Sunday, July 13, 2008

IN RESPONSE TO BROTHER BOYCE ON THE JACKSON REMARK

IN RESPONSE TO BROTHER BOYCE

ON THE JACKSON REMARK

The only good thing about both Obama lovers and haters alike being upset with me, is that it should give me a little bit of credibility regarding not having a vested interest in anything but truth.

The fact is, I have a problem with both Obama lovers and haters, because, as I see it, both groups are motivated by shortsighted and superficial agendas. Obama lovers are so deeply in love with the idea of having a Black superstar for president that they're closing their eyes to the fact that Obama lied to us, and did the moonwalk on one of the most important issues that's come before congress in the history of this nation. And Black people who are Obama haters seem to hate him because either they resent that his prominence in the nation and Black community serves to diminish their own accomplishments as Black people, or they resent the fact that he's addressing issues in the Black community that they've refused to face for the past 40 years.

As for Jackson, I don't see how he could have even mouthed the words "talking down to Black people" without biting his own tongue off. He's been talking down to Black people for the past 40 years–that's one of the reasons that a large number of Black people are so critical of him, that along with his tendency to be self-serving and disingenuous. For 40 years he's been acting like Black people are incapable of grasping a serious concept unless it's couched in a nursery rhyme–"from the outhouse to the White House." And for 40 years he's been telling Black people to "repeat after me, I am somebody", as though we don't know that.

And further, one of the reasons that Obama had to address the issue of Black fatherhood is because, for 40 years Jesse has been pimping Black people by telling them that we can lay all of the problems in the Black community at the White man's door, and he's the only one in the community that can speak the White man's language. If the White man ever said that he was going to step up to the plate and correct all of the harm he's done to the Black community, it would have been Jesse's worse nightmare. Then, he'd have had to get a job like everybody else.

And there's a word for a brother who grins in your face, then sit up and whisper behind your back--it's right on the tip of my tongue, but I'm going to refrain from using it through respect for the sensibilities of many of our brothers and sisters. But everybody knows where I'm going with this, and what I'm referring to. That's why it's so silly to try to ban the use of a word--because the concept remains live and well, it just deprives you of a useful descriptive tool.

Now, to address you're other issues. I've truncated them in many cases, but I attached the full text at the end of this response:

1). I am not sure if we should be so quick to believe that a Black president can replace every Black leader in America. As I've asked before, who is going to show up for the next Hurricane Katrina or Sean Bell shooting?

First, we don't need Black leaders–we need Black thinkers. One voice can't speak for millions. We need to educate ourselves, so millions of voices can speak as one. That'll take care of both the Jackson and Obama problem.

2) Let's not forget that there is a difference between the hatred Rev. Jackson is receiving in the blogosphere and so-called mainstream media (almost none of which is owned by Black people) vs. What is happening in the street. When I put my ear to the street, there is a concern that Senator Obama is not prepared to truly represent the interests of rank and file, working Black folks.

That's mere speculation. We don't know what kind of president Obama will be–but we do know what kind of president McCain will be. So to even speculate about such an issue is a part of the crabs-in-the-barrel syndrome.

3) Senator Obama (again, whom I support) is, in many ways, like most other politicians. The reason he felt comfortable stereotyping black men (whether you agree with his comments or not) and no other ethnic group is because he knew there would be little negative political consequence for doing so, but tremendous benefit from those who already think Black males are immoral (note that Bill O'Reilly congratulated him on his speech).

Of course he's like other politicians–that's what he is. What are we suppose to be waiting for the Messiah? And he's not stereotyping Black men, we're stereotyping ourselves with our behavior, and on videos right there on BET. He's simply telling us to wake up, and I stand with him 100% in that regard.

4) If you want to be nit-picky about Senator Obama's position on Black fathers, we cannot presume that he "can relate to the issue" because he was abandoned by an African American man. Obama's father was KENYAN. So, as a black man, it's hard enough to defend the silly stuff that happens here without being forced to account for what someone did across the sea. That is like holding white males accountable for what a man did in the Ukraine.

Man, what is that about? I can't believe that someone of your caliber even wrote something like that. Dr. Watkins, I know that at some point during your educational career you took syllogistic logic. Are you now seriously telling me that the trauma of being bit by a dog differs depending on what country the dog came from?

5) I would not presume that Rev. Jackson's challenge to Obama implies that he doesn't advocate for personal responsibility. Anyone who has heard Rev. Jackson speak knows that he is very conservative in his value systems.

Then, why is he slacking in his own personal responsibility? Don't preach me a sermon, live me one.

Finally, let's love ourselves. I am not a fan of the idea of denouncing strong blackness just because the words make others uncomfortable.

Then, let's not criticize Obama for telling Black deadbeats to get off their ass.

Getting into the big white house on the hill is a good thing, but we must remember that the ultimate goal is to get off the plantation. We only do that through education and economic empowerment. There really is no other way.

Wait a minute, are you stereotyping Black people as undereducated plantation dwellers? Many White people are undereducated too. Why aren't you telling them that?

You see how ridiculous it can become when you choose to be offended? In the end, nobody will be able to say anything without being attacked.

Eric L. Wattree

Dr. Boyce Watkins :

I'm set to appear on the Jesse Jackson Show tomorrow morning at 8 am, along with one of my esteemed colleagues, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. I am sure I don't have to tell you the topic of the discussion, since we all know that Rev. Jackson's unfortunate slip on Barack Obama has kept the world churning as of late.

I should make these quick points on the issue, so you can understand my perspective. This point of view came from personal reflections, extensive conversations with individuals in media, politics, and leadership and even a good conversation with my mama (please feel free to share your thoughts with me as well). I love my mama. What is most interesting is that she complains about Jesse Jackson more than she compliments him (the same for my father, a high ranking police official). But she made a good point that it's easy for us to attack people for what they are not doing when the truth is that most of us aren't doing anything. Remember that Jesse was #3 on the list of world leaders most likely to be assassinated (behind the President and the Pope). He has sacrificed for our community, and although I have critiqued him myself in the past, I consider him to be an elder worthy of respect. It was his landmark run for the White House that cleared the path for Senator Obama to do what he is doing today. I will never forget that.

Here are my thoughts:

1) I am not sure if we should be so quick to believe that a Black president can replace every Black leader in America. As I've asked before, who is going to show up for the next Hurricane Katrina or Sean Bell shooting? I will give you a hint, it may not be Barack Obama (his response to the Sean Bell shooting was quite weak, to be honest). This doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't get our vote, but you can't throw out your mama just because you have a new daddy. The fight for Black people should be multi-dimensional in nature.

2) Let's not forget that there is a difference between the hatred Rev. Jackson is receiving in the blogosphere and so-called mainstream media (almost none of which is owned by Black people) vs. What is happening in the street. When I put my ear to the street, there is a concern that Senator Obama is not prepared to truly represent the interests of rank and file, working Black folks. Not the hoity-toity of us who went to college and make enough money to (uncomfortably) afford the high price of gas. But rather, those who don't worry about the price of gas because they can't afford to buy a car. This reflects a clear division between the haves and have-nots, implying that we are as diverse as any other group of people. What is most challenging for me is that while I supported many of Senator Obama's positions on the BET shoot we did last weekend, I am concerned that other interest groups may move him toward anti-Black agendas in the White House. Jesse may have wanted to cut his n*tts off, but it appears that others may have his n*tts in a vice grip already (excuse my French, but I have to tell it like it is).

3) Senator Obama (again, whom I support) is, in many ways, like most other politicians. The reason he felt comfortable stereotyping black men (whether you agree with his comments or not) and no other ethnic group is because he knew there would be little negative political consequence for doing so, but tremendous benefit from those who already think Black males are immoral (note that Bill O'Reilly congratulated him on his speech). He would not, however, take the same tone with AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby) no matter how questionable their policies (they could have a 100% fatherless rate and he wouldn't say a word). Why is that? Because they are mobilized, organized and well-funded. African Americans must become engaged and educated in the political process in order to become well-funded and sufficiently mobilized to ensure that our interests are protected. Asking Barack Obama to help black folks is like borrowing money from a loving relative: charity will get you so far, but ultimately, you have to make it worth their while to keep supporting you. It would be selfish and silly to expect otherwise.

4) If you want to be nit-picky about Senator Obama's position on Black fathers, we cannot presume that he "can relate to the issue" because he was abandoned by an African American man. Obama's father was KENYAN. So, as a black man, it's hard enough to defend the silly stuff that happens here without being forced to account for what someone did across the sea. That is like holding white males accountable for what a man did in the Ukraine.

5) I would not presume that Rev. Jackson's challenge to Obama implies that he doesn't advocate for personal responsibility. Anyone who has heard Rev. Jackson speak knows that he is very conservative in his value systems. Actually, the only things that make him liberal are that he speaks for black people, stands up for the poor, and believes in stronger gun control. I don't defend his remarks against Obama, but my belief is that, again, we should think carefully before trading in 40 years of sacrifice for a few speeches on hope and change. I will vote for Obama, but I want to wait and see if he does the right thing for us, or allows other groups (some of whom dislike African Americans) to control his actions. What you believe is not as important as what you do.

Finally, let's love ourselves. I am not a fan of the idea of denouncing strong blackness just because the words make others uncomfortable (that doesn't include Rev. Jackson's comments this week, but rather, the words of Jeremiah Wright and others who speak out on racial inequality). Getting into the big white house on the hill is a good thing, but we must remember that the ultimate goal is to get off the plantation. We only do that through education and economic empowerment. There really is no other way.

Dr. Boyce Watkins



Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's our piece of the net.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good article brother. We don't need black leaders? Isn't that like saying that McCain getting elected means that we don't need the AARP to represent Senior Citizens?

Also, Jackson's record does not show hatred toward Obama. If he didn't like him, he would have held out on his endorsement like everyone else.

Next, black people have been getting off our asses for 400 years. Let's not talk down about our people. I see more caucasion kids on their asses on college campuses than black men. Let's not embrace media stereotypes of black men as lazy and pathetic.

Finally, I don't hate Obama, I support him. But I don't support him at all costs.

Eric L. Wattree said...

Jackson endorsed Obama so he wouldn't look like the petty little guy that open mike clearly proved him to be. I mean really, what choice did he have?

And brother, please, don't try to confuse the issue--I didn't say Black people should get of their asses--I specifically said, "Black deadbeats" should get off their ass.

That was a very shrewd rhetorical device. I'd better remember who I'm debating.

Wattree

Eric L. Wattree said...

Bro. Boyce,

You've spent most of your time commenting on what you perceive as the missteps of Barack Obama, and you've spent hardly any time at all discussing the potentially negative impact of McCain on the Black community. Does that mean that you're catering to McCain and the White voters, or that you're criticizing Obama because you feel closer to him, so you want to correct his behavior?

I think you're motivated in this regard, by the very same rationale that motivated Obama in doing his Father's Day speech. It's called constructive criticism.

But as I said earlier, if I chose to, I could parse your words so severely that I could turn just about anything you said into an attack on someone. Therefore, the reason there are so many varying opinions on Obama's speech, is because the way any given individual sees the speech, is solely dependent on how that individual CHOOSES to see the speech.

So just as important as exploring what Obama said, is to explore why you choose to perceive what he said the way you did, while others didn't perceive any malevolent intent.

Wattree