Shelby Steele on Barack's bargain

As Col. Blake would say, "Horsepucky!"

Did Shelby Steele read Obama's writings or speeches? Those do not express a challenging viewpoint?

The excellent Don Wycliff has published a criticism of Mr. Steel's perspective of Sen. Obama. As usual, Wycliff is worth the read.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2170&recalcul=oui

Obama has been a boon for the four African American conservative public intellectuals/opinion writers in America. Shelby Steele comes off as angry and embittered, which is ironic since he writes about other African Americans being angry and embittered.

Rod, one question for you, assuming you watched the speech.

After watching Obama's speech did you want to believe?

For curiosity's sake, if you did want to believe can you recall the last time you watched a President or Presidential candidate made you feel that way?

If the only difference when we get down to where the tacks are brass instead of tin between all the candidates is one makes us want to believe, isn't that the deal maker?

I thought Obama's speech was about as good as it could possibly be. It was brilliant, nuanced, even brave. In sheer intellectual firepower, he's probably the most impressive presidential nominee I've seen in my lifetime. Still, Shelby Steele is (1) even smarter, and (2) right.

I've long thought that the first black president will necessarily be a conservative, because only someone who rejects -- explicitly and on principle -- the victim mentality can truly transcend race in this country, not just talk the talk. You think Bill Cosby would have sat there for 20 years nodding his head to Rev. Wright's tired 1960's-era separatist rants? Instead, Cosby's shown the backbone, intellectual honesty and true love of the black community to give it his version of the "straight talk express."

Until a presidential nominee shows more cojones than an aging comedian and Jello salesman, I'm not going to cast my vote for him -- brilliant or no.

Rod:

It is indeed so terribly revealing, how two people can read the same thing and some to such radically different conclusions. For me, the "complexities" of Obama that Steele describes serve not to confuse me, but as reasons for hope. The very complexities and messyness of it give me reasons to believe that perhaps he gets the race problems of our county in a way few (at least publicly) have dared to say.

And, good lord, how does Steele come to know so much about Obama's mother?!

From what I've read of her, she just *might* have been comfortable there. I was a visitor there myself on a Sunday in the 90s. And while it's not the church I would personally choose, and while the theology was different from my own, I found nothing, as a white person, in the experience that was shocking.

I have just watched the all of Jeremiah Wright's Christmas Eve sermon of last year (the one that attacks Clinton personally..available at Ben Smith's blog... ) and Wright even makes reference to the fact that there are white members of that church. (He also makes reference to the fact that he's probably about to say things that might offend those members, or other whites...)

Again, the assumptions that Steele make are not helpful. To assume that all whites would feel uncomfortable in that church is simply ludicrous and doesn't fit the facts.

But it's Steele's last points I find ultimately confusing:

"His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity."

Manipulation of whites?
Self-betrayal and duplicity?

Good lord, who is he describing?

What I heard today was a remarkable speech that confronted the anger and hostility in both communities head on. Few Americans, it seems to me, are genetically constructed to understand that painful reality in quite so personally as Obama...and he spoke to it today.

What he said was that he could no more abandon Wright than he could his own white grandmother.

Is that pandering to both sides? Or is it really the messy, complex, truth of his life?

I tend to think the latter, and go away scratching my head at Steele. I personally think that when you scratch the surface of Obama, you get the incredibly complexities of modern America's multi-ethnic struggles...you get all the messiness of it...a messiness that is not easily sliced up into sound bites.

Yes, let's all STOP thinking of Barack Obama as a symbol -- be it a symbol of a so-called "post-racial" America or anything else. Let's all agree that we all have placed too much symbolic importance on Barack's personal and fascinating past (cross-cultural and inter-racial heritage, upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii, etc.) however authentic or artifical the construction of his personal narrative might be. He is NOT a Messiah but a mortal. He and John McCain both put their pants on one leg at a time (and, Hillary, the same with her pantsuits).

One hopes that, in the end, the decision by voters in November will be based on considerations of the governing philosophy and track records of the two party nominees. What kind of judges would they appoint to the bench? How are they going to handle Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the Holy Land, North Korea, the Beijing regime and the festering dispute between Venezuala and Colombia? What role for the federal government in the economy? What will be the White House relationship with faith-based institutions? Raise taxes, cut spending or balance the budget? How to boost our economic competitiveness in the world? Will they veto bills expanding abortion rights or those that would defend traditional marriages? Etc., etc., etc.

These kinds of discussion CAN get divisive, but that's only because the country IS divided on so many issues. That's just where we are at this point in our country's history. As for any future discussions about Obama, I would like to paraphrase Gerald Ford's inaugural remarks in 1974 (when he took over from Nixon), "our long, national day-dreaming [about Obama] is over." Now, the real (and adult) discussion about these candidates can begin!

I think Shelby Steele is jealous and resentful of Obama, on a personal level. Steele has allied himself for a long time now with conservative Republicans, many of whom actually are racist. Steele is therefore a marginal figure in among blacks, among white liberals, and also among Republicans, who just haul him out occasionally to do hit jobs on affirmative action. That's got to be disturbing on some level. But Steele apparently saw no other way to deal with the various problems and contradictions in the alliance between blacks and white liberals.

Obama is another part-black guy who took a different path. He mastered the rhetorics of both standard liberalism and the black community, took what was best from each, and moved beyond many of their problems. He's smarter, wiser, and more talented than Steele (no disgrace, Obama is unusually intelligent and talented). Steele can't bear it.

Shelby Steele's entire message is: you, Barack Obama, cannot transcend the various contradictions and racial complexities that have marginalized me, Shelby Steele. And I will do my best to guarantee that is true. Because if you did transcend them, then I would have to rethink my own path.

"You know, it occurred to me today that I have heard my african american republican, christian, veteran for this country husband say things as bad or worse about America and white people as what we've heard out of Wright or Michelle Obama."

I get the impression that your husband's a lot cooler than that lame Rev. Wright. He could pull it off.

I'd argue that Colin Powell is much closer to Obama's take on life than Shelby Steele or Condi Rice. Powell acknowledges racism exists, that he profited from affirmative action, and that he believes affirmative action is a reasonable policy. Cosby is arguably much closer to Obama and Powell.

"You know, it occurred to me today that I have heard my african american republican, christian, veteran for this country husband say things as bad or worse about America and white people as what we've heard out of Wright or Michelle Obama."

Rebeccat, your husband and anyone else is welcome to make all the anti-American and anti-white comments he wants. If you're OK with them, that's fine, just as I'm OK with various un-PC things my husband says in the privacy of our home. The issue is, our husbands aren't running for president; they're not held to the quite reasonable standard of liking and respecting Americans in general, regardless of race. Do I care if my doctor/plumber/accountant privately resents and dislikes white people? Nope, as long as he does a good job and is civil to me, his personal opinions are his own business. Do I care if my president feels that way or gives openly racist rhetoric a pass? Of course. Your indignation on Obama's behalf seems more keyed to someone who's a private citizen, not someone angling for the presidency and supposed to represent us all.

Here's an African-American libertarian model for Obama: Moorefield Storey "the first president of the NAACP... he argued and won the group’s first major Supreme Court victory, Buchanan v. Warley (1917), a decision that relied on property rights to strike down a residential segregation law...." H/T http://blog.acton.org/archives/2242-What-the-Democrats-can-learn-from-a-dead-libertarian-lawyer.html (in other words, no favoritisms for special interests). Use our universal common good to assert the common good universally.

"What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background."

This is a VERY common phenomenon. My background is similar to Obama's in terms of having attended majority-white prep schools, of being the only black in a white environment during my formative years, etc. I and MANY of my black peers who had a similar upbringing went into our college years overcompensating by trying to be super-black. This included holding some definitely questionable views. In short we went through a phase that was more "Malcolm" than "Martin." Looking back I think it was an inevitable psychological process given the heaviness of the whole race issue in this country.

And all of us -- I'm still friendly with many of my childhood friends -- eventually came back to the center and made peace with the seeming contradictions between our ethnicity and our upbringings. Maybe Obama has done the same. In any case, him sticking with that church probably had a lot to do with political networking, even if he had outgrown some of its views. Which I'm sure helped him in minority-heavy Chicago, but is turning out to be a liability in the less liberal parts of the nation.

maisie, but my husband does like america and americans, including white americans, in general. Personally, I have never met a black american including highly patriotic, loving people who didn't talk like that from time to time when they were particularly frustrated or just working in high dungeon. That's just the point.

And up until 2 1/2 years he was the highest level african american man at the fortune 500 company he worked for, so although he's not running for president (just like the man who has made the statements causing all this trouble) it's not like he's just some bum on the street. Besides, we have white friends who have heard him talk like that many times as well - does that mean they should never be able to run for public office because they have remained friends with him after hearing him spout off like that? Should I be barred from ever seeking public office because I stuck around after hearing him run at the mouth about how awful america and white people are? Seriously, because that's exactly the reason being given for why Obama should be run out on a witch hunt.

There are many disturbing things about this conversation, but I think the reason it is, as someone above stated, too personal for me is precisely because like I said above, I have never known a black american who didn't say outrageous things about whites and america from time to time, including things which, if put in sound bites would put Rev. Wright to shame. I'm not saying there aren't black americans who don't ever talk like this, I just haven't met them personally. So, does that mean that all these black americans and any one who knows and loves them should be seen as unworthy of public office because in moments of frustration or just when in a particularly provocative mood they run at the mouth? Besides, the idea that this is the first time Wright has become aware of the fact that Obama disapproves of his rhetoric (because as folks here have helpfully pointed out, he's done nothing but sit there and nod his head in agreement - duh), then I'm a panda bear. African americans argue about this stuff all the time. If you get to know them, they'll let you join in the fun.

And yes, left to my own devices I would speak like this to people's faces, but I have a higher tolerance for conflict and an unusual ability to forgive and forget (or squash it as my african american friends would say - they seem to be better at handling intense conflict than most white people I know), so I do normally moderate myself. But catch me and my husband on a good day and if you are faint of heart, you might wind up cowering in the corner. But that's just us.

"You know, it occurred to me today that I have heard my african american republican, christian, veteran for this country husband say things as bad or worse about America and white people as what we've heard out of Wright or Michelle Obama. With his white wife and white looking kids. I probably should denounce and divorce him now so that no one mistakes his word for my own and can ask how I could sit by listening as the patriarch of our family spewed racist hatred for lo these many years."

Rebacca: Thanks for this comment. I could say the same thing about my conservative-voting, Bill Cosby-loving black wife.

Well, she doesn't think the CIA created AIDS. Not really, at least. ;-)

Bless,
Doug

This afternoon at the YMCA a little 4 year old boy told my daughter that she couldn't play with him and his friends because, "only white people get to come in here. You have to be white like us." His mother scolded him mildly when I politely told her she might want to address this with him and then went back to talking with a friend. I do not plan on sharing this with my husband because I don't want to spend the night listening to him go on about white people and further endanger any chance I might have of ever being able to run for public office.

On our long list of reasons for homeschooling, avoiding these sort of encounters with kids who don't know better and don't really understand what they're saying is within the top 10. Heck, my husband might even shoot a letter off to the local paper with intemperate words after hearing about a few of these incidences involving his kids at the local schools - thus providing the written evidence which would put the nail into the coffin of my political asperations.

But I'm sure that all the people who find Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright wouldn't react so strongly or angrily if it were their daughter treated like this. It's a good thing y'all are much better human beings than my bigoted hateful husband.

John M. Perkins, a black minister, is a role model for racial reconciliation. Yet when Chris Rice, a white man, went to live at Perkins' intentional multiracial community, he found that the race issue just could not easily be addressed or overcome. He had a deep love/hate friendship/relationship with John's son, Spencer, which he chronicled in his book More Than Equals, and then later in his book Grace Matters.

Rebeccat,

If you say your husband is racist I'll take your word for it. However, I trust he doesn't PREACH those racist & bigotted remarks in a church. Does he?

Maisie,

It's the soft bigotry of low expectations, don't you know. We can't possibly expect non-whites to exercise self-control.

Jim:

"Well, I guess this is the conversation we need to be having on race all right. Here is a thought: does anyone else agree with me that there are some people who live this conversation in a way that someone like me simply does not? ... I guess what I'm saying is: those of us who aren't living this conversation might do best to let those with the resentments step forward and get down to business."

I think that's what's going to happen, regardless. Those who are riled up by the dynamics of race will self-select, and be the ones to post on the topic. At the same time, I appreciate the context that Obama seemed to set today, that we've all got assumptions and beliefs about race in America, its history and implications for public policy today, and that we need to have a conversation that doesn't rule anyone's views out because they are "controversial."

By Obama's reasoning today, white racialists should feel perfectly justified in taking their views to the public discourse however they can. Let's get all the ugliness on the table before starting to talk about policy plans.

Bless,
Doug

I personaly operate on a zero tolerance policy regarding racist talk. My kids who have never attended any institutional environment (including church on Sunday) where they are the majority are always instructed by us to judge people as individuals and not by race. If I ever heard racist language come out of them, they would be punished.

Adults who throw around racist language are boorish and bigoted and ought to be told so. When I frequented an email list for traditionalist Catholics that started off in an anti-Semitic direction, I called them on it and when I found that the moderator had no intention of changing his direction regarding anti-semitism, I asked to be removed from the list. I expect no less from a white politician or a conservative.

I don't care what race they are. All of this talk about how racism can only be real racism if practiced by white people is just an example of racism. It says that somehow black people can't be held to the same standards of civility as white people. Talk about the soft bigotry of lower expectactions.

surely you are aware that any white American who can be proven to have ever said anything remotely, faintly, as offensive as what Jeremiah Wright has said many times is automatically disqualified for public office.

Well then, I guess it's a good thing Obama didn't say any of those things, huh? Or even express sympathy for them.

Daniel,

I wasn't thinking of Imus. I wasn't even thinking of any public figure.

Let me say that, like S.V. Steve, I have a zero-tolerance policy for racist attitudes and behavior, too. It really is amazing how completely and innocently color-blind my little boys are. You just want to shield them for as long as possible from the cold winds of our so-called society.

I must admit, however, that I do get touchy when white people who take themselves to be "enlightened" on race lecture other white people who they take to be "benighted" on race issues. It's pathetic how black people get used as props in this inter-white civil war. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYBODY HERE, though some of you do trigger that reaction in me indirectly. Rebecca and Doug, you've earned your stripes. I'm sorry if I've come across as snarky towards you. I've just been to too many ritualized denunciations at re-education camp for me to completely overcome this latent hostility. ("Down with Goldstein!")

Sig,

You might want to read what I wrote more carefully.

Pyrrho:

You bring up a fascinating point, the extent to which this conversation is whites talking to whites about race, and the kind of unreasoned accusations that are a common part of such discussions. I can remember many a strong conversation between white family members of different political persuasions around the dining room table, back in the days when Meathead and Archie Bunker were having the same conversations - albeit in a much funnier way - on All in the Family.

You're absolutely right in pointing out the racial double standards that have made it difficult for a white man in particular to speak openly about race. I think this is part-and-parcel of Obama's general thrust about whites who don't feel that they've been particularly privileged by the results of America's racial history.

Bless,
Doug

AD:

On Private/Public Prejudice

I think the point that Rebecca is trying to make is one that Obama was trying to make, that Wright is an individual who holds certain very wrong views about the meaning of race in America, and that those views influence his public statements. Rebecca is saying that those same views are a temptation to even normal, level-headed black Americans, something that my experience supports as well. Wright's views shouldn't be anymore acceptable if he held them in private, so in a sense it seems that we're all conceding your point. Wright's views are not only bad because he preached them, but they're bad that he held them. And Rebecca and I both know and love blacks who come down on various places on the spectrum of accepting or rejecting views like Wright's.

We need to critique beliefs. We also need to critique actions. Obama is saying that some of Wright's teachings are worthy of disdain, but that at the same time the man has accomplished great works in serving the needy as a Christian minister. I don't see any evidence that Wright rises any where close to the level of a Sharpton, where it can be fairly argued that his words incited people to violence. Wright is wrong on a lot of basic interpretations of American history and society. That's something that you, me, Rebecca, most of the commentators here and Barack Obama all seem to agree about. Obama's case is that Wright's actions - both personally through his ministry to the Obama family, and communally through the work of TUCC - are enough justification for Obama's continued membership at the church. That's good enough for me. I think it should be good enough for others as well, but that's not my call.

On Double Standards

AD: "I daresay that if anyone talked to Rebeccat's husband in the way Jeremiah Wright talks to his flock from time to time, they would be cleaning out their desk in a matter of hours and would be escorted out of the building by close of the business day."

You're right. That is one small example of the vastly different social worlds that blacks and whites, or blacks and anyone else, seem to inhabit in America. So what do we do about it? Is the answer a public uproar demanding that Obama repudiate Wright and all other blacks who utter narrowminded inanities about race? That sort of happened, and Obama didn't do it. Now what? Would it be better for those who believe like Wright to seethe in silence? Or would it be better to relax general social speech codes, if we could figure out a way to do so?

AD: "Yet she demands that we all accept that Jeremiah Wright should be able to say any hate-filled, bigoted, racist thing and not criticize him for it."

I don't think Rebecca or anyone else on this site have said that Wright shouldn't be criticized. Even Obama says the same thing.

I'm reminded of something my black mother-in-law said in one of our first frank conversations about race. She grew up down on the farm in Alabama before moving to Newark as a young woman. She said, and still believes, that (white) racism is worse in the North than in the South, because at least in the South (white) people are more open about their prejudices, while in the North they'll smile to your face and run you down behind their backs.

Perhaps that's one reason I don't feel particularly aggrieved by Wright. At least his prejudices are quite out in the open.

Bless,
Doug

Harvey: "This hullaboo over Wright is a good thing, a very good thing. It's a necessary step we need to take to put racism in it's place. Blacks are finding out now it isn't a one way street. They too have to be careful with their racist language. And it isn't the whites that are demanding this. What's going to make this change in the black community is blacks demanding more from their own. This is what happened in and is still happening in the white community with our racists."

Very astute, thank you!

Doug

I had a feeling Obama wasn't ready to be president and this speech just proved it.

The African American community has a problem with taking responsibility for their own affairs and constantly blaming white people for their own failings. They simply need to grow up.

Until the black community matures, they shouldn't expect there to be a black president.

Thanks, Doug.

There are layers and layers to this white vs. white struggle over racism. I'm a white, blue-collar kid from a New England mill town who went to an Ivy League school on scholarship. I was very self-conscious and poor. I was mocked for my tight-fitting clothes, but I was growing and needed time to raise enough money dishwashing and such to buy some new ones.

I was shocked at how the elites (both professors and students) just didn't give a damn about deindustrialization and the declining wages of blue collar workers. People like my people were just not exotic enough to warrant any attention. The New Left only cared about gender, race, and ethnicity of the most exciting variety (diversity). Not giving a damn about class was such a relief for these brie-eating, wine-sipping Foucault-quoting frauds. It was perfectly acceptible to "diss" blue collar white people, and their alleged racism and sexism justified this class bigotry. Being better than them was just so delicious.

(To complicate matters, my mother is a poor Southern white girl my Dad met while in the service. We all know how highly regarded these folks are on campuses in New England.)

Of course, this was after the New Left had thrown the big city party bosses out of the Democratic Party in the Coup d'Etat of 1972. Southerners and blue collar Northerners were deserting the Dems in droves, and maybe this fueled some of their antipathy.

I don't want to over-emphasize this, but I see more clearly now how I viewed racial "sensitivity" was a class marker for these rich, white, preppy kids (they got to them early at Philips Exeter), and being a "rebellious" Republican was a way of throwing it back in their face.

Of course, no actual black people were involved in the making of this film. Either that or they were props brought out every now and then so our betters could make a point.

The funny thing is that poor people (black and white) long for a horizontal sense of national purpose in which the elites share their talent and prosperity with those who are geographically proximate to them. Instead, they are essentially ignored. Globaloney rules both academia and business.

pyrrho, I read your last post with great interest, as my experience is not that far removed from yours. My relatives started out a notch below blue-collar. Getting a good job in the factory was a step up for them. My father got to college and became an academic, but had no money. I went to a large high school in a town full of rich liberals, and was relentlessly dissed by them due to the material poverty of my family. So I do see where you're coming from. (I went to school on a scholarship, too--but just a state school, not the Ivy League. So you outrank me there. ; ) )

The funny thing is that poor people (black and white) long for a horizontal sense of national purpose in which the elites share their talent and prosperity with those who are geographically proximate to them. Instead, they are essentially ignored. Globaloney rules both academia and business. This is absolutely great, and the funny thing is, I think you and James Cone would actually agree on that.

Shelby steele is dead wrong about Barack Obama. Mr. Steele is simply jealous becuause Sen. Obama is more successful and intelligent than he can ever hope to be. Mr. steele has tried to portray a highly skilled man as a black man......shame on you Mr. steele. You make all Americans disgusted by your divisive views, that only serve your conservative masters. I feel sorry for you! You must be a very miserable human being.

It's interesting...and quite true that minorities have no fear about talking smack about white people. I've been told, to my face, that blacks and browns cannot be racist, that "only the white oppressor can be racist." The first time I heard this I guffawed (from the sheer stupid audacity of the idea)but subsequent offerings of this tripe only makes me sick to my stomach. Hate is hate no matter what direction it's coming from.
Obama the unifier attends a church where the pastor routinely speaks divisive racist rhetoric. Hmm...will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

Doug wrote:
AD: "I daresay that if anyone talked to Rebeccat's husband in the way Jeremiah Wright talks to his flock from time to time, they would be cleaning out their desk in a matter of hours and would be escorted out of the building by close of the business day."

You're right. That is one small example of the vastly different social worlds that blacks and whites, or blacks and anyone else, seem to inhabit in America. So what do we do about it? Is the answer a public uproar demanding that Obama repudiate Wright and all other blacks who utter narrowminded inanities about race? That sort of happened, and Obama didn't do it. Now what? Would it be better for those who believe like Wright to seethe in silence? Or would it be better to relax general social speech codes, if we could figure out a way to do so?

My first reaction to reading this was a blank stare of disbelief. My second reaction was a bitter laugh. I do not know where you have been for the last 30 years, but it clearly wasn't anywhere near any university, or any large business. "Diversity" has been embedded in US law since the _Bakke_ decision, and "hostile work environment" has been a standard, legally actionable concept for at least 20 years. Social speech codes are embedded into the legal system, and thus into every business that employs more than a handful of people. No one is going to silence the Jeremiah Wrights of this world; quite the contrary, most white people know better than to criticize him except in very private circumstance. All it takes is one complaint from a protected minority person, and one is in very big trouble.

Here, let me provide an example. I'll try to make it a clickable link:
21st century Catch-22

In case I mess the HTML up, here is the link for cut-and-paste.
http://www.nuvo.net/articles/21st_century_catch22/

Please note this man's career is ended. Any job he applies for after this he is likely to be turned down for, because he's a legal liability. If this has been discussed before on this weblog, I apologize for the redundancy.

I invite Rebeccat to comment on this as well. This is the reality that I, and many more people I know, live in.

A man who uses his hatred of women to motivate raping them is evil.

A woman who hates the man who rapes her is not.

Hatred is poisonous to the soul of all people - the rapist and the rape victim. However, if we cannot see the difference between the hatred of the rapist and the hatred of the raped, there is something wrong with us.

The idea that the hatred some black people harbor towards whites is no different than the hatred of some whites harbor towards whites is insane. Black people did nothing to earn the hatred of our country. White people have done more than most care to remember to earn the hatred of our black citizens. The wonder isn't that people are willing to give some leeway for black anger, it's that there are people who can't understand the simple difference between the hate of the rapist and the hate of the raped.

So, Rebeccat, all white people are guilty in a collective sense of the crimes that some committed, even if those crimes were committed a century ago? Is that correct? Even white babies who were born literally yesterday, they share in this mark of Cain? Even some poor white Russian who arrived from Moscow last week, he shares in this guilt as well?

It seems to me, Rebeccat, that you are judging a whole lot of people you have never met solely by the color of their skin, and not by the content of their character. Is that what you meant to do?

Mr. Evans @ 4:35 PM:

Having been closely involved in various levels of politics since the early 80s, I can assure you to a high level of certainty as to the truth of what I said: "Community organizers" are virtually all agitators aiming to obtain special favors from various levels of government, often with the implied threat of force if their demands are not met. Martin Luther King Jr. was one such--his "Poor People's March" on Washington was virtually an open call for insurrection should members of his particular group not get special privileges (a/k/a "civil rights"). Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were others.
Al Sharpton was (and is) another, although he is slightly more mainstream today than he was at the time of the Tawana Brawley Incident. All of those "community organizers" sought to extort money or privileges from the State apparatus by extra-legal means.

My issue with Barack Obama is less his status as a radical agitator than it is his willing and knowing deception of the American people in claiming he is trying to "transcend race". If he was so devoted to doing so, he should have: a) publicly denounced the Rev. Wright immediately upon his election to the Senate; b) not used his grandmother's "racist" comments to justify himself (one of the truly classless and tasteless political acts of our age, in my opinion); and c) publicly endorsed the immediate ending of affirmative action and similar "civil rights" policies. His failures in these regards mark him as a mountebank, a poseur and a fraud, and thus eminently unqualified to serve as President.

(On the other hand, a properly and realistically cynical individual might conclude that these actions make him the most suitable potential "leader" of this country, but that's an argument for another day......)

As to the rest of the comments here: I am absolutely certain that any one of us can reach back into history and find some "justification" for demanding special privileges for our own particular pressure-group-of-choice. The primary difference between these pressure groups is in their level of success.

Examples: Blacks can cry "slavery" to demand reparations. They managed to win special legal and cultural privileges, as well as virtual titles of nobility as "victims of discrimination" . Jews cried "Holocaust" in the 1940s to demand land of their own, and got the State of Israel. On the other hand, the Irish have yet to get a unified homeland despite crying "centuries of British occupation", and the Tibetans, despite having great publicity and widespread sympathy, still have to answer to their masters in Pei'ping. No doubt some enterprising agitpropper is trying to form a group to win a homeland for the descendants of the Carthaginians. Rotsa ruck, whoever you are....

In other words, Humans oppress, kill and enslave one another; it's what they do. They've got a long track record of doing it, too. So everyone quit whining about how their group got screwed way back in the dim mists of memory. Your group got the shaft, mine did too; times are tough all over.

The only "equality" that really matters is that we're all equally alive and all equally doomed to die. Time to sit down, shut up about "equality", and start actually COPING with the situation at hand.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

AD,
1. I don't know what the "21st Century Catch 22" is, but if it's some "poor white people" crap, I have seen (and been) "poor white people" up close and I've seen what black folks live with up close and I have no respect for the idea that white people have it hard after seeing what black folks go through.

2. I try not to judge people. I try to understand people and deal with them in love based on that understanding. I understand why many black folks are mad. I understand it enough not to take it personally. The fact that I know I have nothing to be guilty about makes it much easier to see the problem as that person's problem, not mine, and therefor not a threat to me. Because I don't take it personally and I don't waste time or emotional energy getting all pissy or defensive I can become a trusted partner in dealing with the problem and hopefully help to make the situation better. In my book, learning not to take things personally and giving up the need to be right as an exchange for working to make the situation better when need be is part of being a grown up. That's what works for me. How's your way working for you? Convinced any black folks to stop their bitching yet?

Rebecca,

Thank you - I think you have distilled the disagreement to these words. "Judge". "Understand." Maybe "double standard" ought to be there too, but being white and being a man, I've no resentment about a possible double standard that has so far been unfair toward men of my birth for 40 years, compared to double standards that have been benefiting men of my birth for centuries.

AD, I am curious: is a fair judge one who is completely blind to circumstance? "We're giving you a $500 fine for speeding. We don't care that your wife is bleeding to death. Would you please step out of the car?".

Now, the man was driving 80 mph. A clear violation of traffic law. The police officer is simply upholding the law fairly and equally, isn't he?

In your judgements, do you consider circumstance? Will the God of your understanding? Does that God of your understanding ask you to do the same?

P.S. The comment by Jim at 8:12 pm was not me. If there is another Jim out there, I'd be willing to change my identifier so we don't have confusion.

AD: I'm assuming you provided the link to the "21st Century Catch-22". I'm not surprised in the least, and it is abhorent. I worked for years for a Fortune 500 company and am well aware of the diversity police.

This is part of the reality that people have to live with in the real world. Yet I do not see any of the supporters of Obama even recognizing that this Inquisition-lite exists, never mind admit that such programs specifically target people based upon the color of their skin.

I had a belly laugh myself though at your quote that "most white people know better than to criticize him [Rev. Wright] except in very private circumstance."

Sure, private circumstances like the Internet and every news channel for the past week, where white people have been avoiding critizing Rev. White?

I wrote poorly, in a hurry as usual. How many white people do you think are discussing Wright in their work place these days? Some, to be sure, but not when any protected minority person is around; to do so could constitute a "hostile work environment", right? May I point out that many of the discussions on the Internet are going on in fora such as this one where people can express their opinion via a pseudonym, rather than their own name? Do you suppose that maybe there is a reason why some of us do not wish to attach our name and address and work phone, and work email, and the phone number of the HR departments...hint? hint?

Pundits who get paid to be controversial, they are free to discuss Wright on TV, radio, in newspapers. They are not too likely to be punished for their words. Ordinary people, like the guy "caught" reading an "insensitive" book during his lunch break, on the other hand...

Bless,
Doug

AD, I am curious: is a fair judge one who is completely blind to circumstance? "We're giving you a $500 fine for speeding. We don't care that your wife is bleeding to death. Would you please step out of the car?".

Now, the man was driving 80 mph. A clear violation of traffic law. The police officer is simply upholding the law fairly and equally, isn't he?

In your judgements, do you consider circumstance? Will the God of your understanding? Does that God of your understanding ask you to do the same?

Jim, in the real world I seriously doubt that a police officer would issue a citation to s person breaking the speed limit in order to get a badly injured family member to the emergency room. None of the cops I know would do that, they would instead put their vehicle in front of the other car, turn on the light bar and siren and clear the way to help.

But your analogy just does not hold up. You are not asking me to take circumstances into account. You appear to be asking me to have one set of standards for one group, and a different set of standards for another group, solely on the basis of skin color, not on any other basis. To turn to your analogy, you are asking me to accept a judge who gives white criminals the lightest possible jail sentence, but who punishes black defendants as harshly as possible, because of "circumstances". I find that completely unacceptable.

All of my life, I have been told in no uncertain terms that certain words are forbidden, that certain ideas are inherently bad, and that people who use those words, or who defend those ideas, will be punished. Now comes Jeremiah Wright who uses words of hate, in the service of ideas of racism, and I am supposed to accept his hate, racism and bigotry as OK, because he's black. I'm supposed to "understand" his hatred, because of the color of his skin. I'm supposed to just nod and smile and say nothing as a minister of God prays, or even demands, that God Almighty take the entire United States down to Hell, and burn it there forevermore. That's what "God Damn" means, isn't it? To torment in hellfire for all eternity? Do you find it in the least bit offensive, or not?

What you, and Rebeccat for that matter, seem to be asking me to do is to have different standards for people solely based on the color of their skin. One, very high standard for "white" people, and another much lower standard for "black" people. Do you understand why I find that appalling?

Karth, I've been involved with politics at various levels since the mid-70s, and you and I have likely seen much the same things. The difference is in perspective, and that is what I refer to when I call for "understanding", and when in the same breath I also acknowledge that understanding does not necessarily include agreement, or even condoning of subsequent behaviors.

The "special favors" canard is insidious, and my especial target in this discussion. Is fair treatment in consideration for a job or rental housing a special favor? Is watching politically connected individuals get preference, and wanting some of what they are getting special?

Where you see an effort to get something special, I see a desire to get something they want* but are denied by arbitrary and often capricious means. Here in Philly, where white hegemony meant white (male) people getting the patronage jobs has been replaced by black hegemony meaning that black (sometimes female) people getting those jobs. Both involve the arbitrary use of power. It was wrong when whites ruled the roost, it is wrong now. We are all waiting to see if our new, black mayor will change that. You may have seen the headlines about "pay to play".

In the meantime, the rhetoric of anger obscures these basic points. In the meantime, those with the gold to make the rules are being pushed out of their positions of privilege, and they project their values on those doing the pushing and brand them all as shakedown artists. That, good sir, is what I object to in your version of the rhetoric. I've been shaken down by a long string of artists, white and black. I don't care if you decide to distrust their reform rhetoric. I want them to give it their try, and if they turn out to be more of the same, there's always next election.

* If we can agree that they are not necessrily entitled to what they want -- and I don't see a problem in finding that agreement -- then taking away from those who have that is a worthy goal.

Someone named Jim wrote:
AD, quite honestly I'm not sure what your point is. No human being is perfect; are you comfortable saying you know enough about Rev. Wright or Obama to make that call and condemn them as people without any qualification?

The point of my little glass of water should be obvious. Obama supporters are informing us that we should not just look at the 10% of Jeremiah Wright's activities that are bigoted, racist and hatefilled, but rather focus on the 90% that are, in their opinion, good things. For decades I and many others have been taught that racism is such a powerful evil, it completely cancels out any other good things a person may have done, no matter what. For decades the standard line has been that even someone who is a saint is totally finished in public life, and likely in private life, if they hold racist views or make a racist speech. One drop of racism in a person's life is the same as one drop of raw sewage in a glass of clean water: it taints everything.

But now, all that is to be cast aside, and we are to ignore racism, hatred, lies, fabrications on the part of a preacher, because of the color of his skin. We are, in a sense, being urged to hold our noses, drink filth, and pretend it is clean water.

Do you see my point, now?

Franklin Evans, in the world where I live, your hypothetical is already a fact. Any hint of sexism, racism, or other bigotry is sufficient to convict, and there really is no appeal, not without a great monetary expense and further tarring of reputation. Whether I want it or not is irrelevant, whether Doug dislikes it or not is irrelevant, whether it's what you had in mind back when Jimmy Carter was President is irrelevant. It's a fact, a reality. Only those with union contracts, or tenure, or civil service regulations, or some other very strong hold on their employment position have any defense against this reality. Those of us who live in the universe of at-will hiring/firing walk on eggshells every day, and some even document portions of their work day off-site "just in case".

So to me your question is moot. Your hypothetical is a fact, for some people, but not for others. My question to you is this: do you believe that we should hold one set of standards, a very high one, for one group of people and a different set of standards, much lower, for another group of people...and the only difference is the color of skin?

Forgot to ask, Franklin Evans, would you please offer a comment on the article "21st Century Catch22" that I posted a URL for up the thread? I would find your thoughts interesting.

AD, I'm at work and my at-home PC use has been limited lately (exhaustion), but I will read the article and comment on it here as soon as I can.

As for the rest... how dare you rebut my statements with reality? ;-D

My challenge was always intended to be rhetorical. Most of our society really doesn't (seem to or want to) give a damn about that or other such general issues. I cast a jaundiced eye on these discussions for that reason, meaning no disrespect to those who participate in them (myself being one of the participants, of course).

And please, until another person shows up with my name, call me Franklin, or even Frank. If nothing else, it is less for you to type. ;-)

40+ years of what looks a whole lot like a race-based "spoils system" around us I wonder if you have specific examples in mind, because I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to local government, well yeah, Detroit and Philadelphia, both big cities in whose penumbras I've lived, have gone from being white race-based spoils systems to being black race-based spoils systems. The problem there seems to me to be with how our government works, not with which racial group is currently closest to the trough.

In terms of the job market, it's true there are now some government set-aside contracts based on racial quotas. But I don't think that amounts to much in the great scheme of things. Mr. Sig has worked in academic and corporate areas for the last 20 years. Upper management has been predominantly white and male everywhere he's been. That hasn't changed. There certainly are not "spoils" set aside for minority groups. He encounters more women in senior management in his field because of the nature of the job. But even so, there's never been more than one woman among the vice-presidents at any company he worked for. If that. And I can only think of one company where there was even one black senior executive. The middle office is much more diverse, but not because quotas are enforced. Again, I think it's because of the nature of the field, which is one that has historically attracted more minorities and women. It's down in the lower echelons of hourly workers that you find lots of black employees. And again, there's no mandate to hire black workers--it just happens that there are lots of them in the labor pool around here.

Look at good blue-collar jobs. Look at the construction trades in Philadelphia, for instance. Are there big, unfair incursions of minorities grabbing up the spoils? Not that I've noticed. The trades jealously guard the privilege of entry, and it is granted to few minorities. So, if you have some specific examples, bring them up. I'm just not seeing it.

An addendum to my previous over long post. Upon reflection, I recall that Earl Butz got in trouble for pointing out the nose-counting style of "diversity", but what really wiped him out of political life was telling a disgustingly racist "joke" to reporters, who then repeated it in heavily redacted form. Shortly after that point, he became the former Secretary of Agriculture, and quite rightly so. This is intended as a clarification and nothing more.

Sigalis, if you are still looking at this thread, we probably agree more than we disagree on this. I've gone through a number of positions on Affirmative Action (AA) in my life, starting with "it's not needed" and moving on to "Yeah, something like this is needed because there's still too many racist jackasses around" to "this thing is just not working at all" to my present position of resignation that it is here to stay, it's not going to work very well ever, it could be useful from time to time, but in the long run it's going to become more trouble than it is worth.

I have not lived in a city with a large black population for many years. But I have lived in places where "Hispanics" (in this case, Mexican Americans) are 40% or more of the population. One of the Universities I visit from time to time is probably 60% or more Hispanic, plus the President, some Deans, various department heads, at least 1/3 of the faculty, most of the support staff, etc. are Hispanic. There is literally no way that anyone who is Hispanic can be discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin, or accent, or last name at that place. Now consider two families in the area with the pretty much the same income, living next door to each other, both intact families, both fathers professional men. One is "Hispanic", the other is "white". Each family sends its son to this university. Assume that both young men have decent grades and a good enough set of study habits, work ethic, intelligence to succeed in college.

The "Hispanic" son is going to get preferential admission, but since admission is essentially open that doesn't matter. There are a number of services for the "hispanic", starting with various "Society of Hispanic (teachers, engineers, etc." support groups, special tutoring services, various loans/grants, and so forth. All of these offerings basically are in place with the premise that anyone who has a "Mexican" last name is short of money, discriminated against by someone in the community/university, in need of help, etc.

Upon graduation, employers will seek out the "Hispanic" student more than the
"white" student, because they need to check off those boxes on Federal forms. Once inside a company, one young man will find it a little easier to advance than the other, again because of AA principles.

None of these things are available to the "white" student. His friend and neighbor from next door gets some "freebies" he can't get. And why? Well, to be blunt, because of the "color of his skin rather than the content of his character". Now from what I can tell, so far this situation isn't causing much friction, in part because there are so many other forms of aid to students available. But if times get hard, it's going to be more and more difficult to justify giving all sorts of extra help to Middle Class Student A and none to Middle Class Student B based solely on the fact that Student A has a last name like "Lujan" and Student B is named "Smith".

Put it another way: an increasing number of the "Hispanic" students I meet and work with sound like any other US student. If someone from Philadelphia met them and didn't know their name, likely that someone would think they were meeting someone from an Italian background or maybe Greek, certainly a generic "Mediterrainian" (sic) culture. But, of course, Italians are not a protected class. "Hispanics" are. So what does it say when people who really are succeeding just as many people in the Civil Rights era hoped for, continue to receive all the special benefits that were originally offered as a compensation for discrimination and poverty?

Fast forward some number of years to an America in which "white" people are less than 50%, many of the middle class people are "Hispanic" but are no more "Mexican" or "Puerto Rican" than the average Italian in Philly is a "Sicilian"...in other words, a time when more and more minority people look, speak and live just like their "white" neighbors...but the full machinery of AA still exists, and amounts to an official policy of institutionalized discrimination against "white" people. Think there could be some corrosive effects?

Where I visit, that future is here, now: there are cities/universities I go to that are majority Hispanic or nearly there. I'm happy to say that things seem to be working pretty well. But I can't help wondering how long that will last.