When President Obama gave his victory speech on November 4, 2008, he spoke of the progression that Americans have made; he spoke of the future of racial barriers in America being extinct in Governmental policies; he spoke of racism being of the past, and the future of America holding equality for all.
It is true in fact, that since that 28th day in August, 1963 when the slain Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I have a dream" speech, that Americans have progressed significantly in the equality and acceptance of blacks and whites interacting as one.
But if King were alive today, would he agree on President Obama's claims of racial barriers being a thing of the past?
It came as no surprise to many Americans that controversy would follow the inauguration of Americas first African-American* President on January 20, 2009. But what does come as a surprise is the ideology of some that President Obama's policy decisions and political agendas are racially-driven. Furthermore, that certain Americans feel that President Obama is not qualified to run this country due to his race.
Considering the history of American politics and its majority-based conservatism ideals, putting an openly liberal democrat into the Oval Office -- hold his race -- is enough in itself for questions of future policies to arise in the American people. But for the first time in American history -- given the race of Obama -- questioning, disagreeing with, and attacking the decisions of our President (which has always been a right of an American) now deems this person a racist. But, I guess ignorance is, well ignorance.
So now the game of American politics "flip-flops."
A few months back the story broke of Cambridge police arresting a man in his own home. That man happened to be prominent Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Gates, an African-American, has a track record of fighting for the equal rights of his own race, along with prominent studies of African-American culture, history, literature, etc.
When President Obama was requested comment of the arrest, he stated that he was unaware of the facts of the incident which took place, but from mainstream media reports, he stated that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in the arrest of Gates. Immediately this struck racial controversy -- regardless of President Obama's disclaimer of "not knowing the complete facts." Maybe the President shouldn't have made those remarks, but does that mean he is a racist? Or is it mainstream media that is portraying him as one?
In a recent interview with NBC Nightly News, former President Jimmy Carter stated, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . ." He then followed up, by saying, "That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."
Former President Carter is wrong. Americans of every color, race, nationality, sexual orientation, and ethnicity put this man into office -- not because of his race -- but because of his promises for change. As to reiterate, the only reason why President Obama is facing challenges from the American people, is simply due to policy disagreements with American Citizens. But, as a miniscule example, since many Americans disagree with his proposed public healthcare option, those people are now suddenly racists.
"African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country," Carter said. Taking his statement slightly out of context, let's take a look at the educational background of Carter, vs. Obama; a white President, Vs. an African-American President:
- Jimmy Carter enrolled at Georgia Southwestern College after graduating high school in 1942. At the time of his enrollment, GSC was a two-year institution. Carter then applied to the United States Naval Academy -- and after taking additional mathematic courses at Georgia Tech, was admitted in 1943. He graduated 59th in class out of 820 Midshipmen.
- President Obama enrolled in and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University. He then went on to earn a law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was the first African-American to be president of Harvard Law Review. From 1992-1994 he taught constitution law at the University of Chicago Law School.
You decide. Was Carter more qualified then than Obama is today?
The basic fact comes down to this: had John McCain won the election, the American people would be able to wholeheartedly disagree with his policy-making decisions, tax or healthcare reform, etc., without being anything but an ordinary, free American, practicing their first amendment. Hold the race card.
*President Barack Obama is bi-racial.
© Jeff Kelleher
September 17, 2009
Political Assignments
I see a different America than you do.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that since MLK Jr.'s speech, "Americans have progressed significantly in the equality and acceptance of blacks and whites interacting as one." This is a generalization that implies we all, collectively, have moved forward on the issue of race. This is systematically untrue. While our laws have become more sensitive to those of different ethnicities, our policies, our culture, our media, and our syntax has all tried it's best to adapt to this sensitivity, with, in my opinion, little success. In fact, racism has become more difficult to identify, because at one point it was much more blatant and it was much more acceptable.
Just because racism is not acceptable anymore does not mean it doesn’t still exist. Furthermore, just because racism isn’t acceptable (TO MOST), doesn’t mean it’s not a subtle motivation behind some people’s actions. And I would venture to argue that most people who commit racially insensitive acts are not doing so with bad intentions - rather they are good people, with good intentions, who simply don't understand the impact of their subtle racist actions.
Also, the quotes from Jimmy Carter have again been taken out of context. No one seems to be focusing on the fact that he qualified his remarks to people who have "intense animosity" toward Obama's policies. The kind of animosity that is seen at Tea Party rallies, where it is often acceptable to question his birth country, connect him to Islam (as if that is a negative connotation), and referring to him as a 'monkey.'
(continued)
The plain fact of the matter is, George W. Bush was an immensely unpopular president, but protests for him did not hinge upon, NOR did they rarely even CONSIDER his race. Minus Kanye West's claim that he doesn't care about black people, there were no mobs of people clamoring with similar sentiments. There were no connections with him being a 'cracker,' there were no distinctions made about his ancestry, there were no caricatures of him as a 'bad dancer,' or whatever white stereotypes you can think of - and there is a scarcity of white stereotypes because white people, generally, don't consider themselves as having a race. That's why, when we describe people, we don't typically say "the white guy over there in the black shirt," we just say "the guy," whereas the same cannot always be said about black people.
ReplyDeleteIf John McCain had been elected, and people continually made comments about his age, I'd say it's safe to say that we are also an ageist country that discounts people based on their years. It would be wrong to do so.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected, and people continually connected her gender with her ability to make decisions, or with their dissent of her actions, it would be sexist. It would be wrong to do so.
What seems to me that happens so often when people try to expose racism (whether or not it is truly a factor, is almost irrelevant to me), is that people get ANGRY. People get very upset, and people get very defensive. In my experience communicating with other human beings, when people get defensive with me for making a claim about them - whether it is true or not - something else is lurking there. Whether that may be pure outrage at being called a racist when you don't even think you're a racist (but you very well may be, in the most subtle of ways mentioned earlier), or whether that's because there's truth to it and you know it, and you're trying to cover your ass, it's anyone's guess.
(continued)
The fact of the matter is, when people try to expose racism, as Jimmy Carter did, the country does not collectively sigh and say "come on, we've moved past that." In fact, there are quite a few people who agree with his sentiments, and there are quite a few people who don't understand his sentiments. Both of these groups of people are perfect examples that we have not come far enough with race in his country.
ReplyDeleteAnd my last point takes serious issue with your last "qualification" question. President Carter was clearly stating that it's not his position, but other people's position that perhaps they don't feel as though he's qualified to lead the country - not because of his scholarly qualifications - but because of his race. What he was trying to say (though I can't speak for him) was that it wouldn't matter how qualified the President is, if he were black, some people would never be able to accept him as qualified, because to some people, black people aren't equal, and thus, never qualified to hold a position typically belonging to white men. Thus, your point, though clearly in jest of some sort, makes absolutely no sense, especially accounting for the way educational culture has changed. You’re also implying that simply because one attends prestigious universities, one has more qualifications than others, which is classist and also fundamentally untrue.
By even writing this response, I have to admit that I am white and therefore, I hold a position of privilege in this society. It is a not a privilege I chose, nor one that I necessarily desire, but I realize that for most of my life, because of the color of my skin, and everything that has transpired before me, I have different opportunities and have had them my entire life. Thus, I will never truly know the oppression that is felt by African-Americans, or any non-white individual, though I can try my hardest, I WILL NEVER FEEL IT, therefore I will NEVER FULLY UNDERSTAND IT. Therefore, I am NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT IT. I am not in a position to tell someone who is non-white that their views on how they are being treated based on their race is invalid, because I will never know that feeling, so how would I be able to tell? Am I alone in this recognition and understanding?
I’m going to make one last generalization, which is something I try to stay away from usually, but I feel as though I can make it and have it be remotely true. What is painfully clear to me, from hearing all sides of this argument, is that no one is thinking as critically as they should be about these questions or these points being brought up. People simply react, absorb, and move on. There is a lack of questioning, a lack of open discussion, a lack of forums to speak about these important issues in America. Rather, the debate gets a split screen and repeated cyclically on a 24-hour news channel and is mortifyingly simplified, when it’s not a simple issue at all. It’s not something that can be resolved in 30 minutes, in 24 hours, or 200 years. It’s a struggle that will continue as long as there are different colors on the ethnic spectrum, because it’s existed since the beginning of time. The focus needs to be solution-based, not finger-wagging and blame-placing. These do nothing to solve the real issues as to what’s going on and why it’s happening. In my opinion, it’s insulting to even use the term “race card,” because it reduces someone’s LEGITIMATE concern that there is a race issue to a negatively charged, unproductive and oversimplified term. It’s unfair and it’s wrong to judge someone’s concerns in that way, and it does nothing to create an open space for discussion and/or consciousness-raising.
(continued)
So few people seem to be interested in struggling toward growth, in any capacity, because they’re complacent in their life and they relatively feel no struggle. They live their lives, day-to-day, and things don’t generally explode on them. Once in a while, someone says something on TV that gets everyone’s attention, as a distraction from their day, and it’s back to the daily life. Those things that are said rarely carry meaning for us anymore, and I argue that it’s because some of us don’t care to assess what’s being said, why it’s being said, and look deeper.
ReplyDeleteMy challenge to you, and to everyone who chooses to dismiss this claim and similar claims as playing the ‘race card,’ is fine – come to that conclusion, but only after you’ve exhausted every effort to investigate it. How often can we say we did that? And how often do we find out something we didn’t know before? All I’m asking.
I was finished, but since I just noticed it, could you tell me why you felt the need to qualify Barack Obama as biracial, and what bearing that has on the issue?
"The fact of the matter is, when people try to expose racism, as Jimmy Carter did, the country does not collectively sigh and say "come on, we've moved past that." In fact, there are quite a few people who agree with his sentiments, and there are quite a few people who don't understand his sentiments."
ReplyDeleteWes,
I think the most important person to NOT agree with Jimmy Carter's claim is Barack Obama himself. Both Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and a spokesperson for Obama came out saying that the President does NOT believe protesters are racially driven. Now, if your beloved Obama can even agree with me, Jeffery, and the millions of other normal, clear-thinking Americans out there, then why can't you?
Because I don't automatically agree with a person in power. I know I'm supposed to blindly follow leadership, but it's not in my nature, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteWay to pick out one of the less meaningful points of my response, though, in hopes of diminishing this supposed faith I have in Barack Obama. I said nothing, absolutely nothing, about my views on his policies, rather the ways in which people react to his policies. When you stop putting words in my mouth, and re-read what I wrote, maybe then you'll come to a better understanding.
And I've seen an abundance of protestors who have racial epithets on their placards. Perhaps I'm just the only one who's seen them.
-Wes
And also, I have no interest in being "normal," but again, thank you for trying to insult my views unsuccessfully.
ReplyDelete