UPDATE: Here is the speech, “A More Perfect Union.” The transcript is below the fold.
Barack Obama was in Philadelphia today and delivered a speech about race, religion, and with it, cultural differences and perceptions. The dustup over the contentious comments by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama’s church, who stepped down from his religion advisor role in the campaign after inflammatory recorded comments of Wright’s sermons surfaced cast a pall over the campaign — and the Right ran with it.
Barack Obama has to give this speech because he has sold himself as a uniter, a bridge builder and when you have someone like Wright connected to the campaign railing that Hillary Clinton didn’t understand what it was like to be black, saying “Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a n—–,” you have to cut them loose.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
However, the message delivered is not a lie, it’s true. She cannot know. Black men are too often bear the brunt of an unequal and unfair criminal justice system. In this case, the fiery, condemning delivery does nothing to address how people can come together in greater understanding and empathy — I gather that wasn’t the point of that particular sermon, but to allow the rage of injustice out from the pulpit to those who understand.
That said, people have to acknowledge part of the reason for the discomfort lies in Wright’s delivery of the message. It’s so black, isn’t it? It sounds militant to tender ears outside the traditional black church. For that matter, it doesn’t resemble the delivery of sermons in other denominations of black churches — I was raised Episopalian, and those folks aren’t the hooping and hollering types of congregations. That said, what does that all mean? If the same messages were delivered with a velvet glove, with less inflammatory language, would it generate the same reaction? I doubt it. But what does that mean in the bigger picture. I’m not sure. I think it requires more dialogue. Dialogue too many of us are afraid to engage in.
A message from Trinity United Church (Obama’s house of worship), provides some insight on how the commentary about Wright’s remarks are viewed on that side of the fence.
This came in my inbox:
Trinity United Church of Christ’s ministry is inclusive and global. The following ministries have been developed under Dr. Wright’s ministerial tutelage for social justice: assisted living facilities for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with HIV/AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary.Does that excuse conspiratorial remarks about the US government causing AIDS Wright has mentioned in past sermons? No, not really. But Wright wouldn’t be the first person making that assertion without proof.Moss added, “The African American Church was born out of the crucible of slavery and the legacy of prophetic African American preachers since slavery has been and continues to heal broken marginalized victims of social and economic injustices. This is an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”
A larger question I have is why either campaign, or the GOP need to bring religion into any of this — they aren’t running to be a spiritual leader. Quite frankly, Democrats have been chasing the religious vote at their own peril — take a look at the GOP. Its moderate wing was completely silenced by the party’s decision to jump in bed with the radical right religious set. Fiery sermons with bigoted hateful remarks against Catholics (Hagee), LGBTs (just about all of the professional “Christian” set) were tolerated, endorsements not turned away. This is what happens when church, state and politics are conflated as essential to political ascent.
This isn’t a call to ignore faith communities — but a plea to put personal faith into proper context. It has no place in governing or politicking because it often has a toxic, misguided effect on people’s ability to govern on behalf all citizens of different faiths, no faith at all, sexual orientation or race. Look at what we’ve seen come out of the mouth of Sally Kern over the last week. Need I say more?
But I want to turn the discussion back to race, because I think this episode with Rev. Wright exposed the whole “scary black revolution” primal fear here.
When I heard Wright, I heard a delivery not unlike the unhinged gay-bashing Rev. Willie Wilson (Wright is actually gay-affirming, btw). The delivery sounds so angry, so harsh to many. You get the feeling, based on the reaction out there, that people are afraid Barack Obama by association, is some sort of Trojan Horse of Black Anger waiting to be unleashed, prepared to exact revenge on white society by pulling their wool over their eyes by appearing friendly, “articulate” and non-threatening. In other words — not that [Wright] kind of black guy. And it’s why Obama had to politically cut him loose, and why he’s giving this speech today.
politicalceci @ DKos asked some questions in a thread and precious few took her up on the offer to provide answers. They are questions I’ve asked in one way or another in various posts on race matters. As an exercise, take a crack at this modified list.
* Do you believe that political consultants use subtle and overt racism to score points because it works, and that the end justifies the means? Is that good for our society, or does it matter?
* Do you think that some white people are uncomfortable when race comes up in the presidential race, from either campaign or surrogates? Why?
* Do you think that the uncomfortability of discussions about racism and implicit bias causes a shutdown of honest dialog about it in the progressive movement?
* Does the potential defensive reaction of blacks toward broaching the topic of race inhibit at all? What personal incidents inform that judgment - and is it fair to apply that to all black people?
* Does the fear of being perceived as racist or patronizing outweigh the benefits of addressing honest questions we have about the effect of race?
All of these questions, of course, can be applied to gender as well, but for the sake of staying on topic, let’s try to stay within the boundaries of race in order to make this more pointed, and less comparative. Doing so makes it more difficult because you have to dig deeper in thinking through answers. It’s easy to try to measure our problems with race, gender or sexual orientation against one another as if it’s an oppression Olympics. That’s not the point of the questions — it’s to reveal how race, in this case, has an impact of its own on all of us.
***
Brent Childers of Faith in America notes how the media has spent much attention on Rev. Wright to the exclusion of many of the same leaders we’ve seen Bush cozy up to who have delivered caustic messages.
Over and over again, listeners have heard Wright’s words; God damns America. At first it is reasonable to assume most Americans would recoil from such words coming from the pulpit. The particular interest in this pulpit is that a presidential candidate sits in front of it.As long as religion is used by either side in the political realm to divide — no matter the message or method of delivery — we all lose.Only in recent memory, consider how many times the Religious Right, from its pulpits, has stated that America is damned because of policies aimed at protecting gay and lesbian Americans from hate crimes and discrimination? How long have Americans, former presidential contenders and presidents sat in front of that pulpit?
It is not mere coincidence that this story was brought to our attention by the Fox News network, a media outlet that is perceived by many to carry water for the Religious Right. What is indeed shocking is how the mainstream media seemed blindsided by the story by first trying to ignore it and then falling right in line with Fox News in reporting on this as a story that has grave consequences for Obama and the Democrats.
This shows how far out of touch the mainstream media is with mainstream America. Even more disappointing is how far out of touch the mainstream media is when it comes to confronting the Religious Right’s spin machine and thinly veiled bigotry.
Here is the full text of Obama’s speechObama’s speech:
“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. 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.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
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 - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild.”
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. 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.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. 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.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. 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. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they 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.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. 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. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”
“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.
125 Responses to “Obama to take on race, religion and reconciling difference in speech today”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
He’s got bigger fish to fry than those…
From Crooksandliars.com
The blight wing of the republican party and the media ‘journalists’ that work tirelessly to keep them in power will stop at nothing to enforce their jaundiced view of anything non-republican. It’s so grade school playground bullshit but that’s what the majority of the people want.
And a friend said that you know there isn’t a god because of the conduct of those that claim to speak for him.
This block:
was quoted from Fournier’s article and was meant to be indented. It worked in the preview. See the C&L post…
I’m neither black nor American. I’ve lived in Europe and the Middle East, prior to moving to the US in 1989.
It’s been my experience that Rev. Wright has absolutely nailed it. It used to be that people outside the US, liked individual Americans that they met, but feared (and often hated) the US government for its foreign policy.
For the past 60 years the US has been supporting oppressive regimes in order to further its own imperial interests. Millions of people have suffered under those regimes. That’s a lot of chickens to come home to roost.
Remember:
“America is damned to hell because of its military aggression and racism, and 9/11 is the consequence” = unacceptably militaristic and radical
“America is damned to hell because of gays and abortion, and 9/11 and Katrina are the consequences” = a Christian leader whose opinions need to be considered by whoever ends up in the White House
Funny. Obama doesn’t know what it’s like to be called a bitch, a whore, a cunt, and ordered to iron some mens’ shirts. Let’s not mention that, though.
Matt,
Exactly.
Amanda had it right yesterday, this is not remotely as offensive as many of the hateful things that have spewed from the mouths of white pastors whose support both the Dems and GOP covet so deeply. This is about race, pure and simple.
Oh, wait, that’s right. He’s the one who uses sexist dogwhistles like “periodically feeling down” and “Claws come out.” Claws is pretty much a reference either to dogs(bitches) or cats (pussies.) So much for that.
The tone (vocal tone, not verbal tone) which some people — probably a lot of whom haven’t heard preachin’ in a real preachin’ church in years, if ever (Tucker Carlson?) — see as “hateful” or similar is really pretty standard for preachers from the fire-and-brimstone schools of pastoring.
When I lived in the south I could hear a lot of white preachers screaming and hyperventilating, too, on radio and TV. If you just went to the middle of their sermons and snipped out a few seconds, it would be pretty astounding, even if the words were totally benign.
So a lot of this kerfluffle is that a black preacher’s delivery apparently sounds “angry” to a bunch of white Episcopalians who’ve never heard any preacher, white or black, in full roar.
The words are a different matter, and some of those are certainly not the greatest thing to be associated with a candidate. Thing is, the candidate didn’t say them and then also disavowed them.
The tone (vocal tone, not verbal tone) which some people — probably a lot of whom haven’t heard preachin’ in a real preachin’ church in years, if ever (Tucker Carlson?) — see as “hateful” or similar is really pretty standard for preachers from the fire-and-brimstone schools of pastoring.
When I lived in the south I could hear a lot of white preachers screaming and hyperventilating, too, on radio and TV. If you just went to the middle of their sermons and snipped out a few seconds, it would be pretty astounding, even if the words were totally benign.
So a lot of this kerfluffle is that a black preacher’s delivery apparently sounds “angry” to a bunch of white Episcopalians who’ve never heard any preacher, white or black, in full roar.
The words are a different matter, and some of those are certainly not the greatest thing to be associated with a candidate. Thing is, the candidate didn’t say them and then also disavowed them.
It’s not really so much about race to me (believe it or not). I find such remarks offensive whether they come from a Buchanan or a Wright. Neither should be given a pass based on their race or which political party they support for office.
The rhetoric of “othering” is always damaging and toxic.
I’m getting tired of people saying that the kind of vitriol Wright has spewed only bothers white people because they’re “afraid of black churches”. What-the-fuck-ever.
Sheesh,
But which one becomes a major campaign issue as determined by the MSM? Do McCain’s campaign press conference center around the hateful remarks of “spiritual advisors” like Hagee? No. Can you come up with a reason that doesn’t involve race?
* Do you believe that political consultants use subtle and overt racism to score points because it works, and that the end justifies the means?
They can package it any way they want, but the truth is consultants DO USE racism to achieve results. Because these episodes just further muddy an already murky history of race relations in America, the ends DO NOT justify the means.
Is that good for our society, or does it matter?
Of course it matters. The fact is there are only two times races is an issue that gets “discussed” - some infamous trial, like O.J. Simpson, or during our political campaigns, where the racial issues are either based on the candidate’s race, the race(s) of the candidate’s supporters, or race as some boogeyman to GOTV.
* Do you think that some white people are uncomfortable when race comes up in the presidential race, from either campaign or surrogates? Why?
Yes. Many white people simply are not capable of understanding racial problems in America. They either have no regular contact with people who are not white, or they think their non-white acquaintances are “the good ones”. They probably have never even tried to see the problems people of color face every single day.
If you are not close enough to people of color to ask pointed questions and listen to pointed answers, you will never be in a position to see things through their eyes…
* Do you think that the uncomfortability of discussions about racism and implicit bias causes a shutdown of honest dialog about it in the progressive movement?
Absolutely. One of two things happens - either white progressives feel they already know all about the lives and opinions of POC and therefore don’t look deeper, or they are too uncomfortable to admit they don’t have more than the vaguest clue. Neither possibility is pleasant. But us white people need to get over it.
* Does the potential defensive reaction of blacks toward broaching the topic of race inhibit at all?”
Yes. Many white people are afraid of stepping on a landmine of racial ill-feelings.
“What personal incidents inform that judgment - and is it fair to apply that to all black people?”
I would venture that most white people can point to at least one (very) unpleasant incident that really soured them on talking to POC about race/culture issues. But you can’t give up. It certainly isn’t fair to assume all Blacks will jump down your throat when asked about some sticky issue. OTOH, its not fair for one POC to act as a representative for all POC.
Also, these things take time and familiarity. You wouldn’t pick a random POC and ask them cold about hair issues, for example. You need to cultivate friendships with people - which is no different for POC than anybody else.
* Does the fear of being perceived as racist or patronizing outweigh the benefits of addressing honest questions we have about the effect of race?
Obviously, until the pus is squeezed out, the healing will not occur. White people need to get over their fears and seek enlightenment.
It’s not easy, it won’t always be pleasant, but we have to keep trying…
“I find such remarks offensive whether they come from a Buchanan or a Wright.”
Right off the bat, we’ve got a problem.
Buchanan is arguing in favor of maintaining and strengthening historic advantages white people have had in America. That is indefensible.
Wright, OTOH, is trying to expose these inequities. You may argue that his approach is too abrasive and too alienating, but somebody has to say those things, we need to acknowledge the truth of them, and work together to solve these problems.
So, Buchanan is pointlessly offensive.
You may or may not be offended by what Wright says and how he says it, but he and people like him are doing something important…
They played a little clip on the news break this morning where Wright said something about how “rich white people” run the country. And I thought, this is controversial? Seriously, the media is running around claiming, “Nuh-uh! It’s not rich white people who run the country! We only have two or three million in the bank — that doesn’t make us rich!”
Be prepared for the media to avoid Wright’s actual words as much as humanly possible because when you actually hear them, you think, “Well, he’s kinda got a point there.”
I think I’ll give these questions a go…
* Do you believe that political consultants use subtle and overt racism to score points because it works, and that the end justifies the means? Is that good for our society, or does it matter?
Yes I believe it works (and assume that if it helps people get elected it justifies the means on their end). I think tribalism and othering may not be good for society as a whole, but think it’s as unlikely to be eradicated from politics as religion is (i.e. not very likely).
* Do you think that some white people are uncomfortable when race comes up in the presidential race, from either campaign or surrogates? Why?
It always makes me uncomfortable, because it never seems to have a positive connotation (it’s either used to encourage a sense of “uniqueness” or to inflame feelings of anger towards those who others perceive are slighting them).
* Do you think that the uncomfortability of discussions about racism and implicit bias causes a shutdown of honest dialog about it in the progressive movement?
Was there ever really an honest discussion about racism between the races? With a few historic exceptions, talk of racism has always seemed to be about making one population angry at another one.
* Does the potential defensive reaction of blacks toward broaching the topic of race inhibit at all? What personal incidents inform that judgment - and is it fair to apply that to all black people?
It inhibits me, I suppose, because I get tired of being blamed for the creation of a system of oppression (that I personally abhor) just because of the color of my skin. I get tired of being told I’m somehow responsible for the healing and well-being of a people that I personally did (and do) nothing to oppress. I’ve had black people accuse me of being racist because I’m shy and even accuse me of it because I was flipping my hair out of my face…I want to help, but I won’t take blame for things I’m not doing and there’s nothing I can do to heal that kind of chip on someone’s shoulder.
* Does the fear of being perceived as racist or patronizing outweigh the benefits of addressing honest questions we have about the effect of race?
Dialogue requires two parties being willing to acknowledge where the other side is coming from and what they are saying. I don’t think either side of the racial divide is able to do that yet (one side is too oblivious and the other side is too angry and I don’t know how either side could help the other with those impediments in place).
I’m watching Barack Obama speak right now and am just blown away…
The difference I see in Wright’s words vs. the Hagees, Donohues, Buchanans, et. al. is that he says America is damned for her racism and her militarism.
Racism and military agression are acts that can be changed. We didn’t have to invade Iraq. Most Americans believe it was a mistake.
Being homosexual, female, or of a higher melanin producing people is an intrinsic quality. You can’t choose whether or not you want to be black, brown or white (though Michael Jackson has tried).
You can choose abortion, but only women can be put in the position of having to make the decision as only their bodies become pregnant. Male bodily autonomy is never challenged.
That’s why I think people say that Wright was a bit out of line, but what he said was true.
I don’t like the othering, either, but I find it fascinating that the reichwing is obsessed with othering when it’s being used against patriarchal white power, and not so much when it’s used against the traditional targets of patriarchal white power.
Does the potential defensive reaction of blacks toward broaching the topic of race inhibit at all? What personal incidents inform that judgment - and is it fair to apply that to all black people?
In a word, no. It has been my experience that once a black person sees that a white person isn’t entirely clueless about the topic and is discussing it in good faith, there is no defensiveness. They might be wary at first but that’s understandable.
It’s the white folks that get defensive. Denial abounds and I hate to say that the liberals are the worst about it. At least with a wingnut, they’re right up front about being racist and they don’t give a damn whether it’s right or wrong, it’s just “how God made it”. But the liberals are just obnoxious with the pause for applause and the willful ignorance about the difference between a racist act that contributes to the over all racist system and a racist person and a seemingly never ending supply of denial and deflection techniques that anyone would feel like they are playing whack-a-mole after awhile. It’s infuriating.
And the Oppression Olympics is a side effect of it. “I can’t be a racist because I’m a woman and know sexism.” or “Well, you’re a sexist so there.” They are two different topics.
I don’t agree with Rev. Wright’s comments about Hillary b/c it showed male privilege at its worst and I don’t agree with some of his conspiracy theories about AIDS but I can say that as for Life (in America) While Black, he was dead on which is certainly to be expected, isn’t it?
“Can you come up with a reason that doesn’t involve race?”
The right finds hate speech from their religious leaders acceptable and the left does not?
When I listened to the excerpts of Reverend Wright’s sermons, all I could think was, “He does have a point.” We did bomb civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t know about South Africa, but I know we do tend to favor Israel over the Palestinians, and I can see why that might make them, and those sympathetic with them, view us less than favorably.
I talked to someone in my office today about the reverend, and his main complaint seemed to be that Reverend Wright didn’t speak of forgiveness. I’m still not sure what he meant by that. And I’m not sure why the reverend should.
I’m white and grew up in 90% white Indiana. It’s actually much easier being brought up “color-blind” when you don’t actually live with any people of color.
The only times I’m ever aware of my skin color are when I’m walking down sketchy streets. I’m aware of how incredibly white I am, and have wished for a bit more melanin to blend in and not seem so much a target.
I think that’s what POC must feel every day. Every day, even in a segregated area, black people are aware of the color of their skin and that they *will* be judged and targeted for it. It’s not a good feeling.
Which is why it’s so important for POC to emphasize the humanness and beauty in their race to themselves and others–not to teach whites, but for their own self-esteem to counteract the overarching societal messaging.
As a member of the privileged race, I try to be aware and not inadvertently offend, b/c ignorant remarks are taken as insults. There’s so much pain that it’s hard to have a dialog.
I try to be subtle, such as when a friend and I are hailing cabs to go home after a movie, I always tell her “No, you take this one” b/c Chicago cabbies are notorious for refusing to pick up black people. I *know* they’ll be happy to pick up a white woman. I don’t explain why I’m ‘politely’ saying ‘you go first’, b/c I don’t want to be accused of being patronizing, but at the same time, I don’t want my friend to go through the hassle of ‘hailing a cab while black’.
That awkwardness in dealing with the racism is what a lot of ‘good’ white people feel and undoubtedly why they don’t discuss racism if they don’t have to–they don’t want to be accused of being part of a system they abhor, even if they are. It’s sort of a ‘damned if you do damned if you don’t', but failing to discuss it means that white people can’t really help to fix it.
Another anecdote: my mom and I used to laugh about the ‘all bags must be checked at the door’ signs in stores b/c we never had to do that. Then you go shopping with a POC–and you see the rules are different. Black and brown people always have to hand over their bags.
Laughing over not having to check your bags could be seen as insulting. But not knowing that it’s only enforced on POCs isn’t necessarily racist. It’s hard to see the privilege when you don’t know how others are treated. But if you never talk about it, you never find out and you can never work on it.
I saved this article from somewhere and didn’t save the link…
Interesting and very true…
Ginmar:
“Funny. Obama doesn’t know what it’s like to be called a bitch, a whore, a cunt, and ordered to iron some mens’ shirts. Let’s not mention that, though.”
That’s the first thing I said over the weekend when I heard about Rev. Wright’s comments.
I’m seeing us sliding into this argument over who has been more repressed and more kept down by the White Man in America.
As a white man in America, I don’t know what it’s like to be called those names. I have, however, been called a “useless motherf—–” once before, and I know that hurt. I know what it feels like when someone else talks about “dirty n——” around me and invites me to commiserate with them about how the “ho” done them wrong.
This whole kabuki dance that the MSM, rich white men all of it, demands that we Democrats perform when they are offended, this is about as much use as giving the schoolyard bully your lunch money and hoping they’ll leave you alone from now on.
One thing that nobody has mentioned yet is the relationship between pastors and congregations in Obama’s denomination, the United Church of Christ. I’m a member of the UCC and my wife is a UCC pastor (although educated and ordained in Germany).
The pastor does not “lead” the people in the church. It is not “his” (or her) church, as people like Thomas Sowell have asserted. The congregation runs the church, and each individual is expected and entitled to follow the dictates of their own conscience.
The pastor is called or invited by the congregation to preside at worship and administer sacraments, but he or she doesn’t lead shit. My senior pastor and my associate pastor (my wife) have said many things over the years that I have not agreed with. I don’t know about other denominations, but in the UCC that is no reason to quit the church, or fire the pastor.
It is expected that the pastor will challenge the congregation in his or her sermons. I mean christ, a pastor who isn’t at least a little bit provocative isn’t a good pastor. A good thought-provoking sermon is an opportunity for the congregation to discuss and grow their faith.
This criticism of Obama because of things has pastor has said assumes we are all fucking sheep, and it pisses me off.
All of which is to say, if we’re so different from the Republicans, why can’t we seem to stop campaigning like them?
Huffington Post has a transcript of the speech up and running:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
Curious to know what ya’all think.
Incredible stuff.
This post had me hopping up and down, it’s so right on the money. As for the discussion questions:
* Do you believe that political consultants use subtle and overt racism to score points because it works, and that the end justifies the means? Is that good for our society, or does it matter?
I think Democrats who utilize racism are probably telling themselves the ends justify the means. For Republicans, the ends are the means. It’s terrible for our society that racism is employed for political points. It erodes trust and community. The past few years in America have created a definite downturn in racial relations, because of all the race-baiting in politics.
* Do you think that some white people are uncomfortable when race comes up in the presidential race, from either campaign or surrogates? Why?
Yes. A lot of white people buy into the idea that if you ignore the issue, it’ll go away. We don’t like to think about our own racism. Hell, white people don’t like to think of white as a race. It’s other people who have a race.
* Do you think that the uncomfortability of discussions about racism and implicit bias causes a shutdown of honest dialog about it in the progressive movement?
Yes. For instance, a lot of well-meaning white liberals took the race bait with this Rev. Wright thing. If they’d confronted their feelings about race and racism earlier, they would have been better equipped to see this as the bullshit it is.
* Does the potential defensive reaction of blacks toward broaching the topic of race inhibit at all? What personal incidents inform that judgment - and is it fair to apply that to all black people?
I can’t say that I have enough experiences in any direction to say anything intelligent on that subject.
* Does the fear of being perceived as racist or patronizing outweigh the benefits of addressing honest questions we have about the effect of race?
On an individual basis, absolutely. That, I think, is the major problem. Individuals have every reason to clam up about it. It’s to the detriment of the larger national dialogue, though. Don’t know what to do about it.
I believe this nails his nomination. He was challanged and he answer it within the goal he sets for his campaign. Not going negative and a place for everybody. It’s grand. He tries it. I think he did it.
Hillary may tries funny things, but she will appears even more petty after this.
The right finds hate speech from their religious leaders acceptable and the left does not?
But I’m not talking about the right or the left. I’m talking about the media, which makes Wright an issue and not Robertson, Hagee, Falwell, and a gazillion other white preachers who spend half their time denouncing America for bringing down God’s judgment upon our heads.
The difference in press focus remains racial.
I was very impressed by the Obama speech. He (or his speechwriter, anyway) said exactly what needed to be said.
I perceive the media mostly as a corporate tool of the right, to be honest. Their interests will be in whatever fattens the bank accounts of their CEO bosses (in this case, hurting Obama).
“But I’m not talking about the right or the left. I’m talking about the media…”
Outside of the internet and a (very) limited number of traditional outlets, the press is either actively rightwing, or de facto rightwing in reaction to the (currently inoperable) meme of press liberality.
So in talking about “the press”, you find yourself talking about right/left politics whether you want to or not…
“I’m watching Barack Obama speak right now and am just blown away…”
Agreed. I cried…which doesn’t say much since I’m one of those people who cries at Hallmark commercials…but I never been moved to tears by a politician before (anger, yes..tears, no).
I’m reminded of something he mentioned in one of his books (I don’t remember which one) where he said that many people came up to him after his Senatorial election and said “Don’t let us down.”
I’ve never had any faith in a politician’s good will or desire to make the US a better place, but I’m starting to…and frankly its a little disconcerting.
ginmar, I think Wright speaks for Obama about as much as Ferraro speaks for Clinton, which is to say not much. I’m not excusing the “claws come out” and “periodically feeling down” remarks, and I’m waiting for his apology for those. But Wright’s remarks aren’t part of that.
“Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a n—–,”
Most white liberals would rather be called a n– than a racist.
Hillary personally, she has done more work over the years for the AA community than St Obama. Bet she’s been called a n– lover as well as a racist as a result. Nice double whammy.
*Do you think that some white people are uncomfortable when race comes up in the presidential race, from either campaign or surrogates? Why?
* Do you think that the uncomfortability of discussions about racism and implicit bias causes a shutdown of honest dialog about it in the progressive movement?
* Does the fear of being perceived as racist or patronizing outweigh the benefits of addressing honest questions we have about the effect of race?
YES to all the above. Example: all the race smears against Clinton in this campaign, example: the way Ferraro was slimed.
I say again. No white liberal wants to be called racist. They will praise St Obama and hate b-tch Hillary to make sure everyone know it.
This is an interesting side of the story:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-tcuwright_18met.ART.State.Edition2.4679155.html
TCU in dark blue Fort Worth is sticking by their decision to honor Wright later this month. As a FW native, I am utterly shocked. It’s a ballsy stance to take in that town, and I hope more local media takes note of it. Perhaps the other side of this man can get some attention.
My compliments to most of you who have commented above. Very thoughtful and well reasoned ideas presented here. More dialogue like this is needed everywhere between people of good will.
MSNBC’s got a live vote regarding Obama’s speech, over 63k votes so far:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23691276/
Today, I feel HOPE. There’s alot of work to be done, but hope is good.
Speaking as a Southern White Man and a loyal son of the Confederacy, one whose ancestors were brave, stalwart, true-hearted and *wrong*, the Rev. Mr.Wright’s sermon-excerpts strike me as, for the overwhelming part, a true-enough indictment our country and society, with a “duh” factor quite off the scale.
The Right wouldn’t squeal so, and the story wouldn’t gain such traction, despite Fox’s drumbeating, if Wright’s words didn’t strike a nerve.
Senator Obama’s speech - the prepared text of it, anyway, which I found at the WSJ site, is the “speech on race” some of us have been waiting a lifetime to hear.
Will it be heard?
The speech was possibly historic. I saw it on tv live, and it was one of the best statements about race in this country I’ve ever heard.
Video of the full speech here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
They will praise St Obama and hate b-tch Hillary to make sure everyone know it.
Comments like this make me giggle, so divorced from reality they are.
I think this is wrong, and no, the speech will not be “heard.” In my opinion, Obama has lost the election this week, and maybe even the nomination.
95% of blacks may go for Rev. Wright and his ilk. White liberal elites may try to stomach him, or at least claim to hate republicans enough to hold their noses and vote for him.
White independents and conservative democrats will not support Obama after this. Is this really going to help Obama in Missouri or Ohio or even Pennsylvania?
I think he’s screwed.
Amanda, and hey, everybody, if you don’t know what to do about it (the fear that you’ll be attacked “as a racist” for making racist comments, even unwittingly):
You have a right to clam up, but. Don’t. Don’t clam up. The thing Obama is trying to do in his speech, and one thing that religious types pay lip service to at least, is the idea that you can speak your mind and be wrong. Your point of view is valuable, even if it only exposes misplaced beliefs and prejudices. Because otherwise, we all continue to operate on our prejudices and don’t let them see the light of day where we can say “Oh, you’re wrong” instead of “Unclean! Unclean!” which is where our political discourse is at nowadays. The key to working through that actual dicey, naughty, unpleasant, hurtful dialogue about racism is that we aren’t waiting to start it until everybody’s ready. It’s started. It started a long time ago, even if we periodically find it hard to do. One of the reasons i’m a feminist is because feminists have tended, some of them, to question their assumptions about race and to move on once they’ve found some ideas ridiculous and non-helpful. The struggle continues, right?
“White independents and conservative democrats will not support Obama after this.”
If they think voting for McCain will do anything but make things worse, they probably never would have voted for Obama regardless.
All of these wingnut attacks are about giving “plausible” cover to people who never had any intention of ever voting for Obama but won’t admit that, either in public or even to themselves.
The important thing for the Reichwing is just to make sure there’s enough stuff for these people to choose from.
No question about it, ‘08 is going to be a watershed year. By 2009, we will either be looking up toward the future, or we will be making excuses to the rest of the world as to how we could be so incredibly short-sighted…
Examples, please.
And comment 43 proved your point. And yet, oddly, all of those white independents and conservative Democrats in downstate Illinois overwhelmingly voted for Obama for senator. In fact, a lot of registered Republicans voted for him, too.
But Chris says that’s impossible, so it must not have happened.
Well, against Alan Keyes maybe. But I’m not sure what that proves other than a GOP collapse in Illinois a few years ago.
But, if you really think that independents and conservative democrats will be thrilled with Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wrights, then go with it. I think you are wrong and are living in a major bubble.
Let’s see first how this plays out in the Pennsylvania primary. I’ve seen Hillary up by 20 points. I also question whether this will push some superdelegates over to the Hillary column.
Well, against Alan Keyes maybe. But I’m not sure what that proves other than a GOP collapse in Illinois a few years ago.
And there’s no national GOP collapse going on right now? Republican congressmen and senators are dropping out rather than try and run as incumbents. The president’s approval rating is under 20 percent. The economy is collapsing under its own weight.
Fer chrissakes, you have Republicans stealing money from their own party. That’s not a party in freefall?
But, if you really think that independents and conservative democrats will be thrilled with Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wrights, then go with it. I think you are wrong and are living in a major bubble.
If you think that independents and conservative Democrats will be upset at being told that their problems are because of our larger social and economic structure and not the fault of affirmative action, you’re probably right. However, there’s a word for people who ignore actual facts in favor of blaming their problems on other ethnic and/or racial groups.
Let’s see first how this plays out in the Pennsylvania primary. I’ve seen Hillary up by 20 points.
Considering that Hillary has been favored in Pennsylvania for weeks, why do you think a victory for her there would seal the deal?
Holy damn, that was a good speech. I was actually able to read the entire transcript without getting bored.
And yeah, I really have a hard time seeing what’s so crazy about Wright’s comments, unless there was some other, more crazy part that Pam didn’t quote.
You know, I just can’t figure out why people like Obama, the Presidential candidate that is. What is it that he’s said or done that make people want to vote for him. What new ideas has he talked about, oh wait, yes that’s it CHANGE. Funny thing is that he hasn’t said how he’s going to do it, oh sorry, he did; vote for me then I’ll show you. Kinda like going to buy a car and having the sales person say, Don’t bother with the test drive trust me you’ll like it.
An Obama speech: Obama “We should feed our children breakfast before they go to school” audience cheers. Obama “Make our children do their home work” audience cheers. Obama “Can I get an amen” audience AMEN, someone faints. WOW! I see the Obama supporters point, these are amazing ideas. Why hasn’t someone thought of these things before.
At least with Hillary you get some substance, I’m gonna do this, no I change my mind, wait I change my mind again…what ever. Any way, she says how she’s going to do it; her ideas may or may not work but at least she lets us know what they are.
As far as the Rev Wright thing, come on. You go to a church for 20 yrs and claim you didn’t know the Rev was an America hating racist…sorry, I forgot; people of color can’t be racists. America hating…ugh racist. You know, as I read about Jesus and his teachings, yes I go to church, I can’t seem to find the part in his message that talks about hating people. If you were forced to put it all in one phrase it would sound something like this, love God love people.
Lets not pretty things up here. You bet we have a racial problem in the US and as long as we continue let idiots hiding behind sheets or the color of their skin tell us who the bad guys are we’re going to continue to have some racial strife.
As long as I’m here let me get this out there as well. You may have some problems with the way this country does business, I get it, America isn’t perfect but if you think it’s so much better some place else why not get up and move. Like the way France does things, move; like the way Canada does things, move; like the way China does things, move; like the way…well you get the point. If you hate this country so much, move and be happy.
Thanks,
Jason
Wrights quotes (the HIV one aside) were crudely put and impolitic, but not factually untrue.
The country is, in fact, run by rich white people.
The United States government did, in fact, kill many innocent people in its history.
Hillary was, in fact, never called a n****r and doesn’t know what its like to be a black man in this country.
The Bible does (especially the Old Testament) say that when a nation commits sins, God damns them by bringing calamity upon it. Hey, its not moral and I don’t believe in that nonsense–but if you’re a Christian or Jew and don’t believe that you need to read your book again.
I’m still reading through the speech, but “I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible”?
Really? Not even the rather large country that shares your longest border?
That’s just such a flag-waving rah-rah-America thing to say. But, I suppose you can’t blame an American for being an American. And the rest of the speech is looking pretty excellent.
I really have a hard time seeing what’s so crazy about Wright’s comments
My guess is that the “God D–N America” quote is causing the most consternation.
“They hate America” is a reliable racist criticism of black people and has been at least since Muhammad Ali said he wouldn’t fight in Vietnam because no Viet Cong ever called him n_____er. After 9/11 some website criticised black people for not flying flags on their cars, and then there’s the whole lapel pin thing.
Wright handed them one of their favorite guns to shoot Obama with.
Let’s see first how this plays out in the Pennsylvania primary. I’ve seen Hillary up by 20 points.
That is about her margin in all of the nasty eastern machine politics states.
Remember - this is the state that twice spewed Ricky “Santorum” Santorum around the Senate chamber in DC.
Its possible in any new world country. I don’t see it happening in, say, Sweden or Japan though.
Ah, guys, now we’re just getting really silly now. Can we make points without doing such dumb comments as these?
“Really? Not even the rather large country that shares your longest border?”
Nope. A Canadian with a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother is not eligible to be President of the US. (Assuming mom wasn’t a US citizen).
Snark aside, while at its most literal, it might not be true, the point of the comment was that the US culture is changing so rapidly and radically that a single generation separates people who were born into a system where this candidacy was unthinkable and actively and vehemently prevented by the system to one where it is a reality.
Canada is in many ways a great place - and one of those reasons is that such astonishing change doesn’t seem to be required for this to happen. I’m sure Canada isn’t a racial utopia with an unsullied history, but the US has had (and still has) to undo a lot more self-imposed damage along those lines.
realityfighter,
The standard further end conspiracy stuff like the AIDS was a manufactured virus.
It was pretty interesting to read the comments by ginmar and Caroline and Chris…I don’t know, but I find them so pathetic. Your canidate is *DEAD* already. No reviving possible. Concern trolling just makes you look bad.
Look, Obama’s doomed because the 08 presidency is a poisoned prize. Going to be loads of trouble and not enough power (incidentially, partially because of the inevitable assumption that Obama wins undeservedly because of race). There hasn’t yet been a repudiation of Republicanism yet, not a full fledge one where there is a societal price to be paid for being openly listening to Rush Limbaugh. That’s going to be 2012 election. The obscure they are definitly going to do the Carter treatment. Carter was a failure largely because of just how bad the problems the Republicans handed him, and just how little those bad results were credited to Republican ideology. He certainly didn’t get a chance to fix things. About the only way Obama can have a successful presidency is to have rather huge coattails.
*nods* that hit me as well … but then, after over 6 years of living here, I’m kinda used to it, as much as it still annoys me. I’m sorry, but there are countries out there with better race relations and multiculturalism than the US, and I’m counting ex-colonies as well as old-world nations.
But then, you hear the same about the American health-care system being the best in the world, which is patently un-true. Or that America gives the most chances to everyone, every though that’s patently un-true. Or it’s the most egalitarian country, which is patently un-true.
American exceptionalism/superiority is one of those things that every single politician HAS to play to, without question, even though it’s a complete and utter myth.
My guess is that the “God D–N America” quote is causing the most consternation.
And yet when Falwell and Robertson declared that 9/11 was God’s punishment against us, the right-wingers nodded along until they got called on it.
As usual, the double standard is in full operation: if a white preacher says that God hates America, it’s true! But if a black preacher says that God hates America, it’s not only false, it’s proof that all black people hate America.
This isn’t even a dog whistle anymore.
“My guess is that the “God D–N America” quote is causing the most consternation.”
Of course it is - following less than the rare and minor blip when white conservative preachers say the same thing every day, about how God doesn’t love us anymore because we’re too liberal or gay-loving.
He’s wrong, but he’s no more or less wrong than the morons on the other team who get a pass.
And of course, people are only saying “Why did Obama stay in a church whose pastor could say these few quotes out of context” rather than “How could he stay in a church that accomplished so much for the people that he has spent his career working for and on the causes he believes in?”
As was mentioned above, umm… Duh?
“God d–n America” is just the opposite of the neo-con belief that the United States can do know wrong.
I’m sick of people thinking either the United States is God or, on the other end, the devil incarnate.
Late to the discussion, just read the speech and it has so many things in it that have needed to be said. Yes, it has a few of those lines that politicians need to say, but for a serious contender for the Democratic nomination, one who may hope Reagan Democrats will vote for him, to call out the resentment and outright racism that led those voters to flee the party and put them in the same frame as his pastor is politically very brave.
Now I’m hoping Obama gets the Democratic nomination, and the presidency, just so that this speech can be put into the American history books and taught in school.
A part of me, centred around my vagina, wants Hillary to win, but Obama’s politics are much closer to mine. Of course, the Canadian opinion is that we don’t care who the democrat is, so long as he or she wins the election.
I had originally hoped for an Edwards/Obama ticket, with Edwards providing the experience, and Obama providing the hope, the idealism, all that. I worry that Obama is simply too inexperienced, and naively optimistic, and that Washington will crush him. But now I’m thinking I’d like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. What are the chances? I could wish for Hillary/Obama, but I think Obama/Hillary is unlikely-that’s not a woman who would be willing to take second chair at this point.
JPlum-
I’m curious, how do you think Harper would get along with Obama?
What I’ve gleaned from the reactions to this speech is that nobody actually wants to talk about race in America. They want gotcha moments about whether Obama was physically present during this or that speech, they want to talk about how this will affect rural Pennsylvania voters’ choices in the primary, they want to talk about how many flags were behind him, but nobody wants to talk about the *substance* of the speech.
Harper and Obama…after Harper’s Bush-pandering? And the way he seems to be trying to do to the PMO what Bush has done to the Office of the President, making it all about unitary authority and no dissent? Should be fun.
On a related note-Harper has the squinty eyes and lipless mouth of a child-molesting toad. I’m not saying he is one, just that he looks like one.
Or they’ll distort it to support their own viewpoint…
Hillary should just quit today. That speech was pretty hawesome.
Not to mention the fact that the only way Hillary can win the party’s nomination is to overthrow democracy.
“On a related note-Harper has the squinty eyes and lipless mouth of a child-molesting toad. I’m not saying he is one, just that he looks like one.”
It would be irresponsible not to speculate
My guess is that the “God D–N America” quote is causing the most consternation.
It adds to the America-hating narrative, just like Michelle Obama’s statement that she’s only recently proud of her country. These people lack the extremely basic empathy to understand why an African-American wouldn’t think that America wasn’t the Best! Country! Evar!
And now I’m going back over today’s speech, looking for sound bites that can be taken out of context and played over and over again until the convention, and likely till November.
Modern politics doesn’t give a shit for a well-argued point. It’s like our media got bought by Cliff’s Notes.
I hear what you are saying, and I can sympathize (as a white person who abhors racist institutions) to a degree…
At the same time, it strikes me as a sort of a “Not my Nigel” thing…
You and I may try our best to live our lives as unbiased and unprejudiced as possible when it comes to POC. But to act as though racism isn’t still widely prevalent in our society, or to say that because we aren’t actively engaged in it means we have no responsibility to address it or to be a part of the solution is incredibly naive.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but please hear me out…
Let’s take the original question, and apply it to gender instead of race.
I’m going to give the exact same answer that you just gave, except I’ll be a male talking about gender instead of a caucasian talking about race…
Now, as a feminist, what would be your gut-level reaction to a response like that to a similar question, only talking about gender instead of race?
That speech was unbelievable. I’m stupified. Reminded me of the very best political oratory that came out of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa in the early 90s.
Obama hit the race and religion issue head on, and then transcended it. This was an historic speech.
Tweety just said the speech was on the level of Abraham Lincoln.
“Tweety just said the speech was on the level of Abraham Lincoln.”
Wait a minute…
Was Obama wearing a flightsuit with a prominent codpiece?…
Hillary personally, she has done more work over the years for the AA community than St Obama.
Was that before or after she murdered Vince Foster?
:-) [/rimshot]
Not to mention the fact that the only way Hillary can win the party’s nomination is to overthrow democracy.
But she’d let Obama be her Magic Negro of a Vice President! Isn’t that enough?
Sen. Clinton belongs either on the Supreme Court or as Attorney General.
I prefer the Supreme Court, just for making Republicans heads explode because they will have to hear the name “Clinton” uttered in the news for the next 30 years or so.
Pam, many many thanks for posting the speech in its entirety!!!
I got chills watching it live on CNN and I got chills again rereading it…
Jason:
He has an excellent record on voting rights, specifically introducing legislation to address new forms of voter intimidation and to maintain a regular survey of the patchwork of electoral systems in use in this country. He’s hands-down the voting rights candidate. This is particularly important for communities that have been deprived of voting rights for centuries now.
But you’d know that if you had done even the most cursory research before complaining that Obama has done nothing but mouth vague promises of change. There are good reasons for supporting Clinton rather than Obama, but you have not offered any of them.
There’s that thing about videotaping confessions by the police. I’d think that’d be of concern to the African American community.
Ben,
Now THAT’S an idea! Justice Clinton, unremovable by even the shrillest of wingnut campaigns. That’s like the goddamned Chinese water torture to a conservative. Now I’m all excited.
Only thing about Clinton for Supreme Court or Attorney General is that despite an otherwise excellent law record, it will be VERY hard to confirm someone who failed a bar exam for either position.
I don’t think so. Shes widely respected in the Senate, even by conservative Republicans. Orin Hatch has even praised her as being an effective Senator. The Senate is a club, and they don’t turn down one of their own for an appointment.
Actually, he was right, at least in regards to the part of the story that is his wife. Slavery, remember. It was officially abolished (not that it had any significant presence anyway) long before Canada even became a country, and we were the end of the Underground Railroad.
I _DO_ like that “Justice Clinton” idea….. MAN that would chap Their asses!!! For LIFE!! Bwooohahahaha.
Yeah put Hillary in supreme court. I think I would enjoy the cat fight inside that cage. I don’t particularly have that much respect left for the current crew anyway.
also, I really think it’s time to improve the supreme court.
a) enlarge. They only pick up so few cases, It’s ridic. And the appeal court is so small too.
b) all finish decision and hearing should be publicly available. (obviously they are pretty idiotic when it come to fast moving technological issue. They are basically in 1970’s mindset in the era of facebook and iTune)
c) force retirement. (somebody hanging out until he can’t breath on its own, let alone showing up for work? get real.)
I agree, but then you have to deal with accusations that you’re “packing” the court. Remember how that ended for FDR? He had a super-majority in the Congress and it still ended badly for him. I’m not exactly sure how one could enlarge it in a non-partisan matter.
Cynic though I am, the idea that a major Presidential candidate is willing to address the “third rail” of race head-on without sugarcoating it makes me think maybe there is something to this whole “hope” thing.
Ah, racism with a noble purpose!
Bismarck–
I challenge you to find an actual quote from Wright that says “whites are inferior” or “whites should be exterminated” or “blacks are the superior race”. If you can find something along those lines, I’ll call Wright a racist. But you can’t, so hes not.
Obama says, “the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.”
Obama makes the progressive, populist promise to control the corporations, to eliminate the lobbysists and special interests, and to favor the many over the few, but he gives us no detailed plan of how to do that, and no plan of how to organize the legislative power which would be needed to do that. It would take a politician of the stature and experience of a Roosevelt to do that, and while Obama may have the arrogance of a Roosevelt, he simply does not have either the stature or the experience. If the corporate mob thought for a minute that he could do that, they would guillotine him. I don’t believe that even Obama thinks that he can really do that. I have to admit though that he makes a good speech.
As you say, they’d kill his candidacy. (Hm. As with Edwards?)
But…better that it be recognized and he might have a chance to gather at least populist momentum….
In case anybody is wonder wtf is gogol bordello
one old track
Gogol Bordello : Start wearing purple , Gypsy Punks: Underdog World Strike (Side One Dummy Records, 2005)
http://audio.sxsw.com/2006/mp3/Gogol_Bordello-Start_Wearing_Purple.mp3
Elizabeth-
You know who also didn’t have any written out plan? FDR. If you read about the New Deal era, he did almost all of experimentally and on-the-fly. He didn’t have any 1,000 page plan in 1932, but he sure as hell moved us forward
Also, FDR (like his elder cousin Theodore, who was the Roosevelt who spoke of “malefactors of great wealth”) was much longer of populist-sounding rhetoric than action, and in fact was very solicitous of giving priority to rich people getting richer. He was a “progressive” in the sense that he recognized it would be imprudent to focus exclusively and entirely on the welfare of the already rich without seeing to it that the poorer folks got something, if only some hope. He was a capitalist, but of the smart variety.
We have never seen a genuinely populist regime in this country; perhaps we never will.
Programs like the New Deal get hearings when capitalist business as usual fails spectacularly. But even then, they serve mainly as engines to jump-start capitalism, and only secondarily as social revitalizers through redistribution of wealth downward.
And of course Ben is quite right to emphasize that even when we realize FDR was mainly focused on making the world safe for capitalists, his administrations were a hodge-podge of ad hoc schemes.
It’s painful that Obama feels like he needs to damn Islam so vehemently. So far his primary tack with the “Hussein” nonsense has been “But I’m NOT Muslim!” rather than “So what if I’m Muslim?,” which is really disappointing to me.
I can’t help but feel like, if Clinton performed similar wriggling, people would be all over her for it. And I honestly believe that it has less to do with race and gender than it has to do with people already being familiar with Clinton. She’s had more time to earn pock marks on her record, and she’s had more time to get on people’s nerves than Obama.
I’ll be pleased as punch if it turns out Obama never does anything backhanded or “slimey” or pro-corporation (or anything else people get on Clinton’s case for) during his presidency. I just don’t see why he’s been cast as being immune to all that.
That said, this was an incredibly important speech to give. No, of course Clinton can’t give a speech on racism, the same way Obama can’t give a speech on sexism. America isn’t ready for that. People usually sound like idiots when they’re talking about the oppressive experiences of People Who Are Unlike Themselves.
Anyone else noticed that the republicans have been obstructing the democrats and the idea of voting since day one?
The primaries in Florida and Michigan for example. Pushed by republicans. Obama having to defend his race and his religion. Pushed by republicans.
Hillary’s campaign has been kept alive by republican cross over voters.
Could they have actually engineered the GOP taking the Blight House for John McSame?
Stay tuned, I guess…
“95% of blacks may go for Rev. Wright and his ilk.”
Slander. You know we’re listening, right?
If you’ve been following black voting patterns at all, you’d know that 10% of the demographic consistently breaks Repub, through hell or high water. There’s also a growing independent faction to court, especially among youths who are loath to let the Dems ride on past glories. And to imply that Wright’s anti-American rhetoric would be just peachy keen with a group of people who disproportionately fill the military’s ranks would be….. ah, *scratches back of head* presumptuous, to say the least. Hell, one guy at my mom’s job categorically refuses to vote for Obama because he thinks that he’s…. *SHOCK/HORROR!* a secret Muslim.
Sarah in Chicago:
But it is a myth that inspires us to be better, and one that, if we continue to believe in it, may inspire us to make it true.
Kind of like a certan campaign for President
JPlum:
Re Obama’s candidacy being possible in Canada: I guess it would be possible. After all, your country has a whole four and a half months on us with respect to non-white male heads of government.
Also, with a population that’s 83% white (so 5 in 6, basically), and 75% urban, it’s not surprising that there hasn’t been much traction in trying to stir up fears of cosmopolitanism or “the other”. We’ve heard the same back-patting about Western European countries that now have race-baiters like Sarkosy in power.
I truly believe that beliving our “myth” will eventually put the US ahead of many of the Western countries who’s citizens proudly proclaim their superior approach to racism. We have a tougher road, thanks to the enduring stain of slavery, but it does seem that Western Whites in the aggregate get very nervous when non-Whites creep towards being a significant minority (scroll embedded window for English>:
So right now, we have a dichotomy: Have a country that is unafraid of racial diversity (Canada, et al), or have a country that’s actually racially diverse (U.S.).
Our diversity has been clumsily handled for over a century, when it began to occur (a century and a half if you count the Irish and Italians, who were only adopted as White in the mid-20th century), and we richly deserve some of the mockery I’ve witnessed on this thread. However, it also means that we’re forced to confront our feelings about diversity more than other Western countries. It’s quite likely that in the next half century, we’ll be the only Western nation that fervently believes in diversity and actually has a diverse population. It’s my hope that Obama’s speech today, and our belief in our “myths”, may bring us closer yet.
Dana:
That reminds me: The “blowback” part of various Wright/Chomsky/Sontag writings seems, on the one hand, tautological (any superpower will create enemies, no matter how benevlolent they are; not that we or any other superpower in the history of the world has been benevolent), but in the specifics of 9/11, wildly inaccurate (it was the cultural slight of infidels in Saudi Arabia that set Al-Quaeda’s sights on the U.S.; mention of Palestinians only came after 9/11).
There’s plenty of foreign policies that can be objected to for moral reasons, but to be fearful of action because of the enemies it might produce is just so…DLC.
Funny. Obama doesn’t know what it’s like to be called a bitch, a whore, a cunt, and ordered to iron some mens’ shirts. Let’s not mention that, though.
This is certainly true. But now fear has entered the campaign. Fear of an angry black man who could punish the white man for four centuries of slavery and hatred. America thought they were getting Bill Cosby, but now fear they’re getting a Black Panther. Malcolm X (”chickens come home to roost”) Louis Farrakhan. A Crip. A Blood. Obama was acceptable as no homegrown black could be, because his ancestors had never been slaves, had never been stripped of their civil rights, had never been promised 40 acres and a mule to earn a living with.
In contrast, no one is afraid of a white woman. Oh she may threaten you if you don’t clean your room or do your homework, but not even the most passionate feminist fills anyone with fear. Plus people identify with white women. My mother was a white woman. I married a white woman. Until Seventh Grade, my teachers were all while women. Not to minimize the privations of women, but they are not scary. I have crossed the street to avoid a black man, but never to avoid a white woman.
So the impact of being tied to Jeremiah Wright is far worse for Obama than any similar tie would be for Hillary. The fear factor just isn’t there.
Ah, Hector, you are so right! It would be “catch back time” and that’s scary for guys. When do you think that people are going to learn to share and to stop playing these childish games? Ever?
“There’s plenty of foreign policies that can be objected to for moral reasons, but to be fearful of action because of the enemies it might produce is just so…”
Translation: Foreign policy decisions should be made without consideration of predictable ramifications.
Brilliant.
I guess that explains why we agitated for Palestinian elections then got stuck with Hamas. Thinking about the logical consequences of actions is just crazy. Much better to randomly spasm and hope for the best.
There’s plenty of foreign policies that can be objected to for moral reasons, but to be fearful of action because of the enemies it might produce is just so…DLC.
Operation Barbarossa, anyone?
For stark contrast of how intelligent Mr Obama is, I submit what McCain was saying:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639
“Homer Fucking Simpson Goes to Washington, Part Deux.”
BTW, Lieberman makes a good Smithers, especially as he’s helping Homer fix his booboo… my husband has long maintained that Olympia Snowe looks like Montgomery Burns.
“Excellent….”
“…my husband has long maintained that Olympia Snowe looks like Montgomery Burns.
“Excellent….” “
…but in temper, “Big” Dick Cheney is really a lot more like Monty Burns, maybe crossed with The Smoking Man from The X-Files…
Au contraire. I would be REFRESHING to see a modern politician DAMN Islam. For the decaptation festivals and other snippets, and seeing that for once we have a true fundamaniac religion of terror being dissed. Mostly its just Christians who get the receiving end of this for mere words about family and home. Meanwhile, the get most of their primary social demands from taxpayer funded footbathes to special consideration in law–which the Archbishiop of Canterbury has all but conceded for Britain.
No, Obama is neither Muslim nor specifically much of anything else. But his associations with radicals feeling the fire are nettlesome at best.
Oh good. Another speech on race and a handling opportunity from the handlers.
Did Captain Audacity have the Audacity to happen to mention whether this 20 year church attendence in pews of psychotic preaching about the CIA and AIDS, or Liberation Theology (think Lord Jesus holding a machine gun and red beret rather than a crown of thorns), or Fidel Castro being a savior other than the kind who plops in the slammer and feeds you bugs (per Armanda Valladares), etc, etc, on and on it goes. Did the Presidential candidate happen to detail his other delusions chances of success, his true ideoloy on economics, or the fact that his associates are the old wing of the left that would harm all of us if they had enough matches and gasoline?
Salvation—or just simply ELECTION and “street cred”
Hmmmm.
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/in-case-you-were-really-wondering.html
God, what did Pandagon do to deserve this wretched, babbling, troll?
Hector, why did you specify white women? Because I didn’t.
And ‘no one’s afraid of’ women translates into: three thousand of them murdered every year, and God knows how many raped and abused, and that’s just of the top of my head. ‘No one’s afraid of’ turns out to mean “Nobody gives a shit about” or “actively hates”.
Black female immigrant as head of state (not counting the Queen, since for the vast majority of the time she doesn’t–it’s only on the rare visits she does something), immediately preceded by a Chinese female immigrant. One fifth of the country’s landmass locally governed by a majority aboriginal government. Previous premier of British Columbia born in India…
Much of the problems in Canada have been the English/French divide, and we ain’t perfect by any means, but several things to bear in mind: my country has a higher percentage of immigrants making up our population than the US, a higher percentage of aboriginal people (and that population is growing), the largest city in the country is the world city with the greatest percentage of immigrants making up its population (Toronto was second to Miami for a few years, but has passed it), 43% of the city is visible minority and will pass the “minority-majority” threshold within the next few years, not that far behind NYC.
Dealing with racial issue isn’t exactly something we’re unfamiliar with.
GM, you were clearly referring to HRC, who you remind us, unlike Barack, had been “ordered to iron some mens’ shirts” in a New Hampshire radio station stunt; but who, according to Barack’s pastor Wright, had “never been called a nigger.” Part of the dynamic of the Democratic campaign is that both the race card and the gender card are in play. Hillary’s scary black man card might well trump Barack’s woman card.
Keith-
If Obama were running for an Israeli/German style Presidency thats mostly ceremonial, he’d be a shoe in.
Also, from what I understand the Governor General is appointed by the Queen, not elected, right?
Black female immigrant as head of state (not counting the Queen, since for the vast majority of the time she doesn’t–it’s only on the rare visits she does something), immediately preceded by a Chinese female immigrant.
Except that, since we don’t have a parliamentary system in the U.S., our head of government and head of state are the same person. How often has your head of government — your prime minister — been a woman or a person of color?
Sort of. While the GG is officially the representative of the Crown and thus an appointee of the reigning monarch, in all the countries where the Queen is still officially the head of state (and there are GG’s), it’s the national government that nominates the GG, which is automatically approved by the Queen.
Consider it like the Electoral College: officially it’s the electors who chose the president, and they don’t necessarily have to vote in line with the way they were selected (however the state chooses them), but everyone knows on election night…with some exceptions…how they will be voting and thus what the results will be.
In any case, other data: 20% of members of parliament are women (compared to around 16% in Congress), 12% are immigrants, and while she may have been in a short time, Kim Campbell was prime minister. The fact she was in only four months had much less to do with her than it did with her party and predecessor: Brian Mulroney was so despised that the Tories were obliterated in the next election. No one could have saved them.
Once again, not claiming that we’re a paradise by any means (and we still have a long way to go), but Canadian politics is a tad more diverse than the “white male” stereotype that was being thrown around earlier.
Even in Alberta? (kidding)
Point taken. I’d like to amend my comment as follows:
To be fearful of action because it might produce any enemies at all is just so…DLC.
That was the jist of my original comment, in juxtaposition to what Wright/Chomsky/Sontag have implied, which is that we could have avoided 9/11 if we hadn’t created enemies. Sure, there are ways we could have created fewer enemies (though to end the calculus there is, IMHO, naive), but to imply that we could have not created enemies at all is also naive.
It’s interesting now that Canada has come up — for as much as we in the States (and some people in Canada) like to think we’re alike, Canada has a much different history when it comes to race. Slavery was abolished by law, not the subject of a nasty internal war. The British were a little more willing to honor treaties they made with the Native Americans (which was one of the grievances the American colonists had — the British kept insisting that the tribes be treated as people who actually owned their land, fer crying out loud!)
So while there are definitely racial issues, they’re somewhat different issues than the ones we have in the States.
Keith,
I’m afraid I don’t have time while at work to investigate some of the numbers you gave regarding percentage of immigrants, but given the percentage of the Canadian population that lives in Toronto, I think it’s safe to say that a good chunk of that ~40% who are immigrants are also White, correct?
That was the point of my comment: Racially heterogenous Western societies are more liberal in their welfare policies than racially diverse ones. Perhaps Canada can buck that trend, but we simply don’t know yet. The US doesn’t have that choice: It must find a way to accept true diversity.
Keith, you do realize they made a Haitian the GG so it would look better that our soldiers were involved in overthrowing the democratically elected leader of Haiti, right? It wasn’t some sort of nod to diversity, it was bald tokenism to try to justify one of the most outrageous acts of imperialism in recent history.
We might of course, also recall that the british mostly abolished slavery because when they lost their American colonies, they no longer benefitted from it. There were indeed some domestic slaves in what is now Canada prior to that.
Our jails are filled with native people and recent immigrants, we have a “security certificates” law that’s not wildly different from the US Patriot act. Police brutality is widespread and unchallenged. Neo-Nazis get away with organizing in places like Caledonia, where Native people have tried to take back their land.
In recent protests at Montebello, the police tried to infiltrate the Black Bloc to provoke violence so they could delegitimize the case against the SPP.
In Quebec city, they shot teargas indescriminitely throughout the city, and ignored the charter rights of those who chose to oppose corporate globalization.
In Vancouver, housing protesters are routinely pepper sprayed and beaten up, for the simple crime of interupting that city’s Olympic fervour with a reminder that the olympic development has been at the cost of affordable housing.
Back in 91, during the Oka Crisis, Quebeckers pelted rocks at the cars of women, children and seniors attempting to evacuate Kahnawake. One man died of a heart attack. The Police who were supposed to be protecting this people stood by. Over the past couple decades federal and provincial police have murdered a fair number of native people, some of them protesters, some of them just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Montreal and Oka, Neo-Nazis joined white demonstrators and effigies of “Indians” were burned.
Keith, I’m going to ask you politely, as a fellow Canadian, to stop trying to praise Canada and start trying to fix it. In so many ways Canada is much more fucked up than the United States, and while I (like you) am concerned about the situation there and occasionally flabbergasted at the problems the US experiences, there is no excuse for the superior attitude you’ve chosen to take.
International comparisons of “my country is better than yours”, particularly when done between two developed nations, are rendered nearly worthless when variables like history, form of government, geography and demography are added into the mix.
Incorrect. In the 2001 census, 43% of the population was visible minority (including 2.2% Latino). It’s grown higher. The 2006 Census data isn’t complete and published yet, but it’s higher, with 2012 predicted as the crossover when the “white” population becomes the minority in the city.
In 2001, Vancouver was 49% visible minority (which it’s safe to assume they’ve passed by now). Montreal was the lowest of the Big Three at 23%. Of other major cities, Ottawa was at 15%, Calgary 21%, Edmonton 24%, Winnipeg 13.4%, Quebec City is scraping the bottom of the barrel at 1.6%, Halifax at 7% and so on.
Again, I reiterate the point isn’t to say anything about how good or bad things are, merely to point out that the myth of a lily-white Canada is just that: a myth. The main difference between us and the US is who the are the parties involved in racial problems that get most of the press: in Canada the black or Latino populations don’t dominate such stories as they do in the US. Right now the big press is First Nations, Inuit and Metis. The Sikhs also tend to get a lot of press, and so on.