TPMCafe
« How dumb is that? | Home | Today's Recommended Reader Blogs »

How to Really Put that Farrakhan Endorsement to Rest

user-pic

The gravely ill Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack "Hussein" Obama was buried so rightly in the avalanche of commentary anticipating the vote in Texas and Ohio that I'm speaking almost out of turn in educing one more reason why it was stupid to try to tie part of the Jewish community in knots over this story.

But I doubt we've seen the last of such efforts. Even though Hillary Clinton looked silly pushing Obama about the Farrakhan endorsement in the last debate, and even though John McCain may well not mention it himself, it'll be back, in some form, as long as Obama remains a contender. The irony is that something about Farrakhan's Million Man March of 1995 in Washington, DC. showed the folly of black vs. white race-card playing as nothing had before.

In 1995 hundreds of thousands of black men turned Farrakhan's march into something he hadn't intended or been known for. something that left his Nation of Islam disoriented and on the defensive. It has been there ever since, especially since 9/11, for reasons even those who enjoy scaring themselves with bogeymen should have enough of what Jews call "sey-khel" (call it mental acuity) to understand.

The danger of Farrakhan was always that, abetted by our sensationalist media, he would shatter a taboo on public expressions of anti-Semitism even more vile and protean than the kind in the Nation of Islam's loopy cosmology.

Yet there was also something "retro" about Farrakhan's rants, redolent of the days when Jews had been classic urban intermediaries between elites and the black, inner-city poor. If you were black in Chicago, New York, and not a few other American citeis in the 1950s and early '60s, it was often Jewish shopkeepers, landlords, teachers, and social workers who decided whether you could get a job, credit at the store, a apartment, a passing grade in school, or even an acquittal.

Most such encounters weren't unfriendly, as the late black Brookllyn newspaper editor Andrew Cooper told me years ago for my The Closest of Strangers. But they were bound to grate, and every so often some aging urban black leader like Farrakhan -- or like the City College of New York Prof. Leonard Jeffries, who ranted in the 1990s about Jews running the slave trade -- ushers black listeners of a certain age back into a psychic landscape flickering with old, familiar demons.

The rest of the world seldom cares, and the Million Man March showed that most African-Americans don't care much anymore, either. Sure, there was a televised hate fest of Malik Al Shabazz, Amiri Baraka, and other souls frozen in time, but they had to stage their implosion not at the march itself but, the night before, at a public high school to which they'd been shunted. The multitudes of black men who'd come on long bus ries to Washington never heard them.

At the march itself, Farrakhan delivered an anti-Semitism-free skein of non-sequiturs and Masonic-like numerological divinations so stupefying that, when cameras panned the crowd, it was obvious he'd lost his audience. They'd come to bond as fathers and sons, brothers and strangers, and to claim, with a quiet poignancy, the credit blacks deserve for having built and died for the grand marble monuments all about them in Washington.

Immediately after 9/11, Farrakhan gave the most patriotic speech of his life, and no wonder: Suddenly, an entity called "The Nation of Islam" wasn't a cool place to be. American flags flew all over black neighborhoods, and, in a burst of American bonding across race and class, many blacks sought a kind of reprieve: For once, no one could blame blacks for what had gone wrong. If anything, the burden was shifted to Islamicists.

That reminded me of something a Jewish community relations representative had told me in 1990 during an acrimonious, sometimes violent black boycott of two small Korean groceries in Brooklyn. Apologists for the boycott portrayed its ugly name-calling and intimidation as the understandable response of a black neighborhood to price-gouging outsiders. But the "neighborhood" was far less involved than a notorious crew of racial street-theater impresarios who roamed the city in those days staging passion plays of archetypal black suffering for their own extortionist and dubiously therapeutic purposes.

"Whaddya think?" I asked the Jewish community-relations man, a genial, rumpled peacemaker in his mid-50s who'd weathered many such storms over the years.

'Oh, s'wonderful, s'wonderful," he murmured.

"S'wonderful? Why?"

"Look, the merchants aren't Jewish anymore, so they're not taking potshots at us there. The mayor isn't Jewish anymore, so they're not taking potshots at us there. We can be like the Quakers now. We can mediate!"

Well, maybe not, and my interlocutor knew it very well. Yet he had a point: Times change, and so do horizons.

How much sey-khel should it take to see that if the day ever came when a man stood on the Capitol's South Portico intoning, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear....," it would be a victory for the American promise that we need not stay trapped in our pasts, a promise whose fulfillment in this case would leave more than just Farrakhan's Nation of Islam in the shadows?

Not everyone can or even should let go of the past. Yet only the same failed Americans who also worried that the Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Nazi could worry now that Obama is a danger just because a dying, perhaps even somewhat-repentant Farrakhan tried to glom onto him in the end. And only people who are still too fearful to affirm what's best in this country would believe them.

,


7 Comments

| Leave a comment

when did hillary "push it" during the debate. Obama's initial answers about Farrakhan were no different than his answer on McClurkin... he said he "denouced" what both had said... but in the case of McClurkin, used him in his rallies anyway.

Obama did everything he could to avoid repudiating Farrakhan's support until Hillary made him do it. Maybe he thought it was a joke, but as a gay man, I'm still waiting for Obama to repudiate McClurkin....

user-pic

America's original sin is not anti-semitism. It is racism.

user-pic

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here. But maybe, just maybe, what Sleeper seems to be saying is that black anti-semitism is on the wane and is a thing of the past, or at least no longer relevant.

Also, Farrakhan is an old senile fuddy duddy and nothing he says matters any more.

I'm just guessing mind you. The usual stew of cliches, brutalized metaphors and incoherent ramble makes it difficult to really be sure.

user-pic

My recollection of the "Farrakhan" incident in the debate was that it was Tim Russert who brought it up. My real gripe here is with the moderators such as Tim Russert who like to raise muck and ask embarrassing questions rather than deal with real issues, such as the tremendous deficit, the relationship of the war in Iraq to our economic problems, etc.

The country would not be in the mess it is in if it were not for talking heads and moderators such as Russert who always seem to focus on questions that are intended deliberately to divide people and detract them from what is really important.

user-pic

Sleeper why are you working so hard to keep the Farakhan story alive? He is quite irrelevant to modern American politics. But you seem to think it is still an important story. Now why is that? Tonight there is only one issue that democrats should be considering. You seem to think that it is Farakhan. Actually, I think it is the Obama-Hillary race. Please be more explicit: why do you think we should be discussing Farakhan tonight?

user-pic

Um.... Syvanen, the point of my column, which I get the impression that you missed, was that Farrakhan is quite irrelevant to American politics now and that people who have been very busy trying to make him relevant, from Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton on down to the progenitors of a substantial viral e-mail campaign targeted at Jews, are wrong. You may not have known about those efforts, but they matter, and I hope that this answers your question.

I'm a Black suburban male from Toronto Canada. I never knew about Farrakhan until CNN braodcast the Million Man March in Oct. 1995. I became interested to know more about this man who called for a march on Washington, and had, according to US Navy satelite photos of the event, 2.2 million people respond to his call. White media writes as if it's a foregone conclusion that Farrakhan is a "hate teacher". This conclusion is predicated upon two things: 1)Farrakhan said Judaism is a "dirty religion", and 2)Farrakhan thinks the Hitler was a "great man". To save space I'll deal with only the second point.

In January, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper wrote about Erykah Badu's press conference in Tel Aviv: "Badu defended Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, who has drawn fire over the years, with pronouncements including praise for Hitler in a 1984 speech, for which he was censured by the U.S. Senate... "Farrakhan is not an anti-Semite. He loves all people," insisted Badu."

The standard insinuation is that Farrakhan admires and praises Hitler. What he actually said in his March 1984 speech can in no way be seen as a praise of Hitler. Ironicly Farrakhan's words are in reponse to being called the "New Black Hitler" by whites in the Media. It was white people who introduce "Hitler" into the discussion.

"Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler.' Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man, but he was a great German, and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the first world war... Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers.

"Why would we tolerate this? I've been among Black people as a teacher from the Honorable Elijah Muhammad for nearly thirty years. I'm not a stranger in America. I have lectured in every major university and college and theological seminary in this country. I'm well-known by my brothers and sisters who are scholarly. I have addressed every major Black organization that there is. I ask, why should we submit when a White man calls one of our Black brothers a "Hitler" that we don't rise up and take them to task? You wait for Farrakhan to come and defend himself, though I am a defender of Black people. Not that it matters to me whether you defend me or defend me not. That's up to you. But that would show some gratitude on your part for the work of your brother. I am defended by God and He's sufficient for me, He and his Apostle, but, when you can allow the enemy to call your leaders anything they want to and get away with it, then you are selling yourself again into slavery." Farrakhan, Sun Mar 11, 1984.

Obvious from what Farrakhan actually says, he doesn't view Hitler as a 'good', noble', or 'wonderful' man. The word great means: outstanding in extent, significance or importance; remarkable; powerful; influential. Hitler was all these things. Hitler's acts of wickedness were remarkable. He was outstanding in his extent of wickedness. Among the Germans, Hitler was very powerful and he was influencial in the history of Europe and Europeans. Hitler WAS a great German; according to the definition of the word. None the less, the misportrayal of the statement that "Hitler was a very great man", is still being used to justify teaching people to hate Farrakhan.

The more than 2 million people who responded to his call for a Million More Movement are not a army of hateful Black men and women. Farrakhan doesn't represent a constituency of hateful Black people. Farrakhan symbolizes the "thinking" Black man and woman. Like Erykah Badu, these Black people know that "Farrakhan loves all people".

You don't simply want Obama to distance himself from a "hateful bigot". You white liberals would like to see Obama distance himself from serious and thinking Black, Brown, and Asian people. White so-called liberals are not genuine. You never raised your vioces to stop other white people from teaching hatred of Black people. We can't take you seriously when you try to portray peaceful and loving Farrakhan as a race hater.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


November 16-20

http://orbooks.com/files/going-rouge-small.jpg

Coming Soon



November 30-December 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address