But but but ... Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley aren't journalists, they're in show business.

Though I think Wolf used to work as a reporter, once ...

It's the same load of crap the right wing always tries to pull about 'anger' - that you're not allowed to be!

They hurl the 'angry left' meme out there like an insult. I say, why shouldn't we be angry?!?

Black folks (and lots of other ethnic, religious and racial groups) have been (and some still are) treated terribly. Why can't they be angry?

I'm of Irish decent...do you think I don't hold some anger and resentment at the way my people were treated by the British at home and by America when they emigrated (with the NINA signs and so on)?

Anger, of course, is not manditory, and a conciliatory tone is certainly acceptable if someone has it within them.

But anger is not wrong, not misplaced, and not inappropriate.

Sometimes I think people don't want to be reminded of history; that way they don't have to ever think about being wrong.

It's not just the right wing that finds race difficult to discuss. It's white America in general. Not everyone- I know a lot of folks who aren't like this, but sadly , they seem to be the exception. I just got banned at mydd.com for asking Jerome Armstrong to explain exactly why the statements by Wright were considered so offensive to him. He responded back that after living in Africa for several years he no longer saw race, or some such bizzare non sense. Bizzare because it had nothing to do with the question and was logically speaking a non sequitur. To which, I responded with a posting from the website "Stuff White People Like" and pointed out that his answer was one that I and other African Americans hear quite often- "we are beyond race" For my efforts, I was banned. So, when people say right wing-- I think it must be said over and over again that its white America. And, yes, this does build up anger and resentment that people will ignore the most basic of conversations about race and will only talk about it when its politically suits their goal of winning elections. Several posters couldn't even precisely define what they found offensive, and, indeed, wrote that it was like asking "When did you stop beating your wife" because in their mind it was a "loaded" question. In mines, it showed an inability for them to even think through what they were saying. I don't get that luxury on race.

Incidentally, "Stuff" is a satire site, and I pointed out that his answer was so commonly used as a reference to end deeper conversations about race that it's been satirized. ie, the whole I've lived abroad, understand race better, etc discussion when the question I asked was rather specific to what about Wright's statments were so offensive. Indeed, I would started asking people to define what was so offensive- if they can't define it, that should tell you something about from where this is coming.

The problem is not acknowledging anger. Anger is a visceral emotion.

However, the function of leaders in society is to channel anger into productive solutions. And here is where we have a problem with religious fundamentalism, whether it be of the Pat Robertson variety or the Jeremiah Wright variety.

Religious fundamentalists feed off of anger to the detriment of our civil society. Unfortunately, because they wrap their tactics in religious garb, too many people give them a free pass. In this, Obama is just as guilty as Republican politicians like GWB.

The thing to do is renounce these fundamentalists, and leave these sects. Legitimizing religious fundamentalists, whether it be on the right or the left, is the wrong path. I can only hope the Democratic party wakes up to this and does not let Obama lead it down such a destructive path.

One final thought, several posters along the diary I wrote (I pressume liberals) said the very asking of the question of why Wright was considered offensive either made me stupid or equally offensive. I couldn't figure out whether they were simply Clinton supporters trying to politicize the situation or actually found the question offensive or not.

Lmao, there's nothing like Clinton supporters going 'YAY! white people are RACIST! you have to nominate our candidate now.' to show you how corrupt people like DK truly are.

Lets be honest here, it won't be Hillary that gets to the nomination if something like this knocked Obama out. It'll be some white guy.

I can imagine the howls of outrage that would be erupting if Obama started arguing that Hillary's gender made her unelectable, even though it probably does.

You blame "Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley" for "suppressing" a discussion... but the point is... we're not having one. (The one I feel sorriest for is Tony Harris, actually.) Blaming the media in this case - though they certainly have a lot to answer for, is hardly the whole of the story. They tell us the story... because we want to hear it. We don't want to hear, as akaison notes, all the difficult things about race and racial issues. We want to know that we are good, decent people who don't have a problem with race, anymore. Except when we discuss with people closest to us... and maybe not even then.

I mean Ezra, what have you written about the racial divides in America? What's your take on the tensions between black and white? How often do you link to disucssions on race, or viewpoints other than those of other white people? It's not to be difficult (lord knows, I can be)... just to make a point. We could all do more. We could all try to engage this discussion better. We don't. And that, really - as much I would love it to be - is not Wolf Blitzer's fault. Or Candy Crowley's. It's ours. All of us.

MLK was angry at REAL public policies. He wanted equality as promised by the Constitution, a position all decent people could embrace.

Wright MAKES UP FAKE policies and then spews hate.
He wants 'white people' to stop designing new disease to give to people.

There is a difference...

Wright could learn from King:

"""Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true. "" MLK

Anonymous, I'm sure 20 years ago you'd be saying the idea that the CIA funded crack distribution and that the government would give black men syphilis just to see how they would die from it were fake made-up policies too.

And there aren't many people with more than three or four synapses firing that don't understand the concept of blowback. You're just a racist blowhard, I doubt you even believe the crap you spew.

"I can imagine the howls of outrage that would be erupting if Obama started arguing that Hillary's gender made her unelectable, even though it probably does."

citation please on Clinton's claiming Obama unelectable because of his race

words matter

and the last half of your statement, not much to do but laugh at it is there?

Trying to extract this speech from the larger campaign is silly -- it's inextricably linked to the campaign, and is a speech that never would've been made had not other campaign-related events (i.e., the circulation of the Wright video) happened. The "conversation" isn't even going on within the Obama campaign, as of the end of the speech. Right after telling us we need to get past this stuff, they started distributing a picture of Wright shaking hands with Bill Clinton, in order to imply... something. It's a speech that exists entirely in cynical campaign-space and doesn't connect with what the Obama campaign has done before or since.

soullite is part of the reason there are not many real discussion about race. First he spews two falsehoods and then he calls another poster a racist. All primary season, he has been on the left blogs screaming about the racists Clinton and their racist white supporters. How do you have a frank conversation with someone who uses race as a bludgeon, to end conversations not begin them?

Except that whenever these issues of race are discussed- whether a campaign is going on or not- the common response by white America is avoidance of the conversation altogether. Weboy, is therefore, right. And, weboy isn't an Obama supporter. Nor am I- although after this inciddent I now lean Obama.

There is always the excuse that it's anything-but-race as to why the dynamics are the way they are. Here the rather thin explaination is given thats its politics.

Let me add-- people said over at mydd, the mere asking of the question-"what's offensive?"-- not the politics- was provocative. What's provoking about asking why Wright's comments are offensive?

soullite: ""the government would give black men syphilis """

Didn't happen ....quit listening to Wright and read your history...

“Typical White Person” just made me cringe.

I grew up an “Army brat,” which meant that given President Eisenhower’s desegregation of the military, I had plenty of black, brown, yellow and white friends in the Army schools.

I was never ever taught to discriminate, except perhaps the difference between Irish and non-Irish, and as a Catholic, my mother told me about KKK cross burnings in Pennsylvania and that the KKK “hated Catholics and Negroes.”

As a teen in the 60’s, I was genuinely perplexed that there was any need for a “civil rights” movement, as it just seemed obvious that the outcome would and should be just like the military.

Having the likes of Rev. Wright shoved into my reality really began to give me pause as to who really are the “racists” in our society.

Rev. Wright is anything but a Christian man. Christ never taught anyone to hate. I find his kind of religion to be anathema to any form of Christianity.

As the past week has unfolded, to find out that Rev. Wright isn’t the exception in the Black community has been a real shock.

I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

.. but my change doesn’t include a President Obama, at least not this year. Anyone who sat by and did nothing shows me no leadership and therefore is no leader.

Barack Obama is unqualified to be the "leader of the free world" when he can't even muster enough courage to lead his mentor into a better direction. That's change I can believe in.

I suggest he read his Bible before he goes to Trinity again .. then show his congregation that Christ preferred another way, a way without the hate and without the "God damns."

But let's look at the closing of your Obama speech thread:

"He's betting he can universalize this experience, too, and that he'll find more votes in unity than in division. It is, at best, a gamble. But at least it's an honest one."

Sure you talked about the content of his speech on race and identity, but at the end of the day your argument regressed to the points of all the talking heads on TV: how if would play out on the campaign trail.

Yes, anger gets a bad rap. How many times have Lefties railed against "angry white men"? Obama even attributed Reagan's success (solely) to those wicked "angry white men." Of course, since they're white and male, they have absolutely no reason at all to be angry, whereas elitist Lefties scream into their $6 cups of coffee-like beverages and $15 glasses of wine. Heh heh heh.

Akaison,

I don't disagree with your points, but I think saying that this is about race is half the story. The other half is that this is about religion.

Too often in this country, we excuse public figures who say the most outlandish things simply because they wear minister's collars. This has been going on for 3 decades in the form of the the contiuing willingness of the media, and of Republican politicians, in excusing the worst of hate speech coming from fundamentalist Christians such as Pat Robertson, etc.

This country has a dangerous weakness for religion. It is one of the primary reasons for the economic inequalities we face in this country. Religion, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, pits groups of people against each other, convinces some people that they are better and more deserving of others. It really is a cancer.

Supporting religious fundamentalism is wrong in any form. Particularly by leaders who should be looking for rational solutions to public problems, not relying on the irrationality of religion and all of the bigotry and hatred inherent in religion against those who don't share your religion.

Civic leaders on the left should not get into bed with these people.

"Discussion on race" always means "all non-blacks shut, listen and nod your head at the appropriate times".

There is no discussion, there is only preaching about how certain people invented racism and are the sole practitioners of it. How, blacks are not responsible for anything that happens to them, they are only victims.

You know it's true.

So, now Wright isn't a Christian man?

Skipped down, so if somebody's already mentioned it, sorry bouddat:

King's rhetoric, beginning in April '67, with his "America, Your Are Too Arrogant' speech is regarded pretty much universally as what got him killed. Folks (whites) were increasingly worried that King might/could turn the black community as volubly AGAINST the war as it was FOR civil rights.

Really? I would bet there are plenty of white commentators who are afraid of being branded insensitive and/or racist, or worse.

And it's a tremendous indictment of our media that, given an opportunity, to push forward on that discussion, they made an affirmative decision to focus back in on the campaign.

Then it must be a tremendous indictment of the Obama campaign as well - he gave a big fo-po speech the day after his race speech and his aides all agreed they were looking to change the subject.

Prob'ly the Govt dint "give" the men in the Tuskegee study the syphilis that iklled 'em.

But the Public Helath Service of the United States of America did let almost 40 years elapse before venturing to treat the (surviving) men--all Black.

Poor whites could cite the 50-year silence of that same esteemed Govt. organ on the effects of asbestos, which were studied and reported in 1934, but were only made public in 1984. These revelations, of course, were instrumental in effectively killing the John Mansville Corp., though too late for many hundreds of thousands of asbestos workers who suffered and died of "brown lung."

Look Ezra,

The man is 48 years old, that's a fair amount of time to talk about race in the public square...but Obama did not in that time talk about race...instead he handed out platitudes and bromides to white folk.

Now we have tricky political situation for Obama, but instead of talking openly about some of the VALID points Wright makes, Barak suggests we need to have a national conversation about race that will drown out any negative talk on Obama. I could not think of a worse environment, time or reason to talk about race relations...not that white folks can ever find a "good" time.

Before his conformation, Thomas hung out with white folk to the exclusion of blacks, During conformation Thomas presented himself as a black man who was being questioned because of his race, after his conformation Thomas hung out with white folk.

Before the trial, OJ hung out with white folk to the exclusion of blacks, during the trial, OJ was a bro, after the trial, OJ went back to hanging out with white folk.

And don't even get me started with Condoleezza Rice, her family openly opposed Martin Luther King in Birmingham, aiding the white power structure at every turn.

Yes, we need to have open national discussion on race, but we only seem to broach the subject when it suits some flunky's ambition. Sorry Ezra, if Barak wants to talk about race this time next year I'm all ears, somehow I kinda doubt it...you?

Frankly, I think Malcolm X was right, you can't change oppressive behavior by passive means alone, you need to AT LEAST imply violence if the man won't come to reasonable terms.

Dk,

I believe the comments were outlandish, but when people say they were offensive, or totally without any merit regarding how someone may come to believe such things- that's when I got to draw a line. I agree about the religious aspect, but race here is the salient force to me.

Why? Well, at one point in the diary (sorry keep bringing it up, but it was instructive) that I wrote one poster said that what offended him was that Wright apparently said something bout blacks having experienced a genocide, because African ameicans had (according to the poster) never experienced a genocide. I asked him what did he think slavery (which killed millions), Jim Crow (legalized oppression) and the present economic realities (de facto discrimination) meant? He can't see under those circumstances how Rev Wright may come up with some exaggerated responses to what was actual fact? That, if we had any nuance about race at all, we can't admit that while extreme, it's not all that offensive given the circumstance of race in this country?

I actually think, by the way, that this country, especially liberals, is capable of having some kind of rational conversation about religion, although you are right that there is tendency to gloss over the crazy shit religious say.

However, there is no ability to have anything near a rational conversation on race. Instead, we get all these people who fall a part so as to deny any possibility that the anger and emotions, although not the exact facts, maybe justified. ie, you don't need white America to have been behind HIV to be angered by the indifference. Ask ACT UP in the gay community how they felt bout this in the 80s.

Much of what I am doinghere is not reducing this to Wright. That's the simple way to do this because then folks like Neo can feel vindicated in whatever he already believed anyway. The deeper problems however about race and addrressing them remaing unresolved.

The argument is that it's because of the way it's been said. But the truth is - it's been said in multiple ways by African Americans and with varying tones, and the response is always the same- denial. Including denial that there was an African American genocide.

by the way- ditto what S Brennan said. You can't have a discussion about race and have it only for one person's benefit.

Dood

I am more than happy to discuss the points you make. By, while we are at it, let's do a cost benefit comparative analysis of what you write about, and what I write about. Let's look at relative impact on each group of the issues we raise. Let's talk about how many whites are actually affected by the issues raised. Let's talk abot how many blacks are actually affected by theissues I raise. See, I think many of mistaken not to let you have your say because if you want to trade stories about who is has been impacted more, your arguments will be shown for what they are. So, tell me about it- back it up with stats, show me how it's affected real people, and not just those you bring up to show it can happen. We live in a society. So that's the bare minimum you have to do to be taken seriously amongst logical reasoning folk. But , of course, you don't really want do that now do you?

sorry for the typos. I am doing this between working.

Did anyone notice that Hillary took the weekend off and is lying low in Chappaqua while Barack is left out alone to talk about "race issues".

Me thinks Hillary was behind ABC news exploding Wright onto our TV screens and now she can walk away from the aftermath and let Obama sink.

And NO, I have no evidence it was Hillary, or her minions, I'm just saying her going silent on the campaign trail is not in her normal character.

You people who see everything as black vs. white are so old school. The future of this country belongs to the mixed raced people like myself. I, and my family are neither black nor white. We are AMERICAN. Broaden your mind and get with it.

The only thing remotely offensive about Wright's remarks would be the slights to America about 9/11 and AIDS; some people, in their nationalist chauvinism, think criticizing America is out of bounds. Other than that over-sensitive pseudo-patriotism, Wright's remarks were controversial but not offensive. People were made uncomfortable by the thought of an angry black pastor preaching to an entire congregation and misconstrued that feeling as being offended.

They're wrong to feel offended, that stems from ignorance. But they most definitely should be uncomfortable. Whether or not Wright's remarks were justified, he has reason for believing as he does. We shouldn't be comfortable with the fact that cause for division exists, just or otherwise.

It's much easier to just gloss over the discomfort raised by issues of race and just discuss their political consequences, and so that's what the news media are doing.

Obama's speech wasn't designed to open up the topic of race for discussion. He brought it up to address the causes of racism, address how racial issues affected his candidacy, and then to drive the subject out of the election discourse. He basically said that if we're adults, then we should be above considering race when we discuss who deserves our vote.

He said we need to have a rational discourse on race, but this election is not a properly constructed forum for it. Ultimately, the success of Obama's speech will not be measured by whether it prompts a mature discussion, but by whether racial dog whistles and critiques become less frequent or outright disappear from the election narrative.

OT: I often wonder whether the people like the last poster represent one poster or is it just one poster posting under various names.

Back on topic. I have a lot of mixed race friends. Half white/black. Half Asian/white. Even half black/asian. Not a one talks like you. Not a one. They say its complicated. I am not saying I am certain you aren't making shit up. But I do suspect it.

He's a black man. It's not going to go away.

Typical American, we are all mixed race...so there are no 'white people'.

There was a good show a few years ago on PBS with the African American head of black studies at Harvard, who, was very much in favor of reparations for 'his' people. He wanted to study just where in Africa his ancestors were from and where his slave family lived in America.

What he found out was that he wasn't a son of slaves and he wasn't African, genetically he was three-quarters white and was from Northern Europe.

Apparently just one of his ancestors had sex with a black man from North Africa.

So technically, rather then receiving, he should have been paying reparations.

I also love Rev Wrights charge that Hillary never had a cab pass her by; as if all cabbies are rich white men.

Anonymous 3:19,

The video came from McCain's camp, not Clinton's.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/03/20/McCain_ObamaVideo.html

You know- I live in NYC. As multi racial and multi ethinic as it comes in the world. i also have Dominican, PR, Cuban ad various other multi ethnic, multi racial friends. We discuss this stuff. That's why this line of argument is tired. The fact is when you say typical american, that's bullshit. We are discussing things that has been a part of human, not just American history. As I always say- many of you who post assume you are talking to the public on CNN or something. Your arguments assume a bunch of ingorant low information voters who do not understand the b.s. you are peddling. We don't live in a color blind society because the world around us, and indeed humans as a species, aren't blind to differences. so, you just get trying to gloss over real life. It's worked for several decades thus far. But don't think as this society becomes more my color, that it will always works.

I don't know some may have take offense to his claims that Bill Clinton had screwed the black community and was caught riding dirty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xb7AVw_no0&eurl=http://obamawho.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/riding-dirty-obamas-pastor-says/

Also, Wright referring to Isreal as a 'dirty word' may offend some, if not yourself..

This talk about race would presumably have to have some grievances launched against blacks -- otherwise it would be too one way. Now who would dare to do that? Here's one grievance: failure to acknowledge that affirmative action comes at a cost to other groups and people. I won't name more. I'll just sit back and let people jump down my throat for this, demonstrating that a true "dialogue" is not only not possible, but is divisive.

"""Anonymous 3:19,

The video came from McCain's camp, not Clinton's""""

NO, I am talking about the original story broke last week by ABC, long before this video story.

He's a black man. It's not going to go away.

The man is 48 years old, that's a fair amount of time to talk about race in the public square...but Obama did not in that time talk about race...instead he handed out platitudes and bromides to white folk.

Well, it depends on how you see this. One could argue that Obama has already released his views on race in the public square, in the form of his first book. Which is largely where this speech's ideas were coming from.

I've hated that Obama has had to fly under the radar in re his race, but because I don't have much faith in the American people in confronting this subject in such an open and honest manner, I accepted it as political maneuvering to sneak past the suspicion that he might be too black AND too foreign to lead. But the undercurrents were always there, and I supposed it was too much wishful thinking on the part of the Obama camp to feel like they could ignore it.

So akaison (many threads ago) was right in that the Obama camp rightly had a mess on their hands with Wright's openly combative language in comparison to their largely race-neutral/or at least multicultural-happy formulation of Obama's identity as a campaign trope. And many people did/do go in voting for him because he's "a nice black man who doesn't mention race", and so when Wright came up were unprepared to deal with Obama's connection to that kind of "extreme".

So Obama and his campaign had a "bill" to pay in exchange for their "double-face" on the subject of race. And I don't feel bad for them. Obama is no kid, as you say, but he didn't get this far by being naive about what his identity was and how it could be shaped and/or corrupted by politics. For that same reason, the level of negativity for HRC in re gender has been a kind of an equal non-issue. (The amount of crap she gets by being named “Clinton”, however, is another story.)

It's manipulation, pure and simple. Obama and Clinton have tried to push the positive aspects of their identities ahead of the negatives, and may be winning votes based on that, but both of them also pay a price for being "non-traditional" candidates by the scrutiny that they get based on their identities alone (for ex., “Is Obama black enough?” “Is Clinton too unemotional?”). Inasmuch as we've never had viable candidates like them before, I'm willing to give them a "pass", as it were, of eliding so much of the ugly truth underneath the coverage that they get, and making use of preconceived “positive” notions where they exist. Clinton the domineering harpy, Obama the exotic hip black friend. Clinton the put-upon working mother, Obama the celebrity politician who’s all talk. These all have racial and gendered connotations. Their challenge was always going to be using the good versions of these tropes and suppressing the bad versions (different for each candidate, of course).
So Obama had to have his back to the wall to say these things? So what? He always had his back to the wall on his race inasmuch there was going to be only a narrow space in which to use it “positively”. The response to his being forced out of those confines into the more “negative” aspect of his racial identity made all the difference. Because IMO it would been one hundred million times easier to just say that he loved his pastor, but reject the more divisive comments, talk about unity, and leave it at that. But he didn’t do that.
I understand that he “only” did it for his benefit, but he spoke the thoughts of a lot of people when he mentioned the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, of indifferent welfare policies and segregated schools, of working class resentments of affirmative action and the callous use of divisive rhetoric by conservative pundits and politicians. Because a lot of people have those thoughts, and they understand that no one publicly addresses these issues because they are so combustible, and expect it least of all from presidential candidate who by necessity needs to play it safe. So when someone talks about this shit, it has a big impact, even when it comes from a presidential candidate trying to save his own ass.

Also, Wright referring to Isreal as a 'dirty word' may offend some, if not yourself..

If there's any offense towards Jews given by preachers it's when Evangelicals quote from the Bible and call them a "stiff-necked people."

This talk about race would presumably have to have some grievances launched against blacks -- otherwise it would be too one way. Now who would dare to do that? Here's one grievance: failure to acknowledge that affirmative action comes at a cost to other groups and people. I won't name more. I'll just sit back and let people jump down my throat for this, demonstrating that a true "dialogue" is not only not possible, but is divisive.

The fact that you would repeat a Right Wing myth about Affirmative Action (when studies have shown white women are the prime beneficiaries of Affirmative Action) tells me all I need to know about where your stance on race. Because lord knows Affirmative Action has created so many white slums in the last 30s years while blacks are reaping the benefits of .. how does the timid put it?... "positive discrimination".

Such bullshit statements like that will shut down any discussions on race since America has a hard time realizing that blacks are not on an equal playing field in this country with whites.

When I say "non-issue", I should say, instead, that I believe that any campaign involving either a woman or a black man running should have had to have an understanding of the upsides and downsides and prepared accordingly for the bullshit ID-based coverage. Full stop. They should have gone in prepared for the worst possible treatment by the media and the public. Not fair, but so it goes.

You know it's pretty cute the read the attempts to tell people what they think without asking them first.

Affirmative action. The chief beneficiary of Afirmative Action is in actuality white women. Not African Americans. It's mostly a false equivalent. This isn't theory. It's fact. Look it up. That you don't know this says you either a) don't care (more likely) and just usuing this as an attempt to claim equivalency (nice wedge) or b) just don't know what you are talking about, and its the first thing to come to mind.

Let's talk cost. Let's conceed some cost to a small percentage of whites. What's the cost to african Americans without it? Which odds would you prefer to have?

If you look at legal industry, of which I am a part, approximately 10 to 20 percent of all attorneys are black, latino, asian, mixed and naitive american combined. Let me repeat- combined.

There is definitely more up to date information, but see here:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/March2005&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2005-03_TH_03_ABA-minorities.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines

That number is way below the population size in terms of percentage of the population

To take your argument seriously, you are saying that the 80 to 90 percent is equivalent to 10 or 20 percent. That your chance of being one of that 8 in 10 or 9 in 10 was severly hurt by the 1 or 2 in 10.

Let's pretend for a second that all decisions, black, white, and otherwise is race based. It's not- which is another flaw with your argument, but let's play pretend. Which odds would you prefer?

Or, as play off a famous line by Chris Rock-- I'll trade you my odds over my life time for yours. As soon as you are willing to say the same, let's talk equivalencies. As rock says- people talk about his wealth, but not a single white person would trade lives with a black person.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2008 4:05 PM

That's a damn lie, and you know it! Nowhere -- in both of the specials I saw -- did Henry Louis Gates, Jr. discover he had NO African ancestry! His great, great grandmother was a slave, so why in the hell are you so dishonest?

And I don't remember Gates being a proponent of reparations either. That's another lie. Gates is about as centrist as Joe Klein. So stop lying!

By the way, this conversation about affirmative action is an example of how Americans don't know how to weigh risks and opportunties. We are seeing that play out on Wall Street riight now with Bear Stearns, but seriously, if you can say that the risk equivalency for a white person in this society is remotely comparable to those of a black person, then you don't understand the nature of comparable advantages. Indeed, if the discrimination were so greatly in favor of AAs one would expect to see that int he numbers, and yet, as a percentage, even with Affirmative Action, the numbers are below the population size. Again, that's true, not just for blacks, but all minorities. Your argument doesn't pass its own criteria, unless its only oppotuntity in theory to which you are referring.

I did not say women didn't benefit even more than blacks. That may well be the case. Risk/opportunity is not relevant to considering the individual loser in this process, which is one of redistribution, after all. Let me add that your virulent tone says it all -- truly, race cannot and I would say should not be discussed in this country. It would have been far better for Obama, and everyone else, if he had been allowed to remain a kind of post racial candidate, simply running as another person, as he did in the beginning. It wasn't his doing that it came to this, either.

Sociologist Stephen Steinberg said it best when discussing race:

Part of the reason that racism is so difficult to combat is that people deny the obvious. Racists do so, well, for obvious reasons. Whites in general are loath to confront racism because it calls into question their faith in American democracy and the goodness of the American people. Blacks, too, often prefer to look the other way because they feel diminished or tainted by race talk, and because, especially these days, they are made to feel that they must shed the image of "victim."

Evasion and denial run across the political spectrum as well. Conservatives engage in denial because acknowledging racism leads to remedial social policies to which they are ideologically opposed. Liberals engage in denial because race talk stokes their guilt, and challenges their sanctimonious claims of racial innocence.

In a sense, Obama's speech laid this all out but he really didn't go into detail how he's going to solve this divide or what policies he'll use to bridge the gap between black wealth and white wealth. If he defends race-based policies to address systemic racism, he'll be accused of being another race hustler (we've already heard this by by the likes of black neo-cons Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele when Obama delivered his speech). If he proposes race-neutral polices, then he'll be accused of overlooking discrimination and the grim realities that minorities face in the job market and admissions in colleges. So he's really caught between a rock and a hard place. But that's what happens when one runs as a post-partisan, post-racial candidate: it gives an illusion that America has moved past most of it's problems regarding race, class and gender when we haven't. How can we move past such issues when we're too stubborn to address them? So I agree with Akaison, Weboy and S Brennan that Obama was bound to be hit with a reality check for running a campaign as if we're already living in a colorblind society.

akaison
I think you are half right. Race is complicated but many people in this country view the issue as more than black and white. In addition to bi-racial people , there are also Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans,not to mention caucasians who are Arabs, Persians or South Asian. Then you also have the differences between immigrants and native borns among all the racial classifications. The millenials I work with often don't even think about race treating black, white and bi or multi-racial all as "normal."

You can't remove the speech from the campaign because it was obviously a campaign speech. If Obama gives this speech last year and doesn't mention Wright then it is a call to action. If he gives this speech this year when a racially insensitive Clinton supporters is all over the news then it is a call for understanding. As it was, it is at least in some part, a call to get the clips of Rev. Wright off the news.

It was a good speech but only great if you factor in the politics. (My take may be a cynical overreaction to Kristof, etc saying this was the best ever. I have heard better speeches on class by Edwards this cycle and better speeches on class/racial unity by Jackson. I couldn't find his 'crooked teeth' speech online but here is address an the 1988 convention.)
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jessejackson1988dnc.htm

Oh, please, the first sign of a bullshit artist is to complain someone else is being virulent for pointing out the flaws in an argument. If that's the best you can do when someone questions your thought process, maybe the problem isn't that we aren't willing to discuss the issue. It's that we feel we will be met with a lot of defensive posturing.

Now, to what else you wrote. No, you didn't mention white women. You simply lied by omission. By not mention it, there was the illusion that you were making a bigger case for positive discrimination than the facts actually can demonstrate. Its the avoidance that tipped your hand.

Risk/opportunity is at the heart of any analysis regarding economics, social structures and indeed, everything we do in a social setting-- whether it is business or government.

We weigh the costs versus benefits. We figure out risks. To not to this, means we have no way of evaluating what's being said. I can see why you wouldn't want the actual impact of your argumet being examined. Afterall, it fails once we take the real world into consideration.

You are going to have to do better than redistribution as to why it's not relevant. I couldn't imagine any company running its business regarding the allocation of resources the way you just described how we are to look at race. In other words, not according to how the distribution actually is occuring, but in some fantastical way that you would like it to occur.

You made a statement that we don't want to talk affirmative action. I am talking affirmative action. Its now up to you to ground your conversation in reality.

I want to know the impact society. Since you claimed it was something that needs to be discussed in the context our our conversation about the impact of discrimination blacks face, then its up to you to prove the impact is significant enough to matter.

In other words, if the risk you mentionis an insignificantly small risk, then it's it adds nothing.

But, anticipating this you are being clever here.

You argue any impact means that we can't do it. This isn't the standard again in the real world.

It would be the equivalent of saying any environmental impact means we can't develop land (if you want to take a conservative view). We hold ourselves to standard to balance the interests involved.

You can't simply argue that redistribution will occur. Okay- to what degree? How much harm is caused versus benefit?

I don't mean the Clarence Thomas, "I was harm in emotional' theory. I mean practical, real world, white folks living in ghettos harm. We both know why you don't want to discuss that. Your argument fails unless its kept at the level of abstraction.

What's best for Obama isn't necessary what's best for racial issues in this country. It's also a deflection to bring it up. You said no one wanted to discuss affirmative action. I am discussing it.

I am not discussing the politics of the speech because that's all people want to discuss. Not what, if any, real discusssion could be had about race. THe subject of this diary is about race discussions. The candidates can feign for themselves.

Let me speak more plainly for any one who may have missed the point of my earlier flippant comment.

The future belongs to the younger generation, many of whom reject racial stereotypes, and a growing number of whom are mixed-race, and reject the labels of black and white.

I grew up in Brooklyn NY, hearing my sister called a nigger because she wasn't white enough; and being told to go back where we belonged, no matter where we lived. I don't need to be told how difficult the issue of race is. Am I angry? Nah; just tired of the nonsense. There is no "typical" anyone to me.

old saying: "we don't get to the future without living through the present."

-- old saying: "we don't get to the future without living through the present." --

If directed at me, what is your point?

I know an old Brooklyn saying:

"No shit, Sherlock."

Just kidding, man. I gotta run and see the family. Have a great weekend.

if it's not shit, then why respond to the present by saying one day it won't be the present? things don't change by happenstance. black folks waited for years for that approach to work. it didn't really change until they stopped waiting. on the issue of mixed heritage, if that were the saving grace, you might want to tell that to my friends who are of cuban, PR and DR backgrounds. They still have racial issues despite the mixing. Its really not that simple. NYC also isn't the rest of the country.

The only problem with affirmative action for college admission is in some instance the most "advantaged" underrepresented minority may take the place of the least "advantaged" white or asian student. As others have pointed out, the chances of this happening at any random campus is very small. Even if such a case were to exist, the conflict between competing progressive interests (race vs class) is not created solely by affirmative action but includes the admissions policy as a whole, the ridiculous cost of higher education, the less than ideal secondary education available in poor neighborhoods or regionsn as well as other factors.

If you integrated a class component into the system you could almost guarantee that such a conflict based on the extreme examples never actually occurs - Theo Huxtable is still admitted but now he is joined by John-Boy Walton.

(As an aside, when was the last time you saw poor or working class families, especially white ones, on network television and it wasn't a cop show? I can only think of George Lopez, Everybody Hates Chris, and then way back to Roseanne.)

mend not end, that absence of class is no accident. We're supposed to be a meritocracy, and the idea that people have difficult times because of how much money they have is as taboo a subject as race.

The problem is, that one (race) is getting in the way of addressing the other (class). In times of economic distress, when families of all types are facing difficulty, the cling to the most obvious piece of difference between themselves and their neighbor in order to feel superior -- religion, race, ethnicity, where one put the butter on a piece of toast.

What is wrong with this whole racist charge being thrown around against the "typical white" people, it that to the sane person looking at both Obama and Wright. They should be shining examples that America works.

Obama, though black in appearance, was raised by white grandparents, went to the #1 prep school in Hawaii, was accepted to one of the top schools in the world and is now a millionaire along with his wife. Wright comes from a very well-off family whose mother was highly regarded and has successful brothers and sisters.

And in typical leftist fashion, instead of having gratitude that they were fortunate to be born in a nation which allows this to happen, both became socialist radicals who preached hatred of that very nation along with whites whom work along side them.

For neither of these men has the color of their skins harmed them in any way but they are willing to stand up each day and foster ill-will and hatred toward white people.

Uh, I hate to clue Klein and the rest of the libs on this board in, but Obama doesn't want a race discussion in the middle of a campaign to get the votes of blue collar white voters in Pennsylvania. It makes him look "too black".

He just said he wanted a race discussion and you gullible mokes believed him.

I mean, like, paging Captain Obvious. No wonder Rove kicked your asses twice. You'll notice that Obama is using local Chicago talent to run his campaign.

Yes, because it's incredibly hard to run on fear, fear, fear, war, fear, fear, fear a few years out from the first major foreign borne terrorist attack in U.S. history. But, then, apparently by 2006- where Rove's name was on the line- not so much. McCain, the octogenerain, may win this time, but it won't be because we are discussing race on a random blog. I also am not setting up a discussion about race in the context of merely what Obama said in his speech. That's your limitation. Not mine. So you go on thinking you "got us" when all you did was to not get the conversation at all. I readily agree people don't want to talk about race. I add how and what talking about race would mean.

mend not end

your argument is the one I would make about affirmative action. The real isuse is that it needs to include class into the equation. not that race should be ignored.

You want a conversation about race? Ok, let's start with some figures provided by the Standord-Binet, one of the most respected and widely used IQ tests in the world.

Intelligence Rating White% Negro%
130+ Very Superior 4.45 to 0.1 or 44 to 1
120-129 Superior 8.30 to 0.3 or 27 to 1
110-119 High Average 18.10 to 0.7 or 26 to 1
100-109 Average 23.50 to 6.0 or 4.7 to 1
90-99 Average 23.00 to 14.0 or 1.6 to 1
80-89 Low Average 14.50 to 28.0 or 0.5 to 1
70-79 Defective 2.60 to 21.1 or 0.125 to 1

Please address this Obama.

"""Also, Wright referring to Isreal as a 'dirty word' may offend some, if not yourself..""""
Unapologetic Andrew:
Criticizing a nation's actions is not the same as criticizing a people""

Saying Isreal is a 'dirty word' is not a criticism of its governmental policies.

And giving Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award tells us exactly where Wright stands regarding Jewish people.

You can sugar coat the hate all day long Andrew its still sugar coated anti-semitism

You'd think by the the lessons of "Katrina" would have sunk in a bit.

The biggest lesson is that when things in this country (or this world) go wrong .. you're on your own.

All the anger is directed at the mythical "the man." Well, there is no "the man." It's only you. If your rich, poor, happy, unhappy, succeeding or failing, it's your fault.

In the past 200+ years of this country, no politician has made everything great, and they never will. So when California tries to fall off into the Pacific in a few years, if you're not ready, you're gonna die. Obama, Hiliary, and all the rest of the politicians will be watching as you fall into the ocean. I'm sure they will say some nice things about you, but you're going to be gone.

Wakeup and get on with your life. You can make it great, good or a living hell. All the politicians what is your vote, and in return they will smile at you, that's it.

I didn't know a conversation about race meant we had to rehash every red herring that you could think up to change the subject. Well, I did know. I just thought you would thnk up something a little bit more creative. By "you," I am referencing the last three posts. For the record, this is a conversation about race:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4565

Making blanket statements, that I can destroy in a few paragraphs, and indeed, have been destroyed with a few paragraphs, isn't. It's merely trying to shout me down. Nice try. But, like, Willow for Buffy said , "Bored now."

The post and the comments assume that anger is justified because it is present. The closest thing to evidence in favor of that argument is the false dichotomy that the complete opposite - denying anger - is a bad thing.

People having feelings of anger or despair doesn't make them right. A fairly obvious point that seems neglected in all "open discussions" about race.

Reader, your easiest option for not dealing with my fairly unremarkable point is to caricature the idea and claim I am saying there is no racial problem or that the anger is completely unjustified. I'm just saving you some time here. You may now resume your previous prejudices.

Neo, the government made sure to take plenty good care of the rich in Katrina. Hell, nobody even prosecuted those cops who threatened to shoot the poor black folks who wanted to try and escape through their area of the city.

Don't suit there and tell us race and class had nothing to do with this. It just makes you look like an idiot that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Obama gets into trouble because he's been hanging out with this christian version of Louis Farrakhan, gets caught in his post-racial hypocrisy, and NOW he suddenly wants to have a "dialog" on race? He didn't even explain what the hell he was doing at that church for 20 years.

Maybe the iron rule by (mostly conservative) economists over our legislative, regulatory, and taxing policies - principally associated with Friedmanomics - is being to be challenged. Certainly the walls of the fortress are under attack, and the hot oil to pour on the attackers is running low.

Like war, which is too important to leave to the Generals, national and international policy is too important to leave to the economists. Viva la revolucion!

Maybe the iron rule by (mostly conservative) economists over our legislative, regulatory, and taxing policies - principally associated with Friedmanomics - is being to be challenged. Certainly the walls of the fortress are under attack, and the hot oil to pour on the attackers is running low.

Like war, which is too important to leave to the Generals, national and international policy is too important to leave to the economists. Viva la revolucion!

good!