History or His story?

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 will no doubt go down in the record books as "historic." And for many Blacks especially, it means the world. I am not one of them. It's not that it doesn't matter - because it does. I simply do not believe in the senator from Illinois. I believe his run for the presidency is only about his story, with the history of it all being a mere collateral benefit.

Our insecurity as a people is Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder writ large. It keeps us hoping for, and grabbing onto anyone who looks like us for a sense of security, self and belonging even when that anyone may not have our best interests at heart. I understand it, but it still boggles the mind. The only treatment for such a disorder is to look inward, not outward, for the love and acceptance one seeks. It's difficult, but possible and definitely worth doing if, as a people, we are to survive.

Zora Neale Hurston once said, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk." Sen. Obama has made the veracity of her statement quite apparent to me over this long primary season. His story is not my history (neither is Sen. Clinton's, but we do have that pesky little gender thing, which often if not always breeds misogyny, in common).  Master strategist that I've come to believe he is, there is no doubt in my mind he'd been planning this attempt for some time which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But it got bad for me pretty quickly when I realized he was just a politician - no more, no less than Sen. Clinton (with the exception that her fight for universal health care being a long and dedicated one, unlike the senator from Illinois whose not had time to formulate a real passion for anything other than his own self-aggrandizement) - willing to say or do anything to continue writing his OWN story. I've no problem with the writing your own story part, it's the doing anything in order to accomplish that, that makes me want to wipe the green slime off me.

He knew he'd have to get his "skinfolk" behind him and he knew exactly how to do it - CHURCH. Most of us do love church, don't we? So, Barry went to Chicago and Barack - the community organizer, 20-year dedicated member of Trinity United Church of Christ where he found "religion," married his Black wife and baptized his children - was born (and let's not get it twisted, I have no problems with Rev. Wright I can't handle).

Unless there's some deep and grand plot to hoodwink white Americans by pretending to "denounce" his pastor and leave his home church in search of another, less Afrocentric one, Sen. Obama used my people and their insecurity to advance his own personal agenda and that ain't cool - at all. There's no "Balm in Gilead" to be found, not even in the highest office in the land, for the wound this little lost boy is trying to heal. That melanin in his skin, coupled with no positive connection to it whatsoever in his formative years, seems to have left a hole in his soul.

His political expediency regarding Florida particularly sticks in my craw because I live here now. I also went through similar political shenanigans imposed on us by Republicans when I lived here in 2000. Who woulda thunk it? Blacks, having been considered "three-fifths persons" constitutionally, had their value in Florida literally decreased by a "Black" man in back-room dealings with the DNC that halved the delegates votes, discounted the popular vote and handed him the Democratic nomination on a silver platter (Donna Brazile, I love that a sister has risen to such a powerful position in the Democratic party today, but your complicity in this internalized racism is both obvious and pernicious). And adding insult to injury, his Black supporters, so intent on having the first Black president supported it! A bit of the oppressed becoming the oppressor don't you think?

Being a South Carolina girl, born and raised, disenfranchisement of any kind really brings the "Angry Black Woman" out in me. A little S.C. history: In 1895, South Carolina enacted laws with the explicit intent of eliminating the electoral privileges of blacks (with Louisiana, North Carolina, Alabama Virginia, Georgia and Oklahoma hot on its heels). “Pitchfork” Bill Tillman, the Democratic governor of South Carolina during those dark days, reveled in the glory of that kind of disenfranchisement saying on the Senate floor in 1896:

“We have done our level best; we have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate the last one of them; we stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it.”

Figuratively, Obama's "strategy" concerning Florida and Michigan was the same thing to me. His "post-racial candidate" strategy is definitely working for some whites however. Either that, or they're just trying to find a justification for supporting him since he is now the nominee. In a recent Salon.com article -- "What role did race play with white Democrats?" -- one of the "round table experts" (what makes these people experts anyway?), Tom Schaller said this:

"Can I just say one thing about Obama and his post-racial identity, which I talk about at all public events that I do. The other thing that is the crazy wild card here, we just talk about him as a black candidate and her as the white candidate, and is America ready? But obviously, he's just not your average black candidate, and not just because his middle name is Hussein and so forth, but the fact that he's half-black and his black half is continental African. And that matters. And we don't talk about that that much. But I think it's [important]. There are so many things that are different about Obama from historical black leaders. He doesn't come from a clerical background, which produced leaders over the years, whether it was Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson or more recently Al Sharpton. He is half-black and so he's not full-blooded black, so to speak, and whether you believe in one-drop racism or whatever, it does matter. He's literally lighter-skinned. And that's something that's talked about in the black community and is going to have to be talked about in the white community. And that his black half is continental. It is different when your family is recently emigrated as opposed to being a slave descendant. And I think what's going to be really interesting about all this Rorschach notion of how white America sees itself and how white America sees black America is about how it views Barack Obama as a sort of sui generis black candidate. He is not Al Sharpton, and I think that's clear on so many different levels. But I think the question is, how much does his difference from Al Sharpton really matter?"

Sui generis??? I had to look that one up (some of us old people are woefully inadequate as the American lexicon constantly changes). It means, "constituting a class alone." A fitting description? Not really, there are plenty "light-bright-damned-near-white" highly educated, comparatively rich men like him out there who believe their skin color makes them better than (Brown Bag Test ring any bells?). Yet another sad truth about the Black experience in America.

A pleasing description to the senator from Illinois? Undoubtedly. How do I know? Well I don't KNOW, but back in February of 2007, when 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked Obama why he considered himself Black even though he was raised in a white household, the senator responded, "Well, I'm not sure I decided it. I think, you know, if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American." Sui generis, indeed.{smdh}

(Oh, that concession speech? Not as quickly forthcoming as I'd expected.)

Between a Rock and a Hard Place - Sen. Obama Chooses

On the heels of the Geraldine Ferraro uproar, came the release of some videos yesterday, followed by a deluge of blog posts and comments regarding the words of Sen. Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No need to post any of the videos here as they've more than made the rounds of network and cable television stations and the internet.

What amazed me was the number of people who vehemently expressed disgust, surprise and fear about the comments therein. I found much truth in the sermon, though I disagree with the characterization of Bill Clinton "riding us dirty like he did Monica Lewinski," since I, like most of the American middle class enjoyed, an economy unparalleled by the last seven years of Shrub (that's what having a "colonized mind"will do for you I guess).

There were Clinton supporters expressing some real schadenfreude at the senator's apparent comeuppance. There were Obama supporters staunchly defending their candidate saying he could not be held accountable for what others say - strange, since they just as rigorously and continuously held Sen. Clinton accountable for Ms. Ferraro's comments. But I digress. There were other Obama supporters who felt and said they had been "hoodwinked and bamboozled" by the senator's talk of "Change We Can Believe In." I came away from all this with a headache and a thought: America REALLY needs to talk openly, honestly and productively about race. If it took Ferraro's and Wright's comments to get us closer to that discussion - so be it.

Let's be clear. Communications between blacks and whites have historically been, and continue to be, difficult. Different cultural styles seem to play the most important role in that great divide. And, even though it is so important to bridge that chasm with acceptance and respect, I'm not so sure that many of us are willing or able to go there. There are obvious differences in the way we communicate. Blacks tend to be emotional when they discuss issues that are extremely important to them. Our voices often become louder and our speech more rapid. This is definitely reminiscent of those Sunday church services, where the minister's voice rises and falls and his sermon is peppered with exclamations and questions that could be felt in the pews. Much like the "call and response" of slavery days, the congregation would invariably throw in more than a few "Amens!" "Praise the Lords!" and "Preach Revs" to let the minister know that they were "feeling him," as my kids would say.

Conversely, when whites engage, it is the exact opposite. They seem to work very hard to deliver their message in calm, deliberate tones presumably to show that they are reasonable, proper and in control. So, when the two groups get together to discuss important issues, the result can be, and often is, miscommunication. The emotion blacks express tends to turn whites off, and the seeming indifference of whites infuriates blacks. What whites deem aggression, blacks call passion. What should have been constructive discourse, degenerates into name-calling or worse. Nothing is accomplished but bitter, hurt feelings and meaningful communication is non-existent.

I think Sen. Obama missed an excellent opportunity to become a real instrument of change that could, and would have guided the much needed dialogue about race in this country. Well, only if all who voted for him really believed in overall change, that is. Maybe if he had not distanced himself with his "change - speak" that so publicly seemed to ignore his associations in the Black community, many whites and others would not have inferred that "change" meant, "We don't have to talk about or deal with issues of racism - institutional or otherwise." Had he been honest about ALL his beliefs, to include the Black empowerment about which Trinity United Church of Christ preaches (definitely not a bad thing even though it frightens the bejeezus out of some white folks), Rev. Wright's sermons would not be the "bombshell" it is today. Granted, he may not have won as many states/delegates as he has, but you never know -- he may have. 

All I'm saying is, you cannot heal wounds whose existence you ignore - and the wounds of racism run deep. It permeates all of our institutions which materially affects the lives of Blacks in this country. He chose to straddle that line (a political strategy maybe?) instead of being 100% honest and now it seems to be exploding in his face - at least right now.

I remember listening to Rev. Sharpton's radio show last year on the day designated for Rev. Wright's daughter's segment. She expressed her concern that Sen. Obama's "handlers" had convinced him it wasn't a good idea to have Rev. Wright fully participate in his announcement ceremony in February on the Old State Capitol steps -- "where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together" (Rev was there, though not in the capacity they all originally thought he would be).

So in some part of the campaign, they saw the presence of Rev. Wright as a liability and tried to contain it.  Guess they could have been right. Last night I was thinking out loud, "He still has an opportunity to be totally honest to the American people, his church and himself , but not by dodging this as a non-issue, because it obviously IS an issue to a lot of people.   It may not be politically expedient, but it may be the only thing that turns this one around." 


Well, this afternoon, with the groundswell of dissenting opinions about what he should or should not do regarding Rev. Wright, Sen. Obama released a statement to CNN and ran this post echoing the statement, in The Huffington Post: On My Faith and My Church." After listening to it on CNN and reading the actual words on The Huffington Post, this quote immediately jumped in my head: "True self is the part of us that does not change when circumstances do." -- Mason Cooley.  Seems he chose the hard place of the presidency over the rock, that was his pastor, mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.