Note: I received this comment by email from a "white" person I know. Although it's not exactly a question, I think it leads to a very obvious one: Why has no one in any mainstream (or as far as I know "offstream", media ever made this suggestion?:
Dear RaceMan,
Re: IS BARACK OBAMA THE GREAT WHITE HOPE?
I’ve already written to Rev. Wright, that first week, and got a great, warm letter back.
I call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission such as they had in South Africa, in which everybody confessed what they had done, nobody was imprisoned for it, but they found a way to get out of the morass and build a new future. I’ve heard some people speak on this, and it’s still hard over there (you don’t get over a centuries-old situation overnight), but at least people are trying.
We haven’t got to the point of acknowledging what the whole world knows: our guilt and shame in pursuing empire, and thinking we’re so great. Let’s bring all the military bases back home and get about our business while other countries get about theirs.
Not in my lifetime, I’ll bet, but at least we can call for confession.
A "white" Person of Conscience
Dear WPC,
I think a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, U.S.A. is a great idea. I've thought about it ever since Desmond Tutu oversaw the original in South Africa. I'm sure many other AfrAmericans have thought about it too, if not in name, in effect. The idea of our nation finally confronting what Condi Rice, of all people, recently called its Founding Flaw, is always on my mind. But you are the first "white" person I've ever heard address it.
Why?
Is it because "white" people are so mis-educated that they have no clue of the role slavery and the idea of white supremacy played in the colonialization of Euro-America and the founding and eventual economic success of its United States?
Is it because "white" Americans are so morally deficient that they don't see the irreconcilable difference between what America professes itself to be and what it actually is? - And how that difference makes everything we say about human rights and democracy a joke in the eyes of the world?
Is it just hypocrisy, pure and simple?
Or is it fear of inviting the wrath of the greedy, power-hungry 1% of Americans who received the overwhelming majority of the booty from this "original sin" - and whose descendants and/or beneficiaries still control our economy and thus, our government? Does the average "white" American (and the media that supposedly informs them) really know the truth but is scared to death to speak it to White Power?
RM
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Barack Obama, The Great White Hope?
RaceMan,
What do you think of the Democratic primary? Doesn't the fact that Barack Obama has gotten so much support from white Americans prove that the racism you like to rant about is a thing of the past? And if things are not exactly equal, they're a lot better than people like you make them out to be?
Gary
Gary,
You got ol' RaceMan. I have to admit the "white" support for Obama is something I didn't predict. But I don't feel so bad because I don't remember any of the people who get big bucks to know such things seeing this train coming either.
I'm still leary of the numbers, (and after Pennsylvania, it seems the fat lady won't be exercising her vocal chords for a while), but I do think we're seeing something new in American politics. The engine is the hundreds of thousands of energetic, well-educated young NewMericans who grew up in a nation changed for good by the Civil Rights Movement.
But I think we should give George W. Bush more credit than the average "white" American's sudden desire for truth, justice and equality. He could not have done more to set the stage for Obama.
How?
By proving once and for all that being born a wealthy "white" male in the U.S.A. does not make you a natural born leader. He has caused a number of normally complacent, blissfully ignorant Euromericans to rethink the idea that only about 5-10% of our population is qualified to even be considered for the ovoid office.
All of our Presidents from the beginning have been white men. Only a few - Lincoln and Clinton come to mind - have been from less than wealthy families. Half the population - women - couldn't even vote until the early 20s, let alone dream of being President. Add poor or working class "white" men, Afrimericans, Hispanics, and the growing number of "other" U.S. citizens and you have over 90% of our population automatically eliminated from being future "leaders of the free world".
No wonder the gene pool that remains seems to suffer from an incestuous lack of new ideas, energy and understanding (or caring) about the world outside of the D of C.
Only a President so disasterously out of his depth as W could lead so many Caucasions to reject their "all-wealthy-white-men, all-the-time" criteria. But Barack isn't the only potential beneficiary of this new found desire for diversity. Hillary Clinton is doing her best to open up things for wealthy white women.
If either of them is elected President, our nation will have a better chance of making it to the next century. But neither of their elections will in itself make up for over 200 years of government of wealthy white men, by wealthy white men and for (you guessed it) wealthy white men.
BTW: And neither of their elections will change the fact that the vast majority of "un-white" folks in America still live in the long shadow of white supremacy, slavery, peonage and government-sanctioned discrimination.
RM
What do you think of the Democratic primary? Doesn't the fact that Barack Obama has gotten so much support from white Americans prove that the racism you like to rant about is a thing of the past? And if things are not exactly equal, they're a lot better than people like you make them out to be?
Gary
Gary,
You got ol' RaceMan. I have to admit the "white" support for Obama is something I didn't predict. But I don't feel so bad because I don't remember any of the people who get big bucks to know such things seeing this train coming either.
I'm still leary of the numbers, (and after Pennsylvania, it seems the fat lady won't be exercising her vocal chords for a while), but I do think we're seeing something new in American politics. The engine is the hundreds of thousands of energetic, well-educated young NewMericans who grew up in a nation changed for good by the Civil Rights Movement.
But I think we should give George W. Bush more credit than the average "white" American's sudden desire for truth, justice and equality. He could not have done more to set the stage for Obama.
How?
By proving once and for all that being born a wealthy "white" male in the U.S.A. does not make you a natural born leader. He has caused a number of normally complacent, blissfully ignorant Euromericans to rethink the idea that only about 5-10% of our population is qualified to even be considered for the ovoid office.
All of our Presidents from the beginning have been white men. Only a few - Lincoln and Clinton come to mind - have been from less than wealthy families. Half the population - women - couldn't even vote until the early 20s, let alone dream of being President. Add poor or working class "white" men, Afrimericans, Hispanics, and the growing number of "other" U.S. citizens and you have over 90% of our population automatically eliminated from being future "leaders of the free world".
No wonder the gene pool that remains seems to suffer from an incestuous lack of new ideas, energy and understanding (or caring) about the world outside of the D of C.
Only a President so disasterously out of his depth as W could lead so many Caucasions to reject their "all-wealthy-white-men, all-the-time" criteria. But Barack isn't the only potential beneficiary of this new found desire for diversity. Hillary Clinton is doing her best to open up things for wealthy white women.
If either of them is elected President, our nation will have a better chance of making it to the next century. But neither of their elections will in itself make up for over 200 years of government of wealthy white men, by wealthy white men and for (you guessed it) wealthy white men.
BTW: And neither of their elections will change the fact that the vast majority of "un-white" folks in America still live in the long shadow of white supremacy, slavery, peonage and government-sanctioned discrimination.
RM
Thursday, April 17, 2008
White mainstream columnist comes close to truth about race.
Roger Cohen, who just started writing a column for the New York , wrote one that does something almost unheard of in mainstream media - he confronts American racial history pretty honestly. His column titled "Race and American Memory" is a rare instance of a white American national news pundit saying anything close to the truth about our nation's oldest sin. I've added it to my links section. Check it out.
RM
BTW: I checked out his bio and found out, surprise, surprise, he wasn't born in the U.S.A.
RM
BTW: I checked out his bio and found out, surprise, surprise, he wasn't born in the U.S.A.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Isn't talking about racism racist?
Hey RaceMan,
Negroes like you always want to talk about racism.
Don't you think racism would go away if folks like you didn't bring it up all the time?
See No Racism
BTW: And why do you call yourself RaceMan? Isn't that racist?
Dear See No,
No. and No.
I could easily leave it at that. But, because of the mass misinformation in the mass media, there are lots of people who think your questions are good ones. So, at the risk of saying what's obvious to a few, I'll say it.
1. No, because before there was even a word for it, there was racism. In fact, I just found out a few years ago that the word "racism" itself is fairly new, at least to the English language (which is what we Americans say we speak). According to my sources the word racism was not used at all to describe what the U.S.A. had done to American Indians and African-Americans. Euro-Americans didn't talk about it, they just did it.
From what I've learned, the first usage of the word "racism" was to describe what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in the 1930s, not what white supremacy did to "colored" folks for at least 300 years before that.
So, it's not a chicken or egg phenomenon. The big white-supremacist, hateful, murdering, racist chicken laid the little righteously-bitter black egg.
2. I call myself RaceMan because I fight for the only race that actually exists - the human one. In spite of American media's attempt to hide racism (and its centuries of complicity in it) behind an unspoken "gag order", honest, reasoned, even heated discussion of race and racism is not the same as racism itself. That's why, even though his style is provocative, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher was right in his condemnation of American racism, no matter how much media bloviators try to equate his righteously-bitter words with racism itself.
RM
Negroes like you always want to talk about racism.
Don't you think racism would go away if folks like you didn't bring it up all the time?
See No Racism
BTW: And why do you call yourself RaceMan? Isn't that racist?
Dear See No,
No. and No.
I could easily leave it at that. But, because of the mass misinformation in the mass media, there are lots of people who think your questions are good ones. So, at the risk of saying what's obvious to a few, I'll say it.
1. No, because before there was even a word for it, there was racism. In fact, I just found out a few years ago that the word "racism" itself is fairly new, at least to the English language (which is what we Americans say we speak). According to my sources the word racism was not used at all to describe what the U.S.A. had done to American Indians and African-Americans. Euro-Americans didn't talk about it, they just did it.
From what I've learned, the first usage of the word "racism" was to describe what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in the 1930s, not what white supremacy did to "colored" folks for at least 300 years before that.
So, it's not a chicken or egg phenomenon. The big white-supremacist, hateful, murdering, racist chicken laid the little righteously-bitter black egg.
2. I call myself RaceMan because I fight for the only race that actually exists - the human one. In spite of American media's attempt to hide racism (and its centuries of complicity in it) behind an unspoken "gag order", honest, reasoned, even heated discussion of race and racism is not the same as racism itself. That's why, even though his style is provocative, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher was right in his condemnation of American racism, no matter how much media bloviators try to equate his righteously-bitter words with racism itself.
RM
Friday, April 04, 2008
WHY CAN'T WE ALL TALK ABOUT RACE?
Yo RaceMan,
I'm a fairly well-educated, well-paid African-American man who hangs out with a pretty multi-colored crew. But, whenever the topic of race or racism comes up, I notice that all my white friends get very quiet. Then if somebody presses them to say something, they get real nervous or defensive. What's that about?
Rodney
Hey Rod,
Some witty wag once said, "Whitefolks don't like to talk to blackfolks about race for the same reason chicken hawks don't like to talk to chickens about dinner".
(OK,OK, in the interest of full disclosure, I said it. But I thought it was a good line.)
Of course, I'm generalizing. There are "white" people who do talk about race...and talk very honestly. But you won't see them on any of the news shows (commercial or pbs). They have been effectively eliminated from public view by the people who own and run the networks - and who (if you haven't noticed) have an amazing resemblance to chicken hawks.
RM
I'm a fairly well-educated, well-paid African-American man who hangs out with a pretty multi-colored crew. But, whenever the topic of race or racism comes up, I notice that all my white friends get very quiet. Then if somebody presses them to say something, they get real nervous or defensive. What's that about?
Rodney
Hey Rod,
Some witty wag once said, "Whitefolks don't like to talk to blackfolks about race for the same reason chicken hawks don't like to talk to chickens about dinner".
(OK,OK, in the interest of full disclosure, I said it. But I thought it was a good line.)
Of course, I'm generalizing. There are "white" people who do talk about race...and talk very honestly. But you won't see them on any of the news shows (commercial or pbs). They have been effectively eliminated from public view by the people who own and run the networks - and who (if you haven't noticed) have an amazing resemblance to chicken hawks.
RM
Thursday, April 03, 2008
WAS WRIGHT RIGHT?
Hey RaceMan, Where have you been?
With all this Presidential race talk going around, we need you now more than ever.
So what do you think about the Rev. Wright and Barack controversy?
Concerned in Chicago
Dear Concerned,
I've been busy working on my art career. Remind me to tell you about it later.
Anyhow, I'm glad you asked about the Rev. Wright issue because I wrote a piece about it a few weeks ago. But it's way too long to be posted here. So I'll post the beginning. The full article is about 4 times longer. If you'd like to see it, email me at lowellt@hotmail.com. OK?
RM
It’s been a few weeks now since Barack Obama gave what many call his most important speech.
Instead of jumping in with my two-cents, I decided to do something unheard of in our blabbing-blogger times. I read and listened to others, along with Obama’s speech, before I said a mumblin’ word.
But now that I’ve thought about it, I’d give Barack a gentleman’s B. Although I barely made it out of Wendell Phillips High myself, at Street U. we grade harder than Harvard
Obama’s speech reminded me of what I said about the would-be husband-in-chief of his competitor. Like Bill, Barack showed all the qualities of an exceptional politician. But fell short of a great leader.
Why?
First, he called race an issue “we can’t afford to ignore right now” but ignored it until it bit him in the butt. Great leaders confront important issues because they’re important, not because they’re all over YouTube and MySpace.
Did he really think that if he spoke eloquently enough, no one would notice his coffee complexion and kinky hair? Half-black is still too black for many. Did he really believe R-A-C-E, America’s most feared four-letter word, would not be an issue? Anticipating problems before they become crises is another gift of great leaders. Liberal commentators praised the “fact” Obama wrote his speech himself in a few days. A real leader would have been working on the speech before he announced his candidacy.
Second, instead of using his nationwide (even worldwide) spotlight to face the real issue, he did a softshoe - admittedly more deftly than George Bush’s latest attempt - around it.
The issue he avoided?
Do Black Americans have a legitimate grievance with the way they have historically been - and are currently being - treated? Was Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr’s words those of an unreasonable, unprovoked hate monger or the understandable righteous anger of a shepherd of America’s most consistently abused flock?
(Continued)
With all this Presidential race talk going around, we need you now more than ever.
So what do you think about the Rev. Wright and Barack controversy?
Concerned in Chicago
Dear Concerned,
I've been busy working on my art career. Remind me to tell you about it later.
Anyhow, I'm glad you asked about the Rev. Wright issue because I wrote a piece about it a few weeks ago. But it's way too long to be posted here. So I'll post the beginning. The full article is about 4 times longer. If you'd like to see it, email me at lowellt@hotmail.com. OK?
RM
It’s been a few weeks now since Barack Obama gave what many call his most important speech.
Instead of jumping in with my two-cents, I decided to do something unheard of in our blabbing-blogger times. I read and listened to others, along with Obama’s speech, before I said a mumblin’ word.
But now that I’ve thought about it, I’d give Barack a gentleman’s B. Although I barely made it out of Wendell Phillips High myself, at Street U. we grade harder than Harvard
Obama’s speech reminded me of what I said about the would-be husband-in-chief of his competitor. Like Bill, Barack showed all the qualities of an exceptional politician. But fell short of a great leader.
Why?
First, he called race an issue “we can’t afford to ignore right now” but ignored it until it bit him in the butt. Great leaders confront important issues because they’re important, not because they’re all over YouTube and MySpace.
Did he really think that if he spoke eloquently enough, no one would notice his coffee complexion and kinky hair? Half-black is still too black for many. Did he really believe R-A-C-E, America’s most feared four-letter word, would not be an issue? Anticipating problems before they become crises is another gift of great leaders. Liberal commentators praised the “fact” Obama wrote his speech himself in a few days. A real leader would have been working on the speech before he announced his candidacy.
Second, instead of using his nationwide (even worldwide) spotlight to face the real issue, he did a softshoe - admittedly more deftly than George Bush’s latest attempt - around it.
The issue he avoided?
Do Black Americans have a legitimate grievance with the way they have historically been - and are currently being - treated? Was Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr’s words those of an unreasonable, unprovoked hate monger or the understandable righteous anger of a shepherd of America’s most consistently abused flock?
(Continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
