"An' I kno it seemz heaven sent--
we ain't ready 2 c a black prezident."
2Pac Shakur, "Changes" (Album: 2pac's Greatest Hits in 1998)
FORWARD
They say music is timeless...
First off, R.I.P. 'Pac. Secondly, a disclaimer that this post's a bit on the lengthy side, as it starts at Imus and ends at Obama...
I don't know why I don't just expect it anymore, but I gotta admit that I still get astonished whenever something so dumb is said in the public arena it's actually worse than the last dumb thing said in the public arena. But I also gotta admit that when I heard that this time the culprit was Don Imus--again--I was downright dumbfounded. I could not and cannot even now figure out how someone in his position actually has the fortitude to piss off legions of Afro-Americans, in the public sphere, twice. It's absolutely mind-boggling, isn't it? The man made what was arguably the most offensive and racist comments uttered in public in the US in years, got hammered from all sides for it, somehow through the mercy of God and/or his bosses managed to keep his job, and 14 months later in the middle of a historically, politically and racially unprecedented time for America has the gall to do it again!
More importantly, Imus Part 2 has really exposed just how muddled the boundaries of "political correctness", especially with regard to race, have become in America today--for better or for worse. More people are takin their hacks at racial commentary of all forms these days, with a couple really swingin for the fences on the race field of PC Stadium. Look at Kelly Tilghman's "lynch him (Tiger Woods) in a back alley" comments, and GolfWeek Magazine's putting a noose on the cover of the issue that contained the news article about the incident. And, of course, let's not forget about everyone's favorite dumb smart senator, Joe Biden, in what amounted to driving a suicide car bomb into his presidential campaign in February of last year--again. (and I liked Joe Biden!) It's true that everyone has the capability of saying dumb things in the heat of the moment or having a mind-fart from time to time--you can probably chalk the Tilghman comment up to that. But the GolfWeek mag cover? and Biden? Those incidents, as well as Imus Part 2 (and Part 1, for that matter) can only be explained two ways: a) somebody didn't read the "Race Relations for Dummies (aka Public Figures)" book in high school, or b) for whatever reason, they saw an opportunity to try their hand at some racial commentary and took it. Clearly what's in and out of bounds when it comes to race has once again changed colors (pun fully intended), and though the line never was black-and-white I don't think it resembles any recognizable shade of gray anymore. Again, whether this is a good or a bad thing is a whole different and much longer discussion, so let's ask a different question: how'd we get here?
What is not present in Obama's racial outlook, however, is what I only hinted at just now: the "how" of getting to the solution to the race question. I think Obama has bypassed, not transcended, the true aspects of race and racism that matter--those aspects most able to affect minds, not just policy. He has done so by keeping the racial discourse of his campaign within the political realm of racial inequality, and by avoiding serious forays into the broader issue of racism. Because of the intricate and symbiotic relationship between the two concepts, Obama and his team have been able to fashion substantive and actionable policy stances (i.e. his civil rights proposals and urban initiatives) targeting racial inequality, while simultaneously convincing Americans that in so doing he is actually moving beyond or "transcending" the larger territory of racism in America.
I would point to 3 particular instances throughout the Obama campaign where either his avoidance of the racism issue, his overall racial strategy, or both have been laid bare:
Jena 6: Obama's Sep. 5th '07 comments about the incident on the campaign trail were hesitant and generally non-committal, with him "not having all of the facts about the case". But when he commented again on the issue on Sep. 20th, he chastised the media for being "surprised" by the Jena 6 incident. Why the change? On Sep. 19th Jesse Jackson called Obama out on his strategy and accused him of "acting like he's white" by not saying more up to that point. If understanding race and racism in America could be compared to learning biology, the Jena 6 incident was the perfect dead frog or guinea pig to be dissected and examined by the nation as a whole. Obama, with his razor-sharp scalpel of intellect and a fantastic team behind him, was in a great position to begin to (very, very) carefully cut his way into the dead frog of race in America--but instead he chose (or was forced, see below) to play it safe and "stick with the plan" of dealing with race in the context of either the economy, urban quality of life, and other issues of equality.
Sean Bell: Obama's statement after the verdict came down in the case angered many blacks across the country because of its lack of "bite" or any real stance in support of the family. This case in particular is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier about Obama's hand being forced in order to be able to win the election, and that explains why there is no way he could have possibly made a statement in full support of Bell's family. last time I checked, being labelled anti-white prolly isn't gunna help u get into the White House, yo--or being labelled anti-police, for that matter--and that's exactly what would've happened had he come out with a statement in full support of the Bell family.
Reverend Wright: Obama bit the HUGE bullet and defended one of the "bad blacks" in his camp for as long as he possibly could here. That in itself should really speak volumes, because "as long as he could" ended up being about 3 weeks, and it is certainly debateable whether or not this incident is the main reason for the drawn-out primary race we witnessed this year--remember, Obama had just begun to swing the momentum of said primary around this time. America might not mind a president who is (half) black right about now (and even that remains to be seen with regard to the way that Obama is performing in working class white communities), but the above certainly proves that it is in no way ready for a black president.
As for Obama's initiatives to address racial inequality? Even they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Why? Because for politial purposes, racism begets racial inequality and NOT the other way around. Passing policy initiatives has rarely, if ever, contributed to the changing of minds of the American people. It's exactly the opposite--when the minds of the American people have changed, then laws and policies are passed to reflect that change. And we all know how the minds of the American people get changed--through dialogue and discourse, sit-ins and strikes, protests and petitions, marches and even a 'lil mayhem, all of which spark intense media coverage and an ensuing 'national debate' on the issue(s) in question. Nowdays we've got national debates on the economy, on Iraq, on healthcare, even, to a much lesser extent, on racial inequality and civil rights--but those discussions center around policy and the tangible aspects of the system itself. When it comes to questions of American mindsets and racial stereotypes and why the system is unequal instead of just how it is so, national discussion and outcry such as what eventually fueled the creation of the Civil Rights legislation of the 60s to me seems to be strangely absent from today's America.
And it is directly because of this absence of true dialogue and discourse about race in America that we hesitate when a situation like Don Imus Part II arises. We question Imus' meaning in light of his possible interpretation instead of condemning his actions in light of his proven track record. We protect his words as free speech instead of making him defend them as socially acceptable. And as a result, we listen to news coverage of "just how offensive was Imus?" and "what should be done about it?" when we could and maybe should be listening to anyone, anyone else that wants to offer real commentary on such a real and important issue as race. We are letting the increasing pace and sheer breadth of our times weary us of the seemingly endless fight to reshape, refine and evolve our relationships with one another for the better.
In that context, I invite you to evaluate the man who is trying to offer us the easy way out of our mess: no one could blame us if we take it, that's for damn sure. But before we do, we have to ask ourselves one more question, the real question I've been tryin to ask this whole time:
If he was right then, and we've barely seen 2 terms since then, why are so many people so sure that 'Pac is wrong now?
we ain't ready 2 c a black prezident."
2Pac Shakur, "Changes" (Album: 2pac's Greatest Hits in 1998)
FORWARD
They say music is timeless...
First off, R.I.P. 'Pac. Secondly, a disclaimer that this post's a bit on the lengthy side, as it starts at Imus and ends at Obama...
I don't know why I don't just expect it anymore, but I gotta admit that I still get astonished whenever something so dumb is said in the public arena it's actually worse than the last dumb thing said in the public arena. But I also gotta admit that when I heard that this time the culprit was Don Imus--again--I was downright dumbfounded. I could not and cannot even now figure out how someone in his position actually has the fortitude to piss off legions of Afro-Americans, in the public sphere, twice. It's absolutely mind-boggling, isn't it? The man made what was arguably the most offensive and racist comments uttered in public in the US in years, got hammered from all sides for it, somehow through the mercy of God and/or his bosses managed to keep his job, and 14 months later in the middle of a historically, politically and racially unprecedented time for America has the gall to do it again!
More importantly, Imus Part 2 has really exposed just how muddled the boundaries of "political correctness", especially with regard to race, have become in America today--for better or for worse. More people are takin their hacks at racial commentary of all forms these days, with a couple really swingin for the fences on the race field of PC Stadium. Look at Kelly Tilghman's "lynch him (Tiger Woods) in a back alley" comments, and GolfWeek Magazine's putting a noose on the cover of the issue that contained the news article about the incident. And, of course, let's not forget about everyone's favorite dumb smart senator, Joe Biden, in what amounted to driving a suicide car bomb into his presidential campaign in February of last year--again. (and I liked Joe Biden!) It's true that everyone has the capability of saying dumb things in the heat of the moment or having a mind-fart from time to time--you can probably chalk the Tilghman comment up to that. But the GolfWeek mag cover? and Biden? Those incidents, as well as Imus Part 2 (and Part 1, for that matter) can only be explained two ways: a) somebody didn't read the "Race Relations for Dummies (aka Public Figures)" book in high school, or b) for whatever reason, they saw an opportunity to try their hand at some racial commentary and took it. Clearly what's in and out of bounds when it comes to race has once again changed colors (pun fully intended), and though the line never was black-and-white I don't think it resembles any recognizable shade of gray anymore. Again, whether this is a good or a bad thing is a whole different and much longer discussion, so let's ask a different question: how'd we get here?
You might not like my answer to that question too much, cuz as has historically been the case in America I'm gunna (partially, at least) blame it on the black man. I submit to you that throughout all of the unprecedented effects the Obama campaign has had and continues to have upon this country and the world, I see the racial basis for the campaign as being a little flawed on a couple of levels, and these flaws are contributing to the slow but steady deconstruction of our current notions of racial correctness--for better or worse.
Let's look at race in Obama's campaign by comparing what is present with what is not present. The "racial stance", for lack of a better term, that the Obama camp and its supporters portray is that he transcends race, that he can at least begin to move the country beyond its torrid racial history and progress toward unity and change. This message is the 'gatekeeper' of Obama's steady but as yet insufficient flow of white American support, and by that I mean it gives whites who wish to support him both racial permission and a racial reason to do so. By preaching a transcendence of race all of his supporters are assured that through Obama's administration and policies we can proceed directly to a time where America's "race question" can begin to be solved, and somehow we won't have to deal with the difficult racial discourse and issues that we'd have to address to figure things out without him. I'm thinkin that one of the many reasons Obama and his team have masterfully and commendably crafted his campaign as such a "transcendence" of race is the undeniable fact that doing so pretty much stands as prerequisite for any black man to have any real shot at winning the American presidency today.What is not present in Obama's racial outlook, however, is what I only hinted at just now: the "how" of getting to the solution to the race question. I think Obama has bypassed, not transcended, the true aspects of race and racism that matter--those aspects most able to affect minds, not just policy. He has done so by keeping the racial discourse of his campaign within the political realm of racial inequality, and by avoiding serious forays into the broader issue of racism. Because of the intricate and symbiotic relationship between the two concepts, Obama and his team have been able to fashion substantive and actionable policy stances (i.e. his civil rights proposals and urban initiatives) targeting racial inequality, while simultaneously convincing Americans that in so doing he is actually moving beyond or "transcending" the larger territory of racism in America.
I would point to 3 particular instances throughout the Obama campaign where either his avoidance of the racism issue, his overall racial strategy, or both have been laid bare:
Jena 6: Obama's Sep. 5th '07 comments about the incident on the campaign trail were hesitant and generally non-committal, with him "not having all of the facts about the case". But when he commented again on the issue on Sep. 20th, he chastised the media for being "surprised" by the Jena 6 incident. Why the change? On Sep. 19th Jesse Jackson called Obama out on his strategy and accused him of "acting like he's white" by not saying more up to that point. If understanding race and racism in America could be compared to learning biology, the Jena 6 incident was the perfect dead frog or guinea pig to be dissected and examined by the nation as a whole. Obama, with his razor-sharp scalpel of intellect and a fantastic team behind him, was in a great position to begin to (very, very) carefully cut his way into the dead frog of race in America--but instead he chose (or was forced, see below) to play it safe and "stick with the plan" of dealing with race in the context of either the economy, urban quality of life, and other issues of equality.
Sean Bell: Obama's statement after the verdict came down in the case angered many blacks across the country because of its lack of "bite" or any real stance in support of the family. This case in particular is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier about Obama's hand being forced in order to be able to win the election, and that explains why there is no way he could have possibly made a statement in full support of Bell's family. last time I checked, being labelled anti-white prolly isn't gunna help u get into the White House, yo--or being labelled anti-police, for that matter--and that's exactly what would've happened had he come out with a statement in full support of the Bell family.
Reverend Wright: Obama bit the HUGE bullet and defended one of the "bad blacks" in his camp for as long as he possibly could here. That in itself should really speak volumes, because "as long as he could" ended up being about 3 weeks, and it is certainly debateable whether or not this incident is the main reason for the drawn-out primary race we witnessed this year--remember, Obama had just begun to swing the momentum of said primary around this time. America might not mind a president who is (half) black right about now (and even that remains to be seen with regard to the way that Obama is performing in working class white communities), but the above certainly proves that it is in no way ready for a black president.As for Obama's initiatives to address racial inequality? Even they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Why? Because for politial purposes, racism begets racial inequality and NOT the other way around. Passing policy initiatives has rarely, if ever, contributed to the changing of minds of the American people. It's exactly the opposite--when the minds of the American people have changed, then laws and policies are passed to reflect that change. And we all know how the minds of the American people get changed--through dialogue and discourse, sit-ins and strikes, protests and petitions, marches and even a 'lil mayhem, all of which spark intense media coverage and an ensuing 'national debate' on the issue(s) in question. Nowdays we've got national debates on the economy, on Iraq, on healthcare, even, to a much lesser extent, on racial inequality and civil rights--but those discussions center around policy and the tangible aspects of the system itself. When it comes to questions of American mindsets and racial stereotypes and why the system is unequal instead of just how it is so, national discussion and outcry such as what eventually fueled the creation of the Civil Rights legislation of the 60s to me seems to be strangely absent from today's America.
And it is directly because of this absence of true dialogue and discourse about race in America that we hesitate when a situation like Don Imus Part II arises. We question Imus' meaning in light of his possible interpretation instead of condemning his actions in light of his proven track record. We protect his words as free speech instead of making him defend them as socially acceptable. And as a result, we listen to news coverage of "just how offensive was Imus?" and "what should be done about it?" when we could and maybe should be listening to anyone, anyone else that wants to offer real commentary on such a real and important issue as race. We are letting the increasing pace and sheer breadth of our times weary us of the seemingly endless fight to reshape, refine and evolve our relationships with one another for the better.
In that context, I invite you to evaluate the man who is trying to offer us the easy way out of our mess: no one could blame us if we take it, that's for damn sure. But before we do, we have to ask ourselves one more question, the real question I've been tryin to ask this whole time:
If he was right then, and we've barely seen 2 terms since then, why are so many people so sure that 'Pac is wrong now?
