Context

I am linking two articles that speak to the need for us as a country to understand context. It's unfair to the public to feed them pieces of a story. Obama's issues with his pastor are interesting, but to put them in context it seems some of Wright's remarks came from a White ambassador and that McCain's spiritual guide has some 'splaining to do. I say that kind of jokingly, because as I said previously, I don't really think a candidate should have to answer for everything his/her associates do. However, as in the case of Wright, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that people will hear what those mentors say and have it reflect upon the candidate. My point in linking these articles is to reiterate that Obama is experiencing a higher level scrutiny for his spiritual guide compared to McCain. I'm not surprised, and I think it was simply seen as a way to get at a man who has led an impressive campaign. However, if we're going down that road, let's talk about McCain's spiritual mentors. Also, much of the criticism against and reaction to Wright is over-exaggerated. The fact that a respected official with foreign policy informed his thoughts should help make that clear. In addition to the Wise article linked in a previous post.

It's a shame the media won't report the complexities of a story. The simplicity and lack of depth is frustrating. I think that part of why I have begun listening to conservative talk radio more is that 1) our NPR is too poor to have talk programming throughout the day, and 2) even if I don't often agree, the stories are usually from a different angle, which makes me think through my own arguments.

White Allies

Tim Wise never disappoints. He makes points as a White man that I think people of color would be vilified for. This latest piece is quite pointed. Stick with it until the end. Check out his website for other essays.

Slumming

So, you might be upset with me for going from presidential race to American Idol. However, I must say "I told you so!" Not that AI asked my opinion, but when they announced Beatles II, I exclaimed "WHY?" It was boring and no good. I like the Beatles. It's not about them, but can we move on. Most of the songs have a common "feel" (fancy that since they have common composers), and these contestants are not doing them justice. Next, please.

Elephant in the Room/Obama's Speech

I was listening to Glenn Beck on my way into work, and he made the comment that he doesn't understand why Obama is giving a speech on race. He stated that the only person who is bringing race into the conversation is Rev. Wright. COME ON! I won't even discuss the pundits (Glen Beck included) that have spent the past months assuming that racial (and gender) groups are monolithic in their thinking and subsequently their voting. It is also not worth revisiting the discussion of Obama's blackness that dominated the airways at one time.

Racism is the elephant in the room. It is not anachronistic as many would like to dream. Obama isn't bringing it up. It's there. Perhaps his success in this race is stirring it up or bringing it to the surface.

I am listening to Obama's speech, and I must say I think he did a good job of highlighting the divisive nature of Wright's remarks. Those remarks aren't helpful no matter what direction they are coming from. It's quite refreshing to hear a politician talk about the complexities of race rather than simply from soundbites (I know I'm biased- we would all like to hear the complexities of our passions reflected in the political realm).

Let me just make the prediction that the pundits will grab onto Obama's words that Wright is "like family." They will focus on that fact rather than the story he told about his White grandmother. It is not about Wright, Ferraro, Obama's grandmother, you or me. It is, but it is bigger than that- BOTH, AND. It's not about pointing blame and deciding who is more racially biased. Racism is like smog in the air we breath. It's something we all struggle with and cough up sometimes. If we want to deny the individual acts (which have become less overt with time), we can see these dynamics reflected in our institutions (see my reflection from last night and my post on Katrina).

My other prediction is that some media will say "see, they still haven't gotten over slavery! I'm not to blame!" They will ignore his recognition of and validation of Whites' own frustration and feelings of resentment.

I hope I'm wrong about the spins. I know there are White allies who get it, and I know we as a country have the capacity to see the complexities of this issue. I just hope that those voices get some airtime.

Take home thought- race is a topic that is for all of us to grapple with. It's not an us or them issue. If we want to "get beyond it" then it's going to take us going beyond oversimplification and finger-pointing and coming together to have these difficult conversations.

Pre-emptive Response

I woke up this morning and thought about the larger issue of people responding emotionally and taking info out of context. SO, I can imagine how someone might read my previous post and say something like, "She has a problem with White males." Not the case. I'm simply pointing out the fact that White males have historically run our country. There's no judgment in that statement. I do not intend to minimizing or denigrating White men. You could say I am pointing out the institutional pattern of power in our government. That does not equate with saying White people or White males are bad people.

I just had to say that, because I heard reporters yesterday leaping from the mere mention of White men having power in this country to asking how can Obama be president when he hates White people. Note- I am well aware that I'm not so important that reporters will read my blog nor am I running for president. I'm just saying.....

Obama Psuedo-Drama

I don’t know where to start, but I feel like I just need to throw out a few thoughts about this Obama/pastor scandal.

1. Beware of reports conflating quotes.

There are a number of sound bites and clips circulating regarding this scandal. I will not rehash. What I will point out is that every comment if being thrown in together. Wright stated that America is run by “rich White people.” This comment is being lumped with AIDS being used for genocide along with the other inflammatory remarks being aired en masse.

I bring this up to say that we can’t always believe the hype. While some of what Wright said is extreme, the fact that America is run by rich White people is not far from the truth. Have we had anything but White males as president? No. They were also men of means and a great deal of access. Even if we wanted to argue about the wealth of presidents, we could simply focus on presidents being White and male. Before we deem everything that comes out of the man’s mouth as inflammatory, let’s make sure we actually hear what is being said rather than simply reacting based on other quotes.

2. Consider the implications of “guilty by association.”

Are we going to hold everyone responsible for all of their acquaintances? I surely hope not. Could you run for office and answer for the comments of your outspoken uncle, provocative grandfather or your zany cousin? We have to be careful about how we allow standards to change for how we judge people. If Obama is responsible for the comments of his pastor, surely we should also hold McCain responsible for the comments of his mother (after all, they have had a close relationship). It seems like a slippery slope to me.

3. Recognize the power of language.

I just want to draw attention to how it was only today that I began to hear so much talk about how the White male vote is going to decide this election since (of course) Blacks will vote for Obama and women for Clinton. This assertion is a gross oversimplification, but that is another post. Anyway, I refer back to point #1- the fact that we have begun to see this election- where for the first time in history it seems highly likely that the democratic candidate and very possibly the next president of the US could be Black or a women (i.e. power would shift away from White men), the rhetoric has conveniently shifted to claiming that White males will be the key to the election. I contend that the emergence of this new rhetoric is a mechanism to shift the power back to where it has been. For as much as we say we are ready for a change in this country, we sure seem comfortable with maintaining the status quo.