Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
E Pluribus, Unum
Four years ago, Barack Obama burst upon the national stage with an inspirational address, decrying those who would seek to divide the nation. "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America," he thundered, "there's the United States of America."
Yesterday, an embattled Obama articulated a far more realistic vision of the role race plays in our society. He acknowledged that there is indeed a black America and a white America. That a racial divide runs so deeply through our nation that we fail to credit or understand each other's grievances. That anger on either side of that divide is so real, and so profound, as to have produced a racial stalemate.
And yet, precisely because of that dour realism, this second speech was far more compelling than Obama's debut. To understand that apparent paradox, it's worth considering what Obama actually said about the state of race in America.
First, let's sketch the broad contours of the debate into which he was inserting himself. There are those on the left who contend that race is chimerical, a tool used by elites to divide the working classes. On the right, culture has largely supplanted genetics as the explanation of choice for racial disparities, in either case, rendering the problem all-but-intractable and absolving society of blame. And, as Obama himself pointed out, in the broad American center silence has been the rule - resentments fester just below the surface, but are rarely voiced in public. Into that void stepped the junior senator from Illinois.
As is his wont, Obama drew upon the most compelling elements of each of these visions, without succumbing to their excesses. He echoed the classic leftist critique of political and business leaders who exploit racial divisions to distract "attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze." And he affirmed the right's insistence on the danger of "becoming victims of our past" and the need for "taking full responsibility for our own lives."
Then he went a step further. "Trinity," Obama said "embodies the black community" in all its richness and all its shortcomings, and he is as much a part of that community as it is of him. And buried in that is a radical claim about the nature of America. By speaking of the joys of communal life and the strength he draws from his Christian faith, Obama was making the case for the importance of the particular amidst the universal. That's why he chose to read aloud from his memoir a passage describing his sudden epiphany that Trinity was built upon a foundation of collective experience. That much, one suspects, Reverend Wright would have applauded.
But Obama was not finished: "Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black." There, in a single sentence, is the essence of Obama's insight. Our identity as Americans neither elides nor erases our other affiliations. Quite the contrary. It is our strong grounding in our own particular communities and traditions that allows us to unite around our shared American values. That's why the young community organizer on Chicago's South Side struggled to connect with his audience until he found a church of his own - a particular community to ground him, and to allow him to reach for the universal. It's why communities of faith and of ethnicity, of shared values and activities, have always formed the basis of our vibrant civic life. When Obama speaks of "binding our particular grievances...to the larger aspirations of all Americans," he's simultaneously arguing for the importance of particular identities, which provide the basis for mobilization, and for the primacy of shared national goals. We are a United States of America because, instead of simply denying or suppressing our differences, we choose to build upon our unique identities in the pursuit of a more perfect union. E pluribus - out of the particular - Unum - we construct the singular.
And that's the second key insight that Obama offers. Differences need not be divisive. They can provide the basis for cooperation as readily as the grounds for animosity. In fact, Obama may be uniquely positioned to make this argument, born into a family "of every race and every hue." He reminds us that our separate communities blur at the edges, that they are fluid things, that they overlap and intermingle. That if we choose, our tragic racial history can at last be consigned to the past. That America is not static. That "our America can change. That is true genius of this nation."
It is, in the end, a subtle shift - but no less profound for that. If four years ago, Obama asked us to subsume our particular identities in the furtherance of collective goals, yesterday, he called upon us to harness our particular needs in the service of national aims. A call to unity that asks us to draw upon our separate identities is far more likely to provide a lasting basis for cooperation than one which relies upon our forgetting our differences. With his speech in Philadelphia, Obama finally offered a vision of unity that was sufficiently mature and sophisticated to be more than inspirational - it was convincing.
Comments (55)
Obama's decision to do this cannot have been easy; he reports that many of his advisors were urging a more cautious approach.
What this whole episode tells me is that Obama -- a temperamentally cautious guy -- is nevertheless willing to "go long" and expend some political capital when he sees an issue that is central to the progressive agenda.
In this case, sure, he's advancing his own campaign. But he's also raising the level of public discussion about race -- trying to push a bit beyond insincere politeness, toward the sort of genuine understanding that requires acknowledging the valid sources of bitterness on both sides. And he's doing this all explicitly on the premise that racial division has been a "distraction" and an obstacle to progressive politics, because it prevents working-class people from uniting to pursue their shared economic interests.
And now we're getting a million YouTube hits for that/i> message. This is the sort of action that has long-term progressive implications; its benefits could extend beyond one candidate or one campaign.
This is the promise we all saw back in January and February. He's making good on it, precisely when the going gets tough.
March 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For any video on youtube to be number 1 that is about politics and not about some scandal is quite remarkable.
March 19, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's also not forget that this video is not some 60 second blip. It's over 30 minutes long and coming up fast on 2 million views.
March 19, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was a great speech, but why all the "ground breaking" comments? I've been hearing all these things for the last 45 years.
March 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who attended diversity training in Seattle during the 90's would take everything Obama had to say for granted. And, by participating in a mandatory program for all City of Seattle employees, they would have experienced a concrete program, designed to promote valuing diversity. Obama's speech was a necessary speech, designed to hold on to his base and keep his campaign alive. It was addressed first to his base, secondly to the super delegates. Unfortunately, he's now running all out as the black candidate, asking us to value him for the unique culture he would bring to the office, including the experience of prophetic sermons.
March 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he is running as any "race" candidate (which I'd argue he's not), the speech was more indicative as running as a mutt. (In case anyone takes that as derogatory, it is definitely not meant as such. We all have differing degrees of mutt-ness.)
He talked about his white background and his black background. How does that make him the "black" candidate?
March 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy
Evidently, I didn't succeed in expressing myself as clearly as I had hoped.
I did not mean to suggest that Obama had been touting an idea as banal as multi-culturalism or respect for diversity. Alas, that does indeed seem to be what many took away from the speech. The crucial point, I believe, is this. To "value diversity" requires allowing ourselves to be defined by our differences. It's a way of saying, in effect, we tend to approach the world in ways similar to other members of our own group, and differently than members of other groups, and so assembling those different perspectives will yield insights and progress. (Or at least, that's the theory. In practice, it sometimes means little more than a tacit agreement not to broach our deeply-held disagreements.) There is certainly much that is useful or true within such an approach, but it also contains a rather confounding problem - if we elevate diversity as our defining national value, how, precisely, are we supposed to conceive of ourselves as a single nation?
But that's not what Obama said yesterday. He didn't talk about America as a beautiful mosaic, or how our varying perspectives might enrich our national discourse. He didn't ask us to value each other because of our different experiences and viewpoints, nor did he ask us to ignore or paper over those differences.
Rather, as I tried to express above, he asked us to acknowledge our differences, and then to draw upon them in seeking the common ground. It is, in that sense, the very opposite of valuing diversity. At its best, a respect for diversity tends to breed tolerance - no mean feat, but there's a thin line between tolerance and indifference. Obama is instead asking us to care deeply, to care profoundly - but to focus on the things we share in common. If a black grandfather and a white schoolgirl both believe that a nation as great as ours needs a healthcare system to match, Obama's saying, they should work together toward that goal. But at the same time, he's acknowledging that their support from that goal is drawn from radically different experiences. The black grandfather may draw on the strong African-American tradition of communal responsibility, on the Christian idea of being one's brother's keeper, or on a lifetime of watching those around him be denied access to care. But those experiences are valuable not simply because they grant him a different perspective on the issue, but because when beliefs are grounded in personal experiences, strong traditions, and cohesive communities, they tend to be more firmly held and more effectively put into practice.
That, as I read it, is the central idea in Obama's speech. That our communities (and the differences they embody) are quite real, and incredibly valuable. But that they can serve as the foundations of shared accomplishments as readily as the basis for divides. And if you know of a politician who has said as much before, I ask you to point me to his speech.
March 19, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the central idea as you read it. With respect, I think it would be a waste of time to find previous examples that are similar to a speech you heard, but Obama never gave.
But I'm willing to see your point of view.
"But that they can serve as the foundations of shared accomplishments as readily as the basis for divides."
Can you give me an example of the kind of accomplishments you're talking about? Maybe then I can point you to a politician, a speech, and the concrete actions that followed the speech and made the dream a reality.
March 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reposting to fix tags, with additions.
Unfortunately, he's now running all out as the black candidate...
That's funny, Billy. Only yesterday you that he was running all out as the BIRACIAL candidate.
Your words:
WHICH ONE IS IT, Billy? Never mind; we already know. As with the rest of your posts, it's whatever's politically convenient for you in the moment, whatever you can use to trash Obama with, until you find some new toy to play with and try to make us forget about the last shiny one you picked up and dangled in front of us.
asking us to value him for the unique culture he would bring to the office, including the experience of prophetic sermons....
And you got soundly trounced in the comments thread last time you tried to trot out that line, also. You've "gotten beyond" race, "gotten beyond" call and response, and "gotten beyond" reality.
Never mind, of course, that this is a far, far cry from what Obama actually said.
Never mind that the New York Times, which in January endorsed Clinton in the primary, today called Obama's speech his profile in courage.
This is what you and your ilk call "running all out as the black candidate." What the NYT eloquently paraphrases above, in reference to his grandmother, is what your ilk, and the Powerlineblog winguts, call "throwing his grandmother under the bus".
Not too long ago the Hillbots were trashing Obama because his candidacy claimed to "transcend" race (when he was, you know, obviously The Black Candidate, and why didn't he just admit it). Now, according to Billy (today, anyway, even if Billy said something different yesterday), Obama is "running all out as the black candidate". And that's somehow wrong, and there's only one reason for that -- because Obama's doing it (according to Billy).
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Last addition: DF made the last point much better than I did.
March 20, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you give me an example of the kind of accomplishments you're talking about?
Try this one out, for starters.
Then, to paraphrase a rabbi in my tradition, "Go and study."
March 20, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but I wasn't looking for examples of Obama's legislative accomplishments, most of which are posted on his campaign site and all of which I sure required him to get the support of Republicans and Democrats of all races.
What I was looking for was specific examples from Fly of "shared accomplishments" that were founded on racial differences. I'm assuming they exist, by the way. I just can't quite come up with one.
I'll give you an example of what I mean. In Saint Joseph/Benton Harbor the Cornerstone Alliance is an economic development effort to promote and develop both Saint Joseph and Benton Harbor, areas that were the scene of racial conflict.
http://www.cstonealliance.org/welcome.phtml
I'm trying to imagine what that might look like on the national level, or how the federal government might promote something like that on the regional, state or local levels.
March 20, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy
Evidently, I didn't succeed in expressing myself as clearly as I had hoped.
Fly, you expressed yourself quite clearly.
You are not responsible, however, when some people willfully misread your comments, just as they willfully misread Obama's speech. (That's assuming they read it in the first place.)
When Powerlineblog and other hard-right wingnuts claim that Obama in his speech threw his grandmother under the bus, you know that they are grasping at straws.
And you also know that some people will believe Powerlineblog.
Not that that kind of winguttery is confined to Powerlineblog or anything.
March 20, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, he's now running all out as the black candidate...
That's funny, Billy. Only yesterday you claimed that he was running all out as the BIRACIAL candidate.
Your words:
March 20, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack is both black and white. He's not the black candidate. And he's not the white candidate either. He moves easily within both communities.
And he is calling us to UNITE. I'd love to see buttons that say simply UNITE. It was a transcendent speech. By a remarkably mature and wise person. Regardless of the outcome of the election, he has already done great service to the nation.
I for one am profoundly grateful.
Thanks for your analysis, Fly. As you can imagine I will thrilled that he made this speech. It answered all my hopes from last week and more. Yes, so many of us would like to have moved beyond race. But obviously we are still working to UNITE.
March 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like you to consider the fact that those of us who have already moved beyond race are better able to see and appreciate the speech for what it was. A political speech. It was a clever one. He managed to change the subject from patriotism to race. And you? Hook, line and sinker.
March 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But .. but ...Billy -- I thought the subject WAS race because that kind of vile, hate-filled, 'damn America' stuff is okay when it's said by 'patriotic' white preachers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
("Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero")
March 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect. That's exactly the twist Obama gave it. He ended up defending the context of the remarks in racial instead of political terms. Some voters are going to see that as asking for an affirmative action type of break for the Obama campaign, which draws tremendous support, not only in enthusiasm but in get out the vote efforts from black churches. A cynical observor might notice that if Obama had turned his back on Wright and "the black church" he might as well have made the speech a concession speech.
To put the remarks in the context of politics, we might ask why is it that Ron Paul can sit on a stage with John McCain and say we brought 9/11 on ourselves through our adventures in the Middle East, and Reverend Wright can't?
March 19, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was a political speech. As was George Washington's farewell address, the Gettysburg Address, FDR's Fireside Chats, and MLK's "I have a Dream".
So what political speeches has Hillary Clinton made?
March 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every single person I have ever met who claims to have "moved beyond race" has been (1) white, and (2) tragically (and massively) ignorant of how the vast majority of non-white Americans perceive the influence of race today. It's very easy to "move beyond" a problem that has only secondary effects on you.
March 19, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gather you're not beyond race. You also seem to have a grudge against "whites." Man, have you found a home.
March 19, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, Runaway Horses. You're not the evolved, enlightened type, like BG, who's moved beyond all that yucky race stuff into the lovely nonracial Disneyland that is 2008 America, where racism no longer exists and is certainly no longer a topic for polite discussion. (It helped, of course, when we erased New Orleans.) People like BG have moved beyond all that tired old stuff, and incidentally, backward Negro cultural tropes like call and response 'n' stuff like that.
March 20, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. How convenient for Billy Glad to have "moved beyond race" when he was never affected by it in the first place.
March 19, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every single person I have ever met who claims to have "moved beyond race" has been (1) white,...
Oh, come now, RH. You forgot all about Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly? (Maybe Condi Rice too, but not as sure about that one.) That's two, maybe three, right there. ;)
... and (2) tragically (and massively) ignorant of how the vast majority of non-white Americans perceive the influence of race today.
Well, that certainly describes Connerly, Thomas, and Rice (and, parenthetically, Billy Glad and his ilk).
March 20, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt this was a political speech, for it was exactly political pressure the required Barack to give it. However, knowing the reasons behind the speech does not in any way devalue the truth contained therein.
March 19, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I found particularly remarkable about Obama's speech was its tremendous efficacy in exposing the base quality of mainstream media analysis of race issues.
I think regardless of whether you're a Clinton or Obama supporter, we can all agree that the media has done an abysmal job of looking at how race plays a role in this campaign. They've been content to touch the topic on only the most superficial level: what level of black votes versus white votes versus Latino votes Obama or Hillary has won in each successive state; whether Gerri Ferraro "went too far"; whether Obama has a "Farrakhan problem." I haven't seen a single media personality actually evaluate the content of Wright's sermons and ask why such a large number of African Americans in the audience voiced their agreement with him. The talking heads aren't willing to take a step back and actually consider what motivates the demographic voting trends we've seen beyond simplistic references to "identity politics." And the media has been quick as ever to give voice the cretinous bamboozlers who focus on monumentally trivialities like Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin and his so-called "patriotism problem."
Obama's speech—in its breadth and depth, in its seriousness and potency—shocked me. I had become so used to the idiotic squabbling in the media that I had quite literally forgotten that this kind of measured, profound assessment of the issue was possible. And Obama offered more than an assessment; he offered a starting point, a recognition of the many identical desires held by people of all races, from which we can embark in trying to solve the problems that plague this country.
When you compare what Obama offered us last night with what Brit Hume offered us last weekend (endless commentary on Wright to the exclusion of any substantive disccusion about issues Americans face today), Hume looks like a worm. He is pathetic and petty and—most importantly—bad for America as a nation. The media's obsession with black anger has prevented us from recognizing the goals common to the vast majority of us Americans and the steps we need to take to accomplish those goals. Obama's speech allowed me to take a step back and recognize just how profoundly wretched the quality of debate is on this issue.
March 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I found particularly remarkable about Obama's speech was its tremendous efficacy in exposing the base quality of mainstream media analysis of race issues.
Agreed. I want to explore a couple of things I think Obama did in addition to that.
1) He laid the groundwork for blowing the Reagan coalition wide open, by acknowledging the deep suffering of working class and poor whites, describing their resentment in sympathetic terms that showed he really "got" what they had gone through -- and then by describing, eloquently and uncompromisingly, how white Republican elites cynically exploited their suffering for their own electoral ends.
2) Continuing that theme, he helped frame the debate in ways that Thomas Frank also did in What's the Matter with Kansas? by showing that as a result of this cynical manipulation, a generation of "Reagan Democrats" were bamboozled into voting in such a way that entrenched those elites and enabled them to continue their class warfare against middle class, working class and poor people of all skin colors.
3) He showed the complicity of the corporate media in (1) and (2). It's the "base quality" you mention, but it's more than that. The base quality of mainstream media analysis of race derives from the fact that the corporate owners of mainstream media benefit from the continuation of the discussion on those base terms.
That's for starters.
If he does nothing else in this campaign, he will have done a lasting service to American progressives and to the Democratic Party, if only the party would listen.
The money quote:
This, btw, is what Billy Glad describes as "running all out as the black candidate." Riiiiiight.
As I posted elsewhere, this scares the shit out of the corporate media, because it takes away that base quality of analysis from which they benefit so handsomely, and, I suspect, scares the shit out of Billy Glad, as well.
March 20, 2008 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gharlane
You are so right that is the money quote and core issue which fuels the politics of division and keeps America mired in classicism, racism, and cynicism.
Obama eloquentlly said what Dean did in a bumling way in 04 when he talked about the 'redneck with the starsandbars flag' decal on the back of his pickup truck voting against his economic interest.
Ours is a capitlist society and those ends can only be served as the expense of the masses. The ruling elites have always dvidided the masses to maintain their stature. We see this same dynamic in the classic scenes of Gangs of NY where the white elite speaks derisively of the Irish to Daniel (the working class butcher)and pitts the American business owner and the poor against the new immigrants.
Nothing has changed in 80 years except the year and the perennial agreement amongst the poor immigrant working classes and their descendants to make brown and black people the penultimate underclass in perpetuity in a desperate attempt to hold onto their dream which sleeps away as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer also known as 'squeezing the middle class'.
What Obama said is if white middle class America can transcend their need to keep brown/black folks as the underclass they can win POLITICALLY against the true culprit the coporate elite and ruling money elites. That the real hoax being perpetrated is that they will be better off as long as they keep one group from getting ahead rather than marshall their forces against the special interests and corporate moguls that have taken control of our government.
The most recent glaring example of this is the bail out for the BANKS not HOMEOWNERS. Our US treaury was raided of billions of dollars to shore up the capitalist banking system NOT to save working class Americans from losing their homes and prevent foreclosures and them losing their homes. The banks made money with those sub-prime loans and now are being bailed out while the homeowner loses tWICE. They lose their hard earned money that paid the profits to the banks and they lose the home that the bank now keeps as well!
Did white America hear the message or will they once again be so consumed with the racial fear bogeyman stereotype of the 'angerblackman' that once again they vote their RACIST FEARS instead of their AMERICAN Dreams and hopes. Today it is Jeremiah Wright yesterday it was Willy Horton. Obama knows that racist bogeyman well as his own grandmother told him of her fears that he in essence represented to her! Yet white America claims he threw his grandmother under the bus because he shared how he knows full well their racist fears and has had them voiced to him by the grandmother that loved him more than anything? Obama said I understand your fears and they hear, you threw your grandmother under the bus? The man showed profound empathy for the racist fear that paralyzes them and he also was saying he harbored no resentment of them. Only empathy because he embraces those differences within his own family.
To vote their economic insterests and American dreams and hopes white citizens have to see that black and brown people are Americans too. That what we all hold in common is the American dream and all the hopes and ideals that come with it, independent of how our experiencs of American life are different.
Those are the differnces that Obama wants us to transcend as AMERICANS. That ethnocentric thing that shuns differences paralyzes us with fear and leverages that fear for divisivness instead of embracing the differences and focusing on what we all have in common as human beings with the same hopes and dreams as parents, workers and children for the American dream.
Obama told us that our dreams do not come at the expense of other Americans dream if we vote our hopes and not our fears.
March 20, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
[quote]I'd like you to consider the fact that those of us who have already moved beyond race are better able to see and appreciate the speech for what it was. A political speech.[/quote]
Oh, thank you, you superior form of life, for showing up on forums populated by mere mortals and enlightening us all.
March 19, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily superior. Just more highly evolved. More cooked. That's not necessarily a good thing.
March 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking more out of touch and irrelevant myself.
March 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to have a lawyer with the where-with-all, oratory and rhetorical skill representing me in a court of law. Someone who can convincingly condense broad and deep ideas into words that ring true and deep in the minds and hearts of the people it is aimed at. In the end, that is all our government is: representatives of the people.
Honestly, I don't know what else he is supposed to do... wrestle a bear maybe?
March 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've nailed it. In short, nothing Obama can ever say or do will ever be good enough for Billy Glad and his ilk, as I posted in more detail elsewhere.
March 20, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe his speech is the most honest and profound discourse on race by a major politician in my lifetime. He refused to disavow a fundamental relationship with a pastor who words have been at times clearly hateful. He disavowed such words, and explained that they are not relevant in a society which itself can progress. He acknowledged the anger minorities express "in the barbershop or around the kitchen table." He acknowledged the legitimate concerns of whites who have been told to "bus their children to a school across town." As you note, Fly, he ultimately asked us to find the "common stake we all have in one another."
When is the last time a major political figure talked to the American people like adults, speaking honestly on difficult issues, comprehending differing points of view? My fear is that the extraordinary depth and richness of this speech will be lost on those who fail to read it. It will be reduced to soundbites on cable and the internet. For too many, the punch line will be that he failed to break with Rev. Wright, and they will say, "I wouldn't stay in a Church whose pastor said such vile things," thereby closing the discussion.
Of course that isn't the question. The question is whether someone who failed to leave this Church (because of what this pastor said at times) is not qualified, for that reason alone, to be President, when there is no evidence anywhere in the record this the Senator's views coincide with his minister's.
My definition of a leader is someone who comprehends complex and difficult issues and communicates the truth about them to those whom he/she is leading. After reading this speech, I know who I want to answer the 3 a.m. phone call in the White House.
March 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, it sounds more like you're "over it" than beyond it. You're tired of hearing about it, don't see it and therefore it doesn't exist. And when someone waves it in front of you, it still doesn't exist, because after all, you're over it. Someone else's race isn't your problem, right?
There is no "beyond race" in America, just as there's no "beyond gender" or "beyond religion." You may live in some bubble, but if you think everyone else in the country does--the guys who beat gay men to death, the pastor who says the Catholic Church is the Great Whore of Babylon, the kids who light homeless men on fire for fun--you're living in your own private Idaho. It must be nice, though I hear Idaho gets damned windy in the winter. Is that where you get it?
March 19, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad says that Obama was "defending the context of [Wright's] remarks in racial instead of political terms" but, actually, he wasn't defending them. He was stating that Wright was a man who grew up in and was affected by a racial atmosphere that left Wright with resentments that are justified by his history. But that Obama's life and opportunities are indicative of the fact that the country has evolved. So Billy Glad didn't get Obama's point - he wasn't saying that Wright speaks for him.
What's really disappointing about Clinton supporters is that if she had already gotten out of this race, they would be able to acknowledge the extraordinary candidate he is. As it is, they have to, because of misguided loyalty, grasp at straws to try to figure out what they object to about Obama. I hope that people, in a year or so, are not looking back on this election as they did with the Bush-Gore election, wishing that things had just been a little bit different. We keep heading toward disaster because a few slightly demented people just can't get it together to see what's possible.
March 19, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Billy, sorry about the personal attack. I usually try to stay more general. I may not agree with you, I don't think we should be attacking each other's character.
Does that make me an Obama supporter? Sorry, sorry, I just can't help myself. There's plenty of decent people here, if you just step over the trolls.
March 19, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense taken.
March 20, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
I've never met anyone who has truly moved "beyond race." I know some very well-meaning people who believe they've moved beyond race. In fact, I once believed I had moved beyond race--I try to be a thoughtful, reasonable and kind person, and I believe racism is deplorable.
But as I got older, I came to recognize some of my own very subtle racial thought patterns--probably the result of conditioning I received while growing up in the South--that I had yet to overcome. It was humbling and unnerving to realize that I was still vulnerable to thinking in racial frames even when there's no relevance to context.
I'm only glad I was the one to catch myself in the act--if another person had called me on it, I would surely have reacted defensively, perhaps resisting acknowledgment of my lack of control over my own thoughts. (This describes what has happened to so many of my friends and family.) The best I can do is to avoid feeling defensive, remain open and observant of my thoughts (when I can), and earnestly work to become conscious of thoughts giving race a false relevance.
If you have truly moved beyond race, I salute you. I think you are the exception, not the rule. I hope you will remain conscientious and not take it for granted.
March 19, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about calling down the thunder! Rather than try to answer everything and everyone at once, I think I'll just restate a couple of points and only directly answer the people I think are worth answering.
"Beyond race." I don't think most people, outside the circle of hard core bigots thinks of race as a matter of dna or genetics as being relevant. It's culture and the collision of cultures that is relevant. To me, to be post racial means that we have come to a place where we are as free to reject aspects of a culture as we are to accept or even value them. I think in that sense most people on this blog are beyond race.
"Running all out as the black candidate." I believe the Wright flap forced Obama to embrace black culture more than he wanted to at this stage of his campaign. While the speech made a number of references to his "white" upbringing and culture, the Wright clips were so vividly in people's minds, and the speech was so much about addressing the Wright issue, that the result was to accentuate Obama's "blackness" and, to anyone who looks at the origins of his campaign and at the role black churches have played in turning out the vote for Obama, the role of the black church culture in his life.
"The bi-racial candidate." I'm arguing that he made that claim, absurdly enough based on dna rather than culture, but, in effect, the speech made him more "black." Not to the writers here, of course, but to the general public.
And, finally, to the real discussion I'd like to have.
Fly wrote, speaking of Obama's teaching about differences: "But that they can serve as the foundations of shared accomplishments as readily as the basis for divides."
And I asked: "Can you give me an example of the kind of accomplishments you're talking about? Maybe then I can point you to a politician, a speech, and the concrete actions that followed the speech and made the dream a reality."
So what I was asking for was an example from the past or an example of something Fly imagines happening in the future that would be an example of shared accomplishments founded on racial differences. That was a serious question directed to a serious person.
March 20, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, for example, The Cornerstone Alliance in Benton Harbor/Saint Joseph.
http://www.cstonealliance.org/welcome.phtml
March 20, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why have we let Billy completely hijack this comments section? What about fly's excellent post?
March 20, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The beauty is that although he's uniquely qualified to lead us at this time - his racial, ethnic, religious and other sauce is not as unique as the uninitiated would think. There are tons of us out there. Why N'awlins is/was an ethnographic treasure-trove.
As a 'mutt' - to compress my roots - my family was Leavenworth, KS to Opelousas, LA, and N'awlins and Waco then Houston Texas. W/ the Creole (comprised of French, Spanish, African, Native American, White and so on and dooby-dooby doo) - a Great G'ma who was a slave and married a Native American. And and English last name that I can trace to a specific town off the coast of England.
This is only new to those who have not had to question their heritage. We always had to ask b/c being 'black' but light enough to 'pass' w/ green, or blue eyes and blond hair of a certain texture.
That's why N'awlins is worthy of preservation - b/c it truly tells the melting-pot story.
Thanks for your post - obviously sparked s'thing for me.
Cheers.
March 20, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I find extrememly funny: when that loser jerf-off Kerry was getting pounded by the Swift people, he delayed releasing his Navy records. Why? apparently because he was embarassed that W scored higher on the military IQ test than he did. JFK, Jr? I know from a good source that his LSAT was in the 10th percentile range. And Obama? I'd love for him to release his SAT and LSAT scores, and then let's have a discussion abour race and preferential treatment.
March 20, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks someone is bitter because they got a crappy LSAT.
March 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
God, Kerry really was a jerk-off. Losing to a a walking national catastrophe. And Gore? How can you be an incumbent VP in the most popular administration in ages, and lose to someone who was obviously a moron? One possible answer: Donna Brazille. And Condi Rice? Oh, man, let's pick a third rate academic hack to be NSA and then Secy of State. And Justice Thomas? Oh, man, another disaster. But all three of these AA babies have been praised one time or another as being, for example, "the smartest woman on the planet." And yet in Moscow she's a laughingstock because she can barely spit out a few words in Russian, despite claiming to be fluent in the language.
March 20, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Milord:JFK, Jr? I know from a good source that his LSAT was in the 10th percentile range.
He passed the bar. That's the test that matters. Also see below for a personal anecdote.Doesn't make any point , just indulging myself.
Milord: And Obama? I'd love for him to release his SAT and LSAT scores
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe to be invited on to the Harvard Law Review you have to
have top first year grades. Something like top 20%.
.............................................
My daughter K living on the upper West Side 20 years ago heard shots from the floor below and a voice saying "I'm dying". She called the police and later went to the station house to talk about the murder.
Daughter S , a law student , Who deposed you?
Daughter K Some cute Irish guy.
Daughter S , incredulous, That was JFK, Jr. You must be the only woman in New York who wouldn't
recognize him!
March 20, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check.
If you think you've "moved beyond race...
You're not even close. Indeed, you're probably traveling backward.
March 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.... it's the same as sainthood. If you think you're a saint.... you've missed the road!
March 20, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, dumdass, you sorta prove my point. One thing about the HLR? If you are African-American, you don't need to grade on, they have non-competitive slots for black students. I tell you, Obama doesn't have a single sustantial accomplishment to his name.
March 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't have a single accomplishment?
He's passed more laws that Hillary!
Including laws to stop police beatings of suspects, and to stop corruption in government.
I swear, I wish people would do SOME research on Obama before spamming lies.
March 20, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, OK, as a legislator he has a few minor bills passed. for a guy in his 40s it doesn't seem like a lot to me. as an AA transfer student he would have needed merely pok grades to get into Columbia, and as an AA applicant, a mediocre LSAT would be good enough for HLS, and HLR has special non-competitive spots for African-Americans, and his legal career is pretty insubstantial, so yeah, he's a half-articulate black guy who's gotten by his whole life impressing gullible upper-class white people.
March 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Spew ridiculous comments
2. Force a response from dumbfounded readers
3. Rather than engage your critics, spew the same crap again.
4. Move on to spew the same ridiculous crap all over again on another thread....
Kinda heading down the "Marginal Player" road, aren't you, fella?
March 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, good luck with this strategy, dimwit. :-D
I assume you want everyone to begin to believe your spin--that Obama's a slacking, trifling n****r who has just gotten by because of affirmative action. Riiiight. Half-articulate. Riiiight.
Let me just say this, because it's something Republican trolls should be able to understand:
Money talks, and your bullsh*t walks. Obama has shattered fundraising records, and it has Republicans sh*tting their pants. So you think he's nothing but a shifty, high-talking, uppity n****r? There are a lot of folks out here who don't--and we're willing to put our volunteer time, our dollars, and our votes behind him.
Can you understand this? The market has spoken, doofus! :-)
March 20, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am officially tuning out for the next few days to watch the NCAA tournament. MP, milorad, various and sundry other Trolls, I will miss you!
March 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOTW,
I had come to the conclusion that Obama's speech could not be captured. I had seen a youtube of the thing, then read the media, and everything missed the mark badly.
But your piece here has proven me wrong. This is insightful, comprehensive, and well written. Thanks very much.
March 22, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment