This is indeed an historic moment for the country. My vote was first and foremost cast for Obama because I thought him a better candidate, second because Democrats are generally more in sync with my values, and third because based on my own experience and interpretation of American history, I thought it high time that a person of African descent should be elected president. Obama’s victory has tremendous symbolic value for us and for at least that portion of the world that watches closely what we do. It would be a mistake to downplay the significance of the moment (as in, “race had nothing to do with my vote”). What has just happened is profound, even though it by no means annuls four centuries of tormented racial history. In a non-trivial sense, we have been voting for our presidents “because they were white” since the inception of the Republic. It’s fine by me if I can now vote—even just a little—for a gifted, intelligent, inspiring candidate “because he is black.” The shades of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass are looking down on us today—the former is about to offer some wry rustic observation, and the latter is scowling a little (brooding about the future and weighing the past, no doubt), but each is pleased in his own way. Beyond this I shouldn’t say much. To borrow a line from some annoying Tarantino film, “this ain’t white boy day.” It’s for black folk to wax eloquent if they like, and say what the deepest meaning of the moment is.
I appreciated John McCain’s concession speech—it was the old JMAC from 2000. Campaigns can distort a person’s true nature, and I think he got trapped by the far right (i.e Dubya’s base) into running as someone he really wasn’t. He will get back to his old ways as the senior Senator from Arizona, and probably work well with the new Administration in areas where there’s common ground. I will look forward to a post about what the GOP needs to do now, and may work on my own thoughts about the Republican Party at some point. I believe the Karl Roves of the Party drove it off a cliff by getting so clever at electoral strategy that they gave no heed to why they wanted to win. So maybe my argument will be, “Less Machiavelli—less Karl Rove, Ralph Reed & Co., and more Lincoln.” Old Abe would have thrown some of these “strategery” types out the window of the tallest building he could find.
There was one troubling or clumsy note in the concession speech, I thought—“Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.” Perhaps Senator McCain didn’t realize how such phrasing might sound to some people—especially to some black people. Rosa Parks didn’t “fail to cherish her citizenship,” after all, no? The fact is, and as W.E.B. DuBois attests in The Souls of Black Folk, to be African American is to have a very complex relationship to your country; it admits neither jingoism nor unmitigated contempt. A poetics of strength and an inclination towards perpetual critique seem to be called for, not simple “cherishing.” Oh well, it’s no big deal—it was a kind and gracious speech, and perhaps as good in its way as Obama’s rather long victory speech. Obama was clearly exhausted, and he was in mourning for his grandmother. I found his direct quotations from great African American pronouncements a bit “campaignish.” Perhaps for his inaugural speech he will find good ways to incorporate a little of Douglass, DuBois, MLK and others, but in a way that trades in adaptation rather than direct quotation. He’s firing along with the big rhetorical guns now that he’s the president-elect, which will call on him to accomplish the difficult but (no doubt for a speaker of his gifts) achievable simultaneous task of paying homage to past figures in African American history and effecting a historical transvaluation or re-rooting of their words and ideas. Obama’s subdued tone may have been partly owing to personal reasons, but I found it appropriate. When were black people’s moments of happiness in this country not tinged with sorrow and perhaps with some degree of alienation and aloofness, marked by something held always in reserve? Douglass and DuBois are the great archetypes in this regard. I believe Obama will give an awesome inaugural address, when he has time to sit down and work out his best thoughts on the significance of the moment and the things that need to be done going forwards.
A very thoughtful post, Dino.
ReplyDeleteI confess, however, that although it was interesting to see the old John McCain last night - he lost a lot of respect with me for not having held onto that part of himself throughout the campaign. The Roves & the Reeds are no excuse.
As for the race - literally - of Obama - thank you!!! Dino for pointing out the obvious - that for generations we HAVE been voting by race AND GENDER!! I got so angry when people complained that people might voting for Hilary because she was a woman as well as other reasons. As if gender had never been voted for before. Oh, our god awful patriarchal blind spots. AND! plenty of folk did NOT vote for Obama because of his race - I happen to know some of these people personally. So - yes, Dino, you are right - why can we not be pleased that our qualified & decent candidate happens to be African American? I am thrilled.
As for the quoting of eloquent African Americans of the past - yes - all well & good. But - as I mentioned in my last post - Harriet Tubman has been much on my mind of late. To my knowledge - she has left no quotable writings behind. But her contributions, her spirit was immense. She - like Obama last night - was often tired from the struggle of the underground railroad. A picture of Harriet hangs on my wall - it has for years. The picture is of a tired, determined woman. She is one of my most revered ForeMothers. So lest we elitists forget the unquotable - I offer up the memory of Harriet as a counterpart to, or a compliment to the 106 year old African American woman about whom Obama spoke last night.
And did I mention she was an early supporter of the suffrage movement?! (my research field btw), but I'll save that for a post someday, perhaps.
Squid,
ReplyDeleteYes, am somewhat familiar with Tubman--she is immensely valuable. And so much of black culture hearkens back to oral tradition; even greatly sophisticated writing in the Af-Am tradition listens to it intently.
And the gender issue you mention is an excellent addition to the point I made. De facto, we have been voting for white men because they are white MEN, for the most part. I have sometimes heard naive people making these claims--"everybody's only supporting Barack b/c he's black, or Hillary b/c she's female." Just ahistorical as a squirrel, as I like to say. Part of it is just clumsiness, but it's troubling.
I am setting aside politics for a moment and making a comment on culture (and then a comment about politics...lol).
ReplyDeleteIt is refreshing, and pleasing to see a black man as President of this nation. I don't agree with the sentiment that only a black man can represent blacks, women can only represent women, etc. I think he is a skilled orator, a man with a sixth sense of people, and a vision for a stronger America. I made a post today that talked briefly about where I was born and raised-Montgomery, Alabama and how race has been a aprt of my life since the day I was born. It was even a larger part of my life when I was in law enforcement. Personally, while I would never vote/not vote for someone because of their race or sex, I am enthused that we have "evoloved" as a nation from a mere 40 years ago when the dogs were turned loose and the National Guard blocked university doors.
My political comment: Those people did not vote for Obama because he was black. They voted for him because he was liberal and black. The same crowd that supported him abuses Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, etc.
Regardless, it is a truly historic time in America, and if Obama was destined to win at some point, I am glad I lived through it and was part of it.
Hello Robert,
ReplyDeleteInteresting background there--yes, I know race is an ever-present thing in the South, in a way that some of us northerners don't fully grasp, I think. Anyhow, my post is nuanced enough to cover what you're talking about: yes indeed, I went for Barack because he's what you call liberal, or at least centrist. That's what I meant by my first and second reasons taken together. The third has to do with an appreciation of the grand sweep of American history, which is where race enters in. You know there's no such thing as a fully achieved color-blind society here since you're from the South. It's northerners who believe in myths of that sort.
I wouldn't vote for a chap simply because he was black, or even liberal and black. Some liberals are, of course, contemptible fools or corrupt slobs--the all-important first things (ability and integrity) must be present, and only then can race be granted any consideration. Finally (and politely), please be careful with that word "crowd." That old demon "categorization" haunts it. (My first post about your initial comments a while back was a bit snippy and did that to you somewhat--we all do it. 'Tis the season, I suppose. We need categories to think at all, but they quickly become traps.) Your statement, if I read it aright (perhaps I don't?), implies that nearly everybody who voted for Obama goes around abusing certain leading conservative black folk. Some no doubt do, but not most. For example, I don't find that Thomas has been an impressive SC Justice, but I don't abuse him. About Condi I have mixed feelings--I think she's very capable and learned, but I don't like the role she played in the Bush Admin. Will sign off for the evening--gotta get some sleep. I appreciate your kind words about the election of our first African American president.
Mmm. I think Macs speech was a typical example of extreme yet subtle racism itself. He went on and on about Obama being a black man in the white house instead of a good, or great or perfect or effective or honest or...any other adjective of praise or respect. No. It was because he was black. I think his speech was racist and belittling which fits right in with his entire atttack campaign.
ReplyDeleteA quick comment, Dino - racism is not a southern thing. The people I mentioned that I knew who would never vote for a black man live in the north. In my experience - racism (& sexism) is more of a small town, rural thing than a southern thing. Which is why I start choking every campaign season when both sides of the political spectrum start waxing poetic about small town America as being the bastion of American values. My personal experience with small town America has been the COMPLETE opposite. So much so that I would much rather raise my child in a city. No kidding.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that the conversation about race is more significant after the election. Not making any points about that, just an observation.
ReplyDeleteI will have to find a source for the next comment, just don't have the time right now since a quick google search didn't get it done. I remember something about Dr. King's experience in Chicago in the 1960s and he said that the racism in Chicago was worse than in the south, and that he was more frightened about the amosphere there than he was in Birmingham and Montgomery. The south, contrary to the perception of the rest of the country, has largely come to grips with its racist past and has made incredible progress in this regard. I believe in your statement about there never being a truly color blind society any more than we can be blind to people with disabilities or people who are seven feet tall or people who weigh 700 pounds. Don't misunderstand, I am not equating skin color with disabilities or odd characteristics, just that perceptions exist even when there is little known about the subject of those perceptions.
The human mind categorizes and self-organizes. My social science background can be used here....lol. Gestalt Psychology is the tendency of the mind to self-organize, specifically referencing visual images. Those dual pictures, where you can see two different images depending on where you look on the image? Gestalt. Anyway, if you apply the concept to the non-visual, we tend to classify thigns and order them even when there is no order intended. All of us do it, especially when we discuss political issues. The fact is that the controlling part of the Dem party obstructed Thomas because he was a conservative. He was an Uncle Tom. Same with Walter Williams, Condi Rice (also from Birmingham, btw) and the others I mentioned. Thre was NO support because he was black. Obama on the other hand got the benefit of the doubt because he was black and liberal. It was not every dem who did this, but the controlling faction of the party did, so therefore it becomes "crowd" when discussing it. In the future, I don't presume to include every person when I simplify.
And about Obama - He is an impressive man with a magnetic aura. I am too young to remember firsthand the Kennedy years, but I think I would liken Obama's persona to JFK. I think he would be cool to hang out with over a drink or dinner or a day at the beach. I just don't agree with his politics or his party.
Good posts all. I was clumsy in my use of "northerner." I meant a certain kind of northern idealistic lib, and some percentage of urbanites who keep saying, "well, we live in a post-racial society now, etc." Yep, SURE we do, we can all say. I doubt that anybody at all in the South, whatever their social standing or circumstances, would buy that post-racial claim. (Reagan's rhetoric about a "color-blind society" was different, involving a policy-driving imperative, an "enabling ought," not so much a statement of fact. But I'll leave that aside.)
ReplyDeleteI like the point about MLK in Chicago--yes, he ran into a species of northern racism possibly worse because more insidious than anything he had come across in the South. It was hard for him trying to get northern Af-Ams in urban centers to buy into "non-violent direct action," too. Simultaneously, he was speaking out against the Vietnam War, and becoming quite a controversial figure in the process.
On categories, understood, Robert. My own direction on them is basically continental philosophy, with a strong edge in that wild and crazy Deutschlander, Nietzsche, as in "On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense," where he explores the incredibly strong and indispensable imperative to categorize and binarize, and at the same time rips us to shreds for doing so. Vintage Nietzsche.
For a politician who is well aware of the power of symbolism and mythic archetypes, Obama fell down on this one: Proposition 8 in California.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Scott Lemieux of LG&M:
Making a statement (however cautious) against Prop 8 in the last week of the campaign could have made a major contribution to human rights without threatening Obama's lock on the electoral college. Even to a risk-averse politician, that should have been a no-brainer, and it's fair to criticize Obama for failing to do the right thing.
Amendment 2 in Florida was an even worse abomination. It contained dangerously vague language ('marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof') that would exclude health benefits, among other rights, to all forms of domestic partnership.
We may have lost this battle, but I’ll be damned if we will lose this war. ACLU, here’s my contribution.