Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Can Obama be Tiger Woods?
What is the sub-text of the repulsive attempt by Tim Russert to get Obama to publically reject the most minimal level of support (i.e., kind sentiments) that Louis Farrakhan had for Obama's candidacy?
Since there is nothing in Obama's words or actions that would suggest he is anti-Semitic (or anti-white) it would seem the real issue is that a black aspirant for the White House has to demonstrate that he isn't really black "inside" even if his skin color suggests African DNA.
This is accomplished by the ritual of compelling the candidate, in a manner akin to the baptismal ceremony of Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, to purge himself of any link to his racial identity by renouncing even the most minimal tie to militant blacks or black bogeymen. His Chicago pastor will no doubt be next, followed by Sharpton and perhaps Barry Bonds. Maybe he'll be asked if he thinks OJ is guilty before it ends and he can be another Tiger Woods---someone celebrated for his abilities without being connected to blackness in any significant way.
No white candidate is ever asked to do this. They might have to reject the statements of a George Allen or Falwell at some particular moment, but they are never expected to completely reject the person as if he was a leper. McCain will never be forced to say he will never go on the Imus show or accept an endorsement from Limbaugh (not that it's happening).
This is all due, of course, to our legacy of racism, reduced but not eliminated, and a guilty conscience which wants absolution from blacks without expiating our sins. Ok, Obama, we'll make you President if you promise not to reduce our still powerful white skin privileges in employment, housing, securing loans, getting better medical care etc.
One other point:
There is, of course, black prejudice against whites (and Jews among them) that runs parallel to that among whites. The difference, and what makes the Farrakhan menace so unmenacing is that prejudice without power leads to nothing but muttering to oneself. I'm sure the level of hatred for non-Jewish Germans by German Jews was astronomical by 1938, probably and rightfully exceeding anti-Semitic sentriments in the German population----not all Germans had these views. But what did this translate into since Jews were powerless?
Are blacks commonly in a position to discriminate against whites, Jewish or not? Hardly. they are underrepresented among business owners and homeowners and any other group that can wield power and hurt other people's life chances.
The entire issue is a bogus one.







Comments (13)
Does that make Clinton the new Fuzzy Zoeller?
February 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No white person is asked to do this because all the white equivalents to Farrakhan have been successfully marginalized. If David Duke endorses McCain I have no doubt there would be no nuance in McCain's rejection of him and the KKK organization.
February 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No white person is asked to do this because all the white equivalents to Farrakhan have been successfully marginalized. "
Are you INSANE? what about coulter, limbo, orally and the like? These radioInhospitable hosts, wield far more power than any duke or fallwell.
Oreilly wanted to lynch Michelle Obama just a couple of days ago!! And outside of Keith Olbermann and Jesse Jackson, nobody has called him on it, certainly not McCain.
What surprises me though, that with all those veterans and all those things he says about them, not one has attempted to shoot him. Especially as you see how easy it is to get a gun in America.
February 29, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should a politician need to renounce anyone just because that person said they would vote for him/her? Farrakhan has a right to vote for Obama, no? And Farrakhan has a right to say so publicly. Millions of people have voted for Obama in primaries and caucuses and I assume that millions more will vote for him in November. Does he need to go through them one-by-one to accept or reject their support of him? The entire thing is silliness. A politician needs every vote he can get, from good folk and from nasty ones. So long as Obama isn't promising something to Farrakhan in return for Farrakhan's support, I see no problem. If Obama were promising something to Farrakhan in return for his support, then we might need to ask what he was promising. Otherwise, he should be thankful that he has one more vote.
February 28, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Duke can't be compared to Farrakhan. Duke is a white supremicist and Nazi who would has a genocidal ideology. Farrakhan ideologically is a black separatist. The Nation of Islam, whatever it's limitations, has never advocated murdering white people but rather a militant form of Booker T. Washington's philosophy. It's not my cup of tea, but they have had some positive effects on blacks who accept their perspective: anti-drug, crime, value education and discipline.
The Christian right leaders like Falwell would make a better comparison. Evangelism has undoubtedly salvaged many who have been "born-again." At the same time the leaders are intolerant of homosexuality, are anti-Semitic despite their theologically-based support for Israel (at the expense of ethnic cleansing of palestinians). McCain once did say they were agents of intolerance but not these days and he was never bludgeoned into doing it like Obama was.
February 28, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No that's not true. They have in fact advocated murdering white people. My initial reaction was to cut and paste few dozen quotes from Farrakhan and his aids to prove my point. But rather than fan the flames of racial division I've decided to follow the example of Obama when Russert began to read some quotes and enter them into the public record once again. As Obama stopped Russert I'll stop myself. I'll attempt to give a measured response.
Farrakhan and his top preachers, especially Khalid Abdul Muhammad, have called for violence, have made statements in both quality and quantity far in excess of anything Coulter, Limbaugh and Falwell have said. Its true that there has been some diminuation over the years as he has attempted some 15 years ago to move his organization into the main stream. Duke attempted the same tactic with his creation of the NAAWP. He was rightly not permitted to.
Given the horrendous oppression of blacks, secret murders and beatings, and hundreds of public lynchings a certain reaction is understandable. The Nation of Islam should be allowed to move into the mainstream and be forgiven but forgiveness requires repentance. Farrakhan has never repented and never stopped. He has meerly lessened the intensity of his antisemitism, anti-white, homophobic, and anti feminist rhetoric.
For those who think Farrakhan is on the same level as Coulter or Falwell I suggest you research his writings and quotes from his speeches as well as those of his top aids.
February 29, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, Farrakhan is not the leader of a huge movement that requires addressing. His followers are small in number. Second, as an article in The Nation points out, Farrakhan has gone beyond merely apologizing for his anti-Semitic remarks circa 1984. It's impossible to know what's in someone's mind, but there does not seem to be recent evidence to suggest Farrakhan has continued to express anti-Semitic views so just as I would have given George Wallace the benefit of the doubt as to his changing views on segregation I'll do the same for Farrakhan.
The more important issue though is what significance Farrakhan's views have in 2008 given his diminished stature and what it means for a person or a group to have prejudice without power to act on it in any socially significant way. This is why Russert's question had the sub-text I believe it did.
Also, to equate Farrakhan with each of his one time associates. Khalid Muhammad---is this guy getting any attention anymore?---also makes little sense to me and I vaguely recall Farrakhan disassociated himself from Muhammad. But correct me if I'm wrong
February 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NOI was influential enough to issue a call and coordinate a march on Washington that resulted in over 800 thousand men in attendance. That's a rather impressive accomplishment imo and I wonder how large it would have been if it wasn't just men. 1995 is hardly ancient history, I doubt his organization has dwindled to impotence in just 12 years.
Farrakhan has given apologies of varying degrees always the result of intense public outcry. While the public pressure has resulted in a lessening of his racist rhetoric, which is a good thing, but it has by no means stopped it. Its quite easy to find antisemitic comments made by Farrakhan in the last few years though I admit not of the virulance of earlier years. Just toss a few keywords in google. "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" is still being distributed by the NOI. If Wallace continued to hand out copies of, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" would you still be giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Public condemnation is the only tool we have in the fight against racism that doesn't break laws and its not easy to get it focused. Its simply not possible to shine a light everywhere nor will that light eliminate all racism in an organization. There's clearly a lot more work to be done in many other areas. But I think there is ample evidence that the NOI has not changed sufficiently nor diminished in influence enough that it is time to move on.
February 29, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the post, Tim Russert is out of control. He really took pride in sticking it too the candidates. And since Obama had not solicted Farrakhan's support, he certainly should not have been badgered by Russert to disavow him. It has nothing to do with the campaign.
February 28, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the beauty of sports (as opposed to politics, which has its own special allure); in golf, a 600 yard par 5 doesn't care what color you are, what your last name is, or even who you're competing with. It's all up to you.
February 28, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Tiger Woods so good because he's an Alien from Outer Space? Read my post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/defense-from-outerspace-aliens.php
February 29, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Milton Mankoff, the OP:
Good post, I totally agree! Very well written, you've given me some ammunition to debate with others.
Especially the point you make that in 1938 especially (but of course long before that) jews had strong anti-German sentiments, they were all anti-antisemites, so to speak. But, they had a good reason to feel distrustful, rensentful and belligrent towards gentiles, just like blacks have to feel screwed over by 'The Man', the system and the white dominated establishment in general.
When debating or discussing with people, I've used the Jewish parallel sometimes, to drive home a point. These days, with their love fest for Israel (and their inability to see a difference between anti-semitism and anti-Israeli occupational policy), it works particularly well with conservatives. But some are too antisemitic for that still. Then I just use a woman-parallel ;)
February 29, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
+1 for pointing out the difference between prejudice and prejudice + power and prejudice + power + willingness to exercise it.
Best thing about an obama candidacy for me is the we'll actually talk about race in public for while. That's a very very good thing.
February 29, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment