"When people like me, they tell me it is in spite of my colour. When they dislike me, they point out that it is not because of my colour."
-Franz Fanon
Who can approve of offense? Only a social order comfortable that the offense poses no risk of upsetting the established system: then it's just comedy. But it's probably fair to say that footage of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. that has circulated on YouTube contains very little of humorous value. The United States government did not invent the HIV virus, and there's too much history between Nagasaki and 9/11 to draw any but the vaguest historical parallel. Apart from these two laughable errors, it's anger, bitterness, intemperance, and yes, something close to the truth, that have their day: it's not polite to damn your country, but sometimes your country does damnable things.
Barack Obama isn't Jeremiah Wright. But will his association with the Rev. Wright cost the junior Senator the Presidency? The cynical (and malicious) are already in agreement that it will: in the Globe and Mail ($), Clifford Orwin describes the Obama campaign as "amateur hour"; neoconservative and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gershon, in a spluttering column for the Washington Post, claims that Obama "is not a man who hates -- but chose to walk with a man who does"; and Pat Buchanan, who might not be the king of reasoned, rational discourse, chose to weigh in a way which deserves to be quoted at length:
“Wright has, for millions of Americans, filled in the blanks about Barack. Wright tells us the kind of company Barack keeps, the kind of men he holds close, the kind of attitudes and beliefs he finds acceptable, if not congenial. That Wright is a revered preacher in black America also tells us that, far from coming together, we Americans are further apart than we were in the 1950s, when Negroes could be described as Christian, conservative and patriotic.”
That Buchanan feels it appropriate to use the term "Negro" in a public forum while waxing nostalgic for those good ol' segregationist fifties is telling in itself.
The furor over the Rev. Wright is what might be called a "black panic." How else to explain whynews outlets, reporting Monday that Senator Obama would make a major speech on race, contended his candidacy was doomed without a magisterial performance? Never mind that the presumptive Republican nominee so beloved by independents and Democrats for his moderation has a spiritual adviser who seems to believe, and has said so in print, that the United States has an "historical conflict with Islam." Never mind that Republican presidents have long been advised and counseled by religious leaders whose sanctimonious screeds rarely generate the kind of mass media opprobrium faced by the Rev. Wright. Never mind, never mind.
The quote from psychologist and anti-colonial theorist Franz Fanon couldn't be more applicable. By the racial logic of the politically correct, and primarily white, chattering classes, Obama's public persona as a politician has been acceptable, not because of his race (though this was often the platitude) but in spite of it, appealing because he was not Jesse Jackson, not really black. The umbrage surrounding Bill Clinton's comparison of Obama with Jackson in January points this problem up: the political press understood the comment as an insult to Obama because they understood Jesse Jackson to be a sideshow candidate, a " a strong,powerful candidate, a black candidate, running for president” (oh, the gendered language!), but a candidate too dangerous, too "wild" to win.
But now, of a sudden, a reverse: Michael Gershon claims that the problem is that "[Rev.] Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking...." Suddenly, race is not longer the issue: politics is separated neatly from society. Never mind that the story of Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ doesn't seem to generally be one of hate, intolerance and exclusion.
Rev. Wright is a "political extremist" in a country where the sitting President reputedly believes in the immanence of the Second Coming.
So where does all this leave Senator Obama? He sprang the trap of blackness closing in on him with what was indeed a majestic speech, confounding every cliché of identity politics and the media echo chamber with far more composure than I can muster about the topic. Those that claim he failed to answer questions about his relationship with the Rev. Wright were, for whatever reason, not listening. The damage may be done: the most pertinent criticism of the Senator that I've heard involves his inconsistencies around just what he heard, and his enemies will continue to attempt to whip up the hysteria of "black panic" at any and every opportunity, feeding every one of Barack Obama's foibles - and as a human being, he inevitably has a few - back into the pedantic boring cry of "black, black, black!"
No comments:
Post a Comment