Can we talk about this?
BILL MOYERS: Speaking of race, guess it’s like – all the talk in politics today about blackness. I mean, you’ve got people arguing, blacks arguing, is Barack Obama black enough or not? You got people talking about Condoleezza Rice. Since she’s gotten to power, is she aware of her black– should she be aware of her blackness? What’s your take on all this?
JAMES CONE: Well, I think everybody should be aware of their heritage. See, blackness is a powerful, powerful symbol in America. Because we were taught to be ashamed of being black. And in a society in which you are taught to be ashamed of it, then to overcome that, you have to affirm it. So, you shouldn’t be bashful about talking about it. Because to be bashful about talking about it is to, in some sense, to be ashamed of it, at least from the perspective of those who are black and who don’t have the kind of position that Condoleezza Rice or Barack Obama would have. So, all they want is to say, you know, express some identity with our history and our culture. It’s okay to identify with the larger culture. Because we are one community. But that should not entitle one to just forget about one’s own particular culture of blackness.
BILL MOYERS: So, is Obama black enough?
JAMES CONE: Well, you know, I’m not sure I’m black enough. I’m not sure that that is the right ques– I’m sure I’m not black enough for a lotta people. I– what I think is relevant here is that people are reaching out to Barack Obama, wanting him to address some of the issues that are particularly important to them. And he has addressed one or two, but is not, you know, from the perspective of the people who are asking the question at least, not enough in order to affirm the fact that he really is as much for black people as he is for the state of America. See, and the problem here is, is that whites make it difficult for black people to be black and also for them to support him.
BILL MOYERS: How’s that?
JAMES CONE: Because the more you express identity with the community from which you come from if you’re black, the more fear white people have. Now, that’s not true for Italians. That’s not true for Germans. That’s not true for any other group, hardly, except us. Because there– it’s because we haven’t been talking about that lynching tree. We haven’t been talking about slavery, the ugly side of that. So, if Barack Obama comes out and says, “I’m black and I’m proud of it,” well, whites would get nervous. And they would be careful about whether they would vote for him. So, he has a narrow, a narrow– road in which to walk. Because he won’t be elected if he doesn’t get the white vote. It’s hard to get the white vote if you express a kind of affirmative identity with black people. So, you get caught between a rock and a hard place. And that’s where he’s caught.
BILL MOYERS: And I have sympathy on this score– for Condoleezza Rice. Her policies are another thing. But part of what the civil rights movement– was all about. We thought a black man or a black woman should get to be Secretary of State or President of the United States and not have to– be anything but a powerful person doing what that person needs to do.
JAMES CONE: No. I think that’s a little off there. I– now– see, I– how I would put it is, a black person should be Secretary of State without having to deny their racial heritage and actually put it up front.
BILL MOYERS: Up front?
JAMES CONE: Yes, up front. Because we are a part of America.
BILL MOYERS: But that would make her the black Secretary of State.
JAMES CONE: No, no.
BILL MOYERS: And you don’t talk about–
JAMES CONE: That’s– no, no.
BILL MOYERS: –Henry Kissinger–
JAMES CONE: No, no, no.
BILL MOYERS: –as the Jewish–
JAMES CONE: No.
BILL MOYERS: –Secretary of State.
JAMES CONE: No. They wouldn’t make her the black Secretary of State anymore–
BILL MOYERS: Had she talked about it?
JAMES CONE: –no, no. It would not necessarily. It would mean that she is proud of her cultural history the same way– white people are proud of theirs. When you talk about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, well, you’re talking about slaveholders. But you don’t say that. But you are. And I–
BILL MOYERS: Why don’t we say that?
JAMES CONE: Because America likes to be innocent. It likes to be the exception.
BILL MOYERS: But we’re not.
JAMES CONE: We are not. That’s why it’s hard for Barack Obama or Condoleezza Rice to talk about blackness; ’cause it’s– if they talked about blackness in the real, true sense, it would be uncomfortable. But America can’t be what America ought to be until– America can look at itself, the good, the bad, so that we can work on making ourselves what we oughta be.
Combine these insights with the recent collapse of minority owned television stations and it isn’t surprising that Jesse Jackson feels that the only candidate listening to black voices is John Edwards.
African Americans are brutalized by a system of criminal injustice. Young African Americans are more likely to be stopped, more likely to be searched if stopped, more likely to be arrested if searched, more likely to be charged if arrested, more likely to be sentenced to prison if charged, less likely to get early parole if imprisoned. Every study confirms that the discrimination is systemic and ruinous. And yet no candidate speaks to this central reality.
Jackson is a leader in the Chicago community, and he is saying that Barack Obama is silent on issues of interest to the African-American community. That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but the point stands. And the reason why is pretty obviously explained by James H. Cone.
Seems worthy of discussion.
But America can’t be what America ought to be until– America can look at itself, the good, the bad, so that we can work on making ourselves what we oughta be.
That’s the money quote right there.
There’s a certain segment of our society that cannot brook any criticism of America. They take it as a personal affront, instead of an observation that creates an opportunity to change things for the better. As a society, we’ve become enamored of shouting “We’re number one!” while slipping down to number thirty-five.
that’s accurate. I think we are number 35.
Dean did during the 2004 campaign.
However, you are right that no one has spoken about this in this campaign.
as one hailing from “out of many” I’m of the view the question/statement needs definition.
What does “black enough” mean? black enough for what, to do what? Does that go to intelligence?
perhaps the focus should be on dropping that insulting hyphen.
like afro-. I take particular exception noting there’s no hyphen for Americans of caucasian descent. Why is that?
On the thrust of your post I disagree:
Jackson is a leader in the Chicago community, and he is saying that Barack Obama is silent on issues of interest to the African-American community. That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but the point stands. And the reason why is pretty obviously explained by James H. Cone.
Again, that assumes we do not share the same interests: affordable healthcare, education, housing, work opportunities and the ‘dumb wars’
Obama is a different leader with appeal across a broad spectrum. Unlike CONdi, Obama makes us proud.
“He bridges the divide” writes Andrew Sullivan in Goodbye to All That.
BTW, Gingrich sees Obama taking Iowa.
Amen bro. You’re the best stand-in for my man Al.
i’m not real clear on what you’re objecting to.
I think there are two main issues.
Which leads to the main point. Obama is talking about things that concern the black community, but not things that only effect the black community. He sounds like Hillary with a different a health care plan. If Obama were to swap speeches with Edwards, he’d scare the shit out of the Establishment. And that’s the thing I want to talk about.
BooMan,
That’s a new one: Being black, not coming off as black. Guess you have not driven a BMW M5 as a black person, – pulled over and asked to show that this car is yours, not stolen – otherwise known as driving while black.
Kudos to Obama. We fear for his safety.
This is intense here. Wish I could finger the link where Obama dealt with this issue of not being black enough. Merde.Read his speeches man.
AND pray explain what is meant by
The black community isn’t going to really feel represented until they can a have a black candidate that acts ‘natural’…that is, doesn’t have to water down their ethnic identity in either form or substance
acts ‘natural’? What is that all about, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Huey – they all act natural? Does Colin Powell act natural?
Obama is talking about things that concern the black community, but not things that only effect the black community. He sounds like Hillary with a different a health care plan. If Obama were to swap speeches with Edwards, he’d scare the shit out of the Establishment. And that’s the thing I want to talk about.
Obama is running for president of all Americans. What are the issues that only affect the black community?
Clearly man, you need to read his speeches. How about this?
and this profile/interview.
also this. Read the comment that Obama should NOT play the race card. And I may add, as “one hailing from out of many” – the victim card.
like afro-. I take particular exception noting there’s no hyphen for Americans of caucasian descent. Why is that?
Because there’s no question as to the American-ness of white people. The term Euro-American has been tossed around, but no one uses it because we aren’t fighting for a seat at the table.
When, say, an Italian-American uses the hyphenated form, it’s not because he wants to emphasize his Italian ancestry, it’s because he wants to emphasize his American-ness. You know what they were called before they were called Italian-Americans? Italians. “American” wasn’t an option for them, nor was it for the Irish, the Greeks, the Germans, or any other post-colonial immigrant group, nor for the descendants of slaves.
So you do have a special term reserved for white Americans: American. Everyone else has to tack on “-American” to the label that they are given by white Americans. The hyphenated form does not represent some kind of higher, special status; it’s an attempt to overcome a special, lower status.
perhaps the focus should be on dropping that insulting hyphen.
like afro-. I take particular exception noting there’s no hyphen for Americans of caucasian descent. Why is that?
I take particular exception that you’ve never checked independently that there is.
Whites are now also called Euro-Americans or European Americans. That is, Americans of primarily white European ancestry.
Screw looking at hyphens.
And this piece of idiocy:
What does “black enough” mean? black enough for what, to do what? Does that go to intelligence?
It means someone who is black who takes black interests to heart and forwards those interests to the betterment of the entire community. What we in the black community would call a race man or a race woman. Examples? Black s/heroes like Mary Mcleod Bethune, Harry Belafonte, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Adam Clayton Powell (before the rot set in), Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan.
People who don’t get it really need to SU and do some reading or quiet investigating before engaging mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be).
That is a tough topic, so I will discuss a tangent.
I found it difficult to know how to react when John Kerry and Madeline Allbright discovered that they have Jewish ancestors while they were on the national stage. They suddenly has a claim to kinship, but were not part of the subculture that is part of my life. Their ancestors were slaves in Egypt, but they were not raised knowing that.
They never got called a Kike, or asked if Jews killed Christ. They were never told that they weren’t allowed to call their friends because it was Christmas and they had to wait at home with nothing to do for their friends to call. Their principle never told them that they didn’t really have to take off school for their holidays. Are they Jewish enough? It doesn’t matter I support them based on the positions they have taken.
Lieberman and Feinstein are a different issue. They are clearly Jewish, they how that Eastern European names that Americans identify as Jewish. I am sure that they have experienced more than their share of anti-semitism, they have probably had similar formative experiences to me. The first time I heard Feistein speak was at my synagogue when I was too young to vote, even then I thought she was hawkish and too conservative in her outlook. Lieberman, like many jews I was uncomfortable with the idea of a Jewish vice-President, I don’t know if America is ready for. Besides his best qualification for higher office was that he obsessed about an extra-marital affair that was really none of our business. I am not proud of them as leaders, because I am not comfortable with their politics.
I am proud to point out that Senators like Feingold, Bernie Sanders, and Barbara Boxer are Jewish or that congressmen Henry Waxman and Barney Frank are Jewish.
It is different for me as a Jew. I certainly felt like a minority growing up, but I do not feel underrepresented in our legislature. I am not eager for the first Jewish President. Besides I can hide being Jewish to some degree if I choose.
Barack Obama cannot hide being Black, anyone who looks at him knows that he has some African heritage. Most can probably tell that that heritage is mixed if they think about it. He was lucky enough not to face the same economic hardships that many African Americans face growing up, but he is not a stranger to them.
Barack was not raised in the inner cities, his ancestors were not slaves in America. He did live in a country where blacks are treated differently and did not and could not hide it. He lived in parts of the country where African Americans are not common, and probably faced additional bigotry because his parents were a mixed couple.
Barack Obama has not made his race a major issue in this campaign, others are trying to do that for him. I think they are doing it to turn him into what they want him to be. Barack Obama is the first national political figure who just happens to be black. Whether he wins this election or not, that will be a good thing.
well, imagine if George Allen, John Kerry, and Madeline Albright all felt suddenly incapable of saying a positive word about Israel for fear it would make them unelectable.
(BTW, another decade of this war on terror with no resolution of the I/P dispute, and we might get there).
That’s the kind of vice that Obama is in.
Perhaps the best cure for it would an Obama presidency.
I don’t think that is the issue. Barack is not “ashamed” of his skin. He regularly invokes Martin Luther King on the stump and is firm on issues like civil rights and has a pretty good rural and urban poverty platform.
Israel is not the primary issue that effects most Jews in America, the issues are not analogous. It would be like any of them being afraid to take a policy on the “War on Channukah” or the “War on Christmas” or significantly the erosion of the first amendment protections that so many Jews in America depend upon to be allowed to practice our religion freely and live safely as citizens.
I didn’t understand how your comment was responsive to what I said.
I am saying that Obama is addressing the issues that both of us seem to think are relevant to the African American community like urban poverty. Perhaps he is not emphasizing them as much as we, or Jessie Jackson would like. He just gave a speech in Iowa about urban issues that discussed race.
Part of the reason he is not talking that much about Urban issues is because the campaigns are centered in states that do not have metropolises or large minority populations. I would not expect to hear that much about those issues from any candidate until after New Hampshire.
It is a sad observation, but I really don’t think that most white Americans believe it is true that “discrimination is systemic and ruinous”. That speaks volumes about how far we have to go on this issue. From where I sit here in this part of Ohio, most local white people will say, simply, “Blacks commit a disproportionately high percentage of crimes around here. So it goes without saying that these observations, if true, are justified by that fact”. You hear this drum beaten day after day after day in every media venue here. Virtually every face you see being chased, arrested, tackled, shot at, shown on video surveillance cameras from robberies and profiled on local Crimestoppers is black. So that narrative is etched solidly in the minds of everyone and flame hardened by the fire of talk radio. That is a huge obstacle to overcome. And until we start to chip away at that type of story at the local levels, it won’t much matter whether Obama is “black enough”. The tap root of racism and bigotry runs a very deep and solid course right through the heartland of this country.
that’s all true.
For me, the issue isn’t well described by asking whether Obama is ‘black enough’ as if that can be easily defined. It’s not his grammar or dialect, it’s not his clothes. It’s not even unique to him.
The real issue is that NO BLACK candidate can ACT black. And when I say that I don’t mean some stupid stereotype. Hang out with Chaka Fattah or Michael Nutter, and they aren’t ‘acting’ black. They ARE black…and they don’t hide it or try to compensate for it. But they would both have to tweak their natural personalities a bit to run for state-wide office…and even more to run for president.
It’s a concession to stereotypes. The closest thing whites have to it is the prejudice against really strong southern accents. A slight southern accent can be charming, even an asset. But a deep Alabama drawl is going to turn a lot of people off. There’s nothing to be done for it but to take some speech lessons and start talking like you’re from Akron.
But it’s the issue of POLICY that concerns me. Obama seems almost forced to NOT talk about issues that are of specific concern to the black community, while Edwards can do it freely (but not without incurring the wrath and cynicism of the Gang of 500).
There is no doubt that there is a deeply systemic problem which makes it difficult for Obama to discuss issues relevant, almost exclusively, to black voters. And this is where the unspoken, wink and a nod racism among white Americans comes into play which has replaced the institutionalized racism of decades past. The knee-jerk obsessive latching on to stereotypes that is so prevalent among white America certainly makes prohibitive any discussion of “real” issues related, even remotely, to race. The water is immediately muddied with the fear based stereotyping.
In the minds of a lot of white Americans this is the last defense against the perceived onslaught of their greatest fear, the dreaded dark-skinned menace. Coming soon to overrun their culture, their economy, their women and send them into the abyss of irrelevance. Many white people will not admit it but they are scared shitless that a black man, even one like Obama who, in some minds, has questionable “black creds”, might actually have a chance of becoming President. So the well established, predominantly white, institutions and all their associated lackeys and pundits, are required to do whatever it take to make sure their unthinkable nightmare does not come to pass. And if they are rquired to enlist the aid of black institutions and black leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, to unwittingly assist in the deconstruction of Obama, then that is what they will do.
I think there is a missed opportunity and an incoherency in this discussion: the fact that Obama IS NOT BLACK: He is a person of mixed racial heritage, as much Black as he is White. HE IS AS WHITE AS HE IS BLACK. Only he gets to express how he chooses to identify himself. If you get into percentages of this or that to categorize people, you are stepping into Johannesburg circa 1980.
As a person mixed ethnic identities (Anglo-Saxon Methodist and Jewish) the single most annoying thing is everyone’s insistence that I MUST fall into one category or another. The fact is I am BOTH. Impossible to get anyone to understand, yet as true as my name.
This makes my attachment to being an “American” even stronger, as that is one category that is indisputable and my belonging to that group provides the ability to be both identities if I so choose, even if no one agrees with me.
I would advise Barak to make this point except I know from personal experience that everyone will still want to box him into one race or another…
Here is the truth about Obama’s “race”:
Yes, his skin is dark and it is likely his experience has been colored (excuse the pun) by this, but that still doesn’t mean he is racially any more black or less white.
If we are talking about race only in the cultural sense, then the discussion is silly because there is no monolithic Black identity in this country.
far be it from me to define what is black and what is not. But I think it is pretty obvious which drinking fountain Obama would be using in the Jim Crow south. And that is about as deep into the definition of blackness that I care to delve.
“And that is about as deep into the definition of blackness that I care to delve. “
my point exactly. So by not responding to questions springing forth from an incomplete paradigm, Barak is ‘doing the right thing’ (again with the punning, sry).
To question his Blackness without a common definition of blackness (which is impossible as there is no monolithic ‘Black’), there can be no right answer or guiding principle. For Obama, it is a minefield if he responds in any way except to speak to the question itself, which will satisfy no one, as people insist on categorizing people of mixed heritage.
If you want to stretch things to a conclusion, I’d say Barak is being “Black” by being suspicious and not falling for questions that will enclose him in a paradigm in which he rightfully does not fit.
Barack Obama right after college went to work organizing in a neighborhood that John Edwards wouldn’t drive through with an armored limo.
But Obama did it, instead of making money like John Edwards.
Obama was there. Edwards is doing it becuase polls tell him too.
This is the most idiotic post in the history of idiocy.
I’ve done community organizing in those same neighborhoods…in North Philly and Tampa/St. Pete.
It has zero bearing on what I can effectively say in a political campaign because they aren’t related in any way.
Boo is definitely down, for a cracker.
But seriously, it should really be OK to discuss this from any perspective. If only so we can get past the ridiculousness of the question at the heart of what is turning out to be a returning issue (reasons for this are a diary in of itself).
Perhaps a fruitful way to talk about this would be to think of how, if un-addressed, this non-issue may come to hurt Barak. And the same for the pitfalls of addressing the issue directly. That’s a bit narrowly political, but I’d hate for this silly discussion to become a jumping off point for more race cards to fall from.
Ultimately, from my observation, Mr. Obama can take care of himself on this one just fine by simply being himself instead of a pigeon holed caricature.
some sorta-meaty bites on race from Mr. O
What does acting Black mean? Using Black English, they is and I be, and so forth. Well, needless to say, Black English, which emerged as a consequence of social isolation, is a recognized and distict language in its own right, perhaps just as jazz is considered a distinct form of musical expression.
Cutting to the chase, American, the land of the free, is just too racist to be able to elect a Black person to the presidency. And that would include biracial individuals like Obama. He is obviously superior to Hillary in all respects as a Democratic candidate. To boot, he is not a Republican in drag as she and Bill are. But he is just unelectable as a consequence of his racial taint. Should I go with him just out of stuborness? Or should I go with the real Democrat in this race, Kusinich?
Or should I just stay home?
you should vote and vote your conscience. Who do you think would be the best President if elected. I think that Obama would be the best for America, and I think he can win if he is our nominee.
Next to Kusinich, who hasn’t any chance of picking up the nomination, certainly I would vote for Obama in the primaries, and would do so in a general election if it should turn out that he beats Hillary out.
But what I stated about racism in the country I still believe. I remember the Tennessee senatorial race this past cycle, where Ford, a light skinned centrist moderate of the DLC kind, was beaten out of a good ol’ boy mayor. I mention his lightness because it too is part of the racism that pervades the north and south. The more white you are the better your chances of success, even though being Black is still a ball and chain.
Someday, when our school systems begin to teach tolerance as a goal of learning, we may see this influence reduced to a trivial factor.
I don’t know if I completely buy this. If a candidate expresses that he identifies more as a black than as an American, of course this big goofy white guy will have second thoughts about voting for him to represent me, because he doesn’t. So that part is true.
But I would have never voted for Lieberman either, because he is WAY too invested in blindly supporting Israel. My heritage is German/Swede/Dane/Scot and if any candidate expressed excessive loyalty (as opposed to pride) in any of those ethnic groups I would probably vote for someone else.
Bill Richardson is Hispanic, and I’m sure he would do things for that culture if elected, but I’ve never gotten the impression that he would put Mexican or Hispanic interests ahead of those of the general population. If a black man is elected, I would expect him to do things to help the black community, but I would want him to be American first, not black first.