A Speech Of Peaks And Valleys
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Barack Obama | Miscellanea | Race In America — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The reaction to Barack Obama's address on race has been as close to universally positive as any post-speech reaction that I have seen in a long time. To be sure, the speech itself is well-written and the stagecraft that accompanied it was pitch-perfect. Additionally, I have no problem saying that there is a great deal about the speech that I liked and approved of. Obama did point out--quite properly--that Jeremiah Wright's incendiary comments sounded like they were stuck in the past and reproached his pastor for thinking that we have not come a long way as a country since the worst days of racism. He should be applauded for that.
Yet, in a number of ways, Obama's speech fell short, both rhetorically and substantively. There has been a surplus of praise and relatively few critiquesof the speech. Maybe Obama just did such a brilliant job that no critiques are possible. But speechmaking is a human enterprise and Barack Obama--popular opinion to the contrary notwithstanding--is human. It should come as no surprise that there were shortcomings in the speech and given that Obama is running for the Presidency, it behooves us to examine those shortcomings thoroughly.
Read on . . .
Consider, for example, the following
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Okay . . . except for the fact that few of us have had "pastors, priests, or rabbis" who said things like "God damn America," or claimed that the government invented AIDS to kill African-Americans, or claimed that the attack of Pearl Harbor was a government plot. Spiritual leaders are supposed to provoke us and make us think. But they are not supposed to misrepresent history and Jeremiah Wright's comments went well beyond the mere creation of a difference of opinion to actively and deliberately misrepresent history. And if the misrepresentation of history was not deliberate, if Wright actually believed what he was saying, he should have been corrected quickly, respectfully and yet forcefully.
One of Barack Obama's key strengths is the ability to take in a particular point of view, demonstrate that he understands that point of view, afford--or appear to afford--that point of view the respect that it deserves (we are assuming, for the purpose of this passage, that this point of view is a mainstream one that differs from Obama's views), and then respond by saying that he looks at the issue under discussion from a different angle, and having listened, he would like to present his side of the story. This approach causes his interlocutor to believe that he/she has been listened to by Obama and furthermore, causes the interlocutor to feel obliged to listen to Obama in turn, and potentially be persuaded by him.
One cannot help but wonder why Obama did not use this gift to turn Wright around if he objected as strongly as he says he did to Wright's words. I don't believe for a moment that Obama subscribes to Wright's worldview--I take him at his word that he does not. But it is more than a little strange that Obama didn't seek to persuade Wright of the error of his views. A "pastor, priest or rabbi" has a leadership role with relation to the congregation. But the congregant can lead too. Obama had a chance to lead Wright to a more sustainable and fact-based worldview.
He failed to do so. Indeed, he didn't even try.
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.
In this passage, Obama conflates Wright with "the black community"; to disown Wright would be the same as disowning the black community. Really? If I, a Jew, objected to the preaching of my rabbi and chose to leave my synagogue, would I be forsaking all Jews and Judaism? Of course not--the latter does not automatically follow from the former. Indeed, it would be strange if it followed at all. Obama has a lot of history with Wright and Wright has played a big role in Obama's life. But even if Wright were "disowned," Obama could and would remain tied to "the black community." Wright does not personify the black community, important as he might be in Obama's life and the black community's relations with Obama do not depend on the presence of Wright in Obama's life.
As for the passage about Obama's grandmother, many have said that this amounts to Obama "throwing his grandmother under the bus." I disagree, but the passage is still not appropriate to the discussion. One does not choose one's own grandmother and to disown a blood relative is utterly wrenching, and for many people, impossible. If Obama's grandmother made Inappropriate Statement Alpha and Jeremiah Wright made the same statement--or a similar one--it would be far easier for Obama to "disown" Wright than it would be to disown his own blood relation--especially given the key role that blood relation played in raising Obama.
Of course, there is something to be said for standing by a friend and Obama wants to stand by Wright. Fine. But as referenced above, could he not have used his considerable persuasive skills to try to wean Wright from his worldview, a worldview that Obama objects to and condemns? And it should be mentioned that Obama seeks to have it both ways when it comes to his relationship with Wright. In the speech, he announces that he cannot disown his pastor. But in a very real sense, he already has. Indeed, over a year ago, Wright was disowned, or at the very least, a considerable distance was placed between Wright and his former congregant when Obama disinvited Wright from the launching of his Presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois in February of last year.
So what's the deal here? Does Obama stand with Wright? Or does he just stand with Wright except for the times when he doesn't?
Obama notes that there remains a simmering anger on the part of many groups when it comes to race relations. He is quite right. Understandably, on a whole host of fronts, feelings are very raw. We ought to understand that and take this fact into account. If we do not, we court folly and disaster.
But let's understand as well that simmering anger is no basis and no excuse for the kinds of misrepresentations of history that Wright engaged in during his sermons. Nor would they excuse similarly outrageous claims made by whites who, as Obama explains, may have their own reasons to be bitter. In particular, a community leader like Wright has a special obligation to be careful and temperate when it comes to his choice of words--and that obligation extends to white community leaders who are similarly situated. Demagoguery is not excusable. Ignorance concerning history is not excusable. Demagoguery and ignorance must--must--be corrected by responsible people on both sides of the racial divide. Those who make demagogic and ignorant statements lessen their status as leaders in the eyes of the community at large. And those who remain silent when demagogic or ignorant statements are made--or those who cheer those statements on--fail the test of leadership from the first instance.
So it is valuable for Obama to explain Wright's worldview. And it is valuable for him to empathize with the bitterness some whites may feel. But at the end of the day, wrong is wrong. Wrong must be challenged. And what is wrong ought finally to be put right.
Obama does much to put things right in his speech but he should have owned up to his failure to do so as a congregant prior to the speech. If he actually did try to do so, we are left unaware. When it comes to leadership, perhaps we might say "better late than never." But even if we take that view, why be late at all?
And then, of course, there was this:
. . . Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Er . . . was all "conservative" commentary on the issue of race and racism "bogus"? Is it possible that conservatives may have had a point here and there, or that contemporary liberals may have made a few "bogus" blunders of their own?
And this:
. . . This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
I have linked to this a night ago. I shall link to it again: "Oh my God, maw, I think my eardrum just exploded." Indeed. Evidently, we Americans need to stop being afraid of each other and we should just be afraid of the damn furriners who might come and pickpocket us out of our livelihoods. Transcending domestic racism with international protectionism is nothing to boast about.
And in the end, despite what Obama's passionate admirers say, the speech was not the transcendent piece of oratory they make it out to be. I applaud Obama for the effort. It was good in a number of places. But there needs to be a follow-up conversation, not just because the issue of race is so complex and challenging, but also because in a very real sense, Barack Obama's speech failed.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Polls! — Comments (2) »
A Speech Of Peaks And Valleys 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
How much of this anger in the black community comes from being told that the white man created AIDS to infect the black man ?
How much of this anger comes from being told that the white man is the root of all the black communities problems ?
This anger, is it a result of following MLK or Malcolm X ?
Of the 2 paths, MLK or Malcolm X which did Wright choose ?
Which path has Obama chosen ?
His actions say Malcolm X while his words say MLK ?
Words or deeds ?
When the two are not the same most men are judged by their deeds because deeds don't lie.
Hi Pejman,
Nice commentary - just wondering what you think about this:
Was this not a communist speech? The theme that we need to transcend our differences as ordinary proletarians and unite to confront the real enemy?
The really bizarre thing about this speech is that Obama used an occasion for apology to attack his opponents and shift the blame onto capitalism.
It just strikes me as similar to all that ancient Marxist stuff. I'm wondering what you think.
Joel Pollak
Guide to the Perplexed
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com
Um...please define "ancient"
I think the speech was the first half of a very good speech.
Why do I say that?
Because great sermons or political speeches generally begin with a summary of how we got to the present moment in time . . . and Obama's does that.
But a great leader, preacher, or teacher then transitions into a call to action, a commission, or a mandate (this comment being written on Maundy Thursday -- so named for Jesus' "mandate" to the apostles to love one another as He has loved them). This Sen. Obama failed to do.
Such a mandate might have told blacks and whites to put these long held hostilities -- some of which may well have justification -- away. It's time to stop with the hyperbole about whites causing the drug problem, or the white government creating AIDS, and all of the other nuttiness that serves only to divide us.
Some prominent black Americans have demonstrated the courage to make such statements . . . Juan Williams, Bill Cosby, and Clarence Thomas are a few examples.
Sen. Obama demonstrated that he lacked their courage, instead using the last part of his speech simply to suggest that folks should vote for him and, presumably, every tear will be wiped away.
Very disappointing.
BRASSBAND77
You said "I don't believe for a moment that Obama subscribes to Wright's worldview--I take him at his word that he does not."
Why? Obama has been caught in numerous lies, including the recent one where he said he wasn't aware of Wright's controversial statements- which he admitted wasn't true in his speech.
So, one of three things has to be the case:
1. He didn't know Wright was a vile racist.
2. He knows, and disagrees with his views, but chose a person whose philosophy he's in disagreement with as his mentor and spiritual advisor, and takes his children there every week to be influenced by the man's hate speech, anyway.
3. He knows, and AGREES with Wright's views, which is why he chose him as his mentor and spiritual advisor, and why he allows the man to influence his children. Therefore, his political image is just a façade, because he believes it can get him the presidency, where he can advance the political agenda ("black power") of his mentor and their church.
We know #1 isn't true- Obama would have to be a moron (which is NOT one of his many faults), and besides, he pretty much admitted that he DID know, in his speech.
#2 is what Obama wants us to believe, but it seems impossible. The only reason to do such a thing would be because he thought it was politically expediant to be closely associated with a "black power" racist bigot. He would have to be a completely amoral political opportunist to do something like that - and even then, would he really be such a monster as to expose his children to it as well?
That leaves #3. Can anyone make a rational case for this NOT being the most likely explanation?
The workings of any individual's mind is a complex and multifaceted process, whereby race is only one of countless points on which a person's life philosophy is founded.
Surely, Obama knew, either when first joining the church or after the first unconventional sermon, that Rev. Wright holds a number of racist views, but aside from this, what else would Obama--and any other congregation member--have seen?
Maybe this: "[Rev. Wright] is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS."
We must not base all of our criticisms purely on one's views on a particular issue.
There are plenty of sites that will welcome those who excuse hate speech and virulent conspiracy theorizing from people [who have] above a certain melanin level in their skin; this isn't one of them.
Fair warning: site moderator writing this, so don't presume that this is a topic for further discussion.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"We must not base all of our criticisms purely on one's views on a particular issue."
than what shall "we" base our criticisms on exactly? I would say that is the silliest thing I have ever seen posted on a site that directly blogs about the views of a particular issue whether in agreement or opposed to that view.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Obama said "[Rev. Wright] is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another".
A man who lumps 2/3 of America's population into a group that he then blames for everything bad that has ever happened to HIS group, accusing us of crimes as evil as attempted genocide, is NOT demonstrating that he believes in the Christian obligation to love one another.
Obama may CLAIM that Wright preaches those things, but he obviously doesn't believe them. "God Damn America" is clearly not an expression of "love for one another". The hypocritical contradiction between what the bible says (and Obama claims Wright believes) and what Wright actually preaches, should be obvious. It should have disqualified the man from being selected as a "Spiritual Leader" or mentor.
That is, unless Obama shares that same distorted view - that "one another" only means "others of my race, and it's OK to hate our white oppressors".
pejman:
In your over analysis of Obama's speech on race you made his point perfectly. Instead of trying to understand why, or how anyone could say or think such words, you instead decided to view every word through your own subjective lens. Rather than go into a long diatribe and sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph analysis of your piece, let me try and uncover a central fallacy in your commentary, i.e. your apparent definition of history.
As many historians do, you seem to think that history is some objective retelling what happened in the past, that historians simply lay out the facts as they occurred some undetermined years ago. Most true historians understand that this view of history is far from the truth, that in fact most historians write history from a particular point of view.
You stated many things you not only considered to be historical facts but true as well. What you omitted was, were there any other facts that may have caused one to arrive at different conclusions. This goes right to the central tenet of history being a subject that only relates the facts. The problem is this,there are virtually an infinite number of facts surrounding any event,or issue. Since no historian can restate every fact about an event, issue, or person, how, or why did he or she make the decision to include some facts but not others.
A few examples, when I grew up in my history texts I read about the Westward expansion of the United States. I read about the wars against the Indians. I read how the U.S. cavalry and army was instrumental in defeating Indians. I read about how some Indian tribes massacred settlers. I read about the cowboys of the old west. All of these were facts. They indeed happened, but they were not nearly all of the facts.
Here are some of the omitted facts: Settlers and the U.S. military massacred Indians killing women, children, and infants. We confined Indians to reservations under outrageous and inhuman conditions. We fed them rotten food and stole their lands. Entire regiments of cavalry protecting and opening the west were comprised of Black Cavalrymen, i.e. the 9tn and 10th cavalry. Yet another fact, thousands of those cowboys in the old west were also Black. These and other facts never made the history books of my youth. Why? Why did the historians of the time omit these facts? Were they not equally important to any understanding of what happened and why?
As a young soldier in training at FT Knox, the home of Cavalry and Armor, I remember going into the Museum and viewing old photographs back in the heyday of the cavalry. Not one Black face appeared in any of those old photographs. Were the photographs somehow not factual, of course they were factual! They were old photographs of real U.S. Cavalrymen. years later I would return to that museum and once again there were photographs on the wall of cavalrymen from the old west, the same as before. However, now there were Black faces peering out from some of those photographs. How could that be? Did someone make up these photographs and make them look as if they were old? of course they didn't.
If you were to read a common U.S. history text from the 50s and compare it to one from today in any school district, you may wonder are these 2 texts relating the history of the same country? I would ask Pejman, did history change or do we have a better and more complete understanding of it now, or you may add a more subjective view. Which is really true?
You also dismissed out of hand any notion that our government or that anyone in our government knew that the Japanese intended to attack Pearl Harbor. I would ask, so how do you know that no one did. How do you know there was no conspiracy at any level to get us into WWII. While the dominant historical explanation says no, there are plenty of serious texts that go on to say the opposite. Each side lays out facts to support their view. Can you or anyone say we know every single fact associated with, and surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor? To paraphrase, what did everyone know and when did they know it about Japanese intentions? Might there be some documents somewhere that could increase our understanding of what happened? Of course there could be.
Consider the following: For years the United States created and experimented with biological weapons and chemical weapons. Did people know this maybe 70 years ago? They probably didn't. If you had asked people in this country in the 40s and 50s would your government conduct medical experiments on citizens without their knowledge? Would the government have released chemicals into the air in certain cities without anyone's
knowledge? Most people would have said that's ridiculous, no way that could happen here!
However, now we know that our government conducted experiments on a group of Black men who had syphilis. Instead of treating these poor men they lied about treatment and gave them placebos so they could observe the longterm effect of syphilis. We know that some Black women were sterilized without having given their permission. We know that thousands of soldiers were exposed to radiation during testing of nuclear weapons and told that it was safe when really we had no idea whether it was safe or not. In fact many scientist had warmed it was unsafe. We experimented with other soldiers and civilians without their consent or knowledge with mind altering drugs. We released low levels of chemicals into the air in several cities without telling anyone. We now know that cigarette companies deliberately withheld knowledge about the dangers of smoking, or that it was addictive.
In view of this, is it any wonder that conspiracy theories could take hold about a biological illness (HIV Aids) that seemingly came of out nowhere? Could anyone make the leap, that government was involved? of course they could. My own mother fervently believe it to be true. One could logical reason if government did those other things, is it possible they could have done this too and it got away from them? I think not, but I do understand how some people, even those of high intelligence, could believe it.
By making absolutely no attempt to walk a mile in another man's moccasins, you fall into the exact trap of which Obama so fervently spoke. You may never agree with anyone's particular point of view, however; if you make no attempt to understand how could this be, how could anyone hold such views, the stalemate will continue on all sides and America will never, ever get over it's peculiar preoccupation with Race.
This is the exact reason I never wanted Obama to run for President because I knew it would come to this. I knew that America simply will not and cannot have an honest, wide ranging discussion and or understanding about race. I have seen my disappointment with my own nation time and time again, and yes even to the point where I could have also said, God damn America. If we look dispassionately at some of the things we have done collectively as America without regard to race, we deserved and earned that epithet at times.
I have never been a proponent of my country right or wrong, nor will I ever be. America is not God, therefore as a nation we are not above criticism, even harsh criticism. Indeed when we as a nation do not live up to our constitution, the criticism of we the people should be harsh and unrelenting. Less you forget we once killed hundreds of thousands of our own citizens simply because as a nation we were not living up to our own principles. Indeed lately, when I hear a politician, any politician close his comments with God Bless America I cringe. Increasingly that sounds like a command to God to bless the chosen Nation. I wonder should it not be America bless God to all those who profess to follow a religion. Enough said, hopefully Pejman this is not the end, but only the end of the beginning.
Since the video clips show the parishioners leap to their feet, clap, sing, dance, sway, and cheer on Jeremiah Wright during his vile rants, what did Obama and Michelle do? sit still? Did he write so much as a mild note of disagreement to his pastor? to any members of the congregation? or did he keep coming Sunday after Sunday for more? Since he's not told us what his demonstrable reactions were, we could for now at least conclude that he did absolutely nothing. If so, he has no business telling any of us about the "audacity" of anything, much less hope.