Obama on race
I didn't have the chance to see Barack Obama deliver his speech Tuesday on race.
But I have read the text. Those words are both powerful and courageous -- and go places and take on issues Obama didn't have to confront.
He could have played it safer, either with a more calculated, less honest speech or by avoiding the blow-up over his fiery-tongued pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, altogether by hoping time and the public's short attention span would blunt the edges of the controversy.
To his credit, he did not.
"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy," Obama said.
"For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course.
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?
"Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
Honest discussions of race remain among the most difficult dialogues in this country, even in the year 2008.
But in a graceful but forthright address Obama made these points clearly:
1. That he is who is, the son a black man and a white mother whose unique upbringing has shaped his view of the world.
That racism and the legacy of racism still affect the nation's black citizens.
He noted: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.
"That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
2. That many white citizens also feel forgotten and left behind and even disenfranchised. And justifiably so.
"In fact," Obama said in his speech, "a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience --as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch."
3. That he still believes in the power and the goodness of the nation to overcome those obstacles -- that "the profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society.
"It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."
4. That black people acknowledging the sins of the past and their lasting effects (and pressing whites to do the same) is no excuse to embrace victimhood -- no excuse not to seize their responsbilities as mothers and (especially) fathers who will work and fight for their families and their communities .
Whether that will be enough over the stretch run of a long and bitter campaign remains to be seen.
But it was refreshing to see Obama step forward and face the issue head-on.
And choose to lead rather than be led.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I wouldnt have voted for Obama anyway as he is too far left for me. All I know is that I would not have sat through some of those sermons or the reverse versions for 1 hr much less 20 years.
I do have a problem with his mentor. I will admit that, in my mind, no amount of speechifying would justify sitting through 20 years of that type of churchin'.
I have lost some respect for Sen Obama.
What is your take on Sen Obama's quite differant reaction to Don Imus and his situation?
Posted on March 19, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm not familiar with his reaction to Imus.
Posted on March 19, 2008 4:15 PM
Enough of playing "gotcha" with politicians. Obama obviously does not agree with what his reverend friend said about America. Barack is his own man. Equally irrelevent is Obama's opinion of Don Imus. There is plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama if you are so inclined. He appears to be a doctranaire liberal who views Wall Street and the GOP as chief culprits of the woes of America. He is espousing viewpoints akin to George McGovern and Walter Mondale back when they both ran for president. How did that work out? As I recall, both McGovern and Mondale did not just lose the presidential election; they were run out of the stadium. America is so desperate for leadership and change, thanks to the abysmal job done by George Bush for the past 8 years, they are ready to vote for anyone who looks fresh, shiny and new. Enter Obama. Personally, I think Barack is a good man who loves his country. He is too far left for my taste, but like they say in the movies, the idea of Obama as president is "just crazy enough to work."
Posted on March 19, 2008 6:47 PM
Allen, it was a political speech, made out of necessity to quell the firestorm.
He didn't extinguish the flames.
Posted on March 19, 2008 9:47 PM
I agree with Bubba--this is reactive politics, plain and simple. That said, Obama said mostly the right things: good for him. This is a stark example of Shelby Steele's paradox: the discursive communities of black Sunday mornings and white Sunday mornings have little overlap, and caught redhanded in the former, Obama is trying valiantly to forge some middle ground.
His problem comes in reconciling 2 and 4 above. He's right to say that whites (of all socio-economic groups, not just the lower and middle class--he's wrong there) view race as a negligible matter. "Their experience is the immigrant experience --as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch." Well, yes and no. Whites believe that what they've built, they built from scratch, but that's hardly an "immigrant experience": it's a normative American experience: Bootstrap-pulling in the Land of Opportunity. But if this is true--that is, if it's not just "as far as they're concerned" (a slippery qualifier)--then it cannot square with 4, which tries to negotiate a tricky set of propositions: (1) that race does matter; that if you're black, you're handicapped by "the sins of the past and their effects," which must therefore be "acknowledged," (2) that the "sins of the past" impact peculiarly on blacks (as opposed to whites, who "build from scratch"--or THINK they do); and (3) that such victimhood (since the "effects" of historical sins cannot conceivably be interpreted as beneficial) does not excuse embracing "victimhood," irresponsibility, etc.
Either race matters or it doesn't; either blacks suffer victimhood or they shouldn't. It's a tricky matter, as I say, and Obama's solution--that there's an authentically multicultural America out there waiting to overcome the global capitalist enemy--is certainly hopeful. Whether it will prove resonant is another matter.
Posted on March 20, 2008 12:13 AM
Once again, playing devil's advocate, assuming that Jeremiah Wright's view is correct, what would he have the 'oppressors" do for him that's NOT been done?
Make education and opportunities available via scholarships, grants, extracurricular programs, GED, for people who truly want an education?
CHECK-DONE ( I doubt there is a single black child in GC who has the willingness to learn who has been denied anything and has not had their teachers bend over backwards trying to help them in this regard)
Make low interest gov. loans available for black people who want to develop businesses. job training programs, affirmative action awarding of public works contracts?
CHECK-DONE
Welfare programs for those who, for whatever reason, cannot work
CHECK -DONE
Medical care for same
CHECK-DONE
What else is the expectation here? Flat out, cash-on-the barrelhead cash payouts?
What has to be looked at is the people who are making these claims and statements, both nationally and in GC, and see from whence their power and income derive. Nine times out of ten they come from a person who is making their meal ticket from the maintaince of this "division" between the races, whether they are filling church pews, getting a paycheck from the NAACP, running "Forums" or "Foundations", hustling speaking honorariums (see Jesse Jackson), brokering no-bid gov. contracts etc.
Take a close look
Posted on March 20, 2008 10:37 AM
Somethings like these:
Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr Imus. But I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having the same attitude."
I agree on the "enough of the gotcha" but this goes beyond that to me. 20 years he sat through these sermons. No matter how occasional the instances were. In my world, actions have consequences.
That all being typed, I believe Obama is sincere. I also cynically believe he joined and sat through those messages for some of the wrong reasons. Political reasons.
Posted on March 20, 2008 11:16 AM
Skeet,
"What else is the expectation here? Flat out, cash-on-the barrelhead cash payouts?"
The answer would seem to be a "yes". Louis Farrakhan has written an article known as "The Movement for Reparations". in it he says:
"Liberation is not a one-day journey. Neither is reparation, for reparation and liberation really are synonymous. You won't be free without the damage being repaired. In order to repair the damage, you must make a proper assessment of the damage."
You will recall that Dr. Wright mentions that his church is about black liberation theology. He and Farrakhan seem to be of one mind. We need to become more familiar with the ideal of black liberation theology. The following provides an outline of this thinking:
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html
Is this concept alive and well in Greensboro?
Posted on March 21, 2008 12:40 AM