Open Thread: Barack Obama’s Speech on Race

by Racialicious Special Correspondent Latoya Peterson

It’s up. You can read it over at the NYT. If someone knows of a video, please leave a link in the comments. (Thanks Nae!)

It’s seven pages long and worth reading every word. A passage:

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.

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.

Wendi, Carmen, Fatemeh, and I will offer our comments a little later on. Until then, the floor is yours…

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. The Redstar Perspective » Obama’s Speech II: His people, my people, our people on 18 Mar 2008 at 2:18 pm

    […] contexts of racial and class oppression in the U.S. and world is key, yet notoriously difficult - and painful.   From reading blogs I’m particularly trying to grapple with my own privilege as a white […]

  2. Obama’s Speech: Total Spectrum Reaction Round-up « Dork Nation on 19 Mar 2008 at 4:38 am

    […] comment from Big Man in a thread @ racialicious Look, I don’t care if Obama wins anymore, this speech was enough. To have somebody with his […]

  3. Obama’s speech « Critiquing Racial Dialogue on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:59 am

    […] Racialicous […]

Comments

  1. dnA wrote:

    I quote Mat Johnson, from Incognegro, as someone warns the main character about how dangerous it is for him to be passing as white:

    “White people see what they want to see. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

    America will see what they want to see. If they want to see a black radical, that’s what they will see, and nothing Obama says can change that.

    Ultimately, the question is whether or not Obama has now become the sum of America’s racial fears, and if that’s the case, there is no going back.

  2. atlasien wrote:

    A lot of the gently soothing stuff was too gently soothing to my taste… but he really had to get that message across, for electability, and he did it gracefully.

    I thought this part of the speech was absolutely great:

    “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.”

    We complain about racism in America because we love America, damnit!

  3. Nae wrote:

    link to the video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

  4. Lynn wrote:

    I sort of agree with dnA. I loved every beautiful, thoughtful word of this speech. I thought it really did a great job of addressing why race isn’t just a black issue, or a white issue, or a brown or Asian issue, but something that holds us all back, as a country.

    BUT, I do believe that people see and hear what they choose to. I went over to the comments on CNN, and many were essentially saying that Obama was showing his true (i.e., racist) colors by “defending” Jeremiah Wright.

    And honestly, my heart grieved at their ignorance. My heart broke for their inability to hear what this man was saying–to hear and try to recognize that no one of us is the product of only our own generation in this country; to hear him talk of reconciliation. Nope, to many of them, he was, indeed, a black radical.

  5. Stef wrote:

    I listened to a good part of the speech, but I haven’t read the whole transcript. I heard him at at least one point list racial categories, “Whether you are Black, White, Latino or Asian…”. Did he ever mention mixed-race people? I never heard him do so, but maybe I missed it. As someone starved for recognition of people who don’t fit neatly in any one of those 4 categories, maybe I am unfairly pinning my hopes on him to use his position to help create such recognition through such speeches as these. I am not addressing how he personally identifies racially, as that is his own choice.

    Anyway, other than that, I think the speech did a good job of assessing current race relations. I think that most Americans don’t think about these issues any more than they must, and so maybe he helped introduce some new ideas to the average person. I also like that he didn’t focus the speech any one particular group.

    It will be interesting to see how the media spins.

  6. atlasien wrote:

    P.S. Here is a very insightful piece of coverage at Poplicks, also with a critique of Obama for his not-so-balanced take on Middle East peace.

  7. Dan wrote:

    “White people see what they want to see. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

    ALL people see what they want to see. This isn’t exclusive to any particular race. It’s a human trait.

  8. JustPlainOl'Me wrote:

    DAN:

    All people can have the “see what I want to see” mentality. But when it comes to issues of race, I believe many (not all) white people do not see certain issues as other races do. SOme choose not to see them. Others simply miss them.

    For example, my wife (who is white) and I (black) were out with a white couple we know who was preparing to adopt. They said they were adopting from Russia because they wanted to have a kid who looked American. Until I later discussed the comment with my wife, I don’t think it even registered with her.

  9. Phil wrote:

    “Ultimately, the question is whether or not Obama has now become the sum of America’s racial fears, and if that’s the case, there is no going back.”

    What ON EARTH is that supposed to mean? The inherent negative view I keep seeing on display here is what will ultimately destroy us all! When will people have the courage to have a postive, progressive view? Some will argue that they are being “realistic”, when in fact, you’re CHOOSING to be REALLY HOPELESS. FOR EVERYONE.

    Why? What purpose does that serve? What do you “realistic” people actually propose we do then? Roll over and hold up status quo? Or dare to question something? These people who have no hope seem to be afraid to truly think FORWARD. They want to think about NOW, then, and can’t even concieve of a future without tearing everything and everyone down around them.

    Dare to be hopeful, people. I know you all aren’t a bunch of cowards.

  10. Faith wrote:

    This was a great, honest and unifying speech. But I agree with the sentiment expressed in many comments that people will only hear in it what they want to hear. I think a lot of people are looking for a reason to vote against Obama, and the Wright scandal proves they will latch at anything.

  11. Taylor wrote:

    This was a great speech and it was a privilege to read and listen to it.

  12. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    A quick note:

    In all the punditry, has anyone heard any critical analysis about Obama’s response to Rev. Wright costing him the black vote?

    Last night, I was home with my boyfriend and we heard about the speech. My boyfriend (as someone very invested in his Christianity) had mentioned that he supported Obama this whole race, but if he abandoned his pastor in the wake of the controversy, he would cast his vote for a 3rd party contender.

    Anyone else have thoughts on this?

  13. Jack D. wrote:

    re Stef, “‘Whether you are Black, White, Latino or Asian…’ Did he ever mention mixed-race people? “:

    I inferred the phrasing, thus: black, white, latino AND/OR asian. … A small point to get stuck on.

    Regardless, I think it was a great speech. He’s an impressive character.

  14. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    Honestly, y’all, I’ve been struggling and struggling and struggling with this craziness surrounding race and gender and this race for the White House over the past few weeks. I’m having such a hard time because it sticks under the craw of my best Third Wave feminist beliefs, that the liberation of women is inextricably tied to discussions and actions around race, class, geopolitics, sexuality, etc.

    What I’m finding hard to deal with the blind spot that so many white individuals who pride themselves as being liberal/progressive or being associated with liberal/progressive causes–people who would be the first to run their creds down as soon as they shake my African American female hand–have been the same folks to say some of the most out-the-assedly racist things, i.e. famously, Bill Clinton and his “fairy tale” statement, Geraldine Ferraro and her “Obama wouldn’t be where he is if he was white or a woman of color” statement, etc. When these statements are called on for being racist, these same folks and their defenders want to deny/dismiss/ridicule the claim and the claimant, i.e. “I’m not racist; you’re racist for calling me that,” “I’m color-blind; I can’t see that statement as racially negative,” “Why can’t y’all get over it already?”, etc.

    I know what Senator Obama is calling for on the national stage is what Bernice Johnson Reagan called for over 25 years ago at the West Coast Women’s Music Festival: coalition politics. Here’s the full text:

    http://shewhostumbles.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/bernice-johnson-reagon-coalition-politics-turning-the-century/

    And, in my best Third Wave feminist heart of hearts, I want to do this. But, after dealing with this crap all of my life, of white people who keeping claiming they’re my political allies yet continuing to say and defend racist things and acting as if I should accept all of this and seeing this writ large on the national stage …

    *sigh*

    …I’m getting to the point where I just simply don’t want to work in coalition with white liberal/progressive people anymore. I’m tired. I’m tired because I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed that some seemingly otherwise intelligent people just devolve when the issue of race arises and, for all of their attitudes and activism, just die inside/get hostile outside when their white-skin advantage is questioned, if not challenged, for the fallacy that it is.

    Kudos to Senator Obama for standing up for himself and offering a nuanced–well, nuanced for a leading US presidential candidate–speech about the race in America. But it just feels like, once again, Black people are in the position of “explaining racism/explaining us” to white America.

  15. JustPlainOl'Me wrote:

    Latoya:

    I hadn’t heard similar comments. I wouldn’t call Obama’s actions an abandoning as much as I would call it a distancing from certain comments. I think Obama avoided that issue by reaffirming his feelings for the man and then explaining how you can have strong disagreements with those you love (like his pastor or his grandmother).

    I don’t know your boyfriend, but if he’s willing to walk away from Obama just because Obama wouldn’t tie himself with every viewpoint of his pastor….that’s weak.

    I can’t envision a mass exodus of black voters in the wake of this speech. If he had completely disowned his pastor, maybe a few (especially those in Illionis or in the Church of Christ), but Obama [I think] avoided that outcome.

  16. Redstar wrote:

    Latoya, Jeralyn at Talk Left mentions that:

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/18/112035/985

    saying it was politically important for him to stick by Rev. Wright so as not to alienate African-American voters.

  17. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    The Cruel Secretary - Trust and believe, there are many many days I feel the same way. It is frustrating. I am also very glad for the white friends I do have that don’t act like this, that get the general idea, even if they don’t understand every little bit. But like I said, I can really understand where you are coming from.

    JPOM - Maybe. I am not religiously affiliated so there are a lot of things I don’t know about, but that did seem like something he internalized a lot - that the rejection of his pastor and “church home” would mean he turned his back on himself. So, there’s that. A complete disowning would - I think - have cost him quite a few voters.

    I just think it’s interesting that while certain angles and population segments have been analyzed to death on this campaign, but no one in the punditocracy has considered that the black voter foundation is anything but solidly and unshakeably pro-Obama.

  18. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    Err… I just wanted to note that the quote from the speech repeats itself for three paragraphs.

  19. Lynn wrote:

    Latoya,

    I think your boyfriend has a point. As an African-American also very invested in my Christianity, I thought it was a good look on Obama to not throw his pastor under the bus. But for me, it was more about my blackness than my Christianity. I thought, as black people, we know where Rev. Wright is coming from, even if we can’t agree with how and where he’s said it.

    Obama wouldn’t have lost my vote anyway, but I can see how black people, especially those with feet firmly grounded in the church might have felt betrayed had he taken any other stance. First of all, I don’t think it’s very Christ-like to abandon someone, under pressure from other people, who is speaking from his real life experiences which, though a generation separates us, mirror my own. Secondly, yeah, I can see where some people might have considered that his “sell-out” moment, if he’d broken all ties with his pastor.

    @ JustPlainOl’Me
    It’s not a matter of tying himself to every single viewpoint of his pastor. I don’t believe everything that comes out of my pastor’s mouth, but I believe she loves God and has helped me build my relationship with God. If I cut all ties with her and my church because she said something I couldn’t ride with, I would consider that pretty weak.

  20. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Whoops. Thanks JJC.

  21. j wrote:

    It’s still sad to me and says alot about the status of racial relations in this country that Obama even needs to distance himself from the comments of his paster in a way in which the comments of Ferraro were not seen as closely tied to Clinton. Also, Obama’s line about the Middle East is extremely disappointing (and just plain wrong) yet not surprising. What is surprising is with all the talk about Obama and race, very little is said in relation to his foreign policy views on Israel and Palestine.

  22. Chris wrote:

    A quote from a Republican strategist on Fox News that I heard just a couple of minutes ago:

    “It’s offensive to Americans who are descendents of earlier generations of immigrants, like me, a fourth-generation American. My family came here four generations ago and played by the rules and made something of themselves”

    Paraphrases, of course, but it really really angered me that she’d say something like this when there is a specific part in the speech in which Obama urges the white community to acknowledge that past and current barriers to blacks’ success are real and exist, and are not just figments of their imagination.

    It just makes me wonder how much of the speech she actually listened to, or if she just subconsciously tuned that part of the speech out.

  23. Nancy wrote:

    I was totally inspired by Obama’s speech - and so glad that he finally took his stand on the issues - I think he is a charismatic world leader, and will be for his lifetime, even if he doesn’t become president - and I think he will win.

    This is the first time in 30 years I’ve felt such pride in an American political leader on a national level - Barbara Lee speaks for me, of course, and there are others like Maxine Waters, but this man represents a change in the Zeitgeist of our nation, finally.

    And, we’ll need to have lots of dialogue with non-progressive folk, and those who want even more leftist positions (like myself) to move toward greater healthy collaboration.

    I’m excited to live in these times, and I’ve been cynical and depressed for years !!

  24. london(2) wrote:

    i am blown away in england….
    have just listened to this twice…
    have followed this man’s campaign…
    what on earth are you all waiting for?
    put his behind in the white house…
    (can we have him if you don’t want him…?)

  25. Nancy wrote:

    Additionally - as a White woman, I would have been very disappointed if Obama hadn’t stood by his pastor - it would have cost my respect for his integrity.

    And there are clearly positions that are far more conservative than mine that Obama holds, but I’m counting his capacity to listen and change - eg. Mid East, getting totally out of Iraq. Maybe I’m naive that he is more open than most politicians, but I really think he is. And, we will have a lot of work and lobbying to do to make the changes we need to make to restore this nation, much less to move ahead and fulfill on the promise of the Civil Rights movement, the War on Poverty, and the anti-war movement of the ’60’s - but it is necessary.

  26. Abby wrote:

    That speech was awesome. I so desperately hope that he’ll be our next president. Not only do we need a leader who truly acknowledges these issues, we need a leader who is not afraid to talk about and do something about these issues.

  27. veeeee wrote:

    wow, i am so impressed by obama right now. i feel like i cant even perceive the difficulty of his task - to speak to the american public about racism in a way that is complex and meaningful and looks hard truths in the eye, and at the same time can be received and appreciated by people coming from suuuch different places. from other comments, it makes me think maybe this latter part isnt even happening as much as i first imagined, but still, obama does such an incredible job i think. its amazing to me that someone who may end up at the head of “the system” can speak this way about race. change is possible!!!

  28. veeeee wrote:

    and by other comments, i mean comments about the way people have responded in other forums about this speech being evidence of obama’s “racist” views, etc.

  29. Makwa wrote:

    I am so sick and tired of this myth: “Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution.” The so-called founding fathers of Amerikkka had only one goal in mind, and that was to steal, despoil and profit from the land owned by my ancestors, the First Nations peoples of Turtle Island. As much as I would prefer B. Obama over the other candidates, he still doesn’t budge from the myth of colonialism, which was built on theft, exploitation rape and murder.

  30. David wrote:

    Best line:

    “On one end of the spectrum we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action, that it is based solely on the desire of wild, wide-eyed liberal to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.”

    Thank heavens he’s uttered what so many of us have been mulling over: that he’s one of those items that white people like to soothe their racial consciences.

  31. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    Hugs for your empathy, Latoya. 40 years (if not longer) of feminists of color pointing out the same damn things and too many white liberal/progressives, e.g white feminists, not listening and continue to act up just makes me want to not keep on keepin’ on.

    As for your boyfriend’s comment: I guess I can see his viewpoint in the sense that saving-the-world-and-losing-your-soul sense– in this case, currying the favor of the body politic by selling out the earthly representation of Christ’s body, the church and the pastor.

    As some of the other posters pointed out, Senator Obama didn’t do that at all. He disagreed with his faith leader’s statements, that’s all. In light of the given speech, I’m interested in hearing about your BF’s reaction to it.

  32. summer wrote:

    Everytime he speaks, I fall a little harder. tis true.

    as for the people dna & lynn refer to who will see what they want to, i would guess that this speech was not directed at them. this is for the people who want to listen and think and then decide. and for that audience, i think this speech was well done.

  33. cacy forgenie wrote:

    i agree with commenter 14…and i’m gonna rant now..

    i walked away from obama’s speech thinking, here’s another black person explaining black people to white people… isn’t that what the subtext of the speech was, to smooth fears and to explain why obama is still with his pastor?

    i give obama kudos for not completely abandoning wright and i must confess people have some pastor wright in em. i’ll also say there are other people of color who feel a certain way about how america treats their group…

    that said, i believe that wrigh pushed more votes towards clinton and that there’s no going back to normalcy in obamaland, which seems to be a place of sunshine and raisins falling from the sky like a kellogs commercial.

    also, those sermons were old… where did they come from? who released them to the media? they just magically appeared on my tv screen and in my newspaper? i want to read that story, concerned journalists….

    i think this is just a scam, a fake out from the real issues and questions journalists failed to ask the candidates…. questions to clinton like: if you are such a feminist and experienced leader why didn’t you do something about all the women and children who were being chopped up in rhwanda during your husbands presidency? if you are such a feminist and a whole village raise a child advocate, why didn’t you stop your husband and his buddy madeleine albright from murdering 500,000 iraqi children in the 90’s? your husband and your friends killed more iraqi’s than saddam hussein. you love black people so much you stood by as tens of thousands of black bodies where chopped up in africa under your first ladyship and kofi anan…

    clinton is no femminst… sure she’ll quote helping women in china and northern ireland but did she resolve anything? no. clinton is not a feminist, she is a monster and no journalist had the audacity to persue that obama aide’s logic a few weeks ago..

    and obama? gary null made an interesting analysis a few weeks ago on his show where he laid out in plain sight the similarities of obama and bill clinton. he’s charming, he’s charismatic,he’s intelligent, he had very little experience and he may be tied to corporations. people gravitate towards him. obama is bill clinton part two and he is also the great unknown. further, he is regarded in the same way, symbolically, black folks are regarded as unknown in the white western unconscious… a realized living and walking thing where fear is projected; and thats how we will be regarded generations from now.

    great speech.

  34. Ms. Deloris Phillips wrote:

    Why does America continue to live in the flawless and perfect world of denial? Denial is the silence to lawful/legal injustices. The Great Creator choose Barack Obama as his compassionate vessel to touch America and bring ‘us’-'all’-'we’ together as “ONE PEOPLE!” As a minority I say, “No more denial!” There has never been change in silence. I stand in courage, truth and dignity! I am a survivor of racist power. I will be a voice for the misused, abused, society’s throwaways-minorities. COMPASSIONATE CHANGE IS INEVITABLE!!! HERE IT COMES!!!

  35. Mary wrote:

    “It’s offensive to Americans who are descendents of earlier generations of immigrants, like me, a fourth-generation American. My family came here four generations ago and played by the rules and made something of themselves”

    Wow, that’s disgusting. I love the coded message that racism is all black people’s fault for not playing by the rules.

    As someone who more or less fits that description - yes, my family also came here four generations ago, “played by the rules” and obtained the American dream. In no way does it mitigate or cheapen their hard work to also acknowledge that black Americans were forced to play by a completely different set of rules.

    If anything, I think this remark *dishonors* what those early immigrants accomplished… did we “make something of ourselves” just so we could act like self-entitled jerks? Quite shamefully for some, the answer seems to be yes.

  36. Big Man wrote:

    Look, I don’t care if Obama wins anymore, this speech was enough. To have somebody with his profile speak in detail about race on national television was outstanding. I don’t care about the people questioning his motives, or scoffing at his sincerity. I do not care. This speech was empowering, even if it’s the only thing that survives this cutthroat political process. This was a man asked to navigate a path so unique that failure seemed inevitable, yet he rose to the occasion and prospered. That makes me happy as a black man in America. It makes me very happy.

  37. Michelle wrote:

    Is it me or does Larry Elders seem like something out of nightmare. I keep expecting him to go “White Power” after every other sentence! Did you see him on CNN, talking about this speech and Trinity Church? I mean, he is like the old man from the Boondocks who hates Black people.

    How anyone could not get the heart of Obama’s speech is beyond me. I was exceptionally moved.

  38. Jack D. wrote:

    Sad: that a speech meant to engender understanding and unity triggers so many angry comments anyway.

  39. Amory wrote:

    He’s so *awesome*!

  40. Roger Green wrote:

    While the comment of a black person explaining black people to white people is true, sometimes it is required in American politics - JFK explaining his Catholicism in 1960, Mitt Romney explaining his Mormon faith this campaign season.

    I haven’t watched the speech yet, but I’ve read it, and it’s a tremendous piece. He had to find a way to distance himself from Rev. Wright without throwing him under a bus.

  41. thesciencegirl wrote:

    I haven’t watched the video yet, but I did track down the transcript this morning and read every word. I found it so eloquently put, so inspiring. I honestly teared up a little. I feel that this is a speech he had to make; the constant harping on race, leading up to the big hoopla over his pastor has forced him to do so. And I think he responded pretty much perfectly. I have to admit, I decided months ago that I supported Hillary Clinton, but with each passing week of nonsense from her campaign, I have found myself being disenchanted wit her vision for our country. And this morning, I heard Obama express so many ideas that I have personally held for years. His point about understanding the source of Rev. Wright’s anger was so crucial. To blindly condemn it without acknowledging the reason for it only feeds that anger, an anger that plenty of other marginalized Americans feel. I am multiracial (black, white, NA), and I have always attended black churches. Not infrequently, I heard black preachers make disparaging remarks about white people in power or just whites in general, and all I ever felt was tired, frustrated, and personally offended. Obama may define himself as black, and the media may see him as black, but I find it laughable that they would accuse him of internalizing anti-white prejudice. He is half-white. His mother is white. We have this in common, and when I heard anti-white rhetoric in church, I didn’t accept it; I was wounded by it. To suggest otherwise makes little sense to me.

  42. Lekshmi wrote:

    Carmen- I would really like to say “Thank You” for sending the Barack Obama’s speech. I thought had a lot of very good valid points to discussing about the racial division and politics. After watching the news, the media really has to do the mudslinging against race and discrimination over and over again. I do hope there is a drastic change in our politics this come November.

    Lekshmi - Wisconsin

  43. Clifford Black wrote:

    In answer to your question, what do I think of speech. Not too much. what it shows is that Obama does not know that much about the subject of Race. Niether he nor Sen. Clinton are actually talking about Race. What they both seem to be doing is talking about predispositions and beliefs that are in fact nonsensical erroneous misconceptions that are in fact the figment of a misguided imagination.

  44. PG wrote:

    wow. a truly eloquent speech that offers solid perspective on race in the u.s. he is brilliant and definitely the candidate to back as far as i’m concerned.

    i have to agree with the comment from poplicks about his summation of the position on the middle east, though. would be great to have him find a way to talk more precisely about that, even in comments that are not the main subject of a speech.

    also, if he really wants to talk about “original sin”, it seems there’s an opportunity to shine the light not only on the foundation of the country in slavery but also in genocide of native americans.

    (”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 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.”)

  45. J.P. wrote:

    A thought provoking speech that works at the core of what make us different but alike in the US. I may be nieve to think that Obama’s speech is going to change some minds, considering biggots/racists will always see this country as white and black. Until this perception changes, the US will always have a stigma.

  46. KD wrote:

    I LOVED his speech simply because it was honest. He came right down stright street and did not sugar coat the issue. His ability to state that we ALL discuss race in our “safe groups” was key. I also learned in his speech that whites and their anger has roots as well. up until that point, I never gave it much thought. That was a light bulb moment for me. All in all he spoke to the very soul and core of this country and it was high time someone did. He captured all people and did not speak from one side or the other but as someone that is looking to lead ALL people. He has done his part in speaking to all of us more than any other person running. If he is not elected, we as Americans will be wondering what if. His time is now.

  47. islandgirl550 wrote:

    I totally agreed with Sen. Obama’s speech today. There have been many times I have been in church and the minister said something that had me looking sideways… but I didn’t throw him under the bus… I just said, “that’s Rev. so-and-so… he’s off the chain!” But I didn’t disown him or leave the church I grew up in for over 25 years because I didn’t agree. Incedentally, the minister who married my parents, later in life said and did some crazy things in the church. My parents didn’t like it, voiced their opinion and kept it movin’ by doing God’s work and helping their community. Everyone has crazy people in their family, I would have loved to distance myself from my Aunt Pauline who liked to take her clothes off at family functions. She’s a part of my family. The End.

  48. Ann Brock wrote:

    If I never seen history in the making again today was a proud moment for me. He did and out standing job. I love the fact he did not disown his pastor which, to me was saying a lot. Some people is not going to be satisfied either way so lets move this thing on to the White House.

  49. Leigh wrote:

    I am so glad I went with my gut and voted for him in the primary. There are always going to be detractors, online and everywhere else, but the fact of the matter remains that the speech was intelligent, honest and direct. I definitely disagree with his comments on the Middle East, but otherwise I found myself nodding along to everything he said in agreement.

    And it’s okay that I disagree with him–I respect his beliefs and for the first time ever, I feel like he is a political who could actually respect my beliefs as a liberal middle-class 20-something, a feminist and a humanist. And that’s something I’ve never felt before. I’ve never felt like there are people in our government who could actually stand for what I believe instead of standing for cultural/political/social stagnation and regression, greed and war. I’ve never felt like my vote actually mattered at a citizen, like my voice could not only be heard, but also recognized and understood by someone of a different race, a different age and a different gender.

    Tonight as I watched that speech, I actually felt the hope Obama has been talking about for so long. And a total cynic, it was almost a little scary to actually believe in something again, deep down.

    He needs to be President. It has to happen.

  50. Celeste wrote:

    I’m wonder what we’d find if we dug up decades old speeches from pastor’s of other politicians. What about all the evangelists who said that 911 or Katrina was because we’re just too easy on gay people? Do they ever have to be disowned or denounced? I think that black people expressing anger toward whites is still a taboo for “good black people”. If you want to be accepted, you have to be seen as “safe”. Evidently, having a pastor that’s said some hateful (but in the historical context) things that you don’t agree with (as if everyone agrees with every word that comes out of their pastor’s mouth) you’re not safe and acceptable anymore.

  51. Celeste wrote:

    I want to second the comment on America’s original sin. I admit that I have been known to participate in the oppression olympics but I’d have to say that the whole genocide of native americans and loss of an entire continent is at least a tie with slavery.

  52. Clifford Black wrote:

    Fact: The United States of America was founded by Slaves. The so-called founding fathers called themselves the SUBJECTS of King George. The words subject, slave and bondsman are in fact the same. Persons from different parts of what is now called the African continent were Free PEOPLE who were kidnapped and then forced into diaspora, contrary to their will. A slave is something that agees with their bondage and will not fight or run from their incarceration. If there is truly going to be an informed discussion about what is being called Race then the issue must be investigated with truthful scientific information and not based on what one believes.

  53. Torontonian wrote:

    Wowww … I’m blown away. Obama is a genius. I didn’t think Obama could really change the United States before, and I didn’t care for either him or Clinton, but now I believe he can actually change the U.S. and create real, efficient progress. That speech isn’t just amazing for a presidential candidate, but it’s a very profound and insightful analysis of race to add to the antiracist movement.

    Now for my criticisms:

    “[…] I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”

    I don’t know what exactly he means by this. American Exceptionalism?

    “In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.”

    There are no other kinds of Americans in SC? Or are they not part of the coalition?

    “[…] instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

    This part is disappointing and I strongly disagree. But I’m not going to disown him, because that’s not the totality of his political views, and I believe that on the whole he can create positive change for America.

    That’s all I remember right now that was “bad” about his speech, as the awesomeness came in the latter half. I’m actually learning and thinking new ways about race relations from Obama’s analysis.

  54. dan wrote:

    JustPlainOl’Me-
    I still disagree.
    EVERY race has cases of ’sees what they want to see’. It isn’t predominant to just the white race. It’s not even isolated to race, bias happens in everybody.
    The examples are endless.
    Go to a sporting event and fans of all races for one team will ’see what they want to see’ when a referee or umpire makes a call.

    How about the OJ Simpson case?

    It happens between religions and nations.
    Osama Bin Laden is now a popular baby name in Nigeria.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1741171.stm

    In current news there are reports many Chinese citizens approve of the attacks on Tibetan protesters.

  55. fishgills wrote:

    This is a powerful speech. I’m continuously amazed at Obama’s ability to truly express a sense of American unity and patriotism. He denounced a zero sum approach to race and racism, and linked the concerns of poor and middle-class whites with classism and the concerns of people of color Americans with issues of racism. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard a speech that addresses this universal issue of marginalization so eloquently and with such a fervent and honest desire of unity and hope.

    Unfortunately, while Obama correctly identifies the perpetrators of this exploitation as corporate interests and short-term greed; he also fails to identify the equally guilty parties of colonialism and ongoing cultural imperialism. In such an earnest discussion of American history - its past injustices but its intrinsic hope for a better tomorrow - the failure to address the imperialism that founded the US and contributed so much to its current superpower status is more than an oversight - it’s a willful and conscious denial.

    Obama talks about corporations that send American jobs overseas for nothing but a profit, but doesn’t mention the humanitarian concerns of sweatshop labor, and just what kind of global economic conditions drive people to accept slave wages. He talks about the hateful ideologies of fundamentalist Islam, but doesn’t mention how Western colonialism contributed to the economic depravation that ultimately fuels that hatred - or how having your family starved and bombed might be more of a driving force in terrorism than religious conviction. He talks about the founding fathers and independence, but doesn’t mention how Native Americans and blacks were specifically written out of the Declaration of Independence.

    He dodges the current and much more controversial subject of American empire, while addressing the much more comfortable and acceptable discussion of American internal racism. Yes, unity is what we need in America, but that cannot and should not come at a cost to the rest of the world, and the inherent xenophobic nature of patriotism and flag-waving is an issue that Obama has yet to tackle directly.

  56. islandgirl550 wrote:

    Torontonion -

    “In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.”

    Of course there are other people in SC, but the relationship between blacks and whites has been strained for many, many years. There are decendants of slaves and slaveowners there, who not only happen to be related but have very different views on the Confederate flag. To blacks, that flag is a symbol of hatred and slavery. To many whites, the “Stars and Bars” just represents southern glory and pride. (Many say they don’t see it as a racist image) The fact that whites and blacks could come together in a place like SC where opposing views are sometimes so different is a great and NEW thing. I don’t think we’ve seen that since maybe the civil rights movement when many whites and black marched together for a common good. (I may be wrong, though.)

  57. Eun-jung wrote:

    I may be opening up a can of worms here, and despite the fact that I desperately want to make my voice and opinion heard about this AWESOME speech (I am currently at work and wish I had half the time to put into what I want to say) I just wanted to state one immediate criticism that I had:

    That despite how awesome and moving the speech was - and I will tell you, I cried at the end - I still feel that my (I’m Asian-American, for y’all who don’t know =)) voice in the struggle against race was not heard. I know that he mentioned “Asians” when he did his quick and broad overview of the race struggle (listing them out as “white, Black, Hispanic or Asian”) but that was it.

    Some people might argue that the fight against racism is deep rooted between the white people and the Black people for centuries and so forth. I am not demeaning that in any way - but the progression of racism in all forms has been spreading like a virus across all people of color for centuries, too. As sad as this is to admit, I strongly believe that through the course of time, even if the black anger and white resentment were showing signs of hope and mending, it would not alleviate in any way nor immediately dissipate the racism felt against other races, Asians, mixed, and Hispanics alike.

    Obama’s short “race call-out list” says it all: we first see the divide between the whites and Blacks first, then Hispanics - and then lastly Asians. Maybe because the Asian communities voice is just now beginning to make its way to being heard even in our own community itself.

    I know that our struggle as Asian-Americans has only yet begun but it would have been nice to see a reflection of how deep rooted racism affects not just the white vs. black, black vs. white struggle in Obama’s speech.

  58. bdsista wrote:

    You can find the speech on http://www.michaelbaisden.com or on msnbc

    Wright is Obama’s former pastor and as an active Christian, I get so tired of people attributing a minister’s opinion to another person. Wright is not running for President, and just because Obama sits and listens like everyone else in church doesn’t mean, he may not have said something to him privately (which is the appropriate way to do things in the church. But my pastor is not me and I don’t always agree with what my pastor says, since my relationship with God is my responsibility. Oh and if folk don’t vote for him because he doesn’t agree with his Pastor, then they need to stop drinking the juice and get their priorities in order!
    Second, the reason why there is so much mention of black and white is because of slavery. I know that some folk wish he would have repeatedly included all the other groups in the speech, but race riots and lynchings were predominantly black. Not that other’s weren’t lynched, but slavery was from Africa, no Asia, not Latin America and that is what has created the racial divide from day one. Not to downplay racism in its totality, but if you want to know why, whats why.
    Being real, I think its nice to wish he would say multi-racial, but ok here is the lesson. In America with the one-drop rule, damn near everyone is multi racial. Most black people are African, white, some Native American and depending on location you can add Hispanic, 2nd and 3rd generation you can add Asian and other groups. But that’s why you don’t hear a lot of multi-racial from the speechwriters. The average American cannot process multi-racial, bi-racial is another confusing thing. Obama is trying to get elected. We have this site to push the debate over nomenclature of multi-bi racial. Technically I am multi-racial, I refer to myself as Black or African American, that is how I am culturally identified and I think that is a huge part of ones sense of self.

  59. Hot Tramp wrote:

    The speech is more than we’ve heard in a long time, and that’s good. But it’s not enough for this radical. “Racism is not endemic”? Since when?

  60. Mark wrote:

    I read the speech, and was amazed, proud and even more scared for him…he’s coming to my state this Friday…a state created to exclude black folks, where it was illegal for black folks to live within the city limits before 1965…
    It’s not as if COINTELPRO has been dismantled, and its express purpose was to prevent the rise of a Black Messiah… Secret Service or Not…
    I personally will not step into a church twice that does not in any particular order: Have a historically and racially accurate picture of Yeshua, prominently displayed, do HIV/AIDS outreach, sex industry and gang outreach, homeless work, childcare, and other things referenced in Obama’s speech…
    So to the degree I can be called a Christian…that’s the way I was raised…so I’d accept the Afrocentric church label with pride… have the kind of church the Klan would bomb because of the work you’re doing!

    If you are not hip to Tim Wise… definitely one of my favorite “white guys”, though because he’s a Jew, the Nazi’s don’t think he’s white…but he has a wicked pen…peep dis:

    Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and the Unacceptability of Truth

    Of National Lies and Racial America

    By TIM WISE

    For most white folks, indignation just doesn’t wear well. Once
    affected or conjured up, it reminds one of a pudgy man, wearing a tie
    that may well have fit him when he was fifty pounds lighter, but which
    now cuts off somewhere above his navel and makes him look like an
    idiot.

    Indignation doesn’t work for most whites, because having remained
    sanguine about, silent during, indeed often supportive of so much
    injustice over the years in this country–the theft of native land and
    genocide of indigenous persons, and the enslavement of Africans being
    only two of the best examples–we are just a bit late to get into the
    game of moral rectitude. And once we enter it, our efforts at
    righteousness tend to fail the test of sincerity.

    But here we are, in 2008, fuming at the words of Pastor Jeremiah
    Wright, of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago–occasionally
    Barack Obama’s pastor, and the man whom Obama credits with having
    brought him to Christianity–for merely reminding us of those evils
    about which we have remained so quiet, so dismissive, so unconcerned.
    It is not the crime that bothers us, but the remembrance of it, the
    unwillingness to let it go–these last words being the first ones
    uttered by most whites it seems whenever anyone, least of all an
    “angry black man” like Jeremiah Wright, foists upon us the bill of
    particulars for several centuries of white supremacy.

    But our collective indignation, no matter how loudly we announce it,
    cannot drown out the truth. And as much as white America may not be
    able to hear it (and as much as politics may require Obama to condemn
    it) let us be clear, Jeremiah Wright fundamentally told the truth.

    Oh I know that for some such a comment will seem shocking. After all,
    didn’t he say that America “got what it deserved” on 9/11? And didn’t
    he say that black people should be singing “God Damn America” because
    of its treatment of the African American community throughout the
    years?

    Well actually, no he didn’t.

    Wright said not that the attacks of September 11th were justified, but
    that they were, in effect, predictable. Deploying the imagery of
    chickens coming home to roost is not to give thanks for the return of
    the poultry or to endorse such feathered homecoming as a positive
    good; rather, it is merely to note two things: first, that what goes
    around, indeed, comes around–a notion with longstanding theological
    grounding–and secondly, that the U.S. has indeed engaged in more than
    enough violence against innocent people to make it just a tad bit
    hypocritical for us to then evince shock and outrage about an attack
    on ourselves, as if the latter were unprecedented.

    He noted that we killed far more people, far more innocent civilians
    in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were killed on 9/11 and “never batted
    an eye.” That this statement is true is inarguable, at least amongst
    sane people. He is correct on the math, he is correct on the innocence
    of the dead (neither city was a military target), and he is most
    definitely correct on the lack of remorse or even self-doubt about the
    act: sixty-plus years later most Americans still believe those attacks
    were justified, that they were needed to end the war and “save
    American lives.”

    But not only does such a calculus suggest that American lives are
    inherently worth more than the lives of Japanese civilians (or, one
    supposes, Vietnamese, Iraqi or Afghan civilians too), but it also
    ignores the long-declassified documents, and President Truman’s own
    war diaries, all of which indicate clearly that Japan had already
    signaled its desire to end the war, and that we knew they were going
    to surrender, even without the dropping of atomic weapons. The
    conclusion to which these truths then attest is simple, both in its
    basic veracity and it monstrousness: namely, that in those places we
    committed premeditated and deliberate mass murder, with no
    justification whatsoever; and yet for saying that I will receive more
    hate mail, more hostility, more dismissive and contemptuous responses
    than will those who suggest that no body count is too high when we’re
    the ones doing the killing. Jeremiah Wright becomes a pariah, because,
    you see, we much prefer the logic of George Bush the First, who once
    said that as President he would “never apologize for the United States
    of America. I don’t care what the facts are.”

    And Wright didn’t say blacks should be singing “God Damn America.” He
    was suggesting that blacks owe little moral allegiance to a nation
    that has treated so many of them for so long as animals, as persons
    undeserving of dignity and respect, and which even now locks up
    hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders (especially for drug
    possession), even while whites who do the same crimes (and according
    to the data, when it comes to drugs, more often in fact), are walking
    around free. His reference to God in that sermon was more about what
    God will do to such a nation, than it was about what should or
    shouldn’t happen. It was a comment derived from, and fully in keeping
    with, the black prophetic tradition, and although one can surely
    disagree with the theology (I do, actually, and don’t believe that any
    God either blesses or condemns nation states for their actions), the
    statement itself was no call for blacks to turn on America. If
    anything, it was a demand that America earn the respect of black
    people, something the evidence and history suggests it has yet to do.

    Finally, although one can certainly disagree with Wright about his
    suggestion that the government created AIDS to get rid of black
    folks–and I do, for instance–it is worth pointing out that Wright
    isn’t the only one who has said this. In fact, none other than Bill
    Cosby (oh yes, that Bill Cosby, the one white folks love because of
    his recent moral crusade against the black poor) proffered his belief
    in the very same thing back in the early ’90s in an interview on CNN,
    when he said that AIDS may well have been created to get rid of people
    whom the government deemed “undesirable” including gays and racial
    minorities.

    So that’s the truth of the matter: Wright made one comment that is
    highly arguable, but which has also been voiced by white America’s
    favorite black man, another that was horribly misinterpreted and
    stripped of all context, and then another that was demonstrably
    accurate. And for this, he is pilloried and made into a virtual enemy
    of the state; for this, Barack Obama may lose the support of just
    enough white folks to cost him the Democratic nomination, and/or the
    Presidency; all of it, because Jeremiah Wright, unlike most preachers
    opted for truth. If he had been one of those “prosperity ministers”
    who says Jesus wants nothing so much as for you to be rich, like Joel
    Osteen, that would have been fine. Had he been a retread bigot like
    Falwell was, or Pat Robertson is, he might have been criticized, but
    he would have remained in good standing and surely not have damaged a
    Presidential candidate in this way. But unlike Osteen, and Falwell,
    and Robertson, Jeremiah Wright refused to feed his parishioners lies.

    What Jeremiah Wright knows, and told his flock–though make no
    mistake, they already knew it–is that 9/11 was neither the first, nor
    worst act of terrorism on American soil. The history of this nation
    for folks of color, was for generations, nothing less than an
    intergenerational hate crime, one in which 9/11s were woven into the
    fabric of everyday life: hundreds of thousands of the enslaved who
    died from the conditions of their bondage; thousands more who were
    lynched (as many as 10,000 in the first few years after the Civil War,
    according to testimony in the Congressional Record at the time);
    millions of indigenous persons wiped off the face of the Earth. No, to
    some, the horror of 9/11 was not new. To some it was not on that day
    that “everything changed.” To some, everything changed four hundred
    years ago, when that first ship landed at what would become Jamestown.
    To some, everything changed when their ancestors were forced into the
    hulls of slave ships at Goree Island and brought to a strange land as
    chattel. To some, everything changed when they were run out of
    Northern Mexico, only to watch it become the Southwest United States,
    thanks to a war of annihilation initiated by the U.S. government. To
    some, being on the receiving end of terrorism has been a way of life.
    Until recently it was absolutely normal in fact.

    But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find
    it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality.
    Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether
    in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with
    the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world
    like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as
    white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so,
    having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we
    cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally
    shared by our darker-skinned compatriots.

    This is what James Baldwin was talking about in his classic 1972 work,
    No Name in the Street, wherein he noted:

    “White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow
    up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be
    described as deluded–about themselves and the world they live in.
    White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in
    this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black
    man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would
    not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac.”

    And so we were shocked in 1987, when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
    Marshall declined to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution,
    because, as he noted, most of that history had been one of overt
    racism and injustice, and to his way of thinking, the only history
    worth celebrating had been that of the past three or four decades.

    We were shocked to learn that black people actually believed that a
    white cop who was a documented racist might frame a black man; and
    we’re shocked to learn that lots of black folks still perceive the
    U.S. as a racist nation–we’re literally stunned that people who say
    they experience discrimination regularly (and who have the social
    science research to back them up) actually think that those
    experiences and that data might actually say something about the
    nation in which they reside. Imagine.

    Whites are easily shocked by what we see and hear from Pastor Wright
    and Trinity Church, because what we see and hear so thoroughly
    challenges our understanding of who we are as a nation. But black
    people have never, for the most part, believed in the imagery of the
    “shining city on a hill,” for they have never had the option of
    looking at their nation and ignoring the mountain-sized warts still
    dotting its face when it comes to race. Black people do not, in the
    main, get misty eyed at the sight of the flag the way white people
    do–and this is true even for millions of black veterans–for they
    understand that the nation for whom that flag waves is still not fully
    committed to their own equality. They have a harder time singing those
    tunes that white people seem so eager to belt out, like “God Bless
    America,” for they know that whites sang those words loudly and
    proudly even as they were enforcing Jim Crow segregation, rioting
    against blacks who dared move into previously white neighborhoods,
    throwing rocks at Dr. King and then cheering, as so many did, when
    they heard the news that he had been assassinated.

    Whites refuse to remember (or perhaps have never learned) that which
    black folks cannot afford to forget. I’ve seen white people stunned to
    the point of paralysis when they learn the truth about lynchings in
    this country–when they discover that such events were not just a
    couple of good old boys with a truck and a rope hauling some black guy
    out to the tree, hanging him, and letting him swing there. They were
    never told the truth: that lynchings were often community events,
    advertised in papers as “Negro Barbecues,” involving hundreds or even
    thousands of whites, who would join in the fun, eat chicken salad and
    drink sweet tea, all while the black victims of their depravity were
    being hung, then shot, then burned, and then having their body parts
    cut off, to be handed out to onlookers. They are stunned to learn that
    postcards of the events were traded as souvenirs, and that very few
    whites, including members of their own families did or said anything
    to stop it.

    Rather than knowing about and confronting the ugliness of our past,
    whites take steps to excise the less flattering aspects of our history
    so that we need not be bothered with them. So, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
    example, site of an orgy of violence against the black community in
    1921, city officials literally went into the town library and removed
    all reference to the mass killings in the Greenwood district from the
    papers with a razor blade–an excising of truth and an assault on
    memory that would remain unchanged for over seventy years.

    Most white people desire, or perhaps even require the propagation of
    lies when it comes to our history. Surely we prefer the lies to
    anything resembling, even remotely, the truth. Our version of history,
    of our national past, simply cannot allow for the intrusion of fact
    into a worldview so thoroughly identified with fiction. But that white
    version of America is not only extraordinarily incomplete, in that it
    so favors the white experience to the exclusion of others; it is more
    than that; it is actually a slap in the face to people of color, a
    re-injury, a reminder that they are essentially irrelevant, their
    concerns trivial, their lives unworthy of being taken seriously. In
    that sense, and what few if any white Americans appear capable of
    grasping at present, is that “Leave it Beaver” and “Father Knows
    Best,” portray an America so divorced from the reality of the times in
    which they were produced, as to raise serious questions about the
    sanity of those who found them so moving, so accurate, so real. These
    iconographic representations of life in the U.S. are worse than
    selective, worse than false, they are assaults to the humanity and
    memory of black people, who were being savagely oppressed even as June
    Cleaver did housework in heels and laughed about the hilarious hijinks
    of Beaver and Larry Mondello.

    These portraits of America are certifiable evidence of how
    disconnected white folks were–and to the extent we still love them
    and view them as representations of the “good old days” to which we
    wish we could return, still are–from those men and women of color
    with whom we have long shared a nation. Just two months before “Leave
    it to Beaver” debuted, proposed civil rights legislation was killed
    thanks to Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour filibuster speech on the floor of
    the U.S. Senate. One month prior, Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus
    called out the National Guard to block black students from entering
    Little Rock Central High; and nine days before America was introduced
    to the Cleavers, and the comforting image of national life they
    represented, those black students were finally allowed to enter, amid
    the screams of enraged, unhinged, viciously bigoted white people, who
    saw nothing wrong with calling children niggers in front of cameras.
    That was America of the 1950s: not the sanitized version into which so
    many escape thanks to the miracle of syndication, which merely allows
    white people to relive a lie, year after year after year.

    No, it is not the pastor who distorts history; Nick at Nite and your
    teenager’s textbooks do that. It is not he who casts aspersions upon
    “this great country” as Barack Obama put it in his public
    denunciations of him; it is the historic leadership of the nation that
    has cast aspersions upon it; it is they who have cheapened it, who
    have made gaudy and vile the promise of American democracy by defiling
    it with lies. They engage in a patriotism that is pathological in its
    implications, that asks of those who adhere to it not merely a love of
    country but the turning of one’s nation into an idol to be worshipped,
    it not literally, then at least in terms of consequence.

    It is they–the flag-lapel-pin wearing leaders of this land–who bring
    shame to the country with their nonsensical suggestions that we are
    always noble in warfare, always well-intended, and although we
    occasionally make mistakes, we are never the ones to blame for
    anything. Nothing that happens to us has anything to do with us at
    all. It is always about them. They are evil, crazy, fanatical, hate
    our freedoms, and are jealous of our prosperity. When individuals
    prattle on in this manner we diagnose them as narcissistic, as
    deluded. When nations do it–when our nation does–we celebrate it as
    though it were the very model of rational and informed citizenship.

    So what can we say about a nation that values lies more than it loves
    truth? A place where adherence to sincerely believed and internalized
    fictions allows one to rise to the highest offices in the land, and to
    earn the respect of millions, while a willingness to challenge those
    fictions and offer a more accurate counter-narrative earns one nothing
    but contempt, derision, indeed outright hatred? What we can say is
    that such a place is signing its own death warrant. What we can say is
    that such a place is missing the only and last opportunity it may ever
    have to make things right, to live up to its professed ideals. What we
    can say is that such a place can never move forward, because we have
    yet to fully address and come to terms with that which lay behind.

    What can we say about a nation where white preachers can lie every
    week from their pulpits without so much as having to worry that their
    lies might be noticed by the shiny white faces in their pews, while
    black preachers who tell one after another essential truth are
    demonized, not only for the stridency of their tone–which needless to
    say scares white folks, who have long preferred a style of praise and
    worship resembling nothing so much as a coma–but for merely calling
    bullshit on those whose lies are swallowed whole?

    And oh yes, I said it: white preachers lie. In fact, they lie with a
    skill, fluidity, and precision unparalleled in the history of either
    preaching or lying, both of which histories stretch back a ways and
    have often overlapped. They lie every Sunday, as they talk about a
    Savior they have chosen to represent dishonestly as a white man, in
    every picture to be found of him in their tabernacles, every
    children’s story book in their Sunday Schools, every Christmas card
    they’ll send to relatives and friends this December. But to lie about
    Jesus, about the one they consider God–to bear false witness as to
    who this man was and what he looked like–is no cause for concern.

    Nor is it a problem for these preachers to teach and preach that those
    who don’t believe as they believe are going to hell. Despite the fact
    that such a belief casts aspersions upon God that are so profound as
    to defy belief–after all, they imply that God is so fundamentally
    evil that he would burn non-believers in a lake of eternal fire–many
    of the white folks who now condemn Jeremiah Wright welcome that
    theology of hate. Indeed, back when President Bush was the Governor of
    Texas, he endorsed this kind of thinking, responding to a question
    about whether Jews were going to go to hell, by saying that unless one
    accepted Jesus as one’s personal savior, the Bible made it pretty
    clear that indeed, hell was where you’d be heading.

    So you can curse God in this way–and to imply such hate on God’s part
    is surely to curse him–and in effect, curse those who aren’t
    Christians, and no one says anything. That isn’t considered bigoted.
    That isn’t considered beyond the pale of polite society. One is not
    disqualified from becoming President in the minds of millions because
    they go to a church that says that shit every single week, or because
    they believe it themselves. And millions do believe it, and see
    nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

    So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their
    views about their country. Meanwhile, those same white folks, and
    their ministers and priests, every week put forth a false image of the
    God Jeremiah Wright serves, and yet it is whites who feel we have the
    right to be offended.

    Pardon me, but something is wrong here, and whatever it is, is not to
    be found at Trinity United Church of Christ.

    Tim Wise is the author of: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a
    Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action:
    Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be
    reached at: timjwise@msn.com

    This essay originally appeared in Lip.

  61. Celeste wrote:

    All I can say is Amen. That was such a powerful essay and I really needed to read something like that. I was having to exaplin to another POC why Barak didn’t just distance himself for Rev. Wright. She just thought that he should just cut him off because if he wants to be president, he shouldn’t associate with peple like Rev. Wright. 2 weeks ago I was trying to convince this same person that “Barak Hussain Obama” is not a closeted muslim and that being muslim does not atuomatically mean that you can’t be a good president. It probably shouldn’t, but having to explain these things (that seem so obvious to me) to other POC that I’ve been friends with for years just bothers me more than my average “Rent a Negro” experiences.

  62. Fatemeh wrote:

    All I can say is: I heart Obama forever.

  63. wendy wrote:

    THANK YOU Eun-jung!

    I agree wholeheartedly. Every person I’ve spoken with about the speech loved it — I loved it too. It was articulate and beautiful and intelligent and honest.

    But I didn’t identify with it in the same way people I know who are White or Black did.

    I agree that the speech was powerful and moving and said a lot of important things, but I also think it continues to perpetuate this notion that racial issues don’t affect Asians/Asian-Americans, people of mixed races, Latinos, and anything else that’s not Black or White.

    I would write more, but Eun-jung covered it beautifully!

    Eun-jung wrote:
    That despite how awesome and moving the speech was - and I will tell you, I cried at the end - I still feel that my (I’m Asian-American, for y’all who don’t know =)) voice in the struggle against race was not heard.

  64. Barry wrote:

    You can find a video of the obama speech here:

    http://app.bronto.com/public/?q=preview_message&fn=Link&t=1&ssid=479&id=0tevk85q075zou2lnavb34y9vg1dj&id2=0i6g72bl900qm631o30nbd0p02q0m

    I loved your 3 part article on Sexual Harrassment!

    Thanks,

  65. Neo wrote:

    Clifford Black wrote about predispositional thinking. I weigh in with predisposed hearing sprinkled with a heaping dose of emotionalism.

    So called black people are easily impressed with anything that appeals to their wounds, black inferiority.

    If the ego is the false self created as a reaction to what society wants you to be then so called black must suffer from a severe collective identity wound. To be captured by “slaves” as Mr. Black suggest and then allowing themselves to be labeled by their captors and to then fight to keep that tag seems to me the epitome of insanity.

    Obama, just pulled a reverse Bill Clilton on yall. He talked a lot, appealed to your dysfunctional egoist condition of needing to heard by folks that can never hear you and you think that they, so called white people, will once again “get it”.

    Get over it folks. It’s just the conjurer’s slight of hand. If you want saving you better save yourselves cause 2 years from now you will see if by the remotest possibilty he is elected he will simply be piloting a sinking ship.

  66. TierList E wrote:

    Oh God Neo, no . . .LoL. Just . . .no.

    But God bless you for trying.

  67. Free wrote:

    @29 Makwa: To your comment I would add the myth of the immigrant experience. That all it took was hard work while failing to acknowledge the crimes and genocide that made that success possible.

    Barak can’t utter the words I want to hear - no from the outset he has to denounce the truth filled words of Rev. Wright, while I embrace them with my whole heart. After all, from what I’ve heard, Rev. Wright’s sermon was in part about the ugly truth of U.S. foreign policy.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=an5G8jEmXYs&feature=user

    In Egypt, I live what the US refuses: what matters here is personality, not skin color. Sure, there are skin whitening products (I haven’t figured that one out yet, and my friends are immune), and here my light brown skin qualifies me as a white woman, but that doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in the US - there is no political or social baggage about skin color. But as soon as I cross into US airspace this summer, I will be a black woman with all of the historical baggage, pride and frustrations.

    “…Cairenes [residents of Cairo], are tolerant of outsiders: nothing is strange but the Devil (ma grarib illa il-shitan - [a local saying]). Tolerance, suggests Milad Hanna, an octogenarian Copt, is a national trait … In Hanna’s opinion,

    Acceptance of the other at the personal level is a useful matter and it cannot cause any harm. I have learned from traditional maxims that ‘people’s love is a treasure.’ Whenever you accept the other as he is, with his merits and drawbacks, he will accept you. After that, he will be at your fingertips. You will have a wider circle of friends and acquaintances which is a big gain anyway. It will be up to you after that to choose …” (from Cairo, City of Sand by Maria Golia pp 118 & 119)

  68. Free wrote:

    I just want to add: Tim Wise understands very well the sickness that ails the nation. (@ 60 Mark).

  69. hahahahah wrote:

    Honestly, lol, this is what you typically hear in a black church on a Sunday evening. This is nothing new. The Pastor was basically stating the black experience in America. And do you see how he says in the end ‘but like Jesus, I learn not to hate my enemies’. So how is he hating on anyone. He is basically letting out the steam of the black community. Would you rather some black guy or a militant group go into Beverly Hills and shoot up the whole place, or would you rather have someone just tell it like it is, and swallow it? He is not being dangerous at all, and he is not being racist> he is angry like any Black American or minority should, about racial inequality. And how whites in the upper classes of society have always had privilege for their skin color even more than their abilities as people. It’s annoying. Just paint your self black for one day. and you will know. It’s just annoying how people tell you , that you should act more American, when you are not even treated like one.

  70. Herb wrote:

    Carmen,

    I don’t trust him to be president of the USA. He is a media darling no matter what his skin color. What has he done to prepare himself to be the Commander in Chief? What military affiliation does he have? I did not say because he is not a vetern he can’t be president. Aside from that, what has he done? He makes people feel good I suppose. Let us all be careful about jumping on any “special person” or “Black like me” or in my case “American Indian - Catholic - English - Oakie - Irish - Bakersfield (yuk) born - 6 foot + tall - balding - 29 BMI - married to Korean - White dude” bandwagon candidate just because he (or she in Hill’s case) looks like me. Besides, I like diversity of peoples in sharp differences and if America has a “Black, Asian, or any other specific” catagory person, it would be nice if they, sorry Carmen and all others out there of mixed race including my children & grandchildren, were just that and not black/white or white/black or half/half or Tiger Woods. Who can “really” identify with Barack Hussein Obama anyway? At least I am not afraid to use my middle name, BTW his is not to be found on his website, because I think people would associate me with the Chinese or Koreans and any terrible thing they might have done before. My middle name is Lee. In a perfect world his differences of make-up and up-bringing should make no never mind to us but the more I read and learn from all sources about him I really don’t want him to be a role model President any more than a “no sex with that woman…AR skirt chaser” B. Clinton. Let’s find a person with a good “regular” family and stable type background no mater what race, political group, or sex they are. If an Obama wants to be President, lets give their family a generation or so to stabilize and produce a good one with “family backing.”

    Sorry, way longer and deeper than I wanted to go.

  71. Pad wrote:

    It was as if Reverend Wright had finally gotten pulled over for speeding after all these years. Obama, on the Reverend’s behalf, proceeded to argue that his grandmother had been speeding, too. But it is one thing to be a chronically over-the-limit speed racer of a bus with parishioners, on which Obama had ridden with his wife and kids for twenty years. It is quite another to drive with your grandmother on a Sunday afternoon when she occasionally puts her foot on the accelerator. If the latter made you “cringe”, the former must have been thoroughly horrifying. But there is never a mention of a horrifying response. It seems to me that riding the bus with Pastor Wright was a reckless thing to do, especially with your kids and particularly when there were other transportation alternatives.

    Obama’s speech was arrogant and condescending the more I thought about it. Why? Because he never disavows his association with Reverend Wright. Therefore, he doesn’t have the moral authority to give this relativistic speech. It was made to save his campaign for the Presidency.

    More importantly, when you really cut through all the rhetoric in the speech, he does two things: (1) blames white people citing the history and (2) attempts to move past it by looking to the future. The future, however, doesn’t look so bright - have you heard the speeches from the new Minister at Trinity United? I predict an Obama Presidency will only lead to a new form of political correctness.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.