[QUOTE=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]
It’s in a large part because he’s not a black politician: he’s a politician that’s black. It’s the culmination of the train of thought from Booker T Washington to Martin Luther King… a train that is often honored but ultimately disregarded by most black politicians who view their legiticmacy springing from the Dubois/Malcolm X view of race relations.
[/QUOTE]
Diomedes, could you expand on this, please?
I agee with Diogenes the Cynic’s analogy, as well. But ISTM that the black leaders from the Civil Rights era have said, more or less, that their dragon slaying was in order to change things so that their sons and daughters wouldn’t have to slay dragons just to have access to the things everyone should have access to.
Obama’s about their sons and daughters’ age, isn’t he? So shouldn’t they be happy he didn’t have to slay (as many) dragons? This makes them look like self-serving asses (surprise!).
The power vested in the leadership in the black struggle comes from the perpetuation of the black struggle. It’s the same with abortion- many have suggested that Republican operatives would actually prefer legal abortion so that one of their reliable planks is not yanked out from under them. I think that’s probably true- even though those same people genuinely believe that abortion is wrong. It is the corrupting influence of personal power.
A black (or at least, African) president provides powerful evidence that the ceiling can be broken, and there is a lot vested in the meme that the ceiling is forever. Sharpton and Jackson lack any real political power derived from position or the electorate, their power and funding comes from threatening to flex their base to bash corporations and political figures. If that base starts to trickle away from them, or even just goes over to this new guy without their endorsement, I’m sure they feel that power slipping away, and it feels a bit scary.
[QUOTE=phouka]
Diomedes, could you expand on this, please?
[/QUOTE]
W.E.B. Dubois and Booker T. Washington had difference in philosophy which was somewht similar to the differences between Malcolm X and MLK. Dubois wanted immediate , radical change without compromise. Washington was more of a gradualist and a compromiser, arguing that blacks were never going to just be handed equality all at once. Dubois thought that they could not, in good conscience, demand anything less.
In the 60’s, Malcolm X was the radical (for a while, even a separatist and an anti-white racist, though he did come to abndon those views after leaving the NOI), while MLK was the compromiser and the pragmatist.
I believe that Diomedes is saying that Obama belongs to the Washington/King school, while many black leaders prefer the uncompromising approach of Dubois and Malcolm X (though I’m not sure if he would include Jesse Jackson in the latter school, considering that he came directly out of MLK’s movement).
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
What does this even mean? You act as if advocating for “the Black race”, and being a leader for all of America are mutually exclusive. How does speaking to Black issues hurt White people?
[/QUOTE]
I doesn’t ‘hurt white people’ and it’s not mutually exclusive, it’s a matter of priority.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I believe that Diomedes is saying that Obama belongs to the Washington/King school, while many black leaders prefer the uncompromising approach of Dubois and Malcolm X (though I’m not sure if he would include Jesse Jackson in the latter school, considering that he came directly out of MLK’s movement).
[/QUOTE]
This is roughly what I meant. There’s a lot to be said for looking at the difference between those two main threads of black American social philosophy and comparing them to socialism versus communism (in that pragmatic/unrelenting divide).
In particular, however, both King and Washington advocated for an inclusive society where blacks and whites viewed each other as as equals and partners. DuBois and X both felt that whites couldn’t be trusted.
The sort of tactics (for instance) former presidential candidate Al Sharpton occasionally engages in smack of the mindset that ‘Whitey can’t be trusted’. Obama hasn’t done that. By being a black man engaged in politics, but not taking that path he (and a lot of the younger class of black national leaders, including Harold Ford) has opened himself up to a much wider-spread support. It’s in seeking that sort of support that he appears to be following the path of Washingotn and King, who felt that harmony in this country could only be achieved by a single community of both blacks and whites.
I’m sorry if this was a wee bit rambling. I’ll be happy to try to explain myself further if anything was unclear.
Why should their color matter at all? Are you suggesting dudes should support or not support Obama simply because of his race or their race? 
Should all whites support McCain? :dubious:
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Why should their color matter at all? Are you suggesting dudes should support or not support Obama simply because of his race or their race? 
Should all whites support McCain? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
I think these are reasonable questions to ask but can I ask you to consider some differences in the two. This dichotomy is between your suggestion of possibly expecting all whites to vote for McCain and, on the other side, asking about the support/non-support choices of black leaders who were part of the the struggle to gain full access to the halls of politics and the avenues of power, a struggle that opened the doors through which Obama is now walking.
Given that, questions about the second part are pertinent to debate, without assuming it’s an all or nothing, or even racist, proposition.
[QUOTE=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]
DuBois and X both felt that whites couldn’t be trusted.
[/QUOTE]
In the case of Dubois, that’s not true, at least. In fact, that was one of the things that led to his seperation from William Trotter and the founding of the NAACP…the question of white participation in the civil rights struggle.
DuBois’s argument with Washington was because Washington believed that blacks shouldn’t ask for social or political rights. Blacks should, instead, keep their heads down, put up with segregation and disenfranchisement, and work on improving their economic status without drawing attention to themselves, because he believed that segregation was inevitable and to call for equal rights would just bring down more oppression.
Here’s DuBois’s comments about Washington and his ideas:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/40
If you notice, he puts Washington’s critics into two categories:
DuBois would put himself in the second category. If you look at his “My Evolving Program for Negro Freedom”, he goes directly into this, talking about how when he was at Harvard he did try to associate only with other blacks and that " I was about to encase myself in a completely colored world, self-sufficient and provincial, and ignoring just as far as possible the white world which conditioned it".
But then he went to Europe, and was exposed to European culture, and didn’t experience the kind of prejudice he would expect from whites. As he put it:
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
I doesn’t ‘hurt white people’ and it’s not mutually exclusive, it’s a matter of priority.
[/QUOTE]
Why is that a bad thing? Despite what you say, the President does “lobby” for all sorts of things. We even prioritize things based on ideology and politics. Your post seems to indicate that you think this is a bad thing when this is done with Black issues. Why? Are you under the impression that Black issues only affect Black people? We have had policies towards Cuba that were based in large part on the vocal Cuban population in Florida. We cater to racial and ethnic groups all the time, why would it be so bad if a president catered to Black people?
Obama is saying pretty much what Bill Cosby was vilified for after his speech in Washington DC in 2004. Maybe “Come On People” was on his reading list recently.
Whatever the cause, his talk of personal responsibility is earning points with me. Frankly I don’t see it as finger wagging at blacks or any other race. The same lesson can be applied across many people.
As for Jesse & Sharpton, they see the train leaving the station and they are not on it. That’s the primary reason you don’t see them on the Obama bandwagon. IMHO, they’ve both been much more interested in keeping themselves in the camera lights than they have in long term solution to community problems. After all, if the problems went away, who would need them. in effect, this is what they see happening now.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
In the case of Dubois, that’s not true, at least. In fact, that was one of the things that led to his seperation from William Trotter and the founding of the NAACP…the question of white participation in the civil rights struggle.
[/QUOTE]
I may have done DuBois a disservice by lumping him so freely into a category with X. He most certainly did advocate a seperatism from white society in a way that Washington never did, and his ‘Talented Tenth’ (Which I admit is the only work of his that I’ve read) ended up laying in place the foundations of the idea of an independent black society, whether that was his intention or not.
It’s Obama’s rise to power independent of that structure (well, somewhat independent… the man did get first elected by the machine on the south side of Chicago), and his continued decision to not get involved in specifically ‘black politics’ that have pissed off the elders of black politics. Didn’t Jesse Jackson first start railing against him over his silence on the Jena Six case a couple years ago?
I vote for cynical image making. Remember the last time he freely associated with anyone with anything even vaguely controversial about race?
As much as I admire what people like Jackson and Sharpton have done over the years, I think they are a bit resentful of having the torch ripped from their hands rather than passed on to the next generation. To a certain degree, there is a doctrine of perpetual victimhood that they won’t be able to fall back on once this great barrier has been shattered.
[QUOTE=Boozahol Squid, P.I.]
I may have done DuBois a disservice by lumping him so freely into a category with X. He most certainly did advocate a seperatism from white society in a way that Washington never did, and his ‘Talented Tenth’ (Which I admit is the only work of his that I’ve read) ended up laying in place the foundations of the idea of an independent black society, whether that was his intention or not.?
[/QUOTE]
Well, he advocated (and “The Talented Tenth” advocated) black leadership, and black education. But he didn’t advocate a seperatism from white society so much as full integration with it. If you had to link him to anyone, it would be to Martin Luther King.
Because “those” people don’t embrace with open arms, they greet with fist bumps.
I think Dio pegged it. Obama made it farther than Jackson because he didn’t have Jackson’s baggage – he’s basically an outsider. I can understand how Jackson would resent that.
But with Sharpton it goes farther. Obama is all about equality, about how race shouldn’t really make a difference. Sharpton is not about equality and never has been. He’s one of the most racist and divisive people in the country!
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I think all of you are overlooking the fact that there has been similar distrust, antipathy and jealousy from other Democratic/Liberal stalwarts like Bill and Hillary Clinton. People like the Clintons, Sharpton, and Jackson are resentful because they don’t feel Obama has paid his dues and put in his time.
[/QUOTE]
I think with the Clintons it’s very simple. Hillary won’t be the President next year because of Obama. That’s it.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, he advocated (and “The Talented Tenth” advocated) black leadership, and black education. But he didn’t advocate a seperatism from white society so much as full integration with it. If you had to link him to anyone, it would be to Martin Luther King.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I wanted to add that part of the reason in the essay that he stresses the importance of college education was because Washington said that blacks shouldn’t have a liberal arts education…that it didn’t do any good and just filled them with useless information and encourage them to be dissatisfied with their lot.
A few scattered points:
– Jackson and Sharton are not the same person. They generally advocate the same things, but they do have their differences, and they do have different agendas. I can think of a few issues where they were on opposite sides (the Terry Schiavo case, for example), and there are many issues that one will jump into that the other will stay out of. Jackson has been Sharpton’s mentor, but I think it does a disservice to conflate the two.
– It should be noted that both Jackson and Sharpton endorsed Obama, and they both did so during the primaries. Plenty of other black political leaders endorsed Hilary, and they both could have legitimately endorsed her based on her politics and her then popularity in the black community (especially Sharpton, who has a NY connection with her). So despite any resentment they may feel towards Obama, they still endorsed him at a time when they could have legitimately endorsed someone else.
– The distance between black political leaders and Obama is a two-sided affair. Obama has long recognized that being seen as “the black candidate” would be poison for his campaign (remember the brouhaha when Bill Clinton tried to put him in that box after South Carolina). He’s been pretty selective about the black events he’s attended, which has caused some resentment. And most of these black political leaders are saavy enough to know that he can’t afford to be too close to them. So while they may resent it on a personal level (which is what we heard from Jackson in the live mic incident), they recognize the necessity on a political level, which is why you don’t hear any of them blasting him publicly.
– The “personal responsibility” language rankles for a few reasons. The media cheers Obama on when he makes these speeches, but when he was mildly critical of the white community, with his “bitter” comments, they were outraged, and he was called an “elitist” and it caused a serious crisis for his campaign. It seems as if criticizing the white working class is out of bounds, but feel free to criticize black folks.
In addition, it’s nothing that hasn’t been said innumerable times in every black church, at every black political function, at every black school ceremony and at every slightly “positive” social event for at least the last 20 years. For all the criticism of Jackson and Sharpton, they’ve both been giving this same message for ages, though it’s generally not covered by the mainstream media. If you listen to the Steve Harvey or Tom Joyner radio shows in the morning, you’ll hear the same sentiment constantly on both shows, and on black radio in general all over the country. No one hates BET and the images they propagate more than black people. But with Obama’s approach, he’s pulling this “private” conversation out into the open, which causes discomfort. Bill Cosby did the same thing.
And even worse, it seems that black people aren’t the true audience for those “personal responsibility” speeches. When Tavis Smiley writes a book about “personal responsibility,” he’s talking to black people. He’s saying “black people, we need to get our act together.” Obama, on the other hand, seems to be talking to white people. It seems like he’s saying “see how tough I am on black people?” I’m sure he believes what he says (and I agree fully with what he’s saying), but it comes off like he’s dissing us to make white people think more highly of him. The only reason it hasn’t backfired on him is because black people know what he says is true, no matter who his audience is.
289 posts in 9 years? You don’t speak much but when you do, it’s a mouthful.
Well said. And, if I may, it’s savvy.