On Race, Holder is Right, Obama is Wrong

President Barack Obama's response to Attorney General Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment has given us more insight into his views on leading the country into an informed, reasonable, and necessary discussion on race in America. The new insight is worrisome. His timidity on this issue appears to go beyond just campaign strategy. It seems that Obama doesn't think race is a big deal. That is an incredible disappointment to some who understand the role race places in American political, social, and economic life and hoped he would use his new position to engage the nation on this continuing issue.

Holder's remarks last month before a gathering of Justice Department staffers hit all the appropriate points on race. He clearly acknowledged that the country is fundamentally better on race than it was decades ago. Only a fool would argue otherwise. The larger point, obscured by the response to "nation of cowards," is the real story of the speech: the nation's fear and discomfort about discussing race is holding us back from the real racial reconciliation that we desire. On both scores, Holder is entirely correct. And we need to talk about it.

The president told the New York Times that "I'm not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions." This statement is a disappointment. There is a great difference between constantly talking about race, on the one hand, and never talking about race, on the other. However, there is a great deal of space between those two poles and it's a false argument to suggest that talking about race gets in the way of solving racial tensions. Never before in recorded human history is it possible to find an example of a significant societal ill that was overcome because we ignored it.

I am among a number of observers who were heckled last year for suggesting that Obama was ducking race as an issue. His defenders suggested that he couldn't run the risk of scaring White voters and, consequently, jeopardizing his campaign by talking about race. They also pointed to his Philadelphia race speech as evidence that he "gets it" and everything will be all right after the election. That speech, perhaps better understood as rhetorical cotton candy designed more to keep White voters on the SS Obama than launch a serious discussion, failed to move the country toward the informed conversation that is desperately needed on this issue. Indeed, he has barely said a word on this since Philadelphia.

We need to move beyond this ridiculous notion that any discussion of race is tantamount to playing the race card or beating a dead horse. This is an insult to intelligent, well-meaning people who understand history and want America to be all that it can. It further reflects the conservative takeover of political discourse that has shielded the Right from engaging in an area in which they have little to offer beyond brickbats. Obama appears to clothe himself in the conservative approach to discussing race, which is to say as little as possible, and we will be worse off as a result. His unique position could move the country where it needs to be. Sadly, it appears very little will change.

Michael K. Fauntroy is a professor, author, columnist, and commentator. Learn more about him at MichaelFauntroy.com.

Comments

[provgrays]

freedomthrutruth,

Black prejudice is as common as any other kind. There is black on black prejudice and preduce against whites as well as white on black prejudice. Your argument is clearly in the mold of the victim pathology as you build up your undefeatable white power structure, against which blacks are completely helpless, right? That is Al Sharpton style rhetoric and it's not good enough anymore.

By selling that line of reasoning, you maintain the coveted victim status and that frees blacks from having to take any personal responsibility for their condition of status. Taking responsibility is how to move forward. Look around you.

It's been done before.

[gracie99]

Most work days lately I wind up buying a soda from a little store in building I work in that has a rack of greeting cards that includes a blatantly sexist card that features Clinton: The punch line is, roughly, 'sure it's tough getting older on your birthday, but cheer up, there are worse things like a woman in the Oval Office hahaha.'

Those offensive cards sit there day after day, for months now, on the ground floor of a public building owned by a municipality that would never tolerate the racist equivalent. I'm sure other women see them and cringe. But I guess they may feel as I do: That if we try to get them removed, we'll be slapped down as humorless fem-nazis.

I remember black women who didn't want to talk about sexism because they felt racism is a bigger issue, and now I wonder if they still feel the same way.

(I guess this post isn't really relevant to the issue. I'm just suffering about those woman bashing greeting cards and didn't have anywhere else to express that. Tomorrow I plan to surreptitiously change the category the cards are stored under from "political" to "sexist/racist" to see if by piggybacking on the issue of racism, the issue of the blatant expression of sexism might be resolved too.)

[provgrays]

Those cards are unfortunate but the First Amendment guarantees that tasteless speech or writing will not be outlawed, nor should it be.

Your power is to not support the purveyors of that material. Sexism is a fact of life but you have the right to oppose it and not support it with your dollars. However, in a free society, you will be offended at times.

That's the price of free expression.

[papapj]

That's not free speech, that quite clearly is offensive speech, even to a man like me. There's no law that allows that....

[gracie99]

There has been and is a great deal of dialogue on race and that doesn't seem to be showing signs of stopping anytime soon.

Just by being a black man who has managed to become president, even if he doesn't discuss race much, Obama has created a lot more useful dialogue on race.

I can relate a bit to Obama's reluctance to talk about race a lot: As a woman who is interested in many social issues, I've sometimes been criticized for not making every issue a women's issue first and foremost. I could do that, but sometimes I'm more interested in broader issues that seem best addressed as people matters, even if women may suffer more than men do in those ways because of sexism.

There are a lot of issues that seem very important to me that I feel are under-discussed, largely beneath the radar. Poverty is a good example. Obama never seems to discuss that, preferring mostly on the suffering of the middle class! If you listened just to Obama, you'd not imagine that vast numbers of Americans are suffering horribly and even dying from poverty, just that the middle-class is feeling a bit pinched and can't meet the payments on the balloon mortgages that they took out to buy all those spiffy SUV's.

[Bobby Hamilton]

You can't mistake the things a politician says for philosophy. Barack Obama's merely catering to the people who actually made the difference in his getting elected. Underplaying the race issue is exactly what White liberals need to hear. For them, it's about time Barack Obama devalued the issue. He did it in the usual way politicians say things without saying them. Just let's not talk about it all the time. I think he's 100% on point. When it's time, the race issue will have its day. For goodness sakes, he got elected didn't he? President of the USA, Black man. Why beat this race issue thing into the ground? He's not asking it to go away. He's not ignoring it. He's just rescuing his victory from the jaws of race baiters who still haven't stopped dancing long enough to let him be what he is. The President of the United States. He has a diverse agenda and Holder is the man to make the point issues about race, not Barack Obama. He got where he is by carefully sidestepping the issue without totally ignoring it, so lets let him lead the whole country where it needs to go without alienting the very constituency that made the difference in him winning his job.

[Robin Pugh-Perry]

President Barack Obama’s overwhelming acceptance by whites is the outcome of their perception that he's ascended his blackness. When whites look at the president they perceive an "any man" although they are clearly looking at a black man. Barack Obama “the president” is more acceptable to them than other blacks because of his intelligence, accomplishments, and overall demeanor,. At the same time whites do acknowledge that Barack Obama “the man” is black as a demonstration that they are not racist.

Inherent in this perception is the "heads I win, tails you lose" dichotomy that the remaining blacks in America are forced to live inside of – white America’s idea that either there is no race problem, or that if there is a problem, it isn’t significant enough to warrant discussion. This allows whites to maintain their privileged status. White comedian Louis CK puts it this way, “I’m not saying that white people are better, I’m saying that being white is clearly better.”

The proof:

If you’re white and are reading this, please answer this question. If you could have chosen your race at birth, would you have chosen to be black?

Please watch the following two videos

On White Privilege by Tim Wise, the preeminent white anti-racist in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA&feature=PlayList&p=4F9F55E38E9C981C&index=1

On Being White by comedian Louis CK (contains a few cuss words)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Thank you.

Conversation creates possibility and within that space, miracles happen!

[markmac]

Let's rock and roll. Dialogue about race. You have to be kidding!! Even Bill Cosby is not allowed to criticize blacks and when Obama suggested that black men take a part in raising their own children, Jesse said he should have his balls cut off. Holder is right, Americans lack the courage to have a discussion about race, especially minority Americans.

[mypov123]

So having a discussion about race should only involve criticizing Black people? That's not exactly a balanced discussion.

[Robin Pugh-Perry]

Thats because the idea of white privilege has yet to be included in the larger conversation on race. For the most part, when compared to whites, blacks are considered underprivieged. Consider that to be privileged is not the opposite of underprivileged. Overprivileged is. And whites are overprivileged. Since whites obviously are not looking to relinquish their privileged status, why open that Pandora"s Box by discussing anything? See white anti-racist Tim Wise speak on white privilege at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA&feature=PlayList&p=4F9F55E38E9C981C&index=1

The president"s overwhelming acceptance by whites is an outcome of their perception that he has ascended his blackness. When whites look at President Barack Obama they don"t see a black man, they see an "any man." He doesn't look white, but he is more acceptable to them than other black men because of his extraordinary accomplishments. At the same time whites acknowledge that Barack Obama the man is black as a demonstration that they are not racist.
What you end up with is President Obama living amongst the privileged, representing an entire nation of people. An assumption is made that all is well because one black man reps for all and therefore we can all move on from the problem of race when discrimination is alive and well for the rest of black folks in America. Please watch the video before responding.

Conversation creates possibility and within that space, miracles happen!.

[parkerfly38]

I think your premise is faulty. I don't think it's sufficient to just say, "whites are over privileged" without specifically demonstrating why a lack of privilege on the part of others connotes additional privilege for others.

You also offer make a number of unquantified statements about how whites perceive our new President. Is it not possible that whatever the reasons, he was elected because Americans saw simply the best person for the job, nothing more, nothing less?

Otherwise, I think the dialog is boring. Pretending like black folk are the only ethnic group in this nation for whom all injustices must be righted is annoying, and damn the rest of us to hell if we simply have other priorities at this point. Show me individual injustices, and I'm sure you can, and I'll fight for the cause all the day long, but otherwise, if you'll pardon me, the persistent conversation just turns into white noise.

[zepfan81]

What's a "dialogue" on race mean anyway? Does it mean minorities talking about grievences? Does it mean people talking about some racial hang ups they have on all sides? I personally think either is a waste of time. People that are racist either could care less that they are, or refuse to admit they are. As far as grievences it's not as if people don't know. They just don't talk about it because well...wha­t can really be done about it?

[JusticiaParaTodos]

First of all I voted and support Barack Obama. After eight years of neo-fascism, the U.S. needed REAL change!

Secondly as a Latino I think I am sophisticated enought to understand the dynamics of racism and the role it plays in maximizing profits for corporations. Unfortunatley some progressives appear to detest or fear the truth. This is tragic and will only lead to future problems.

Pretending that race is irrelevant reminds me of the neo-liberal's position on impeaching Bush; DENIAL will not solve a damned thing! Failure to fully understand the reason for racism and the negative effects it has on us as human beings is a flaw that some progressives need to correct!
If White America still cannot come to grips with reality, then it is they who have the problem!

[papapj]

Now is the time!

The changing demographic of the country indicates that by the middle of this century everybody will be part of a minority ethnic group i.e, Whites will no longer be in the majority.

The problems the current minority ethnic groups face due to White privilege will thus be exacerbated resulting in increasing social tensions.

The social indexes which are currently skewed toward EA success and the disproportionate numbers of them in positions of power are surely not indicative of a true meritocracy, rather they point to systemic racism and White privilege.

The longer this discussion is deferred due to White denial, the harder it will be for all of us...

[parkerfly38]

The longer this discussion continues, the harder it will be for all of us, I think. Can't we just stop talking and start doing?

This constant, breathless, "oh by the way, the new President is black and whatdoesth­atmeanfora­llofusohmy­godwemustt­alkaboutit­untilourea­rsfalloff" is ridiculous. Last time I checked, the guy is busy being President, while we're playing intellectual catch-up to the reality.

There is no denial. We're here, we're living in the now. Whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of how much we yap as opposed to act. Let's follow the Prez's example, because he's moving even faster than the conversation.

[RhetoriCons]

I must confess from the onset that I only glossed over the reaction to your blog. Having said this I feel that I can characterize it as less than supportive of your rationale.

My own reason for disagreeing with you, is that I feel race can become irrelevant if we focus on providing a decent quality of life for all human beings in this country. As someone who is concerned more with the day-to-day problems that various socio-economic groups face and ways of moving forward, then with historical identity issues, I really can't see the rationale for focusing on race specifically when groups in this country are increasingly defined by issues of access to economic success.

In other words money talks... musing about the experience of our forefathers (be they black, white, red, brown, purple, or yellow to paraphrase the Sugar Hill Gang) walks.

[WilliamL]

Living on military bases in enlisted housing from 65-83, I had the opportunity to experience race relations in both the civilian and military community.

Attending public schools, there was unity amongst the kids from the base that exceeded our individual races, Americans first and were all “base kids.” Attack any of us verbally or physically, we were all attacked, and would behave accordingly. A victim mentality was unacceptable. There was an attitude amongst many of us towards racist local kids, regardless of race, that would be expressed with explicit and clear language followed by violence if the situation called for it.

A greater issue in this culture is rank-class. The divisions in military culture are specifically related to rank, privileges associated with, and is a greater influence than race. We knew we had to get along because our families livelihood, privileges, and benefits depended upon it.

This experience made it clear that racists come in all colors and races. Considering the conduct of some civilians, all races, in this country, some civilians might consider looking at the military community as an example that may not be perfect but is an example of a multi-cultural community living and working together.

As is said on bases, “this is a free country, you do not have to like each other but you will get along or you can leave,” an attitude prevalent regardless of race or culture. This truth would serve some well in the civilian community as well.

[jozinha]

Time to dig deep into your secret, private truth.

How many African American men -- like Rush Limbaugh, but for DIFFERENT reasons -- want Obama to fail?

[mypov123]

Oh come on, not every African American who disagrees with President Obama wants him to fail, with the exception of Tavis Smiley, of course lol. He's an obvious hater.

I think that Michael is raising some interesting points and we shouldn't automatically accuse Black people of jealousy whenever they criticize Obama. Blacks, just like any other group, are a heterogeneous group, we don't all think the same way about things. I don't know what President Obama's true feelings are about this matter, none of us do. What I do know is that his response to the NYT was a "safe" and "politically correct" one, and so I understand why he said that. Whether he truly feels that way or not, that's another story...

[JEdgarH]

He walks the walk; he doesn't have to talk the talk.

[jozinha]

Succinctly put. Thanks.

[LeeScho]

The fact remains that the first African-American President of the United States was not historically of the African-American experience. And so he is not of that peculiar perspective; of that both empowering and debilitating experience. His was a global experience, a universal perspective. It is apparently what was needed at this time to propel the first African-American into the White House.

Argue with that if you will, but do so at the peril of continuing to anchor African-American children to a debilitating experience rather than liberating them to an empowering perspective that travels beyond their current circumstance.

In the movie, "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," the Poitier character says to his father, "You think of yourself as a Black man; I think of myself as just a man." There is a time and place for both, and neither is wrong at any given time. But guess wrong, and you are powerless where you sought to be empowered. President Obama is simply cautioning us to choose wisely.

[jabreal00]

The authors argument is moot on the sheer fact that Obama was elected president. He is half African. He has an African name. Come on, there is absolutely no comparing the plight of blacks 20-30 years ago to today. A Black American can dream for the sky. There is no ceiling. Unfortunately, I think part of the problem is what Bill Cosby alluded to, the dysfunctional culture among urban blacks. It's not so much an external force keeping blacks mired in poverty but internal. When will black national leaders be ready to discuss that issue?

[jozinha]

Excellent. Thanks.

[sradag]

I'm hopeful, based on the huge turnout of younger voters in '08 (many of them white), that race is not going to be a concern for the next generation. Younger voters were focused on issues - who could best represent them, not the color of the person's skin. I'm also hopeful that they acknowledge and respect the ugly times in our history and will not allow anything like it to happen again.

[RobertEvans]

Eric Holder is correct in saying that there does need to be more discussion about race and ethnic issues in the U.S., but our President is not wrong not to dwell on them, either. He has been an inspiration already that we can go beyond such considerations to judge folks by the content of their characters, like Dr King had hoped for, and now we can continue, but also go about the real business of the needs of the country and world, including the hard times folks of all colors are having.