 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 7, 2009 at 08:21:20
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/7/09: by Glen Ford Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
The global reputation of Black America has suffered greatly under George Bush, who deployed Black faces as fronts for his vicious brand of U.S. imperialism. Barack Obama's silence on the Israeli assault on Gaza suggests that his honeymoon with the planet won't last long. So who is to represent the progressive values of African Americans on the world stage? "Thanks to Cynthia McKinney, millions of Arabs have been made aware of a different Black America, one that is not silent, like Barack Obama, in the face of a purposely inflicted human rights catastrophe." "Dr. King and Obama represent opposing moral and political camps." The two days touch: Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday observance and Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, January 19 and 20, respectively. To many, the juxtaposition is self-evident confirmation of the intersection of the two men's missions on Earth. Dr. King's journey, which ended with his murder, and Obama's ascent to the presidency, are seen to merge as the dates approach to form a perfect, tragic-glorious symmetry - a 48-hour revelation. 
The coincidence of the calendar makes for good copy and grand sermons, but in fact reveals a great moral and political dissonance. It is true that there could have been no Obama presidency had Dr. King and the movement he sprang from not existed, but that simple fact of history does not amount to a King benediction from the grave for Obama's moral character and political policies. Indeed, Dr. King's life and words are indelible evidence that he and Obama represent opposing moral and political camps.
Tens of millions of African Americans - who did not choose the little-known Obama to be their champion, but supported him near-universally at the polls once his candidacy had been made "viable" - will celebrate vicarious attainment of power when Obama is sworn in. Yet when confronted on Obama's political agenda, enough of which has been put in motion and otherwise made plain since Election Day, few Black Obama supporters can mount a cogent defense. "Better than McCain" doesn't cut it, anymore.
"Few Black Obama supporters can mount a cogent defense of his positions."
When the New York Times describes the emerging Obama administration as "center-right," there is not much for an honest progressive to defend - and most African Americans are progressive on economic issues and questions of war and peace. Beyond a ritual counting of the president-elect's African American appointees, most African Americans seem oblivious to the political nature of his Cabinet, his policy pronouncements and shameful silences. More likely, they pretend to be oblivious so as not to lose that once-in-a-lifetime feeling that happened when the Black man won.
Blacks who have taken on the task of defending Obama, often wind up revealing themselves as persons of little moral or political substance, in the process. New York's Dr. Leonard Jeffries is one of the more prominent Obamists, a self-styled Pan-Africanist. In my second debate involving Jeffries, in Baltimore, December 20 (the first was the week before, in Harlem), he repeated his mantra, that Blacks should "study Obama-ology." I asked him to define this area of study. "Obama-ology," said Jeffries, visibly exasperated by my questioning of the obvious, "is the study of Obama. How he raised so much money...how he used the Internet...."
Dr. Jeffries' response revealed his position to have no political or moral content. He genuflected before Obama because the candidate raised hundreds of millions of dollars (from whom and in return for what?) and created an Internet network (to what end, beyond Election Day?). Most importantly, Obama was a hero because he won. What else is there to know or say?
"None of the Obamites were even minimally capable of defending their guy's record."
At the Harlem debate, an Obama defender kept shouting into her mic, "Obama won! Black people have spoken!" - as if any discussion of his political positions was extraneous, or racially subversive, on its face. The woman was a leader of the group that organized the debate, but like others in her organization clearly did not really want a debate. None of the Obamites were even minimally capable of defending their guy's record on the bailout, his retention of George Bush's defense secretary and plans to expand U.S. military manpower, his positioning of bankers at the controls of his new administration's economic machinery, his support for AFRICOM, his key advisors' advocacy of "humanitarian" military intervention - on not one point did the Obama camp offer anything that could reasonably be called a defense, coherent or otherwise.
It is not simply that the Obamites failed to muster a defense in Harlem or Baltimore or other venues; admittedly, it is difficult to defend the indefensible. What is most shocking - maddening - is their rejection of any political or moral standard for evaluating the soon-to-be Black president. All that remains is the fact of Obama's power and the delusion that Blacks somehow share in that power. There is no thought of speaking Truth to Power, and certainly no place for a moral compass in such a valueless void.
We can understand, then, how such people would imagine Obama and Dr. King to be soul mates. The fact that one of these men fought his whole life against the forces of militarism and economic exploitation, while the other empowers, and is empowered by, bankers and militarists, does not register on their anaesthetized moral and political sensors.
"There is no thought of speaking Truth to Power, and certainly no place for a moral compass."
If the Obamites had more presence of mind, they would be avoid comparisons with Dr. King, which can only redound to Obama's great detriment. King's break with his onetime ally, President Lyndon Johnson, set the standard for both political and moral behavior. When it became clear that the War on Poverty was doomed by the war in Vietnam, which acted "like some demonic destructive suction tube," devouring all available resources, King publicly declared against the war. In doing so, he severed what had been the most productive relationship between an American president and a Black leader in U.S. history. But the war gave him no choice, since military expenditures made "rehabilitation" of the American poor impossible. Both morality and politics led to the same conclusion: the Movement could not coexist with war.
1 | 2
www.BlackAgendaReport.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
Cynthia McKinney
Perhaps the reason that Obama was picked by our ruling overlords to run, instead of Clinton, is to draw Black votes from Cynthia McKinney, of the Green Party. click here
Your link to Dr. King's Riverside speech says to spread it around. I posted it on my blog. click here by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:45:52 AM  (0+)
|
|
Glen-Thank You
Cynthia Mckinney is the Emissary for all Americans of conscience. Plain, simple fact. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:45:13 PM (0+)
|
|
American Emissary
Given that it took a majority vote to elect Mr. Obama to the Presidency, and as of this writing black voters are still a minority in this country, I fail to see how his election is because "black voters have spoken" as the woman at the debate said. The majority of all voters brought us out of the neocon swamp. This is hopeful- there is the chance that black vs white issues are finally going the way of the woolly mammoth, that the eugenicistic Dodos are finally becoming extinct. We'll spend the next four years fighting to bring ourselves further along progressively, I'm sure, but we had to escape the Sargasso before we could start looking for shore. I am hopeful that if we don't let up and we take our own empowerment seriously, we'll make our way and Mr Obama and the corporate politicos will follow along. We can't sit around waiting for that to happen, however, it's on us to be our own solutions for the time being. We must deprogram ourselves from "trickle down" fantasies. I agree that Ms. McKinney's conscience reflects a large percentage of progressives' opinions, including my own [a largely Euro/NA mutt]. Simultaneously, while I applaud her just for her ideals and morality [aka "content of her character"], I also find myself celebrating her "street cred" as an African American woman who speaks loudly and proudly for what is right. Why? Because as someone with extra obstacles to overcome, she still attains to her stature on her own terms, without selling out. An example of the best of the best of us all. by Jennifer Hathaway (16 articles, 16 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 760 comments [220 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:04:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here Here Jennifer
bravo. Well put. of course the same arguemennt can so easily made by my OTHER hero. Ralph Nader. Oh wait, get ready for the ad hominem attacks to begin now. LOL by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:13:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Blame Extremist Hamas for the death and destructions
What the people are not saying, what are the solutions? The majority of the people are writing about the Palestinian atrocities; what about the Israeli atrocities before this small wars. The people in USA are thinking that Israeli Governments are running by white house. They are blaming the US Government and probably the American Jewish too. When you are under attack by Mexico, we are sure the US Government and the US people are not going to blame Canada for it. You are going to defend on yourself and your families. The war are ugly the people will get killed. If Iran tomorrow acquire Atomic Bombs, then there are very good possibilities they are going to use it against Israel first. Why the people have to blame Israel if the Israeli have to use every means to defend their own survivals. We are Iranian and Kurds from Iraq and see the dangers of the bigger wars in the region. We are trying to change Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) peacefully because we want to save our people in Iran and Iraq. Do you blame us we do not like the IRI because they are trying to bring us death and destructions. The Palestinian people and their supporter in the USA and other English speakers should blame the Hamas for Gaza problems no Israeli. If you really like peace and have some humanity then try to find solutions instead of blaming Israel. We are sure if the USA some day does not want to help Israel, then Israeli people will be more aggressive in the war for defending their own people. Which are logical reactions? People are blaming President Bush for not stopping the Israelis. Do you ever think there are possibilities that Israeli won’t listen to the US Government. Do Iranian Government are listening to the US Government. by Jaff Sassani (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 138 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:29:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Vanity Fair article
In April of 2008 Vanity Fair magazine published an article that brought the Bush White House squarely into the discussion of the problems between Gaza and Israel. Here is the excerpt that says the most about it: <<...Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.) But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza. Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.>> Article continues here: The bottom line is that the current crisis is directly attributable to the Bush administration and their bungled forcing of a situation that led directly to this tragedy. Hamas is not innocent of killing civilians. Israel is not innocent of killing civilians. Both of these disgusting wannabe "military forces" need to stop murdering people, stand down, and find a different way. by Jennifer Hathaway (16 articles, 16 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 760 comments [220 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:47:48 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
