posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:07 PM
I thought I'd seen enough of the race card to know what it was and was not capable of. I thought wrong. After having let the article sink in for a
minute though (I read it twice to be sure I wasn't getting it wrong) I ceased to be surprised at how low it got and started wondering how even a thin
residue of civility somehow managed to cling to this attack. It's not as if they're really beating around the bush very much, so why didn't they
just go all out and accuse him of belonging to the klan?
I understand what the implications would be if Obama was just a black guy running an "end white guilt" campaign. If the accusations which go along
with this epithet had any basis, that would be an issue every bit as much as any other lack of substance in a candidate. It would be comparable to
Mary Carey's "from the neck down" approach to winning voters in the California recall election a few years ago.
But number one that isn't the case and number two this article goes farther than that.
Not long ago they were telling us that the man's church was some kind of creepy black supremecist cult, and now they're telling us that he's some
kind of happy-go-lucky pushover who is selling out what he "should be" as an African American so that whites can picture him as Morgan Freeman
playing God. Which is it???
And for that matter, what exactly is he selling out, and what action of his is selling that out? I'd love to hear that from anyone who thought that
Ehrenstein's condescension was on the mark. I'd love to have somebody explain where in the course of helping black churches give job training to the
poor, working as a civil rights lawyer, etc they think he became a sellout. When he forgot that he was supposed to work with black people and only
black people for the betterment of our society perhaps? That seems to be what Mr. Ehrenstein feels, and I have a hard time believing that such
nonsense draws an audience from among an educated population.
A few words on the concept of the "Magic Negro" in America from one of the ever-insecure white guys who likes Obama:
1. I'm not a moron; I weigh my decisions. I won't vote for any candidate who doesn't have a sound grip on international relations and
constitutional law. Barack is on my short list because he makes that cut- period.
2. I never favored any form of discrimination or oppression, never materially supported it, and never tollerated it. For those reasons, I don't feel
one iota of racial guilt and anyone who in anyway implied that I should, including by patronizing me in the way that they are accusing Obama of doing,
would be showing me his true colors, no pun intended, and making one heck of an enemy.
3. As the cause of civil liberties has been advanced, we have come to a point where minds now need more changing than laws, because it takes 51% of us
to change the law, but 100% of us to change the sum of our society. This means that even if I did feel like I had inherited some kind of
generations-old race-debt, I'd be slow to beleive that a "magic negro" president could square it up.
Bottom line, I think that the appearance of such an attack as this in the LA times is extremely telling. There are still plenty of misguided people
out there who are more interested in satisfying their anger than in satisfying their sense of justice, there are people who would rather be avenged
than have their children live in harmony, and there are plenty of shameless politicos who will gladly prostitute themselves and the good of our
society to those misguided people.