Obama's Minister

Between painting eggs and attempting not to panic over the fact that I have nothing written of a paper I have to give next week, I've absorbed little bits of the fracas over Barack Obama's minister, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I confess that this has most likely been via Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, with bits and pieces of NPR as I've taxied kids hither and yon.

What I don't get: why isn't the minister understood as speaking within a prophetic tradition? He sounds like an old testament prophet, condemning their people their sins and oppressions. He could be echoing a Puritan jeremiad, again invoking God's displeasure and wrath over the sins of the people.

It seems to me that criticisms of Revered Wright can only stick after the accuser has separated the minister from his religious context. It's as if the Revered has to be secularized or even stripped of his religious faith and calling. Calling this move hypocritical isn't enough: it's actually a performance of the kind of deep, divisive racism that the Revered condemns, proving his point and justifying his rage.

I wonder if this is deliberate: the more the crazed white media excludes the Reverend from the domain of faith, the more the rage and anger he invokes is clearly justified. And the more the anger is justified, the more fearful become some white people. And the more fearful they become, the worse Obama's chances for securing the nomination. Is it a surprise, then, that Hillary rose in the polls this week?

Paul adds: "Obama is running as black and not-black. His opponents are working to make him black." (I wonder if one could also say not not-black). The conservative media (and Clinton campaign) are trying to particularize Obama, to attach to him signifiers of blackness that some white people are "uncomfortable" with--affirmative action, specific religious practices, anger. Ferraro's salvos might be seen as some of the initiators of this phase of the battle. All these attempts to make Obama black involve something like enjoyment, something that seems somehow to particularize another.

Many liberals (Zizek's beloved liberal multiculturalists) like it this way. They are most comfortable talking about racism, not race. To notice race, in their way of thinking, is to be racist. Yet they notice when groups or photos are all white, again, noticing racism but not race. (The Daily Show did a good version of this problem in their first coverage of Obama's speech.) I didn't hear the whole speech. But my best guess is that Obama will have to find a way to jettison the stance of beyond race, the stance that race doesn't matter. The view, then, should not be that anyone can be president regardless of race. It should be that a black man should be president.

Comments

[Alain]

Thanks for posting this Jodi. I completely agree with you that the Reverend's remarks make alot mroe sense within the context of the prophetic tradition. I have watched a much longer segment of one of the "offending" sermons - the one where he says "the chickens have come home to roost" - and he is talking about how injustice breeds more injustice, that violence begets more violence. Within context (and a willingness to watch 10 minutes instead of 10 seconds) his remarks are not only sensible, but spiritual in the highest sense.

I listened to the entire Obama speech, and he really wasn't calling to get "beyond" race, as much as pointing out the obvious - that racial politics distracts from the larger international and economic challenges that need to be dealt with immediately. He ends the speech with a call to arms - that both blacks and whites face the same threats - affordable and decent health care, secure, good paying jobs, and an end to the war. He does not advocate forgetting about race - he actually does a good job of describing the sources of both black and white anger - and puts it within the larger context of economic insecurity.

So while he does avoid the language of class, he directly addresses the financial threats that underly much of the distrust and hatred in the United States. At the core of the speech is the recognition that it is lack of economic opportunity, for both whites and blacks, that breeds the frustration and anger many people feel.

Overall it is one of the best political speeches I have ever heard. But I have no illustions - his eloquence is probably not enough to get him elected President.

[Joe]

"They are most comfortable talking about racism, not race. To notice race, in their way of thinking, is to be racist."

I think this is why so many people are inclined to try and turn the tables by inventing white-racism. A Fox News segment, which I saw on Alter Net, has two Whitey McWhitersons going back and forth as if it were a Tom Tomorrow cartoon about how its *so double-standard* that a white person like Hillary Clinton can't "get away" with saying "typical black person" but but a black-person like Obama can say "typical white person" and "get away with it."

I think it's interesting that you see this phrase, "get away with it," a lot with comparisons between the supposed legitimacy of what different groups do or say. I also think it's funny, because the whole shape of the conversation but none of its importance changes when you replace "get away" in my characterization of the Fox News segment with "makes sense." It makes sense that Obama talks about "typical white people," because how can we not but typify our over-whelmingly white-experience as Americans? When a white person, like Hillary Clinton, says something to the effect of "typical black person" it just sounds stupid. It sounds stupid not because it's racist, but because it implies a knowledge of black people that most white people just don't have. One is unavoidable and even useful generalization the other is demagogic prejudicing.

The fact is that this does have to do with race, about which most public figures will have nothing to say, because it might mean actually looking at what's happening, which some have never done or simply don't know how to do.

[Kristine Danielson]

Not to be a nit-picker but I’m confused. How does that poll show “Hillary rose in the polls”? Clearly, she did not unless I’m missing something here. The media, and the Gallup poll you linked to, which the media have been discussing all this week, point to the curious and perhaps hopeful fact that after the Wright controversy and Obama’s speech, Obama has come out of this relatively unscathed--at least for the moment. As far as polls are concerned, I don't trust them much to begin with, but there you have it. Clinton’s drop, on the other hand, may be due to the Bosnia lie.

[Jodi]

The poll was from a previous week--prior to the Bosnia lie business.