Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of Obama

Vegas, Thought and Cruise, your staunch political allegiance is quite telling. It's reveals that you all are comfortable within your collective wisdoms. To me its a cultural atmosphere that is a plague upon our community. Thought I know your passionate in your views, but despite your disdain for the vast right wing conspiracy, how has your allegiance to your philosophy aided our community?

How has your allegiance to Rush Limbaugh aided a community, specifically the black community?
Many of our communities who can't afford the end result of your policies are stuck with leader who think like you.
Some cannot without help but many can and some believe that fuck those who can't do it on their own. Fuck offering anyone a hand if that community finds itself unable to move forward. This is one of the glaring differences with your allegiance to the Pharisees and you can't even see it.
One of you guys mentioned Rush, Well none of your radio hacks can hold a candle to his 20 plus million daily listeners. What happened to Air Head America. Oh I forgot it failed due to the fact that no one wants to hear that garbage.

You can kill that 20 million bullshit. You can't prove none of those numbers and you damn well know it. It's what they told you and without bothering to check, you pass it on like it's a proven fact. LOL. It ain't. There was a reason why he continued to put those numbers out there every show. Never clued into why huh? No one else does that and that doesn't strike you as questionable? Hehe.

What you could do is post the subscription numbers to his Limbaugh Letter and show it over time. Go get them. If you could find them. lol. Air head america. Typical talking point. How about that drug addict Rush? Truth be told, he is still on drugs. Has to be. Can't end a 19 year addiction to pain meds in 4 weekends. Have you seen him? Sweating all the damn time, tugging at his shirt, constantly wiping his nose and brow, can't sit the fuck still for 2 minutes?

Yes its fun exchanging ideas but in the grand scheme of things does it lift people out of poverty by making excuses for regressive behavior. In Malcolm X's Ballot or the Bullet. Although he did not care for either side of the aisle he stated " In Washington D.C., in the House of Representatives, there are 257 who are democrats; only 177 are republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are republicans. The Party you backed controls two-thirds of the house of representatives and the senate, and they still cant keep their promise to you, " cause you are a chump.

Sure it does.

Many of us started life in those same impoverished and undeserved neighborhoods. On welfare, food stamps, and broken homes, drugs with your white masters foot on our collective necks. But many of us, with the help of democratically driven programs assisted by some republicans truth be told, were able to get into college and graduate. Helped us move into the mainstream middle and become it's future leaders, teachers and scientists. We might start in poverty, but we don't all dwell there forever.

But the Pharisees people beat into your head that those currently living below the poverty line, are there from cradle to grave.

What's worse is, you laugh at them. President Obama's word is you reduce them to "caricature". You mock and make fun of those families in those communities because it shows your elitist mentality cares less than a fuck about anyone who just might need help. Not a hand out but help.


Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you're not only a chump but a traitor to your race". He then goes on to speak about how liberals blame others for their shortcomings. www.americanrhetoric.com . Top 100 speeches. It's obvious that you guys rather reward allegiance over independent thinking. If you check the polling data from the 2004 election it is crystal clear that every race imply a balance across both parties even Latino's split their vote. Just this past election every race split their vote but ours. Thought in a post last week you cited the Huffington Post as a credible source well here you go.

Are you serious?

The Huffington Post Slammed for Content Theft
By Ryan Singel December 19, 2008 | 2:42 pm | Categories: Media

The Huffington Post, a venture-capital-backed new media site that mixes links to other sites content with hundreds of celebrity and volunteer blogger posts, is being accused of slimy business practices by a handful of smaller publications who say the site is unfairly copying and publishing their content.

In other words: professional newsgathering organizations have paid professional writers to do professional work, and then
Arianna comes in, creates links to their creations, and sells ads on her own page. How progressive.


Let hear it for credible sources!!!!

Ok. What about the source that got us into this fucked up war? Killed millions and destroyed millions of families. Mostly Iraqi. Lets talk about the credible source that lost us the World Trade Center, several 767's and thousands of lives. That source that set into motion an economy in the got damn sewer to double digit unemployment. And you want to talk about squabbles from an online press. Ok, lets talk about credibility.. I can do this all day. lol.



The bottom line is point to me a community that is poverty infested that its leaders has adopted your views and did a 360. Has the education levels suddenly risen from the abyss? Has viable businesses move in without government intervention? Do the people own the real estate or are the renting? It is obvious that you guys only tread on forums where you can throw out your liberal views without having them challenged. You guys would be eaten alive with your look at me i'm a victim attitudes. It's like you'd rather settle for table scraps than showing your worth and earning your seat at the table.

What do you want to see as proof exactly? Based on what who did to lift it from what it was to what it is now? I lived in a Nashville, Tennessee burb and our community was able to have both a library and community center built and staffed.

These are the things that lift a community, not some legislator dumping a bucket of taxpayer dollars on a neighborhood and it magically change into a shiny new quarter. You and limbaugh consistently use these bullshit analogies to make your point. But you cannot tell me of one thing limbaugh or hanneity has done with all their millions to lift ANYONE out of their condition. And cutting a check is simple shit.
W.E.B. Dubois once said, I sit with Shakespere and he winces not. Meaning he is able to hold his own without condescension from others.

That is what YOU say it means but that is not what DuBois is meant at all. The full text is.

I sit with Shakespeare, and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm and arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From out of the caves of evening that swing between the strong-limbed Earth and the tracery of stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the veil. Is this the life you grudge us, O knightly America?

Hardly what you say he was talking about. DuBois was talking about how he could sit with leaders in any other nation and be treated as a man. But smarmy ass America treats him like chattel. That's what Dubois was saying. I guess Limbaugh didn't get that far with you huh?

Damn right wing trying to throw our brothers up against us for political gain. Take that shit back to the freeper site. They hate America.

-VG
 
Detroit was in love with the hip hop mayor and he played them like a fiddle. Upon being discovered he claimed racism. He knew his voting base would accept that as his excuse.

(1) Please post the link to any story, article, etc., posted in this forum.

(2) Why is this particular opinion piece posted in this thread ???

- Whats your point ?

- Whats the relationship between the thread and the op/ed piece ?​
Please be specific.

QueEx

World Net Daily Author Ellis Washington.

How many times Que have you seen "Our so called Leaders" be in a position to deliver and based on past experiences fail those whom they are elected to represent. I've been to numerous political events where our so called leaders blame others when they have been elected to represent a district for consecutive terms, and they are still blaming the previous administration.
Of course, you wholly failed to tell us why you posted the op/ed piece in this thread, hence, in the absence of explanation, I am left only to believe that in your estimation Barack Obama and Mr. Fitzpatrick are both mere "hip hop" political figures.

Of course, this obvious stereotype is a bit telling as it draws into question not only your motives in this thread but whether you may be masquerading as an African American, as well. And no, you don't have to be African American to participate in this forum, but it does have a direct bearing on your credibility if you're cloaking as something, you're not.

________

Nevertheless, with respect to your questions, I'm afraid I don't know which of "Our so called Leaders" to whom you are referring. Please tell me who you are referring to.


Many in Detroit stuck there heads into the ground while he ran once a beacon of America down the drain.

Please tell me why you are comparing Kwame Kilpatrck to Barack Obama. What similarities do you see ???

Having said that, we as black America should be able to question the policies of Obama without the fear of being told we're self hating. The article I presented explains itself. It is a result of corruption without checks and balances.
I don't have a single problem with you questioning anyone and no one should be called "self hating" for doing just that. On the other hand, don't you be the fool you take others to be: there is a huge difference between questioning and defaming. So far, I've only seen your attempts, at the latter, as a clear example, your witless suggestion-by-an-attempted-association that somehow Mr. Obama, like Mr. Kilpatrick, is an example of unchecked, unbalanced corruption.


As a side bar many of the articles you post are mere opinions as well. WHAT IS YOUR POINT. Citing an authors name to a newspaper article does not make it FACT.:angry::angry: I'm simply offering an alternative to some of your loaded posts. I can easily offer a one sided post and offer it as fact. Then all of a sudden, those who agree with you shake their heads like lemmings.
Oh no question, I post op/ed pieces all the time and you are free to question why and to inquire about the relation of the piece to the topic, if you fail to see it. And, if you ask me, I'll tell you what I was thinking -- unlike what you have done in this thread, no ???

BTW, when I said provide a citation -- I meant provide the "Link" to the story or article so that we can all go to it to glean what we might.

With respect to posters agreeing with me or one another; frankly, I don't think posters agree with one another as much as they may agree with the points another has made or the position another has taken. So, drop the childish who's agreeing with whom and deal with the points, positions and issues.

QueEx
 


Black caucus chair to Obama: No more Ms. Nice Guy

y4601.WiPh2.91.jpg

Rep. Marcia Fudge didn’t sugarcoat her feelings about the
fact that President Barack Obama has not yet chosen any
African-Americans to fill open high-level positions in his
second term.




 
So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?
Kevin Johnson was pilloried for suggesting Obama has not been good for African Americans. But his question was a good one
Gary Younge
The Guardian, Sunday 5 May 2013 15.30 EDT

Back when affirmative action was white, educational institutions were created for African Americans who were barred from admission elsewhere. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) became the breeding grounds for the "talented tenth" – the elite class groomed to lead black America. Towards the end of the last century HBCUs had produced 75% of black PhDs, 85% of black doctors and 80% of black federal judges. Among the most prestigious was Morehouse, in Atlanta, which counts Martin Luther King, Samuel Jackson and Spike Lee among its alumni.

Later this month, Barack Obama will deliver the keynote address at Morehouse's graduation ceremony. Another invited speaker was Morehouse alumnus Kevin Johnson, a prominent Philadelphia pastor. Then Johnson, an ardent Obama supporter during both presidential runs, wrote an article criticising the president for failing to appoint enough black cabinet members and to address the needs of African Americans in general. "Obama has not moved African-American leadership forward but backwards," he wrote. "We are not in the driver's seat – or even in the car … Why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?"

Shortly afterwards his speaker's slot was removed. Instead of addressing the students alone, the day before Obama, he will now be one of a three-person panel curated "to reflect a broader and more inclusive range of viewpoints".

Evidently, whatever they'll be celebrating at this graduation at Morehouse, it won't be critical thinking. And that's a shame. Because that's precisely what black America could do with more of at a time when the quest for greater black representation has been almost completely divorced from improving the material conditions of black people as a whole.

The brouhaha at Morehouse illustrates the degree to which space for this conversation within America's black communities has shrunk under Obama. "Too many black intellectuals have given up the hard work of thinking carefully in public about the crisis facing black America," said Princeton professor Eddie Glaude. "We have either become cheerleaders for President Obama or self-serving pundits." Hardly surprising when that "hard work" risks the backlash Johnson received. "I have friends," says Virginia state delegate Onzlee Ware, "who say I'm a traitor if I bring [Obama's shortcomings] up as an intellectual conversation."

This is partly a defensive response to the overt racism and disrespect that Obama has received, particularly (though not exclusively) from the right. But increasingly it feels more like a preference for mythology over meaningful engagement lest the symbolic importance of who Obama is – the first black president – be tainted by a substantial conversation about what he actually does. Yet the longer his presidency goes on, the more urgent those questions become.

For Johnson is right on two counts. First, Obama's second-term cabinet will probably have fewer black members than his first and those of either George W Bush or Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, there are the same number of black governors and Congressmen and one less elected senator than in 2008. "For all of the euphoria about the election of Barack Obama in black America, his election has not had coat-tails," said talk-show host Tavis Smiley.

Second, African Americans, as a group, are far worse off now than when Obama was elected and the wealth gap between whites and blacks has grown since the recession. Between 2007 and 2010 black families' wealth decreased by 31%; for white families it was 11%. "[Theracial wealth gap] was already dismal," Darrick Hamilton, a New School professor, told the New York Times. "It got even worse."

You can argue about the degree to which the relationship between Obama's presidency and that reality is causal. But you can't contest that it is factual. Obama's meteoric rise has coincided with black America's precipitous economic descent.

One reason why having that conversation is so difficult is because black people have rarely been more upbeat. They are considerably more optimistic than whites, presumably because the percentage in 2010 who thought black people were better off than they were five years earlier doubled, and a significant proportion think the standard of living gap between whites and blacks is actually narrowing. That optimism appears to be directly related to Obama's presidency. In 2011 African Americans were twice as likely to think race relations had got better as a result of his election than that they had deteriorated while 64% thought they would get "a lot better or a little better" in the years ahead. A third believe his election has been "the most important advance in terms of progress for blacks" in the past century.

So black Americans feel better even as they fare worse. Unravelling that contradiction demands more and deeper debate, not less. For while Johnson identifies part of the problem, his proposed solution is inadequate. Clinton's diverse cabinet coincided with a sharp increase in the black prison population and the slashing of welfare; Bush's diverse cabinet oversaw hurricane Katrina and the economic slump. Clearly, there is precious little correlation between the presence of black faces in high places and progress in black Americans' lives.

One shouldn't dismiss black representation as irrelevant or insist that symbolism is not important. But we shouldn't fetishise them either. For in themselves they are worse than meaningless without a discussion about what that representation is for and what those symbols mean.

It isn't that black Americans are entitled to special consideration because the president is black. Quite the opposite. They should demand of him what they would and have done of any president – greater equality and social justice. Only more so, because they gave him a greater percentage of their votes than any other group or to any other president. The "talented tenth" is barely worthy of the adjective unless it makes space for these debates or its progress is in some way related to the remaining 90%.

As Arundhati Roy explained in her essay Do Turkeys Like Thanksgiving, in which she referred to the presidential pardoning of a single turkey during Thanksgiving: "A few carefully bred turkeys … the occasional Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice … are given absolution and a pass to Frying Pan Park. The remaining millions lose their jobs, are evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity connections cut, and die of Aids. Basically, they're for the pot … who can say that turkeys are against Thanksgiving? They participate in it!"

What difference does it make if a few make it through the glass ceiling if millions are still confined to the basement?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/05/why-loyal-to-president-not-loyal-to-us
 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

Have I not asked you before: What "Specifically" would you like the president to do to help us. I don't recall you saying anything other than, perhaps, "repeal the minimum wage laws".

Do I have that right ???

I could be mistaken. If so, please provide the thread-post citation.

 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?


Have I not asked you before: What "Specifically" would you like the president to do to help us. I don't recall you saying anything other than, perhaps, "repeal the minimum wage laws".

Do I have that right ???

I could be mistaken. If so, please provide the thread-post citation.

To nuance it, the President can't deliver a minimum wage repeal, but he could champion it if he believed it.

In the past, I framed the repeal as "what black people need", rather what Obama can do for anyone.

I rarely talk about Obama because all of you lose your mind at the slightest hint of disunity..
 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

To nuance it, the President can't deliver a minimum wage repeal, but he could champion it if he believed it.

In the past, I framed the repeal as "what black people need", rather what Obama can do for anyone.

I rarely talk about Obama because all of you lose your mind at the slightest hint of disunity..

:lol:

. . . when all these "Loyalist" have ever asked of you is, to be gotdamn specific.

Again, while offering a lot of irrelevant rhetoric, once more you've failed to offer any specifics :hmm:

 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

:lol:

. . . when all these "Loyalist" have ever asked of you is, to be gotdamn specific.

Again, while offering a lot of irrelevant rhetoric, once more you've failed to offer any specifics :hmm:

The only thing black people need is the freedom to work as any individual see fit. Obama isn't going to help with that and likely couldn't deliver it anyway, so he's not even worth thinking about in a black sense.

The problems I have with him are as a President.

Like the third post in this thread, he's my President not my homie.
 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

The only thing black people need is the freedom to work as any individual see fit. Obama isn't going to help with that and likely couldn't deliver it anyway, so he's not even worth thinking about in a black sense.

The problems I have with him are as a President.

Like the third post in this thread, he's my President not my homie.


Once again . . . NOTHING.


 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

No, I think you're full of self-absorbing shit.
 
Re: So, why are we so loyal to a president who is not loyal to us?

In this instance, yes.
 
I thought President Obama couldn't do any wrong.

On the contrary, he's human and makes mistakes just like the rest of us. Unless you've missed something, I'm not defending him against wrong nor am I saying he's right.

I am, however, saying that you who have a complaint, be specific about what it is and what, exactly, you want him to do to fix it.

sabe?
 
On the contrary, he's human and makes mistakes just like the rest of us. Unless you've missed something, I'm not defending him against wrong nor am I saying he's right.

I am, however, saying that you who have a complaint, be specific about what it is and what, exactly, you want him to do to fix it.

sabe?
Well, you just said he's made mistakes, let us know what he could do better for black people.
 
You're rapidly becoming the troll you've accused actinass of being.
I wonder how what I said is any different than what you said yesterday to start all this.

You said he's made mistakes, presumably in the context of this thread's topic, so what "Specifically" would you like the president to do to help us?

I've pointed out multiple time how you people are always subjecting others to criticisms you consider yourself immune to, this is just another example. I'm sure there will be many more.
 
Does Obama unfairly hold blacks to a different standard?

Does Obama unfairly hold blacks to a different standard?
A commencement address urging black graduates to not "make excuses" raises some eyebrows
By Jon Terbush | May 20, 2013

On Sunday, President Obama delivered a commencement address at Morehouse College, the historically black all-male school, espousing personal responsibility and exhorting graduates to not use their race as an excuse for failure.

"We've got no time for excuses — not because the bitter legacies of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they haven't," Obama said. "Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; that's still out there. It's just that in today's hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with a billion young people from China and India and Brazil entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything you haven't earned. And whatever hardships you may experience because of your race, they pale in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured — and overcame."

For the most part, Obama's speech was well-received, both by his audience and the national press. "He spoke movingly of his struggles to discuss the responsibility of men as fathers and husbands, and the need for the young graduates to be role models," wrote Zeke J. Miller at TIME.

Yet while the president sought to strike an inspirational tone with his message, some viewed his race-based remarks as part of a disturbing pattern in which he has held blacks to a different standard than other demographics.

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that while the president urged African Americans to accept personal responsibility, he has not made that the focus of his remarks to other groups.

Taking the full measure of the Obama presidency thus far, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this White House has one way of addressing the social ills that afflict black people — and particularly black youth — and another way of addressing everyone else. I would have a hard time imagining the president telling the women of Barnard that "there's no longer room for any excuses" — as though they were in the business of making them. Barack Obama is, indeed, the president of "all America," but he also is singularly the scold of "black America." [The Atlantic]​

Further, Coates says that Obama's focus on his personal background omitted the important role social policy plays in preparing people for success. He argues that the president, as the most powerful policy-maker n the nation, is in a prime position to affect those policies.

"As the president of 'all America,' Barack Obama inherited that policy," he says. "I would not suggest that it is in his power to singlehandedly repair history. But I would say that, in his role as American president, it is wrong for him to handwave at history, to speak as though the government he represents is somehow only partly to blame."

A similar criticism of the president caused an uproar at Morehouse, and led the college to reduce the role of pastor Kevin Johnson in its graduation ceremonies. Johnson had criticized what he said was a lack of diversity in the president's cabinet, in an op-ed titled, "A President for Everyone, Except Black People." Obama "is more of a historical leader than he is a transformational leader for the African-American community," Johnson wrote.

Rich Benjamin, writing in Salon, said the speech had an "ironic whiff" because the president shied away from discussing, in stark terms, the economic disparity between races in America. Rather than focusing on how the recession is "throwing non–college educated black men under the bus," the president, employing "creaking racial symbolism," instead told graduates to not throw themselves under the bus.

Similarly, Jarrett L. Carter asked why the president talked about what graduates could do for themselves, but not about what he could do for them. Writing in the Huffington Post, Carter, the founding editor of a website that covers historically black universities, said the president could have done more to promote existing institutions that develop young men into future leaders.

"His belief in the individual potential of black people is instantly recognizable, but his disconnection from creating attention and support for systems which specifically cultivate and inspire black people to realize that potential has been startling," he says.

http://theweek.com/article/index/244436/does-obama-unfairly-hold-blacks-to-a-different-standard
 
The Rebirth of Black Rage

The Rebirth of Black Rage
From Kanye to Obama, and back again.
By Mychal Denzel Smith
AUGUST 13, 2015

There are two quotes from September 2, 2005, that 
have become fixtures in our cultural and political language, and each sums up the ways in which Americans with differing perspectives came to view the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. The first is from George W. Bush: Five days after Katrina tore through the Gulf Coast region, the president landed in Louisiana facing heavy criticism for his administration’s slow response to the devastation. Touring the state with FEMA director Michael Brown—the only person who’d been more heavily criticized for the government’s inadequate response—Bush turned to the man he’d placed in charge of disaster relief and said, “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.” Part of Bush’s appeal had always been his folksiness, but it offered no solace here. His comment only served to further exemplify his ineptitude.

The other quote—what Bush would later call the worst moment of his presidency—came at an unexpected time from a rather unexpected source.

Later that same evening, after Bush’s “heckuva job” comment, NBC did what television networks do during times of disaster and hosted a celebrity telethon. Faith Hill, Harry Connick Jr., Claire Danes, Hilary Swank, Lindsay Lohan, Leonardo DiCaprio, and others stood before an audience of millions, accompanied by the pictures of despair that were still streaming from the gulf—New Orleans in particular.

Also invited was Kanye West, one of the more popular entertainers in the country at the time. He was paired with Mike Myers, famous for his performances as Austin Powers and as the voice of Shrek. Myers read from a teleprompter about the suffering in New Orleans, attempting to build up sympathy before the big ask. When it was West’s turn, he deviated from the script and started speaking from his heart.

“I hate the way they portray us in the media,” Kanye said. “You see a black family, it says, ‘They’re looting.’ You see a white family, it says, ‘They’re looking for food.’ And, you know, it’s been five days because most of the people are black…. America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible.”

Myers attempted to rebound, returning to the teleprompter script. The folks in the control room at NBC must have been hoping that West would do the same. Perhaps they weren’t familiar with his brash reputation, or perhaps they thought he would rein himself in, in service of charity. But Kanye wasn’t done: He still needed to deliver what would become one of my generation’s greatest moments of live television. Speaking as if he were reading from the teleprompter, his cadence straddling the line between stiff and natural, he looked straight into the camera and said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

Had this happened even five years earlier, it would have been newsy fodder for comedians and might even have made its way into some year-end retrospectives. But it would also have receded more easily into a cultural footnote, a had-to-see-it-to-believe-it moment in television. In September 2005, however, millennials were already taking more direct control of our media diets; we were deciding for ourselves which moments were fleeting and which were definitive. YouTube had launched earlier that year and was already starting to catch on; the idea of the Internet providing video on demand was becoming more of the norm. I was back on campus for my second year of college when this telethon aired, and for weeks afterward, if someone mentioned that they had missed Kanye’s declaration, another person would open a laptop, conduct a quick Google search, and pull up the video for a crowd of onlookers. Facebook, founded the previous year, didn’t yet support video links, but we could all post on one another’s walls some variation of jokes involving West, Bush, or not caring about black people. With these new technological possibilities, and the most succinct political statement of the year, West was able to further ingratiate himself with a generation of young people who already loved his music, but who now had, in him, our first relatable expression of black rage on a national stage.

* * *

Black rage, as a political message, had all but 
disappeared from the cultural and political landscape by the time my generation came of age. The aspirations of the black political class had shifted from the anger that animated the civil-rights and Black Power era to seeking influence through electoral politics, where black rage does not translate into votes. Jesse Jackson had gone from agitator and organizer to presidential candidate, while Oakland, New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, and many other cities had voted their first black mayors into office, and Douglas Wilder, in my home state of Virginia, had become the nation’s first elected black governor. The Rev. Al Sharpton could still command media attention, but his expressions of rage were diluted by his celebrity-activist status and the larger-than-life persona that made him a prime target for caricature.

The world of hip-hop that West came out of had also long since excised political anger in favor of narratives of material wish fulfillment. Of course, there were always artists like Dead Prez and the Coup, groups with a radical, socialist Black Power message, but the days of Public Enemy and NWA selling millions of records of uncut black rage and becoming part of mainstream American culture were no more. Whereas Ice Cube had once crashed the Billboard charts with an album featuring the song “I Wanna Kill [Uncle] Sam,” by the time Kanye West reached prominence, most rappers were searching for an “In da Club” clone.

That’s what was important about West’s “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” comment. This kind of rhetorical expression of black rage was marginalized throughout most of the relatively prosperous 1990s, when there was no longer a Reagan or a Bush to serve as an identifiable enemy, and the nation’s children were being taught that racism was essentially over because we were committed to celebrating multiculturalism.

The second Bush proved an easier foil than his Democratic predecessor, but his historic appointments of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice gave him the sort of symbolic cover we’ve come to accept as evidence that racism is a nonfactor. In 2001, when Bush took office, a Gallup poll showed that 32 percent of black people believed that “relations between blacks and whites” would eventually be worked out, and by 2004 that number had risen to 43 percent.

Black rage, at its most potent, cuts through that kind of bullshit. Black rage announces itself at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, and says, “Ain’t I a woman?” Black rage stands before hundreds of thousands at the Lincoln Memorial and says, “America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’” Black rage says to the Democratic National Convention, “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.” Black rage says “Fuck tha Police” and “Fight the Power.”

At its best, black rage speaks to the core concerns of black people in America, providing a radical critique of the system of racism that has upheld all of our institutions and made living black in America a special form of hell. But that anger has not only drawn attention to injustice; it has driven people to action, sparking movements and spurring them forward. At the very least, the public expression of black rage has allowed communities and people who have felt isolated in their own anger to know that they are not alone.

This is what West’s telethon moment did. It was replayed over and over, adopted as slang, fit to whatever situation one was in, because it gave language to the pain we felt watching the nightmare in New Orleans play out after Hurricane Katrina made landfall. When the levees broke and the water rose, a city full of black people attempted to wade through it alone. The sick, the young, the elderly were being left for dead in one of the most wealthy countries in the world. The media spoke of people attempting to survive as if they were savages (a study by linguist Geoffrey Nunberg showed that in articles that used either “refugee” or “evacuee” to describe the survivors, “refugee” was far more likely—68 versus 32 percent—to appear in stories that also mentioned “poor” and/or “black” people). And you couldn’t help but think, because you knew it was true, that had this been a city with a larger white population, there wouldn’t have been so much death and destruction, or at least there would have been greater relief.

When West said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” he wasn’t just speaking about George W. Bush. It was an indictment of an America that doesn’t care about black people, and that elected a president to carry on the tradition.

* * *

There was a sign, a few years later, that 
the black rage to which Kanye gave voice might turn into a movement. In 2007, young people of color led the charge seeking justice for the Jena Six, a group of teenage boys in Jena, Louisiana, who had been charged with attempted murder for what amounted to a schoolyard fight. Thousands of young black people used social media to raise awareness of their case, with new Facebook groups dedicated to justice for the Jena Six appearing nearly every day during the summer of 2007. Hundreds traveled to Louisiana, and thousands marched on the day that Mychal Bell was to be sentenced; he had been convicted of lesser but still serious felony charges that could have sent him to prison for up to 22 years. Thousands of students organized protests on their college campuses in solidarity. Al Sharpton called it the “beginning of the 21st-century civil-rights movement.” At the time, it truly felt that way.

But then Barack Obama happened.

In 2008, young black people turned out to vote for Obama at historic levels, helping to ensure that he would become the first black president of the United States. But this meant the activist energy that had been building since Hurricane Katrina, and had caught a bit more momentum with the Jena Six, was being redirected to electoral politics and the messaging of Obama’s candidacy. Black rage was being channeled into black hope. On its face, that isn’t entirely bad, but the particular brand of black hope that Obama represented was one that muted black rage, and its possibilities, altogether.

This was first evident in Obama’s famous speech on race. During the 2008 campaign, the then-senator had to address the controversy that had arisen around his attendance at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, presided over by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The pastor was in the spotlight after tapes were uncovered by ABC News in which he was heard saying things like “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” Obama’s association with Wright was used by his opponents to paint him as some kind of secret black radical, obviously unfit for the presidency. Obama needed to distance himself from the pastor who had officiated at his wedding and baptized his children.

He accomplished this in what has become known as the “Philadelphia race speech.” In it, Obama denounced Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric, saying that his words had the “potential…to widen the racial divide” and that he obviously didn’t agree with everything his former pastor had to say. But he also said that Wright was like family and that the Obamas couldn’t disown him.

The speech was regarded as an instant classic, a treatise on race in America that we all needed to hear, from the first viable black presidential candidate in our history. But it was also the first major speech by the first viable black presidential candidate to throw water on the flames of black rage.

“That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white coworkers or white friends,” Obama said. “But it does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings….

“That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our own condition; it prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.”

But black rage is about holding America accountable. It does not distract “attention from solving real problems”; it illuminates those problems and asks America to confront their roots. If black rage has prevented alliances from forging, those are likely not alliances that would have yielded much in the way of progress anyway.

As president, Obama continued to blunt the edge of black rage, at a time when the reasons for that anger were stacking up in plain sight. In fairness, his job as president is not to represent black America—and if he were ever to register any type of anger in office, the already racist coverage that follows him would only worsen. That doesn’t, however, mean that he needed to make black anger seem unjustified or undignified. As president, he speaks with a different moral authority for many people. Because he is the first black president, that moral authority is all the more highly regarded when he is speaking about race.

When Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested in front of his own home, Obama’s response was to call him to the White House garden for a beer summit with the arresting officer, thereby sending the message that racial profiling is, meh, not that big a deal. It didn’t even matter that this happened to a celebrated Harvard professor and PBS documentarian who serves as an avatar for black mainstream assimilation and acceptance—or that Gates himself had been enraged. Obama’s solution was to calm the black anger down, come together over a pint, and talk it out.

This invalidation of black rage felt even more insidious when Obama used the tragedy of Trayvon Martin’s death and the subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman to reinforce ideas about black male criminality. In his remarks following the verdict, Obama at first did what no other president has had the capacity to do: He spoke about Martin’s death in very personal terms, including the experience of being racially profiled and living with the burden of the stereotypes attached to young black men. It represented the best of what having a black president has meant. But then he pivoted and said, “I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.”

False moral equivalencies of this kind are a pattern for the president when discussing race. Whereas Obama was uniquely positioned to relate Martin’s story to his own, as the first black president, he has also been uniquely positioned to speak with authority on the ways that racism has built America. But even when he’s risen to the task, Obama has done so by making the perceived moral failings of black Americans as much a part of that story as racism itself. His rhetoric provides further ammunition for those who believe that black people’s anger at racism is unjustified.

* * *

But Martin’s death and Zimmerman’s acquittal also represented a turning point. The generation that heard Kanye West say “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” then pushed the vote for the first black president, then watched America continue to not care about black people, simply has had enough. As the deaths of young, unarmed black people continue to become headlines, and social media holds more hashtag funerals, the hope has turned to despair, and the despair into rage. That rage consumed the streets of Ferguson when Michael Brown was killed; it set fire to the streets of Baltimore when Freddie Gray was killed; and it sent Bree Newsome up the flagpole at the South Carolina state Capitol to bring down the Confederate flag in the wake of nine people being killed in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Black rage is back, cutting to the core of white supremacy and demanding that America change.

This movement, known across the country and the world as “Black Lives Matter,” has pushed an agenda to address police violence, racial profiling, and racial inequality onto the national political stage. When black rage is felt, organized, and radically expressed, this is what it does best—shift consciousness and make the needs and concerns of black America part of the body politic. It has made presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton take notice, and it has even moved Obama. At the 2015 NAACP convention, the president delivered his strongest speech yet on criminal-justice reform, calling for the end of mass incarceration, the reduction or elimination of mandatory-minimum sentencing, the restoration of voting rights for the formerly incarcerated, the end of rape in prisons, and more—without the added moralizing about sagging pants, missing fathers, and “acting white” that he’d grown so fond of.

An opportunity may have been missed in those post-Katrina days, when the words “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” still buzzed. But a decade later, the resurgence of black rage in the political sphere is finally ready to make America face its racist past and present. Or burn it down trying.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-rebirth-of-black-rage/
 
Back
Top