Contact
Subscribe


Luke 15:21

Jul 10, 2008
By Patrick.
Humor, Politics & Current Events

Give the photographer a Pulitzer for capturing this image without resort to Photoshop:

I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career,” wrote Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), an Obama campaign co-chairman, in a statement sent out after word began spreading that his father had said something crude and deeply offensive….

The exact words have yet to be aired, but Rev. Jackson was near a microphone that he assumed was off when he disparaged Obama’s tendency to tell African American audiences, especially black men, they needed to turn off their children’s television sets, attend to their homework and keep their families together.

Apparently Jackson’s remark was one that, had the statement been broadcast, would have prompted parents to turn off their children’s television sets for an entirely different reason than the ones Obama suggests.

What prompted the elder Jackson’s ire, and the ire of the son against the father, is the sort of message that when delivered by a culturally insignificant outlier like Bill Cosby, prompts outcry against the messenger from some though by no means all segments of the old guard of black political leaders. Among those who aren’t black, the same statement would prompt “yes , but…” handwringing among some who are upset when others mention it.

The agreement negation and handwringing boils down to “yes, all of that is true, but you shouldn’t mention it: because you’re not black; you don’t understand what it’s like; neither do I; I don’t trust your motives; and all of this should be allowed to play out in the black media rather than in general media, because it’s demeaning.” Or something like that.

The “yes, but” is inevitably followed by the “no, because”. “No, that’s not true, because I do understand; my Italian / Irish / Japanese forefathers came here with nothing yet behaved like men; I condemn non-black men who behave like bums; because this black man, who came from nothing, is saying it himself; and because until this group of black fathers accept their responsibilities things will never get better.” Etc.

Neither the “yes, but” nor the “no, because” is fully ingenuous. Many of the “yes, but” crowd, admit it or not, do hold to what another politician called the soft bigotry of low expectations, while the “no, because” group rarely if ever singles out Irish or Italian or Japanese American bums because said bums are of Irish or Italian or Japanese ancestry, yet some do it depressingly often when the bums are black.

(Perhaps you’ll see this process play out in our comments section.)

But Barack Obama is no longer a culturally insignificant outlier and the days when anything he said wasn’t fodder for the general media are long gone. The odds are very good that he’ll have his arugula-stained fingers on the button within months. At some point he will he no longer be a symbol, a token, or a fetish, for Jackson, for white progressives, for white conservatives, or for anyone else.

If he wins, the actualization of Barack Obama will be a fascinating thing to watch.

Links via Tim Blair and Astonied from the Popehat forum.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

8 Comments
Tags

8 Comments

  1. Grandy  •  Jul 10, 2008 @9:41 am

    Maybe possibly

  2. Ken  •  Jul 10, 2008 @10:01 am

    There’s definitely some race-adds-credibility thinking going on when people react to Cosbyesque speeches. (I remember, for example, the outpouring of white joy when a certain well-liked African-American actor suggested that Black History Month was a questionable idea.) Yet the same people who would say “we ought to accept what X has to say, or at least give it more credibility, because he’s talking about his own ethnic group” would generally not accept that proposition if we applied it elsewhere. Whites nodding furiously along to Cosby are not going to concede that Chomsky or Moore must be right about white America because they are white.

  3. Patrick  •  Jul 10, 2008 @10:13 am

    Of course. Jeremiah Wright is proof enough of that from the opposite end of things, and yet Chomsky and Moore aren’t called sellouts or told they’re “not white enough” by their critics either.

  4. Ezra  •  Jul 10, 2008 @10:16 am

    Well, Chomsky does get the self hating Jew tag a lot.

  5. Grandy  •  Jul 10, 2008 @10:28 am

    Chomsky and Moore are criticized for other (valid, I think) reasons (and sometimes criticized for unvalid reasons, I should add, but not really racial ones that I am aware of. E.g. people making fun of Moore’s weight is stupid, except with Team America did it, when it was cruelly but hysterically funny, and as a result of Moore trying to claim Parker and Stone had endorsed something of Moore’s, when they had done no such thing).

    Cosby should not have been subject to take that kind of flak for saying what he says just because he’s black. Or, that kind of flak should have been ridiculed by more people than, say, Patrick. Also, Cosby shouldn’t be subject to this because he’s Cliff f****** Huxtable, but never mind that (I know what you are thinking, Ken, but Leonard 6 doesn’t cancel that out). Sure, if you want to argue the position, have at it. I just like to think we can do that sort of thing without calling him an Uncle Tom.

    I’m certainly interested to hear what it was that Jackson the Elder said, though I suppose I can guess. I’m not sure I see reasonable room criticize Obama’s position. Except that white folk could probably use a good dose of that advice too (but then presume this was addressed in a context where he was talking about black people so, ok, no biggie). I don’t think Obama was making some sort of “all families must be of the nucular variety” argument here. That would seem out of character at least.

  6. Grandy  •  Jul 10, 2008 @10:28 am

    Didn’t think about that for Chomsky, so there’s the equivalent to 99.9% of Moore fat jokes.

  7. Dave B  •  Jul 10, 2008 @1:21 pm

    Well, as an *intelligent* and well rounded individual, I have to say, with loathing, that I see points on BOTH sides of ‘the fence’ in these situations…

    To use a basic scientific principle, something is either true or false, clear or obscured. When you hear basic truth you must acknowledge it without regard for the source. When you hear so-called ‘half truths’, you should NOT look for the nugget of truth within it but reject the statement in its entirety and castigate the purveyor, who is serving only their OWN personal agenda by trying to confuse you (can you say ‘Chewbacca defense?’)

    All that was big words for this :Black or white, rich or poor, what the man (Obama) said was true, you KNOW its true, and all your arguments against it are nothing but peeing in the wind to try and sooth your wounded egos.

    I give NO credence to the rantings of fools like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, or even Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. They have ulterior motives. They do *NOT* want the best for all of us, they want the best for their private agenda.

  8. Patrick  •  Jul 10, 2008 @1:34 pm

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>