💧 Help deliver clean water in Gaza 💧
-
gothhabiba:gothhabiba:ALTALTALT💧 Help deliver clean water in Gaza 💧Relief
for Rafah is still...
15 hours ago
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Our "Nation of Cowards" (con't)
A different take on Eric Holder by one of my favorite writers: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/the_case_against_a_dialouge_on_race.php
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Our "Nation of Cowards"
See the following in the New York Times, regarding Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08race.html?_r=1
Now it was a very political answer, so I can't even be sure that President Obama was saying what he actually believes. But even assuming he wasn't speaking his mind, I think he should have.
To me, this discussion is about the equivalent of "What kind of bear is best?" "False: Black bear." I believe, Holder's argument was that when it comes to race in America - to thinking about it, discussing it, and dealing with in every day life - we, Americans, are for the most part "a nation of cowards;" i.e. that most of us would rather ignore the idea of race, how that concept functions in America, and the repercussions for both those from minority groups and those in the majority. Obama's response, instead of directly addressing that idea, is (1) even if we did talk about race all the time, it wouldn't solve racial tensions; and (2) what will solve racial tensions is ensuring a basic standard of living for everyone.
As far as (1), no one (i.e. not Holder) is advocating that we talk about race every minute of every day until we all feel better. This response sounds reasonable, but could actually be harmful in its method of calming opponents of Holder by assuring them that the type of dialogue he has called for is not, in fact, productive - may even be counter-productive.
And in response to (2), false: black bear.
"[F]ixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out there" will not solve racial tensions. It may make racial relations less tense, as Americans in general become less uneasy about their lives, but it will not in and of itself solve racial tension - not without discussion. And to say that we will have "more fruitful conversations" after these other things have been fixed... well, I have a problem with the implication that conversations about race can or should wait until after things that are supposedly more important are fixed. The truth is we can do both at the same time.
And as politically correct (*wince*) as his answer was, as much as I would traditionally agree with political advice to diffuse such a situation, I have a hard time believing that the same man who gave a landmark speech about race only last year could not have found a way to convey the importance of conversations about race without implicating himself in a news cycle of Holder drama.
I'd be interested to see how the question was worded...
I should add that, personally, without the ability to have both abstract and concrete discussions about race and identity in America, I would be for all intents and purposes, intellectually dead. The world has always approached me as a black woman, and I need to be able to talk about how society's view of my race and my choice to identify with my race has shaped me. Its never the only lens I wear, and I can recognize and acknowledge other people's identity lenses on this and other topics. But the most honest, most revealing conversations I have had have been on identity or through the lens of identity, whether mine or somebody else's. Those conversations enrich everyone involved. And to my friends who are reading this, you are my close friends in part because I can and have been able to discuss issues of identity with you.
Thoughts?
Mr. Obama was asked whether he agreed with Mr. Holder. He hesitated for five seconds before responding.
'I’m not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions,' Mr. Obama said. 'I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out there. I think if we do that, then we’ll probably have more fruitful conversations.'
Now it was a very political answer, so I can't even be sure that President Obama was saying what he actually believes. But even assuming he wasn't speaking his mind, I think he should have.
To me, this discussion is about the equivalent of "What kind of bear is best?" "False: Black bear." I believe, Holder's argument was that when it comes to race in America - to thinking about it, discussing it, and dealing with in every day life - we, Americans, are for the most part "a nation of cowards;" i.e. that most of us would rather ignore the idea of race, how that concept functions in America, and the repercussions for both those from minority groups and those in the majority. Obama's response, instead of directly addressing that idea, is (1) even if we did talk about race all the time, it wouldn't solve racial tensions; and (2) what will solve racial tensions is ensuring a basic standard of living for everyone.
As far as (1), no one (i.e. not Holder) is advocating that we talk about race every minute of every day until we all feel better. This response sounds reasonable, but could actually be harmful in its method of calming opponents of Holder by assuring them that the type of dialogue he has called for is not, in fact, productive - may even be counter-productive.
And in response to (2), false: black bear.
"[F]ixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out there" will not solve racial tensions. It may make racial relations less tense, as Americans in general become less uneasy about their lives, but it will not in and of itself solve racial tension - not without discussion. And to say that we will have "more fruitful conversations" after these other things have been fixed... well, I have a problem with the implication that conversations about race can or should wait until after things that are supposedly more important are fixed. The truth is we can do both at the same time.
And as politically correct (*wince*) as his answer was, as much as I would traditionally agree with political advice to diffuse such a situation, I have a hard time believing that the same man who gave a landmark speech about race only last year could not have found a way to convey the importance of conversations about race without implicating himself in a news cycle of Holder drama.
I'd be interested to see how the question was worded...
I should add that, personally, without the ability to have both abstract and concrete discussions about race and identity in America, I would be for all intents and purposes, intellectually dead. The world has always approached me as a black woman, and I need to be able to talk about how society's view of my race and my choice to identify with my race has shaped me. Its never the only lens I wear, and I can recognize and acknowledge other people's identity lenses on this and other topics. But the most honest, most revealing conversations I have had have been on identity or through the lens of identity, whether mine or somebody else's. Those conversations enrich everyone involved. And to my friends who are reading this, you are my close friends in part because I can and have been able to discuss issues of identity with you.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
