 | Barack Obama’s Essay on Race in America |
Earlier today, Barack Obama recited an essay of his on race in America, a transcript of which you can read here. I call it an essay because it didn’t really take the form of a classic political speech in which any five to ten second portion of the speech could be taken out and adopted for tv-news-ready usage. Indeed, the essay wasn’t written by a speechwriter, but by Obama himself, and we’ve seen in the debates that Obama tends toward the long-form in his expression. Watching a video of the spoken version of Obama’s essay will not really be instructive, because Obama kept oratorical flourishes and dynamic range to a minimum, letting the words speak for themselves in a pretty plain fashion. If you’re interested, I encourage you to read Obama’s words instead.
This was the most subtle and nuanced presentation of issues of race I’ve encountered from a politician in… well, my fingers want to fall into writing “years,” but I can’t personally recall a politician who has discussed race in this manner on a national stage before. I’m sure that LBJ and RFK had fine things to say on the issue of race, but they are aged out of my recollection, and I’m not that young. It’s been a while. Obama deftly moved from issues regarding his personal interface with race to the aggregation of others’ personal perceptions of race to the impact of race on social issues and up to implications for policy issues. In each of these, he avoided the usual trap of taking the “issue of race in America” to mean the “issue of black people in America.” Race is a relational social concept which involves the racial concept of whiteness as much as it does of blackness (or brownness). Obama quite effectively discussed the experience of white people on personal, social and political levels in a way that I think brought more people into the scope of conversation on race than was accomplished by the limited policy agendas of Tavis Smiley’s debate last spring or of the Black and Brown Forum that followed.
Anticipating nitpicking, let me stipulate that of course I didn’t agree with everything that Barack Obama said. Stories don’t “sear” anything into anyone’s “genetic makeup”; that was hokey. I’ve heard Ashley’s story one too many times now, and that was an unnecessary and unfitting coda of speechy talk. I also thought the repeated references by Obama to his Christian religion were not appropriate to the subject except when dealing specifically with his simultaneous repudiation and explanation of Jeremiah Wright.
That said, I really liked encountering a political presentation in which I didn’t feel I was being spoken to as a child or as a fool, and in which I felt I was not being pandered to but rather led through a course of thought involving the synthesis of a series of apparently contradictory ideas to some new conclusion. The choice to employ thesis, antithesis and then synthesis regarding multiple subjects concerning a central concept was not a consultant’s choice. It was not an ad-man’s choice. It was not a speechwriter’s choice. By the standards of those occupations, Barack Obama took serious risks in saying what he said, because taken out of the context of his entire speech some portions of his speech could be used quite maliciously against him (someone who wanted to cause trouble could simply say, for instance, that Barack Obama says black people are just “biased” and “bitter!”). No, the choice was an intellectual choice by someone who wanted to explain, to convince, and to bring people along the course of his thought in order to persuade, to change minds. The summation of all those goals is leadership. Barack Obama’s goal was to lead people in their thinking to a new place, and that is what makes him audacious, and that is what is potentially transformative about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
We have had seven very long years of a man who deals in nothing but stark dualities:
“You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”
“Crusade.”
“The Evil Doers.”
“Dead or Alive.”
“I looked in Mr. Putin’s eyes and I saw a Good Soul.”
“Diplomatic Head-Butting.”
I would like to see a presidential candidate with the ability to lead us out of the dualistic thinking we’ve been trapped in. When Barack Obama writes in the manner of today’s essay, he looks like that candidate to me.
Contact Us
Word count:
hope-||||/ |||=8
believe/belief-||||/ ||||=9
faith-||||/=5
change-||||/ |=6
He mentioned the phrase “shuttered mills”–a reference to Edwards as possible running mate?
I would be hard pressed to outline that speech and list the major points. It had several attacks on Clinton, but not on McCain. Some feel-good.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 1:24 am
Great speech compared to the other two typical campaigners who just keep up the derogatory comments (thinking that makes them look good). Obama is the only chance we have to turn this country around and it’s not a sure thing with Clinton blocking him every step of the way with her corporate banter.
Comment by Tom — 3/19/2008 @ 7:11 am
What derogatory comments, Tom?
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 10:17 am
“Spearchucker” might be one of those, Iroquois.
Comment by Junga — 3/19/2008 @ 10:30 am
Can you provide a link to this in the Clinton website, Junga?
I’ve already provided a link to how the Obama campaign uses the word “bitch”.
Is no one going to call out the derogatory comments in the above Obama speech?
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 12:40 pm
What derogatory comment in the Obama speech? I saw not one derogatory comment in the Obama speech. To the contrary, he was rather gracious and large of spirit in his comments, asking that his supporters not dwell and linger on the words of Geraldine Ferraro but rather move on to the consideration of broader issues over which they actually have control.
Barack Obama could play the Minute Waltz on a flute while bouncing on a ball while crossing a tightrope stretched over the Grand Canyon and you would yawn. I get that. It’s your right to be unimpressed by whatever Barack Obama does. But now you’re just bullshitting, and that’s bogus.
Comment by Jim — 3/19/2008 @ 1:47 pm
Ah, the words of Geraldine Ferraro. Maybe you could explain again why she is a racist.
At the same time maybe you could explain why calling someone a “monster” is a valid campaign tactic for the Obama campaign and why you don’t denounce and/or reject it, or for that matter, even mention it.
I am beginning to feel some sympathy with the George Will position (perish the thought) that in all of these examples of how Obama is supposedly being so unfairly picked on with all of these racist comments, it’s so hard to understand what the supposed insult is. For example, why is it racist to say that LBJ advanced civil rights for blacks by signing the voting rights act? How is that supposed to be insulting to Obama?
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 3:28 pm
What derogatory comment in the Obama speech?
Comment by Jim — 3/19/2008 @ 3:31 pm
The words of Geraldine Ferraro. Obama mentioned it several times, as well as the belief that he is being persecuted by racial attacks. Maybe you could explain again why she is a racist and what all these so-called attacks are that Obama keeps making a reference to. The persecution thing is a big part of his stump speech. It’s his big “kitchen sink” argument. If Clinton is so persecuting him, where is it.
I posted a big long thing about why calling someone a bitch–as the Obama campaign does both officially and unofficially–is not all that great a campaign tactic. If someone doesn’t understand the bitch thing–and I hope it really doesn’t have to be explained–the explanation is there.
Where is the explanation for the Obama racism persecution thing?
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 4:17 pm
Several bloggers have pointed out the similarity to Bill Clinton 1995 speech at the Million Man March
http://www.afn.org/~dks/race/clinton-e6.html
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 5:42 pm
He said no such thing.
Comment by Jim — 3/19/2008 @ 5:46 pm
Sure he did. Several times. Oooh! How dare anyone pick on him with all those gaffe thingies.
He can dish it out but he can’t take it. This is what his campaign played in Iowa:
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 7:53 pm
He made no derogatory comment in his speech. That’s what I’m talking about. You said there was a derogatory comment in his speech. There isn’t one. You haven’t found a single one.
But if you’re going to get particular about songs at events, what do you think about Hillary Clinton playing “Sweet Home Alabama” at campaign events? Oh, that’s just, well, yes, well, whatever, blah blah.
Comment by Jim — 3/19/2008 @ 8:05 pm
Obama’s derogatory comments:
page one, last paragraph
page two, first three paragraphs
page 3, paragraph 6 & 8
page 6, paragraph 2
That’s seven instances where Obama injected very skillfully the repetition of the idea that the Clinton campaign was doing something racist, “not playing the race card” as he phrases it. Oh, yes, he says publicly the Clinton campaign is not paying the race card, but that’s not the rhetoric that is allowed to run rampant on the campaign website. What about their surrogates, say the anonymous posters with the shaky spelling. They keep their hands clean while they plot to have their surrogates say all of that stuff. All of the hag/bitch/toad/monster’s cynical plotting. And Obama very carefully introduces the subject not once but seven times. Not explaining what was the insult, of course, just saying there was one, and we shouldn’t make a big deal over it. Over and over.
The one cynical thing I see here is Obama’s speech. He could have made a memorable speech like Bill Clinton’s 1995 Million Man March speech, but all he has succeeded in doing is making a self-serving politicized speech filled with innuendo and weasel words very cynically calculated to manipulate.
I hate it when someone tries to manipulate me. I hate it when a politician insults my intelligence by trying to use those dishonest tactics on me. If it wasn’t for Obama’s voting record I would not listen to him at all. Now it has come out that he received a quarter of a million in campaign contributions from Rezco, not just those “five billable minutes” or whatever he talked about before. Egad, that one’s down the memory hole as well. The question is not whether Obama can provide hope or change or belief, or inspire nifty songs and groovy emotions, the question is whether we can stomach one more politician like Obama who pretends to be one thing but is really another thing.
Okay this is a rant, so why should I stop now.
If Obama was just another politician with a few dirty deals he had to do to make it into office, the same problem every other politician has, I could understand. Chicago politics is not known for its cleanness. But Obama is not running as a reasonable politician with a reasonable voting record. He is running as the Messiah. He is running for Change and Hope and BELIEF. Give me a fucking break already. I’m not looking for a Jesse Jackson Sr., who can’t get himself elected in North Carolina or in Chicago. I’m looking for a Jesse Jackson Jr., who works hard for his district and keeps getting elected by unmistakable margins in both black and white neighborhoods.
As long as I’m on a soapbox, here’s another thing that looks fishy to me.
~page 4, “A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.”
What’s this thing about black MEN. Rev. Wright’s sermon had the same stuff in it about how we have to help the MEN. The only thing Obama says about women is how they want to break a glass ceiling (another subtle slam at Hillary, you’ll see the more virulent form on the Obama website). What about women providing for their families, getting basic health care, getting a living wage. Does Obama have any idea of the feminization of poverty, the challenges black women face every day when their baby daddy is in prison and they are providing for five children with three different fathers, and the paperwork they have to go through to get child support from a working father of even one of those children? This whole thing is part of the marginalization of black women that goes on within the Nation Of Islam (Black Muslims)that Trinity competes against, with its rigid gender roles, and Obama has unconsciouly soaked up.
I don’t for one minute buy all the heart-rending stuff about Wright being his uncle and part of the black community that he can’t turn his back on. What would we think about someone who joined the KKK or the John Birchers because they were lovable uncles and they had to embrace the white community with all of its flaws.
Wright’s church has eight thousand members–8,000 potential voters. It’s close to being a mega-church. Obama has used that church to further his political ambitions and now he finds he has embraced an awkward bedfellow. But he doesn’t want a divorce. He wants to stay married to the national presidential campaign and keep his divisive Chicago mistress at the same time. He is sleazier than even the Clintons, if that is possible.
Okay, you asked.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/19/2008 @ 10:53 pm
A message to people reading this thread:
I asked, and Iroquois provided places where Barack Obama makes NO derogatory comments whatsoever. I encourage people to click the link in the main post and check Iroquois’ claims that Barack Obama makes derogatory claims in those places.
The answer you find will provide a useful lens for reading the rest of what Iroquois has to write here.
Comment by Jim — 3/20/2008 @ 7:44 am
I find Obama’s comments and the manipulative way he keeps trying to claim the Clinton campaign is racist to be ingenuous. What Jim says is “rather gracious and large of spirit” to insist we not dwell on the “racism” of the Clinton campaign. Seven times. Good thing we’re not going to dwell on it. But dwell on WHAT?
I have asked over and over again where is the racism in the Clinton campaign and no one can tell me what it is.
But Obama keeps referring to it. Seven times. I suppose for some people who are not too bright, or who want to believe, or who are getting paid, all you have to do is keep insinuating something over and over, and sooner or later they believe it’s true without checking for themselves.
This is what George Will (and I never thought I’d find myself quoting him) calls the “exquisite oversensitivity” of the democratic party to claim racial insults where nobody can figure out what the insult is. Where is the racial insult in talking about LBJ signing the voting rights act?
I have even provided an essay someone wrote about why it’s not good to use the word “bitch”–which the Obama campaign has used officially and unofficially–as an example of how to explain a concept that the public may not be conscious of.
Here’s what I suspect, that the people with the cigars in the back rooms want to keep blacks talking nonsense in order to keep them away from the real business of governing.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/20/2008 @ 10:40 am
I have a friendship with another woman that has spanned 35 years. We are as opposite as two people can be, yet we’ve managed a close friendship for decades. She’s a racist, I am not. I don’t judge people by what they wear or the color of their skin, or their financial bracket…she does. On the other hand, she is kind to animals and loves a good joke. She’s empathetic to my whacky concerns even when she does not abide by them. Yes, we have major differences, but we manage to overlook them and focus on what’s real to the moment. I would certainly not disavow her because she said something I disapprove of. In the past I have tried to get her to think differently on many topics, but it’s pointless. We agreed long ago to agree to disagree and not take it personally. It doesn’t mean when she says something I don’t approve of that I absorb her idealogy. I think the same can be said for Obama. He can understand where the reverend is coming from just by knowing how the man thinks, but that doesn’t mean the reverend has no other redeeming qualities. Friendships are about give and take and an exercise in understanding the human condition. It bodes well for Obama’s understanding that he can associate with people who have differing opinions and still not throw them away. Unlike some other person we know who occupies the WH that throws away any and every dissenting opinion. I welcome Obama’s open mind, his intelligence and his ability to look beyond the obvious. If we nit pick Obama over this Wright BS then we deserve McCain. I really had hoped that the American People would have enough sense to recognize change and embrace it, but the way it’s looking only proves what Obama said is true. We are indeed looking through racist eyes, otherwise McCain’s endorsements from Hagee and Parsley would’ve gotten some kind of scrutiny. It’s looking more and more like more of the same…another 4 years of Bush policies, be it McCain or Clinton.
Comment by MugWump — 3/20/2008 @ 11:34 am
If you have been listening to this woman’s continuous tirade of hate every week for 35 years, Mugwump, you might stop and think about what that is doing to your own sense of judgment and reason.
Obama isn’t offering change–this is the same old 60’s Black Power/Black Panthers.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/20/2008 @ 12:14 pm
omg! you just called obama a blk pnther! roflmao
Comment by Anonymous — 3/20/2008 @ 2:34 pm
Obama has now taken the Black Panthers endorsement off of his website. They raised of lot of money for him, though. Wonder what’s going to happen to that money.
MugWumps’s post looks a lot like all the other “I have a racist friend” obamabot posts that blanketed the blogosphere at about the same time. I don’t think it’s genuine–it’s too much like all the others. Must have been that week’s talking point.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/24/2008 @ 4:31 pm