Soooo…electing Barack Obama was an act of cowardice?

Newly minted AG Eric Holder, in a speech that must have had his boss banging his head against a wall in the White House residence, declared:

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” He went on to say, “Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

Oh, don’t “we?”

I was always under the impression that talk was cheap. Having a black president and a black attorney general, I would have thought, counts a good deal more than talking. To quote another cliche: Actions speak louder than words.

I would concede the notion that there is a certain, shall we say, tentativeness when it comes to discussing deeper issues of prejudice. However, I am moved to ask:

Whose fault is that?

I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs? The word “ņìggárdlÿ,” the utterance of which in a private staff meeting resulted in a mayoral aide in Washington, D.C. being forced to resign? What about off-hand jokes by radio personalities that wind up getting them fired from their gig no matter how much they endeavor to apologize for it? How about rioters in LA who express their dissatisfaction with what they see as racism by smashing into local electronics stores and stealing televisions and air conditioners? How about everyone from the ubiquitous Al Sharpton–as big a racist as there ever was–to the National Association of Black Journalists (were there an Association of White Journalists, such an entity would be declared racist by its very existence) declaring that the only possible interpretation of a NY Post cartoon was one that had racist overtones?

The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order. Under the current atmosphere, who would WANT to discuss racism? Well…Barack Obama did, back when he gave that superb speech about Rev. Wright. I don’t recall whites rioting over it. I don’t recall whites going on TV in droves and screaming for censure. My recollection is that it was a major turning point for white voters to assess Eric Holder’s future boss and deciding that they liked what they saw.

If you touch a hot stove, get burned, and say, “Whoa, I’m not touching that stove again,” is that an act of cowardice? Or is that just a reasoned response to an atmosphere created by many members of the very audience that Holder would presumably claim as his constituency? And by the way, not for nothing, but when did an attorney general become an “average American?”

PAD

262 comments on “Soooo…electing Barack Obama was an act of cowardice?

  1. “why would 28% of blacks think that blacks are less trustworthy?”

    In this case the explanation that comes from academia is worthwhile, although people tend to overuse it beyond its usefullness. One answer is that some black internalize prejudices againsttheir own group.

  2. Micha Says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
    “But putting all this in the framework of “white privilage” changes the whole story. It is no longer about understanding the point of blacks or about correcting individual behavior. Now its about whites being racist by virtue of being white. The racism is embedded in them. Because they are white, they are inevitably the cause of that fear gnawing at the psychy of blacks, the cause of their oppression…”

    Whoa, hang on a second there…

    You started off OK with ‘some whites’ and ‘some blacks’, but you just took a left turn into some pretty broad generalisations there!

    Being born into a system that favours whites in some ways, often in almost subliminal ways, does not automatically make you racist.

    The ‘haves’ traditionally shaft the ‘have-nots’ regardless of colour, gender, or whatever, and the ‘have-nots’ are generally of the same mindset.

    Personally, I think (maybe I just hope) that most blacks and most whites are now getting smart enough, well educated enough, to know that behaviour is down to the individual, and that the ‘some’ prefix is probably the most important (and most omitted) word in any conversation about race, and also that history does not imprison us or excuse us for what we do today.

    Cheers.

  3. Now its about whites being racist by virtue of being white. The racism is embedded in them. Because they are white, they are inevitably the cause of that fear gnawing at the psychy of blacks, the cause of their oppression…

    That is not what white privilege means at all.

  4. “Being born into a system that favours whites in some ways, often in almost subliminal ways, does not automatically make you racist.”

    I agree, but Peggy McIntosh does not. What I wrote was a criticism of her point of view:

    “One factor seems clear about all of the interlocking oppressions. They take both active forms, which we can see, and embedded forms, which as a member of the dominant groups one is taught not to see. In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth.” hxxp://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

    “born into a system that favours whites”

    The system does not favor whites, it specifically marginalized blacks. That’s a small but important difference. To claim that whites got favored goes against the experience of many whites who did not get any favors, while not denying the truth of the racism blacks did and do suffer.

    “behaviour is down to the individual”

    Yes and no. It is right to recognize that society and environment are significant forces that shape the way individuals behave, and that individuals are not acting in vacuum. But some have taken this recognition too far, to the point that individuals do not matter.

  5. “That is not what white privilege means at all.”

    See the quote I added to my response to Peter below. If you wish to present a different point of view, go ahead. My knowledge of this is limited, I responded to what I read.

    Frankly, the concept seems meaningless to me.

  6. Carlos Says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    “I think education would be a good start. White males benefiting from White/Male privilege, and dismissing it as a useless theory (when it is rooted in history and plenty of academic study) or saying “life is unfair, oh well” is a horrible problem.”

    Education is always good, preferably education that teaches people how to think and not what to think…

    A lot of the people in the conversation are even more ‘rooted in history’ than some of the theories.

    Fairness… Define fair. Now get someone to agree with you. Now get everyone to agree. For bonus points, avoid anyone saying “It’s not fair and it’s your fault”

    “Where people are asking what can be done and brainstorming on answers instead of attributing it to Human Nature and shrugging it off is a nice step.”

    Accepting human nature as a factor would be progress… We’re all human, regardless of colour.

    “White Privilege isn’t likely to disappear any time soon, but not attempting to change a system from you benefit is in many ways tantamount to supporting it.”

    White privilege is already disappearing. If you doubt that, call the White House and ask to speak to the guy in charge.

    Systems do change and evolve, drastically, gradually, imperceptibly or dramatically, in fact pretty much the only thing they don’t do is stay static… One thing to beware of though is that when people start shouting “Smash the system!” they very often don’t have anything better to replace it with, which is not a good sign. Any idiot can break a watch, building or repairing one, not so much…

    “Heck, why not protest the lack of diversity in media itself, white people could protest as well! Maybe that could help educate everyone on the importance of seeing positive portrayals of minorities in visual media along the way”

    Didn’t we already try that and similar things? With affirmative action programmes, and what a lot of people see as tokenism? The US and UK both have extensive legal protection for the rights of minorities, the civil and social awareness is not perfect but it does seem to be getting there…

    Speaking of which, how much of the problem is that things aren’t perfect yet? That “it’s just not good enough!”?

    You know, in any performance tuning exercise, or quality initiative, there is a point of diminishing returns where the effort you put in to improve things is greater than the benefit that effort achieves. Is there such a point in stamping out racism? Can we get to a point where everyone accepts that some people will always be idiots and that the best approach is to ignore them and let them continue to die off like dinosaurs?

    Cheers.

  7. Carlos Says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    “White males benefiting from White/Male privilege, and dismissing it as a useless theory (when it is rooted in history and plenty of academic study).”

    When academics study history they use methodological tools in order to understand the sources they study. If a methodolgy gains popularity academics start using it more extensively, and their understanding of the hhistorical sources becomes influenced by their methodology. Sometimes it turns out that the tools and constructs used are not as good or sound or at least sufficient as they seemed. Moreover, academic research in the fields of humanities and social sciences often are divided about the interpretation of sources. One academic interprets them one way, and somebody else comes and challenges that interpretation.

    White privilege is a methodological construct that is used to interpret historical and present events and behavior. I tried to show why it is not very useful.

  8. To me, what it comes down to is this:

    I totally understand the notion that it’s easy for a white person to say, “I don’t have any problem with race” when, on a typical day to day basis, we don’t have to deal with racism while trying to go about our lives. Not racism in a big way. It’s not the big indignities so much as the little ones. It’s like the Chinese water torture or the death by a thousand cuts. If I try to flag a cab in Manhattan and it goes past me without slowing, I figure he didn’t see me. If a black man tries to flag a cab in Manhattan and it goes past without slowing, he figures it probably did see him. And he may well be right.

    But I’ve always believed that the best way to change things is to attack the problem; not the people willing to talk about the problem. There is no doubt that activism instigated by such groups as the NAACP, for instance, brought about desegregation. But you know what else brought it about? Nine old white guys in Washington who said, “You know what? You’re right. Separate but equal doesn’t work. We’re fixing this right now.”

    Of course, when you’re effectively told, “White people ARE the problem,” and you’re told you’re stupid, or clueless, or that people are going to stop buying your work (or, better still, told that they weren’t buying it before but sure won’t now) that does nothing to solve any problem. It just makes more and bigger problems.

    The only way racism truly ends is if we walk forward together; otherwise together we stay where we are.

    PAD

  9. Had to see what this infamous post was all about…

    “The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order.”

    “Can be to some” would’ve been more accurate. NAACP hasn’t been on-the-nose for a while, Al Sharpton’s bitter, Jesse Jackson’s senile, and Louis X is indeed a bigot. Who has really been shouting other than these people and a couple of assorted organizations? They aren’t any more vocal than these other special interest groups we have running around in America—and we know they reflect the interests of some, not all, regardless of who they claim they represent. This should NOT cause anyone who wants to analyze race relations (doesn’t entail racist rants) to backpedal when they were in the right or shy away from discussions (however beating with a stick these talks may be by now).

    “I’ve always believed that the best way to change things is to attack the problem; not the people willing to talk about the problem.”

    This is all that needed to be said in your original post, as it’s 100% correct. Of course, it’s your site, so…

    Looking forward to X-Factor this week. Just jumped on last issue and the new preview made me laugh.

  10. I am disappointed that this post seems to have landed you on the unofficial “racist SF/F author” list. Ironically, that only seems to prove your point.

    Then again, perhaps my feelings only prove that my “racism” is of the same flavor of yours — I’m certain that’s what your detractors would/will say.

    I self-identify as white, although I am a federally-registered part-American Indian (the only minority you must prove you belong to in order to claim).

Comments are closed.