Your Black World: White Liberals Mad At Obama For Being Obama

White Liberals Scold Obama… But Come Off Cynical & Hypocritical
By: Tolu Olorunda
Reprinted From Dissident Voice

I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society… [D]uring my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes… [in] recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.

– Barack Obama on ABC’s This Week

In the wake of President-Elect Obama’s recent cabinet-appointments, many white liberals have taken it upon themselves to release pent-up aggression at a man they thought was the “progressive” candidate he had earlier claimed to be.. As they saw it, Obama had “betrayed” the loyalty that earned him victory. As a sort of catharsis, railing Obama’s reputation over the coals of indignation could make them feel better about their decision to elect a man who promised virtually nothing (of substance) in his bid for the presidency. White liberals, especially, have had to learn so much, in the last 1 month, about the man whose political dirty-laundry was never hidden from the public to begin with.

In a highly predictable move, they have sought to bash everything Obama, or Obama-like, and couch their frustration in the ‘eloquence,’ and ‘con-artistry’ of Obama. Spare me the misplaced aggravation. One of such liberals is writer and activist, James Petras who went as far as suggesting that no progressive organization or publication held Obama’s feet to the fire during the presidential campaign. Petras believes that, to guarantee John McCain a loss, every progressive and leftist news site accommodated and encouraged Obama’s sophistry, as he clinched victory into becoming the “greatest con-man in recent history.” As Petras tells it, “The entire political spectrum ranging from the ‘libertarian’ left, through the progressive editors of the Nation to the entire far right neo-con/Zionist war party and free market Berkeley/Chicago/Harvard academics, with a single voice, hailed the election of Barack Obama as a ‘historic moment’, a ‘turning point in American history and other such histrionics.” This is stunning because “self-opiated ‘progressives,’ who” once operated as the conscience of the Democratic Party, saw no wrongdoing in concocting “arguments in his [Obama] favor,” – long as it ultimately garnered Obama victory.

It is unclear whether Mr. Petras is engaging in grand-delusion. In the course of the ’08 presidential race, countless “progressive” publications never let a second slip-by without heaping fact-based criticism on the Obama campaign staff, and the candidate it worked for. Perusing the pages of Black Agenda Report and Black Commentator solves the puzzle. Black Agenda Report, notoriously known for its constructive criticism – characterized by some as, “attacks” – of Obama, must have mysteriously slipped Petras’ memory, as he proclaimed the progressive community to have cheerled Obama into victory. Another Black progressive publication, which I write for, BlackCommentator.com was unrelenting in its undressing of President-Elect Obama, as the tiresome 22-month long campaign drained the blood of reasoning from, otherwise, radically-inclined liberals, leftists, and progressives – most especially Black ones. At Black Commentator, readers were left to juggle between the biting commentaries of Cynthia McKinney-supporters, such as Larry Pinkney, Dr. Lenore Daniels, Tolu Olorunda (myself), etc., and the discontent Obama-supporters, such as Bill Fletcher Jr., Reverend Irene Monroe, David A. Love, etc., expressed on a weekly basis. How Black progressive voices became muted in Petras’ reproof of the progressive bloc is not a surprise to this writer..

Black progressives have always maintained an impeccable legacy of critical opposition to empire – in whatever form it comes in. Whether it was Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Clarence Thomas, Black progressives have remained unbridled in their remonstrations against White power in Black face. Yet, the liberal wing of the American political system has never appreciated, nor accepted, their moral leadership. This reality is validated in the leadership of most unions, non-profits, and left-inclined political organizations. The membership might be disproportionately Black and Brown, but the management, mostly, retains a White identity.

Whilst Black progressives sought to rip the mask off of Barack Obama, in an attempt to unveil his true identity, we were deemed ‘Obama-haters,’ whose egos sought to stifle the chances of a Black man making history. The same white liberals, who now find no progressive solace in Obama’s unfolding cabinet, told Black progressives to be quiet, and “wait till he gets in first.” This logic of reprimanding Black souls to be silent, and reserved, dates back to the era of slavery, with pretentious white liberals, presented as abolitionists, urging Black slaves to fight for more substantial accumulations, other than freedom. “Higher wages,” “better treatment,” and other silly calculations were exalted above the pedestal of liberation. As it was then, so it is now. At a time when the inconvenient truth stares White liberals in the face, they seek to put the blame, instead, on a Black man who bathed them in his eloquent and rhetorical oceans. With this outburst of disillusionment, what most disturbs Black progressives, such as myself, is the reality that every disappointing appointment, by the President-Elect, was foreseeable a million miles away.

From the selection of pro-war Zionist, Rahm Emmanuel; to the hawkish center-right triangulator, Hillary Rodham Clinton; to the grossly incompetent hoop-star, Arne Duncan; to Monsanto-shill Tom Vilsack; to religious-right ideologue Rick Warren, the inevitability stands out.

Since clinching the Democratic Party nomination – but really dating back to his Senate career – President-Elect Obama had dropped countless hints about the administration he planned to oversee. As a strong believer in bipartisanship, Obama had pledged to welcome voices, opinions and characters he ‘disagreed with.’ Most white liberals, instead of questioning this logic, played along with his divine call for “unity.” As one who could “bring together” all factions of society, and heal the “racial wounds” that “divide” us, it was only a matter of time before Obama was perceived as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Though voting repeatedly for an extension of the Iraq war, whilst a Senator, white liberals convinced themselves that he was more than willing to end the war in 2 years, as he had promised – or not.

While most White liberals were foaming at the mouth, many Black and Brown progressives sought to expose Obama as the unraveling of a hip, cool, and sexy imperialist-to-be. An example is L.A.-based writer and editor Juan Santos, whose phenomenal piece, titled “Barack Obama and the ‘End’ of Racism” (Feb. ’08), put to bed all claims to a war-ending-peacenik-post-racial-uniter – in the personage of Barack Obama. Santos captures the Obama personality with exceptionality: “Obama plays the role of a Black Cinderella. He does for Black folks what Cinderella does for girls. He shows that oppression and silence can be good for you – at least if you are the one the prince chooses, or if you are the one who gets to be the prince. It’s total fantasy… Obama, with his extraordinary intelligence and presence (by any standard), is, in the eyes of white Amerikkka, (and, according to the standards of the so-called “Enlightenment,” which still rule the thinking of Euro-Americans) the half-white, and thus, half-redeemed “Black savage” – “redeemed” by his “white blood”, “civilized” by it - redeemed by his relative whiteness- ultimately redeemed and refined by the white nation itself… Obama knows the rules of the game, after all - he is the rules of the new race game- his candidacy itself is a manifestation of the new system of racism.”

The problem with white-liberalism, and its inability to render deserved criticism, while it mattered, lies in the inherent non-identity of its political philosophy. White-liberalism is structured around celebrity, popularity and majority – Democracy? It blows with the cultural and political tide. Whilst it was convenient, and even expedient, to embrace Obama’s candidacy as the “dawn” of a new political paradigm, white liberals flocked with endorsement of this “charismatic,” and “new” Black politician, who doesn’t see Race or color. He was, in their imagination, the manifestation of Dr. King’s dream. Not the Dr. King who grew into consciousness from 1965-1968, but the “I Have a Dream” Dr. King, but the Dr. King who wouldn’t dare say that, many in “the white community” feel the Civil Rights movement “should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem;” not the Dr. King who incinerated the petty belief that “integration” is “merely a romantic or aesthetic something where you merely add color to a still predominantly white power structure.” This belief that Obama is the birth child of ‘the other’ Dr. King’s dream, led White liberals into missing the point on Obama. Having been taking for a ride by the Obama campaign, they now feel the need to justify their gullibility with the infantile defense that Obama had misled them into thinking differently about his potential as a progressive president.

While some see latent value in the recent outrage surrounding Obama’s cabinet-picks, I’m not as convinced that disorganized screams are the keys to steering the wheels of the Obama administration in a progressive direction. With self-proclaimed “progressives,” such as cable-news host Keith Olbermann, ascribing unconditional praise to the grave of Mark Felt, otherwise known as “Deep throat,” without mentioning his supreme role in the formulation of COINTELPRO, it’s clear that White liberals still have a lot to learn.

Your Black World: Many Blacks Remain Sceptical Of Obama On Race

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Despite Barack Obama's message of change and hope, fears persist in the black community about what his election as president could mean for the legacy of racism in America.

Namely, that it might mean nothing at all.

"America is still one of the most segregated countries by race and by class in the industrialized world," said Dedrick Muhammad, research associate at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, a think tank for social justice.

Muhammad pointed to research showing that black Americans remain far behind the rest of the country economically, with median wealth one-tenth of that in white America, and one in three black children born into poverty.

Like most black Americans, Muhammad supports Obama's historic bid to become America's first black president.

However, he said the Illinois senator's campaign tactic of largely avoiding discussion of race in his campaign has "driven me crazy."

"What saddens me today is that we don't talk about black-white inequality," he said. "I see in Obama a winning strategy, but it is sad to me."

For the 47-year-old son of a white American mother and black Kenyan father to gain the lead he currently holds over his Republican rival John McCain, Obama has had to tip-toe around any potential racial controversy, analysts say.

"Obama has very carefully avoided discussing race except when he had to," said Gary Weaver, an author and professor of cross-cultural studies at American University, noting Obama made just one major policy address on race during the campaign.

"I think there genuinely are people who are afraid that somehow an African-American as president would destroy the purity of the country," he said.

But even Obama's relative silence has not muted the issue. Weaver pointed to numerous attempts by his opponents to raise the topic of race, some of them blatant, others covert.

"There are enough coded messages coming out from the Republican side," said Weaver, ranging from mentions of his "urban" agenda that contrast with images of mainly white rural America, to assertions of "socialism" in his economic policy that implicitly tie him to foreigners.

"These coded messages subtly get across the issue of race," said Weaver.

Despite America's attempts to move past racial prejudice, research has shown that racial bias lingers in the United States, 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

A recent study by San Diego State University and the University of Chicago on politics and racial attitudes suggested that "ethnicity and national identity may play a larger role than often realized in how political candidates are perceived."

"A black candidate is implicitly conceived of as being less American than a white candidate," it said.

Prominent African-Americans have said they understand Obama's need to keep the black community at arm's length in order to win.

But they say that kind of dance leaves many unanswered questions about Obama's commitment to black issues in terms of poverty, employment opportunities and substandard education, if he does win on November 4.

"To me it sounds more like the African-American community is a kind of hidden mistress. Everybody assumes an affair is going on but nobody is quite sure," said Joy Zarembka, author of "The Pigment of Your Imagination: Mixed Race in a Global Society."

Zarembka said the new emphasis by Obama supporters on the buzzword "post-racial" ignores the importance of the black community, and she is concerned that an Obama victory could eliminate policies that aim to give minorities a better chance at employment and education.

"I have great concerns about an affirmative action policy that moves forward in a race-neutral way," she said.

John Johnson, political action chair of the Virginia State conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), said he has heard those types of concerns, but believes Obama presents a new narrative on blacks in American society.

"There is an opportunity to uplift the race. The role model potential is outstanding," he said, adding that an Obama victory could have a wider effect on accepting diversity in America.

"I think it will have an impact on making all of America more comfortable with all Americans."

Lena Williams, 58, author of "It's the Little Things: Everyday Interactions That Anger, Annoy, and Divide the Races," said that when she volunteered for the Obama campaign, the younger and more enthusiastic supporters asked why she was so "mellow."

"America has a way of breaking your heart," she answered. "It makes you very cautious."

From AFP

YBW Interview With Dr. Christopher J. Metzler On Obama & "Post-Racial" America

Interview with Georgetown University dean and author, Dr. Christopher J. Metzler, by Tolu Olorunda.

Dr. Chris Metzler is associate dean at Georgetown University and the author of The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a Post-Racial America. In his new book, Dr. Metzler makes the case that Sen. Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to political stardom is an inclination of racial progress, however, not an indictment on racism in the U.S. and beyond. Dr. Metzler is also a political analyst and a full time advocate for diversity at higher institutions and global organizations. I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Metzler on issues including diversity, the role of a disproportionately white media in the 2008 presidential election, Sen. Obama, and the concept of “post-racialism.” Dr. Metzler was poignant in dissecting the politics of “racial-exceptionalism,” which has aided Sen. Obama immensely in his historic bid for the White House:

Thanks for joining us, Dr. Metzler. Can you describe what your educational background entails of?

Well, I have a Masters degree in Human Rights from Columbia University, and a PhD in Law from University of Aberdeen. I am also a member of Oxford University and Kellogg College.

What preceded your deanship at Georgetown?

I was on the faculty at Cornell University for 8 years, and at Cornell, I headed the equal opportunity and diversity program. There, I did a fair amount of reach into issues of Human Rights, diversity and equal employment opportunity. At Cornell, I created the nation’s first certification program for diversity management professionals. In addition to academic, I also do a fair amount of work in the private sector.

Based upon your lengthy work in the field of diversity, do you sense a substantive improvement in diversity vis-à-vis College, Universities and the academic world at large?

There is an improvement, but I wouldn’t call it substantive. There is an improvement with regard to the number of students of color being recruited into Ivy League Universities. However, in some respects, a number of faculties still don’t know how to work effectively with students of color. A number of faculties don’t take enough time to think about having classrooms which are inclusive of students of color. So while I think there has been a numeric improvement, I don’t think there has been a sustained improvement.

In a recent interview, you said, “If diversity is the right thing to do, frankly everyone would have done it already… The difficulty is that we have not been able to define that with any specificity what we mean by diversity.” Can you expound on that?

In most organizations, there is a stated “commitment” to diversity, but for most of those organizations, that simply translates to activities centered on diversity; for example, Martin Luther King Holiday or Black History month – the shortest month of the year. Very few organizations want to actually focus on looking at the institutional racism, which is still rampant in these organizations, and address them. It is far easier to participate in activities, which don’t substantively change the organizations. Some of them now have a definition of diversity which is so broad that it makes it meaningless and, therefore, renders no one accountable.

What is incumbent upon the corporate structures as well as the peoples of culture to bring about that diversity?

Well, a number of things: First of all, an acknowledgement that we are not living in a post-racial America. We have gotten to the point where discussions suggest that racism is no more an integral issue in every organization in America. Secondly, as it relates to people of color in organizations, we must step up to the plate to speak on issues of racism/diversity in these organizations. In a way, we are complicit because we, often, don’t want to have that discussion. We would rather participate in these useless ethnic food and dress days. It’s what I refer to as “Taco Tuesday, and Soul Food Wednesday.” So we have to participate in a practical way. Thirdly, what we need from organizations is a demonstrated commitment to diversity.

In you new book, The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a “Post Racial” America, you break down the dynamic of Race in an alleged post-racial America. How significant is that to the emergence of Sen. Barack Obama?

It is extremely significant for a number of reasons. First of all, what the book does is put into historical context the genesis of Race in America. We know that Race is not biological, rather social. So we have to ask ourselves this question. Does Race matter? It certainly does. So if we look at the number of caricatures of Race throughout our experience, we see that in the 60s for example, there were always two choices: Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. For a number of white Americans, the more palatable choice was Martin Luther King, because he was viewed as more “acceptable.” With regard to Sen. Obama, he is not the first Black individual to run for public office. Before him, there was Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm. But all three of them were considered, by a number of White people, to be “maddening” Negroes, while Senator Obama is a more “acceptable” Negro. And thus, they can consider themselves to be non-racist in voting for Sen. Obama. A number of people in the media have been silent on this issue because they don’t want to be viewed as racist, and also because they have neither the language nor the sophistication to talk about it.

Do you think that the media, being disproportionately white, makes them inept and devoid of the necessary intellectual faculty to deal with this issue proportionately?

Yes. Let’s look at who is covering Race in this election. You had Soledad O’Brien supposedly host this discussion about being Black in America. From my perspective, that was one of the biggest wastes of time – relative to race. The folks who she got to speak about race did nothing. The conversations were empty and did not advance the conversation in any way. Then you look at the political commentators. The vast of the American media does not have the language to talk about Race. They all want to speak of Obama as “transcending Race.” But how do you transcend Race when you live in a society whose very foundation was built on Race. So they then recruit a few Black Commentators to speak on Race. And, in fact, with a few exceptions, none of them have been able to talk about it in any significant format. So you might have Roland Martin analyzing the dynamics of Race, but he is clearly an Obama supporter, and that is identity politics. That only provides a reaction to Race, instead of an analysis of it. In my book, I also analyze the issues of White privilege because a lot of people (Black & White) have a problem discussing it.

There has been a lot of talk within the Black Community by Black scholars and activists – a la Dr. Cornel West, Dr. Julianne Malveaux, and Earl Ofari Hutchinson – about Sen. Obama running away from his race, in order to appease white delegates. But it also seems inevitable when put in the context of our society. In your assessment, how do you analyze that dynamic, and what will be the outcome of this historic 2008 presidential race vis-à-vis Race vis-à-vis Black people.

It’s a catch-22, but I don’t think he had to do it, or be the messenger. I think he could have employed surrogates to act independently in analyzing the issue of Race. But he didn’t do that, and it ended up where he was the one essentially speaking out about it. I also think you’re right, because he boxed himself in, and at that point he could not be seen as the “Black candidate.” I have had White colleagues who admit to me that they would vote for Obama because he seems to transcend Race. What those white people don’t understand is that thinking that way exposes the fact that a number of white people are still trapped into the kind of racial thinking that got us to where we’re at presently. Now, there are a couple of scenarios. Number one, if he is not elected, we’re going to see a significant number of hand wringing in the Black Community; because, to them, if this “acceptable Negro” couldn’t even get elected, who can? So there might be a disengagement from politics for the Black Community. Number two, if he wins, he cannot be a “Black president.” He’s going to have a very delicate balance relative to how he governs. We have to ask, “What are the kinds of policies he puts forth that affect Black folks disproportionately?” He has already started talking about the issue of affirmative action in terms of a more class-based system. Also, if he wins, a number of White folks would begin beating the drum that suggests racism is finally over because of the fulfillment of a Black president.

And how do you suggest Black people ‘play the hand they’ve been dealt’ with regard to a potential Obama presidency?

Black folks of conscience must look at the policies he would be able to influence and figure out how they would affect people who have been historically disenfranchised (people of color). We must also figure out a way to advocate for the historically disenfranchised in such a way that the problems they are experiencing are alleviated in an Obama presidency.

This interview was conducted by Tolu Olorunda, Staff Writer for YourBlackWorld.com