From Within The Veil
W.E.B.
DuBois said the problem of the 20th Century would be the problem of the
color line; solidly within the color line in the culture of the United
States stands African Americans, obscured from view by something
similar to a veil -- those within are visible behind that veil, but
precisely how clearly? Those within obviously see beyond that veil, but
again . . . exactly how clearly? I believe the challenge of the 21st
Century will prove to be the same as the challenge of the 20th Century
(the color line) but with this distinct difference: the "special"
burden presented by the challenge and that burden which must be
shouldered will no longer be on those from without the veil. No, the
special burden in the 21st Century will be on those of us within the
veil. As it should be.
Humble pie? After that presidential election? Oh yes, I'm eating up. Probably not in the fashion many would want or expect, however. That's just not my style.
One of David Warren's latest offerings is a 19-paragraph persuasive sermon that I would like to repeat here in its entirety. I'm choosing to post it in part because I'm still trying to come to terms with the Obama victory and worried about what it says about American standards, in general, and African American standards, in particular. I'm searching, and reading, and contemplating -- slowly but surely. Barack Obama troubles me. Deeply. But he doesn't trouble anyone in my immediate circle of family and close personal friends. To my way of thinking, that requires me to engage in serious self-examination but it also dictates that I contemplate my family and friends.
I have no concerns about standing alone in my present circle. In my mind, I've been my own man since the age of 14 when I began working every day after school. Sweeping floors, cleaning toilets, dumping trash. Whatever. I've continually made decisions that puzzled family and friends; that trend will certainly continue.
I sense something of a kindred spirit in David Warren and I have no doubt that he is troubled by Barack Obama as well. He writes:
Because of our national history as a "can-do" society, Americans naturally have tremendous difficulty with the "proceeding incrementally" thing. In most cases, that's a very good thing to me. Charge hard! That was my Army training. That's the American way.
It also explains the balancing act that has allowed this nation to evolve and prosper, as the temporal world and the spiritual world constantly engaged in their dance.
[3] I beg my agnostic reader not to distract himself from this point with vain speculation about whether Adam and Eve were historical people. Let us agree, for sake of argument, that the Genesis story is pure myth. Ask instead: What is this myth expounding?
[4] That we, the descendants of Adam and Eve, are likewise mortally flawed, and yet, unlike mere animals, we carry the burden of responsibility for our acts.
I always come back to this because I've observed the deficiencies in my life and in that of others all around me; whether vicariously present or actually present. My, how we love to engage the act of attempting to dodge responsibility. It is a futile endeavor, however.
[5] We have powers finally of life and death, not only over ourselves, but over our neighbors.
[6] The consequences of our mistakes are written not only into our own lives, but into the lives of others, down to the lives of children yet unborn. Forgetting, for the moment, even heaven and hell, the business of our lives is deadly serious, and every human act has meaning.
Every human act has meaning!
[7] The "game" was not reset after what we refer to as the Fall of Man. It cannot be played again to a different result. God Himself could not "reset the game" if He wanted: for in the Judeo-Christian view, even what God does is done irrevocably.
And we reach part of the mystery that cannot or will not be understood.
[8] This is an extraordinary theological position, and it is easy to understand why "post-modern" or "post-Christian" man, along with followers of every other known religious tradition, should feel quite uncomfortable with such a restriction on God's power. For with such radical freedom comes the pain of radical accountability: to God, and also to each other.
Restrictions. Limitations. Consequences. Why you tryin' to cramp my style, man?
[9] But perhaps we don't care what happens to others.
[10] As I have quoted in the past, let me quote again, the profound words of the late Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, replying to the central lie in Marxism, which remains the central post-modern or post-Christian lie: "A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death -- the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged."
I am tempted to state at this point my great desire to have further discussion on this quotation in the black community but then I recall the uncritical alliance between Obama and his black liberation theology with that of mainstream black Christianity all across America, and the further leadership of so many atheists on the primary policies and programs that define African American politics.
[11] A great danger in democratic politics comes with just this denial. We are tempted to think that just by voting for a demagogue, a charlatan -- for any politician who tells us cynically only what we want to hear -- we can change the facts of nature.
David didn't say it, but I certainly will: or by simply voting for a black man.
[12] We think that we can "make the rich pay," or otherwise transfer our personal responsibilities to the Nanny State. By some mysterious "social contract," we transfer to politicians the responsibility for what we have ourselves decided. And in due course, we may punish them, for what we got wrong.
Preach!
[13] I invite any reader with the stomach for it to consider the incredible demonization of the outgoing U.S. president, which was used in turn to secure the election of the incoming one. George W. Bush, from the balance of evidence a decent man with an honest view of his own limitations, served his country as well as he knew how. He has been made a scapegoat as if he were personally liable for everything that went wrong on his watch. A true scapegoat: for in the end he is blamed even for what was done to him.
It is going to be a continuing theme for me with all of my black contacts, who never fail to demonize or ridicule George W. Bush or Sarah Palin or Republicans in general, to always come back to this point. White liberals play this card so shamelessly, so arrogantly, that I find myself continually amazed. And black people dutifully parrot all of the nonsense back.
[14] John McCain is perhaps lucky to escape that fate. For the same forces in contemporary North American society would turn against him as turned against Mr. Bush -- the vicious machinery of recrimination by which "progressive forces" make their advance.
Not "would," David -- did. Ann Coulter is correct on this score. John McCain was punked by these people. But McCain likely had no choice, and I don't think he ran an awful campaign. When you analyze the media obsession with dragging Obama across the finish line, just try and contemplate what a stronger Republican would have received. We are lucky, however, that such a status quo will never be repeated -- even if Obama runs for re-election.
[15] The president-elect may seem luckier, still, for he has an articulate gift for deflecting his own failures of judgment, and for finding plausible scapegoats external to himself.
Indeed. Being the HNIC means never being held accountable for anything -- in the campaign, that is. But as President? Sadly, I think this will also be the case for him in office among black people. He's not going to be responsible for anything. Them white people; they're responsible for everything.
[16] Watch for this in the trials that will soon beset him.
The most profoundly unserious conversation in American politics is between white Democrats and black Democrats -- that's what I'm going to be watching.
[17] Yet also, he professes to be Christian. So pray for him, that he will find the courage, perspicacity and prudence that come with the remembrance of our Lord.
From the beginning, I've desperately wanted to like this man. More than liking him, however, I will pray for him and desperately hope I will respect his handling of the Office of the Presidency. I'm certainly going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not every benefit of the doubt, which I gave to Dubya, but I'm certainly going to initially try and give him the benefit of the doubt.
[18] The rebuilding effort by the Republican opposition will also need prayers.
Well, politically-speaking, I'm ready to crack some New York and D.C. heads. You can best believe that. But I'm at a very interesting crossroad. I've constantly tried to say to any African American who will listen that we've made a serious mistake aligning ourselves so totally with the Democrats. And it is hurtful to the nation and our political discourse. Witness a President-elect who spends years and years demonizing the President but now asks for reconciliation.
David Warren's conclusion:
[19] Every attempt to disown "conservative principles" -- the principles not only of the free marketplace, but of moral absolutes and human responsibility -- will be a further setback. The abandonment of the specifically Christian heritage on which America was built can only contribute to her further destruction.
Agreed. Time to get to work and do the necessary work.
J. B,
You've given me a lot to think about today (and for a great deal of the future too). But before I do that, I'm wondering about a couple of things.
Regarding your response to: 13 "........consider the incredible demonization of the outgoing U. S. president........A true scapegoat: for in the end he is blamed even for what was done to him."
But don't you think that since the consequences of his decisions were 'built in' and affected us all, that it's fair to place blame for the mistakes he made, the things we didn't agree with and never did? That's not the same as scapegoating, is it?
And regarding: [9] "But perhaps we don't care what happens to others"
I would say this instead..... perhaps we know that if we do what's right for ourselves, and if our decisions and actions affect us well, it will be likewise for all others around us, affecting them well also. As stated, the consequences are 'built in' and, with deep thought and contemplation, are easily predictable.
JB, Are you sure we want to politicize all of these important issues, feelings, ideas, philosophy, intricacies, etc. ?
I have a lot of thinking to do, because of this blog. Thanks!
Posted by: Chloe | November 14, 2008 at 07:42 AM
J. B,
You've given me a lot to think about today (and for a great deal of the future too). But before I do that, I'm wondering about a couple of things.
Regarding your response to: 13 "........consider the incredible demonization of the outgoing U. S. president........A true scapegoat: for in the end he is blamed even for what was done to him."
But don't you think that since the consequences of his decisions were 'built in' and affected us all, that it's fair to place blame for the mistakes he made, the things we didn't agree with and never did? That's not the same as scapegoating, is it?
And regarding: [9] "But perhaps we don't care what happens to others"
I would say this instead..... perhaps we know that if we do what's right for ourselves, and if our decisions and actions affect us well, it will be likewise for all others around us, affecting them well also. As stated, the consequences are 'built in' and, with deep thought and contemplation, are easily predictable.
JB, Are you sure we want to politicize all of these important issues, feelings, ideas, philosophy, intricacies, etc. ?
I have a lot of thinking to do, because of this blog. Thanks!
Posted by: Chloe | November 14, 2008 at 07:46 AM
MLK's injunction that we should people not upon the color of their skin, but rather on the content of their character, is the simplest but most persuasive logic why BHO was unworthy of Senate, let alone the Presidency. Just today Bill Ayers admitted that he and Barry were good friends, not merely "some guy in the neighborhood". So much for BHO's character- he's got very little, just a typical opportunistic politician who will say anything to get elected. It's really an embarrassment the more you think about it. There are far, far more credible and respectable people throughout various minorities who would have made a more deserving candidate.
Everything BHO has uttered throughout this campaign has either been a straight out lie, or has an expiration date. The only thing we can do now is encourage him to do the right thing. If he's gonna toe the line for the hard left, we would be well advised not to join him in any bipartisan gesture that at its heart remains rooted in guilt for slavery.
Posted by: Vince | November 14, 2008 at 02:56 PM
One thing that I am shocked and hurt by during this campaign season is to discover the fact that people of color have so much hatred or ill feelings towards whites. I have never in my lifetime had any bad feelings towards blacks, in fact, have had quite a bit of good wishes and good will towards them.
I hope I am not speaking out of line here, but trying to be honest. I cannot tell you how horrified I was to hear Jeremiah Wright screaming about rich white people and about our country.
And I am particularly heartbroken to hear this from a pulpit, where truth is supposed to be spoken. And the unforgivable to me is that he has and is teaching his people and youth to think of us an the enemy. I always thought that as a Christian, there was a common ground, you know, the "there is no slave nor free, but all One in Christ," stuff.
Naive? I guess so. But I really didn't want to know about those feelings, but they quite obviously exist. In fact, it has made me stand back and wonder, do all the people of color who I have worked with and known and run into every day feel this way towards me? I don't know any more.
Just some ramblings. Forgive me for going on.
Posted by: lizbeth | November 14, 2008 at 07:25 PM
William Ayers, tell me this isn't falling on deaf ears.
http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/bill-ayers-describes-himself-as-family-friend-of-obama/
Posted by: Ree | November 14, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Hi lizbeth,
Are you the same lizbeth that used to post on Crawford? If so, I'd like to talk you into visiting there again. It's odd, because today I was searching through some old posts for something there, and saw a few of your posts (if you're the same lizbeth) where we were discussing something or other quite a while back. Take care.:)
Posted by: Chloe | November 14, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Chloe, yes, I am. Haven't been to Crag's site in a while. I'll check back in soon. Thanks.
Posted by: lizbeth | November 14, 2008 at 09:25 PM
Excuse me, I meant "Craig's" site.
Posted by: lizbeth | November 14, 2008 at 09:30 PM
(1) Let's assume the United States will survive an Obama Presidency. And why not? E.g., Lincoln actually employed armies against fellow Americans. FDR actually interned fellow Americans. Hyper-inflationist Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal among other dumb moves. Yet, they all accomplished more good than bad, no? (Well, except Carter, who I think was and still is largely a fool). In toto, will an Obama Presidency necessarily be any worse or any better than the others? Nope, I hope. Odds are, some day he's going to be known mostly as "just another president." I have faith that one President can not ruin the country. (Okay, maybe hurt it a bit, but not ruin it).
(2)Next, why does Obama himself have to be perfect, even when his presidency won't destroy the country? Why can't he be less than 100% desireable? Is it because we wonder or fear that he'll be held to a double standard, or if he screws it up, the country will delay or never elect another black president? (He probably will be held to a higher standard in some regards, and he will be subjected to extra criticism for illogical reasons, but aren't all presidents so held in their own ways and times?). Maybe there's a valid fear that there will be "no second chances," but I really doubt it-- there have been plenty of imperfect past presidents. How did LBJ become a millionaire when he started out as a school teacher? How about Clinton's word-parsing? I'm a conservative white guy who did not vote for Obama, and while I don't subscribe to liberal or socialist ideas and politics, I must objectively admire Obama for methodically picking a course that would eventually get him into the White House. He looked at what he had to work with-- history, and now only a modest faction of the Democratic base he could count on-- and still he built on that. All successful presidential aspirants try to do this. Why shouldn't Obama be given credit for successfully doing the exact same thing as most other presidents? While it would have been my preference that a conservative be elected, it didn't happen. Hey, Obama did it-- he's succeeded where many others have failed-- so now he's my president.
(3) Obama has opened the door and the field. No longer is it only Coke or Pepsi. Hopefully, Americans are going to have even more choices and selections. Obama isn't going to be the last liberal president, nor the last black president, no matter what he does. But, all future presidents don't have to be liberal, and liberals don't have to be white, or black, etc., nor do conservatives. I'm hopeful that from now on, Americans are going to have more and more substantive choices in different candidates (...If we can hold on to radio free speech, and gun rights, and property rights-- but if we can't, those losses won't be solely Obama's fault). I'm sure there are flaws in my naive thinking, but anyway, this is how I'm optimistically approaching the next four years.
Posted by: Royce | November 15, 2008 at 06:18 AM
TO RG:
You complain that African Americans make "a serious mistake aligning ourselves so totally with the Democrats. And it is hurtful to the nation and our political discourse."
That will fall on deaf ears until you deal with the central issue that many people-including some white Republicans-have made: the GOP is widely considered to be anti-black.
As then RNC head Ken Mehlman said in 2005, "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization." He was mainly about the Southern Strategy.
Fast Forward to 2008: the numerous overtly racist attacks on Obama by GOP operatives have reinforced the idea that the GOP is anti-black. (And we're not even talking about the religious bigotry involved in saying that Obama was Muslim, with the idea that Islam=evil.)
Until Republicans-black and white-address the issues raised by Mehlman, you can forget about any seeing any material number of AAs join the party.
---
To lizbeth RE: black "hate":
You live in a parallel universe from mine. What I have seen during this campaign is an extraordinary degree of collaboration between blacks and whites on the Obama campaign, and great pictures of diversity at Obama campaign events, that has been joyful to behold.
I would go on to say that the election of Obama has caused a huge upswing in positive feelings about whites by blacks. Many felt that whites were too racist to vote for a black for president. This has affected what I call the ongoing state of black fear, distrust, and cynicism (which some may interpret as hate).
---
RE: Bill Ayers: he is being demonized, and his relationship to Obama is being distorted. But there's not enough time to discuss this here.
Posted by: EarthTone | November 15, 2008 at 12:11 PM
"...the GOP is widely considered to be anti-black." Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth to that. I always thought that Gen. Colin Powell should could would have been President, but we see how that unfolded. Now the pressure is really on the GOP, liberty, capitalism, etc. If Obama is like Carter (because of 10-15% inflation, etc), time could be ripe for a true conservative black president, yes? Makes a lot of sense to me...could reverse a lot of trends, problems, save the course of the country, etc. If there's a flaw in this idea, I cant' see it, but...
Posted by: Royce | November 15, 2008 at 05:06 PM
"You live in a parallel universe from mine."
EarthTone,
I can relate to what you and lizbeh are both saying.
lizbeth still hasn't gotten over what came to light during the primary, about the amount of hate and resentment fostered directly from a church such as Rev. Wrights. I must say, at the time the news broke, I was every bit as shocked as lizbeth. It was both shocking and painful (and created some resentment from those thinking they were being judged unfairly).
I'm glad to hear you say now that the election of Obama has caused a huge upswing in positive feelings about whites by blacks. Equality of all is the most valued asset that Americans nurture.
Posted by: Chloe | November 16, 2008 at 07:18 AM
This is long, but it might be of interest.
Rev Wright is not a sympathetic figure. Many people dislike him so much, it's impossible to defend him now, with the idea that people will somehow modify their opinion of him.
But on the subject of Wright, I offer his not for purposes of persuasion, but to add some insight which might be informative:
[1] Rev Wright does not preach hate, he doesn't even come close. If you think he preaches hate, you haven't really heard people who do.
[2] The closest person to Rev Wright rhetorically, that most whites can "relate to" as an example, is Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh's speech is hard coded to his target audience. Outside of the context of his listeners, his comments are considered racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, etc, etc.
The thing is, Rush says things that extremely provocative to the point of meeting the legal definition of fighting words.
Wright is like that. Wright is basically a fire and brimstone preacher for whom rhetorical excess is considered a virtue. But away for his regular listeners who know the full context in which his words are said, it can seem offensive.
[3] A white news reporter from Chicago who was very familiar with Wright did an interview with Fox's Greta van Susteren.
Greta asked, is Rev Wright anti-white? She said no, he is anti-white establishment.
If you understand the distinction the reporter was making, you will "get" why Wright is not a racist or preaches white hate.
If you don't understand he distinction, then you won't get it.
[4] Rush Limbaugh rails against the liberal establishment, and he doesn't care who he offends in the process-in some cases, he INTENDS to offend the establishment. The same is true with Wright.
Here's a difference between the two. It's hard to imagine any liberal working with Limbaugh on any project of substance that provides positive social change.
Wright, meanwhile, has a proven history of working with whites and even the government on community and religious projects.
What, you've never heard of Wright being involved is positive projects involving whites? Well, you are in the conservative target audience, so of course you wouldn't have heard of these things.
[5] I consider Wright a tragic figure. This post is already longer than RG would like it, but if there was more time, I'd talk about how well situated he was to engage in a useful discussion of race.
The problem was, he preferred being more like Rush than like Barack.
Wright couldn't look past his target audience. It's like he's on a radio station with a weak signal; and when given the opportunity to have a station with a more powerful signal, but with the requirement that he had to change his style to reach a wider audience... Wright said "I've been doing this too long to flip my script. I'll just stay where I am." Too bad for him.
Posted by: EarthTone | November 16, 2008 at 02:20 PM
New Poll, Meet the Real Sarah Palin, should people be concerned about the issue of Barack Obama’s official records Birth Certificate and Selective Service Record. Poll Here.
http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/
We know documents get faked
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/14/school-supplies-fake-social-security-numbers-to-teachers/
Hey do you all remember Rather Gate when Dan Rather and his producer tried to pass off those fake documents as real per George W Bush's service record. I remember the MSM was really interested in that story. Barack H Obama's selective service record not so much...hmm They used up all their curiousity on George W Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin:)
http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-bout-that-pesky-selective-service.html
I read his Grandmother's obit online it stated that Barack Obama left Hawaii right after High School in 1979. But his Selective Service Record states he was in Honolulu, Hawaii 30 July 1980. There is NO ID checked. This document has problems.
The Selective Service requires a man to sign up 18-26 years of age. It is a felony not to sign up but there is a 5 year statue of limitations.
The problem would be producing a Selective Service Record. That is a Federal Document they can't be created, altered ect..
Posted by: Ree | November 16, 2008 at 07:45 PM
I read your post, earthtone. Here's the thing -- his audience is cheering his words, meaning they were in complete agreement with what he was saying. It did occur to me that when he said rich white people, he was referring to what I would call the "establishment."
When I think of it in that way, I can see common ground. But I have been to many churches in my life, of many different denominations, and I have never heard anything approaching this language from the pulpit, not even from a "fire and brimstone" preacher. If I had, I would not have even remained for the entire sermon.
I think it is unforgivable, actually, and, yes, I do think he preaches hate. I can't think of a single context where "gd America" or blaming every evil known to man on white people would be appropriate. Just don't see it.
Anyway, it is certainly amazing how clueless we were (as I am certainly not the only person who sees it this way) as to the real sentiments being expressed within the (or at least this) African American church. I can only hope it's not common. We were singing "red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight," while Rev. Wright was laying us lower than low.
And Rush Limbaugh does not in any way compare on the same level. He is not a "Man of God" preaching from a place of authority and truth.
Posted by: lizbeth | November 16, 2008 at 08:04 PM
lizbeth, I think EarthTone was only comparing Wrights and Limbaughs style, not comparing the morality of what they do.
When he said Rev. Wright was against the White Establishment, in stead of white people, I get it (whether I completely buy it at this point, I'm undecided). But heck, I'm against the Good old boys club myself (and what is that, if not the establishment), who I think were unfair to Hillary.
EarthTone, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your take on what's going on with Rev. Wright. And I also think you cleverly explained why Rev. Wright couldn't or wouldn't adapt to a larger audience. Regardless of his motivation, he's certainly not going to change his way of doing things at this point.
I'm still not sure what all of this has to do with Barack. The part that bothers me is that he is often not honest in his explanation of his past history or relationships. I still don't know for sure who he is.
Posted by: Chloe | November 16, 2008 at 08:52 PM
Well, I step away from the board for a few days and look what happens.
Chloe, many thanks for wading through the post. In many ways, we're all just thinking out loud here and having something of a stilted conversation.
We've just concluded the most profoundly unserious presidential election of my lifetime and here comes EarthTone with a profoundly unserious apologia for dear Rev. Wright.
He *is* a hateful fake and I don't buy the Rush Limbaugh comparison to Reverend Wright at all. EarthTone, you have noticed he's a man of the cloth, I suppose? You tell on yourself, my friend, simply by making the comparison.
Rush is a conservative entertainer. Find me a man of the cloth on the conservative side of the ledger that could fit in your analysis of Rev. Wright rather than Rush Limbaugh and then I'll start paying attention to your thoughts on the perpetrating Rev. Wright.
To me, the problem with Reverend Wright is that he believes in a bogus black liberation theology that is an odd black supremacist take on Jesus Christ. It, as only a secular belief system constructed by white liberals could, damns black people the world over to low expectations and capabilities in the guise of being empathetic. We didn't engage in the fight against white supremacy just so we could flip it and engage in black supremacist moralizing or politicizing.
Any Republican who buys into the stupidity of kowtowing to black people is an idiot. EarthTone and too many politically-correct Republicans are in agreement which should tell you all that's needed on this issue.
EarthTone, tell me this. Aren't Republicans anti-Democrat? And there isn't one damn problem with that, is there? Democrats are surely anti-Republican. Now, do you still want to logically hold the position that there's nothing counter-productive with black people being enslaved on the Democrat plantation? And self-identifying with one political party only?
Think through your position, now, because this is one black man who will not fall for the regular okey-doke. There is *no* burden on the non-selected political party in such a scenario and any discussion of a burden is an absurdity. Until White Republicans learn how to say this with gumption and backbone (Ken Mehlmann, I'm talking to you and Colin Powell, etc.), the Party will forever allow punk ass games to be played on them in perpetuity.
Royce, Royce, Royce. You have the luxury on this issue of being non-black and I'll likely return to some of your comments in later posts but as a black jokester might say, "there are principalities involved, man!"
Finally, lizbeth (I know I've left some of you out; it's late, and I'll get around to your comments later) I want to specifically say this to you. Do not be fooled, lizbeth. There is no upswell in black feelings for white people. The dichotomy of good massa, bad massa is still in full effect and the Republicans are the default bad massa. But that's just for proper public consumption. At the first sign of discord among Democrats, however, the white folks there will also become bad massa. Because for political purposes, Democrats have inculcated a political mindset where black people take responsibility for no failures (white people too but we're talking about black people in this particular point -- overall point; Democrats run from responsibility among any of their constituents).
The fact of the matter, lizbeth, is black people feel funny about most all white people. If you catch me in the right setting, responding to the correct prompts, you will surely see it in me too. I suspect I would see the same thing in you and in any white culture I chose to examine.
That may say more about me than it does about you, lizbeth. The sad fact of the matter is that white people have done more to get over their racial prejudices than we as black people have (which isn't to say they've gotten over them, of course).
Why have white people done more? I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons that most people could quickly name (being the historically dominant force -- whether social or financial -- in American society, constituting the cultural descendants of the perpetrators of the TransAtlantic African slave trade, etc.) but none of the reasons alter the facts no matter how many excuses you may provide.
Many of you may disagree. So be it. And if so, feel free to speak up and toss your two cents worth into the kitty.
Posted by: RattlerGator | November 17, 2008 at 02:00 AM
JB, allow me to respond to your "coming to grips with the Obama victory" troubles.
1--There was A LOT of headwind against the GOP this year, esp w/the piss-poor performance of Bush, Paulsen & Co w/the financial crisis. A 3d straight term for a given party is very rare, as you know. To get there wd have required a very solid campaign. Which brings ,me to pt 2...
2--McCain ran an incoherent, C- campaign--Gov. Palin probably gained him a solid 3-4 pts, otherwise it wd have been worse.
3--Pardon me, but we have to GIVE RIGHTEOUS PROPS TO THE BLACK MAN AND HIS TEAM. Obama and his team ran an excellent, imaginative, highly disciplined and organized campaign. And in the big moments, "the new guy" avoided the big mistake, while Mr. Experience McCain choked.
Hey, do we know yet who advised McCain to "suspend his campaign" on 9/24 to solve the financial crisis? Amazing how such a dramatic move didn't have an author. THAT SEALED IT, AMIGO.
It wd have taken a debate meltdown by Obama to lose by then, but he kept cool and, as we say in basketball, "played within himself," and the clock soon ran out.
Even with all those advantages, Hussein only got 52% of the vote.
Finally, as someone recently noted to Rush, Obama has never had a political post that he didn't convert into a stepping-stone for higher office, essentially abandoning his responsibilities in that post in favor of obtaining the new one. SO WHAT DOES HE DO IN 1600 PENN AVE? Ooooops, the buck has nowhere else to stop. He will either stick to his/the Left's ideas and fail FAR worse than Carter, or he will abandon those insanities and have a shot at success. As Klinton did post-1994.
Either way, as Royce noted above, our great country will survive. And we will help it move in the right direction.
Hang in there, JB!
Posted by: JewishOdysseus | November 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM
JB,
Your 2am post blew me away. Like you said, we're thinking out loud here, and your honesty and ideas are so unusual, compared to what I'm used to reading elsewhere. I'm not sure what to say because you've said it all so well. I'm just looking forward to seeing if others respond. And I'll be forming more of an opinion as I think through it all. Thanks.
Posted by: chloe | November 17, 2008 at 05:44 PM
These articles and comments are exactly why I check this blog everyday...to think, learn, figure stuff out, etc. One of the best I've found. Thanks.
Posted by: Royce | November 18, 2008 at 03:17 AM
{I can't think of a single context where "gd America" or blaming every evil known to man on white people would be appropriate.}
-lizbeth
OK, let me try this another way.
[1] Answer these questions Yes or No.
• Do you believe in God? Y/N
• Do you believe God punishes evil? Y/N
• Do you believe that people who kill innocent lives are deserving of eternal damnation? Y/N
Let's assume you said yes to all, and keep this in your head as we go further.
[2] In his "gd" sermon, he was specifically referring to government actions that he considers morally objectionable.
For example, he mentioned America's atomic bombing of Japan; apparently feels that constituted an unnecessary use of force which caused the death of thousands of innocent people. (That's his opinion, not mine.)
[3] So let's do the math:
(BELIEF that God punishes evil with damnation)
+
(POLICY ANALYSIS that the American government has, in its conduct of military and foreign policy, used excessive force that resulted in unnecessary and morally unconscionable force levels of collateral damage/deaths of innocent people)
+
(RHETORICAL DEVICE that "US government" and "America" are synonymous)
=
(gd America... after all the context has been stripped away).
[4] Note that, none of this is about white people.
I have to stress this: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, it's not an attack on you. It's about social institutions, and social injustice.
Your personalization of this as an attack on you as a white person is so far past the point, it's ridiculous. I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just using the starkest terms to describe what is and what isn't happening here.
The "problem" is that in his sermon, "US government" = "America." You are taking the word "America" to mean "you" as an American (or a white American). Stuff is getting lost in translation here.
[5] This is not to say his critique of government policy is fair or accurate, or to defend his use of words. I'm just trying to explain the context for his comments.
[6] The bottom line is, this was not hate speech. This was about a man showing righteous indignation at morally reprehensible acts of the US government, using the most incendiary language possible... language whose heat was incalculably magnified when stripped down to a five second bite.
[7] Finally, it is worth noting that Wright has also railed against the behavior of aspects of the African American community as well.
Perhaps it would have assuaged your sense of fairness to see Wright complain about fathers, or upper class blacks who don't look out for lower class blacks, for example. But you never saw that... that's just not newsworthy.
Posted by: EarthTone | November 18, 2008 at 09:55 PM
[1] {Any Republican who buys into the stupidity of kowtowing to black people is an idiot.}
You totally mis-read my post. I NEVER said that Republicans need to "kowtow to black people."
I wasn't saying - and Mehlmann wasn't saying - that Republicans need to be "PRO black." We're saying the GOP needs to STOP BEING ANTI-BLACK.
If you don't see the difference between the two; or can't see how the Republicans have been anti-black (do a wiki search on Southern Strategy); then all I can say is, the Democrats thank you for your enlightened view of American politics.
[2] {Do not be fooled, lizbeth. There is no upswell in black feelings for white people.}
OK, I know you gave a "nuanced" response here, but I want to be sure there's no misunderstanding about how the Obama election has (temporarily) affected black/white dynamics:
a) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-06-poll_N.htm
WASHINGTON — "Barack Obama's election has inspired a wave of optimism about the future of race relations in the United States, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken the day after the first African American won the White House.
"Confidence that the nation will resolve its racial problems rose to a historic level. Two-thirds of Americans predict that relations between blacks and whites "will eventually be worked out" in the United States, by far the highest number since Gallup first asked the question in the midst of the civil rights struggle in 1963.
"Optimism jumped most among blacks. Five months ago, half of African Americans predicted the nation eventually would solve its racial problems. Now, two-thirds do."
b) But unfortunately, there has been a racist backlash to the election:
Local Papers Report More Anti-Obama Incidents From Maine to California
NEW YORK Earlier this week we started covering (see link at bottom) anti-Obama, often racist, incidents taking place around the country, generally overlooked in the national media -- but covered by local papers.
This seemed to strike a nerve with many readers so we will continue regular updates. Local stories show that anti-Obama incidents (including physical and verbal abuse, KKK outfits worn, flags burned on front lawns) are occurring on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.
See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003891304
Posted by: EarthTone | November 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM