- ‹ previous
- 2402 of 7889
- next ›
The Internal Black Debate over Obama
Glenn Loury posted on TPM this week an amazing response to the challenge leveled in Obama's "Black, But More Than Black" speech. All I can say is—Wow.
Coming from someone like Glenn, who is a friend (I kept my list of wedding invitees brutally short. He and his lovely, accomplished wife were on it), this is utterly unexpected and a welcome relief! He completely disagrees with me on the import of the speech, but he does so in such a worthy, worldview-tilting way, I'm still rereading it, trying to make sense of a rebellion so cogently, unapologetically worded. Now, it's on! This, as opposed to the kneejerk "how dare white people tell us what to do?" reflexive response of the stick-it-the-man crowd, we can work with.
In short, Loury demands to know where Obama, who inherited but played no part in earning freedom, gets off telling him he's a neurotic, tragic figure for still being angry. More, he argues that elder-generation black anger is not a pathetic symptom of PTSD, but a legitimate reflection of how far blacks' limited freedom falls short of true equality. Just as young women refuse to accept that we old school feminists are right that they don't yet know how un-liberated they still are—that they're living in a post-feminist fool's paradise that will dissolve before their eyes when the boss suddenly demands sex in exchange for a promotion that will otherwise go to his mistress—older, Talented Tenth blacks furiously reject the notion that past racism has made them incapable of noticing that Jim Crow is dead and that being black is just a state of mind.
Loury argues that black anger, as funneled through the black prophetic tradition that runs from (at least) Frederick Douglass through MLK and onto Wright, is all that stands between America and kinder, gentler apartheid (I exaggerate, but see his post to get my drift). Its counterintuitiveness was bracing for those, like me, who want us to pragmatically stifle our anger in exchange for something like separate but truly equal (again with the oversimplifying exaggeration).
Finally, a real debate with unexpected twists and turns that can't be dismissed as mere defiance! I'm all tingly! Sometimes, not often when a dance floor remains uninvolved, it's a hoot to be black. Whatever else you think of Obama, he is engendering the kind of dialogue and debate which alone can move America forward on race. That an intracommunal fracas is raging among blacks is the surest sign of that; we have to gain ground in-house before we can gain ground with outsiders. Offerings like this will do exactly that.
You simply have to read the post in its entirety, but here's a slice of the frontal assault Loury flings right back in "his son's" face:
...Wright's error, Obama tells us, is that Wright's view of America is static, ignoring how things have changed—so much so that one of his own parishioners now stands on the threshold of being elected to the highest office in the land. As a (more or less) angry black man of Jeremiah Wright's approximate generation...and while offering no brief for Wright himself and no defense of the remarks that have created this firestorm, I nevertheless find that argument very patronizing. I know, just as Wright surely knows, that things have changed a great deal. I also know that, as I write this, one million young black men are under the physical control of the state; a third of black children live in poverty, and, the Southside of Chicago, with more than one-half million black residents, is one of the most massive, racially segregated urban enclaves ever to have been created in the history of the modern world...These things are a reflection of social, cultural, economic and political forces deeply enmeshed in the structure of American society. They are not merely the consequence of attitudes embraced by some more or less well-meaning but benighted black and white persons—attitudes which can be thrown off if only we were to become determined, under the inspiring and inspired leadership of the junior senator from Illinois, to work together to solve our common problems, etc.
I can't get past the fact that Obama was negotiating with the American public on behalf of MY people in Philadelphia last week. In the process, he presumed to instruct a generation of angry black men as to how they ought to construe their lives. I am not really sure that Barack Obama has earned the right to do either of those things. How the Senator's negotiations will ultimately shake out—in terms of American attitudes about the nation's responsibility to act so as to reduce racial inequality—is something I'm not very confident that anyone can predict. Advocates of the interest of black people have to consider what hand we'll be left to play, should he be defeated in November. The narrative-defining moves that Obama is making now, in the heat of a political campaign and in the service of his own ambitions, must be critically examined as to what impact they will have on the deep structures of American civic obligation, for generations to come.
At bottom, what is at stake here is a fight over the American historical narrative. Obama, a self-identifying black man running for the most powerful office on earth, does threaten some aspects of the conventional 'white' narrative. But, he also threatens the 'black' narrative—and powerfully so. In effect, he wants to put an end to (transcend, move beyond, overcome...) the anger, the disappointment and the subversive critique of America that arises from the painful experience of black people in this country. Yet, the forces behind his rise are NOT grassroots-black-American in origin; they are elite-white-liberal-academic in origin. If he succeeds, there will be far fewer public megaphones for the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and Cornel Wests of this world, for sure. Many will see that as a good thing. But a great deal more may also be lost including, just to take one example, the notion that the moral legacy for today's America of the black freedom struggle that played-out in this country during the century after emancipation from slavery—I speak here of Martin Luther King's (and Fannie Lou Hamer's, and W.E.B. DuBois's, and Ida B. Wells's and Frederick Douglass's ...) moral legacy—should find present-day expression in, among other ways, agitation on behalf of and public expression of sympathy for the dispossessed Palestinians—who are, arguably, among the 'niggers' of today's world, if ever there were any...."
Speaking for myself, and as a black American man, if forced to choose, I'd rather be "on the right side of history" about such matters, melding the historical narratives of my people with those of the 'niggers' in today's world, than to make solidarity with elites who, for the sake of political expediency, would sweep such matters under the rug (or, worse.) My fear is that, should Obama succeed with his effort to renegotiate the implicit American racial contract, then the prophetic African American voice—which is occasionally strident and necessarily a dissident, outsider's voice—could be lost to us forever.
Intrigued? I hope so. Read the piece in its entirety and come loaded with the same quality ammo if you truly want to improve race relations.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Obama was not "negotiating" anything. He was eloquently contexting (without excusing) Wright statements and using the opportunity to change the subject.
If Obama appeared to be marginalizing black anger, it was because he had to distance himself from the tone of Wright's decontextualized remarks somehow and yet not lose the support of aggrieved (with cause) black voters. Obama is not an angry black man, quite the opposite, he is an eloquent, highly educated, intelligent, politician that is grabing an opportunity/siezing a moment that in truth may be as astonishing to him as the rest of us. Yes, part of his charm is a "newness"/blank slate that people can project their warm fuzzy hopefull thoughts on. Plus the inabilty of the press, and pundits to pin him and be sure what he will do given situation X or Y.
After the last 7.5 years, politically all Obama has to do is not be GWB (or too polarizing, or trip over himself) to get a once in a generation (virtually) open shot at the White House.
boring...sorry.
Sen. Obama identified as a root cause of white resentment affirmative action -- the punishing of white working- and middle-class folks for sins they did not commit:
"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race," said Barack. "As far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything. ... So when they ... hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time."
What Barack is saying here is that the resentment of black America is justified, but the resentment of white America is a myth manufactured and manipulated by the conservative commentariat. Barack is attempting to de-legitimize the other side of the argument.
Yet, who is he to claim the moral high ground?
Where does this child of privilege who went to two Ivy League schools, then spent 20 years in a church where racist rants were routine, come off preaching to anyone? What are Barack's moral credentials to instruct white folks on what they must do, when he failed to do what any decent father should have done: Take his wife and daughters out of a church where hate had a home in the pulpit?
SAME OLE, SAME OLE, OBAMA SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME! AND SO DO HIS SPIRITUAL LEADERS!
@Mary Jo: Clearly you have deep rooted issues with Obama's church. But I was wondering, where in Rev. Wright's speeches is there a message of hate? I think that some of his speeches were extremely divisive, but as of yet, I haven't heard him say hateful things about anyone. Just controversial things that people don't want to hear or that simplify complex issues. But maybe this is subjective.
I also wonder if you even heard or read Obama's speech, because if you did you would realize that he said both Blacks AND Whites have legitimate concerns/resentments regarding racial issues in this country, but to an extent, instead of trying to understand each other's positions/arguments, many pundits and politicians in the past (heck, the present from what I have been seeing on cable tv) have exploited these tensions/resentments for their own personal gain. I think both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this behavior. But don't take my word for it, go back and read the speech yourself. You may still come to your conclusion.
Also, I'm puzzled by your indignation of Obama's "privilege." And it is not just you. I have read other posters who have said similar if not the exact same thing. I was just wondering, why does it bother you so much that Obama was smart enough to attend educational institutions like Columbia and Harvard? And does the fact that he attended these institutions preclude him from speaking about racial issues?
Is he to "elite" to relate to these topics? I seriously want to know. I am not trying to be sarcastic.
Very difficult to disentangle the complex relationships that make up the sum of race relations. This is particularly so when diverse oppositions over religion, government, family, poverty, equality, and so on, silently act on the dialogue. Without openly exploring these differences in opinions and values as they apply to both public policy and people, the similarities that make for good relationships are lost. A quick media gloss is never sufficient and only genuine involvement can expose the matter of this subject to the dry light of reason. I have the feeling Mr. Obama is looking to build sincere and successful relationships both domestically and abroad. There will always be more work to do. This is a definite step up on remorseless destruction. At least, thats the hopeful reading I tend to impose. Mr. Obama seems to be aware that some good functional dialogue can take anger bent up in tragic historical narratives and redirect that energy into some sort of qualitative expansion. Anyone familiar with the internet knows the value of communication. But again, its complex and abstractions often confuse the matter. The questions most worth asking focus on how america can develop some sense of collective responsibility at all levels. There has never been a better time to search for clarity of argument. Opening these matters to scrutiny is the first step and then holding leaders, the media, and ourselves to account is the second.
Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket.
That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race.
Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.
Paradoxically, America's greatest warrior for equal justice under law and an end to reverse racism is, like Barack, a man of mixed ancestry. He is Ward Connerly. And his life's mission is to drive through reverse discrimination the same stake America drove through segregation.
And when one considers that the GOP establishment has often fled Connerly's cause and campaigns, his record of achievement is remarkable.
Connerly was chief engineer of CCRI, the 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action based on ethnicity, race or gender in all public institutions of America's most populous state. Two years later, Connerly racked up a second victory in Washington.
In 2006, Connerly went to Michigan to overturn an affirmative action policy that kept Jennifer Gratz out of the University of Michigan, though she had superior grades and performance records than many minority students admitted. The Michigan proposition also carried and has been upheld by the courts.
One U.S. senator, however, taped an ad denouncing Connerly's Proposition 2 in Michigan and endorsed affirmative action for minorities and women. That senator was Barack Obama.
I'm going to read Loury's essay before commenting on the merits, but I feel compelled to say this: Obama is running for President of the United States, not President of the NAACP. If he's going to find some common ground with so-called Reagan Democrats or even those people who Dean inelegantly referred to as having Confederate paraphilia on their vehicles, he has to acknowledge that they have been "jobbed" by the same forces that have marginalized people of color.
BTW, Martin Luther King got his Doctorate from Boston University. NY Governor David Paterson attended Columbia. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick attended Harvard. Does that make all of them "privileged?"
Your nothing short of the problem that Obama spoke about.
I have noticed that some blacks were upset that Obama may have been close to taking their anger away from them. It's almost like they want to keep it. I have heard a black man say that in the "Black" world that Obama would be consider a passable speaker. All I saw in that response was a jealousy that I found sad.
It's like the anger some express about this election. It makes them feel alive and powerful to have a place to hang their anger. Some blacks appear to want to keep their "hanging" their anger....much as this person does.
We see it all the time, blacks do not have the market on this, people who truly cannot be happy for someone else but after the last 200 years, a black man should wind up being the next President of the United States and some are just unhappy he didn't cover the things they wanted to see in 1 speech.
This guy may be on the short list for your wedding hon? But don't expect the others there to want to engage him in conversation. His anger walks a couple feet in front of him it appears.
Mary Jo, you obviously are parroting a Connerly Press Release. Gratz did not gain admission initially to Michigan Law school in 1995, but she was placed on the waiting list, and EVERY OTHER applicant on the waiting list that year was eventually admitted to that class.
Ms. Gratz, I fear, endangered the whole concept of admissions class construction (a concept that existed long before the civil rights movement) simply because she was a spoiled brat who couldn't wait.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger)
I find it incredibly humorous that we are spending any amount of time worrying what some other person said about racial issues. I'm a whitey and I understand, at some level, the angst that Black Americans feel and live with everyday. The commments Mr. Wright (?name) said are clearly understood by the congregation. I did not take anything in his sermon as personnally offensive. The black community finally has someone who truly understands them and they have hope (so do I). I support Mr. Obama because he breaks from traditional political thinking (views on Israeli/Palestinian issues, etc.) I also thought he handled the issue with class.
egalitare. you are a racist. What you said is just racist lies. Lies don't change the truth.
The best black analysis of Obama has always been over at blackagendareport.com
where the reviews are---correctly---very, very critical of this corporate DLC Democrat posing---only in the minds of many progressives---as a progressive
Why is Barack Obama running for President?
He claims that he is uniquely qualified to "bring our country together" and that despite his lack of experience and relative youth, he has demonstrated superior "judgment".
Obama has now acknowledged Reverend Jeremiah Wright, used incendiary language that widened the racial divide. Obama says of (his) fellow congregants that (their) anger is real; it is powerful; and that not understanding its roots, serves to widen the chasm between the races.
If Obama is really the Reconciler in Chief, why didn't he change the hearts of Rev. Wright and his flock over the past 20 years? Everyone is asking what influence the good Reverend had on the candidate, but shouldn't we be wondering why the very people Obama knew best; still hate America, the White Man and Israel?
With regard to the issue of judgment; Obama demeans President Bush, John McCain and the Clintons claiming that they didn't know what was going on inside Saddam's closed police state, (10,000 miles away) meanwhile he didn't know what was happening in the pew right next to him.
I think that pretty well puts the qualifications issue to rest.
Mary Jo
What was said that was "racist"? You apparently are ill-informed about the Gratz situation and have been corrected. That's racist? What hateful thing did the Rev. Wright say? Criticism of the government he once fought for isn't hate, so where is the hate? I heard anger but not hate.
David H. you just don't get it.
It just amazes me that all this race thing (which is basically a biblical thing) gets twisted (as it is) with the god thing (yup, another biblical thing) does not really address the issue that it would be a good thing to not have someone anointed by god (yup, all the candidates believe that) running the country. Then again, yup this is a christian nation after all. Worse still, it seems to be a white (the chosen tribe) nation after all. Worse worse still, biblically the women have no say in the chosen tribe. So, all in all, we are just modeling what the biblical myths have planted in our dna. Sadly, your kid gets it too. Now, the few of us secular types, have to work with our kids to get thru this. One day, I hope our empire gets this biblical myth. Otherwise, we could model the islamic mythological model. And when that happens, the empire crumbles.
Far too many Blacks love to hate and prove that by going to a Black Liberation Theology Church and listen to a pastor spewing words of hate against rich white people and our country. It gives them the energy to get up every morning, go to a job they hate. They like to blame white America so they will not have to acknowlege their own failures of getting a good education and staying away from crime and drugs or having children when you can't even afford to feed yourself. BLAME make them feel better about themselves. It gives them the energy to get through another day, week or year.
How many Black churches teach Black Liberation Theology politics instead the love, peace and forgiveness of God Senator Obama has been stradling between the two segments of our society in his campaign rhetric and he is not honest with either side. He can not and will not be an uniter. He is a very ambitious man for a post he is not qualified to file. He is too condescending to the working white middle class who has made America what it is. It is not perfect but it is the best in the world.
Holmes, you are right. Obama is a jive man. We know that. But he is OUR jive man and putting it over on Whitey.
A black man in prison is NOT a political prisoner. G. Loury is a Clinton supporter; a large quantity of black men ended up in prison during their term.
A lot of black anger has caused 50% of America's homicide victims to be black. So yeah, that black anger needs to be abated, channeled and re-directed in a life-affirming, non-violent, and positive direction. Black people, and all Americas regardless of race, need calm, intelligent and thoughtful leadership to move the country forward.
Also, we aren't sheep who need "black" leaders to guide us when our elected representatives should be doing the job. We can organize ourselves when there is a critical enough issue.
I'm glad for the Obama campaign - it reveals the complexity of racial issues.
As a non Black Male looking over these posts, I can not understand the blatant misuse of the power of words in this instance. I am 43 years old, and have seen my fair share of abuse, neglect as well as segregation (believe it or not) in this country, and have stood appalled. I agree with the concept that "the world should be colorless" and understand that as of today, some people should still be angry.
I will vote tomorrow in Pa, and I am 99% sure I will vote for Obama (the 1% is b/c I have not finished Hillary's manifesto)
I guess I am in the minority in this arena, because at the end of the day, I do not care about color, race, sex, and age. I care about how the USA will fare for the next 4 years. Shouldn't that be the top of every voters list in this country?
Think about what 8 years of W. has given us:
2 wars simultaneously being fought, with no end in sight;
Gas reaching $4 /Gallon (Milk for the first time may be cheaper);
Exxon, BP, etc are seeing billions in profit, while, the basic human need for Food has put a strain on countries like Haiti, that people are fighting for mud cookies;
People hate the United States,
The Economy is shrinking;
People black and white suffering in poverty,
A middle class shrinking quicker by the day;
Housing has been the worst in years, due to poor regulation.
Yet all we can see is who is Black enough? Wouldn't it make sense to look over what we see in the candidates as a job interview, and make your own decision? At the end of the day, I saw all I needed from Hillary Clinton while I lived in NJ, and saw what she did in NY. Do I think that Obama is without his weaknesses? No, I would not be an informed voter if I didn't.
But what I see in Barak Obama is a leader, who stands by his commitment, States when he misspeaks, and TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for his actions. Something I have yet to see from Ms Clinton. This was obvious to me in the Philly Debate, where the first 45 minutes was spent hitting Obamas character, from whom he knew, to if he wears a tie pin. Yet, hardly ever any mention of the Bosnia misstep. I heard about Rev Wright, I heard about guns and religion, all taken out of context, but, Hillary kept on hitting.
How come no one talks about the failed Health care plan she took control of when her husband first took office? Wouldn't that have been a good starting point for the debate? Yet hardly mentioned. At the end, she was a first lady, who I have never seen be presidential.
In the end, it should not be about black and white. It should be about who can do the job. I do not care who/what you are, I just want you to be intelligent, and willing to roll up your sleeves and get the job done. Am I wrong to think that?
A military intelligence officer and a former Reagan official trying to manufacture a Black debate about Obama? Looks like COINTELPRO is still alive. Too bad your provocations won't work because over 90% of the Black community supports Obama. Nobody's buying what you're trying to sell.
Since when did comments made by a Presidential candidate's former Pastor become the yardstick by which we measure his moral fiber? I don't remember Reagan, Clinton or either Bushs' Pastors being dissected in the way that Rev. Wright has been. Why is a different standard suddenly in play? Could it be because the candidate in question is African American? All of a sudden anyone a candidate has even stood in the same ROOM with is considered part and parcel of the candidate's package. I guess I missed the memo on this, but when did this happen? If you throw stuff at the wall long enough, somethings going to stick...that seems to be White America's motto since Obama became the first Black candidate in America's history with a serious shot at the Oval Office. Just look at the Hillary supporters. They are supposedly so enamored of Hillary that they will not vote for Barack out of loyalty to her. Instead they will vote for McCain. What kind of logic is that? You're a long standing Democrat and your candidate doesn't get the nomination so you completely jump ship and vote for the other team?! How in the world is THAT going to further your cause? If they don't agree with what Obama thinks, then they DEFINITELY shouldn't agree with anything McCain believes! So, where's the missing link? Race. These are middle class White women who have always portrayed themselves as "Liberals", but now when put the test, find themselves unable to get past the color of Obama's skin. So they'd rather vote for a guy who has almost NOTHING in common with their former candidate of choice than vote for a Black guy who does. The Rev. Wright fiasco, "Obama's a Muslim", all of these are blatantly desparate attempts to pin something on Barack that will stick to keep the White House "White Only". Carefully wrapped and disguised under the ideals of candidate investigation and "careful selection", all of the hoopla stems from a man the color of caramel having the NERVE to believe that he can run the country as well as any caucasian. Yes I said it! What none of the reporters, what no "liberal democrats" will say, I'm saying point blank. You all need to get over your fear of the "big black boogie man" and vote for the candidate who can get us out of the financial toilet. The Bush/McCain era has done enough damage. We need a change. Go Obama! Yes We Can!
インプラントにするには何歳ぐらいが適していますか」インプラントという質問を受けますが、ご本人がインプラントにしたいと思ったときに手術を行うのがベストと思います。 実際に当院でインプラント手術を受けた方は20代から70代と年齢層も実にさまざまです。
不動産 広島,岡山/四国(香川,徳島,愛媛,高知) 不動産-あなぶき不産ナビ不動産四国４県、岡山の不動産広島の不動産など不動産情報検索（マンション・一戸建て・土地・収益物件等）サイトです不動産穴吹不動産流通株式会社"
派遣情報サイトには、魅力的なお仕事をたくさん掲載しています。派遣お仕事をお探しの皆さまにとって、派遣より使いやすく便利なサイトにするべく、アデコ派遣情報サイトをリニューアルしました。
外国為替証拠金取引は元本や利益を保証するものではなく、外国為替相場の変動や金利差により損失が生じる場合がございます。外国為替お取引の前に十分内容を理解し、外国為替ご自身の判断でお取り組みください
FX外国為替証拠金取引の比較サイトFX-外為比較.com」では、複数の条件からFX・外国為替会社の比較！FXまた資料請求、口座開設もできます。
sf
sdf