Friday, March 21, 2008

Tiptoe?

Doug writes:

"As a point of minor disagreement I don't think that Obama was anywhere near the neighborhood of "brutally honest." he was stepping so carefully around important issues that I think many (white ) folks will forever miss important elements of what he was describing. "

Serena agrees:

"Well said Douglas. I do think though, in our current climate that he had to be somewhat on his tip toes."

I don't agree with the premise of Doug's statement. Race is not something that is tiptoed around. Ever.

However, even if I accept the premise, Obama did not tiptoe around the issues. Here are some quotes from the speech:


"The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery

The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well

The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

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. In fact, 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. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor.

...when [white people] 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; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years."

As I stated before, I have never heard any public figure confront the underlying anger that exist in America today. Particularly discussing that anger the exist on all side of this issue, and how these world views create a climate where the racism is latent, whispered at home or with members of your own community. This is not skirting the issues, but laying it bare for all see.

3 comments:

amanda jane said...

very interesting comments - thought provoking at least. I have not had time to pay close attention to the fight between Obama and Hilary,but my first thought after this became the hot topic was "how long has Hilary kept that in her back pocket?" tip toeing or not I appreciate the reality that race plays in our society, like it or not it is an influence and a resentment for many, although many of us try to rise above it and not be that person I am constantly shocked and surprised by the choices our societies make over and over again with race as influence.
I do agree with Doug in his comment about our religious communitites. I had tuly hoped I would have the option/choice to choose between Obama and Romney this coming election. it is interesting that religion may be the sole reason neither candidate makes it that far. what does that really say about our country and our bias? no matter our opinion of his speech, bigatry seems to be alive and well in our great nation, whether it is only witnessed at the kitchen table or not....

douglas hunter said...

I think you may have missed what I was getting at in my comments because to me the parts of the speech you quoted advance my point in that they do not address what made his speech necessary.

To be more clear, as I see it, his speech was a great speech about race and racism in America BUT the question is: what made it necessary for him to make that speech in the first place? The answer is white nationalism. I say this because of the specific clips that were selected for air by the broadcast media and the conservative response to them. (When I use the term "white nationalism" I mean the ideological configuration that often directly links elements such as Christianity, militarism and a patriotism that really isn't patriotism because it hold that American is always already on the right track. It's really the kind of thinking that defined the support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It held that any critique or protest was by definition anti-American, unpatriotic. That's just one example but I want to make sure its clear that I'm not referring to white nationalism in the neo-fascist sense.)

Anyway, if Obama was going to really lay bare the issue that made his speech necessary he would have addressed the structure and content of the white conservative reaction to Wright's comments head on. Interestingly though Obama actually made a point of embracing certain aspects of the white nationalistic ideology by condemming rather than exploring what his former pastor said. Obama stated:

"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country . . . "

The phrase "profoundly distorted view of this country" stands out to me because this is exactly how white conservatives represent all critiques of American government and society that come from the more critical elements of the African American community, regardless of who they are, it could be: Cornell West, Angela Davis, or Bell Hooks, Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan etc. by and large whites in general and conservatives in particular can't tell the difference and don't understand the various points of view and contexts that inform these very different critiques.

What Obama did was to not address the main factor that made his speech necessary, he in fact embraced the reactionary conservative response to Reverend Wright, and then went on to give us a great speech about certain aspects of race and racism in America, but lets be perfectly clear that when it came to Reverend Wright Obama's goal was to comfort and assure the white audience, that he (Obama) is indeed white enough (ideologically symbolically) to become president, or that he isn't the kind of black man that whites should fear.

So in the end, Obama's speech was important, necessary and really really good, but when he was finished speaking the elephant in the room was still very much there.
Is this a good or bad thing? I don't know, Serena's response was very pragmatic in that she sees Obama as saying what he needed to say to get elected. On the other hand I am trying to both praise and critique Obama at the same time because I see the lack of understanding in the white community as the biggest problem we face. In other words it's not Reverend Wright or certain elements of the black community or Obama that is the problem its white reactionaries that can't hear or understand any critique that comes from the African American community, and won't take the time to question their own entrenched position.

douglas hunter said...

Edit:

Actually I need to correct something I just wrote above. I am not trying to critique Obama, I'm just trying to point out what he intentionally left out of his speech and one of the ways in which his speech ways extremely cautious. 100% USDA choice tiptoe, just note that saying so is not a critique or value judgement, I imagine that most folks would say that extreme caution is exactly what was called for.