The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos


Obama: Talking to White Folks and THE SPEECH -- Two Articles


Obama on how to talk to whites

An Elegant Farce - Obama's 'conversation' about moral equivalence.


Obama on how to talk to whites


By Judith A. Klinghoffer
March 17, 2008
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2008/03/17/obama-on-how-to-talk-to-whites/



In the good, old tradition of revolutionaries, Obama hides in plain print. So, before listening to his speech, it's worth while to note the following passages from his autobiography:

On p. 94-95 he describes an effective tactic to deal with White people:

It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time.

Indeed, when he was a community organizer (age 22 prior to going to law school) he happily cooperated with Rafiq, a former gangster turned Nation of Islam. He even believed that Black Nationalism was a good therapy for Blacks. That was also the reason he supported Wright (pp. 190-200). For he shares Michelle's sentiments of alienation, came to believe that race should trump everything and it should be anti-white:

. . . :all the black people who, it turned out, shared with me a voice that whispered inside them - "You don't really belong here."In a sense, then, Rafiq was right when he insisted that, deep down, all blacks were potential Nationalists. The anger was there, bottled up and often turned inward. And . . . I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn't also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards white generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.

It was a painful thought to consider, as painful now as it has been years ago. it contradicted the morality my mother had taught me, a morality of subtle distinctions- between individuals of goodwill and those who wished me ill, between active malice and ignorance of indifference. I has a personal stake in that moral framework; I'd discovered that I couldn't escape it if I tried. And yet perhaps it was a framework that blacks in this country could no longer afford; perhaps it weakened black resolve, encouraged confusion within the ranks. Desperate times called for desperate measures, and for many blacks, times were chronically desperate. If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, of the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.

If nationalism could deliver. As it turned out, questions of effectiveness, and not sentiment, cause most of my quarrels with Rafiq.


In other words, Barack was willing to sacrifice his mother and his grandparents on the alter of black nationalism. His sentiments were in lime with those of Rafiq, the Nation of Islam activist. That is the reason he chose a black nationalist church run by "Reverend Wright" who explained to him (p.284):

"Life's not safe for a black man in this country, Barack. Never has been. Probably never will be."

Sorry, guys, but there is nothing post racial about Barack. He has merely learned that it is advantageous to convince whites that he is.


An Elegant Farce - Obama's 'conversation' about moral equivalence.


By Victor Davis Hanson
March 18, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWVkMThjN2RjNDU2N2EzODE1YWRmZmQwMTE0YWFkMzg=

Barack Obama's Tuesday sermon was a well-crafted, well-delivered, postmodern review of race that had little to do with the poor judgment revealed in Obama's relationship with the hateful Rev. Wright, much less the damage that he does both to African Americans and to the country in general.

Obama chose not to review what Wright, now deemed the "occasionally fierce critic." said in detail, condemn it unequivocally, apologize, and then resign from such a Sunday venue of intolerance - the now accustomed American remedy to racism in the public realm that we saw in the Imus and other recent controversies.

Instead, to Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don't quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more.

Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.

The Obama apologia was a "conversation" about moral equivalence. So the Wright hatred must be contextualized and understood in several ways that only the unusually gifted Obama can instruct us about:
  1. The good that Rev. Wright and Trinity Church did far outweighs his controversial comments, which were taken out of context as "snippets" and aired in the "endless loop" on conservative outlets.
  2. We are all at times racists and the uniquely qualified Obama is our valuable mirror of that ugliness: Wright may say things like "God damn America" or "Dirty Word" Israel or "Clarence Colon," but then it must be balanced by other truths like Obama's own grandmother who also expresses fear of black males (his grandmother's private angst is thus of the same magnitude as Wright's outbursts broadcast to tens of thousands).
  3. We don't understand Wright's history and personal narrative. But as someone who grew up in the hate-filled and racist 1960s, it was understandable that he was bound to mature into his present angry anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white mentality. (As if all blacks did?)
  4. Indeed, Wright does nothing that much different from radio-talk show hosts and those of the Reagan Coalition who thrive on racial resentments. But whereas Wright has cause as a victim, his counterparts are opportunists who play on white fears.
  5. And if we wish to continue to express worries about Obama's past relationships with Wright - never delineated, never explained in detail - in trite and mean-spirited ways such as replaying the Wright tapes, then we have lost a rare opportunity to follow Obama into a post-racial America.
  6. We, both black and white alike, are victims, victims of an insensitive system, a shapeless, anonymous "it" that brings out the worst in all of us - but it will at last end with an Obama candidacy.
The message? Some of us are never quite responsible for what we say. And Obama has no responsibility to explain the inexplicable of how he closely tied himself to someone of such repugnant and racist views. We will never hear "It's time for Rev. Wright and me to part our separate ways, and here's why."

Instead, the entire Wright controversy evolved due to America's failure to understand the Wright's past and the present status of race. No doubt, the next time some public figure utters a racist comment - and it will happen - we will then expect to hear about context that explains and excuses such an apparent hurtful outburst.

Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source - not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama.
Reading List