Clyburn Refuses To Take Ceremonial Whip From Blunt
The change of majority power in the House normally involves ceremonial handovers of objects of power from an outgoing official to his successor — but in Jim Clyburn's case, his racial sensitivities overwhelmed his desire to observe protocol. McClatchy News reports that GOP Whip Roy Blunt was supposed to publicly hand a whip to Dem Whip Clyburn to commemorate the transfer of power. But Clyburn, who's black, reportedly felt uncomfortable receiving a whip from a white man. So rather than take the whip from Blunt, Clyburn instead held a whip ceremony with former Rep. William Gray, D-PA, who preceded Clyburn in the late 1980's as the first black House Majority Whip. Clyburn's office had previously issued a press release saying the transfer would take place the usual way. A Blunt spokeswoman declined to go into detail on the matter, saying only, "you'd have to check with Mr. Clyburn's office," to find out why it ultimately didn't happen.
He has no trouble being the Whip, but he has trouble taking the physical whip from a white man? That's a pretty recherché line of reasoning IMO. Especially since Rep. Gray undoubtedly received it from another white man.
Yeah, yeah, who am I, etc. etc.
Five'll getcha ten this becomes a big media deal in the right wing blogosewer.
January 5, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clyburn gave an interesting account of the history of using the word whip on Charlie Rose Thurs night. It dates back to England and fox hunts. Then the action was required to keep the foxes together and going in the right direction.
I have never heard him interviewed before and was most impressed. From that interview I expect he'll be one tough and realistic leader in that role.
January 5, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he could have accepted it from Robert Byrd.
January 5, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I first started reading this, I thought, "Good for him". Had he refused the whip ceremony altogether, I'd still think so. But the fact that he was willing to take it from someone else... I don't know, I don't like the way that feels, especially given the conext that Irishkg provides, via Clyburn himself.
January 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a quickie on a fox hunting terms and use of whip in Congress:
January 6, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It strikes me that a black man taking a whip away from a white man ought to be a very satisfying thing. I don't get it. It seems kind of smallish to me. I think he needs to think harder about what battles are worth fighting, and when to actually stand up against something; this is only a ceremony and its purpose is the transfer of power.
Note to Clyburn: Big Picture! I mean these are people he has to work with; does he really think that he can refuse to participate in a ceremonial hand-over and afterwards convince anyone that he will accept ideas from the other side?
Jan Knaus
January 6, 2007 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Clyburn, who's black, reportedly felt uncomfortable receiving a whip from a white man.
Had the white man not been a reactionary, Southern bigot, there probably would have been no problem.
January 7, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given Clyburn's, Blunt's and Gray's silence about any motive or hidden agenda for the ceremony, it looks to me like we're dealing with a reporter's imagination. There's not much any politician of color can do without the appearance of "racial undertones" cropping up, is there? From what little actual information there is about this ceremony, it at least seems like it was decided that Gray would pass the whip because Gray was the first black majority whip in congress - and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Blunt went right along with this, perhaps suggesting it himself. We can interpret it this way also: a tradition has been established in congress of Black leadership positions being honored as Black leadership positions.
I mean, folks, this might be a false controversy that we're reacting to. It reminds me of Umberto Eco's great book, Travels in Hyperreality. Key to this is Rosen's comment:
But racial overtones apparently undermined the plan.
What does "apparently" mean? My take is that it means Rosen had "read" the situation thusly. It is
Rosen's interpretation, and folks, the map is not the territory.
Neoboho
January 7, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point. I had not thought about that possibility.
Jan Knaus
January 7, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
<>It is a "point", Jan, I'll grant that, but I was sort of hoping that someone would blow it out of the water. I just couldn't find anything that might put some shape on this incident - I mean from the horse's mouth.
James Rosen, btw, is a Fox News guy, which I didn't know until a minute ago when I googalized the name. Media Matters has him down for four major misrepresentations in his reporting: Irans nuke capability; a majority "actually" approve of bush; 136K troops could win in Iraq; labels French Institute of Science "left-wing" with no basis.
As far as Rosen's story circulating, it looks to me that it has been picked up by TpmCafe and Salon - both treating Rosen's assumption as if it were true, and both (ironically) liberal in nature. In a quite little way, that's terrifying (assuming the story is a complete fluke, of course).
Neoboho
January 8, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is somewhat jarring in 2006 to see visible signs of racial symbolism from America's apartheid past that many just wish would go away. I am sure it makes some people uncomfortable to be reminded of uncomfortable (small "t") truths. But I applaud Rep. Clyburn's honesty.
The past is not as dead as some would like it to be. I am 50 years old and in my childhood my great-grandmother was able to tell me of her mother's recollections of when Union soldiers freed her/my family from a Tennessee plantation. Isn't it possible, even likely, that a white guy publicly giving me a whip might have a subjective meaning that is personally distasteful? If my great-grandmother was alive to see a "pass-the-whip" ceremony...would I want her to see me pretend that that this particular racial symbolism is not meaningful?
But it is ALWAYS fascinating to see the mundane appearance of racial symbols and the meaning people attach to them:
-the noose in a young George Allen's law office described as Wild West memorabilia? Really? A confederate cowboy who used racial epithets and wore rebel flag lapel pins---but the noose was somehow racially neutral? Did he have Black legal clients, you think?
Race is hyperreal, but it is also a lived reality.
January 8, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
neoboho, Thanks so much for doing all this leg-work. I really thought that TPM was better at vetting. These points are really important:
This whole thread is starting to look like a put-up job. Thanks for bringing it to light!
Jan Knaus
January 8, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Blunt have a racial history that made Clyburn unwilling to accept the gavel from him, or does he have some negative personal history with Clyburn that caused the agita?
January 8, 2007 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink