Not quite the watershed moment a la JFK’s speech on religion, Barack Obama’s speech on the state of race and racism in America had its moments. Was it just me or did any one else feel like he seriously under-emphasized the destructive and corrosive impact of racism on this country? Every sentence felt like a “Yes, but” moment. Yes, racism is bad but we can unit. Yes, racism has negatively impacted people of color but we shouldn’t let that influence our behavior. Yes, Dr. Wright was wrong for what he said but I still love him anyway. Yes, my grandmother was kinda racist but I still love her too. It all felt diluted.
I’m curious to know how other Asian-Americans interpreted and related to the speech. Reflecting a very blunt black-white perspective of race in America, the speech felt largely irrelevant to my experience of race and racism in this country. Sure Obama threw in the occasional ‘Asian’ and ‘Hispanic’ into the mix but by in large the simplified dynamics of poor vs. rich, black vs. white, privileged vs. disenfranchised felt clumsy and naive…and completely unrelated to the more complex issues and impact of institutionalized racism, unconscious bias, and micro-inequities that most people of color deal with on a daily basis. I guess that’s my beef with Obama’s speech. It felt like the speech was written to appease the fears of white America…the portion of white America that doesn’t have to deal with race on a daily basis. It felt pandering, as though Barack Obama was trying to say “We colored folks still confront racism on a daily basis but don’t worry, we ain’t mad at y’all. We just want to sing a song of unity, hold hands, and rise above it all.”
My conversations with friends and colleagues have confirmed some of suspicions. My white friends and colleagues uniformly found the speech “inspiring,” “brought me to tears,” “made me proud to support him,” and “healing”. Conversely, my non-white friends, for the most part, felt the speech “was okay,” “mixed,” “made some good points,” “could have gone further,” and “felt contrived”.
What do you guys think? Were you inspired or unmoved?
Other posts you might be interested in:
Blog RSS Blog Comments RSS
Efren wrote:
I’ll admit that I didn’t actually watch the speech, but just read the text, and I’d have to agree that it felt contrived and pandering to the white folk. At the same time, though, it points to the extremely precarious position that Obama has as a black man running for president, who has to choose his words extremely carefully in order to appease the white folk, who are the majority and whose power will push him into becoming president more than anyone else, and it points to the experiences that we, as people of color, have to go through on a daily basis in order to function and survive in the US. We can’t really say that we’re pissed off as hell that racism/homophobia/sexism/etc. serves to screw all of us over in order to maintain a status quo that doesn’t work for anybody except to fund a floundering economy.
If anything, it really points to WEB DuBois’ concept of double consciousness, and how his realization as people of color living in a white dominated society means that we have to have multiple personalities in order to survive, psychologically, financially and otherwise. We have to have one personality where we’re presentable to white folk, one to blacks, etc., and then the one where we can really be ourselves, to our loved ones (or at least that’s how it should be).
Obama clearly knows what side his bread is buttered, and in that sense he’s brilliant. But I think to the rest of us who knows what’s going on, it’s going to be interesting to see how far he can take it…
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
Grace Chu wrote:
Honestly, I think the speech was brilliant. The problem is… if Obama mentions race too much, he alienates people. If he sweeps it under the rug and doesn’t mention it enough, he alienates others. He tackled the issue of race head-on but expressed it in a way that did not turn people off. When you talk about race in this country, you have to follow up the uncomfortable parts with soothing words, because race is an explosive topic, and people become very defensive and angry about it if it is not presented correctly. If you dwell too much on the destructive parts, it will only put people on the defensive and guess what… they stop listening. This may sound unfair, but that’s the way it is. When people stop listening, change cannot occur.
A friend of mine, a Democrat, lamented that the Democrats have an unstable coalition that can fall apart if the boat is rocked too much. He said, wryly, Democrats are a coalition of “others” and sometimes, it’s hard for certain groups in the Democratic coalition to get along. The last thing you want to do is cause one part of the coalition to run for the hills, because then you lose elections.
Furthermore, I don’t think he could have gone into any more detail about race; I think mentioning anyone other than blacks and whites in this particular speech would have been irrelevant and a distraction. His speech was made in response to what has been interpreted as anti-white rhetoric by his black former minister. It was targeted damage control. I think he was right to stay on topic. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the speech was made to quell white fears about his “angry black man” minister in a manner that would not alienate the black community.
Anyway, another thing I have to add… black people and white people have so much drama with each other that it makes lesbians of all colors appear drama-free…
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Grace Chu wrote:
P.S. Here is a take on the speech by Pam of Pam’s House Blend. An excellent read.
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 2:25 pm | Permalink
Akrypti wrote:
Bo, I agree with your assessment of the speech, but he isn’t giving the speech in a vacuum; in fact, he’s running in a race for Presidency. Grace raises a valid point. Any more “racially radical” and Obama would have alienated mainstream white America, and that is the core group whose votes he needs to win.
The speech amounted to him standing behind a podium and singing “It’s a Small World After All.” Warm, fuzzy, lovely, happy, total feel-good stuff. But it’s a complete airbrush of reality. Not to mention the speech was devoid of any substantive solution, other than “love thy neighbor.”
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
jun wrote:
im trying to think of sayin something intelligent to add to grace’s comment but i cant cause she basically said it all…
but the argue with Akrypti i dont feel he “airbrushed reality” at all. What was airbrushed? the idea that people who are not racist may sometimes say very racists things? (as I tend to do.) His admission in sayin issues of race cannot be solved in “one candidacy” ? His explanation of the justified resentments that whites and blacks may have for each other? I dont know about you but in the world i live in he spoke only in reality not fantasy.
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
Akrypti wrote:
What was airbrushed? Uh…his relationship to Reverend Wright, for one. Perhaps the lens you watched the speech through were rose-tinted while mine were the spectacles of a cynic.
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
Lana wrote:
I completely agree with Grace.
His relationship with his former pastor wasn’t airbrushed at all. He said he didn’t agree with the man all the time, yet he loved and still loves him. I can identify with that. I have had loved ones who say do things (yes, even former pastors) and when enough got to be TOO MUCH for me to handle, I had to say goodbye. Do I hate them because they did/said hateful things? No. Still love them…yes, however again their actions got to the point where I couldn’t be around them anymore. People act like they’ve never had a ’straw to break the camel’s back’ when dealing with people. Don’t see what’s so hard for people to understand that.
And people need to get past this, ‘they didn’t mention me’, crap. First of all, majority of people avoid race like the freaking PLAGUE. The man talks about race in a dignified manner and it’s not good enough. If he hadn’t talked about this incident at all, people wouldn’t have been happy. Then, he would’ve ‘glossed over it’. If he addressed it more ‘explicitly’, (which was part of the thing that brought this one with the pastor’s comments) then people would’ve been all ’scared’ felt ‘threatned’ (like they did with pastor wright) and then he’d be lableled, an ‘angry black man’ and a ‘radical’ and you know people can’t have Black folk all ‘angry and ‘radical”. God forbid! *sarcasm* Now, it’s ‘he left us out’/'didn’t mention us enough’ WTHeck??!!! Seriously?!!??
(For those thinking that he didn’t get ‘into it’ enough, being as that we still haven’t dealt with race and it’s hundreds of years later, how would being negative without bringing up the positives or talking about MORE negs than positives have gone over. Yeah, um hmmm….. Like Grace said, anger, defensiveness then shut down…)
In this situation, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. This is interesing, but people are really killin’ me, here!
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
Jenyc wrote:
I felt that Obama’s speech was excellent and it was very inspiring. I understand that some feel that it was a bit “light” and did focus more on the black and white, with only couple mentions of other ethnic groups, but I think he did a great job in just addressing the issues and getting it out there. With the Pastor Wright topic, I respect that he condemned his rhetoric, but that he could not just disregard their history/relationship.
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 9:37 am | Permalink
pete wrote:
He speaks intelligently, eloquently and through his heart. What a breath of fresh air.
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 10:58 am | Permalink
Bo wrote:
Pete, are you being sarcastic (ah, the trouble with the internet)? Your comment sounds a lot like Biden’s comments from last year re: Obama being clean and well spoken.
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 8:17 pm | Permalink
Shy wrote:
Bo, thanks for having the ovaries to speak the truth! and to take a different perspective on this.
This is a political speech. Let’s distract people from the fact that you (Obama) were in this church listening and thereby condoning divisive/racially-charged and anti-American (God Damn America) speech for 20 years by saying “let’s work together.” As I keep saying, “Obama is not a man of action, he is a man of words.” He could have taken action, instead he didn’t even utter words. He just kept attending church, only to utter words when people “outed” the hateful speech of his Reverend.
It reminds me of the poem “The Nazis came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
I couldn’t read through the 7 pages of the speech without pausing here and there thinking “If my pastor/mentor/’like family’ said something offensive on many occasions, I would bring it up and if he didn’t stop. I would leave.” What does it say that he wants his daughters to be indoctrinated with such values/remarks? that his wife was not “proud of America” until her husband was a presidential candidate?
He talks about “black and more than black” and “our” when talking about the Black experience. and I think to myself “You were raised by a single White mother. Your Kenyan dad left you all. Then you were raised by white grandparents, went to a private high school and Harvard Law. How representative of the typical black male experience is that?”
I don’t think people are asking Obama to disown his pastor. More they are questioning why he only denounced his pastor’s comments now, when he is running for President. Why he didn’t do it earlier when he ran for president? why didn’t he give a speech like this before in his many many years as a politician?
He says that he can’t disown his white grandma. But it seems to me that he has. I don’t hear him mentioning his white roots at all or calling himself white b/c he is as much white as he is black. He only seems to mention the white to appease white people but them seems to spend the rest of his time claiming he is black, part of the black church, black experience.
Notably he uses a “white woman” to close his story but throws in some examples of racism irrelevant to the story. (How could the woman possibly blame her mother’s cancer on race issues??)
And then “perfection begins” when an “elderly black man” acknowledges that he is supporting the campaign b/c of the “white woman” that was paid to get him there??
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
John wrote:
I thought Obama’s speech was excellent, and if Obama is elected president, this honest and direct speech will definitely “go down in history.” Some on this posting have commented regarding the focus on black-white divide and racism. For one thing, Obama is half-black and half-white, so it makes sense to focus on these two groups. But more importantly - historically, blacks and whites have been divided since the founding of this nation, based on the fact that slavery was accepted and legal (and as far as I know, slaves were only black). Blacks/slaves were institutionalized in our Constitution as 3/5’s of a (white) person for counting representation, and could not vote at all. (Constitution’s Article 1, section 2, and elsewhere). The United States government has done some bad things to the Asian-American community (i.e. Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment…) but I don’t think the Chinese were legally ever slaves (though I’m sure many Chinese railroad workers, etc. have been treated almost like slaves in the 19th century).
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
Shy wrote:
FYI Blacks got the vote (1868) before women did in the US (1920). Women petitioned to be included with the Black vote but were turned down.
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 11:53 pm | Permalink
Grace Chu wrote:
#
pete wrote:
He speaks intelligently, eloquently and through his heart. What a breath of fresh air.
Posted on 20-Mar-08 at 10:58 am | Permalink
#
Bo wrote:
Pete, are you being sarcastic (ah, the trouble with the internet)? Your comment sounds a lot like Biden’s comments from last year re: Obama being clean and well spoken.
——-
Actually, I think pete was thinking of good ol’ Dubya, who - over the past eight years - has consistently spoken unintelligently, less than eloquently, and from the callous playbook of Karl “Machiavelli” Rove. Obama just happens to be the most eloquent and inspiring politician in recent times - and is the exact opposite of the clown in the White House. Please tell us how we are supposed to convey this observation without appearing offensive.
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 7:06 am | Permalink
Grace Chu wrote:
(Can anyone point out the Hillary supporter in this thread?)
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 7:19 am | Permalink
Bo wrote:
I appreciate the fact that Obama was making a poltical speech that had to appeal to the white population. The thing that really got to me was the level of pandering that took place in the speech. I hate when anything is manufactured to appeal to the lowest common demoninator - and when it is a speech about race in America, forget it. If I were a white person, I’d be offended by the speech. I’d be offended by what people presumed was my tolerance for the truth.
He likely still has my vote come November (and yes, I’m stating that I believe he will win the democratic nomination - now particularly after he got Bill Richardson’s support) but I’m just concerned that white people will feel like we’ve turned some corner on the race discussion b/c of this speech.
But then again…I actually really, really appreciate Al Sharpton.
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 10:20 am | Permalink
Shy wrote:
I think that people of many races, not just white, will feel that we have turned the corner on race if Obama is elected, when instead we have lots more to do.
I think we need to work on getting Bo’s vote firmly for the democrats in Nov. The difference between Dems and Repubs? Civil Rights, Reproductive Rights, Public education, privacy (Schiavo), taking care of people (health care, social security) versus. Halliburton, mishandling of Katrina, war (defense contracts)
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
Keith Kamisugi wrote:
As someone who makes a living working for a racial justice nonprofit, I saw Senator Obama’s speech for what it was: a challenge to the American people to understand and grapple with racism without reducing the complexity of the issue to a multiple choice question.
I don’t focus on whether or not it it was a “watershed” moment, or whether it compares to JFK, Lincoln or FDR. Evaluations like those can only truly be done in the context of history, and of course, whether he wins or not.
I consider the speech to be a runaway hit simply based on the fact that it has created a national discussion on race — especially a discussion that wasn’t related to a crime or disaster — and motivated hundreds of thousands of Americans to rethink about their notions of race and to consider the notion that solutions to our race problems in this country cannot be delivered by one person. It is up to us.
We also cannot demonize Rev. Wright based on the soundbites we get from the media. If you read the longer passages of words he spoke around the soundbites, you will get a much different understanding. Look at p. 41 of this week’s issue of TIME (sorry, it wasn’t on time.com) and read the longer passages.
I can tell you this much: if I was in that church hearing those words, I wouldn’t walk out. Because I would largely agree with them. Rev. Wright’s word challenges the culture of hypocrisy in this country … where wearing a flag pin automatically confers patriotic status … a country that pushes democracy around the world and doesn’t give the people of Washington DC (with more people than Wyoming) voting representation in Congress … and a nation that perpetuates the American dream for the many, but really just enables the dream for the few.
And, finally, to “Shy” — you criticize Barack Obama as a man of only words and not action, which makes me wonder what actions you’re taking to make the world a better place. People who criticize Obama for words not action have zero credibility with me if they’re not engaged in action of their own.
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
Shy wrote:
Mr. Kamisugi - As a major Asian-American spokesperson for Obama (Asianweek, aapisforobama, PR person, etc.) you are now resorting to personal attacks. That is embarrassing for you and your candidate. You should know better.
Ask my friends, family, co-workers - I am a woman of action. But regardless, one should be able to criticize the credentials of a presidential candidate without having presidential credentials herself.
Has it really created a discussion on race? In my circles, the speech has generated discussions about whether Obama was able to mollify white voters who were upset by his Reverend’s remarks. It hasn’t generated much talk at all about the problems of race in America in general.
checkout this follow up comment where Obama talks about “typical white woman”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H5jYeJmBLc
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
Keith Kamisugi wrote:
No, I’m sorry Shy. It doesn’t work thar way. You can’t just label a crticism of your comment as a personal attack.
Posted on 22-Mar-08 at 10:22 am | Permalink
Akrypti wrote:
statement at issue: “you criticize Barack Obama as a man of only words and not action, which makes me wonder what actions you’re taking to make the world a better place. People who criticize Obama for words not action have zero credibility with me if they’re not engaged in action of their own.”
personal (def.) = done by one individual only; relating to a particular individual; referring offensively to a particular person; of the body
attack (def.) = criticize somebody or something
Strongly implying that Shy has no right to criticize Obama’s speech because one is skeptical of her own past contributions to “make the world a better place” and rebutting her criticism with the flat statement “have zero credibility with me” would definitely constitute a personal attack.
A criticism of Shy’s comment would be something like - If Obama were merely a man of words, and not a man of action, then today he would just be a pretty smart guy with a pretty popular blog. (Like countless folks we know.) The fact he is a presidential candidate who raised his campaign from the grassroots up, an extraordinary feat by any measure, is more than enough to suggest he is a man of action, and not just a man of words. Thus, you have not provided sufficient argument to convince me that Obama is merely a man of words and not a man of action.
Now, saying Shy has no right to make a comment at all about Obama’s politics simply because she herself hasn’t won a Nobel peace prize would be a “personal attack.”
Finally, what is all this talk of action and words as mutually exclusive? Whatever happened to the old proverb about a pen being mightier than the sword?
Posted on 22-Mar-08 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Keith Kamisugi wrote:
There’s nothing in what I wrote that suggested Shy or anyone else had to have Nobel Prize or Presidential level contributions to warrant an “attack” on Obama as a candidate of words and not action. When one makes that attack, I think its fair to question if the attacker is making that critique from a credible position. Is it fair to ask some who bitches and moans about social and civil problems, but doesn’t vote? You bet.
So let’s put action to words. Both of you can join me in a live debate on blogtalkradio.com. You can suggest a moderator and we’ll open it up for questions from callers in.
Posted on 22-Mar-08 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Shy wrote:
Mr. Kamisugi, you work in PR, you were student body president, I think you would kick butt in a debate. So, no, I am not going to debate you. However, I am happy to have the readership of 8asians decide whether or not your asking me about my actions is a personal attack or not.
Thank you Akrypti for helping try to point out to Mr. Kamisugi how his directed comment to me might be viewed by others. and for pointing out that I went too far in my comment.
A correction/retraction - I went too far in saying Obama is a man of words and not actions. He has done a lot of things. Just not as much as other candidates.
And in this instance regarding Rev. Wright, I question why Obama didn’t speak up earlier. (speaking up being the action). That he only spoke up after the presidential campaign presented this issue.
I guess my question is what action is Obama taking regarding this incident other than this speech. e. g. is he going to set up a presidential task force or something to improve race relations or open up dialogue regarding anti-white sentiment at black churches? I guess I want to work towards a solution and not just talk about the problem.
Posted on 22-Mar-08 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
8Asians.com » Mixed Messenger: Obama, bi-racial / Hapa America: An Asian American/Asian Canadian Blog wrote:
[...] Peggy Orenstein discuss the role of race, racial identity and Obama (with Obama’s speech on race bringing up much discussion in America), as well as America’s growing, bi-racial nature. I thought Orenstein’s [...]
Posted on 23-Mar-08 at 9:29 am | Permalink
Keith Kamisugi wrote:
Again, when I personally look at the entire context of Rev. Wright’s remarks (only minutes of which are singled out in what must have been thousands of hours of sermons) and with my admittedly incomplete understanding of the racial frustrations by African Americans, I do not view Rev. Wright as some sort of monster “spewing hatred.”
John McCain was “proud” and “honored” to have received the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee who claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgment against homosexuality. THAT is spewing hatred to me. But the Senator doesn’t appear to be suffering from equal pressure on that matter.
I really do believe that Sen. Obama didn’t agree with everything Rev. Wright said, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to complain about each incident or leave the church. I don’t agree with the premise that he should have done so. It reflects this growing dispute of elements in this campaign from a two-dimensional viewpoint.
In terms of what Obama is doing after the speech, I don’t know for certain. I have faith that his administration will engage in initiatives on race that will involve the American people. Going to the moon was a cake walk compared to how we address race in this country.
The moon race was fueled by the hatred of the Communist Soviets. On the issue of race, we have only ourselves and our posterity to motivate us to do better.
Posted on 24-Mar-08 at 3:26 pm | Permalink