Comments

1. Nora wrote:

   I know he didn’t mean it this way, but I feel his comment lends credence to the argument that now that we have a black president, everything is okay. While the American people did elect a black president, it doesn’t make the You Lie! situation any less racist. It’s not like he won the election by a huge landslide either.

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶

2. Denarii Monroe wrote:

   In answer to your last question, I most certain think it does hurt the efforts of the anti-racist movement.

   But I think the problem lies in the denying of the impact of racial issues in the U.S. more than it does in people saying racism no longer exists. If you watch people like Obama and more conservative pundits, many (not all of course) will concede that racism DOES exist in the U.S. in 2009.

   What they will deny is that it is a serious problem–they will simply chalk it up to, “Hey everyone’s got the right to believe what they want, so we shouldn’t be worried about them when we’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

   And to a certain extent they are correct (IMO at least). I could go on a long civilized rant about the direction of the anti-racist movement, but that’s for another blog.

   I think they see the problem as existent, but insignificant, and therein lies the problem. If you’re basement is flooding you aren’t going to worry about the leaky sink, and to them “racism” is a leaky sink–healthcare, the economy, and the wars (which ironically are tied to racial issues) are the flooded basement.

   But everyone knows that the problems of leaky sinks, though small as they may seem, slowly but surely build up, and I think in the past few months, as Carter has suggested, things are most certainly building up.

   I do not think, as one black conservative/Republican suggested (in a mocking way), that folks will start wearing white sheets and burning crosses, but I do think, if it is not acknowledged and remedied now, it will most certainly become a larger problem down the line.

   I could say a lot more, but I’m job hunting right now.

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶

3. Big Man wrote:

   Maybe by saying “I was black before the election” he was letting folks know that this is the same old game. Same way he brought up the fact that he is a politician.
   I have to believe that this isn’t the first time Obama has seen racists attack him. This may be a new experience for us, but I doubt if it is for him. Given that, maybe he was pissed that Carter decided to use his platform to call out the racism now when Obama knows that’s a battle he can’t win.

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶

4. Elton wrote:

   is the Obama Administration’s directive to downplay racism hurting our attempts to prove racism does exist?

   Tough to say. I think Obama, as the pioneering first president of color, has had to learn through a few mistakes what and how much he can get away with saying. When he said the officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates “acted stupidly,” he said something that we were all thinking but we didn’t have the title of President of the United States to lend that enormous weight to our voices. Who can forget the outrage that followed?

   But when he called Kanye West a “jackass,” there was little disagreement, even if the media had some fun with it. It added to his popular appeal, and it wasn’t a serious comment.

   In this extremely delicate and controversial health care debate, I think Obama is making a shrewd political move not to focus on the racism and to ignore Jimmy Carter, as great of a humanitarian and as sensitive to racism as Carter is. We must pick our battles.

   I think there is a lot of room for the media to say much more on how the conservative opinion on health care is rooted in xenophobia and racism. We need to turn the tables and ask Joe Wilson what exactly he has against illegal immigrants and what America has to gain when the people who pick our vegetables and prepare our food don’t have proper medical treatment for infections and illnesses. Instead of focusing on the vague, poorly understood concept of “racism,” we need to actually point out examples of social injustices and how they actually affect our daily lives.

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:44 pm ¶

5. ceecee wrote:

   I honestly think that Obama as a person never really made race a big factor in his life decisions and things that affected him and he has carried the same attitude with him into the white house. Because he hasn’t really prepared himself to deal with race issues people aren’t exactly loving that.

   Think back to before the elections, he only addressed the issue of race in a major way in his speech on race and that’s about it.

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶

6. Amused0472 wrote:

   I think POTUS simply avoided answering the question which is not atypical of politicians when they’re on tv and don’t want to get into dicey subjects. Did it appear he was brushing Carter off? A bit. But in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think Carter is offended and will continue to speak his mind.

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:06 pm ¶

7. jen* wrote:

   I’m really not down with the brush-off. I *get* the whole not-being-able-to-call-a-spade-a-spade thing. But this brush-off leans towards giving credence to the whole “post-racial” myth. Maybe it’s just really good acting…or maybe it was just a mistake. I’ve made comments that sounded cooler in my head before. Too bad this one may resonate more with the racists…

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:14 pm ¶

8. JS wrote:

   Since the Van Jones incident I’ve been trying to grapple with what is becoming a strong narrative (really it’s been going on since the Wright controversy) of Obama basically never confronting racism and White privilege as much as I would like him to. To be honest, that is only one way in which Obama doesn’t confront the powers-that-so-deserve-challenging (the banks, the insurance and pharmaceuticals industry, the coal and oil industry, the industrial agriculture lobby, the entire Republican party and conservative Dems). But with race especially I really wish there was some way that Obama could resist racism without feeling like he’s ceding too much political capital. I just hate the double standard where White people can call something racist and it’s cool, but when People of Color do it their entire rationality is called into question.

   Now as a White man I can definitely acknowledge that I can’t even begin to understand the pressures falling on the first Black President. That’s just a heavy fucking trip. So my best guess is that Barack Obama long ago accepted the fact that he was going to have to make very heavy sacrifices (as do all politicians) to get where he was going. And one of those is that, like a Jackie Robinson kind of figure, he has to basically embody the completely un-threatening Black person as almost an ambassador to the entire idea of a Black President, in the hopes that in the future there will be more allowances, more diversity within the ranks of those let in on the process. As much as I dislike a lot of what Obama does I will never doubt that he is basically a brilliant thinker, albeit one who has made VERY different choices than I would make (but again- White man). He’s got to have some idea of what he’s doing.

   I just hope he doesn’t leave everything un-threatened, because we deeply need to get to a more mature understanding of racism and privilege in this country. Even MLK, who is now unassailable in White circles (as opposed to Malcolm X, the Panthers, and so on, who are ‘controversial’) was incredibly threatening. But he, like the rest of them, got killed in the end. Sigh…

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:16 pm ¶

9. thesciencegirl wrote:

   Obama reminded me of my father when he dismissed the claims of racism like this. My dad is a black man a decade older than Pres. Obama and despite a great deal of racism that he has faced, included professionally (which I had to learn about from my mom), he refuses to discuss it, stating the he doesn’t like to use race “as a crutch.” I think it’s a coping mechanism, a stubborness born of working extra hard to prove himself and refusing to give his detractors any sway. I wonder if this is a common response of that generation.

   I find it frustrating, but I think it’s probably part of how many successful black men play the game: feign colorblindness and thus, work within the white power structure without actively dismantling it. I think this kind of tactic can lead to individual success (you get to be the exception), but can feel like a betrayal to the greater “cause.”

   Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶

10. kenda wrote:

    Ta-Nehisi Coates talked about this earlier on his blog. I really liked this paragraph on the Obama/Carter/race fiasco:

    “I think it’s important for African-Americans to understand that.There’s a part in The Audacity Of Hope, where writing about race, Obama notes that, rightly or wrongly, a significant swath of white people are exhausted, and repeatedly scolding them (even if you’re right) is unlikely to alter the poverty stats. What we need, Obama argued, is a different strategy, one that connects our practical interests with the practical interests of the broader country–less energy on Don Imus and more on Harlem hospital. This sounds like a surrender, but it’s really a re-affirmation of strategy that goes back to Douglass. The point was never to wash white people, (an arrogant pursuit, at any rate) but to free ourselves. My interest in anti-racism is passing. My interest in black people is essential.”

    http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/connecting_the_dots.php

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:37 pm ¶

11. RJG wrote:

    It’s a rock and hard place situation.

    Could the President lift up the [non-republican-allegory-honest] elephant in the room and point out that there’s a shitload of racism going on? Yes.

    But the last thing he probably wants to do is give more ammo to the jingoistic, xenophobic, racist, etc mobs out there which devour fear and panic blindly.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶

12. Danny wrote:

    It’s a very political-oriented statement. On on hand, I mean, what would most of us say if we were in his position?

    Actually, we can tone it down, what would most of us say if were in the position of being community leaders, who represent a variety of demographic groups and opinions with some dominating others not so?

    It’s true that many people care about the healthcare issue regardless of race but then it’s obviously true there is race involved. How much idealism or principle do people want to or can be applied to realistic situations?

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶

13. mikilikemouse wrote:

    i like the questions you asked, just haven’t figured out the answers yet.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶

14. Sean wrote:

    I don’t think that President Obama’s comment invalidates (former) President Carter’s in the slightest. President Obama, at the end of the day, is still a POLITICIAN. Since he’s trying to push a health care system overhaul among other things, it’s not in his best interest to raise the black fist and shout “All power to the people!”

    Jimmy Carter, however, has a much wider berth in the racial discussion arena. I see it sort-of as a Batman / Comissioner Gordon relationship: Gordon must operate by the rulebook to bring in the criminals, Batman does not.

    I’m sure President Obama is very aware that racism exists. If you’re a black man with a name other than Ward Connerly or Clarence Thomas, I don’t see how you CAN’T be aware of it. However, I would like to see the President address the situation more forcefully and definitively. In the meantime, he’s got a lot of REALLY big messes to clean, so I’m glad that Jimmie Carter is speaking out on it.

    I just hope that President Carter doesn’t take President Obama’s downplaying as a signal to stop speaking on the issue.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶

15. B. Canseco wrote:

    I thought it was interesting how comfortable Obama was in dismissing Carter’s assertion so easily, as if Carter isn’t capable of detecting injustice or slights. Carter’s a white southerner who’s spent his life discussing social justice, but dismissing his view in favor who catering to folks who don’t want to discuss social justice at all wwas disheartening to me.

    I found that to be a much overlooked component of this discussion. See more here:

    http://www.hustleknockin.com/hustleknockin/2009/09/obama-dems-republicans-reject-president-jimmy-carter.html

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:05 pm ¶

16. Sara Anderson wrote:

    My take on this is that Obama has made a tactical decision to try to let people ignore race as much as possible, and to ignore it as much as possible himself. He seems burned out on the subject, and it’s amazing to me how he’s spoonfeeding the “My president is black and he thinks it’s not racist,” thing to everyone. It’s the Some of my best friends are black thing. Some of my favorite presidents are black, and they still take my votes, so how dare you call me racist?!

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:14 pm ¶

17. Tracey wrote:

    I think this was completely dismissive and straight up pandering to the people wo want to accuse him of playing the race card. He should know by now that they are going to accuse him of that regardless and trying not to offend a number of the tea baggers and right wing radio hosts is futile at best. The election is over, he can stop with the feigning ignorance. Even if he was going to be dismissive, he could have avoided the question much better.
    I would give him the benefit of the doubt if doing the election he had called people out for their use of the word Muslim as an insult. Instead he just did the whole “I’m not a Muslim” troop which without addressing the problem of using the word as a pejorative, reinforced the idea that being a Muslim should disqualify someone from being president. I didn’t expect him to outright agree with Carter or go into how Wilson’s outburst was probably at least partially motivated by white male priveledge (specifically the sense of entitlement to ignore/interrupt POC and/or women), but that answer was an insult and a veiled “shut up” to the people calling these actions out as racist. Oh and I’m pretty sure Carter is aware he was black before the election, as well as aware of the racist rhetoric then.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:26 pm ¶

18. Monica Roberts wrote:

    Obama probably agrees with Carter. He just can’t say that until after January 20, 2013.

    The first day of his second term.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:39 pm ¶

19. Joy wrote:

    Do we want serious discussion and deliberation about health care, foreign policy, the environment, and the economy OR do we want the media [who seem to be unable to restrain themselves or make any kind of decent value judgment as to what's important] to saturate the outlets with discussion on how Obama thinks he’s being attacked by racists. Yes, that’s exactly what would happen (as evidenced by the inordinate amount of attention dedicated to his remarks about the police officer).

    Personally I’d rather his efforts go to something that can produce concrete results. Honestly, even if he broke it down and everyone around the world had a heart to heart on race – I don’t see that changing people’s minds. There are other prominent people of color [in entertainment, academia, politics, etc.], who don’t have the weight of the country on their shoulders and who are not accountable to a national constituency, that can engage in the racism debate.

    Unfortunately, [and I'm as idealist as the next person] the best of both worlds isn’t an option here.

    @Kenda “My interest in anti-racism is passing. My interest in black [POC] people is essential.”

    LOVE IT!

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:53 pm ¶

20. aimerrouge wrote:

    There’s something to be said for not knowing a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. I am aware of pragmatism and consequences in ways I’ve never even thought possible when I was young. I could never be a politician for all the parsing of my every (non)utterance or my (non-revealing) body language. I’ve never been POC President of the United States nor do I know anyone who has, but the certainty of what should (not) be done by those who will arguably never hold the position is at times …….

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶

21. 123 wrote:

    For whatever his reason, I do feel that Obama brushes off/dismisses a lot of the recent racism directed towards him. That may work as a coping mechanism for him. However, the problem I have is that it tells the critics of his that are racist and more inclined to act upon their racism, that if they can get away with racism against the POTUS, they can definitely get away with it against average Black Americans (as well as other ethnic/racial minorities).

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶

22. jvansteppes wrote:

    I imagine Jimmy Carter understands Obama’s dilemma. If he does call people out on their racism then he’ll face hysterical accusations of being oversensitive, but if he doesn’t, then it gives the impression that nothing is wrong.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶

23. Afro-chan wrote:

    President Obama’s remark does disarm those right wingers a bit. They can’t pull the “he is using the race card” bit without looking like hypocrites.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 6:18 pm ¶

24. ashlynn wrote:

    I read this as Obama sort of reminding people that the healthcare debate stupidity is hardly his first confrontation with racism. It is definitely subtle. By not outright confirming or denying, he keeps the focus on the healthcare issue on just that: healthcare. I think if he were to say straight up, “Yes, it is,” it would only make reform that much more difficult to achieve. To echo some other sentiments in the comments, Obama’s certainly a smart man in that he knows when to pick and choose his battles well.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 9:37 pm ¶

25. Jess wrote:

    I’d agree with those that say he’s doing a little political judo here.

    I mean, I know race is important to readers here, and we love’s us some racism-confrontin’. But frankly, that isn’t always the best political strategy.

    For instance, good pubic schools are often a race issue, in many ways. But everybody has an interest in good schools. You can say “We need good public schools and you white folks are all racists for de-funding them.” Which may be true, but I guarantee you that is going to get you no-freakin’-where when you go to argue for a different funding mechanism in frnt of the state legislature.

    Or you can say “We all have an interest in educating our children and everyone should have access to the best.”

    It’s a matter of defining what you are for as opposed to what you are against. Being against racism is easy. It’s like being against evil. Many white people may engage in unconscious racism, and there are issues of institutional racism. But ask someone if they get up in the morning saying “Wow, I can’t wait to oppress some black folks” and they probably will say no, unless they are whacko militia types.

    In that sense, Obama’s comment is really true. He was black before the election, and in case you didn’t notice he was neck-and-neck with McCain in September, just prior to the big economic meltdown. Now, let’s compare his performance with a certain other black Democrat. Oh right, he lost the primary.

    So telling people no progress has been made and you are all a bunch of racists (or sexists or whatever) doesn’t seem to get us very far, you know? It makes a lot of people want to throw up their hands and say “OK, what the hell do you want? I guess no change is possible, then.” It also ignores very real progress, kind of dismissing the possibility of change at the start.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 9:46 pm ¶

26. zaccai wrote:

    I remember my dad saying, “I’ve been black all my life.” as a way of deriding my brother and I’s new found militancy and love for our blackness. Obama’s response is similar in tone. Instead of seizing the moment and addressing America’s most entrenched problem, he tells jokes and continues to compromise. By the time we wake up this moment will be gone and the problems will still be with us.

    Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 9:46 pm ¶

27. Minotaar wrote:

    Obama knows where his priorities are. It does not matter what he thinks on the issue; his number 1 priority is health care reform. He will have plenty of time as a lame duck (inevitably, hopefully in 6 years and not 3) to agree with president Carter. Until then I would be fucking angry if he was stepping in the flaming bag of poop that is race. He fell for it with stupid Professor Gates, and I hope he learned his lesson.

    I think that Obama understands fundamentally that there are a lot of people who are comfortable with a black president as long as he is not a reparations-demanding slavery-blaming N-word saying Civil Rights stereotype. I think if he EVER shows a shade of that, then he will immediately lose the (paradoxical) patina of the post-racial president, and become the Angry Black Man in the eyes of too many people. He needs too broad a base of support to be able to risk this.

    Obama is unique in that he figured out a “second card” that is not the race card, that a powerful black politician can play – the “race is not a big deal” card. By leaving race on the black burner, while doing a damned good job as president, he can let it die the slow death of obscurity that it SHOULD be dying – the same death by obscurity that hate against the Irish or Italians or Catholics is dying.

    The more he distances himself from the ugly politics of race, the more the fact that he is black and the fact that he is president say everything he needs to say. Ever notice that no one EVER has anything to say about Barack Obama’s blackness, except the ol’ “what do you think about us having a black president?” Thats what he WANTS us to talk about – the visions of progress and equality, instead of racial politics. He makes people against him, those that blow the dogwhistle of race, just look more racist, because he forces THEM to bring it up and be racist, and he lets the loudmouths in the media call them out. This will only silence them more on the issue of race.

    Whether or not he takes these actions because he sees it as an actual strategy against racism (this is how I see it) or because he thinks its simply the most expedient thing to do with regard to his political agenda, I have no idea. But I sure hope it works out both for racism and his politics.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 2:16 am ¶

28. Eurasian Sensation wrote:

    Obama knows, without a doubt, that a significant portion of the opposition he is now facing is motivated by racism, at least in part. But he can’t say it. Part of his burden as The Black President is that he can’t name racism when he sees it, because that would be “playing the race card” and the right-wingers would be all over him for that.

    There could be Klansmen burning crosses on the front lawn of the White House, but if Obama called them racist Glenn Beck and his ilk would still whinge about him being a militant black man playing the race card.

    A big problem is that many of those opposed to Obama are motivated by subconscious racism, which they won’t admit to themselves. They don’t trust him because he is “The Other” in so many ways, and they just don’t feel comfortable with him.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 8:04 am ¶

29. Lizbeth wrote:

    What struck me when I heard Jimmy Carter speak on the subject is that he must be significantly alarmed by the particular type of racist venom that is being directed towards the President of the United States…and let’s not forget that this is a man who is from the South and who has lived through the assinations of two Kennedys, MLK and Malcolm X. I think that he must have been fearful for Obama’s safety and that is what drove him to speak out.

    I feel that by brushing aside the claims of racism that were being directed towards him that Obama is doing himself a disservice. I understand that his approach is to be centrist, etc and that he does not want to alienate right wingers or be devisive but I think that the way that certain people are reacting to him is alarming and that they need to be held accountable for their behaviour (e.g. those who brought guns to town hall meetings should have been arrested and jailed and a statement from the White House security team should have been made, stating that that this sort of behaviour would be punished and those who attempted would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 8:56 am ¶

30. pololly wrote:

    Since the Van Jones incident I’ve been trying to grapple with what is becoming a strong narrative (really it’s been going on since the Wright controversy) of Obama basically never confronting racism and White privilege as much as I would like him to… Now as a White man I can definitely acknowledge that I can’t even begin to understand the pressures falling on the first Black President. …

    Well, yeah – I agree with the bolded.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 9:25 am ¶

31. CDF wrote:

    It isn’t dismissive as I’ve sure he’s aware of this. Carter just highlighted one of the issues to be concerned with. I’m sure classism, sexism, and all the other ism’s have been covered as well.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 10:16 am ¶

32. Catherine wrote:

    I agree with comment 3… I didn’t see Obama’s comment as an outright dismissal of Carter’s views. I thought he meant “I’ve dealt with racism and race issues all my life and at this point I want to focus the dialogue on health care reform.” I also think Minotaar (comment 27) brings up some good points. Obama is doing what politicians have done since there were politicians — strategizing, prioritizing and trying to get his message across to as many audiences as possible, no matter how disparate they are. I understand how his comment might have come off as dismissive, but I’ve never gotten the impression that Obama is someone who shies away from talking about race in a very straightforward, blunt way — when he feels it is appropriate and political to do so.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 10:41 am ¶

33. amy wrote:

    Obama also made a statement at some point this week that there were people who didn’t like him because he is black, and also some people who probably voted for him because he was black as well…and I think he is probably right about that. I don’t think that he was denying that there are racists who hate him, or that racism is a fact of life and a factor in people’s decision making.

    I just don’t think he wanted to allow anyone to think he is “crying racism” or that their personal feelings about him should be their focus when they are talking about healthcare. He is trying to keep the focus on his job. Unfortunately no one likes a whiner, and many people would paint any indication that he thought disagreement with him based on race as complaining, especially since he’s fighting an uphill battle. Unless it was something very explicitly and obviously racist, it IS smarter not to respond to it as anything more than a political disagreement.

    Although I am all for discussing race (do it all day long!), I can understand why he would not want to go off on that tangent when he is trying to accomplish some other specific task. And I can also understand why he would want to rise above the fray on this one, since he is focused on making an argument about policy in which his race should not be a factor.

    Sometimes it truly IS better to just ignore the ignorant (hey, I like that phrase!) and keep your eyes on the prize. I agree with Catherine, in a situation where it is appropriate and necessary I believe he will talk about it. At this juncture, it would only serve as a distraction and give his detractors what they want.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 11:36 am ¶

34. bertie wrote:

    I think the comment was had two purposes,

    (i) it was Obama’s way of saying “no sh#t captain obvious” to Carter, by reminding the audience and that he’s been dealing with these type of attacks since he entered the election (Barack the Magic Negro, Halfrican American, terrorist fist jabs, etc).

    And (ii) the comments were Obama’s way pf reaffirming that even with all the racist BS, you can’t stop his flow. He won. The racist had a chance to stop him and they failed. Its Obama’s way of reminding folks that he can (and has) prevail(ed) and that his opponents cannot rely on racism to get them the win.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 3:53 pm ¶

35. Suitepuma wrote:

    IMO, Obama is a pro at using race in his favor but NEVER mentioning it; infact, he says the oppposite (race doesnt matter, racism is not a big deal)
    Nevermind the fact that he was elected BECAUSE he was in every shape and form, opposite of Bush (and being Black, was the leading factor in him having a chance to win against the very White Repubs)

    Now that he is in the top spot, Obama KNOWS pointing out any or all the racism directed towards him is to NO advantage TO HIM (again, he uses or neglects race to benefit him)
    Obama is a smart guy but he is not colorblind nor innocent from using the “race card”

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 4:31 pm ¶

36. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Around the way I have heard/read people (including other Black folks) say what Obama “should have done” in response to this or that (possibly/probably) racist act or statement. Often, these statements turn to something along the lines of, “Well, I just know if it were *me* I would ________.” Where the blank is anything from “hold so-and-so accountable” to “kick so-and-so’s ass right there on the floor of Congress.”

    This sentiment is a little curious to me, and reminds me of two things:

    1) Young people, when taught about slavery, often speak of how *they* would have resisted, saying if it was them they never would have been a slave because they would have resisted in…some dramatic way that sounds like it came out of a modern-day action movie.

    2) Brothers at the barbershop in the hey-day of Tyson’s boxing career, marvelling on how much his opponents were paid even though they were beat silly in 5 minutes flat, saying “I wish they would pay *me* X-million dollars; I’d fight Tyson for that….”

    The first situation fails to acknowledge the full context in which slaves oppertated. There were consequences for their actions–both the individual Black person and her or his entire family/community. Even as there were excapes, uprisings, and other active resitance as well as various passive resistances, the *system* of slavery meant that no one of them was going to result in the overthrow of the system of slavery.

    The second situation ignores a truth that many a BET comedy show comedian has pointed out: Who would want to pay to see Mike Tyson fight *you*? (Where “you” is just some everyday Joe Blow from the barber shop.)

    I think something similar is going on here with Obama and his lack of admissions about racism: he is President in a certain historical and social context that would entail many (many, many, many) consequences for such an admission. Most of them would be negative–and not just for Obama.

    And finally, who would the audience be for such declarations from Obama? Who would be cheering that on, and how much (or little) would these people’s satisfaction matter in the grand scheme of things?

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶

37. sofie wrote:

    i think it’s important to remember that he’s no longer campaigning; he’s in office with a lot of tangible objectives to accomplish. to allow the discussion of his presidency to remain focused on his personal identity would be counterproductive at this point. it’s more a matter of avoiding feeding the frenzy of outlandish remarks on the part of republicans made in response to his administration’s policies than covering or avoiding conflict…while being POTUS does symbolically give Obama a great platform for contributing to social debates, it’s more important (esp at this early point in his term) that he stay as focused as possible on promoting his agenda as a leader.

    Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 5:38 pm ¶

38. Lisa J wrote:

    “But ask someone if they get up in the morning saying “Wow, I can’t wait to oppress some black folks” and they probably will say no, unless they are whacko militia types ”

    ROFLMBAO. Too funny.

    I was disappointed but not suprised by Obama’s response. A brother’s gotta do, what a brother’s gotta do and keep on moving. He really didn’t have a choice. Jimmy Carter has gone WAY up in book now. Brother Carter testified!

    Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 3:00 pm ¶

39. octogalore wrote:

    I think Obama handled it right. Carter’s comment was too blanket an assertion, and either agreeing or disagreeing with it in toto would open up a can of worms. Obama could have made a more nuanced analysis — as in, some of the dissent is motivated by racism, some of it by partisanship, some of it by people who just don’t like the plan for reasons that could span from selfishness to principled economic disagreement.

    But Letterman isn’t the format for this, and to answer the question substantively would have distracted from Obama’s policy agenda. Which I happen to disagree with, cards on the table, but I think given that agenda, how he handled the question made perfect sense.

    Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 11:58 pm ¶