With regard to the upcoming "Conversation on Race" ...
In the 1990s there was a custom at CUCC of having a sermon on "race" the week of the MLK holiday in January. Sometimes I found myself sitting in the pew thinking, "What the preacher is calling racism isn't racism, and what's being proposed as a solution isn't a solution." I do have some experience with racism, having twice been jailed for being in the wrong place with someone of the wrong color. But the term is used much more broadly now, and for many different purposes.
Currently race is lurking just around the corner in nearly every conversation about the Presidential election process. Both Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been accused of "racist" comments. And every exit poll seems to be asking voters, "Was your vote influenced by race?"
The goal of MLK was to get past race altogether, not to institutionalize it via a morass of agencies and regulations to service the "victims" of racism. We liberals have been very good at the latter, but not so hot at the former. Barack Obama began his quest for the Presidency with every intent to avoid racial identity politics. But Bill Clinton's remark comparing Obama's candidacy to the token candidacy of Jesse Jackson began the process of negating that effort. I don't consider Clinton's remark to be racist, just dumb. But it did demonstrate that even within the Democratic Party Obama would not get to choose his own seat at the table. He was pigeon holed against his will. And that, followed by publicity about the various Rev. Wright shenanigans, began the white backlash that has led to Obama's current problem with the "white, working class" vote.
Before we throw stones at the TV sound bytes and "uneducated" WVA voters, we'd do well to look in the mirror. Obama did well with the white vote early in the primary process. (He actually won the white male vote in Virginia back in February.) The torpedoes that have been sinking his ship since then were launched not from afar but within his own party and his own church. So, at least in terms of Presidential politics, we might want to use the word "racism" sparingly. And with a little humility.
In the 1990s there was a custom at CUCC of having a sermon on "race" the week of the MLK holiday in January. Sometimes I found myself sitting in the pew thinking, "What the preacher is calling racism isn't racism, and what's being proposed as a solution isn't a solution." I do have some experience with racism, having twice been jailed for being in the wrong place with someone of the wrong color. But the term is used much more broadly now, and for many different purposes.
Currently race is lurking just around the corner in nearly every conversation about the Presidential election process. Both Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been accused of "racist" comments. And every exit poll seems to be asking voters, "Was your vote influenced by race?"
The goal of MLK was to get past race altogether, not to institutionalize it via a morass of agencies and regulations to service the "victims" of racism. We liberals have been very good at the latter, but not so hot at the former. Barack Obama began his quest for the Presidency with every intent to avoid racial identity politics. But Bill Clinton's remark comparing Obama's candidacy to the token candidacy of Jesse Jackson began the process of negating that effort. I don't consider Clinton's remark to be racist, just dumb. But it did demonstrate that even within the Democratic Party Obama would not get to choose his own seat at the table. He was pigeon holed against his will. And that, followed by publicity about the various Rev. Wright shenanigans, began the white backlash that has led to Obama's current problem with the "white, working class" vote.
Before we throw stones at the TV sound bytes and "uneducated" WVA voters, we'd do well to look in the mirror. Obama did well with the white vote early in the primary process. (He actually won the white male vote in Virginia back in February.) The torpedoes that have been sinking his ship since then were launched not from afar but within his own party and his own church. So, at least in terms of Presidential politics, we might want to use the word "racism" sparingly. And with a little humility.