I find most articles about race disturbing. This one from Breitbart is no different. An AP-Yahoo survey supposedly reveals that 33% of white Democrats are racist. Here's how they define racist:
...one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
Note how they group "responsible for their own troubles" with the obviously racist beliefs "lazy" and "violent." This is how they get a higher percentage of "racists."
Saying "blacks are responsible for their own problems" is not racist. It's expressing a belief in personal responsibility. The first step in problem-solving is to recognize a problem exists and take responsibility for it. No one will look out for you better than you look out for yourself. Millions of successful people who rose to success from poor or unfair circumstances can tell you that. They didn't wait around for a community organizer or government program, they just picked themselves up and moved on.
There are too many successful people of color for someone to claim that race is keeping people down. The only thing "keeping blacks down" is the steady diet of race resentment fed to them by liberals who have a financial or emotional interest in keeping the natives on the reservation.
The absurd questions are another reason to detest these pot-stirring polls.
Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."
So the pollsters ask people to select adjectives to describe (stereotype) all black people (a race), then accuse the respondents of racial stereotyping. By the way, those who call blacks "intelligent" or "smart" are also engaging in racial stereotyping. This is junk science at its worst.
Another reason for not liking this stuff is that it is naked propaganda. The not-so-hidden message is that we are all racist sinners, but we can expiate those sins by voting for Obama. Doing otherwise is to persist in our sinful ways. The forced conclusion: If Obama loses, it will have nothing to do with his being more liberal that the majority of Americans. It will be because America is racist.
So tell me again, how does all this improve racial relations?
I would rather burn my hair off with a blowtorch than talk about race, but here goes:
I can understand poor, downtrodden people sitting in a church and listening approvingly to the fiery rhetoric of Reverend Wright, hooting and cheering at America’s chickens coming home to roost. I cannot understand two Ivy Leaguers at the pinnacle of society doing it. OK, the Obama family wasn’t in the pews that day, or at any other time anything controversial might have been said…
The Obamas are living proof that people of color can succeed. The fact that they stand as equals with the Clintons in education, power, and status is a proud testimony to how far we have come as a nation. Barack and Michelle obviously chose to work hard and get ahead rather than make excuses, and our society has rewarded them. Their very lives are a sharp rebuke to those who wallow in the misery and self-pity of our nation’s inequities. Has anyone in Reverend Wright’s church noticed the Obamas’ rise in status and power? Does the flock view them as an “if they can do it I can do it” success story, or are they viewed as an aberration, two people who snuck by “the man” while he wasn’t looking?
Of course the Reverend has a right to say what he said. And his parishioners have a right to listen. But what is the purpose of indulging in this rhetoric, as a preacher or as a listener? The catalog of our country's sins against people of color is thick and well known. Why continue to revel in it? Do sermons like this help people overcome their circumstances? Or do these sermons instead serve as a balm, an excuse to soothe those who have found the higher rungs of society too difficult to reach?
I have read Howard Zinn's “A People’s History,” where the professor catalogs US sins against its own people and the world. I have also read Bill Bennett's "America, The Last Best Hope." Both books are factual accounts of American history but each with a very distinct point of view.
Zinn shows us a venal, bigoted, bullying America, while Bennett swings the spotlight on her glories and selfless sacrifices. I guess John Edwards was right; there really are two Americas: Bennett’s “God Bless America” club versus Zinn’s “God Damn America” faction.
Only focusing on one aspect of America, to the detriment of the other, is like looking out of only one eye when you have two available. We are a glorious nation, but we must acknowledge our sins and express sorrow if we ever hope to get past them. Perhaps the typical Bennett fan thinks we have done this already, while the Zinn faction thinks otherwise.
So where do we go from here? I don’t know. I think the burden is on the aggrieved to express their grievances, perhaps in a slightly less controversial manner than the good Reverend Wright has sometimes done. We on the Bennett team need to give them an honest listen. It can’t hurt.
We are arguably the most socially mobile country on earth. President Clinton grew up poor with no father. General Colin Powell was born to Jamaican immigrants. Bill Gates didn’t grow up poor, but he definitely became richer than his parents! Our workplaces are full of successful people of all colors who overcame obstacles to get where they are. The ones I have known personally all had one thing in common: They did not wallow in resentment and self-pity. They all found a way to overcome the obstacles that society and history placed in their path. I’m sure if you were to ask them, few would credit their success to dialog, while all would readily cite hard work.
So let the dialog continue, but let the hard work continue also. We can't erase the past and we can’t ignore it. But we must also realize that our country is full of successful people like the Obamas, who prove every day that one's past does not define one's destiny.
