Unity at What Cost?
In his landmark speech about race, Barack Obama apparently has chosen to ignore some difficult claims raised by the sermons of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, in favor of seeking unity. He said that Dr. Wright's comments “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view...that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.” He also called them “ not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity.” It is one thing to disagree, but to do so with an appeal to unity is effectively to dismiss dialogue altogether.
Not surprisingly, Obama is calling for unity on the issue of race. Dr. Wright was preaching to a primarily African-American congregation who know the ugly truth about racism from their own personal experience. Unfortunately, by calling Wright's comments “racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems,” ignores the context and serves to avoid a deeper conversation about race. Obama said that Wright was wrong to claim that white racism is endemic, yet offers no argument. The simple fact that Africans came to this country in chains would seem sufficient to support Dr. Wright's position. Even Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee has said that he understands the heat in Wright's rhetoric since they are both from a generation that lived through blatant, legal racial segregation in this country. Changing laws may change behavior, but it doesn't change hearts and minds. Racism is embedded in the thinking of many, including, as Obama pointed out, his own white grandmother. Simply talking about language and attitudes and not calling it racism is a game of semantics that further pushes the discussion underground. Only a full, deep, rich discussion in the light of day will help us to move toward undoing racism. Obama has the opportunity to spark this discussion in America. Perhaps he believes that that would cost him the presidency. Sadly, that is likely true.
The second topic that seems to be off the table is America's support of Israel. Obama suggested that seeing “the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam” was an example of how Wright's view of the country is “profoundly distorted.” Suggesting that America's foreign policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the anger that led to 9/11 is by no means the same as dismissing the danger of radical Islamic ideology. Neither does holding Israel accountable for the way it treats the Palestinians mean that we must stop supporting Israel altogether. No nation, whether it is America or our allies, is exempt from ethical examination. Questioning the behavior of Israel is clearly one of those “third rails” in American politics. In fact, including this in a speech about race, when coverage of Wright's comments didn't include charges against Israel, suggests that it was politically expedient to raise the issue in this way. Unfortunately, neither of these issues is the kind that can be dismissed so quickly. We must accept that difficult and divisive issues can be addressed in respectful conversation. Let's hope we can move beyond sound bites and controversies to the necessary dialogue.
- Culture Dove's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Definition of racism
Your comment is very thought-provoking Stephen. I hadn't considered this issue from that perspective.
One key point in the discussion of racism is how one defines it. I hold that race is an artificial construct that was created in order to justify oppression. Thus racism is something that can be undone, requiring intentional effort. I define racism as unmerited access to power and privilege based on the arbitrary basis of "race," a concept created by those already holding power and privilege. By this definition, only members of the "white race" can be racist. Members of other races can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not racist.
In this light, I disagree with Obama's assessment that racism is not endemic in America. We continue to have an unjust system that includes racism. Surely, progress has been made and I appreciate that in his run for the White House he needs to appeal to the hope that comes from remembering that progress. I think that perhaps this issue is not either/or. I would prefer to think of this as having multiple cancerous tumors being removed from the body politic, some are gone, some remain.
What really shocked me in his speech was what seemed to be a gratuitous comment of support for Israel. I didn't see any other comment on that. I have no idea what it was doing in a speech about racism.
re Obama's speech, Israel, definition of racism
Ian,
I think that in distancing himself from the Rev. Wright's views, Obama felt he had to distance himself from Wright's publicly expressed respect for Minister Farrakhan. Although that relationship of open respect probably has more to do with maintaining civil relations between social action ministries that are competing for support from the same general constituency, the general spin is that it shows that the Rev. Wright shares in Farrakhan's criticisms of Israel.
The prevailing perception is that to criticize Israel is to criticize Jews and thus to be racist. It's a short leap (in some minds) from criticizing the US to justifying attacks on the US and thus 'supporting terrorists'. Then it's only another hop, step, and jump to including the USA's ally in the Middle East in the category of people whom it's justifiable to attack -- and suddenly you're open to being accused of justifying attacks on Israel and on Jews by other Middle Eastern states and groups.
Therefore, although Wright didn't speak about Israel in The Sermon, it would seem necessary, in a damage-control speech about racism, to fend off accusations that Obama is anti-Israel -- which is a charge that's often made on the right. Thus we wind up with Obama often repeating his down-the-line unqualified support for just about anything that Israel does.
Re: racism -- I agree with you about "race" as a social construct which has little connection with biological realities. The "white race" is a relatively recent construct and keeps changing in its definition: in the 19th century, the Irish were considered by many to be barely human, let alone "white". The anthropology of a century or more ago had a slew of different loosely related "Caucasoid" races inhabiting Europe - the main ones being Teutonic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. One famous French naturalist/anthropologist at one time defined more than 20 races in Europe.
Where I disagree with you is in the conclusion that only "whites" can be racist. I was in situations in Mississippi during the Civil Rights Movement, and I observed other situations there and, later, elsewhere, where "power and privilege" existed within the confines of a specific black community or a specific black activist group, and where that power was wielded in a racist way. There were purges and semi-purges of whites, and occasional physical attacks. Granted, this was a reflexive racism, existing within the context of a prevalent white racism. But it meant that, whereas at one time being in the black community was always safer for white activists than being in the white community, later on that difference got a bit smaller.
I agree with what Stephen said about the difference between Obama and Wright being that Wright is radical and sees the need for large -- or systemic -- changes. The convergence of thought and practice of MLK and Malcolm X is another important historical reminder of the eventual radicalism of MLK and broadening of Malcolm X. That gives one some hope for Obama's growth. I certainly liked the grittiness of Michelle Obama on the Colbert Report last night. If you didn't see it, there's still another rerun this evening.
Bill
the speech
Ian,
I think you make some good points here about the speech. I think what you are highlighting though is a long held divide within the African American community about how to address the issues of racism. Its essentially a difference between liberal though and radical thought.
Obama comes from a strain of liberal thought that understands the difficulties of racism but challenges America to the goodness found in the principles of the founding documents. If we are about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a nation than those principles ought to be extended to all. There is also much more of an interracial component to the struggle in the belief that addressing problems will need to be inclusive.
Wright comes from a radical viewpoint that says America can not be healed of racism without much more significant change. The radical view is Afro-centric in its approach making claims against the US while preaching a self-approach to the community. White allies are welcome, but its always clear that the radical community is working towards its own upliftment. Radical thought offers the sharpest critique of institutional racism.
There is often a great deal of anger associated with the radical view. While the anger is usually justified, there is a question of how effective the rhetoric has been in making significant change. Obama is making the case that we can't solve health care for just black folks, we'll need to solve it for everyone. Indeed, poor white folks and black folks and brown folks have been separated for too long. He made the case that this separation takes our eyes off the corporations and wealthy that continue to maintain this unjust system. While there are philosophical differences between the two streams of thought, more often there are differences of tactics towards the same ends.
The difference in many ways is the difference between early Martin Luther King Jr. vs an early Malcolm X. Ironically, in both of their lives they moved closer to the center of each other's position. Malcolm X moved away from some of the more Afro-centric positions after his trip to Mecca. King moved to a more radical critique, while keeping his focus on an interracial society. Indeed the Poor People's Movement had great hopes of being an interracial movement for economic justice. I hope that an Obama presidency might spark such a movement not only within the US, but worldwide.