13 Comments

Comment by CPD on May 13, 2008 at 11:17am

I don't see how your argument gets to the point where it becomes a either/or issue: Barack (with a "c") Obama either must pander to his "white-people-resenting base" by making race and the grievances of the black community a key issue or he must not discuss race so the superdelegates will not worry. There just seems to many broad assumptions here.

Who comprises his "white-people-resenting" base? It was only a year ago that people were saying he wasn't "black enough", and we've seen over and again that his base includes voters under 30 (my white self included) in it and apparently people with post graduate degrees. So who are these supporters you are referring to?

How do we know that the superdelegates are primarily concerned with the issue of Obama's race when it comes to November? There has been speculation that the Reverend Wright nonsense would be a cause for superdelegates' concern, and yet he just keeps racking up their support, including representatives from states that have predominantly white citizens, like Maine, South Dakota, etc.

And I don't understand why the issue of race in your article the idea of an enlightened society is also framed as an either/or idea. Why can't it be that America has made great strides in the last 50 years but also has work to do (specifically in our cities)? Yes, the progress forged into law in the 1960's and the Civil Rights movement helped, but that doesn't mean that we should be patting ourselves on the back for a job well done and resent any further discussion about how the country has handled citizens in the poorer classes, many of whom are black and white and Hispanic.

Comment by Billy Jack on May 13, 2008 at 6:56pm

Wow CPD! Where to begin? First, thank you so much for taking the time to read my article and to consider what it says seriously enough to make a comment about it. I truly appreciate it, and the things I will say about the areas of our disagreement do not take away from that appreciation.

It is not I who is making this a Either-Or proposition. It is Obama himself. Go back and read his speech on "A More Perfect Union." Go to the part where he tells both blacks and whites what they must do to heal the rift between the races in this country. In a nut shell, he tells the whites to remember how awful we have been to the blacks and the problems they face socially, financially, professionally, in their families, and in every other imaginable way is due in large part to that oppression--not just 200 years ago, but even today. As for what the blacks can do, he tells them to remember how awful they have had it in this country and never forget the suffering of those gone before. Tell me CPD--where in that analysis is Senator Obama recognizing any improvements in race relations? What did he say in his speech to make black folks feel more included and less oppressed than they were 50 years ago? Let me save you some time--He doesn't say anything like that. His speech is a plea for whites and blacks alike to recognize, not only how oppressed they have been, but how oppressed they are today in America. Igt is that characterization on the part of Senator Obama that has turned this into an "Either-Or" proposition.

I am more than willing to recognize the oppression of the past. But I am ready for someone (anyone) in the black community to stand up and say, "Good job America! You have done some hard work and have made some difficult choices to correct the sins of your fathers over the past 50 years!" But you know what CPD? No one EVER says that. So please don't accuse ME of being the one making this an "Either-Or" matter. I am on the side of the argument that says we have accomplished a great deal over the past 50 years--but we still have some work to do. But quite honestly, CPD, I know of no further work that needs to be done systemically. Everything that can be done in our laws to eliminate discrimination from housing, employment, education, law enforcement, and any other imaginable area has been done. I am not saying occasions of law breaking do not occur in these area on the part of individual people. As long as individual humans inhabit the earth, there will be discrimination. There is nothing we can do about that. But what we CAN do and what we HAVE done is make such discrimination a crime and, when it occurs, to bring the full force of the law down on the person who does it. Those things are in place NOW. But does Senator Obama say one syllable about any of that in his "Perfect Union" or in any other speech he has ever made. No! It's as if we are still in the 50's to hear him talk. That is, to hear him to talk to his "white resenting base."

That brings up the next thing. CPD, for you to ask "Who comprises his 'white-people-resenting' base" makes it obvious that you, too, are looking at only one side of the problem. Are you suggesting for one minute that there are no black people who carry heavy resentment for white people in this country? Are you suggesting that there no percentage of the black voters who are supporting Obama are motivated in their lives by that "white resentment?" If you ARE suggesting those things, then you are being intellectually dishonest, and there is no need to talk about it anymore. However, if you acknowledge those things, then you have answered your own question about who they are. It has nothing to do with whether any of that nonsense is hurting him or not hurting him. The point is, a percentage of his base are motivated in their lives by a deep down resentment for whites because of the things they have suffered. The second point is, when he speaks to those people on on behalf of those people to others, the picture he paints is completely devoid of any acknowledgement of the dramatic changes for the good we have made in America. But, when he is speaking to the general public and trying to convince everyone that he is "one of us," his tone completely changes to a very conciliatory and heartfelt appreciation for the opprtunities he has been given as a black man in this country. CPD--my point is, the man is playing both sides against the middle. He is the one on the extremes--not me.

Finally, in your last paragraph, you say, "Yes, the progress forged into law in the 1960's and the Civil Rights movement helped, but that doesn't mean that we should be patting ourselves on the back for a job well done and resent any further discussion about how the country has handled citizens in the poorer classes, many of whom are black and white and Hispanic." First, for you to characterize what this country has done in the past 50 years to stem the tide of hate filled racism in our legal system as "helpful," is a complete trivialization of the matter. Our progress in that period of time is nothing short of radical. it is a socialogical achievement not unlike that of the dismantling of Apartheid or the tearing down of the Berlin wall. The walls that had to be torn down in that brief amount of time were deeply rooted in our 200 year history. Making the 180 degree turn around we have made in a quarter of that amount of time is amazing, and a testimony to the greatness of our country. If you are going to discuss it, please don't trivialize it by calling it "helpful."

Second, I don't want any pats on the back. To be honest, I had nothing to do with it (just like I had nothing to do with slavery or any of the other awful things that have been inflicted on blacks through the years). I refuse to take the credit or the blame for something for which I am not at all responsible. But, while a pat on the back is not needed, it would be nice for black folks who talk about their plight in America to have just a fraction of an ounce of BALANCE in their conversation. It would be nice to hear black leaders (more than just a couple of them) stand up and tell the black youth of today that they have EVERY opportunity and protection of the law today to allow them to be as successful as they want to be. It would be nice to hear some messages of hope from black pulpits across our country that say--"Today--if you fail--its all on you. It's not "whitey's fault! It's not the governement's fault! It's not the police's fault! It's not the school's fault! With today's opportunity and legal protection, if you fail--it is compeltely and totally your fault." Hearing something like that would be a breath of fresh air, and I believe would usher in a new day of hope for black young people. Instead, their parents, grandparents, preachers, community leaders and political leaders are preaqching the message of __"The deck is stacked against you by white folks, but you can overcome it and make something of your life." That kind of nonsense gives a young person every excuse he or she needs to fail. Why not fail? After all, you can't fight city hall. It's not worth the effort, because everytime I try, someone from our society is going to slap me down. CPD, if that is NOT the message black leaders are giving their young people, please tell me where I have missed it! If it IS the message they are preaching, they need to stop it and tell a more balanced version of the truth.

Senator Obama has had ample opportunity and the ears of the majority of people in this country to preach that message--and he has not done it. For that, I completely disrespect him. For that, I accuse him of being dishonest at worst, or spinless at best. For that, I say he has no business being our President until he grows a spine that allows him to confront unpopular subjects with people who are going to forsake him because of the truth he tells them.

Thanks again for writing!

Comment by John S on May 13, 2008 at 10:13pm

The potential for the first black President in the history of the United States? It is impossible for race to not be an issue. Anyone who thinks it's not, is not thinking.

Comment by CPD on May 14, 2008 at 2:09pm

Great to get into this with you, Billy Jack. It's always good to jump into a respectful disagreement, instead of what I normally find on comment sections. You gave me a lot to respond to, but if it's alright I'm just going to try to aim at the facts or examples you cite as basis for your opinions on this.

First, I appreciate your bringing up the "more perfect union" speech, because it gave me a chance to read it again. I didn't find what you were referring to when you say, "As for what the blacks can do, he tells them to remember how awful they have had it in this country and never forget the suffering of those gone before." Obama, in this speech, did provide many examples of black oppression, but he mentions them to give a background for the world in which Reverend Wright's generation grew up and to show a broader context from which anger still exists and is sometimes voiced in the black community. These examples are NOT a list of things Obama claims are still going on, and while he contextualizes this "anger", he doesn't aim to justify it. Here's what he says:

"That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

In fact, Obama flatly criticizes Wright for what you are accusing Obama of professing:

"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

Both in this speech, in his books, and elsewhere, Obama urges the notion of self-reliance for the black communities. The part of the speech that you referred me to doesn't urge black Americans to just remember the suffering of previous generations and do nothing else, as you imply. Here's the text of that section:

"But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."

And here's what he said about education to a predominantly poor, black audience in Indiana a month back: "Parents if you don't parent, we can't improve our schools...You've got to parent. You've got to turn off the television set in your house once in a while, you've got to put the video game away once in a while." When the crowd gave a flat response, Obama said, "You know what I say is true, though. Don't blame the teachers, and the government and the schools if you're not doing your job."

This sounds to me akin to the type of message you would like to see from black leaders, right?

Now, onto the progress we have made. A huge issue. I didn't realize I was trivializing the progress forged into law in the 50's and 60's. I'm young and never lived in an America before that period, but it is not as if racial discrimination, bigotry, and a disparity of living standards and wealth between minorities and white Americans hasn't existed in my lifetime. To a large degree you are correct in equating the strides made back then to the dismantling of South African Apartheid, but I recently lived in South Africa, volunteering in these black settlements. While the laws have changed and there are black leaders in charge, including their president, the deeply entrenched bigotry, blame, self-pity, guilt remain palpable every day in every part of the country. What I mean to say is that while the laws were changed in a previous American era, this past progress was the grand first step in the right direction and not the 180 degree revolution that you see it as.

A recent report came out which specified areas in which past goals from the 60's were never met for millions of black Americans who live in urban areas. The original report was commissioned by President Johnson in '68 as a response to urban riots. Many of its recommendations weren't fulfilled, and after 40 years the same commission reassessed the problems. They found many areas and programs that lead to improvements, but there still remain some glaring issues that have not been resolved, such as education, employment, segregation, crime, legal discrimination, and poverty. Here's a couple:

•The poverty gap between blacks and whites has narrowed since 1968 as the percentage of blacks in poverty dropped from 35% to 24%. Still, blacks are three times as likely as whites — and Hispanics twice as likely — to live in extreme poverty.

•School integration has declined in the past two decades. Today, 27% of black students attend mostly white schools, up from 23% in 1968 but down from 37% during the 1980s.

Sorry this went on so long, but I wanted to go to the text and statistics and that leads to long, in context, quotes.

Comment by Billy Jack on May 16, 2008 at 3:39pm

Hey CPD!

Thanks for writing back. You make a good point regarding Senator Obama's recent speechin Indiana. I had not heard that speech, and the comments you lifted from it are encouraging. However, they don't really go far enough because he is bla,ming the parents for the failures of the kids. That is a step in the right direction of personal responsibility--atleast he's not blaming white folks or the governement or some other outside influence. However, he is still giving the kids every reason they need to fail. Instead, he should be telling the kids themselves that the way has been paved for them to succeed by black folks who have struggled over the past 50 years. Today, the obstacles black folks faced back then no longer exist. Today a black teen can go anywhere he wants to go for school. He can work anywhere he wants to work. He can live anywhere he wants to live. None of those things were true 50 years ago but, thanks to the hard work aqnd suffering of their ancestors of the last 3 or 4 generations, those things are true today. Consequently, there are NO EXCUSES for failure. Today, they not only have the "Audacity of Hope," they have "Sky Is The Limit" hope. Someone needs to tell black teens those things, and even Obama's remarks in Indiana fall short of that. His remarks in his Perfect Union speech fall even shorter.

The problem of understanding between us is we are evaluating the speech of a double talker. So, both of us can be right in our assessment of his remarks. For instance, Senator Obama begins his section on the historical background of his preacher's anger by saying there is no need to go into those things. Then, he spends the newt 3 paragraphs doing what he just said he wasn't going to do. Then he subtly (or not so subtly for those of us who are paying attention),. he slips something into his speech for the benefit of his "white resenting base." He says the "history lesson" he gives us for 3 paragraphs is strictly to give us an understanding of the world in which Wright grew up. But then listen to what he says in the very same breath--

"Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."

He begins the very next paragraph by saying, "This is the reality in which Reverend
Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He thinks that by saying that he is cleverly disguising the fact that he has said much more than that. In the comments I have quoted, he basically says that every possible problem in the black community (social, educational, financial,etc) are due to the suffering and oppression that blacks have experienced at the hands of the bad oppressive white man. I know he doesn't say those words. He doesn't have to. It was white people who inflicted those things on blacks in the past. There is no doubting that. But tying those deeds done by whites back then to the suffering blacks do today provides young black teens every reason they need to continue hating white folks and to continue dismissing their own personal life failures as the result of forces over which they had no control. That is the practical outcome of the comments Obama makes in the words I have quoted. What happened to the messagfe--"If you are failing today--it is your fault. You have every opportunity to succeed...?" That message is lost in the rhetoric that Obama uses in those comments.

As for his remedy for the "More Perfct Union" and the respective rolls he lays out for blacks and whites to pplay in the process, you did not read down far enough. Here is what I was talking about.

"But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."

If that's not double talk, I guess I don't know what double talk is. He just finished make an inseparable connection between past oppression and suffering of blacks with present day suffering of blacks. Now he says blacks should "embrace the burdens of the past without being victims of our past." HE JUST SAID THEY ARE VICTIMS OF THE PAST!!! I can't keep up with what this guy thinks. And what exactly does he mean they should "embrace the burdens of the past?" Does he mean they should dwell on them? Does he mean they should use them as a crutch to excuse their own personal failures today? Apparently that is partly what he meas judging from what he said in the paragrpahs leading up to this one. So, what part does dwelling on the burdens of the past (which, incidentally, were inflicted on them by rich white folks) pplay in helping young blacks be filled with hope for the future and solisarity with white folks? Obama sasy he is working toward that result. But, the things he says have exactly the opposite effect!

But he continues laying out the rolls whites and blacks pplay ini healing the racial wounds of our country. While the blacks are embracing the burdens of the past and explaining every problem they have in light of white oppression from 50 years ago, whitres have their own contributions to make to form this "Perfect Union." Here is what he says to whites--

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

So while blacks are "embracing the burdens of the past," whites should be acknowledging that what ails the blacm community is completely tied to "the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination." in other words, the blacks should remember their suffering and the whites should feel guilty about it and then pay up by making additional investments in the black community in all the areas Obama ennumerates. Forgive me, but that seems like an extremely one sided remedy for a racial wound that has two different sides. If we all followed Obama's prescription as outlined in these words, it would lead only to further resentment aqnd anger between the races.

So, CPD, I go back to the statement I made in my first response which you deny in your second response when I said,

Go back and read his speech on "A More Perfect Union." Go to the part where he tells both blacks and whites what they must do to heal the rift between the races in this country. In a nut shell, he tells the whites to remember how awful we have been to the blacks and the problems they face socially, financially, professionally, in their families, and in every other imaginable way is due in large part to that oppression--not just 200 years ago, but even today. As for what the blacks can do, he tells them to remember how awful they have had it in this country and never forget the suffering of those gone before."

I read that statement and compare it to the comments I have just examined from Obama's speech, and I have extreme difficulty seeing where I am misunderstanding him. As I said, it may be because Senator Obama is such an obsessive double talker that you can find statements in this very speech which contradict what he says in the part I am discussing. That is not only possible, but extremely likely. The man is a living, breathing contradiction! But nothing else he says changes the meaning of the words he spoke and I have quoted.

As for the article about the things that haven't changed over the past 40 years, I have read that. I appreciate you sharing it with me. I see that as an utter oversimplification of a complex set of circumstance, made so by the fact that the writer's universe is one in which the government is trhe source of every solution to every problem. For those of us who happen to believe that personal responsibility is what solves problems, and no the government, I can see numerous personal failings in many of the problems that remain in our society. In other words, I recognize many of the faillures the writer cites as being legitimate. However, where he sees them aqs failures of our government, I see them as failures of individual people. The government can only go so far in lifting people up. Then, the people have to start standing on their own two feet. When they refuse to do that and end up suffering as a result, the blame is theirs and theirs alone!

Thanks again for writing!

Comment by CPD on May 23, 2008 at 3:50am

Billy Jack, you certainly don't disappoint, as I am getting a better sense of how we each can approach the same text -- in this case, Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech -- yet come away with opposing views. I'm sure that as an Obama supporter my reactions to first hearing his speech and to subsequent re-readings most likely stray from objectivity. I admit that as someone in their mid-twenties I have been in want for such oratory from our leaders and may be letting my relief cloud my ability to scrutinize.

You've given me a lot to respond to, so I will do my best. I agree that exhorting and inspiring all Americans towards self-sacrifice and responsibility is the right direction, for governmental bureaucracy can't and won't provide what millions of citizens can provide for themselves. I think, however, that you too quickly dismiss the burdens of the reality in which millions of impoverished Americans live, as if any acknowledgment of these limiting, sometimes hopeless conditions are merely excuses for the lack of progress in these communities. I may be reading you wrongly, but if you believe that current conditions cannot be traced back through the generations of black Americans, then what is to blame for their continuation? I don't think it is as simple as people being satisfied with just blaming rich whites.

The points of Obama's speech that you and I read differently seem to be the ones in which he contextualizes the respective resentment and anger that remains in both black and white communities. While I think that Obama discussed the history of black communities for his white listeners (and vice versa for the part in which he brings context to the resentments of some white Americans), you seem to think that he did so for his black listeners, who I would argue know the history all too well. By attempting to ground each side of the racial divide by presenting them to one another, it seems to me that Obama was attempting to inspire empathy and understanding.

I am not so naive as to believe that Senator Obama does not succumb to routine political pandering (after all I recently saw him displaying the old lapel flag pin), but I felt that the speech in question represented a much too rare occurrence when a candidate momentarily engages Americans, confronting an issue that is anything but safe and usually shied away from.

I personally have no historic ties to the oppression of black American, and maybe because of this or perhaps my youth, I don't really view the disparity between the conditions of our inner cities and suburbs as something necessarily connected with race, though they clearly correlate. I don't have a problem if certain members of the black community resent white people or are just downright pissed off. Who wouldn't be? I grew up in relative prosperity and was provided with nothing but support and opportunities, and the fact that millions of other Americans have been dealt a much crappier hand than I frankly pisses me off as well, cause it illuminates the work that we still have left to do. Yes, of course people must take responsibility for themselves, but I don't agree that black communities being aware and reminded of their history in this country allows them to just think of themselves as victims. Every year, Jewish people around the world celebrate Passover and pour over the book of Exodus and the story of their peoples' past oppression, and yet the holiday is a celebration as they "embrace the burdens of the past". Obama's point is that there is always work to be done, always further progress to be made, but that it requires first acknowledging this fact and understanding our various perspectives on the American experience, so that we can start to see that we share many of these problems and need to solve them together.

I'm all for the pulling up of bootstraps, but they're just easier to reach for some of us than for others.

Comment by Billy Jack on May 29, 2008 at 12:42am

OK CPD! I've made every attempt to avoid comparisons which tend to indict and entire race of people. That is not the intent of what I am about to share with you. I realize people can only be judged by what they individually bring to the table, and it is ultimate ignorance to speak in generalities about entire classes of human beings. But that is the language you and others with your view point adopt when you discuss the oppression of all black people in the past and the resulting struggles of all black people today because of it. So, in my response, I will also use that same language with the understnding that I do not categorize people in those general terms.
IN your message, you state,

"I personally have no historic ties to the oppression of black American, and maybe because of this or perhaps my youth, I don't really view the disparity between the conditions of our inner cities and suburbs as something necessarily connected with race, though they clearly correlate. I don't have a problem if certain members of the black community resent white people or are just downright pissed off. Who wouldn't be? I grew up in relative prosperity and was provided with nothing but support and opportunities, and the fact that millions of other Americans have been dealt a much crappier hand than I frankly pisses me off as well, cause it illuminates the work that we still have left to do. Yes, of course people must take responsibility for themselves, but I don't agree that black communities being aware and reminded of their history in this country allows them to just think of themselves as victims. Every year, Jewish people around the world celebrate Passover and pour over the book of Exodus and the story of their peoples' past oppression, and yet the holiday is a celebration as they "embrace the burdens of the past". Obama's point is that there is always work to be done, always further progress to be made, but that it requires first acknowledging this fact and understanding our various perspectives on the American experience, so that we can start to see that we share many of these problems and need to solve them together.

I'm all for the pulling up of bootstraps, but they're just easier to reach for some of us than for others."

In that paragraph, you say that black folks have every reason to be resentful of white folks because of all the advantages we enjoy over them. Then, you mention that those advantages point to work we must do as a society. Then, you end it with the reference to the "bootstrap mentality" and suggest "they're just easier to reach for some of us than for others." Between those two sentiments, you mention the Jews and their festival periods which celebrate their oppression. First, you misunderstand Passover if you think it is a celebration of the past burdens of the Jews. Passover celebrates their freedom from oppression. It doesn't point to the 400 years of slavery. Rather, it points to the day God delivered them from slavery and freed them to become a great and mighty nation with Him as its King. But, that aside, it is very interesting that you would bring up the oppression of the Jews. There is an excellent website called religious tolerance.org. In it, they publish an article entitled "An overview of the persecution of Jews for the past 2,000 years." One of the sections in that excellent work narrows the conversation to the persecution of Jews along racial lines in the past two hundred years. Since I cannot hyperlink in this environment, I will reproduce some of it for your consideration:

" 1806: A French Jesuit Priest, Abbe Barruel, had written a treatise blaming the Masonic Order for the French Revolution. He later issued a letter alleging that Jews, not the Masons were the guilty party. This triggered a belief in an international Jewish conspiracy in Germany, Poland and some other European countries later in the 19th century.
1819: During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many European Jews lobbied their governments for emancipation. They sought citizenship as well as the same rights and treatment as were enjoyed by non-Jews. This appears to have provoked sporadic anti-semites to engage in anti-Jewish violence. The rioters cried "Hep! Hep!." The origin(s) of this cry are not clear. Jews and their property were attacked first in Wuerzburg, Germany during 1819-AUG. The rioting spread across Germany and eventually reached as far as Denmark and Poland. 17
1840: A rumor spread in Syria that some Jews were responsible for the ritual killing of a Roman Catholic monk and his servant. As a result of horrendous treatment, some local Jews confessed to a crime that they did not commit. This "Damascus Affair" spurred early Zionist writers like Hess to promote the Zionist cause. 17 More details.
1846 - 1878: Pope Pius IX restored all of the previous restrictions against the Jews within the Vatican state. All Jews under Papal control were confined to Rome's ghetto - the last one in Europe until the Nazi era restored the church's practice. On 2000-SEP-3, Pope John Paul II beatified Pius IX; this is the last step before sainthood. He explained: "Beatifying a son of the church does not celebrate particular historic choices that he has made, but rather points him out for imitation and for veneration for his virtue."
1858: Edgardo Mortara was kidnapped, at the age of six, from his Jewish family by Roman Catholic officials after they found out that a maid had secretly baptized him. He was not returned to his family but was raised a Catholic. He eventually became a priest.
1873: The term "antisemitism" is first used in a pamphlet by Wilhelm Marr called "Jewry's Victory over Teutonism."
1881: Alexander II of Russia was assassinated by radicals. The Jews were blamed. About 200 individual pogroms against the Jews followed. ("Pogrom" is a Russian word meaning "devastation" or "riot." In Russia, a pogrom was typically a mob riot against Jewish individuals, shops, homes or businesses. They were often supported and even organized by the government.) Thousands of Jews became homeless and impoverished. The few who were charged with offenses generally received very light sentences. 1
1893: "...anti-Semitic parties won sixteen seats in the German Reichstag." 2
1894: Captain Alfred Dreyfus, an officer on the French general staff, was convicted of treason. The evidence against him consisted of a piece of paper from his wastebasket with another person's handwriting, and papers forged by antisemitic officers. He received a life sentence on Devil's Island, off the coast of South America. The French government was aware that a Major Esterhazy was actually guilty. 3 The church, government and army united to suppress the truth. Writer Emile Zola and politician Jean Jaurès fought for justice and human rights. After 10 years, the French government fell and Drefus was declared totally innocent. The Dreyfus Affair was world-wide news for years. It motivated Journalist Theodor Herzl to write a book in 1896: "The Jewish State: A Modern Solution to the Jewish Question." The book led to the founding of the Zionist movement which fought for a Jewish Homeland. A half century later, the state of Israel was born.
1903: At Easter, government agents organized an anti-Jewish pogrom in Kishinev, Moldova, Russia. The local newspaper published a series of inflammatory articles. A Christian child was discovered murdered and a young Christian woman at the Jewish Hospital committed suicide. Jews were blamed for the deaths. Violence ensured. The 5,000 soldiers in the town did nothing. When the smoke cleared, 49 Jews had been killed, 500 were injured; 700 homes looted and destroyed, 600 businesses and shops looted, 2000 families left homeless. Later, it was discovered that the child had been murdered by its relatives and the suicide was unrelated to the Jews. 4
1905: The Okhrana, the Russian secret police in the reign of Czar Nicholas II, converted an earlier antisemitic novel into a document called the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." 16 It was published privately in 1897. A Russian Orthodox priest, Sergius Nilus, published them publicly in 1905. It was promoted as the record of "secret rabbinical conferences whose aim was to subjugate and exterminate the Christians." 5 The Protocols were used by the Okhrana in a propaganda campaign that was associated with massacres of the Jews. These were the Czarist Pogroms of 1905.
1915: 600,000 Jews were forcibly moved from the western borders of Russia towards the interior. About 100,000 died of exposure or starvation.
1917: "In the civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the reactionary White Armies made extensive use of the Protocols to incite widespread slaughters of Jews." 5 Two hundred thousand Jews were murdered in the Ukraine alone.
1920: The Protocols reach England and the United States. They are exposed as a forgery, but are widely circulated. Henry Ford sponsored a study of international activities of Jews. This led to a series of antisemitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, which were published in a book, "The International Jew." The Protocols were sold on Wal-Mart's online bookstore until they were removed on 2004-SEP-21.
1920: The defeat of Germany in World War I and the continuing economic difficulties were blamed in that country on the "Jewish influence." One antisemitic poster has been preserved from that era. 6 It shows a German, presumably Christian woman, a male Jew with distorted facial features, a coffin and the word "Deutschland" (Germany)
1920's, 1930's: Hitler had published in Mein Kampf in 1925, writing: "Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." The Protocols are used by the Nazis to whip up public hatred of the Jews in the 1930's. Widespread pogroms occur in Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Rumania, and the USSR. Radio programs by many conservative American clergy, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, frequently attacked Jews. Reverend Fr. Charles E Coughlin was one of the best known. "In the 1930's, radio audiences heard him rail against the threat of Jews to America's economy and defend Hitler's treatment of Jews as justified in the fight against communism." (12) Other conservative Christian leaders, such as Frank Norris and John Straton supported the Jews. 7
Discrimination against Jews in North America is widespread. Many universities set limits on the maximum number of Jewish students that they would accept. Harvard accepted all students on the basis of merit until after World War I when the percentage of Jewish students approached 15%. At that time they installed an informal quota system. In 1941, Princeton had fewer than 2% Jews in their student body. Jews were routinely barred from country clubs, prestigious neighborhoods, etc. 8

1933: Hitler took power in Germany. On APR-1, Julius Streicher organized a one-day boycott of all Jewish owned busienss in the country. This was the start of continuous oppression by the Nazis culminating in the Holocaust (a.k.a. Shoah). Jews "were barred from civil service, legal professions and universities, were not allowed to teach in schools and could not be editors of newspapers." 2 Two years later, Jews were no longer considered citizens.
1934: Various laws were enacted in Germany to force Jews out of schools and professions.
1935: The Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws restricting citizenship to those of "German or related blood." Jews became stateless.
1936: Cardinal Hloud of Poland urged Catholics to boycott Jewish businesses.
1938: On NOV-9, the Nazi government in Germany sent storm troopers, the SS and the Hitler Youth on a pogrom that killed 91 Jews, injured hundreds, burned 177 synagogues and looted 7,500 Jewish stores. Broken glass could be seen everywhere; the glass gave this event its name of Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass. 9
1938: Hitler brought back century-old church law, ordering all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David as identification. A few hundred thousand Jews are allowed to leave Germany after they give all of their assets to the government.
1939: The Holocaust, the Shoah -- the systematic extermination of Jews in Germany -- begins. The process only ended in 1945 with the conclusion of World War II. Approximately 6 million Jews (1.5 million of them children), 400 thousand Roma (Gypsies) and others were slaughtered. Some were killed by death squads; others were slowly killed in trucks with carbon monoxide; others were gassed in large groups in Auschwitz, Dacau, Sobibor, Treblinka and other extermination camps. Officially, the holocaust was described by the Nazis as subjecting Jews "to special treatment" or as a "solution of the Jewish question." Gold taken from the teeth of the victims was recycled; hair was used in the manufacture of mattresses. In the Buchenwald extermination camp, lampshades were made out of human skin; however, this appears to be an isolated incident. A rumor spread that Jewish corpses were routinely converted into soap. However, the story appears to be false. 10
1940: The Vichy government of France collaborated with Nazi Germany by freezing about 80,000 Jewish bank accounts. During the next four years, they deported about 76,000 Jews to Nazi death camps; only about 2,500 survived. It was only in 1995 that a French president, Jacques Chirac, "was able to admit that the state bore a heavy share of responsibility in the mass round-ups and deportations of Jews, as well as in the property and asset seizures that were carried out with the active help of the Vichy regime." 11
1941: The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC estimates that 13,000 Jews died on 1941-JUN-19 during a pogrom in Bucharest, Romania. It was ordered by the pro-Nazi Romanian regime of Marshal Ion Antonescu. The current government has admitted that this atrocity happened, but most Romanians continue to deny that the Jews were killed on orders from their own government. 12
1941: Polish citizens in Jedwabne in northeastern Poland killed hundreds of Jews, by either beating them to death or burning them alive in a barn. According to the Associated Press: "The role played by Polish citizens was suppressed for nearly six decades until publication of a book by a Polish emigre historian, Jan Tomasz Gross. After release of the book in 2000, the Polish government launched an investigation. 'The role of the Poles was decisive in conducting the criminal act,' [prosecutor Radoslaw] Ignatiew, said. The book, 'Neighbours,' sparked national soul-searching among Poles, many of whom could not believe that anybody but the Nazis would have committed the atrocity." 13
1942: The Nazi leaders of Germany, at the Wannsee conference, decided on"the final solution of the Jewish question" which was the attempt to exterminate every Jew in Europe. From JUL-28 to 31, almost 18,000 Russian inhabitants of the Minsk ghetto in what is now Belarus were exterminated. This was in addition to 5,000 to 15,000 who had been massacred in earlier pogroms in that city. This was just one of many such pogroms during World War II. 14
1945: The Shoah (Holocaust) ended as the Allied Forces over-ran the Nazi death camps.
1946: Even though World War II ended the year before, antisemitic pogroms continued, particularly in Poland, with the deaths of many Jews.

We could certainly go much further back in tracing Jewish oppression, but that will suffice for our purposes.

But the Jews were not the only race which was heavily persecuted. The Chinese people have also been subjected to a great deal of persecution in the past. There is another excellent website called tolerance.org which discusses the oppression of Chinese people in the United States going all the way back to the 1800's. In it they say the following:

" In 1893, a newspaper in Butte, Mont., wrote this about Asian immigrants: "The Chinaman is no more a citizen than a coyote is a citizen and never can be."
Other newspaper accounts of the time called them "parasites" and compared Chinese residents to vermin: "They are as cute as rats, and it is just simply impossible to get rid of them."

A century later, a group of volunteers formed a nonprofit agency dedicated to spotlighting the history of — and racism against — Asians in the Rocky Mountain West.
Twelve years after its founding, the Mai Wah Society is thriving. The group has reclaimed and is restoring two buildings that once housed Asian businesses; is working toward a permanent exhibit of Asian artifacts; and this month brought to town a national exhibit about the Asian American experience.

All this with no paid staff and a shoestring budget of $5,000 to $8,000 a year.

"Many people know the (19th century) story of Asians in California, but it kind of stops there," said Dori Skrukrud, one of six board members for the Mai Wah Society. "There's a gap we're trying to fill about all the active and vibrant Asian communities beyond California." That story is steeped in many things, including racism.

"We talk about anti-Asian sentiment, and it's a story not everybody has heard," Skrukrud said. "But when they hear it, they find parallels — Japanese internment camps during World War II, the recent immigrant roundups (of Arab Americans by the U.S. Department of Justice), issues of sexual orientation. We hope as more people make those connections they begin to promote tolerance and work for change."

In 1870s Montana, Chinese people made up at least 10% of the population. (Today, it's less than 1%.) They were tailors, ranch cooks, gardeners, woodcutters, vegetable growers, herbal doctors, railroad workers and gold-seekers.

By the early 20th century, anti-Asian laws were in place that prohibited Chinese residents from becoming citizens, voting, owning property or marrying non-Chinese people. Taxes applying only to Chinese laundry owners and miners also were levied.

Newspaper reports listed frequent attacks against Chinese immigrants. The first reported hanging in Butte, in fact, was of a Chinese miner.

Labor unions also fought against Chinese businesspeople, blocking doorways and encouraging boycotts.

Taking action against such oppression, three Chinese businessmen fought back, suing and eventually winning a case against the boycott leaders. They won the case but were unable to collect damages, estimated at half a million dollars in lost business.

"There's something about that story, that those three men cared enough about this place to take a stand and fight for their rights," Skrukrud said. "They could have just moved on, but they didn't. They dug in."

Skrukrud said the sepia-tone photos and aging artifacts tell more than century-old history.

"We haven't come that far," she said. "This is history, but it doesn't change unless people make an effort to change it."

CPD, I want you to consider everything these articles have said. The blacks in our country have suffered greatly in the United States in the past. But, they have suffered not a single whit more than the Jews or the Chinese. In fact, an argument could be made that they haven't suffered as much as these groups. But, for the sake of making our point, let's just assume the oppression of these three groups is equal. With that being the case, why is the black race the only one of the three groveling in poverty, single parent homes, criminal activity and the like while blaming the suffering of their past? You don't see Jews or Chinese people in America talking that nonsense? The reason? They decided to overcome their past and not use it as a crutch.

Blacks have no more obstacles in their way than these two groups or a number of others we could discuss. I am not saying it is an easy road, and I am not saying whites don't have a big advantage in this country where they are the majority. But I am saying the tide has turned in this country and all the obstacles that stood in the way of every American succeeding have been removed. Barak & Michelle Obama are proof of that (along with thousands or even millions of other folks from the three oppressed races we have mentioned). So, what do the success stories of these people teach us? They teach exactly what I am saying. We live in a day of hope, plenty and opportunity for every person of every race who wants to do what it takes to grab onto it.

That brings me to your final statement in which you say, "I'm all for the pulling up of bootstraps, but they're just easier to reach for some of us than for others." Tell that to the thousands of Chinese and Jewish immigrants who have excelled in every area imaginable in the United States since coming here. Explain to them how they hve had great advantages over their black counterparts which accounts for their success and the poverty of the black community. Tell them that so they can laugh in your face.

Your assertion (and that of Senator Obama as well) that the oppression of the past is the reason for failure in the present for the black community is insulting to the countless hosts of people who have faced equal oppression in the past.

Comment by CPD on June 4, 2008 at 3:10am

Hey Bill Jack, as always a great comment, and thank you for pointing me to those excellent websites.

To respond, I think that it may have been the fact that I tend to write these very late at night, including this one, but I don't think that I meant in the quote you cited from my previous comment, "that black folks have every reason to be resentful of white folks because of all the advantages we enjoy over them." I mentioned "certain members of the black community" and didn't give them every reason to resent white people, but only meant to say that I can understand that some may harbor ill-will and that I can understand their frustration even if it isn't always directed in the right direction. I don't think that I was generalizing an entire race, but only meant to remark on the apparent fact that these sentiments still exist in the minds of "certain members of the black community", and that I try to empathize with though not necessarily justify them.

Also, I probably wasn't doing my point any justice when I referenced the celebration of Passover. The Haggadah certainly is about the Israelites' freedom from bondage and their journey towards the promised land. I only mentioned the holiday, and maybe it wasn't the best analogy, because it is an annual acknowledgment of the enslavement of Jewish people, which I guess I was trying to point to in order to make the point that it is not necessarily a self-pitying or hindering act on the part of the black community to recognize their past oppression.

Now onto your broader point, comparing the success of Jewish and Asian immigrants in America over the past century to the relative lack of success of black Americans. This has been something that I have discussed many times over the years, and it has always troubled me. My general tendency in all such discussions is to not think that the discrepancies that exist between these racial groups are somehow innate, as was argued in the controversial book, The Bell Curve.

I honestly do not have a good answer, but I do think that there may be one point that may or may not lead to a partial explanation down the road. It is a little abstract and unfortunately strays into generalizations, but I'm curious to see what you think about it. While there is no denying that both Jewish people and Asians have faced centuries of oppression and discrimination in America as well as abroad, these groups came to America for the most part as immigrants, even though often enough it was to escape persecution elsewhere. Whereas, black Americans were captured in Africa and brought in as slaves. I can't fully comprehend how this would affect my outlook, but as a 3rd generation American whose ancestors were Jewish immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I was brought up with what my father called an "immigrant mentality", which he characterized as a drive to make something of yourself now that we have a place in America in which to do so.

I normally don't like bringing personal history or family into this arena; I only mention this because the "mentality" that my father used to tell me about and that was a source of pride for the achievements our family has made in only a few generations colors my outlook. It is also something that I can only imagine to be distinct from that of a black American my age.

I don't know if this idea has any validity, but I offer it only as something that pops into my head when thinking about this. Also, I agree that it is difficult not to stray into broad generalizations, and I apologize if I have, as I also try to refrain from doing so.

Looking forward to your response, as always.

Comment by Billy Jack on June 4, 2008 at 2:19pm

Hey CPD!

Thanks for your message and the insight it gives me into your background. It is very interesting. I understand what you are saying about "the immigrant mentality" which your father demonstrated. The "drive to make something of yourself" based upon the bountiful opportunities that exist in this land of plenty and freedom is exactly what Jewish and Asian folks have demonstrated through the years (along with people of all races who have succeeded in their lives). That kind of drive comes from the inside and is completely unaffected by one's outward circumstances. It is true that one's outward circumstances can pose obstacles and slow progress. But they can never kill the "spirit of achievement" that resides inside the heart. You either have that drive or you do not. I do not believe the original conditions of an ethnic group's entrance into the country makes any difference in terms of whether or not people of that ethnic group today have that fire inside them. I know that is true because of the following group of people--
W. E. B. Du Bois
Matthew Henson
Andrew Young
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Bill Russell
Jesse Owens
Althea Gibson
Arthur Ashe
Wilma Rudolph
Walter Payton
Marian Anderson
Dorothy Dandridge
Jackie Robinson
Eartha Kitt
Elizabeth Eckford
Jupiter Hammon
Phillis Wheatley
Lemuel Haynes
James Derham
Benjamin Banneker
Richard Allen
Frank Johnson
Thomas L. Jennings
James Hall
Alexander Lucius Twilight
Maria W. Stewart
Henry Blair
Macon B. Allen
William Wells Brown
John V. DeGrasse
Mary Jane Patterson
Rebecca Lee
John S. Rock
Lucy Hobbs
Robert Tanner Freeman
Ebenezer Don Carlos Bassett
Hiram Rhodes Revels
P.B.S. Pinchback
Blanche Kelso Bruce
Edward A. Bouchet
Frederick Douglass
Henry O. Flipper
Mary Eliza Mahoney
Blanche Kelso Bruce
Dr. Daniel Hale Williams
Edwin P. "King" McCabe
Joe Walcott
Joe Gans
Maggie Lena Walker
George Poage
Alain L. Locke
Jack Johnson
Sam Lucas
Tally Holmes
Lucy Stone
Fritz Pollard
James Weldon Johnson
Bessie Coleman
DeHart Hubbard
Archibald Motley
Caterina Jarboro
Mary McLeod Bethune
Crystal Bird Fauset
Hattie McDaniel
Nat King Cole
Kenny Washington
Dan Bankhead
Alice Coachman
Charles Cooper
Nat Clifton
Gwendolyn Brooks
Lorraine Williams
Benjamin O. Davis Jr.
E. Frederic Morrow
Lorraine Hansberry
Robert C. Weaver
Ernest Davis
Willie Mays
Sidney Poitier
Emlen Tunnell
Thurgood Marshall
Henry Lewis
Moneta J. Sleet Jr.
Joseph L. Searles III
Samuel Lee Gravely, Jr.
Shirley Chisholm
Lee Elder
Patricia R. Harris
Frank E. Peterson, Jr
Hazel Johnson
Guion Steward Bluford, Jr.

CPD, this is a very partial list. So many other people could be added. But all of these people have three very important things in common. First, they are all black folks. Second, they are all average people with incredible accomplishments in life. Finally, they all achieved their dreams either during or shortly after the days of slavery or during the days of the civil rights movement. The point is, ALL of these people had outward circumstances which hindered them. But those circumstances did not quench the spirit to succeed which drove them. That is why I know that the past has no restrictive effect on the future.
When I think of the world in which these people succeeded, and I hear the comparatively pampered blacks of today whining about their disadvantages and leaning on them like a crutch to excuse the lack of fire in their bones, it makes me sick at my stomach. Why is it racist for a white man to suggest that today's American society has completely freed the black community to crawl out of whatever social, economic or professional hole in which they find themselves, when there are hoards of black witnesses to that truth in American history? Why must the black community lower those who have succeded before them by suggesting either that they were "Uncle Toms" or, on the other extreme, that they were especially gifted people? Why can't the black community see these people for what they really were--average people who were proud of their race and had the heart of a tiger which drove them to succeed in spite of impossible circumstances which opposed them.

In summary, the drive to succeed among the Jews and the Asians proves that oppression of the past does not prevent a race of people from succeeding in the present. The drive demonstrated by hundreds of blacks in the past suggests that the only thing standing in the way of success for blacks today is their own preference for whining and excuse making.

Comment by CPD on June 6, 2008 at 2:49am

Hey Billy Jack, always great to keep this going, but I fear that we've digressed to a point that seems to have us heading on increasingly divergent paths. I've been thinking a lot about this last bit of our back and forth and just want to make a couple quick additional points to elaborate on the distinction that you brought up between the relative success of cultural groups in America.

1. Jewish and Asian immigrants came to America with cultural and religious traditions in tow. These groups are a part of two of the oldest cultures still around today and their traditions are portable, for example the Jews will always have the Torah.

In contrast, African slaves were uprooted against their will from their homeland and transplanted in a New World where they worked for no pay, under inhuman conditions for hundreds of years, before they were declared free from bondage. These freed slaves had no connection to their African roots, no cultural tradition on which to build. And yet black Americans have provided a great deal to American culture. Black American traditions and culture are born out of their past slavery and this bond, for better or for worse, cannot be severed.

2. While you cited an extensive list of discrimination and oppression against Jewish people, nowhere on that list is there mention of legalized discrimination in America.

In contrast, once American slaves were emancipated (almost 100 years after the US was founded), they would live under a system of legalized discrimination -- such things as Jim Crow Laws and "Separate but Equal" policies -- for another 100 years. There has only been a generation, maybe two, of black Americans who have grown up with full protection under the law. Their past legalized oppression is both more recent and happened within this country.

There are some other minor points that are barely formed in my head and wouldn't add much, so I'll leave them off here until they are more clear. You are very right to mention individuals who succeeded, but they did so despite the discrimination they faced, not because it wasn't there.

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2