White in America

After reading several posts from Black bloggers (Abagond, Chauncey DeVega at W.A.R.N  and Sharon Toomer over at BlackAndBrownNews) opining why CNN never did a "White in America" series -- here we have it:  "White in America" on HuffPost Live.

I swear -- the day I posted this, the video was embeddable!  As I scrolled down the blog this morning, I noticed there was this big. blank.white.space where the video used to be (hmmm...maybe that's all that needed saying)! You can click on the link and still watch it though. {smdh} (comments still forthcoming)

I have so many comments on this one, but I'll have to come back to it because I'm finishing another post, so go ahead and watch it and stay tuned.

Related:
- Time to profile white men?

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: Seems A Bit Premature, No? (from a HuffPo comment)

I got an Earl Ofari Hutchinson post notification and sauntered over to see what he had to say.  It was refreshingly and surprisingly palatable - for Earl.  Since I was there, I read Jason Linkins' post and decided to read the comments.  Shouldn't have.

I came across this one from LALAW and immediately bristled at the blatant attempt to manipulate Dr. King's Nobel acceptance speech, in order to somehow justify Obama's getting the gold:

In 1964, when southern schools were still segregated, Martin Luther King, Jr. won the Nobel Prize. He died in 1968 and schools in the south were still segregated until a year after his death. When he won the award, he said, in part:

"I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when twenty-two million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award in behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice.

I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeing to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation...

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize."

Congratulations, Mr. President, on another great accomplishment.

Before I even knew it, my fingers were typing this:

LALAW...You conveniently ended your excerpt to seemingly conflate Dr. King with Obama. The very next sentence of the speech, along with others that follow, describe precisely why Obama can - in no way - be compared to the prescient MLK:

"After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time -- the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression...If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

...The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity."

Since Obama's not familiar with that "tortuous road," I'm not surprised he's twisted that "new sense of dignity" into continuing aggression and "loving" the poor into destitution.

And the beat goes on...

Can't seem to stop letting revisionist get under my skin.  (Decided to see if their "Post to Blogger" thingy worked.  It did, but I had to edit it, adding a few words of explanation as well as a couple links.)

I went over to Cinie's earlier and "You Go Away For One Minute..." was definitely worth it!  We are more often than not on the same wavelength me and Cin (I busted out laughing when I saw the same Urkelbama that she'd let me have gracing her post!).  Succinct and dead-on as ever - she's ba-a-a-ck!!!

I'd dedicated this in my comment to my Sister-Friend over at her place, but I think all of us who truly believe in a better world - in spite of, not because of, the Changeling, could use it:

Okay, now I'm done with this whole Nobel Prize thing - except to say that with all this international, political "capital," - UNIVERSAL health care, a living wage, disparity in sentencing Blacks and Browns, reigning in the "stupidly" acting police, saying no to McChrystal, telling AIPAC and Israel to get their shit together regarding Gaza and the Palestinians, getting out of Gitmo - for real, stopping torture and renditions - for real, brushin' off:  the Federal Reserve, those banks "too big to fail" and insurance companies Jay-Z style, getting AFRICOM to really be 'bout it and for Chrissakes, stopping the state/federal-sanctioned foot-on-neck policies at our borders - all should be a piece of damn cake!

P.S.S.  What about Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe?  And Dr. Sima Samar of Afghanistan?  Hey, wonder if Ms. Magazine feels stupid as hell - writing about her and then doing THIS craziness!  -------> Obviously they weren't  even listening during the interview they, themselves conducted when the good doctor said:

"We need solidarity to free women—solidarity with women everywhere.  Women must support each other; we are our own class."

Just sayin'

Forget satirical cover, Lizza's column is what should concern residents of ObamaWorld

Main Entry: sat·ire

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
I just want to sit that definition right up there as I write this, just to remind myself that -- I'm not losing my damn mind along with everybody else today!!

Here I was thinking, "Now you know they're wrong for that. They didn't have to slam the "bitters" or the Republicans that hard!"

In that quirky little way I have of looking at oh, I don't know - SATIRE, I saw them encapsulating all the things people seem to fear about the Obamas and skewering them as "issues" Americans maybe shouldn't be so worried about. You know, all those "issues" that keep popping up, forcing that instant and routine as of late, "chuck-you-under-that-big-ole bus" reaction. You remember those don't you?

I said to myself, "Self, now you know ObamaWorld is not going to find this funny - at all." They're going to see it as a full-scale attack!" I started ticking off in my head a list of the things I was sure would occur as a result of this cover:

1. A whole lot of angry, divisive comments from Obama supporters, threatening to cancel their subscriptions to The New Yorker, berating the magazine and the artist with so many, "How could you do such a things?"
2. A whole lot of schadenfreude, accompanied by anything from low snickers, to people rolling on the floor laughing, particularly from Democrats who don't support Obama and Republicans who, well, don't support Obama.
3. A decidedly indignant, "no-chuckle-here," official victim statement from Camp Obama (Jeez! didn't The New Yorker know that it's absolute sacrilege to think, say, write or draw anything other than that which has been rubber-stamped by Camp Obama?!)
4. A quick "It wasn't me" official statement from the McCain camp (though I'm sure they danced a little jig when they got their first glimpse of it!)
5. Pundits and surrogates on the left, pundits and surrogates on the right, all of them trying to convince us that their realities should be our own

I was right and then some. Commenters everywhere are a little bit warm today. This, from a HuffPo reactionary:

"It is not satire, satire takes the TRUTH and shows an extreme absurdity of that truth.You have taken a MISCONCEPTION and tried to show it as an absurd truth."

O-o-okay! I really do get the first part of this, the second part - not so much. The "truth" in the cover is the way a lot of people think about who the Obamas are. Those ARE their truths. The artist has no misconception about that. Thanks to the mainstream media, talk radio and the blogosphere, we've all been inundated with these um, - "issues." Would that one and all had been so rabid about say-y-y FISA? NAFTA? Iraq? Campaign financing? The death penalty? Abortion? Grove Parc Plaza? But I digress. Look, this is just my pea-brained opinion but, this cover is not about the Obamas!

And this from an L.A. Times commenter absolutely basking in his schadenfreude:

"Beyond funny. I laughed out loud. After Sen. Obama's spineless performance this week... this strikes me as quite mild. He should be on the cover as the coward he is. That vote this week took away any consideration many democrats had for him being a " man of his word ". He should be a wolf on the cover hiding under sheep's clothing would be a more accurate depiction of the Sen. who spins and spins and rarely keeps his word or votes with the integrity he so vigorously defends."

Another HuffPo knee-jerker shared this rant:

"As of today, we have cancelled our New Yorker subscription. Although we get the purported irony of your Obama cover, we find that it completely crosses the line into outrageous prejudice and bigotry weakly disguised as a spoof. It's offensive, but our decision to cancel after decades as New Yorker subscribers is because your cover wantonly and irresponsibly fuels a malevolent ignorance with imagery that can easily be taken out of your ironic context..."

Now to whose "malevolent ignorance" might she be referring? Oh-h-h, I get it. It's okay to insult and demean others just as long as you don't even give the appearance of either questioning or insulting Sen. Obama. Too bad his supporters never believed in such reciprocity.

Nico Pitney, over at The Huffington Post, shared this email exchange about the new cover he had with the artist, Barry Blitt. In his update, he provided these other covers by Blitt:


I guess these can be considered satire since they have nothing to do with how people feel about the Anointed One. Let's be clear. Of course, the cover can be interpreted more than one way. But doesn't that depend on the lens through which one views it? And I know Sen. Obama has a little issue with the 4th Amendment, but doesn't the 1st Amendment protect The New Yorker's right to publish the cover?
Now I can understand how his frenzied flock might see this as a potential threat to the Big Coronation.

No really! Think about it. If all you had was a selected nominee, with a tenuous resume and an egocentric, calculating agenda, accompanied by a penchant for shifting positons and people upon which his support was built, surrounded by power-hungry handlers who will say or do most anything to get what they believe to be their marionette into the Burning House, you might be a little frenzied too!

What I really found interesting and connective to the cover, in my little pea-brain, is the piece inside - "Making It, How Chicago shaped Obama" - by Ryan Lizza. Instead of worrying about the obvious absurdities portrayed on the cover, residents of ObamaWorld might just want to be a little more concerned about how Mr. Lizza’s factual account has ripped off that crazy “Change You Can Believe In” mask their guy’s been wearing for more than a year now, exposing the typical, inside-the-Beltway/Chicago-style politician that is the senator from Illinois.

In my “No permanent friends, no permanent enemies…” post back in April, I linked to Skeptical Brotha’s, "Barack's Betrayal" post which offers an excellent account of the ties that bind the Changeling to the Daley machine and the politics as usual against which he’s been so vehemently campaigning. It is a stinging indictment by a brother who pulled no punches and definitely worth a
read.

And you Obama supporters, calm the hell down please. His road to the Burning House has been so carefully and cunningly greased that I'm certain, nothing short of him getting up on TV and cussing everybody out will keep him from sliding right on in there - particularly since most of America seems asleep at the wheel. And again, there aren’t racists around every damn corner looking to cold-cock your guy. And if there are - you’ve been living with them all along with nary a peep of this righteous indignation.

An "Elitist" State of Mind

This latest uproar about Sen. Obama's words has been both interesting and problematic - for him and for me. Here's the link to the whole thing: Obama Exclusive (Audio): On V.P And Foreign Policy, Courting the Working Class, and Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians When I heard him say what he said, I bristled. But my response had more to do with where he said what he said and how he said it, than what he said.

Frankly, I believe he's right, given the tin ear and blind eye government has turned to a lot of people's concerns. Plenty of people are bitter and cynical and deal with it in a variety of ways! But why did he wait until he left those - "bitter" Pennsylvania voters - to speak before a decidedly non-working-class San Francisco fundraiser, to say what he said? Couldn't he find any of his prolific, "I feel your pain words" to share with the "bitters" directly?

Was it because no one on the Pennsylvania campaign trail ever raised the issues of joblessness or dissatisfaction with government to date? Or, was it that he felt more comfortable saying what he did to this particular group? Being the great orator that he is, I don't believe he misspoke when he said, "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What I heard were the words of one who feels so socially and educationally superior he would not deign to deal with bitterness in such a manner. What I heard was the elitism about which so many are up-in-arms. And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, I do not feel he always has to be perfect in his delivery. He is, after all, human. But what I DO expect and look for as he speaks, is as much honesty as he can muster as a politician and consistency in his message.  When I listened to the actual audio, I heard some of the former and less of the latter.

Something about the introduction by Sheila Jackson Lee immediately gave me pause though I'm not sure why. I'd like to have actually seen the group to whom he spoke, because I got the feeling he was among people with whom he felt comfortable enough to speak unfettered. Much like the "two-ness" W.E.B. DuBois wrote about in his "Souls of Black Folks," this conversation is reminiscent of those some Black folks had, and still have, when there are either no whites around, or no whites around who are like-minded (Latinos can be substituted for, or included with, "whites" in that statement as they were also a group in front of whom most Blacks wore the "mask" back in the day).

Some of us dispensed with that kind of dual-personality disorder as the times changed which required it (or we just grew to know ourselves better). Some of us have not. The media continuously stated, it was a "closed" fundraiser. That fact, along with the price of admission, was also very telling -- after all, what working-class person can spend a grand or more for one night of mingling? Let's be clear, this was not a "regular fella" fundraising event.

Now, is every person with a lot of money elitist? Not necessarily. I know a couple people with a few pennies to rub together who are not. For me, elitism rears its ugly head when people believe the having, which gives them more access, somehow makes them superior to those who have-not. I believe the senator from Illinois has an elitist state of mind and I'm not mad at him for it. I just wish he'd be whoever he is and let the people decide if they want to vote for that person or not.

(P.S. A word to the wise for Sen. Clinton: He's laid a golden egg at the right time and the right place for you. Don't wear this gift out by harping on it. Take the gift, say your piece, don't brandish any more weapons, don't throw back any more shots with beer - just move on. If you keep throwing it in his face and bringing it up ad nauseam, it WILL backfire on you!) Correction: The introduction was made by Rep. Barbara Lee not Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

The Wizard Emerges from Behind the Curtain, Pulling the Elephant Out of the Corner with him

I listened intently to Sen. Obama's speech this morning. And it was a great speech. He emerged from behind the curtain, a "whole man," as my grandmother used to say, finally expressing what I believe were HIS complete views on race.

He stood up like that whole man and SAID, "I cannot disown this man...." though he's, in his words, "already condemned in unequivocal terms the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy and in some cases, pain." (Okay, he's still got some truth to face!) He stood up like that whole man and SAID, "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American foreign and domestic policy? Of course." "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes." "Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely, just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you've strongly disagreed." (Okay, he could have left that last part off, no need to qualify his disagreement by pairing it with that of others.). My point is - at least he stood up for a change.

That one paragraph above was all I expected from this Black man running for president confronted with a media-fueled firestorm such as this. And had I heard it when he wrote On My Faith and My Church." for The Huffington Post, my expectations would have been met. But he did the knee-jerk thing - first (no doubt on the advice of those "handlers" of his), denouncing the words of his mentor and denying he ever even heard him say anything like that.

That didn't sit well with me at all for a couple reasons. First of all, anybody with a few firing brain cells could figure out he'd lied about never hearing Rev. Wright's statements over the 20+ years he's sat in that church. And secondly, but most important for me, "denouncing" and distancing himself from somebody who'd had his back far longer than those "alleged kingmakers" he calls advisors for the sake of making history was unconscionable to me. It had me thinking, "Shit, if he'll do that to his mentor, what about me?"

And what do I think now? The jury's still out on that one, mainly because he was "forced" to do the right thing. I know, I know - he did the right thing regarding his pastor! But would he have? He's been campaigning for a little over a year and it sure didn't look like he would have.

If this had not become an issue, would he have continued his "change-train" without ever addressing the fundamental issue driving the inequity in this country? Was he planning to be the "undercover brotha," stealthily pulling the elephant out of the corner after he'd gotten the nomination, the seat? And if that was the plan, that ain't too cool either because plenty white folks would have felt bamboozled for sure - and rightfully so. I don't care how much they protest, many of them would not have been supporting him so vociferously had he come out at the bell with this speech. What happened to John Edwards is evidence of that.

I can't say for sure how this will all play out or how I will respond in November (I'm a "hold the feet to the fire kind of girl"). But this much I know is true, he has done today what needed to be done as a Black man running for president in my book - he stood up. Granted it was grudgingly, but he stood up. This speech allows him to really become the agent of "Change We Can Believe In." I hope he is being honest. And if he isn't? Well, at least he's raised the bar - a little, making race a topic his opponents will have to address.

Oh, and Rev. Wright, you can safely roll on out from under that bus now.