At a recent parent-teacher meeting, my daughter’s teacher shared a notebook in which students are able to create their own dictionary. The book is intended to give children a chance to fill their dictionary with words they want to include in their vocabulary. As she thumbed through the pages of the notebook, I noticed that my daughter had added her own set of words under the “B” category. Even though the first name is misspelled, I cherish the fact that she is still moved…B is for Barack!

Recent comments by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, retired pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and former member of Sen. Barack Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee, have threatened to undermine the momentum of racial harmony generated by the Presidential campaign for Change. Unfortunately, the lens through which the media and the general public have been examining the comments made by Rev. Wright reveals a cultural incompetency with regard to interpreting honest criticisms of this nation’s troubled attempts to achieve racial justice. In my opinion, recent events reflect a lack of willingness–or lack of capacity to fully digest–this nation’s lingering imperfections. Rev. Wright spoke of escalating incarceration rates that disparately affect African American communities. Well, this is true. Rev. Wright spoke of Sen. Hillary Clinton not being a African American person and therefore having no personal experience combating racism. She may empathize, but she does not know what it feels or tastes like. I don’t find this inflammatory either.

Before people attempt to judge Rev. Wright based upon sound bites, I think it is important to understand the culture of the Black church and its historical legacy in the fight for social justice. While it is an imperfect structure, it has been one of the most effective institutions in African American history at raising consciousness about the moral and social injustices that threaten America’s promise of opportunity to everyone. Historically, the Black church was the only place where African American people, controlled by dehumanizing codes and laws that controlled our public voice and images, could be free to tell the truth. The Black church has, like the barber shop, been a place where African Americans are free to merge politics with messages of liberation in order to understand the suffering and legacy of discrimination that has had such an impact on our lives. Passion, is at the core of this tradition, but so is a vigilant thrust toward opening the eyes of those who have internalized so much oppression to the injustices that continue to plague Black communities. For many African Americans, the church remains one of the few places where we can hear what we need to hear to assure ourselves that we are not crazy when we experience racism and feel it is unjust. Even those of us who are not Christians expect the church to be more than just a place where ministers preach in rhyme, or pose in stereotypical caricature.

What has been telling about this race for the Democratic nomination is how much both candidates are now trying to distance themselves from anyone who suggests that America’s race relations are imperfect. We are clearly in a delicate political dance, in which all partners need to demonstrate they are “candidate everyone.” But we should be mindful that too much denunciation and disassociation can lead to a dishonest discourse on the painful wounds that are still very open in our society. Recent resignations from both the Clinton and Obama camps suggest that our public discourse has regressed on race since the 1960s, when the Black church and other defenders of social justice voiced their opinions and forced this nation to confront its most uncomfortable racial situations.

In today’s political climate, it is convenient to reduce the Black Church’s most famous public orator, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to a sound bite that describes a “dream” in which little white children and black children play together; but the most incisive and important parts of that speech are those which today would be considered controversial, and possibly, worthy of “denunciation” and “rejection” given the growing intolerance associated with those who seek to call attention to the hypocrisy of claiming to be the world’s greatest democracy while failing to allow everyone an equal chance to engage in it here at home. In 1963, in the “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. King says, “It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

If Rev. King were an advisor to the Clinton or Obama campaign, would he be fired or forced to resign for making inflammatory remarks? Would he become part of the “guilt by association” campaign that is distracting voters from other, more important concerns about health care, the economy, and solutions to the ridiculous and appalling fact that many of us are now paying more than $4.00 a gallon for gas? Or would Dr. King’s words be taken for what they were–a call for America to do better?

Sen. Obama’s historic bid for the White House has revealed more than just how far this nation has come. It has also revealed how far we still have to go to hear each other, accurately interpret each other’s words, and understand each other’s institutions and the role they play in our quest for a better society. Rev. Wright’s comments should not undermine Sen. Obama’s promise to unite the nation. Instead, they should be used as an opportunity for all of America to do a better job of reconciling its pain and finding a space for us to tell the truth about this nation’s imperfections without shame.

Suggested Reading:

I Have A Dream by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Black Messiahs and Uncle Toms: Social and Literary Manipulations of a Religious Myth by Wilson Jeremiah Moses.

Soul Sanctuary by Jason Miccolo Johnson.

Recently, the suggestion has been made that the media is having a “love fest” with Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for president. During the 20th and final Democratic debate last night, Sen. Clinton referred to a Saturday Night Live skit when suggesting that in the last several debates, it has been she, rather than her opponent, who gets pitched the first question. For some, this is an argument of merit. For others, this is a ludicrous statement–an oxymoron of sorts. The media going easy on a person of African descent with an Arabic name? Are they serious?

First of all, contrary to what Sen. Clinton suggested in the last debate, she does not always get the first question. According to ABC news, she has received the first debate question in 14 rounds, and Sen. Obama has received the first question in 11 rounds. I appreciate the witty humor of SNL like the next person, but Sen. Clinton’s decision to use a skit to support her feeling of vulnerability in this campaign was not lighthearted or funny. It just sounded desperate.

Print, radio, web and television media–like the rest of the nation–are responding to the significance of this historic moment. Beyond the significance of race and gender in this election, this is the first significant grassroots campaign that nation has seen in years, making it a true sea tide for change, rather than just another spin on administrative approaches that have been part and parcel to a corrosive political climate generating high gas prices, growing poverty, polarized access to wealth, the lack of affordable health care, and an increasingly pervasive criminal justice system. Is the media going easy on Barack Obama? Let’s see, in the last week, there have been questions raised about his (and his wife’s) patriotism, suggestions that he is inexperienced in foreign policy, and attacks against him for not be “forceful enough” against Louis Farrakhan. Easy? I don’t think so.

Frankly, I don’t think it is the media at all–it is society. Media, in all of its forms, have been vessels through which analysts have been highly critical of Barack Obama and every other candidate, making for a rigorous discussion of who is most fit to be the next leader of this nation. But because of the way in which the public has been conditioned to see the media berate or mock people of African descent, positive news coverage might be seen as preference. Perhaps Sen. Clinton and her supporters should examine their own biases where “fairness” is concerned.

To her credit, Sen. Clinton has weathered a storm of gender-based innuendo suggesting that she is unfit to lead. But is the media being unfair to her, and covering the election in ways that are favorable to Barack Obama? Hardly. This is politics, and according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, Sen. Obama is now preferred over Sen.Clinton among Democratic voters 48 percent to 42 percent, so he may very well become John McCain’s opponent in this presidential race. If that happens, we’ll have plenty of opportunites to gauge the degree to which the media present objective and fair coverage of this election, and the degree to which we (as consumers of news) are able to interpret fairness not as preference; but rather, as a first step in balancing media portrayals of people of African descent.

Given the racist rhetoric spewing from the McCain campaign (despite his lifeless and unbelievable apology), tougher roads are ahead.

« Previous entries Next entries »