I find it fascinating that liberals like Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter can infer racism as the motivation for Rep. Wilson's comment. First, what race are they talking about? In context, one must assume Negro (yes, that is the race; African-American is ancestry). Now how do Mr. Carter and Ms. Dowd assume a man who is of mixed racial ancestry is Negro or Black? Interestingly, they are relying on old Jim Crow and antebellum American (not just southern) criteria. Back in the heyday of Jim Crow Laws, a person was considered Negro if he/she was 1/8Th (in some instances 1/16Th) Negro or Black. In other words, even the most imperceptible physically appearing Negro person who had a great or great-great grandparent who was Negro, was considered to be a member of that race, despite the fact that they were perhaps 7/8Th, Caucasian. Clearly this was true racism; defining a person for the purposes of segregating them from others in the most narrow of biological terms. It was irrational and served only as a means to place artificial identification on people in order to disadvantage them in competitive society; keep them from competing for jobs, wealth, status, etc. The practice of segregating on the basis of a percentage of racial heritage/ancestry eventually was seen by the vast majority of Americans as fully inconsistent with the foundations of the country and had to be eliminated.
Barack Obama, racially, is half Negro and half Caucasian. Yet Mr. Carter and Ms Dowd attempt to read the intention of another person, Mr. Wilson, by identifying Mr. Obama on the basis of only half of his racial ancestry. Why couldn't Mr. Wilson be calling a 50% Caucasian president a "liar"? Mr Obama is as much of that race is he is Negro, isn't he? When the Irish of The President's maternal ancestry traced his genealogy back to Ireland, they called him and he claimed to be, "Irish". Mr. Obama, who's mother was Caucasian, was raised by his Caucasian maternal grandparents, and is Irish by heritage. However, Carter and Dowd see him only as Black or African-American. How else could they assume that Mr. Wilson's comments were anti-black? The President is as much "white" as he is "black", biologically. Yet they insist on defining him as Old Jim Crow would; he is 50% "Black", so he is "black". You see, a white Mr. Wilson cannot be segregated and marginalized out of political competition unless he can be contrasted against a black. Consequently, it is necessary to ignore that Mr. Obama is as much white as he is black. Mr. Obama must be defined in the Jim Crow narrow definition based on his racial content as black in order to impugn Mr. Wilson's opinions as being a result of his white race, which is necessarily prejudiced against Blacks. Never mind that Mr. Wilson could be 1/8Th Black, Irish or Native American. He must be white, so Mr Obama can be black. Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd are practicing Jim Crow segregation and race baiting just as much as Arkansas Governor Faubus did in the 1954 integration of Little Rock schools or George Wallace did standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama. The Governors were Jim Crow racists then and Carter and Dowd are Jim Crow racists now.
There was a man named Homer Plessy who was "black" and rode a "whites only" trolley car in New Orleans about the turn of the twentieth century. He was arrested because he was "negro". The NAACP assisted him and he challenged the legality of the law all the way to the supreme court. He lost and the case of Plessy vs Ferguson institutionalized Jim Crow by establishing the doctrine of "separate but equal". What most folks don't know is that Mr. Plessy was 7/8 Caucasian. After the court case, he continued to ride in the "White's only" section of New Orlean's trolleys, because very few could tell by looking at the man that his race wasn't "White". He self-identified himself as Negro, at the urging of the NAACP and a local citizen's group opposed to the law, in order to get arrested and test the law's constitutionality. Only when people apply arbitrary subjective criteria as a method of categorizing others (or themselves) in broad generalities can racism exist. Otherwise, people are just people. Unfortunately what Mr. Carter, Ms. Dowd and other liberals have done is define Mr. Obama narrowly and subjectively in Jim Crow racial terms so they can exploit, segregate and discriminate against Mr. Wilson and any who may agree with him on health care reform. Somewhere, Doctor King who had a dream that people in America would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, is shaking his head in disbelief.
Jimmy Carter adds another dimension to his hypocrisy. He is a self-proclaimed Christian. Jimmy Carter's Bible instructs us not to judge another person's heart; that is, their intentions. The Gospel of Christ admonishes that people should be careful about plucking the dust from an other's eye as they may have a plank of wood in their own. In this way, Christians are taught to not judge, "lest ye be judged". A person can and will sin. When it happens to fellow Christians, it is our responsibility to support the person and confront the sin, but not judge the heart. Judgement of the heart, or a person's intentions, is reserved for God, alone. When this truth is violated, the person judging presumes to assume the authority of God. Mr. Carter knows this. Yet he judges Mr. Wilson's intentions without even discussing the matter with him, man to man. Brother Carter should be mindful of his Christian obligations.
1 comment:
From the liberal perspective: There is strong evidence that historically, racism existed. The liberal mind, in attempting to discover why racism exists or has ever existed, has traditionally asserted that some people do not like things that are different, or are afraid of things that are different. Therefore, to the liberal, racism is a priori. It is an attitude adopted toward people that are different from oneself before any actions or words are exchanged. In light of this, the liberal dismisses Obama's 'half caucasioness' if you will allow the term, because it doesn't erase the darker tone to his skin that speaks to the distinction eliciting fear or dislike in the minds of the majority race.
As noted in the blog post, this line of thinking is also a priori, with certain assumptions made that do not as readily line up with reality currently, as it did 70 or 80 years ago. Just as this post demonstrates effectively, the unproven assumptions exercised by the'traditional liberal' line of thought, so might a discussion regarding what general principles and assumptions one aught to adopt in evaluating the events and developments in race relations going forward in this country.
Post a Comment