice, not just for her success as Secretary of State, but because she made it despite the obstacles of growing up as an African American in the South. But rather than wasting their time whining and despairing over their victimhood as minorities, Condi's parents took action to ensure that their child would succeed. In Dick Morris's book, Condi vs. Hillary : The Next Great Presidential Race,Morris decribes Condi's childhood and shows us why she could be a great president.
Not long after Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat but prior to President Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, Condi's mother showed her daughter how to stand up to racism. While shopping as a young girl with her mother at a local department store, an employee told them that they could not use the "whites only" dressing room and would have to try on their clothes in the back storage closet. Condi's mother refused and the employee relented and let them use the dressing room, all the while worrying that she would lose her job for doing so. On another trip, a white saleswomen told seven-year-old Condi to get her hands off a hat--her mother encouraged her to touch every hat in the store. Condi's lesson--people can tell you what to do but you don't have to listen.
After the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing which took the lives of four little girls--two of whom Condi knew personally--Condi learned that Birmingham was not a safe place. She also learned how brave her father was when he armed himself with a shotgun and joined other men in the black community in night patrols to keep the Ku Klux Klan out of their neighborhood. But rather than let fear overtake her and make her feel like a victim, she instead learned an important lesson--the value of the Second Amendment guarantee of the "right to bear arms".
Morris's book points out that Condi was "entirely focused on individual self-improvement. She never ran for any office in school and remained separate and apart, a prodigy who mastered every manner of musical instrument. ...The Rice family did not need a hand out or a hand up. Condi would move ahead on her own."
I think this independence is what liberals hate about Condi Rice. She represents a woman who does not need them or their slogan of victimhood. This drives them crazy--so much so that they even look past her fairly moderate stance on abortion and the fact that she is an African American female who would make an amazing president.
Not long after Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat but prior to President Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, Condi's mother showed her daughter how to stand up to racism. While shopping as a young girl with her mother at a local department store, an employee told them that they could not use the "whites only" dressing room and would have to try on their clothes in the back storage closet. Condi's mother refused and the employee relented and let them use the dressing room, all the while worrying that she would lose her job for doing so. On another trip, a white saleswomen told seven-year-old Condi to get her hands off a hat--her mother encouraged her to touch every hat in the store. Condi's lesson--people can tell you what to do but you don't have to listen.
After the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing which took the lives of four little girls--two of whom Condi knew personally--Condi learned that Birmingham was not a safe place. She also learned how brave her father was when he armed himself with a shotgun and joined other men in the black community in night patrols to keep the Ku Klux Klan out of their neighborhood. But rather than let fear overtake her and make her feel like a victim, she instead learned an important lesson--the value of the Second Amendment guarantee of the "right to bear arms".
Morris's book points out that Condi was "entirely focused on individual self-improvement. She never ran for any office in school and remained separate and apart, a prodigy who mastered every manner of musical instrument. ...The Rice family did not need a hand out or a hand up. Condi would move ahead on her own."
I think this independence is what liberals hate about Condi Rice. She represents a woman who does not need them or their slogan of victimhood. This drives them crazy--so much so that they even look past her fairly moderate stance on abortion and the fact that she is an African American female who would make an amazing president.
43 Comments:
I wonder if there's a children's book about Condoleeza Rice. It amazes me that one can live so much before the age of ten. She's very inspirational.
For a shocking reminder of what is wrong with politics today, check out how our charming liberal friends at Kos' site refer to Dr. Rice. Interesting that only Republicans appear to be sexist and racist and homophobic, isn't it?
I agree that Dr. Rice would make a fine President. Her lack of elected experience stands in the way. So how about a Guiliani-Rice or McCain-Rice ticket?
My guess is that Dr. Rice doesn't want to go through the hypocritical blender that is media/political scrutiny. Think about Kennedy lecturing Alito on ethics, for example.
But I hope that Dr. Rice thinks about this. She could make a real difference for all Americans.
And I agree that she is one heck of a role model.
Michele,
I don't know if it is a children's book really but a librarian, Linda Wade, wrote a book, "Condoleeza Rice" which is a biography and tells a fuller story of her childhood--it is for parents but I would think older kids could get something out of it. It's at amazon if you want to take a look.
The problem is that neither Guiliani or McCain have a snowballs chance in hell. How about a Rice-Gingrich ticket. Now that's something I could get behind :)
The depressing thing about this post is the use of liberal opposition as a rallying cry of support. Condi Rice is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but not only that, we just have to support her because the liberals hate her. I'm not sure if this is meant as proof that she's good, or as a desire to beat back the liberals whether or not she's all that good. What is striking about this example is that the argument is grossly exaggerated: liberals don't hate Condi Rice all that much.
It's true that most liberals in America (and for that matter, the rest of the free world) are disgusted with George W. Bush. The overwhelming complaint about Condi Rice is her lack of independence from him. But other than that, what complaints have their been from liberals? After all, she was provost at Stanford, which I thought was a typically liberal university. Was there an uproar at Stanford about that? She also rose through the ranks of the political science department there in the 1980s. Was there an uproar at Stanford about that either?
For that matter, Hillary Clinton is by no means perfect. Hillary is not all that great and Condi is not all that terrible. If they were both nominated, then either way America would finally have a woman president, and either way would have a better president than the one we have now.
And here we go with you know who again...
Actually, GK should do a little digging into the history of Stanford before he holds forth. He is far from the only academic who posts here..and he should have looked into it a bit. It's all right there on the 'Net, after all.
Dr. Rice was very controversial at Palo Alto, for a variety of reasons---one reason was her work as Provost in opposition to what was perceived as "affirmative action." The other was...well, an internet search quickly takes interested folks there. At the same time, there were lots of Stanford folks---me, for example---who thought and think the world of her.
The Left doesn't mind Dr. Rice? Puh-leeze. Of course, I could point out the nasty racist cartoons regarding Dr. Rice, which the Left has never renounced. But then, that is nothing new.
The people I know who respect Dr. Rice do not do so in opposition to GW Bush or the Left or anything else. They see her as smart, thoughtful, and able to lead.
So do I.
-Yet another "cowardly" anonymous poster
I echo the cowardly anonymous poster. Davis isn't all that far from Palo Alto, Greg. My uncle who was a law professor at UCD could tell you about her Stanford tenure. I don't think he spits quite as much now as he did then.
I grant that there are those in the liberal black community who have mixed feelings and even regard for Condi (see http://www.blackprof.com/), but in general the contradictory accusations that Condi is a sellout with no independence from Bush (yawn) and that Bush is an idiot who depends on his bright people like Condi (yawn) dominate the DU, Kos, and MoveOn crowd. (Where the dollars but not the votes come from.)
I would like to say that I am Condi 2008 in the key state of NH simply because she's flippin' brilliant, strong, calm, and knowledgeable. That she is a standing accusation to liberals should be entirely secondary. But I admit, it does please me. Don't conclude from that that the pleasure of irony is my main reason.
I prefer Rice at the top of the ticket, and that's what I'll be working for. Let's give that a run, as she is by far the most capable thinker of any suggested nominee of either party, before we even consider saying "well, ok, maybe VP, then."
McCain is a tyrant waiting to happen. I shudder to think of him ever becoming President. Heck, look how hard a time Bush is having at exercising self-restraint, and he didn't set out with that clearly in his nature.
Anyway, Condi rocks. I'd love to see her as President.
Greg - Condi Rice had a very nasty time at Stanford. Thought that you, since you are at a nearby University, would have already known that.
I really think, Greg, that you ought to stick with differential equations,number theory, algebra, mathematical analysis, Fibonacci Number series and stuff like that.
People at Stanford were of course aware that Rice was and is right of center. She did get involved in a tenure denial case that was linked to affirmative action. But all of this is a far cry from hatred. It seems to me that Rice tried to steer a middle course on affirmative action — she said all along that she supported affirmative action, with limits.
If "the left", in the sense of the overwhelming majority of Stanford faculty who vote Democrat, had truly "hated" Rice, then she would not have been granted tenure there, and she would have been treated very differently as Provost too. There was some controversy when she was Provost, but only at the level that many Provosts see. It was nothing like Larry Summers at Harvard. Her role in the Bush Administration stirred up a lot of liberals at many campuses, but that was more because of Bush than Rice herself.
As for Davis being not far from Palo Alto, the fact is that no one mentioned Rice to me at all when I have been to Stanford, neither when she was Provost nor later. Arguably math departments are relatively apolitical. Although when I interviewed at BU, even the math faculty there expressed disgust for John Silber.
Anyway, if you want to nominate Condi Rice, go right ahead. I don't think that she's Abraham Lincoln reincarnated, but on the other hand, you could certainly do worse.
In case anyone is interested, here is a retrospective account of the horrible treatment of Provost Rice at the hands of her liberal destroyers among the Stanford faculty. Not.
AVI: There isn't any contradiction between the claims that Bush depends too much on his advisors, and that they lack independence from him. On the contrary, it adds up to the big problem with this Administration, namely too much circular reasoning at the top.
Poltical notions aside, Dr. Rice's approach to life is a profound testament to the importance of parental influence in the lives of their children. It has been my contention that the destruction that our community is experiencing can only be halted by a restoration of responsible, moral, and ethical parenting. In a society which tacitly advocates the idea of living for ourselves, we have to return to the realization that our bringing them into the world carries with it an explicit responsibility, and that we can no longer sacrifice their future well being on the altar of our own present pursuits. I'm glad you wrote about this, Dr. Helen, because it goes to an area where many otherwise astute observers are curiously blind. Thanks...
Dear Dr. Kuperberg:
Nice reference to Stanford's own PR magazine to support your position.
As you say, "not." Tres trendoid.
Gently put: you were not at Stanford during that period. Yet you seem to think that your opinion counts for more than people who were there, or bothered to look into it before posting. I can tell you didn't spend much time on the Farm. Several of the people posting on this subject have, me included.
By the way, since politics matters so little on college campuses, how goes that challenge you were dealt a while back? You know, the one where you stand up in a faculty wide, all campus meeting at Davis, and say that the only rationale for hiring someone or granting them tenure is professional competence? That you even had no problem a few years back offering a job in Mathematics to a right wing religious fundamentalist who thinks that the Womens' Movement is bad for society?
Yeah, that challenge.
You call other people cowards, but you won't prove your thesis by putting your own behind on the line. You are, however, glad to encourage untenured faculty to do so.
Go ahead and do it, take the challenge, and I and many others will apologize handsomely. I will tell everyone I know that you are a man of genuine conviction and courage.
But you won't, despite all your comments. And that is probably a good thing for your job, sir. All irritation aside, I would hate to see you lose your job or having your professional career damaged because of being non-PC.
Until you do something like that, don't pontificate further on how politics doesn't matter on campus. It is damaging to untenured folks who might read your posts and take them seriously.
I'm sorry to be rude, but you play this game quite often, and I for one would like to see if you have the courage of your convictions.
-Your "Cowardly" Fellow Academic
I know I shouldn't let the troll of Trolls get me upset, folks.
More on point, I think Dr. Rice would be great for any number of fine, intellectually sound reasons....and I would like to see her encouraged to run.
AVI (boy I dislike that title, since you are not an "idiot" at all!), great news about getting ahead of the curve encouraging Dr. Rice. I'll bet there are some folks here who wouldn't mind pitching in. Maybe Dr. Helen could help be a focal point to get more support for your very worthy cause?
More deceptive praise for Condi Rice from the Stanford student paper (the Stanford Daily) published in January 1999:
University Provost Condoleezza Rice announced Dec. 9 that she will step down in June after six years as the University's chief academic and budget officer. Rice has reached a remarkable level of popularity during a tenure that began with drastic budget restructuring and has lately been marked by several far-reaching initiatives in undergraduate education.
But maybe she'd be a good President even though she won over the terrible liberals at Stanford. The rocky early days when campus radicals protested her are surely a ray of hope.
Jeez, but you can get snotty! But then again, that is your goal.
Again: how about that challenge, since politics doesn't matter?
Heck, GK...how about that fellow you claimed was offered a job at UCD? The one who was a right wing type, religious fundamentalist, and opposed to women's rights (and who volunteered all this during an interview, you said).
You could always shoot his name to Dr. Helen and she could see if his politics and religion really did not impact his job search. It would be a helluva podcast.
Unless that story wasn't really true.
Greg, I want to go on record that I think you answered me fairly.
Condaleeza Rice has accomplished great things under difficult circumstances. One advantage she did have, apart from good genes: From all I’ve read, her parents rocked!
One more thing--I’d vote for her in a New York minute.
IMO, she's the best presidential prospect on the horizon. For all the reasons a presidential prospect would impress me.
Icing on the cake would be the opportunity to inquire of democrats why they are afraid of a strong woman.
Of course, that wouldn't be the reason they oppose her, any more than it's the reason conservatives oppose Hillary. But the smear ought to go both ways. If they don't like it, they can not do it.
Hey AVI, I don't think that GK is an idiot. That is why I get annoyed with him. He can debate fairly and cleanly, without the snark. I object to his presumption of superiority and the continued academic elitism he displays. He is better than that, and should act the part.
Of course his opinion is worth just as much as, why, my own. Or anyone else's. NOT more.
But when he makes claims pulled ex cathedra from his navel, I get impatient. I was THERE at Stanford during the period of time in question. I know loads of typical Stanford profs who detested her for her connections with Hoover, and for being (in the charming parlance of the Left) an oreo. They still do.
At the time, there were lots of Clarence Thomas style arguments---how could she be against AA when she benefited from it? Infuriating, since she was and is a fine scholar not in need of "special treatment."
And anyone who says that partisan politics is NOT part of academia is...well, just not correct. The kindest thing I would say is that they don't want to believe that others could be craven in such a fashion.
I actually don't want GK to take the challenge described earlier, because it would damage his career. I think he knows it, of course.
Mind you, I don't have a solution. Just sadness that this generation shows a different prejudice than the one before. And, again like the previous generation, they will not call it prejudice. Now it is "collegiality," just as it was when black, Jews, and women were excluded from higher education.
Some things don't change.
And I did want to defend Dr. Rice. She is, on the face of things, an excellent candidate for President or VP. That has nothing to do with her party affiliation, opposition to the Left, nor her supposed "allegiance" to GWB.
richard aubrey,
Of course, Ms. Rice isn’t a presidential prospect, as she’s pretty definitively stated she had no interest in seeking the office. But as a theoretical exercise, what reservations would you have if she ran?
Provost Condi Rice on affirmative action in 1993:
I do not see affirmative action and issues of multiculturalism as peripheral to what we do, but rather as an integral part of what we do.
Does Dick Morris mention this part of Rice's wisdom?
What, no smart answer about your own PC challenges? I mean, since politics doesn't matter in academics.
I don't know if feeding this particular trollish fire is a good idea, but there are more recent statements from CR about AA:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/20/politics/main537203.shtml
Might be the same as the statements in '93. Might not. But it sure ain't what GWB---whom she slavishly follows---states.
Funny, when I think about it. Which one of the Democrats attacking Alito on Roe v Wade had written letters to constituents opposing abortion on demand in the late 70s, early 80s?
It's like the joke. How can you tell a politician is lying? Answer: their mouths are moving.
Median: The CBS article has fresh quotes from Rice in 2003 in support of affirmative action — she didn't change her mind in the intervening 10 years. It is true that these quotes show a certain measure of independence from Bush. But not necessarily very much, because Bush may not have minded being both for and against affirmative action (by proxy).
It also has nothing to do with Rice's main job, namely foreign policy and national security. That area, not affirmative action, is where Rice is caught in the vortex of White House circular reasoning.
I have a friend who was on staff at Stanford during the 1980's who reports that Ms. Rice was the most hated person on campus.
Greg is quoting stuff that is public relations fluff. You can find plenty of Condi hating by liberals in Doonesbury cartoons, etc. by doing a simple search. But better to fight over a position with such evidence than to be reasonable.
Sigh. It won't do any good to argue facts. Dr. Kuperberg knows better than we do on the subject. Though he still won't take the PC Challenge. Probably a good idea.
For the record, I too was on campus during the times mentioned, and Dr. Rice was the subject of quite a bit of faculty ire. Unfair and name calling.
But politics never matters on campus. I forgot.
Thanks for chiming in, friends.
I think Condi would be an outstanding President, IF that's what she wants to do. So far she's shown no evidence that she's even interested in a run... but I would be very happy to see her change her mind.
As for the 7 year old Condi and the saleswoman telling her to get her hands off the hat... I think a little more info is needed there. Was it because she was black or because she was 7 and touching the hats? After all, if I was in sales (back then) and a child came in the store and started touching the hats - I would likely have asked them to stop... knowing that if the hat was damaged, it was likely to come out of my pay.
Otherwise - like anyone else who has made it to such an impressively high position in life - she has overcome many obstacles. That she has done it with grace and intelligence is outstanding. There are few people in the world who exhibit this publicly. I truly admire her.
The idea of of a closed circle of logic in this administration is an odd one. I recall how gleeful Time and Newsweek were when it appeared (to them anyway) that there was a split between Powell and the others, and later when it was Rumsfeld vs. the others. The Disintegrating Presidency.
It seems that the porridge is always either too hot or too cold. I don't recall a whisper of either accusation during the presidency of Clinton, though a commonality of ideology was noted, and people jumping ship were noted.
Frankly, we don't know. The accusation is just one of those things that get floated, hoping someone will believe it. However the tell-all books, even those that are self-serving, do not record this unwillingness to consider other ideas. What seems to torque people off is that their ideas were heard and not agreed with.
And this is certainly what is happening with the current accusation, oft heard and currently echoed by Greg. The president's liberal opponents complain that only certain ideas are considered because theirs didn't get chosen.
It is, sorry to say, an argument common with teenagers and personality disorders. You don't agree with me. You must not be listening. So I'll repeat myself more loudly.
AVI: It is true that Colin Powell was an important independent thinker in the first Bush Administration, at least potentially. He didn't like the invasion of Iraq. So what happened to him? He was frozen out unless and until he accepted the invasion. He put up with it for as long as he could, then he left.
Similar things happened to several other people in the first Bush Administration, usually over the same question: Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Paul O'Neill predicted that the invasion of Iraq would cost $200 billion. The White House was furious and soon fired him for disloyalty. Eric Shinseki said that he would ask for 200 to 300 thousand troops in Iraq if it were up to him. Again, the White House was disgusted with this wisdom and not remotely thankful.
So yes, there was a closed vortex of ideas concerning the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't general conservative ideology — I agree with you that you can only expect a Republican White House to be generally conservative. It was a more specific Middle Eastern liberation theology that isn't particularly libertarian or conservative. It is only conservative to the extent that liking war or liking George W. Bush is conservative.
". . . a white saleswomen told seven-year-old Condi to get her hands off a hat--her mother encouraged her to touch every hat in the store.
Bad parenting. Children should not handle merchadise in stores.
True enough, Annie. But I suspect Dr. Rice's mother had had a bellyful of dealing with "Whites Only" water fountains, dressing rooms, and theaters.
For all the talk about racism today, few of us who were not there can imagine what was considered "normal" in terms of race relations during that period.
I think that Dr. Rice's mother gets a "pass" on that issue. In all other ways, I believe we can agree that Dr. Rice is the product of nearly ideal parenting.
With regard to the question about the hats, I don't suppose that there is any way to know precisely what the store clerks motivation was. However, a description which my own mother gave me of her childhood experience may be helpful. She was forbidden by store personnel to handle or touch dresses on a regular basis as a child, even as she saw the white girls freely do so. Using the dressing room to try something on was out of the question - for her. I remember her saying that she had the hardest time understanding this for so long. And she was among the more fortunate, because her mother became an excellent seamstress making, rather than purchasing, clothes for her little girls. Thus, I agree with anonymous above in believing that you had to be there to know.
I myself grew up in the '60's and attended an all black college in a southern town during the 70's. Even then, many business owners chose not to remove signs pointing to 'colored' entrances and fountains, though the directives were unenforceable at that time.
What you feel is hard to describe, even when you know that you don't have to legally comply.
When I was at college in Williamsburg 1971-75, there were still two drinking fountains at the bus station. The walls above had been painted over, but it was still clear at a glance which was which.
I never thought to watch what people did -- whether the older people quietly used the colored one and the young people angrily used the white one, or something else.
AVI:
I worked at a very PC college for about ten years. One of the Presidents that college had was a wonderful African-American gentleman, born in Kansas in the early 1930s, became an engineer, and eventually a college/university administrator (after working for the NSF).
I'll never forget listening to his viewpoint on current thoughts about race relations. He knew that there was a long way to go, but he felt it was important to remember the progress that was made. He remembered those drinking fountains. The people who wouldn't rent to he and his family. And so on.
I remember listening to a campus firebrand get carried away with rhetoric, claiming that some state rule or other was going to send African-Americans back to the status of fieldhands "...working for Massa". I honestly don't remember the issue. I was uncomfortable to hear that one in a faculty meeting, of course.
That college president told me that I needed not to get worked up about race-baiting (as he called it to me). He said that there *has* been progress, and it is difficult to get people motivated to make more changes if we are too complacent about progress made. He also told me that some people needed to wave signs and carry on for their own purposes---and not always the ones they claim. Then he winked at me, and said something I'll never forget.
"Son," he told me (not PC!), "some people would rather have a 'cause' than an 'effect,' I'm afraid."
When Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton get going, I remind myself of those words.
Thanks for your memories, AVI....
That's a great quote, Anonymous. Do you recall the name of the college President? I'd like to read up on him a bit. The quote, or at least the thought, might be useful in something I'm currently working on.
My enthusiasm for Condi can be easilly summed up as follows:
She "gets" the War on Terror and how to win it.
She recognizes it is a "war" and not a police investigation. She also demonstrates that she understands that the short-term goal is to kill as many Ts as possible while denying them the opportunity to act and the long-term goal is to reduce the vector for extremists by promoting political and economic freedom. Because she gets it she would also get my vote.
"So yes, there was a closed vortex of ideas concerning the invasion of Iraq. It is only conservative to the extent that liking war or liking George W. Bush is conservative."
Or, you know, liking freedom and helping a brother, even an Iraqi brother, enjoy it too. I don't think teaming up with the isolationists is such a good, or at all liberal, idea.
The Dem critique of the Republican "Southern Strategy" has legs with the most idealistic among us; take care lest the next generation's idealists draw similar conclusions about the Dems.
As for academia, if progress is to be made, more precise terminology is required. "Liberals" are not the problem, or even the "Left" as a whole; a reformist left is essential to the health of the academy.
The problem is illiberal behavior on the part of some who like to call themselves left-wing so that the liberals will be too busy defending them from right-wing attacks, which conveniently enough aim themselves at "liberals", to notice their illiberal corrupting of the academy.
As they've now eliminated nearly all conservatives from academia and are moving on to the liberals, maybe those liberals will start to notice the problem. We can help them along by better focusing our criticism.
I really hope that Hillary Clinton does not become President. I wonder if she can even win the primary because I'm sure some delegates don't consider her liberal enough. Condi Rice has said she will not run for President. I would prefer to vote for a candidate who was married, but I would definitely vote for her. I don't know if she has any male cousins who could fill in as "First Man." However, I think it would be awesome for a Republican black woman to be President. I think there would be a huge political shift among women and blacks towards the GOP. Right now I am reading the children's book The Watsons Go to Birmingham - 1963 by Christopher Paul Curtis. It is dedicated to the four girls who died in the church bombing. That is really sad that Condi knew two of the girls. In the CBS article about Affirmative Action, Rice also said: "race neutral means are preferable."
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上,最重要的一件事,就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己,你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗,耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己,你才能體會所有美好的東西,所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己,你才有愛人的能力,也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步,就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去,以無沾無滯的輕快心情,大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步,則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇,願意接受未知的指引;也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊,一路雲淡風輕。親愛的,你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人,在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
Post a Comment
<< Home