At some point I might do the same kind of analysis of such a personal open letter about John Edwards or Rudy Giuliani. I haven't, but then nobody has taken the trouble to mail me such a letter from a black man or woman. They have done so with this, the BL Jackson Letter over the Kwaku Network. The original letter is indented and in italics, my response outdented and straight up. So here we go:
As I and my husband sat watching The State of Black America 2007, presented by Tavis Smiley, we were awe struck, motivated, inspired, filled with pride and edified by the broad ranging views of the impressive collection of black intelligencia represented on the stage. Following each of the richly-crafted commentary from rapper Chuck D to astronaut and engineer Mae Jemison to Professor Cornel West to poet Sonya Sanchez to one of my innovative classmates Omar Wasow (just to name a few), I ooohhed and ahhhed out loud as each broke it down, laid it out and spoke truth to power.
I watched some highlights of the conference as pointed out by P6, and commented here. I've personally met Mae Jemison as well as a large number of the professionals who have been on the black political circuit for many years including Sanchez and West, and so I am familiar with their books and positions for the most part. As part of the junior league of that cadre as a college man, I feel qualified to comment on them.
But then it happened . . . my enthusiasm came to a screeching halt! Here we go again . . . that same gratuitous question mainstream media outlets across America seem to be commissioning ambitious black folk to answer and justify: Is our brother, Barack Obama, down enough with the cause to deserve our support?
I just knew this panel of amazing minds and deep souls would once and for all stop the madness and give a resounding, "we're not falling for another Rove-ian mindtrick to sidetrack us from the substantive issues at hand to debate your historical lies and give credibility to your ignorance." I just knew this conscientious crew would cite to Obama's academic excellence and obvious intelligence, his outstanding achievements, his proven commitment to our community through his life's work, his impressive legislative record, his coalition-building skills and political experience. But instead, Malcolm's proverbial crabs started grabbing, pulling, pinching and reaching for dear brother Barack's neck. I was mortified.
It is exactly because Obama is not a part of this cadre of 'speakers to power' that his political aims are made suspect by this group. A Marxist like Sonia Sanchez couldn't get elected dogcatcher in any town in America. That is why she has converted her political speechifying to verse. None of the sorts of intelligencia assembled do anything like coalition building or legislation. They are purists of a sort who have nothing to do with the business of governance. Of course they distrust him. He works for the System. He represents the powers that be.
Seeming to come to his aid, one of my longtime heroes, Professor Olgetree, pointed out that Barack, Michelle Obama and others of his students had not only been impressive students at Harvard, but had dedicated their lives and careers to public service. But, (damn it), he added, he can't take our vote for granted.
Then, Brother Cornel (whose audio version of Race Matters I listened to so many times I almost committed chapters to memory) chimed in, not to save Brother Barack, but to highlight his absence from the State of Black America panel to be (how dare he) at some other event to boost his Presidential candidacy when he knew about Tavis' event more than a year ago. While Professor West did mention that his questions about the depths of one's love for the people were relevant for all candidates everywhere, they, unfortunately, were explicitly asked only of Obama.
Finally, our fearless leader and host, Tavis, who, by his own admission, knew Barack before he was "Barack Obama" sealed the tomb. He assured the audience that, the night before, he got a call from an apologetic Barack who was unable to attend, but "really wanted to be here." As if completely cued in by the tone in Brother Tavis' statement, the audience gave a loud and unambiguously sarcastic "Aaawwww." Adding salt to the wound, dear friend Tavis responded, "well, that's what he told me" in that familiar I-know-he-sounds-like -he's-full-of-it-but-I'm-going-to-pretend-to-be-his -brother-anyway delivery.
Now, I don't point out the dynamics of this dialogue to take away from the amazing legacies of Brothers Ogletree, West or Smiley. They've all made important and lasting contributions to our community and will likely continue to do so, but I do question why they, and we as a community, tend to be so uncharitable toward our own, but inexplicably benevolent to others.
Understand the politics at work here. West is a socialist. Ogletree wants Reparations. Smiley is the organizing force of the day and has come up through the Left and NPR. That's not black America and it is not the black American intelligencia. It's just the group of folks who do what they do. Understand further that these folks, while influential on opinion, are not leaders. Their greatest power lies in their ability to praise or diss. They can't hire or fire. All they can do is read what somebody else says and write reviews. Same as you and me. Their power only comes from the willingness of their audience to let them do the thinking. So if that were your job, how would you feel if some Obama comes out of nowhere and captivates America?
For example, how does a white man who signed the deeply disparate crack-cocaine bill into law, introduced a devastating crime bill that further entrenched the prison industrial complex at the expense of black communities and black political power everywhere, oversaw the murder of more people on death row during his presidency than any president in the history of our country, completely dissed and dismissed our sister Lani Guinier, who would have been an amazing Attorney General for our country and for our community, purely for the sake of political expediency, get to be donned the "First Black President"?
Is our loyalty so easily spawned because one acts like a "pimp," plays the saxophone and visits a few pulpits? I am absolutely amazed at the absence of critical black analysis about Clinton's performance in office while Brother Barack has to be hyper-analyzed, criticized and have his thumbnails extricated for DNA samples before we'll believe he's one of "us." There is no other candidate in this or any other Presidential race (save Shirley Chisholm who, in her day, was hung out to dry by the Black Caucus) who has had to work so hard despite an extraordinary track record to show us that he or she is about the business of making the country better for black people and thereby making the country better for all people.
I'll only suggest that you have unfortunately been listening to the wrong pundits. The whole 'black president' thing started not so much on the Arsenio Hall Show as when people started hating him for Gennifer Flowers & Whitewater. When Clinton became a victim, people who identify with the persecuted brought him into their bosoms. That whole feeling pain appeals to lots of blackfolks, and some consider it the basis of their politics. That's them. There's a simple test here. If you as an African American believe that Republicans are generally evil then it's a very small political step for you to believe in a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I think that's what made Bill Clinton 'the first black president', because those Americans who like to believe conservatives are out to get them have every sympathy.
I would add that now you really have to think about who Hillary Clinton is and where she's been. If you think Bush is bad to trust Karl Rove and that Rove is decietful, at least they're not married.
Al Sharpton, you are absolutely right that everyone who looks like "us" is not one of "us" - at least to the extent that you mean not all black people work for what's in the collective best interest of black people (that is, if such a collective interest still exists - which is another discussion altogether) - but when did you become the blackometer? And, why raise a question of loyalty when you have no substantive evidence of disloyalty? Just to hear yourself talk? Because he's getting more press than you? I'm not suggesting for a minute that Obama and every political candidate not be he ld accountable for their voting records, their political past, or even their personal judgment, but to question Obama's blackness simply because he is black is the ultimate irony and a dumb distraction, for which Republicans and racists everywhere are cheering us on. And, to question Obama's loyalty simply because he didn't make an appearance at this week's forum hosted by the black gatekeeper flavor of the month is sheer idiocy.
I think a more relevant question is what do the black commentators who make the television and radio appearances to raise and answer the question of Barack's blackness have to gain? It certainly provides them with more face time before the American public and cushions their backsides with a blacker-than-thou throne (even if only in their own minds). I think a more relevant question to our so-called black leaders and academicians is what (other than a supersized ego or potential profits) gets in the way of their unequivocal support of the only person in the race who has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to implementing policies that best serve black people?
The whole idea of blackness is undergoing change, and has been for a long time. If you cannot see yourself as anything but black, then you are actually stuck in the confines of an intellectual invention whose political component is stuck in second gear. Of course that serves the interests of the likes of those at Smiley's Summit, which is just another conference in the thousands of conferences that happen every year in America. How did Sharpton become influential? You should ask the same question of anyone who can throw a conference and say they represent black America.
What anyone has to gain is the attention of blackfolks who otherwise don't pay attention. I don't know a better simple way to explain it than this. Some people pay attention to football at the highschool, collegiate and pro level year-round for decades. Most people pay attention only during the Super Bowl. When it's Super Bowl time, advertisers pay the big bucks to associate themselves with the winners. The same thing goes for politics. Most people only pay attention to the Senator from Illinois when he happens to be in the Presidential race. I would wager that 85% of the people who support Obama have no idea who he beat in the senate race or who sat in his seat before. They're just TV fans at the Super Bowl picking a favorite.
What does any commentator have to gain? Influence in the off-season among the newbies. Most sports commentators can't tell a real sports fan jack.
To be sure, there may be valid critiques of Obama, but his absence from a forum, his failure to be stereotypically "black" or the fact that he is black are not valid or even useful critiques. So, forgive me for being just a bit skeptical of those black politicians (who reside in key states - e.g., Brother Al and South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford) whose primary critiques are that Barack just may not be black enough or, even better, that America's just not ready for a black President, so they can gain the political spoils and spot light press of selling out a brother early and often. If I had the technological savvy, I would jump off this page with all the passion, hope, rage and volume of Spike Lee's Dap and tell you, brothers and sisters everywhere, please please please WAKE UP!!!!!!!!
"Wake up?" That's like saying, just 'Get a job', or 'Lose Weight', or 'Go to college'. People don't 'Just do it'. They work at it for years. If you expect blackfolks or anyone to just get politically sophisticated, you're dreaming.
The best thing Barack can do for us is to win, not show up at yet another black forum simply to prove he's one of us by placating the egos who believe Barack should clear his calendar for their "ultimate black" event! There are plenty of other candidates (and so-called leaders) who warrant our scrutiny and skepticism - not to mention a host of misogynistic lyricists, child molesting musicians, and other unaccountable black-community-made millionaires. Barack, however, has proven with his excellence, his achievements, his commitments, and his life's work that he warrants our support.
Now here's where I'm going to challenge you. I want you to keep in mind that there are black presidents in the Fortune 500. You may or may not be aware that the leaders of the following companies are black men. Sears, American Express, Time Warner, Symantec. OK. Sears is still Sears. Time Warner is still Time Warner. If and when America gets a black President, America will still be America.
Consider the precedent. Do you think Colin Powell changed the Army? That the black mayor of your town changed your town? That Oprah changed television? That Michael Jordan changed basketball?
Rather than using his credentials and connections to build his personal wealth, Obama chose to pursue careers like providing job training for residents of poor neighborhoods, directing voter registration drives and fighting for civil rights. Unlike other candidates in the race, Obama has been consistent in speaking against sending our black babies to murder, and to be murdered by, brown people in the Mesopotamia for the sake of multinational corporate interests. He has successfully forged coalitions with people across racial and political lines to introduce a host of legislation that would, among other things, get guns off our streets, reduce greenhouse emissions, and limit the influence of special interest lobbyist on Capital Hill.
Now, what part of America is structured to hinder multinational corporate interests? What lever in the White House does the President pull to make poor people go to school? (Unless you know some kind of job training the just seeps into your brain and makes you suddenly worth more money on the job). Since when did the President of the US call the soldiers that defend the nation 'babies'. Since when did a Harvard educated lawyer not know the difference between war and murder? And since when did all of these special interests you claim, somehow not add up to 'special interests' lobbying on Capitol Hill?
This is all wishful thinking, and someday you may come to realize that. Perhaps on the day Obama loses, if this is not merely a projection of wishful thinking on Obama and not his actual agenda.
As for whether Barack's black enough, let us not forget that race exists in America not in our biology, genetic code or even our phenotype, but rather by the institutionalization of the economic and social construct of chattel slavery and its vicious offshoots. Under that regime, "a dab'll do ya." Whiteness equates to economic and social privilege and that privilege fades as it traverses the racial spectrum.
Anyone who has any black ancestry living in this country, whether for a day or for generations, will experience the vestiges of slavery and the consequences of white privilege, making the question of whether one is descended from enslaved Africans or colonized and oppressed Africans irrelevant. It is not simply the experience of that oppression, however, that demonstrates loyalty to our community and that deserves our community's loyalty, but rather recognition of the injustice of it and actions taken to dismantle it. Clearly, Obama has met this test!
That's almost a coherent definition of blackness. Unfortunately, it's only politically coherent. There may be a legion of people who define themselves as black in that way, but that sounds to my ears, EXACTLY like the same sort of people who are still fighting against a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. People who can believe one lie that's big enough will have no problem being suckered around a host of smaller deceptions. That's them.
By the way, haven't you heard of ending the monolithic definition of 'the black community'? It's a good idea. Individualism. If you can't trust individualism, then it must make sense that Obama would have a 'natural' built-in constituency. After all, that's the Test that you have determined Barack Obama to have passed.
Let the record of each candidate speak for itself. But, for the sake of our ancestors and, more importantly, our descendants, do not inadvertently become a pawn of white privilege by demanding that Obama's record be scrutinized more closely and meet a higher standard than his white counterparts simply because some narcissistic crab in a barrel didn't find himself at the top.
You put him in the barrel, Jackson. He cannot ever escape his ancestry. And so long as you are deciding what that ancestry is supposed to mean with regard to black slavery and white privilege anchored in a hundred years of history, then there is no escape from the crabs, black or white. Racial scrutiny is destiny for those who are committed do certain things for the sake of their ancestors. You will stew in that barrel until you shed your skin.
--
I don't really believe that this is everything Obama wants to be or represent. If he wants to be the carrier of black dreams, he's in the wrong business and needs to get in line behind Maya Angelou. But this is a significant part of the constituency whose votes he needs to bind up in order to win. In that regard, Obama is a proxy in a war between Americans who hate each others guts and don't have the nerve to resolve their own differences. Peasants!
Recent Comments