6 Degrees of Being Black

[Northgate]

The Clinton and McCain attack machine against Obama, more specifically the charges made, has got me thinking about the bigger picture regarding future presidential candidates who are black.

When you really think about it the campaign against Obama is actually quite brilliant. It's brilliant because it's not a campaign against Obama, but more of a campaign against being black in America. It is the template the can be used in the future.

Here's why I think this.

1. It has been firmly established recently that black churches can often use fiery rhetoric that most white folks find startling and upsetting. We live in a country that demands their candidates to be Christian, and because most black's attend predominantly black churches, the charges made against Rev. Wright can therefore be applied to ALL future black candidates who attended church where the pastor's may have used controversial rhetoric.

2. It has also been firmly established the guilt-by-association is alive and well in American politics. Considering that the civil rights movement was not that long ago and most of the major movers and shakers of that movement are still alive (and unrepentant), it's safe to say that most black politicians will have met, known, or are associated in some fashion to "radioactive" activists.

3. Playing the race card by complaining you cannot play the race card. This is a new one. And it's clever. Joe Scarborough made this argument on Real Time with Bill Mahr. It keeps the race discussion constant, on going, and activated at all times. It pushes the candidate's race in the voter's face 24/7. I've heard numerous media types bemoan that their hands are tied when it comes to discussing or talking about race in politics (while talking about race in politics - talk about having your cake and eating too). This assumes that a candidate who is something other than white is actually an issue when in all honesty it should be a non-issue. The fact that it is discussed is a clever way of sidelining a candidate, forcing them into the "other" category. They are "not us" and therefore it should be legitimate.

To all future black presidential candidates this is the new media and political narrative that will be used against you. So, please take some advice now. Quit going to church, particularly black churches. Make sure you have never met, shook hands, or had a conversation with a former civil right's activist (even if you were only 8 years old and it was 40 years ago). Lastly, you must completely disassociate yourself with your own blackness by never using black colloquialisms, playing basketball with cameras around or admitting you enjoy hip-hop music.

In summary, the arguments made against Obama are arguments made against being black. There is no escaping the 6 degrees of being black. Your churches are unacceptable. The company you keep is unacceptable. Your culture is unacceptable. YOU are unacceptable. And even if you are squeaky clean, then someone you know, someone you grew up with, or someone in your family IS.

[@_@ Artman]

As long as there are people like Father Mike Pfleger, a black candidate (or a candidate with a dissenting view) still has a chance.

Everyone watch this, truly a great man and more important, great message. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0wvQMqSzTM)

I think most people (white or black) are smarter and more aware of the media's attacks on Obama as being baseless and unsubstantiated.

But the media's ties to the corporate/government system have become so entwined I don't know whether the people have the power to elect a candidate from what they hear or see from that same media outlet.

I also recall that Ron Paul and Mike Kucinich weren't black either. It was either their policies that derailed them or they just weren't "attractive" enough. But I know for damn sure they didn't get a free pass from the press like Clinton or McCain are getting.

Edit: Here's what Fox aired on Bill O'Reilly of Father Mike Pfleger's interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du-OnWEXdig). See what I mean?

[mydo]

The Clinton and McCain attack machine against Obama, more specifically the charges made, has got me thinking about the bigger picture regarding future presidential candidates who are black.

When you really think about it the campaign against Obama is actually quite brilliant. It's brilliant because it's not a campaign against Obama, but more of a campaign against being black in America. It is the template the can be used in the future.

Here's why I think this.

1. It has been firmly established recently that black churches can often use fiery rhetoric that most white folks find startling and upsetting. We live in a country that demands their candidates to be Christian, and because most black's attend predominantly black churches, the charges made against Rev. Wright can therefore be applied to ALL future black candidates who attended church where the pastor's may have used controversial rhetoric.

2. It has also been firmly established the guilt-by-association is alive and well in American politics. Considering that the civil rights movement was not that long ago and most of the major movers and shakers of that movement are still alive (and unrepentant), it's safe to say that most black politicians will have met, known, or are associated in some fashion to "radioactive" activists.

3. Playing the race card by complaining you cannot play the race card. This is a new one. And it's clever. Joe Scarborough made this argument on Real Time with Bill Mahr. It keeps the race discussion constant, on going, and activated at all times. It pushes the candidate's race in the voter's face 24/7. I've heard numerous media types bemoan that their hands are tied when it comes to discussing or talking about race in politics (while talking about race in politics - talk about having your cake and eating too). This assumes that a candidate who is something other than white is actually an issue when in all honesty it should be a non-issue. The fact that it is discussed is a clever way of sidelining a candidate, forcing them into the "other" category. They are "not us" and therefore it should be legitimate.

To all future black presidential candidates this is the new media and political narrative that will be used against you. So, please take some advice now. Quit going to church, particularly black churches. Make sure you have never met, shook hands, or had a conversation with a former civil right's activist (even if you were only 8 years old and it was 40 years ago). Lastly, you must completely disassociate yourself with your own blackness by never using black colloquialisms, playing basketball with cameras around or admitting you enjoy hip-hop music.

In summary, the arguments made against Obama are arguments made against being black. There is no escaping the 6 degrees of being black. Your churches are unacceptable. The company you keep is unacceptable. Your culture is unacceptable. YOU are unacceptable. And even if you are squeaky clean, then someone you know, someone you grew up with, or someone in your family IS.

You're just talking about politics here but spinning it as a black issue.

[addabox]

You're just talking about politics here but spinning it as a black issue.

Which is the inevitable inverse of Northgate's third point, thanks for playing.

Obama's "blackness" (scary, angry, different) can be a central theme of the campaign, but if anyone points that out, blackness is suddenly not a permissible category, or doesn't even exist.

His opposition can make broad use of their reliable dog-whistle language and immediately accuse his defenders of being overly preoccupied with race.

[Northgate]

There is a great distinction between politics as usual and the politics currently being waged against Obama. It's both subtle and right out in the open. It's disguised as a "genuine conversation about race" but it's really about using all the usual triggers and keywords we all know quite well ... keywords used to strike a chord in the unconscious mind of non-blacks that Obama is scary, different and unacceptable. And if Obama is considered unacceptable due to the so-called controversies charged against him...then you might as well admit that ALL black candidates are systematically unacceptable because these charges can be made to black masses.

It is what it is. For better or worse.

A new book is being written. I'm simply pointing it out.

There was a post made by a Pennsylvania precinct captain for Obama who mentioned that when he visited a home recently, the owner made his opinion front and center by saying, "If you think n***ers are uppity now, wait 'til they get the White House."

[Northgate]

I think most people (white or black) are smarter and more aware of the media's attacks on Obama as being baseless and unsubstantiated.

I truly, honestly, want to believe this. I really do. I clung to this belief in 2004 when John Kerry's patriotism was being tarred and feathered by Rove and the Swiftboaters. I clung to the notion that voters were smart enough to be insulted by the Purple Heart Band-Aids. I prayed that people would pay no mind to the "he's French looking" condescension. I hadn't fully realized that wind surfing while on vacation could be mocked and ridiculed and a symbol that Kerry wasn't "one of us". I completely underestimated that the American people would admire and respect Bush's masculinity by spending the Vietnam war courting ambitious secretaries and flipping the bird to the TANG.

I was very very wrong.

And I find myself having the same feelings now. My first gut instinct is that Reverend Wright won't resonate. My gut instinct is that "bitter/cling" is so utterly lame that people will pay it no mind. And then I quickly remembered 2004 and what happened there.

I am no longer optimistic about the "smartness" of the American people to see beyond the marketing and hype machine of the MSM. It is my opinion that about 24% of the population actually pays attention. The other 75% is too busy working, raising their families, planning vacations, preparing for Christmas and all they know is what Charles Gibson, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and Katie Couric tells them (with all their sensationalistic presentation).

[BRussell]

To me, the real issue is that the oppression of whites by black preachers in 2008 is clearly far worse than the after-effects of hundreds of years of officially sanctioned racism against blacks. We know who the real victims are. It's who they always are: conservatives, Christians, and whites.

[mydo]

A new book is being written. I'm simply pointing it out.



It's the same old book. It's just that Obama and people like you are trying to deflect all politics by using the race card.

[addabox]

It's the same old book. It's just that Obama and people like you are trying to deflect all politics by using the race card.

Well, Mydo, you certainly seemed determined to make Northgate's point for him.

[mydo]

You may think that because I'm not part of the echo chamber here.

[@_@ Artman]

I truly, honestly, want to believe this. I really do. I clung to this belief in 2004 when John Kerry's patriotism was being tarred and feathered by Rove and the Swiftboaters. I clung to the notion that voters were smart enough to be insulted by the Purple Heart Band-Aids. I prayed that people would pay no mind to the "he's French looking" condescension. I hadn't fully realized that wind surfing while on vacation could be mocked and ridiculed and a symbol that Kerry wasn't "one of us". I completely underestimated that the American people would admire and respect Bush's masculinity by spending the Vietnam war courting ambitious secretaries and flipping the bird to the TANG.

I was very very wrong.

And I find myself having the same feelings now. My first gut instinct is that Reverend Wright won't resonate. My gut instinct is that "bitter/cling" is so utterly lame that people will pay it no mind. And then I quickly remembered 2004 and what happened there.

I am no longer optimistic about the "smartness" of the American people to see beyond the marketing and hype machine of the MSM. It is my opinion that about 24% of the population actually pays attention. The other 75% is too busy working, raising their families, planning vacations, preparing for Christmas and all they know is what Charles Gibson, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and Katie Couric tells them (with all their sensationalistic presentation).

Well, said. In some ways I agree. Some seem soft to the fact that people...Americans...are made up of diverse ingredients. It shouldn't leave such a bitter taste in their mouths because of that...even after 40-50 years.

This...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/Spoolerimg.jpg


Church Sign Causes Controversy (http://www.wspa.com/midatlantic/spa/news.PrintView.-content-articles-SPA-2008-04-20-0005.html)



A sign is causing heated arguments outside of a church in Jonesville.

Pastor Roger Byrd of Jonesville Church of God put the sign up which reads "Obama Osama humm are they brothers?"

Pastor Byrd says the sign is not meant to be racial or political but rather to make people think. "His name is so close to Osama I have a feeling he might be Islamic therefore he doesn't recognize Christ," Pastor Byrd said.

Barack attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Eugunia Foster is offended by the church sign. "I'm embarrassed and hurt. I'm surprised a small town like Jonesville still has this separation. It is racial and hatred," Foster said.

Pastor Byrd told News Channel 7 he would ask his congregation to vote on whether to keep the sign. They voted unanimously to keep the sign up Sunday night.

Jonesville Church of God does not have any African American members.

This church sees this...

http://mormonstalk.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/jesus_ws.jpg

Where in reality he might have looked like this...

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/story.jesushead.cnn.jpg

We all (or should) know that names aren't derivative of religion, they're derivative of ethnicity. "Adams" isn't a Christian name, its an English name. Likewise "Obama" is an African name, not an Islamic name. And as much as they’ve been hyperventilating over Obama’s last name, what will they say when they realize that “McCain” means “Descendant of Cain”?