[T]hese incidents will only continue until someone of stature in the civil rights community issues a zero-tolerance speech of the sort Obama should have given but failed at. In isolation, each subsequent outburst is explicable; in the aggregate they paint a picture of a deep-seeded racism and hatred that have been encouraged by the absence of any censure—the appeasement that we know so well from the Obama/Wright controversy.
I respond:
I did not read your critique of Obama's race speech because I knew that Obama had lost the war as soon as he conceded the necessity of that speech. He was to be the first 'post-racial' candidate in America's history, a burden uniquely born by blacks in America.
Conservatives all note, tongue in cheek, that candidates like McCain are hardly expected to be 'post-racial' and that in fact everything they might say on race is defacto 'racist' as it comes from white males. And by this logic decide in resignation not to say anything at all pertaining to race. It is a lazy way to success, but it works. Keep quiet lest the crazy people think you're crazy.
So the presumption that "someone of stature in the civil rights community issues a zero-tolerance speech of the sort Obama should have given but failed at" will end the madness is preposterous. Who is there of stature in the civil rights community that is not black? Which is to say what white American has become an objective paragon in these times? Is there perhaps someone at the ACLU? Is there some Republican we know who is automatically associated with civil rights? No. The Civil Rights Establishment is none other than those blacks in politics who gained office, power and influence by harping on the one subject that the rest of America automatically conceded, which is their rights for redress of their racial victimization. America couldn't see fit to vote those people into power under any other circumstances. The Civil Rights Establishment is black for a reason. It is the establishment we all built.
--
Aside from that, I am reminded of Derrick Bell's Rules of Racial Standing, particularly numbers three and four:
THIRD RULE
Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements abot racial condidtions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The usual exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing.FOURTH RULE
When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem "outrageous," the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.
And finally my endgame, which seems implacably distant, and I think that will be CRE 2.0. Perhaps my grandchildren's world. I wrote this back in 1999, or probably much earlier. The title is Black Rage, American Politics and Brutal Police.
Preface:
My thesis, going way back, is that black rage is nothing but rage, but that it has come to be accepted as political currency. it should not be, but that requires that some real democratic politics replace it. if whites cannot enjoin in this real politics which is ultimately more effective than rage, then this democracy is doomed to failure.in other words, black rage should be co-opted by the mainstream in such a way that the causes of that rage are eliminated. this will make america civilized.
Q: Boohab, what does "co-opted by the mainstream" mean? Can you give specific examples of what you'd like to see happen? Has anyone read the essay "Mau-mauing the flak-catchers" by Tom Wolfe? He discusses how the social-reform bureaucracies in the seventies encouraged a really warped system which required that a minority group "organize" and dress and act like militants, and march on the government offices and demand jobs, which would then be dispensed according to how effectively the "militants" scared the sh*t out of the white people in the offices... of course, Tom Wolfe describes it MUCH better than I do, so I encourage you to read HIS essay, and not trust my summary.
A: "co-opted by the mainstream" in this context means that there would be no question that mainstream politics effectively deals with black issues so well that blacks are not better served by radical politics.
for example, if effectively dealing with the issue of police brutality and racial profiling did not require blacks to do anything out of the ordinary, then this could be counted as a success.
i think the benchmark would be something to the effect that the race of a candidate would have no bearing on whether that individual was more or less likely to satisfy the black constituency. furthermore, putting a dupe in with 'the right color skin' would also be unacceptable. the proper candidate should be able to articulate issues and resolve them in such a way that they *serve* the black constituency in direct response to their needs, without *isolating* them. but this is something, across many issues, mainstream politicians have been singularly unable to do. this forces blacks to seek more radical ways and means of achieving their political ends.
does anyone doubt that police forces have become *less* racist over the past 20 years? yet TODAY there is overwhelming evidence that they are still *too* racist. every opportunity mainstream politicians have had to bridge the gap (when they even bother to pay attention) they have failed. from the politics surrounding mark fuhrman to diallo, to gammage, to luima, to tyisha miller to rodney king the result is failure failure failure. we cannot name one white politician in power today who has given blacks any satisfaction on those matters. not even rhetorical satisfaction.
the result is that this gives more credibility to radicals who consistently *address* the issue, even if they have no solutions and no chance of attaining the power to implement any solutions. this is a classic case of whitefolks making themselves whiter than they need to be. in the end, the intransigent status quo remains in force, and blacks must resort to higher and higher pitched volumes to get america to wake up.
it is at this point where mau-mauing becomes more effective than ordinary franchise. but the mau-mauing does not take place in a vaccuum - the underlying tragedy continues. then whites excuse their unwillingness to listen from the tenor of the discussion. blacks excuse their hyperbole from white sangfroid. then somebody gets killed. suddenly whites realize there is some reality to the claim, but they can't figure out what black rhetoric is real - they blame the process. blacks say i told you so, but they can't figure out what white sympathy is real - they blame the process. blue ribbon bandaids are put in place, to keep 'the natives from getting restless', the issue gets incredible press, and then it goes away. the process is still broken.
the responsibility to fix the process lies with the people who *have* the power. why does it have to be considered 'reform' to get cops to stop killing black people? why does a white politician ever have to feel that he's stepping out on a limb to address this fundamental issue of personal safety? it is obvious that blacks and latinos are not receiving equal protection under the law when it comes to policing.
One more note on 'shh, the crazy people will think you're crazy'. How many people actually believe that people with the Holy Ghost are actually speaking in tongues and that is somehow meaningful, comprehensible and in other ways real? That's kinda what this kind of racial dissonance reminds me of.. somebody walking off the street into the midst of the Holy Ghost.
Recent Comments