Wright Here, Wright Now (or, Everything Wright is Wrong Again)

As we’ve noted before, the problem with a weekly blog is that it’s always difficult to decide when to write in the midst of particularly relevant events. We’re not designed to be “breaking news” (or news at all, actually); our goal is to apply political science, communication and political psychology scholarly principles to the news so that our readers get a perspective that differs from that of the media and most other blogs.

We started to write after Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave an interview to Bill Moyers for PBS on Friday.

Then again when he delivered an address Sunday night at the NAACP dinner in Detroit.

Then again when he spoke to the National Press Club on Monday.

But then Barack Obama gave a press conference on Tuesday that referred to Wright’s remarks at those events.

Assuming that neither of them will speak today, here we go.

Barack Obama is still in a pickle. Many progressives (of all races) and African Americans will be upset that he distanced himself further from Wright, while conservatives will not be satisfied because the more forceful denouncement yesterday will be seen as too late (and seen as disingenuous). After all, what did Wright say this weekend that he hadn’t said before? Was it Wright’s antics at the Press Club that offended Obama so? That’s not what Obama said was the reason. There seems to be very little justification, in fact, for the line in the sand to be drawn over the weekend, other than that Wright seemed to attack Obama personally. To Obama, who defended Wright more than he criticized him in his March 18 speech in Philadelphia, this sort of personal betrayal may be intolerable in a way that Wright’s sometimes zany assertions are not.

Roland Martin called the exchange between Obama and Wright “black on black violence” on his radio show this morning, noting that Wright needs to stand down at this point because it’s not doing Obama any good. Whether Wright is concerned about that at this point is arguable.

The fact is that Wright is very insightful in much of what he says – even the most controversial remarks (leave aside his very conservative positions regarding personal responsibility and “family values”). If he put it another way, much of what he says might very well be agreeable to a significant portion of the population who is “offended” by his remarks. But why should he have to put it another way? He is a preacher in a black church. He is not running for office, and he did not ask to be in the national spotlight, much less in the middle of an historic presidential campaign. It’s very plausible that moderate and even progressive whites are more upset by how these assertions are delivered and by whom than they are about the statements themselves.

Is it “deplorable,” for instance, to suggest that 9/11 resulted from a history of American foreign policy that the attackers and their supporters found to be oppressive? Certainly not. For one, even if it is true that American foreign policy has been oppressive, that’s an explanation, not an excuse, for the attacks. Saying that the “chickens are coming home to roost” (even if it is a quote from an Iranian official rather than Wright’s words) is not necessarily a celebration of the roost. As Wright noted in Detroit, he is being descriptive. His claim that the descriptiveness is mutually exclusive with divisiveness is off base, but that is really beside the point. And secondly, if one does not believe that American foreign policy has been oppressive, it is still rational to conclude that the 9/11 attackers perceived it to be that way, which is why they attacked. The explanation is much more understandable than “they hate our freedom.”

Is it “deplorable” to suggest that he and others would not be surprised if the U.S. government was involved in systematically infecting the black population with AIDS? Certainly not. It’s not a particularly bright or seemingly valid accusation, but one ought to be able to understand his suspicion of government involvement in biological agents generally, particularly after the Tuskegee experiments. Wright was mistaken when he claimed that African American men were injected with syphilis in those studies, but it is factual that the government used those who had the disease as a control group in an experiment for 40 years, telling some 400 black men that they had “bad blood” and were being treated when they were not. (They weren’t even told that they had syphilis.) We’ve heard folks argue that because Wright lied (misspoke, exaggerated, etc.) about the “injections,” his argument falls apart. Do we really want to take the position that what the government did wasn’t “that bad” since it intentionally and misleadingly withheld treatment as opposed to directly infecting? In this context, some level of suspicion is tolerable at least, and understandable in many ways.

Empathy is not the same as sympathy. The false binary political culture in which we find ourselves leaves little room for understanding yet still disagreeing with an opponent’s point. What passes for “dialogue” is little more than argument. When a listener calls in to Sean Hannity’s radio show, for instance, he “listens” to their ideas and responds with his own. At some point, he invariably says, “Well, I’m not going to convince you. . .,” as if that is the only reason to engage someone in dialogue. If he can’t convince them, then he’s not interested in the discussion any longer. But we grow intellectually through the thoughtful and meaningful exchange of ideas. It is this exchange that has led to progress in social movements throughout history, and it is this exchange that is sorely needed with respect to modern race relations in America.

If this were not in a presidential race (and tied to a presidential candidate), it would be a wonderful time to open dialogue about different perceptions of America between whites and people of color. That’s what Obama tried to explain in his March 18 address. Unfortunately, though, a discussion that should be about race is conflated with a discussion of whether one particular black American is fit to be president. It’s too bad, too, because while we are still technically having the discussion as a nation, we are not having it in the way we should be. Rev. Wright’s position deserves scrutiny and attention, but it has very little to do with Barack Obama’s suitability for the presidency or the Democratic nomination for the presidency. His opponents understand this, but choose to use Wright as a wedge to play on racial resentments. Wright claimed that the attack from the mainstream media was against black theology in general; he is on point with this. While that might not be the conscious intent of the attacks, such vitriol is much less tolerable by whites when it comes from an African American, particularly one who does not fit the white model of what a church leaders should be (and should be talking about). Indeed, it becomes just another example of “uppity” blacks not knowing their place in society (or in the pecking order for a Democratic presidential nomination).

Racist Rhetoric ‘Round Wrigley

An assumed homage to Chicago Cubs’ rookie slugger Kosuke Fukudome (batting .328 and slugging .463 through the first 18 games of the season), a street vendor began selling t-shirts outside of Wrigley Field that are raising eyebrows. The shirts feature Japanese-style lettering, a modification of the “cubby bear” mascot (with slanted eyes), and the phrase “Horry Kow,” which mocks the way a speaker with an Asian-language accent might say the late Cubs announcer Harry Caray’s famous “Holy Cow!”


Though the story broke over a week ago, Rahula Strohl began an online conversation about the appropriateness of such a slogan (as well as the tendency of Cubs fans to wear martial-arts style headbands to the games this year) on the ChicagoSports.com blog “What’s Goin’ On” Sunday. Some responses predictably expressed outrage, but more were outraged by the outrage. Here is just a small sampling of the intellectual musings of some northsiders:

“Shane”: This article and anyone who has issues with this T-Shirt needs to relaaaaax. This Political Correctness is OUT OF CONTROL. I've been saying for years that Political Correctness means always having to say you're sorry. This issue is proof positive that I've been right all along. You people won't be happy until everyone has a hyphenated name and can't EVER say what they mean. Get a life and laugh a little. This shirt pokes at the hilarity of accents and if Fukudome doesn't find the humor in that then he should be out on some Democrat's campaign committee. Good day Liberals!

“Rae”: I'm not a fan of the shirts, but if I were Kosuke Fukudome I'd be flattered that some people learned to write some characters in my native language and made those headbands.

“Hairball51”: There is nothing rascist about any of this silly crap. The word rascist has been thrown around so damn often in this society and used as am excuse that no one knows what it means anymore. Look up rascist and see if it it fits this crime. How about insensitive as a better word, but rascist, come on please. You silly liberals are so self righteous and perfect aren't you? Do you feel better when you lay down at night knowing you are so much more in tune with your fellow man? The fact that this would upset anyone shows a shallow, hollow life, completely void of anything meaningfull. Go suck your thumbs!

“Casey Humpherys”: this is about the silliest article i've read. you need to get some thick skin son. every little thing that relates to racial stereotypes should not be offensive. can't we laugh at life?

And, finally, the über-articulate “Cubs Fan”:

You all need to GET OVER IT!!! It's not racist, it's funny!!!! quit being so politically correct!!!! You're acting pathetic!!!! I don't get all offended when people make red neck jokes! What about blond jokes??? No more of those either??? It's simple and funny!!! LIGHTEN UP!!!! I'm Polish and people make polish jokes ALL THE TIME!!!! Do I cry racist??? No, I LAUGH because it's funny!!!! If you're sooo worried about hurting someone, then start volunteering at a right for life organization. Because a lot of you crying about these hurt feelings over something SO RIDICULOUS, will be the same people who turn around and say, it's ok to kill a baby, but we better save the whales!!!! YOU PEOPLE ARE SICK!!! SOCIETY IS GETTING PATHETIC!!!! GROW UP!!!

These and other comments fall victim to the “false reciprocity” fallacy: what is acceptable of one race is acceptable of another. These critics fail to recognize or appreciate the power differential between whites and other races in American culture, and therefore are outraged by any attempts to prevent perpetuation of that inequality. This fallacy surfaces often with respect to humor. We can’t count the number of times a white student expressed outrage that black comedians could use the “n-word” or make fun of whites without criticism when the reverse would be condemned. Here’s a particularly interesting exchange between commenter “Will” and Strohl that illustrates this point:

“Will”: Rahula, you asked, "If anyone out there can explain to me why this shirt is funny, I'd love to hear it." Do you really not know? Come on PC boy, you may not find making fun of foreign accents funny but that is the idea behind the joke. How do you not know that? You know, like when black comedians talk like "white people" or SNL Super Fans make fun of the Chicago accent. Making fun of how people talk has been around as long as language itself. How do you not know that?

RAHULA'S RESPONSE: Every newscaster on every television and radio station in this country "talks white." Anyone entering a job interview in corporate America with a heavy accent of any kind, whether it be African American Vernacular or an accent of their home country (white or otherwise), would be at a disadvantage versus someone who "talked white." Theoretically, it isn't true, but practically, it is. Items like this shirt just contribute to confirming that practical truth.

We give Strohl credit for trying to educate folks who seemingly would rather turn their heads and ignore racism; it is a difficult thing to do, and even more difficult in a forum where people are expecting to talk about sports and not think about anything too “heavy.” But the situation raises an interesting set of questions for students of race, language and power. We’ll focus on just two of those questions this week.

First, is there a higher tolerance for mocking of “model minorities?” Since Asians, despite bouts of persecution and consistent humiliation, have “made it” in America in terms of levels of education and economics. This presents whites, in particular, with a convenient excuse for anti-black, anti-Latino and anti-American Indian bigotry (“If Asians can do it, why can’t they?”). Similar arguments have been made about Jewish Americans (by whites, as well as by African Americans). Whether the economic success of “model minorities” should be used as an argument against attempts to equalize opportunities for other minorities is beyond the scope of this entry; what we really wish to ask our readers to consider this week is whether economic success makes caricatures and mockeries “fair game” for members of racial or ethnic groups.

After all, part of our consistent argument against racist language is that it perpetuates power differences and keeps whites in the privileged position. If we perceive Asian Americans and Jewish Americans as also being in “privileged” positions in American culture, then it is inappropriate to labeled race- or ethnic-based criticism as “racist,” but rather bigoted (a term that does not involve power differences, but rather resentment of persons of a race by persons of another race).

The problem is that with respect to dignity and humanness, “privilege” is more than access to education and economic prosperity. To be sure, these are important, but there are other considerations that relate to respect and full inclusion in a pluralist culture. Our persistent focus on capitalism transcends economics, becoming a litmus test for behavior and status: we are urged to compete (with falsely-assumed equality of opportunity), and our “success” is measured by how much wealth we can accumulate. But no amount of property or money can soothe the wounds of hateful and stereotypical beliefs (as expressed through language and mockery such as we see with some Cubs fans).

The second issue, though, is the extent to which stereotypes contain truth. It is true, of course, that folks who have an Asian language as a first language have difficulty forming the “L” sound, and instead substitute with an “R” sound. Any native English speaker who has tried to learn a foreign language knows how difficult it can be to make sounds that do not exist in English (rolled “R”s, for instance). The result, of course, can be quite comical.

So what makes “Horry Kow” racist? It’s racist because it mocks a culture that has historically been oppressed in America. Such mockery has been used to privilege whites (in this case, native English speakers) over other groups, which violates our shared and expressed core value of equality. Arguments of “political correctness” and “hypersensitivity” serve to preserve the right to enjoy a laugh at another’s expense for members of a privileged group. It may be a bummer that we can’t get a good laugh at mispronounced words, but the costs (perpetuation of difference and marginalization) are far greater than the benefits of a laugh.

Note: Not that offending fans care what Fukudome thinks about this, but for the record, he doesn’t like it. The Sun-Times reports that the Cubs have stopped sale of the shirt.

*************************************************

If you missed the segment on black secret language (“blanguage”) on Monday night’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, you can catch it here.

*************************************************

Thanks to an invitation by Dr. Michele Ramsey, we will be reprising our (almost) famous debate about who should use the “n-word” at Penn State University-Berks this Friday (April 26) at 1:00 p.m. If you can’t make it, you can watch our debate at North Central College on YouTube.

Oh “Boy”: A Case for Elitism

As has been the case since Barack Obama’s candidacy took off last year, there is too much material this week for us to analyze in depth. Here’s what happened:

1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke at the funeral for long-time Chicago civil rights activist Judge R. Eugene Pincham. Despite requests from the family for no media to be present, the Chicago Sun-Times streamed Wright’s eulogy on its website.
2. Tavis Smiley seemingly ended his 12-year relationship with the Tom Joyner Morning (radio) Show amidst audience outrage over his continual criticism of Obama. Smiley explained that he was not quitting, but merely scaling back his involvement to make room for other projects.
3. Among a host of offensive remarks at a Northern Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner, U.S. Senator Geoff Davis referred to Obama as “boy,” to very little media attention. (Davis since apologized -- read about it and listen to the audio here.)
   
4. Obama explained to supporters at a fundraiser in San Francisco that working class whites are “bitter” as a result of all the economic hardship and empty promises that they’ve experienced over the past few decades. The comments were met with cries that Obama is an elitist and out of touch with ordinary Americans.

Only an African American could be accused (with straight faces) of being too unsophisticated one day and an elitist a few days later. When the Jeremiah Wright controversy surfaced, Barack Obama was characterized as someone who was so unsophisticated that he was tabula rasa for a “hate-mongering” minister who filled his brain with ideas that he was unable to filter or process. This week, he is accused of being out of touch with ordinary Americans because he is an elitist.

As Jon Stewart noted Monday night on The Daily Show, though, we might prefer someone who is “elite” to lead the country.

Since this is a blog on language, we need to make sure to be clear that there is a distinction between being “elite” and being an “elitist.” The latter refers to someone who believes in the superiority of, and supports rule by, a small class of people. There is an argument to be made on both sides of this, provided that the leadership is selected through democratic processes. The so-called pluralist model of democracy, for instance, acknowledges the existence of an elite ruling class, but argues that ordinary Americans can influence those elites, primarily through representation by interest groups. There is a rich political science literature on this theory, but we present it here to set up a different type of argument.

Despite Stewart’s bashing of Stephen’s homeland (joining Sienna Miller, who recently dissed his hometown, too!), Stewart raises an important point. What do we want in a president? We predicted in December of 2006 – in our very first blog to mention Obama – that he would not win the Democratic nomination. We might very well still be wrong (certainly looks like it), but the questions that have come up are very similar to those we raised regarding Democrats’ perception of his electability because of his race.

No one knows exactly what to make of this guy. He’s black, but we spent months wondering if he was “black enough” for black leaders. Once he began to show his electoral prowess, skeptical black leaders rallied around him. At that point, he started to look too black (enter the Jeremiah Wright clips), so white commentators such as Dennis Miller began to speculate about his “street cred.” Just when it appeared that he was striking a balance between being smart enough to do the job and sensitive enough to understand how folks were feeling, he is attacked for being an elitist.

All candidates, particularly those running for president, face scrutiny that seems beyond “fair” at some point. But Obama is not any candidate; he’s the first truly viable black candidate, and these attacks are not new. In the 1990s, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina ran an ad against his opponent, African American Harvey Gantt, pointing out that Gantt attended a fundraiser in San Francisco – a code for “too liberal” (and maybe even gay!). The fact that Obama’s remarks took place at a San Francisco fundraiser helped to give this story legs.

Middle America is bitter. We know it, and the folks living in those situations know it. But to them, it’s not okay to have a black guy say it. This is the quintessential example of an “uppity” black man – who is he to call them bitter?!

The remainder of the comment, of course, was that these bitter folks cling to guns and religion and antipathy toward people different than themselves. A close examination of the media criticism will reveal numerous pundits explaining that people liked guns before bad economic situations, and they were religious before them, too. This is used as an explanation of how out of touch Obama is. But here is his quote:

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

(Of course, completely ignored was the very next sentence where he explained that only some folks in some communities are like this.) But this was a very thoughtful answer. He paused throughout his answer. He was chose his words carefully. He is explaining what is happening and why folks feel the way they do. They are bitter (for good reasons, he explains) and they cling to these things “as a way to explain their frustrations.” What, exactly, is elitist about that comment? He is pointing out that it is perfectly natural for us to make sense of our world in ways that are comfortable to us. We don’t have to agree with those ways, but they are coping mechanisms. Obama did not condemn people, but rather empathized with them and attempted to explain to his admittedly elite liberal audience why folks feel the way they do. They may have laughed during the explanation, but he didn’t. It is very similar to the way he tried to explain white and black resentment during his speech on race a month ago.

Do we want someone in the head executive position who understands the complexity of the world? Maybe not. George W. Bush is quiet intelligent (despite rumors to the contrary), but he is not an intellectual. Being an intellectual has proven to be a liability in electoral politics in America. We are skeptical about what we don’t understand, and intellectuals attempt to understand the world in sophisticated and complex ways. Obama is certainly an intellectual. We accepted it with Bill Clinton because he could mitigate it by putting on the Southern drawl (which, wrong as it may be, is not considered as sign of intelligence or intellectualism). Obama’s blackness cannot mitigate his intellectualism in the same way. For white folks who are not comfortable with African Americans at all, the effect is quite the contrary.

In short, rural Pennsylvanians, along with many other middle-income and working-class whites, may very well be looking for a reason to justify not voting for Obama. The norm of equality prevents them from not voting for him just because of his race. They can find psychological comfort, however, if there is another reason. For some it will be that he’s too unsophisticated, and for others, it’ll be because he’s too sophisticated. In any case, race is at the root of the issue of why this “boy” still has an uphill battle for the nomination.

P.S. Yinz better root for the Stillers 'n at!

The Fatigued Bloggers: An Overview of Some Things You Might Have Missed

We spent the better part of last week preparing for our two research presentations at the Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting in Chicago. You can read our papers if you like, but we warn you: they're a bit rough.

• "Racial Frames and Potential Effects on Minority Candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election"

• "Winners and Losers: Factors Contributing to Minority Candidates' Successes and Failures in American Elections, 1990-2006"

There were many other presentations relevant to TWIR readers, as well. Feel free to browse through the preliminary program and/or search for papers from the conference read.

We're pretty beat (which is partly why we're late this week). Here are some odds and ends that we've not had a chance to get to over the past month or so.
____________________________________________________

Thanks to Stephen's colleague Heather Coon for alerting us to this insightful post from Daily Kos last week. What Tami Said does a nice job of conveying the sense of frustration that we often feel regarding our collective inability (or unwillingness) to talk honestly about racial inequality and injustice.


Another of Stephen's colleagues, Jon Mueller, is always great about providing feedback and sharing stories of interest. A while back, he passed on this story about how racism is reflected in children's toys (in this case, dolls). He also shared this very interesting column on The Huffington Post from the son of a conservative white minister, who points out the double-standard in the controversy over Dr. Jeremiah Wright's sermons.


Blogspot member Adam pointed out this widely ignored story about a sorority party at the University of North Dakota where students dressed up as American Indians.

Finally, you may have missed Congressman Emanuel Cleaver's remarks about the Democratic presidential race on Canadian radio. Cleaver (D-MO) is a Clinton supporter, but predicted that Obama would be elected president. To explain, he used a football analogy: even though he thinks that the Indianapolis Colts will beat the Kansas City Chiefs, he cheers for the Chiefs because he is a loyal fan. Hmmm. The Politico.com story has some other quotes, some with racial implications.