Thanks, Mr. Obama, for Proving Me Right

In another post that started out innocently enough with me pointing out that Twilight just might be more popular than the Obama girls (I will not make any Lennonesque comments about just how popular that movie is) I became embroiled in a debate in the commentary section.

I was admitting that the Obama family and BO himself set a good example for the black community, and for folks in general, but I felt he needed to say more. Not because he should but because if he did it could really have an impact. Just like he did with his Father's Day speech.

The commenter, Pat, was really giving me the business, in essence saying that it's not his job and he has so much else to do -- do you want him to come down and not be an elitist or rise up and be a shining example, etc

At one point she asked me what I thought he could say. I threw out this idea: 

"Here's a little thing he could do: Remind all the youth of our nation -- whatever color they are, who are at risk of dropping out -- what a privilege it is to be educated. They aren't trying to force something on you, they're giving you something -- you gotta grab it and make the most of it.

Just those few words, thrown in at these townhall meetings or in a national address -- I could be wrong, but with the influence the man seems to have, with the personal example that he has lived -- he could plant the seed that an education is the ticket out. It would then be up to us as a nation to nurture that seed and see that it flourishes."

As you probably have heard, that night he gave an address to the NAACP in which he said something not all that different. (Pat was the one who told me -- she must have been amazed with my prophetic wisdom, but fell short of admitting I was right.)

Now, I can't agree with everything the President said that night -- namely about his health-care, energy, and financial reform initiatives. And he and I have very different ideas about how to provide a decent education to struggling students, but I liked this part of his speech:

"Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land. We need a new mindset, a new set of attitudes – because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way that we have internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little of ourselves.

...Yes, if you’re African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not. But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school... Your destiny is in your hands...

To parents, we can’t tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel, we must accept our own responsibilities. That means putting away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. It means attending those parent-teacher conferences, reading to our kids, and helping them with their homework.

...It also means pushing our kids to set their sights higher. They might think they’ve got a pretty good jump shot or a pretty good flow, but our kids can’t all aspire to be the next LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. I want them aspiring to be President of the United States.

...So, I know what can happen to a child who doesn’t have that chance. But I also know what can happen to a child who does. I was raised by a single mother. I don’t come from a lot of wealth. I got into my share of trouble as a kid. My life could easily have taken a turn for the worse. But that mother of mine gave me love; she pushed me, and cared about my education; she took no lip and taught me right from wrong. Because of her... I had the chance to make the most of life."

So listen, Pat, I don't expect the guy to be giving speeches like this every day -- or even every month. And of course it will remain to be seen just how much of an impact this speech -- hopefully coupled with future addresses -- will actually have on the black community or any young person at risk. We may not know until years from now.

But it's the silver lining of this presidency that I have been awaiting, and I hope it can bring about the change that I can believe in.

 

 

 

Comments

[Pat]

1) Your summary of our discussion was not true. My argument was not that Obama is too busy to give such speeches to black youth, it was that to EXPECT him to is symbolic representation.

2) You seem to be well capable of tooting your own horn, but heck, it's no skin off my back to say the words you seem to be VERY eager to read, so here you go: You were right.

[Colette Moran]

I did try to boil it down too quickly -- I was the one who said something about him having a full plate. The point you made that i wanted to mention was "all we'd need to send this country spiraling into oblivion would be for us to have a biracial president who focused on uniquely black problems" -- as if I was suggesting he should do anything of the sort.

And wow, that has to be the most back-handed concession I have ever received. I don't *need* to be told by anyone -- but it is refreshing, even back-handedly, to hear a liberal admit a conservative is right about something.

[Pat]

Well, your end of the discussion offered some salient points, to be sure, but don't get me wrong: I don't completely agree that you're right. In fact, you seemed to ignore my point, rather than engage in the discussion of it. Maybe race relations isn't your area of expertise.

[Colette Moran]

If you're speaking about the point in my last comment, I didn't think it needed discussing, since I refuted that's what I think should be done.

As for expertise --- obviously not. And few people are experts-- yet we all need to our part to make race relations better.

I think the thing that most non-experts like myself get stuck on is -- I honestly feel as though I treat people of color no differently and am raising my children to do the same. I point out to them when I think someone is being racist -- instances I hear about on tv or in the paper.

I don't really come across racism myself -- I mean, I don't hear anyone else say or do anything -- so there's no one for me to "educate." And yet we know there will probably always be some jackasses in the this country who will remain racists.

I sincerely ask, what more can the rest of us do?

[ChunLing]

I'm racist. I don't think it's being a jackass, it's just extending the degree of my rational control over my own actions.

Let me explain a bit. First off, what is "racism" other that a theory about how races are functionally different from each other? Anyone that believes there are races is technically a racist of some stripe or other. If you really believed (as I unthinkingly did for most of my own youth) that all races are basically the same, you just wouldn't care. You would even have difficulty noticing the races of those around you (I could tell some embarrassing stories about not noticing people's races, but I'll spare us both).

Everybody touts the idea of people being "color-blind", but if you actually don't notice their race? Derision is the best outcome of that little error. Thankfully, nobody ever dropped dead from having me ignore their race, but a few came close (to heart attacks or apoplexy, at least). So I made an effort to learn the identifying characteristics of different races.

Overall, it's been a huge waste of time. Honestly, I usually pretend to be noticing someone's race but not saying anything, because most of the time if I did try and say something I'd still get it wrong. But learning about race hasn't been a total waste of time, because it turns out that there really are differences. Not enough difference to matter in the grand scheme of things, but enough to be interesting.

And one of the things I discovered along the way, the vast majority of humans are instinctively sensitive to fairly minute variations in degree of genetic similarity. I always thought it was just some polite convention to say that I and my siblings all resembled one another. But no, it turns out most people can actually spot that kind of thing. And the science on the subject suggests that this is an important driver for mate-selection, which makes it a pretty important social behavior.

Long story short, aside from a tiny minority of humans with what are generally termed congenital social development disorders, all humans are intrinsically aware of race. No amount of training or conditioning (short of selective brain damage) can eliminate this awareness and the associated instinctive responses to degrees of genetic similarity. As humans with innate abilities to spot the similarities amongst a group of siblings or the differences between the Japanese and English, you can never be "color-blind" (and wouldn't enjoy it if you were, trust me on this).

The only remaining question is whether you're going to have rational awareness and control of the resulting behavior or not. Are you going to have thoughts about your own race and other races or only instinctive impulses? Are you going have the ability to consciously judge and filter your unconscious impression of a person's genetic heritage and judge them as an individual, or will you unthinkingly accept what your genes tell you about the likely value of others?

As normal humans, you don't have any choice about whether your ability to perceive variations in genetic similarity will affect your thoughts and actions. They will. The only thing you have left to decide is whether you're going to exercise rational control over that process by having thoughts about how races differ from each other.

[Pat]

I think I understand your point, ChunLing, and if I indeed get your point, then I agree. Yes, it is silly to expect or even hope for a "color blind" society. (And I don't think any Republican would advocate for it anyway. In fact, they'd say that's a Utopian and liberal aim.)

The concept of "race" as we know it today is really a kind of opportunistic construct, meant to classify enslaved non-whites of any other culture other than European for the purposes of justifying the enslavement as "paternalistic" treatment of "savage peoples."

But our challenge today is to accept differences and overcome preconceived notions of "who" it is we're really looking at. Whites don't often have to struggle too much with this challenge, at least not in the US, because the American character, collectively, has been developed by a white lens. It's only when "another" is introduced does the challenge that you've discussed arise for whites in the US.

Of course, this can also be applied, conversely, to other cultures in which whites do not predominate.

[Colette Moran]

Wow! Going way deeper than I intended... not that there's anything wrong with that... (But of course, you once again can't resist the urge to bash the GOP, Pat -- I refute your assumption about what you think Republicans would say.)

ChunLing -- I too think I understand what you mean. I don't think I was suggesting that we should be "color-blind" in the sense that we should think everyone is the same, but that we are "color-neutral" in that one's color, and heritage, and traditions, etc don't make us think any less of someone outright.

The same is true in feminism, I think. I don't want to be thought of the same as a man, just have equal opportunities. I don't want to deny my femininity in that pursuit, and I don't think men should be emasculated either.

[ChunLing]

The concept of race was heavily influenced by the European colonial era, and distorted by the specifically Christian ideals that 'whites' tried to reconcile with the practice of imperialist political expansion. But the pattern of oppression is inherent in imperialism, neither the racial differences nor how the Europeans generally interpreted those distinctions had anything to do with the oppressive nature of colonialism. One must recall that the mortal wound to the colonialist era came about over the issue of equal treatment for white colonists, after all.

Oppression "for the good" of the oppressed is now stronger than ever, but the paternalistic racial justifications behind it died a hundred years ago. Today there are mere echoes in the idea of 'white guilt'. which is frankly a racist idea mainly promoted by various non-white groups these days, on a strictly "selfish" basis.

The challenge of fifty years ago was to accept differences and overcome preconceived notions. Because the world, and America particularly, utterly failed in that, the challenge today is to survive the total collapse of civil society. From a racial perspective this means understanding and modifying the perspective of other race groups towards your own. American blacks have failed this challenge utterly, and the Hispanic groups have striven mightily to follow that example. Virtually everything that American blacks do as blacks seems calculated to exacerbate the perceptions of non-blacks that blacks are especially violent, aggressive, unreasonable, and criminal.

American whites, on the other hand, generally reward this kind of counter-productive pattern among non-whites by policy and individual responses. It seems almost like an intentional ambush, but I doubt that the whites themselves planned it. It seems more the result of whites trying to portray themselves as the opposite of all the distinguishing characteristics of blacks. Meanwhile, whites have carefully camouflaged their overall superiority in technical skills, economic independence, and disaster readiness.

Whites (and Asians) are ready for the end of civilization. Is anyone else? From a racial perspective the answer is a fairly firm "no".

So how did this situation come about? Isn't the main culprit the senseless attempt of whites to eliminate their own racism? I'm sure it seemed like a wonderful plan, but the practical result can hardly be anything other than spontaneous genocide once the global economy fails. And, look at that! Global economy tanking as we speak...and by some miracle a black man has been put in charge of its demise.

Maybe there is some kind of plan after all.

[Colette Moran]

Ok, ChunLing, you had me (I think) until you said "the senseless attempts to eliminate their own racism."

If what you mean is that *the way* that certain liberal groups have tried to eliminate racism is senseless, I think I'm with you.

I'm assuming you did not mean that *eliminating racism* (judging people merely on the basis of their skin color) in and of itself was senseless. Liberal groups have just been going about it all wrong.

Are you saying -- as some do -- that certain liberals have deliberately kept non-whites down in order to control them and win their voting bloc?

And just what do you mean by "the end of civilization"? What exactly do you foresee?

[Pat]

Oh, good God. You had me at your last post, ChunLing, but now you're off in -- well, I wouldn't even say the far right field, because you're talking in terms I wouldn't attribute to even Repubs I disagree with. "White guilt" promoted by non-whites?!

"Virtually everything that American blacks do as blacks seems calculated to exacerbate the perceptions of non-blacks that blacks are especially violent, aggressive, unreasonable, and criminal."

This statement is completely contrary to the notion that we need to overcome viewing others as our own constructs, not as who they are. You said it -- you are racist, and now you've been emboldened and are laying it out plainly here.

Moran, the attribution of the race-relations breakdown in this country to liberal groups is laughable. For Pete's sake, don't you see what ChunLing is saying? He's not paying any compliments to the white race, either. This bunk has shown up on your blog. You need to disavow it if you don't believe it, just as you're always admonishing Obama for not doing.

[Colette Moran]

Thanks, Pat! I was actually wanting to contact you (but I'm not able to, and that's ok -- we want to ensure everyone that they can remain anonymous) because there was a few ways to read this -- I was trying to be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt -- like maybe it was sarcasm or whatever -- but I felt there was something not at all right about what he was saying.

It's so scary at times -- everyone knows who I am and can pin me on whatever is said here. For all I know, ChunLing is actually just saying these things to try and trick me into agreeing with him (since he writes so much, and I sometimes read too quickly, that I might miss what he's actually saying.)

But again -- I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, and asked some pointed questions, and now you have identified some other problems with his post, and I thank you.

If he wants to continue to point fingers and doesn't have any interest in actually making this nation post-racial, then he should look elsewhere to post his views.

[ChunLing]

I think that it would be best if America continued to have a multi-racial character. Since the only alternatives...well, if you don't want multiple races, there are ways to achieve that, but I don't think them very good.

All I'm saying is that having a rational construct which acknowledges that race does play a role in shaping how humans react to each other is necessary so long as you have people with widely disparate genetic characteristics. Because you can't eliminate the impulse to treat people differently based on degree of genetic similarity. So if you don't have rational ideas about race, you will yield to irrational behaviors.

A rational construct should be based on rational examination of the facts. And this is exactly where I got into trouble. I took a rational look at the indisputable facts about 'black' culture and racial identity as it has evolved in America, which are not merely (or even primarily) statistical in nature but cover 'black' popular, academic, and literary arts. Of course, it isn't possible that the outstanding characteristics I mention are significantly connected with African genetics. The primary genetic contributions to the American black race came from consensus based non-violent agricultural societies in Africa. The history of those societies blatantly contradicts the idea that the current social pattern of American 'blacks' can have anything to do with their genetic heritage.

Which is why I look for non-genetic explanations of this bizarre social development. I may be wrong in pinning too much of the blame on the anti-racism of whites, but there is definitely a correlation. The attempt to eliminate 'white racism' has definitely involved rewarding non-whites for multiplying their grievances against 'white' society (which ends up meaning American society and law in general).

I am not naturally inclined to the viewpoint that there is anything to be gained by racism. I am not naturally good at perceiving degrees of genetic similarity, and I do not naturally accord it much importance. But the vast experiment which American's have performed in how attempting to eliminate racism affects social development does suggest that it would be best to let people be racist.

To cling to the idea that eliminating racism is somehow good seems to fly in the face of all the available evidence. It perhaps wasn't an obviously stupid idea in the first place, after all, Socrates was aiming at the same thing when he suggested not letting parents raise their own children (The Republic). History has proven the idea to be...unpalatable. It is time to accept the same about your own ideas about the evils of racism.

I certainly find that most liberal groups are...less than perfectly beneficent in much of what they promote. Having a Chinese name means I get regular updates on the progress Beijing is making in using liberal groups (I presume you include the Democratic party, Beijing certainly does) to subjugate America, so that might jade me a bit. I'm reasonably sure that someone out there is making use of the Republican party as well, which is part of the reason I've never had a party affiliation. But even those who's motives are entirely pure can make mistakes, and the effort to eliminate racism is such a mistake.

When people thought that race was just a social construct, and if you didn't teach children to be suspicious of clear genetic differences and to favor genetic similarity they wouldn't do so, it made sense to suggest eliminating the social construct. But the science is in. Not only humans, but all mammals and most chordates act out of genetically based bias. It isn't a social construct any more than the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. You or I may still wish there weren't racial (or gender) differences, but it is foolish to ignore reality.

Racism is unavoidable. The only thing you can do as a practical matter is to try and develop a reasonable perspective on race. Denying race altogether is simply not possible.

It is not the only or even primary factor which puts your civilization at risk, but with civilization at the breaking point, it isn't helping.

[Colette Moran]

Geez -- now that was something.

Ok, last time -- I do not think that one needs to deny their identity. What is important is how we treat one another.

Sure, it's only human (chordatic?) to gravitate toward those who look like you -- and not just in skin color. I hung out with a bunch of women my height in college (only one was an athlete). It was not because we felt that shorter people were inferior -- if anything we wanted to share our clothes!

But in all seriousness -- it'a *fact* that *suspicion* and *hatred* are *taught.*

Sure, we may disagree how to deal with the problems of racism -- but don't EVER tell me that raising my children not to think any less of someone -- just because they are different -- is wrong.

This discussion is officially closed.