Man Of Steele
Judged by the power of his analysis in several books that are almost breathtaking in their perception, Shelby Steele really is an intellectual Superman.
I have mentioned his most recent, and most timely, book, Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win, several times (here, here, here). He was interviewed by ABC News yesterday (or at least the published report appeared yesterday). You should definitely read the whole thing, but I was particularly struck by two things in it.
First, he discussed an Obama statement from a post-Speech interview that may go a long way towards explaining why Obama appears incapable of separating himself from Rev. Wright, no matter what the reverend said or says in the future.
After the March 18 speech in which he addressed incendiary remarks by Wright, Obama told ABC News’ Terry Moran that blacks do not have “the luxury” of “being selective.”If Steele is reading Obama correctly here, Obama is saying that there are many ways to be black in America, and he’s not willing “to be selective” or “separate himself” from any of them. Wright’s way is to be filled with anti-American, anti-white paranoid rage. Being a society-blaming victim who refuses to take responsibility for one’s own life is another. If Obama wants to do something to address these dysfunctional ways of being black in America, he will have to do considerably more than “contextualize” them.“During the course of this campaign,” said Obama, “there have been moments where people say, ‘Well, I like Barack Obama, but not Al Sharpton. I like Colin Powell, but not Jesse. I like Oprah, but.’ You know, those of us who are African-American don’t have the luxury.”
Asked by Moran what he meant by saying blacks “don’t have the luxury,” Obama said, “I don’t have the luxury of separating myself out and being selective, in terms of what it means to be an African-American in this society. It’s a big complex thing. It’s not monolithic.”
Steele told ABCNEWS.com that he considered Obama’s comments to be revealing.
“It’s a very interesting statement. It’s profound,” said Steele. “What would be keeping him from having the right to be selective about all of those people? Of course he has the right to be selective.”
“What he is really saying is that he’s afraid,” Steele continued. “What Obama is saying is, ‘I’m afraid if I am less than receptive to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they’re going to call me an Uncle Tom, they’re going to call me a sellout.’ The terror of Barack Obama’s life has been that blacks would reject him. That’s why I call him a bound man.”
That point was made eloquently in an open letter to Obama from Lionel Chetwynd, who was disappointed Obama missed “the teaching opportunity I hoped you would evoke: not explaining Wright’s outrage to me, but explaining his outrageousness to him.” Be sure to read this whole letter, and then save it to re-read later. It’s that good.
Finally, the most dramatic observation in this interview, or in any interview I’ve read, is Steele’s dramatic assertion that “[Affirmative action] did more damage to black America than segregation did.”
I hope, and bet, we’ll be hearing more about that.
Say What?
The open letter is excellent. Thanks for the link.
"And in that instant I realized my hatred was unjustified. The 'context' was false. I was nursing the anger for my own psychic advantage and not because the current state of humanity or my own experience gave it justice."
Also, the writer's "imperfect" view of Christianity is spot-on.
Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) | March 28, 2008 8:03 AM
L. Chetwynd's letter was fascinating, but I think he also missed a big difference between the way Jews and Blacks (and Latinos) have reacted to past discrimination.
The attitude of Jews has been to study as hard as possible and "learn from their enemies" (as my mother used to say) in order to fight them.
For example, my father told me that his best teacher in high school was a Ukrainian who hated Jews with a passion. He nevertheless learned all he could from him as this was the best way to get back at him.
Blacks and Latinos in contrast (a few like Booker T. Washington and Jaime Escalante are exceptions) have relied on handouts in the form of welfare and affirmative action to get ahead.
The point is, if you believe that whites are truly prejudiced against you, then you cannot expect them to "give" you an education (which cannot really be given, you have to be a participant) or to give you jobs.
The best way for Blacks and Latinos to use their rage against whites would be to beat them at their own game by getting better grades than whites, better SAT scores than whites and starting their own businesses without relying on AA benefits from "white" society.
Posted by: revisionist | March 28, 2008 2:15 PM
revisionist writes:
>>>"The point is, if you believe that whites are truly prejudiced against you, then you cannot expect them to "give" you an education (which cannot really be given, you have to be a participant) or to give you jobs."
"If you believe" is a suspension of belief that America has been a racist society. That's an historical fact.
revisionist writes:
>>>"The best way for Blacks and Latinos to use their rage against whites would be to beat them at their own game by getting better grades than whites, better SAT scores than whites and starting their own businesses without relying on AA benefits from "white" society."
But that's not the "John Rosenberg" theory. Your example is diametrically opposed to the theory of "color-blindness". Your theory would have basically a "separate but equal" system, placing all of the burden for change on non-whites, while absolving whites of any responsibility for their actions whatsoever.
It's a refreshingly honest viewpoint from the anti-affirmative action type camp.
--Cobra
Posted by: Cobra | March 29, 2008 6:01 AM
Cobra:
>>>"The point is, if you believe that whites are truly prejudiced against you, then you cannot expect them to "give" you an education (which cannot really be given, you have to be a participant) or to give you jobs."
"If you believe" is a suspension of belief that America has been a racist society. That's an historical fact.
Look at what you wrote. "...if you believe that whites are truly prejudiced against you..." is present tense. When you say "...America has been a racist society..." you are talking about the past. You even use the word "historic".
I am going to try this again, although I don't know why.
1 - WE CANNOT CHANGE THE PAST. IT IS WHAT IT IS. Sorry for shouting.
2 - If no matter what we do it's never enough, what motivation do we have to keep slamming ourselves and our children to try to make things better? Why in the heck would we bother? It will NEVER EVER be enough because you can always point back to Jim Crow 50 years ago and WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT. Sorry for shouting.
If you could jump into a time machine and go back to live in the 1940's and 50's and really experience discrimination first-hand, would you do it? I almost think you would, because you choose that to be your reality. God knows why, but you do.
Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) | March 29, 2008 9:17 AM