Rev. Jeremiah Wright & Sen. Barack Obama: The Failure of “Colorblindness” and the Ignored Reality of White Social Power in the US

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright has my admiration and respect. Unfortunately, citizens had to witness the media gauntlet formed in the last week of April 2008 and its fallout.

What the media circus showed is that the United States is still mired in race yet does not want anyone to point out that fact or the United States’ failed foreign policy adventures. Moreover, Senator Barack Obama unjustly condemned Rev. Wright’s statements as “not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate.”

The Black Agenda Report’s Executive Editor Glen Ford has written an excellent column analyzing the collapse of Sen. Obama’s color neutral world view.

The world views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama were incompatible from the start, just as the mythical American Manifest Destiny world view is directly at odds with the facts as perceived by Blacks in the United States. Wright finally forced Obama to choose sides in the conflict of racial/historical visions, and in doing so, performed a service on behalf of clarity. Obama lashed out in a startlingly personal manner, calling Wright a “caricature” of himself and linking the minister to forces that give “comfort to those who prey on hate.” Rev. Wright exposed the flimsy tissues of so-called “race neutrality” in a nation founded on racial oppression.

This whole event between Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama leaves unanswered the question of what happens to current issues of concern of the Black community (which Sen. Obama essentially downplays as relics of older Black people in his heralded speech on race). I assert that the issues Rev. Wright speaks about, still are relevant (and essentially unaddressed) today.

Some of these issues I have attempted to address on this blog in tracking Ward Connerly’s ballot initiative in four states (click on the affirmative action tag in the right column for my previous posts on this subject).

One is the facile (and untrue) implication that Blacks and Whites have equal social power in the United States. Sen. Obama alludes to this view in his speech on race.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

The fact is that the White population has the sole social power in the United States. First, the travails of White Americans were not caused by Black people but rather the economic policy of the United States, which happens to be dominated by White people. In addition, Black people have similar problems on top of institutional anti-Black discrimination.

Second, Sen. Obama fails to acknowledge that Whites have a much bigger population size than Blacks in the United States. The White side alone (75.1 % of the United States population) controls governmental power. The 2000 Census makes this clear.

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

Thus, it is not fair simply to compare the groups strictly as equals, as Sen. Obama did in his April 2008 speech.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Media Incorrectly Asserts that Pastor is a Political Figure; He Had to Speak to Correct Calumnies

It is error to view Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright through a political lens. Rev. Wright is not running for nor holds a political office. Yet this is how the media generally is treating Rev. Wright.

Various media outlets (here, here, and here) have criticized Rev. Wright for continuing to speak at various events (speech to NAACP in Detroit, National Press Club speech). The underlying view is that his speeches act to undermine Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. [See my post providing the full context of Rev. Wright's past sermons here.]

[Observation: One must wonder, if Sen. Obama has the majority of the pledged delegates, why are a large number of superdelegates still undecided?]

This analysis is irrelevant as Rev. Wright has never sought political office. Indeed his sermons were brought into the campaign.

But as Sen. Obama characterized Rev. Wright as a “crazy uncle” and an embittered older person, Rev. Wright had to respond to those derogatory remarks. His speeches and interview with Bill Moyers demonstrate that Rev. Wright is a man of great learning, caring and humanity as a pastor should be. Moreover, it is only proper for Rev. Wright to identify and criticize the social injustices that exist in the United States.

I think he has made it clear that his words cannot be attributed to Sen. Obama. Regardless, it should be noted that a church member, who is also a politician, can never dictate the content of righteous ministry.

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Oklahoma): Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative Group Withdraws Initiative Proposal

The Tulsa World reported that the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative (OkCRI) decided to withdraw its anti-affirmative action initiative proposal. Voters who oppose OkCRI’s initiative proposal filed a challenge in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The reason for the withdrawal: OkCRI determined that it had not collected enough signatures to get on the November ballot.

‘Based o[n] the number of signatures delivered to the Secretary of State, the validity rate for the signatures would need to be in excess of 90 percent, which is a statistical impossibility given historical validity rates and the limited time to verify the signatures,” the motion says.

The backers “do not want to waste this Court’s efforts nor taxpayer money on pursuing State Question 737 when (the backers) are reasonably certain that it will fail to garner the requisite number of signatures.’

OkCRI’s parent organization, the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) has proposed a similiar initiative proposal in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska and Missouri (place the state name in the search box in the left column for my other posts on this issue).

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Colorado): Group Submits Signatures to Colorado Sec’y of State

According to the Rocky Mountain News, Ward Connerly, the leader of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), announced that his group had gathered enough signatures to get on Colorado’s ballot.

[Ward] Connerly was in Denver to announce the submission of 128,744 signatures on petitions to place the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative on the November ballot. The group needed to collect 76,047 valid signatures, which must be verified by the Secretary of State’s Office.

 

Connerly was joined at the Capitol news conference by former state Sen. Ed Jones, a Republican from El Paso County, Valary Pech Orr, who is a supporter of the initiative, and state Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs.

Connerly mentions that he does not believe that racism is ended even though he supports the ballot initiative essentially to end affirmative action in Colorado.

And Connerly said that even though he supports the measure, he doesn’t believe racism has been eliminated from society and that it goes beyond whites and blacks.

 

“Nobody has a franchise on discrimination,” he said.

I believe Connerly’s statement understates the negative effects of his ballot initiatives. Clearly the recent discussion of Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons and Senator Barack Obama’s speech outlining the still salient issue of discrimination contradicts Connerly’s statements.

I disagree with Connerly. I have written a previous post critiquing Connerly’s methods in defending the unacceptable status quo.

Related note:

ACRI’s ballot initiative (#31 in Colorado) is now at Step 10 in Colorado’s initiative process. The next step is the verification of signatures.

ACRI Ballot Initiative: Direct Democracy Fails When Citizens Feel They Are Ignored By Initiative Process

Professor Marci Hamilton wrote on FindLaw, about her observations of the discontent that members of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights And Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) had for Ward Connerly and his ballot initiatives against affirmative action (click on the ward connerly category in the right column for my previous posts on this subject).

Among Professor Hamilton’s comments, she observed that the fact that affirmative action was forced on the population not in the social majority, the ballot initiative process worsened tensions rather than decreased them.

This was the best example I have witnessed to date of the infirmities of direct democracy. The controversy over affirmative action is obviously a social problem that is hyper-charged with emotion and that plays into deeply-held beliefs and values, and the lawmaking process that ended over one and a half years ago had not succeeded in resolving public tensions. To the contrary, it had only reinforced those disagreements and resentments. The result was a frustrated group of citizens — calling itself By Any Means Necessary in no small part because its members felt disenfranchised by the routine means by which the process operated.

I agree with Professor Hamilton. The ballot initiative process cannot work for social policies like affirmative action where the people outside the social majority do not have the power to prevent the passage of an initiative which is not in the social minority’s interest. I wrote the following in a previous post.

In general, ballot initiatives should be limited to non-controversial items with broad general applicability, for example, approving library bonds, and similar items. Issues that potentially deprive vulnerable citizens of human rights must go to the state legislature.

 

The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) initiative campaign in several states is unfair to people who are not members of the dominant social group (see my related posts here). The actions sought in ACRI’s ballot initiative has a profound negative impact on a vulnerable portion of the total population.

The Futility of “Colorblindness,” Part 3

Colorblindness cannot exist where societal power is concentrated with those belonging to one race. In the United States, societal power rests with the majority population, Whites.

I have written posts on this subject before (search on the term “colorblindness” in the search box in the left column).

It is a continuing issue in the United States because of the desire not to deal with racial discrimination issues anymore. But simply turning away from the problem only prevents its solution. People in the United States must recognize and admit the reality of race (really, racial hierarchy) in the society of the United States.

Merely considering Senator Barack Obama to be a potential Democratic nominee for President is not enough. The potential placement of a Black person to operate the federal system (which primarily benefits and reflects the interests of the White majority) means that Mr. Obama (should he be nominated and elected as President) will lack the ability to alleviate the suffering Black people experience with structural discrimination.

A Cavalier Daily columnist struggles with the issue of “colorblindness” in a column titled, “After Race: Racial Labels Overshadow Our Commonalities.” The columnist recognizes the reality of racial discrimination, which has now become subtle and systemic, yet yearns for a “colorblind” society.

The columnist argues that by doing research to discover subtle racial hierarchical systems that favor Whites, the United States cannot reach the “colorblind” ideal.

We now identify race to prevent predatory bank loans, to open access to higher education, and to look after and safeguard voters’ rights. By quantifying inequality, our government and social scientists track property ownership, wealth accumulation and gross income. What the data tells us however, is that discrimination still exists. Racism is more latent now, but racial socio-economic disparity is still strong. Studies on race are important because they aim to protect minorities from gross inequality. But all the research designed to help end racism commits the same injustice that inspired the need for social protection: We separate each other into types of human. In trying to abolish racism, we actually pay attention to difference; we solidify people’s otherness; and we continue to use the same mental categories conjured up by the racist.

The reality is that the difference in skin color is readily apparent. Thus, “colorblindness” is not possible.

Ignoring the effects of racial discrimination for the sake of a false racial comity, as the Cavalier Daily’s columnist implies, would be grossly unjust and untenable. Martin Luther King recognized this in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

ACRI Ballot Initiative: Despite Ward Connerly’s Claims of Societal Colorblindess, Significant Disparities Remain

While Ward Connerly asserts that the world is colorblind, reality emphatically contradicts his assertion (search on Ward Connerly in the search box on the left to see my posts about this topic).

The Los Angeles Times, in reporting on the ballot initiative drives in five states, identified that there is a significant disparity in household income, benefiting Whites.

Significant disparities in income among races exist in all five states Connerly is targeting, with Asians on top, then whites, then Latinos, then blacks. The exception to that order is Arizona, where blacks earn more than Latinos.

Colorado	Median Household Income
Whites	$55,000
Blacks	$35,000

Nebraska	Median Household Income
Whites	$47,000
Hispanics (national origin)	$37,000
Blacks	$28,000

(information courtesy of the Los Angeles Times)

Domestic & Foreign Policy: Punishing a Population to Force a Change in Goverment Is a Failed Policy

Some states (nations) do not like the governments of other states. On tactic used by these states to coerce a change, is to place pressure on the population. The hope is that the population will hate suffering the lack of government services, that they will reject their government.

This tactic ultimately does not work.

Gaza and Israel

 

Israel hoped that pressuring the Palestinians in Gaza to endure deprivation would cause them to reject their government elected to run Gaza. Instead, the wall separating Gaza was broken, ending the deprivation.

But Israel’s recent effort to further intensify the closing of Gaza, by cutting off nearly all supplies and forcing the extension of rolling power cuts to more than 12 hours a day, clearly backfired, giving Hamas a kind of moral pretext in the Arab and Palestinian world to break through the Egyptian border. As the daily newspaper Haaretz said in an editorial on Friday, “The siege of Gaza has failed.”

 

[...]

 

“The experiment blew up in their faces,” said Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist at Hebrew University. “The whole theory of putting pressure on a population to put pressure on their government doesn’t work. It didn’t work in Lebanon in 2006, and it didn’t work now.”

 

Washington, D.C.

 

The tactic of causing the population of a government disliked by the powers that be occurred in the District of Columbia during the Mayoralty of Marion Barry.

Becton lobbied for $36 million in supplemental funding to reroof more than 60 schools in response to the Parents United lawsuit. Among those he solicited was U.S. Rep. Charles H. Taylor, a Republican tree farmer from North Carolina, who chaired the appropriations subcommittee on the District. “His comment was, ‘I’m not going to give you a goddamned thing until you get rid of that mayor,’ ” Becton recalled.

 

“I said, ‘Hey, I am the superintendent; I don’t have a cotton-picking thing to do with the election of that mayor.’ He said, ‘Until he goes, you get nothing.’ “

 

Taylor did not return calls seeking comment.

I was always wondering why the Congress did not help D.C. more back then.

Also, the deprivation tactic did not work, Mayor Barry served four terms as Mayor and is currently a DC City Council Member for Ward 8.

US Foreign Policy: Condoleeza Rice, Egypt, & Gaza

On the BBC News website, there is a story regarding the destruction of a border wall between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. This event allowed the residents of Gaza to go to Egypt to buy food and supplies and return to Gaza.

Egypt, acting on a statement from the US, first acted to close the border in part, then allowed people from Gaza to cross.

However, there was a quote from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice which re-emphasized my concern about her seeming indifference to social justice issues (discussed in a previous post).

The move by the Egyptian authorities came only hours after the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, urged them to secure the border with Gaza.

 

On Thursday evening, Ms Rice said she understood Egypt’s position was “difficult”, but said: “It is an international border, it needs to be protected and I believe that the Egyptians understand the importance of doing that.”

It is true that it is a border and crossings should be monitored. But, it does not necessarily mean that the border requires an impenetrable wall.

There is an possibility for negotiation and cooperation between the Palestinians and Egypt to regulate the movement of people and goods across the border between Egypt and Gaza. After all, Egyptian businesses on the other side of the border also benefitted from the commercial activity that occurred.

Judicial Nominations: Getchell, Nominee to the Fourth Circuit, Withdraws

According to The Virginian-Pilot, E Duncan Getchell withdrew his name from being considered as a nominee for a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Getchell recognized that political reality would prevent his nomination from being confirmed.

‘Recent press reports indicate that despite the support I have received, the Senate Democratic leadership will not allow a hearing to go forward and so, after prayerful consideration, I have determined to withdraw my name from consideration.’

I disagree that the Senate Democrats are to blame. In reality, the finger of accusation must point to the President.