CNN's Paula Zahn Now investigates: "Is Sen. Barack Obama's church racist?"
At the end of the April 2 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, guest host Rick Sanchez teased the April 3 program, saying: "Is Senator Barack Obama's church racist? A question a lot of people are asking." As Media Matters for America documented, several conservative media figures have attacked Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, as "separatist" and a "cult." A February 6 Chicago Tribune article reported that "conservative critics have seized on Trinity's 12-point Black Value System, especially the portion relating to 'middleclassness,' as evidence that Obama is a divisive candidate who rejects mainstream American values and is primarily focused on the black community."
On Trinity's website, pastor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. recently addressed conservative attacks on the church: "To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else."
From the April 2 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now:
SANCHEZ: Something else we've got to leave you with tonight. If you thought your Monday was a bummer, talk to the folks in Hilliard, Ohio. An escaped prison inmate literally crashed into their neighborhood while trying to outrun the police officers. As these amazing pictures show, he ran over to a house and then smashed the door.
A woman inside literally rolled -- here it is, watch this right here, ready? She rolls off, there it goes, boom, rolls off the rooftop. The guy took another woman hostage. This is crazy, he eventually let her go.
And then finally, thank goodness, he gave up.
"Out in the Open" tomorrow. Is Senator Barack Obama's church racist? A question a lot of people are asking.
Yes, bad media for investigating. Bad.
Damn straight, Dexter. I didn't get the bonus I wanted, and I think Obama'a church is to blame. Glenn Beck was right, whitey can't get a break.
You fail to see the point in the mere fact that this has been "investigated" about a thousand times already, and it has already become a right wing talking point and meant to denigrate Obama. Because it has indeed been found that the church that he attends is indeed, NOT racist. What is there to investigate? Let me know when you figure it out.
And just to save you a little work, racist is defined as:
based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
Show us where and how Obama's church does that, and I might agree that they're racist, but since you can't show that, might as well keep attacking him about something that does not exist. It's silly. Now is it not only prudent to be a good Christian in order to get elected to be President of the US, but evidently, you have to be a certain type of Christian (and that would be white evangelical, and everyone else can go to hell apparently).
When are these devils going to investigate Mitt Romney's Mormon cult? The Book of Mormon is full of Satanic anti-black verses.
Is this proof of LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS????
Yeah, how can Black's be racist. This is impossible.
It's not like they have anything else to investigate. (WMDs, Plame. US attorneys, etc.)
Jesus Friggin Christ. They have time to "investigate" this, yet they can't seem to find time to probe the cherrypicking of intelligence leading to the Iraq fiasco.
Liberal Media my butt.
"A woman inside literally rolled -- here it is, watch this right here, ready?
She rolls off, there it goes, boom, rolls off the rooftop.
The guy took another woman hostage.
This is crazy, he eventually let her go.
And then finally, thank goodness, he gave up."
--CNN's rick sanchez, immediately prior to crashing into Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, to ask "Are y'all racists in here, or what?"
Another question "a lot of people" are asking:
Why are you such a putz?
Seriously, I think my head is going to explode. Just imagine how many people this had to go through before it made it on the air. Was there not one person along that chain that had a brain in their head? It's 2007 and a national news program is discussing race as if it were 1957.
"Out in the Open" tomorrow. Is Governor Mitt Romney's church a wacko cult? A question a lot of people are asking.
I'm thinking we won't be seeing that one, even though it has exactly the same amount of validity.
Only because Mitt's not a scary colored person, threatening to infiltrate our established political system, and - by extension - our very way of life.
I've already seen articles asking that question about Romney.
AA,
The media is hung up on Romney being a Mormon, I've certainly heard MORE about his Church than Obama's.
Check out this NY Times article titled:
Romney Reaps $20 Million to Top G.O.P. Rivals
Then count how many times the writer David Kirkpatrick brings up "Mormon" or "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/us/politics/03money.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Now go back and reread the article and count how many times Kirkpatrick questions the legitimacy or intentions of the Mormon Church or the Latter Day Saints. Answer: none. There's no comparison between that article and the accusation that Obama's church is racist.
Trust me the fact that Romney is getting $$ from Mormons will be an issue. In fact I'm listening to a local radio talk show right now [Howie Carr WRKO-Boston] that are discussing that very topic.
And even IF the article doesn't diss Romney or Mormons, [and BTW I don't think I said it did] it's interesting that Romney receiving money from Mormons is worthy of mention in this article. Is Hillary getting money from Protestants?... Yeah, I don't know either. Why is that?
I simply left the link for AnotherAmerican because he made mention of Romney.
Yeah, but Hillary isn't enlisting the Methodist Church (for example) as a fundraising entity as it appears Romney may be doing with the Mormon Church. That goes beyond merely raising money from individual Mormons.
Rusty,
Do you happen to know what the rules are as far as receiving campaign money from religious organizations? I don't, but I'm gonna guess Romney isn't breaking any laws here.
I'd guess Lieberman received money from various Jewish organizations.
My point about Hillary was, that IF she in fact did receive money from the Protestant/Methodist Church would anybody make a big deal about it? Would it even be reported by the media?
Yes, if Hillary was getting substantial donations from a particular church I can almost guarantee you it would be covered by the media.
As I understand it, though, that's not what Mitt is doing. He doesn't seem to be getting money directly from the Mormon Church itself. Rather, the NYT article makes it sound like he's using the Mormon Church as a tool to reach its members for fundraising efforts. (An analogue would be Ted Kennedy using the Vatican to help him solicit funds from individual Catholics.)
I assume that's not against the law, but I don't know.
As I understand it, Churches are not allowed to publicly endorse particular political candidates from the pulpit. However, they are allowed to preach about political issues and invite political figures to the Church to speak (and not blatantly campaign).
It seems pretty fair. I would think that using the Church to solicit funds might violate the endorsement prohibition -- unless the Church somehow does it regardless of who the candidate is.
Number of times he brought up the Mormon Church in a derogatory way (for example, by suggesting it is "racist"): zero
I think that is an important distinction. No major news organization is talking about the Mormons like that as well they shouldn't be. The question is why do they believe it is apparently okay to question Obama's religion so freely? Are there different rules for Democrats and Republicans? Or are some religions more curious than others? If so, who decides?
Exactly. There are many who claim the Mormon Church is racist, based on passages in the Book of Mormon. Yet the media don't seem to be covering those allegations. Double standard?
Rusty,
Your point has merit, no doubt. And I have come around a little on this issue. As long as a candidate's personal religious beliefs remain private and in no way affect his public advocacy or policy decisions, then I very much believe their religious affiliation or church membership details are irrelevant.
Ahh, so a man whose religion - the morals he believes are universal and unwavering and endowed by an omnipresent creator, along with his faith that said morals are unerring truth - doesn't interfere with his decisions for the country is a good candidate. I see.
Where might we find such a hypocrite to lead the free world?
"A question a lot of people are asking."
Thanks to Sean Hannity and the entire gang at Fox Nothing Channel.
and the swiftboating continues...
I've changed my mind...
I used to refer to most of the MSM using terms like "Bell-filled bouncing ball-chasing puppies", but I now realize that I've seriously defamed bell-filled balls and puppies.
Lemme see, how 'bout:
- Crap News Network
- Mostly Schithead Neocon Blathering Crapspreaders
- FOX NOISE
- Couric's Boring Slop
Upgrades/Suggestions welcome.
Thanks. I'll stick with So-Called Unbiased Media.
Perhaps the media is not making a definitive decision on this "issue" so they still have stuff to investigate.
I know you guys "Know" his church isn't racist, but Hannity can come up with people that say it is. You probably could use a CNN on your side (you have MMfA now, no better than Hannity to a conservative's eyes) to investigate and say there's nothing wrong with that particular church.
One more time: The very premise of the question is plainly false. There is nothing to investigate. Obama's church is not racist. Obama's church cannot be racist. The only legitimate phrasing of that question would be, "Does Obama's church discriminate against whites?" And the answer is still no.
They are not making a decision because there is nothing to decide. Rick is just using the rhetorical device of posing a denigrating statement as a question, because they don't have jackchit to back up any kind of substantial claim. You don't need MMFA to see the rhetoric is bogus. Read the definition of racism. Freely associating with your own ethnic group or race by itself is not racism, it is a protected right. Read the constitution too.
Some examples or rhtorical questions:Does Rick Sanchez have the brain the size of a pea?Is Bushes brain smaller than Rick Sanchez's brain?Will Bush be gunned down by angry Iraqi vets after he leaves office?Is there new proof Cheney purposely shot his friend as a warning to others?Would Valerie Plame kick Rove in the nuts if she got the chance?And I could go on... Asking dumbass questions is easy. Journalism is hard.
You probably could use a CNN on your side (you have MMfA now, no better than Hannity to a conservative's eyes)
Don't need "a CNN" on our side. Facts are sufficient. And evolution is no better than intelligent design to a conservative's eyes. I value their opinions based on that equivalence.
Why Clams? Or Why not?
Racism requires some institutionalized form of power that minorities simply do not have. The phrasing of the question, "Is Obama's church racist?" is granting Obama's church a power that it doesn't wield. And in order to ask this question, one would have to ignore all the social and historical reasons why a black community would want to form a black church in the first place. It's from this ignorant viewpoint that we hear questions like, "What if it were a white church?" The simple answer is that saying "white church" is redundant, and therefore a "black church" can't be racist.
On the other hand, prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, etc. know no racial boundaries. But the charge that Obama's church is discriminatory or separatist is equally baseless and clearly false. The most obvious rebuttal of this nonsense is to point out that the church has white members.
"Racism requires some institutionalized form of power that minorities simply do not have." --clams
I disagree. Not all minorities are powerless. Therefore, it is wrong to discount the effects of minority racism. It can be every bit as damaging to its victims.
Secondly, often the biggest white racists are what most would consider to be powerless. They are unemployed whites who (mostly undeservedly) blame their fate on the "black man taking their jobs".
I would consider the men that killed James Byrd, Jr.would be described as powerless in an institutional sense, but the effects to Mr. Byrd were not made any more benign by it.
Racism is bad no matter what. Power makes it worse, to be sure, but to insist it is some sort of "requirement" for racism is flat out wrong.
Very well said. To excuse or soften bigotry of any kind, because of circumstance or the source, is reprehensible.
That's not quite what I said without getting into a huge semantic argument. My main point is that it is a mistake to say that racism "requires" power in order for it to be racism. Seemingly powerless people can be terribly effective racists and not all minorities are powerless. It is simply an invalid argument as it was stated.
If the point is that power often makes the effects of racism worse, then I would agree with that.
I apologize if I misrepresented what you meant.......but it made much sense. I was simply making the point that some excuse bigotry due to their particular circumstance, and I don't buy it.
I think you just said it better than I did.........all good.
I wasn't "excusing bigotry." Nor was I excusing racism. I was pointing out that there's a distinction between those two words and the way they're applied.
I agree with you Open Mind. I think everyone should read this book entitled "I'm Not A Racist But..." by Lawrence Blum. He systematically breaks down what is considered racist and what is not by examining its semantics and looking at its historical impact. It’s perhaps the best book I've read regarding race matters.
I think you're looking at the "power" with too narrow a focus. A poor white man may not wield political or financial power, but as a white man he still holds a power over even the richest black man. And that power is supported by the weight of history. That's why I make the distinction between bigotry, prejudice, discrimination et. al. and racism. With this power structure, saying "white racism" seems redundant to me, and the concept of "reverse racism" requires one to ignore that power structure, along with 400 years of history.
P.S. Maybe the word "institutionalized" muddied my point. I meant "institution" in the societal sense.
I don't think the mainstream understanding of the word "racist" gibes with yours, Clams, although yours has merit. I think that in general when people use the word "racist" as CNN is, they mean racially prejudiced.
It looks like maybe it isn't the mainstream view, but from my experience it's a rather common view in the black community. I didn't invent the distinction between "racist" and "bigot," and I notice even within this sub-thread that there are those who are using those words interchangeably.
I'm so sick of Paula Zahn and her "Out In The Open" specials. I don't believe for one minute she or her producers are out to create programs that gives the public something to think about regarding intolerance in America. She's all for getting the highest ratings, and if that means having a panel engaging in their very own verbal pissing contest, creating a complete circus when discussing serious topics, so be it. It's journalism at its lowest and most pandering, tabloid-like form. She should've stayed at Fox where her gimmick is perfectly suited.
Anybody can touch on serious issues regarding racism in America; however its how you investigate and deconstruct the topic that makes the journalist credible in their approach.
I'm sure deep down inside Paula may think she's doing some good raising these issues, but if you're going to approach it in such a sloppy fashion -- inviting idiots like that self-hating coon Jesse Lee Peterson to vent about his disgust of his people, basically agreeing with racists that we're biologically inferior compared to whites -- then you lose a lot of respect in my book. The sad thing is when Paula refuses to challenge these individuals when they make such outrageous claims, the other guest on the panel are too weak or ignorant to debunk these hacks and their opinions. The moment when I decided to write Paula Zahn completely off is when she had that one show about atheist in America and she carried a panel with nothing but Christians to spew their hatred towards the group. You mean to tell me, Paula, you couldn’t find at least ONE atheist to join in the discussion? I’m not an atheist, but I can understand why some have this rancor towards Christians when a mainstream journalist presents such an unbalanced and unsubstantial debate against a persecuted, misunderstood minority group. If you have the gumption to raise hot topics on your show, and you refuse to present it thoroughly and incisively, stick to reporting about Anna Nicole Smith.
I can't even watch cable news anymore; it has gotten so ridiculous how greedy and disingenuous these pundits are in making a quick buck.
It's journalism at its lowest and most pandering...
Exactly. Real journalism is hard, getting to the truth difficult and it costs money with not always alot of return. But getting people to make outrageous stupid remarks or in this case ask "controversial" questions is EZ, cheap, and guaranteed a return.
Quit calling it journalism!! CNN, FOX etc are part of large multi national corporations. They are loyal only to profit margins. Here's an analogy, Pepsico owns several chains of restraunts, like taco bell. Let's say the mid west vp of taco bell is able to decrease his cost of sales by 1/50th of a percentage point. He is now the big man on campus, all the other regional veeps must now try to catch up with him. Notice the mid west veep did not improve the quality of the tacos. It is this same mindset, that is so effective in large corporations, being applied to the management of "news gathering" companies. If the VP of CNN Head line news increases his profit margin by 1/50th of a percentage point the VP of Paula Zahn division has to try to match that. They are not measuring the quality of the programming, they only measure how profitable the programming is.
Actually, when you put it like that, you're right, it's not journalism, it's what Jon Stewart labeled “Crossfire” when he appeared on the show and gave Tucker Carlson that now-legendary pimp slap: "theater". Sadly, many people -- such as myself which is noted in my post above -- tend to confuse "theater" for "journalism." We all fall victims of media propaganda, I’m afraid.
Next on Rove Network News, the question a lot of people are asking. "If you were to find out John McCain had an illegitimate black baby, would you be less likely to vote for him?"
What infuriates about this issue is that's it's never brought up that Trinity Chicago is part of the United Church of Christ. The UCC is a large, decidedly mainstream (not at all 'African-American' exclusively) Protestant denomination with over 1 million members in the US. Mainstream Protestant denominations are very picky about their churches and have strict guidelines for being part of the denomination and if something was untoward they would cut the church loose. Why doesn't someone ask the head of the UCC what they think about Trinity.
Matt - sounds like once again the media not doing their research like one would expect them to.
For anyone who's really interested, go to their website www.ucc.org. Do a search on "trinity" and you'll find the information you're looking for.
You may remember the UCC from their commercials that some networks weren't too keen to run - the bouncers outside the church turning away mixed race and gay couples, and the ejector pews (my favorite)...
Make your own decision on whether the UCC would stand for a racist affiliated church. It's likely that the term "ludicrous" will come to mind when you reconsider the question afterwards.
"Out in the Open" tomorrow. Is Rick Sanchez a blithering idiot? A question a lot of people are asking.
I mean, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why in heck don't Katie and Rick just attribute their questions to the folks who actually posed them. If Katie had said to the Edwards's: You know, that Rush Limbaugh has insensitively criticized your decision to stay in the campaign," I would have cheered her. If this dude, Sanchez, had said "A right-wing nutjob recently claimed that Obama's church was racist. We'll take a look at his baseless, ignorant allegations tomorrow," I could say "right on." But "some say" "people say" or the more oily "You know, President Clinton, I've received hundreds of emails about . . . " are not just bad journalism, they're cheap and coawrdly shots that enable the speaker to defame someone without actually taking credit/blame for it.
But it's not right wing bias, it's just sleezy journalism. Sanchez and CNN aren't pandering to the corporate fascist right wing. They're just putting up a "tease" calculated to whet the appetites of viewers, some of whom will watch because they hope the church is, in fact, racist; other to make sure CNN plays fair and shows that it isn't.
Racist? Damn politics is a joke.
Am I the only person that sees this whole piece as just another reason why religion should just stay the hell out of politics?
Ok, it's a black church. So what? Most people worship in their own communities, and those communities are usually made up of people of the same race. It's even been said that Sunday morning is the most segregated time of the week because of this. Those who criticize what kind of church Barack Obama goes to need to take a look who attends their places of worship first.
Eh, CNN's just bumping the pinball machine again, trying to pander to the fears that they think people like me have so we won't vote for Barack Obama.
It's funny, because I also seem to remember some talk recently about whether or not he's "black" enough.
"A poor white man may not wield political or financial power, but as a white man he still holds a power over even the richest black man. "
No, that's utter nonsense. I'm sorry.
Yeah, I hold a lot of power. Mmhhmm. I guess classism doesn't exist. Ask a white person living in Appalachia if they have any power. Blacks and whites are getting screwed by the same people whether they know it or not.
Classism is only part of it, but there's also privilege that comes with being white in this country to where even the poorest white people has less baggage to carry as far as being stereotyped as immoral, uneducated, inhuman, nonconformist, lazy, etc., than a black person. I remember Chris Rock once said that a white man wouldn’t trade places with him and stay black, even when he [Rock] is rich and famous. The fact is European Imperialism is the root of racism as we know it today. This is undeniable because its case is recorded through countless historical documents. Go to Amazon.com and look up books by Matthew Frye Jacobson and David Roediger who have documented this in countless, groundbreaking studies.
In order to get to the root of modern day racism, people must first be educated on the history of Global European Imperialism. Throughout the ages, European Expansionism/Colonialism has been responsible for bringing foreign ideas (ideas both good and bad) to Non-European cultures. For the most part however, this global expansionist/colonialist drive to occupy other people's lands has led to a very long series of oppressions, massacres, and imperialist doctrines which promoted open slavery, and overt racism. Global European Imperialism has literally shaped the entire power structure of society, from bottom up. Additionally, the maintenance and influence of that power is filtered from the top (the elite) to the bottom (the masses) of the hierarchy. Generation after generation, people become increasingly conditioned inside of this system. Almost all the major institutions of power and influence in the United States and Canada (to name a few), whether it be within the business sector, to the educational system, to the political system, to the media industry, and to the financial system, are controlled by White people (usually White men at the very top). This is how Institutionalized Racism is maintained, through a multi-faceted system stemming from Global European Imperialism. In other words, the entire system has been rigged to make it easier for White people (especially White men) to succeed AND maintain that power structure over others.
FACT: Institutionalized Racism plays a very significant central role in that system because it covertly gives privileges to one group, while covertly denying those same privileges to other groups. An example of those privileges is White Privilege.
As I’m sure you know, racism is not dead. It has only mutated from being obvious to being hidden. The only difference between people now and before is that people now are mostly not aware that they may in fact be racist. The generation of today is conditioned by history, like a domino effect that was brought on by imperialism, slavery, oppression, and mass genocide.
The people in this generation have been historically conditioned. White people, just like Black people, and Asian people, and Native Americans, Latinos, etc. are really just victims of history itself. Many of us are not even consciously aware that we are conditioned, and we are not even consciously aware that we could be racist for that matter. The generation today is not to feel guilty of the past, but to be AWARE of it. You see, we had nothing to do with the past, but we must make sure that we NOT to become ignorant of it. If we become ignorant, dismissive and self-righteous (not saying you are but I have encountered tons of people like this in the past on the net), then we become defensive and illogical. Choosing to be ignorant of the past will only lead to the path of racism and cold-heartedness towards other races.
Ignorance is what leads people to avoid real discussions about racism. Ignorance is what leads people (usually conservatives like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and others come to mind) to downplay history, giving them the desensitized mentality to repeat it.
Is their some way I can staple this post to Tommy's head?
I feel like I'll never have to say anything on this topic again. I'll just keep linking back to Preston's post.
Ha! Thanks for the compliment. I'm new here so I was kind of weary to post a huge rebuttal like that, afraid you regulars would ponder, “Who the hell is this guy barging in here like this?!”
I meant to say apprehensive not weary. Ugh, it's been a long day so my typing, spelling and word usage is out of whack!
Again, your narrow idea of "getting screwed" conveniently ignores the weight of hundreds of years of history. Of course I'm not saying that classism doesn't exist. You're try to narrow this issue down to the tangible power of money, and this trancends money. The racial power that poor white man has is a destructive power, completely separate from his power to overcome any financial screwing he may have endured.
"Again, your narrow idea of "getting screwed" conveniently ignores the weight of hundreds of years of history. Of course I'm not saying that classism doesn't exist. You're try to narrow this issue down to the tangible power of money, and this trancends money. The racial power that poor white man has is a destructive power, completely separate from his power to overcome any financial screwing he may have endured."
I am not ignoring history in the least. I am fully aware of America's historical underbelly. It's also clear that there are racial inequities in this country. It's one reason why I favor reparations.
But on the other hand, to suggest that I as a white man have more power than say Oprah Winfrey or Sean Combs is silly.
And to say that I have some sort of destructive power that people of other races don't is quite frankly insulting. I don't have any sort of power to hold someone back regardless of their race, and neither do the majority of whites. They're struggling to keep their heads above water also like me.
Power to overcome financial screwing? Will my magical whiteness help me? It hasn't yet.
Preston P-
Again, I am not going to doubt history. But I really do not think that I have more power than someone like Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell. I KNOW that I don't have power over him or anyone.
I wouldn't take much stock into anything Chris Rock says. He makes a living from slandering whites and his own people and by making racism "fun". And I don't think I have more power over him. Would he want to trade places with me? I doubt it.
Class has a lot more to do with someone's life chances than race does. A black person born into wealth is going to have a much easier chance at success than a poor white.
Sure there are racial overtones to all of this. It would be fooish to deny that. I really don't think that there is any parallel to what African Americans have dealt with in America. I think theirs is a unique situation to say the least.
I apologize for perhaps getting curt. I didn't intend to belittle anyone. I just don't think any black person would trade places with me either. :) It bothers me when people suggest that I have some sort of privilege over someone else simply due to my race, because it's not something that I have ever seen or felt. I went to a predominantly black high school. I certainly didn't feel special or privileged there. Not that I would want to be considered special or privileged either. If I do have privileges over someone in that regard, I don't want them. I'll go sleep on the street or something.
Iwarrior, I agree with you about Chris Rock. But what do you expect from Rock since he's from the Quentin Tarantino generation, the same filmmaker who makes racism fun in his films and cannoized as a "genius" by whites and blacks alike? Rock's so-called classic "N*gg*s vs Black people" routine was dangerous and ill-conceived in my opinion; it did nothing but gloss over the horrible class division among blacks. Hell, when you have conservative folks like O'Reilly and Hannity using Rocks joke as a basis to justify urban Black youth's "immoral behavior," then you know something is wrong.
You have no reason to apologize; I guess at times I become abrasive to people who downplays the impact race has had on the inequalities of poor blacks in the inner cities. I don’t think you were doing that, but to say it’s more class than race is untrue when it was indeed racism that created the urban ghettos we have today. It was racism that kept blacks, who moved from the South to the North, landing jobs in the Industrial Revolution era where European immigrants were hired over them instead. As Stephen Steinberg said in his incredible book “Turning Back”:
Job crisis is the single most important factor behind the familiar tangle of problems that beset black communities. Without jobs, nuclear families become unglued or are never formed. Without jobs, or husbands with jobs, women with young children are forced onto welfare rolls. Without jobs, many ghetto youth resort to drug trade or other illicit ways of making money. Ironically, those who end up in prison do find work—in prison shops that typically pay fifty cents or less an hour—only to find themselves jobless on the outside. Given this fact, the high rate of recidivism should come as no surprise. For different reasons, schools are generally ineffective in teaching children whose parents lack stable jobs and incomes. In short, there is no exit from the racial quagmire unless there is a national commitment to address the job crisis in black America.
Tragically, this nation does not have the political will to confront its legacy of slavery, even if this means nothing more than providing jobs at decent wages for blacks who continue to be relegated to the fringes of the job market. Instead, a mythology has been constructed that, in ways reminiscent of slavery itself, alleges that blacks are inefficient and unproductive workers, deficient in work habits and moral qualities that delivered other groups from poverty. Nor is this cultural blaming of the victim any longer characteristic of the political right. Many prominent liberals, inside and outside the academy, have resorted to gratuitous clucking about cultural patterns of black families and black youth, utterly confusing cause and effect. [...] Still others on the left have declared that the problems confronting black America have less to do with race than with class, a strange message for the millions of tenth-generation African Americans still condemned to live out their lives in impoverished ghettos. By reifying “class” and shifting the focus away from “race,” these theorists unwittingly undermine the anti-racist movement. They absolve the nation of moral and political responsibility for making restitution for its three-hundred-year crime, and play into the hands of those on the right who have already succeeded in removing issues of racial justice from the national agenda.
I understand the whole Obama thing you’re referring to, and I do feel sorry for him because I knew this would happen—that some people would think he’s being “too Black” and others think he’s being “too White” to become an American president. Then again, this isn’t something new in terms of minorities being embraced by the mainstream. I’ve heard the same thing about Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jackson, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, etc., when they became superstars in the media. However, I do think the whole “Black enough” issue regarding Obama is one that’s being overplayed in the media. This didn’t become an issue until Black neo-conservative writer Stanley Crouch proclaimed “he’s not one of us,” and in true Paula Zahn fashion, other journalists picked this up and ran with it, exhibiting this as if Crouch—due to his blackness—is a spokesmen for black folks across the country and what he’s saying is what we’re all thinking, which is false.
Which ISN'T true, I mean.
Also, I wanted to add that I wasn't trying to lecture you, because you seem to be a smart, compassionate person when it comes to racial and class injustice in America; I was just pointing out that Global European Imperialism is responsible for the racial paradigm today and class is only part of the problem. I think the point Clam Casino was making is that you personally may not have more power than an Oprah Winfrey or Sean “P Diddy” Combs, but collectively, whites have far more power in America than minorities, and throughout history and even now, have shared their wealth and privilege with each other, excluding minority groups to join in the program. This cannot be filed under classism when there’s a racial component involved.
You should read this essay Stephen Steinberg wrote on this issue which is very powerful.
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue39/Steinberg39.htmI wish I could edit my posts. :) I should post with a clearer head as I have a tendency to go into message boards all guns a blazing at times.
I apologize for getting angry with you Clams Casino and for being sarcastic.
Here's the thing. I deal with racist people all the time. I work with a bunch of them. I hate them. I've almost come to blows with them. I patently avoid people like that when I can. I guess that's one reason why this whole idea of "white privilege" bothers me. It makes me feel as if I'm "the enemy" of black people simply because I was born with a different skin pigment than them. Meanwhile, I don't feel that I'm their enemy. I don't want to be. If anything I feel as if I am on their side. I don't feel inherently superior to them. Hell, I feel as if the fact that I'm not racist is an albatross around my neck. It brings me into conflict with people. I start getting to know someone, and then I hear them use a racial slur, and I don't want anything to do with them anymore.
And where's my privilege? Where's my cushy job? Why am I living in a home that's falling apart that I can't afford to get repaired? I tried "pulling myself up by the bootstraps". It didn't work. And I don't want those things at the expense of someone else. It just left me in debt. There are times that as an ordinary person I don't feel as if anyone is on my side. Do the Republicans care about me? No. I don't feel that they care about me anymore than they do about gays, blacks, women, etc. Do the Dems? I'm not sure. They act like they do.
No reason to apologize. I don't take any of this personally. I'm just a silly name on a message board, so it makes it too easy for us to forget that we're all real people with different experiences. If I was short with you, I apologize, but I often get frustrated trying to find ways to articulate exactly what Preston wrote about so clearly. The only thing I'd like to add is that I don't think that your anecdotal argument about you not having the power that Oprah or Sean Combs have really refutes what I was talking about. I mean, everyone can come up with endless examples of a white guy who's got it worse than a black guy, but that doesn't invalidate the very real concepts of institutionalized racism and white privilege in the broader sense. You can say, "White privilege hasn't done anything for me," but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that the black people that you encounter aren't very aware of it regardless of any personal benefits you have or haven't seen.
And let me clarify what I meant about this power being destructive. I should say it has the potential to be destructive, whether it manifests itself as a word (I think we all know the word), or a stereotype that is exploited or propagated, or any multitude of other ways, some subtle and some not so subtle. These are boundary lines that can be drawn, whether intentionally or not, and from the minority perspective that's seen as a very real power that white people have the potential to wield. Just as one example, think of the difference between the word "cracker" and the word "n***er." One holds a great destructive power and the other does not.
But none of this should make every white person feel like the "enemy." Clearly you're already thinking about and dealing with these things. It's an ongoing process for me too, and I don't think anyone willing and open enough to think seriously about these issues should ever be made to felt as if they're the enemy.
On that note, it's really difficult to find intelligent discussions on race on the Internet, so I wanted to share a link that I just stumbled on recently. There's some great commentary going on here (I've got no affiliation with them, btw):
[link to theunapologeticmexican.org]
And after following my own link I see that there's a long personal essay on the destructive power of words. Synchronicity.
Ok, Clams Casino, thanks for the post. Perhaps you're right.
I know institutional racism exists. I've seen it. And maybe in that regard alone, I am privileged. You could also argue that I am more privileged than a gay or a woman as well since I don't have to deal with the same sorts of societal problems as they do.
I guess one reason why this discussion bothers me is because as someone who is a working person and has never been wealthy, I feel as if the same forces that are waging war against the black community are waging war against me as well. The powers-that-be don't want someone like me moving up the ladder either. And I don't want to be a part of their club.
Another thing is that it makes me feel as if what I do have was gotten at the expense of someone else. As if the black homeless guy on the street should be in the crappy house I live in, and that I should be the one sleeping in a box. If it's easier for me, then why am I where I am in life? Did I simply make poor decisions? Did I not work hard enough? Are the black people who did get to the top simply extraordinary? Is my life as a white person hurdle-free? It doesn't seem like it has been that way. Maybe it is for other whites but not for me.
And then there's the "white guilt" thing which is where a lot of racism comes from. If we keep telling whites from all walks of life that they have it better than everyone else, does that just feed the fire? Does it just create resentment between peoples who really should be on the same page? If the playing field was finally level, through reparations or whatever, is that going to be at my expense? I don't believe it would harm me, but sometimes it's seemingly made out that way to others. Which leads into something else I dislike about the subject of race in this country...
I was reading an article about Barack Obama from a website concerning issues that affect African Americans. The author's point was that Barack Obama wasn't "black" enough because among other things, he's too "comforting" to whites. That angers me, because it makes me feel as if I as a white person am supposed to be afraid of a black president. As if he's really going to stick it to me. I don't believe that. I don't like being told by anyone from white conservatives to black militants that I should be threatened by black empowerment. It's not in my best interests to keep black people down. I want black people to rise up. I want to see a black president. I want to vote for Obama partly because he isn't a WASP that comes from old money. It angers me that a network like CNN wants me to be afraid of Obama.
As far as racial slurs go, I partly agree with you. N****r is a horrible word. I actually get lumps in my throat when I hear it used. But I also get that way when I hear words like "k*ke","ch*nk", etc. I am primarily Polish by descent, and I've been equally offended by the word "polock" and being told that being of Polish descent means that I am stupid. Especially when we've got a rich WASP in the White House with a third grade vocabulary. And I think "cracker" does have a destructive power, despite being reactionary, because it tosses gasoline onto the blaze. Imo, racism begats racism. Blacks experience racism from whites, and some of them give it right back, sometimes at people who don't deserve it, and it just creates a cycle.
Chris Rock for example often demeans whites in his act without any sense of irony. It just makes me want to change the channel. But what if it's a white person who harbors a great deal of animosity towards blacks? All it does to them is reinforce their beliefs and give people like them more ammunition as in, "See? They hate, resent, and hold you in contempt, so you might as well hate them too."
Oh well, I can't really think of anything else to say. I think I did the best I could for a guy that didn't finish college. :)
Remember that this is CNN....the network based in good old-boy Atlanta, Georgia that excels in digging up stories of white women abducted or assualted by black men to air. CNN is racist.
I don't like Obama for his policies, but this is pure racism.
Yeah, CNN is always made out to be the "liberal" network. You raise a good point.
The mainstream American church has allowed, accepted and condoned the burning of the cross (and what I believe is the most sacred symbol of Christianity), it's use by the Ku Klux Klan and the other racist terrorist groups that operate in the United States. Sunday after Sunday goes by and nary a mainstream (white )American minister stands up and denounces racism for the social scourge it is. And with all that said, the mainstream American church has the audacity to accuse Sen. Obama's house of worship with racism? I don't recall 4 white girls being bombed out of a church or blacks threatening and menacing their congregations or for carrying out murder and assassinations against their clergy. How disgraceful! This should be an affront to every descent White American and Christian who has lived and worked each and everyday to redeem this bitter and bloody land. Shame on you mainstream American church-shame on you!!!
Suggesting that Obama's church is racist is so obscene it is difficult to know where to begin. I would have to liken it to the common projection used by most right wingers to tar their opponent with something of which they themselves are extremely guilty (note : all the whining and hand wringing about "pork.") Gingrich perfected and taught this.As a non-rich white man, I nonetheless understand the forms of racism that I do not face. I grew up in LA. The Korean grocers do not follow me around when I shop. When I went on job interviews, I felt a definite advantage. When I worked as a retail clerk, salesperson, ect where no blacks worked, I understood that the store/corp did not want it's "face" to be black which might frighten off consumers.Those are just a few minor examples. How about getting a mortgage from non sub prime loan shark banks while black and middle/lower class? A car loan at decent interest?I took a graduate course on African American studies and was so shocked and appalled about what I learned, I emailed long texts to my friends. I had become convinced that that 4 centuries of racism in this country has so damaged the previous generations of blacks that there existed a mostly unacknowledged and profound cultural wound and disadvantage which, coupled with lack of opportunity, resulted in the stereoptype of immorality, lazy, deadbeat, ignorant, ect. The replies I got back from my friends on both sides of the coast were similar. "I never owned slaves, what does this have to do with me?." It was all ancient history to them. Guess what : your parents made blacks ride at the back of the bus and little white kids could call adult male blacks "boy" and make them get off the sidewalk in many southern towns. They were required to be out of proper town before sunset. That wasn't that long ago. That has profound cultural impact within the black family and community. And those are fairly petty examples. How about getting lyched by the KKK (aka local police force) for looking at a white woman too long?The ignorance and stupidity of people who think that the lingering aftermath of 4 centuries of slavery/oppression and racism is over because the most egregious legal loopholes for racism were removed in the 60' is absurd.How about the massive voter repression of blacks in Fla by none other than another criminal bush? In Ohio by a self hating republican black? Yeah, we've come a long way baby.I live in TX. A small town outside of Ft. Worth. I have never seen a black within a hundred miles of my town. Strike that. I did see 3 of them in a SUV recently. The only reason I noticed is that the cops here are very lenient on traffic tickets and it was rare to see several cop cars with lights and sirens blazing in the afterfoon for a traffic stop. Thank God I was saved from the affluent black men daring to venture in this neck of the woods. Republicans like to say they do not see race, that racism is over. That we should all just be "americans" without the prefix. That is coming from someone who has not driven through my town while being black.
Thanks for taking the time to post that. I'll definitely link back to this thread in the future so that more people will read yours and Preston's posts.
It's incredible how many people have tried to tell me (or maybe it's that they've tried to convince themselves) that getting pulled over for a DWB (driving while black) doesn't happen any more. Where I live in Northern California it happens all the time. And I mean all the time. They don't hide it, they don't even try to come up with an excuse for it, they just openly do it with no shame as if it's some accepted police policy or something.