|
||
The Limits of Obama's Race Speech
Obama's race speech has been justly celebrated by many Americans, myself among them, as a major event in American presidential politics. Without taking anything away from either the man or the speech, here is a little reality check, concerning a part of the speech that has gone without comment in the media as far as I know:
Obama:
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
Ahem.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for a very long time, long before the emergence of present-day radical Islam. In fact, the arrival of radical Islam to Palestinian territories is a quite recent phenomenon, which is rooted in the abject failure of the last 50 years of Palestinian politics to deal with a crisis which has very different roots. To present this conflict as the result of radical Islamic ideology is as woefully inaccurate as it was to assert a link between Saddam and Al Queda.
What in the world is this sentence doing in a speech on racism in America? It stands out like a sore thumb. It is the only reference to anything but domestic race relations in America in the whole speech. In contrast to everything else in the speech, which is closely reasoned, this statement comes out of nowhere, is stated once and then not developed or returned to.
Clearly, Obama knew that with this major address on race, he would have the attention of American Jews as well as millions of others, and he decided to use the opportunity to send them a message. This is, ultimately, another sort of comment on race relations in America. But in this case he is not putting the matter up for national discussion but sending a coded message in standard American political-ese.
So here we have the limit in Obama's politics. He is challenging some long-established boundaries in American politics, but American policy in regards to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not one of them. That is sad, because it is hard to see how anything in the Middle East will move forward unless there is movement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But it also reflects the reality of American politics. Despite the emergence of Obama as a major national figure, to find a substantive discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one must turn to former presidents rather than aspiring ones. One could start with Jimmy Carter's 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Look, the speech was good, but this "guilting" strategy doesn't work on those who already have had many REAL opportunities to look inward at themselves.
I too noticed that blurb. I thought the speech was so overtly off what he should have been addressing.
His Judgement.
Now the press are having a hey day. It is just fuzzy warm thing. You can listen to it, but if you see the background of it and already have done quite a bit of work, you are not easily swayed.
I do have some experience with people who sound really good to others and people get caught up in the "feel good" of it, or the "guilt" of it. But, I have been around too much too see that this is only that.
It's amazing how much attention one preacher gets for venting his frustration when he is directing it at white America. Of-course all previous crimes against black people should be forgiven because obviously America is so far beyond race now and concentrating on real issues... It is ok however for white preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwel to blame 911 and Katrina on America's great tolerance of gays - no uproar needed there just some tougher laws on gay marriage.
Soundbites ofcourse are only for the masses - and if you were to listen to Wright's entire sermons you will inevitably forget the soundbite as is the case with most sermons of anyone - they all end with God is great and we should be thankful for Jesus - thank God Jesus isn't running because that being associated with whores and tax collectors thing won't play to well here in America.
Right on!
I noticed this as an odd and false note.
Thanks for making this point - it's important.
It is the Palestinians who introduced on a global scale Hi jacking's and suicide bombers and it is the Palestinian conflict which is the cause of most of the Middle East Violence...do you know how Lebanon was before the Palestinians came ? Do you know that Lebanon did not partake of the 1967 war?
Fact is the Palestinians have created havoc in the world by skillfully getting most of the world involved in their cause while they themselves have never,ever,been involved in any other people's liberation movement...where were they during the Civil right marches and the fight against Apartheid?
Many Jews were involved in the Civil rights movement so please,get off your Buzz and deal with the real problem here: THE MONSTER POLITICS OF RACE.FIND THE COURAGED AND THE GUTS TO ATTACK RACE HEAD ON AND KILL RACE NOW FOR IT IS THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON IN THE KARL ROVIAN ARSENAL TO DIVIDE AMERICA SO HIS FORCES CAN WIN.
They have their grievances but they have involved us all in their fights but have never assisted anyone in their fight against racism etc actually they themselves in America have been know to be racist in their views of African Americans so please,give us a break with this Palestinian thing and look up the suicide bombings by them and their sympathizers!
May bed Al Qeida learnt from them !
How sneaky of them to have tricked Israeil into invading them like that, so they could enjoy the unbroken 40 year reign as the underdogs that being occupied makes possible.
Why doesn't anyone remember that when Israel was occupied by the British they used terrorism; including suicide bombers to get the British to leave. Israel got its Independence via terrorism.
The Israeli underground was not known for its violence, they freed captive, smuggled in settlers, and tried to obtain what was promised to them. The underground resorted to guerrilla methods when the British started to change their mind in the '40's due to Arab pressure. The Jews had their Promised Land split twice once into "Palestine" and "Trans-Jordan" and again into two separate states within Palestine. The most common moment pointed out in Jewish-Israeli Underground history is the King David Hotel bombing. The deaths caused by that bombing were purely due to the negligence and sheer bullheadedness of the British Military. Also, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, the Jewish underground targeted military not civilians. Say what you want but there is a huge difference. As for "Jewish Suicide Bombers" I had no luck finding any source for that. The land is historically Jewish and not "Palestinian". The moment of truth for the arab population of then Palestine, was in 1948 when the land was divided and Israel declared its independence. When the surrounding Arab nations attacked and the Palestinians joined they gave up their right to a separate land. Had Israel lost in 1948 I doubt that the world public would be in outcry now demanding a Jewish state.
It is well known in the Arab world that the Palestinians are a problem child. It gets swept under the media rug though. Lebanon treats the Palestinians terribly, denying them jobs and citizenship (they also hold a grudge for a coup that they attempted to stage). In recent political events Egypt has jailed over a hundred Palestinians that broke into their state, after their police beat up others and they have begun building a wall on their border to keep them out. Wait, where have I hear about that before....I wonder....
It bothers me how little people know about that Middle-East conflict and how many untruths there are floating about disguised as facts.
Part (II) of the RACE MONSTER.
This is the kind of critical thinking that seems to be largely lacking in so much of what we hear and read these days. There was another essay on HuffPo yesterday that brought up the same point in a slightly different way.
Ostertag, you asked, "What in the world is this sentence doing in a speech on racism in America?"
I wondered the same thing -- the statement seemed very out of place. But it occurs to me that this was just another opportunity to slam Islam and further put to rest the apparent concern over Obama's rumored religious affiliation with Islam. It was a very opportunistic move by Obama; throw that statement in there, showing he is against Islam, and then move on without paying any real attention to the idea that he was pandering to a particular group, or several.
Really? (sarcastic)
When was the last time anyone made it out of local politics without the Eagle-Eyed ok of AIPAC?
Obama always has an ulterior motive and this speech was no exception. The speech itself was nothing more than an attempt to draw attention away from himself. (and it worked, everyone has forgotten that he is a liar). Tossing the middle east conflict into the mix was a self-serving opportunity to make a connection between American Jews and the oppressed Afro American. . One day Obama is supporting the plight of the Palestinians and the next he is encouraging military action against them. Typical sociopathic behavior. God help us.
We must review the Status Quo when it comes to our unconditional support of Isreal. I have nothing agaisnt the Isreali people, but I also have nothing against the Palestinian People either. this conflict has been generated and continued on a Gov't level which has only proved to hurt both populations. I feel we have far too many in gov't positions that have duel Allegiences to the U.S. and the Isreali
Gov't. Many of Bush's insiders have duel citizenships- I find this to be a conflict of interest. Adn certainly counterproductive when trying to negotiate a Peace deal between the two.
Teh Isreali's ahve shown themselves to be staunch adversaries to any who threatens them- I have complete faith they are quite capable of defending themselves Now- they are a Nuclear Power.thus far more lethal than Iran, or Lebanon, or Syria. Not to mention that they kick ass on the ground. Granted we could probably use their help in a pinch since our military has been Abused and neglected. But I'd rather not have to compromise for that reason. We'll do just fine without them too.
Obama had to respond to the video of Rev. Wright making outrageous remarks about Israel and the Palestinians. Besides, it is the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam -- targeting children with bombs and missles, dancing in the street after 9/11 -- that is the major source of conflict, not Israel.
Jimmy Carter? Are you serious? His book is filled with inaccuracies and twisted views on the Arab-Israel Conflict, he would be the last person I would suggest to any politician to take advice from. I wonder, once a president leaves office does he get any more intelligent? If Bush wrote a book after building a few houses in 20 years would that make it legitimate? If Carter's book is proof, probably not.
Yeah, it was a speech about domestic issues, not middle east policy, but I believe I understand the thrust of your point. Here is the problem: while Obama is half white and half black he is neither Jewish or Muslim - so it isn't quite as easy for him to play the part of the moderator and the man of unique perspective on that matter - and he already seems to be mistrusted by a large number of Jews in this country. That doesn't mean I believe he can't or won't be the person to bring that balanced view to the table - it just means it will have to do it very carefully. If we had a prominent politician in America that had both a Jewish and Islamic background and could speak to both sides - hey wouldn't that be great - but we'll have to find that person.
There is a pervasive lack of understanding over what, and who, Islam represents. The tie-in by Obama of "race" to radical Islam, or to the Palestinian conflict, is just one more link in a chain of misconception. There exists only one racial religion today that attempts to identify itself as "islamic". That religion is known as "Nation of Islam", headed by Farakhan, and rooted in America. It has about as much to do with traditional Islam as Mormonism does with traditional Christianity. Malcolm X originally subscribed to this sect, but when he was exposed to the tenets of traditional Islam, broke his ties with Farakhan and began preaching a different, and much more inclusive message, that ended up leading to his murder by those who did not want to allow a non-racial message conflct and overshadow Farakhan's message of hate of "white devils".
The nation with the largest population of Moslems happens to be China, but that fact doesn't seem to fit in with the misconception that Islam is an "Arab" religion, so it is often ignored. Even the identity of "Arab" becomes muddled, because the largest spread of Islam in history was instigated by the Ottomans, who were Turkish, not Arab. The Afghanis, Pakistanis, Persians, Egyptians, Berbers, Tuaregs, Indonesians, Russians, Balkans, etc...that identify as Moslem, are not racially Arab. In fact, even the Palestinians, who are both Christian and Moslem, are more ethnically related to the Philistines, and not their Arab cousins. Iraq, the historic Babylon, has even more religious and ethnic diversity within it's own borders, with descendants of the first Syrian Christians still baptizing and marrying in the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, as well as Kurds and descendants of the Jewish diaspora living there, and in Iran. Examining different styles of Islamic dress for women across the globe gives an additional window of the complexities of the faith, and how it transcends race and culture.
One of the reasons that secular leaders such as Nassar, Qadafi, Sadaam, have NOT historically been able to unite the Middle East, is this complex racial diversity and patriotism. Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and other radical Islamic groups have a more successful time recruiting from all ethnic backgrounds is due to the very NON racial quality that comes with Islam, and the equality that is offered to all who practice it. This equality is most obvious during the pilgrimmage to Mecca, known as Hadj, where every person dresses in identical garments, from Kings to peasants, to signify that all are physically equal in the sight of God, with only deeds of charity and good will defining spirituality. Perhaps Obama's handlers can use his gaffe as a shining example of how NON Moslem he is, for not having a better concept of this fact.
Clearly this was a speech about Race and not Middle East policy. The issue of Israel and the Palestinians needed to be addressed because there is considerable but sometimes unthinking identification of the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians with the relationships between whites and blacks in this country and in the rest of the world. The title of Carter's book reflects that as did Pastor Wright's sermon -- and that identification is at best an oversimplification and a misleading analogy.
I agree that it is also misleading to attribute the origins of the Palestinian's grievances to radical Islam. Arab and Palestinian opposition to the existence of Israel has been expressed in a variety of ideologies -- Nasser's Arab nationalism; the PFLP's Marxism -- as well as Jihadi radicalism. And certainly the Palesinians have real grievances -- both with Israeli policies and practices and with those of their Arab neighbors that have opportunistically kept them isolated and impoverished.
But that would have been too much to address in this single speech. The next day, Senator Obama gave another that spoke to the war in Iraq and the general challenges of the middle east and terrorism. From that speech as from this one as well as Senator Obama's consistent statements, I see a core position: beyond ideology, what all people's want -- black and white, arab and jew...-- is a better life for themselves and their children. If we can move beyond anger and retribution and harbored historical grievances, we can help do that.
This is the second column on this topic at Huffpost. And it is a reasonable enough topic, but it does require putting the comment in a bit more context. The analysis above is exactly right if by "the middle east" Obama was referring specifically to Israel and the Palestinians. But here Obama seems to be referring to a specific comment or comments by Wright. And the more likely context is claims that al qaeda attacked us because of our support for Israel, or that we invaded Iraq and are hostile to Iran because of Israel, etc. After all the middle east is a lot bigger than Israel and the occupied territories.
What it is doing in the speech then is acknowledging one of the ways that racism percolates in the black community. (And, of course, Obama gave explanations of why such racism emerges. I don't want to accidentally feed the nonsensical accusations that this was a one sided speech by picking just one of the many sides covered).
Blaming radical islam for the problems between the Israelis and Palestinians is idiocy for the reasons mentioned above. But blaming Israel for all of the trouble in the middle east is equally nonsense. I am not bothered by Obama acknowledging that the latter comes out of racism. I wish more people acknowledged that the former (and other similar the Palestinians are evil the Israelis are bastions of goodness) does so as well.
Excellent article. That one line was the most disappointing in the whole speech. And one that showed it was a politician running for office giving the speech. The lack of ability to have an honest discussion about Israel prevents the US from being a force for justice and equality in the Middle East. And within the same sentence he makes the second big error when dealing with the middle east, conceding Islam to the terrorists. We are not at war with Islam in any form, we are at war with people who use the cloak of religion as a tool for personal power, and the advancement of personal hatreds and beliefs. It is a problem America has as well. Remember Eric Rudolph and the people that considered him a hero?
Now maybe we expected too much of Obama, tackling the Israel or Islam question would probably be political suicide for a black man that has already been smeared with being anti-semetic and muslim. And his speech certainly went further than any politician has been willing to go in recent memory, for that he deserves credit.
Loading comments…
Related Blog Posts
|
||
Posted March 21, 2008 | 12:44 AM (EST)