President Obama Can't Talk About Race

Every superhero has something he can't do. Superman can't read your mind. Batman can't fly. Spiderman can't turn into a giant tiger.

Sometimes, it seems like President Obama is a superhero. He defeated what was considered the nation's most potent political machine. He was elected president, despite being a black man in a white America. He even plays basketball, and actually plays well. And he does it all without breaking a sweat (except for maybe that basketball part). But there's one thing he can't do, no matter how hard wants to: talk openly, honestly, and consistently about race.

That was the topic of a recent POLITICO article by Nia-Malika Henderson and Carrie Budoff Brown:

It was a year ago today that Barack Obama, then a candidate for president fearing a divisive racial backlash over his pastor, took to the stage in Philadelphia and said it was time to have a new conversation about race.

“We have a choice in this country,” Obama said that day. “We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the O.J. trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. . . .That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’ "

But in the year since that speech – through campaign and convention, election and inauguration – Barack Obama hasn’t taken part in the discussion of race in America in any sustained way, the way he did that day in Philadelphia to get out of a campaign jam.

Why is this? Henderson and Budoff Brown point to various explanations floating around. Some say Obama is "post-racial" and represents the fact that the nation has moved past discussing old, divisive racial categories. Others argue that it's just not in Obama's nature to talk about race. Still others suggest that there's just so much that Obama is dealing with, mainly the economy, that to have a full-blown discussion on race right now would be an unwise allocation of his time and energy resources.

However, I think there are two other factors at play that really prevent Obama from participating in the discussion on race in the way he may like to, and that I certainly wish he would.

Let's first consider that Philadelphia speech that the POLITICO article references. When Obama came to the National Constitution Center to deliver that speech, it was after much national outrage over controversial soundbites from his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (who, ironically, grew up in Philly). Rev. Wright's comments on race were taken by many to be racist and anti-American. However, some saw at least nuggets of truth and honesty in Rev. Wright's ill-expressed words.

Obama's widely hailed speech was an attempt to move the nation toward having an honest, adult conversation on the very complex topic of race. What he soon found out is that the United States is simply a nation of small children in the bodies of adults. There was no willingness to engage in a real conversation on the merit of Jeremiah Wright's words or the motivation behind his rage. There was no real attempt to discuss the complexity of Obama's grandmother's views on race (except for maybe by accident on Angelo Cattaldi's Morning Show). Certainly, the speech received high praise from the mainstream media. However, that praise was framed in the tired perspective of moving on from racial division or constant obsession with race. The measuring stick for the success of the speech was how well Obama could put to rest the discussion of race or how well he could repudiate Wright's words.

I still argue that the speech was totally misinterpreted. If you actually listen to Obama's words - instead of trying to force them into and old and inaccurate narrative of racial history in America - you'll see that he was calling the nation to a more complex and mature conversation on race. Remember, Obama talked about how he could not "disown" Wright, and attempted to explain the source of Wright's anger. Also, remember that Obama did not initially leave Trinity United Church of Christ. Clearly, he had a more complex view of Wright than most of pitch-fork-toting America.

Still, most took his words and ran in a totally different direction. The United States proved itself to be a nation of cowards by avoiding a real conversation on race. Obama's speech became a new excuse to try to be post racial. So, when we consider that Obama does not speak much on the issue of race, at least not to the white media, we must remember that he tried that before, and the nation gave a resounding "we're not ready."

The second factor is that, even though he's the leader of the free world, Barack Obama is still a black man in America. The fact that there are certain things that a black person can not talk about openly without being attacked beyond reason hasn't changed. There can be steep consequences for a black person saying something that white America does not approve of. That's just part of white privilege and racial dynamics in this country. For examples, see Jeremiah Wright, Eric Holder, and even some of Obama's comments, such as calling his "typical white person" comment on Caltaldi's show.

For President Obama, more than any other African American, and more now than in the past, such statements carry a greater risk. There is, of course, the political risk. There is also the possibility that they become distractions that hinder his ability to enact key policy initiatives. With many crisis or near-crisis situations on his plate, the President simply can't afford that.

However, we can.

We can speak up on race. We can talk about how racial dynamics in this country binds the tongues of black leaders in this country. We can begin to create a climate that confronts race, so that when this financial crisis has subsided (which will hopefully be soon), the President will be able to engage the nation in a REAL conversation on race. And, when that time comes, we will be able to hold the president accountable for having this conversation. Although there will still be many in this country who won't be ready for such a conversation, one thing we've learned from the long journey to a black head of state is that waiting for the nation to be "ready" is not an option.

Nation of Cowards?

Not long ago, our new Attorney General Eric Holder (the nation's first black top prosecutor) gave a speech where he addressed the history and present of race relations in the United States. Holder asserted that, in spite of our progress, we remain a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race. As you can imagine, this sparked a brief but intense controversy.

As I was gearing up to write this post, I stumbled upon a clip from Hardball With Chris Matthews that focused on this very topic.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The amazing thing about this clip is that serves as fabulous proof of AG Holder's argument. If you watch this video closely, you will observe the very cowardice that AG Holder is seeking to confront. Consider the following.

After letting Dr. Michael Eric Dyson explain why he agreed with Holder, guest host Mike Barnicle asks ultra-conservative talking head Pat Buchanan what happens when whits talk candidly about race. This was a blatantly obvious set up to allow Buchanan to complain about how unfairly whites are treated when they talk honestly about race. By perusing this line of reason, Buchanan was actually displaying cowardice by avoiding a real conversation on race.

But even before that point, Barnicle argued that, while America may be uncomfortable or reluctant when talking about race, we're not cowards. Huh? Did he just say "we're cowards, but we're not cowards"? Way to prove the point you're arguing against.

If you continue to watch the video, you'll witness Barnicle and Buchanan distort Holder's words and avoid any discussion of white racism. In fact, it appears that Buchanan's only understanding of racism involves bad things black people do. He also seems stuck in nineteenth century thinking in that he doesn't yet seem to grasp the concept that many of the problems in the African American community (crime, drug abuse, poverty, a lack of education, fatherlesness) are, at least in part, traceable to white racism.

Here's the bottom line. Many Americans, especially white Americans, are afraid to talk about race in a real and substantial way. People are afraid to talk about the existence of white privilege. They're afraid to talk about black disenfranchisement in the 2000 election. They're afraid to talk about racial inequality in public schools or in the criminal justice system. If you were to suggest to "average" Americans that Ronald Regan was racist, they'd get uncomfortable and defensive. They wouldn't counter your argument, they'd challenge your right to open the discussion in the first place.

This is exactly what happened in the wake of AG Holder's comments. It wasn't "Let's discuss the accuracy of Holder's statements," or "Let's look at ways in which what Holder said was true or untrue." It was more like, "How dare he say that." Many will offer that the "successes" of the Civil Rights Movement (some of which have been since reversed) or the election of President Obama, or the achievements of a small minorities of blacks show that Holder's accusation is unreasonable. Never mind little black children shot dead in our streets, or a lack of adequate health care or access to nutrition or inconsistencies in criminal proceedings or the unequal distribution of resources for public schools. Instead of a mature and comprehensive discussion on race, the media fallout was little more than a childish attack on Holder.

Of course, such a reaction should come as no surprise. The same thing happened last year in the reaction to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. At no point did the mainstream media pause and actually evaluate his statements. Rev. Wright's words about were challenging and caused many discomfort. Instead of addressing this issues he raised, many resorted to calling him "racist" and "anti-American." How is it racist to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it's like to be a black man? Is there something Secretary Clinton needs to tell us? Why did the "revealing" of those few seconds of Rev. Wright's three decade preaching career become another opportunity to lampoon another crazy black race baiter? Why not let it be an opportunity to discuss the intersection of race and gender, or the consequences of U.S. foreign policy, or the lasting effects of our nations antagonistic actions toward African Americans - all issues raised by Wright.

Why do discussions about race always devolve into debates over whether or not blacks have a right to discuss race? Isn't that what happened in the clip above? Pat Buchanan is challanging Dr. Dyson's right to even participate in a discussion on white racism. He's revealing his belief that blacks don't have a wright to blame blacks for anything. He's avoiding the conversation because he's a coward.

This is why AG Holder was correct in his statements. We, as a nation, are afraid to confront our nation's racial past and the challenging present reality it has created. It's OK, good, in fact, that we feel uncomfortable when certain issue of race are raised. That discomfort let's us know that those are the very areas that require the most attention. However, when we shy away from this discomfort, and become defensive or only talk about race in cosmetic ways, we're little more than a nation of cowards.

**Note: I elected to speak of the nation as a whole for this post, and not simply white Americans. I did this for a few reasons. First, minorities can also be cowardly when discussing race. This is also a problem that must be dealt with on a national level. While I do feel that white Americans bear a unique portion of the blame for creating this atmosphere, we are a nation of cowards, and we must deal with this issue as a nation, and not as separate groups.

The Racism You Can't See

Note: This entry is one of those original Facebook notes. It was posted on Thursday, May 15.

By now you may have read the article in the Washington Post by Kevin Merida or at least heard about it. It deals with the topic of racially motivated incidents of hate experienced by volunteers working to help elect Senator Obama. You can find the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html.

These are the highlights:

• Comments like: “I'll never vote for a black person”
• Doors slammed in face
• Students campaigning on a main road being called racial slurs by passers-by
• ”One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: 'Hang that darky from a tree!'”

Now, these are very specific, tangible examples of racism and racial hatred. Racism is being shown toward those who refuse to vote for Senator Obama because of the color of his skin, and to those, black and white, who are volunteering for him.

But I personally believe there is another type of racism mentioned in this article. Merdia notes that the Obama campaign has not made much fuss about these issues. Now, surely there is more than one reason for this. One tactical reason is that they do not want to discourage people from volunteering. However, there is another reason. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama has to avoid appearing as complaining about racism too much. This is a more subtle form of racism, one that few notice and even fewer are willing to admit exists.

Traditionally, the media, when it comes to racial relations, is only concerned with the first manifestation of racism: calling someone the N-word, police brutality, blatant racial discrimination in the workplace, and the like. However, the second form is much more controversial, because it strikes at the heart of racial relations and what it means to live in a racialized society such as ours. The fact of the matter is that there is a double standard. If Senator Clinton or Senator McCain decried the attacks on Obama volunteers or vandalism of his campaign office, they would be seen as noble. If Senator Obama were to do it, he'd be another complainer, another Sharpton, another Jackson. It would be seen as “race-baiting” which I'm sure some people would accuse me of just for writing this letter.

It is this double standard in the way we assign credibility when discussing race that is key evidence of the existence of white privilege in this country. For a better understanding of the very real but very controversial topic of white privilege, check out Unpacking the invisible knapsack by Peggy McIntosh. This article addresses the way in which, in this society, whites area aloud to say certain things that others just aren't allowed to say without being cast in a negative light. It is, I believe, the chief reason that Senator Obama, as well as countless silently angry black journalist (Eugene Robinson from MSNBC come to mind) have had to bite their tongue on a number of issues this election season.

You can even look at the fallout over spiritual leaders. Senator Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claimed that, following September 11th, the U.S. needed to consider what impact being an international bully has on incurring the wrath of peoples of other nations. He's been branded as anti-American, and virtually all of the news media asked when and how – not if – Senator Obama would “denounce” him. Meanwhile, one spiritual adviser to Senator McCain, John Hagge, claimed that the Hurricane Katrina tragedy was a result of the wrath of God. He believes that God destroyed New Orleans because “homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”(read here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/) Where are similar calls for McCain to denounce and reject Hagge? Or how about Rod Parsley, who believes that America was founded to destroy Islam? Or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, who blamed “gays” and “abortionists” among others for the attacks on 9/11? Why no calls for Senator McCain to throw these men under the bus, men whom he has publicly held in high regard, being fully aware of their statements? Why only such a call for Rev. Wright? Who's take on 9/11 makes more sense, Falwell or Wright? But how gets lambasted and daemonized by the media?

But, no one wants to talk about this. To acknowledge that there is such a double standard would mean to acknowledge the existence of white privilege (for those of you who watch FOX “News” you may better know it as “reverse racism,” which is an oxymoronic concept that determines it's own lengthy note unto itself). If white privilege is real, than that means that we as a nation must re-evaluate everything, because it means that everything is in some way, shape, or form racialized. This means everything from how we choose presidents to how we choose spouses to how the cast for the Oscar Meyer commercial I just watched was chosen. It means that race is involved not only when a white police officer shoots an innocent black victim, but also if the officer was black, or if the victim was guilty of a crime. It means that race is involved in what I lean in school, who teaches it to me, and if I retain the knowledge. Essentially, it means that race is inescapable because it has been so deeply entrenched into modern American culture. Sadly, that's not a notion that many are willing to accept, despite the evidence for it, because they believe in the phone, romanticized view of America that they were taught in school, or at best they believe that we have “turned the page” and “gotten past all that.”

Race in America is like termites. If you only look at what can be seen, you'll never think anything is wrong. It's only once you peel back the layers that you realize how extensive the damage is. We have yet to peel back the layers.