Discriminations: Obama’s Brain: Not Just A New Politics But A New Epistemology

I’m beginning to think that many critics — and I certainly include myself in this group — may have done Rev. Wright a grave injustice.

I’m not referring to the denunciation he so richly deserves for his rants against AmeriKKKa, AIDS as purposeful genocide, 9/11 as deserved retribution, etc. I’m referring to his Ebonics-endorsing speech to the Detroit NAACP, dumped on here, in which he offered his offbeat (we thought) roadmap to the different contours of the black brain, including such gems as:

European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America....

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object....

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object....

Now all this was dismissed, including by me, as just so much hooey, but now I’m starting to have some doubts. For example, if Obama’s brain, like the persona he adopted as a young man, is black, and thus is creative and intuitive and not bound by the rigid European and European-American strictures of logic, rationality, and consistency, it suddenly becomes much easier to understand how he can claim to be the candidate who will bridge the partisan divide when he has voted with his party 97% of the time (compared to McCain’s relatively low 84% with his party) in the Senate and deviated from its liberal orthodoxy on no controversial issue.

In addition, if Obama is operating under a Wrightian right-brained epistemology it also becomes much easier to understand how he can claim to believe in equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender, as discussed recently here, even as he continues to favor allowing states to discriminate in favor of some citizens and against others because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Ditto regarding his new, Wrightian black math, discussed in the ADDENDUM to my post just cited, under which zero-sum situations are not really zero-sum.

I do not, Wright’s possible perceptiveness notwithstanding, mean to make this new “intuitive, creative” epistemology that now seems to make some sense of Obama’s many contradictions a genetic, racial issue, for the same tendencies can be seen in many of those in the media and elsewhere who have become enraptured with Obama.

Take, for example (Please!), the eminent Thomas Friedman in yesterday’s New York Times. Before taking him (with or without a grain of salt), however, it will be useful to recall some salient facts from the campaign to date. Foremost among these is the anger and disgust many Democrats, liberals, editorial writers, and journalists (but I repeat myself), and many Republicans as well, direct toward those they regard as rigid, nativist, right-wing, bitter/clinging small town yahoos (I repeat myself again) who insist on believing that Obama is a Muslim or that, at the very least, his middle name, Hussein, reveals something suspicious about him, something they dislike.

Now, reminded of that, now switch to Friedman. All of a sudden, what is disgusting at home becomes a glowing sign of hope for a new, better America abroad.

While Obama, who was raised a Christian, is constantly assuring Americans that he is not a Muslim, Egyptians are amazed, excited and agog that America might elect a black man whose father’s family was of Muslim heritage. They don’t really understand Obama’s family tree, but what they do know is that if America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name “Hussein,” it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations.

.... As one U.S. diplomat put it to me: Obama’s demeanor suggests to foreigners that he would not only listen to what they have to say but might even take it into account. They anticipate that a U.S. president who spent part of his life looking at America from the outside in — as John McCain did while a P.O.W. in Vietnam — will be much more attuned to global trends.

Of course there is nothing inconsistent here according to the Wrightian and now Times/Friedman epistemology, because everyone who is not a knuckle-dragging bigoted nativist, i.e., a conservative Republican, fervently wants (and some of them even pray) for the U.S. to align itself with “global trends” and usher in “a sea change in America-Muslim world relations” — initiated by “change” in America, not the Muslim world.

Friedman also writes:

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats’ nomination of Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America’s image abroad — an image dented by the Iraq war, President Bush’s invocation of a post-9/11 “crusade,” Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the xenophobic opposition to Dubai Ports World managing U.S. harbors — than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years.

This may sound extreme, but Friedman’s infatuation with the hope Obama brings to the Muslim world seems to be pervasive at the New York Times and similar precincts.

My colleague Michael Slackman, The Times’s bureau chief in Cairo, told me about a recent encounter he had with a worker at Cairo’s famed Blue Mosque: “Gamal Abdul Halem was sitting on a green carpet. When he saw we were Americans, he said: ‘Hillary-Obama tied?’ in thick, broken English. He told me that he lived in the Nile Delta, traveling two hours one way everyday to get to work, and still he found time to keep up with the race. He didn’t have anything to say bad about Hillary but felt that Obama would be much better because he is dark-skinned, like him, and because he has Muslim heritage.

So far I’ve seen no evidence that the New York Times and its far-flung correspondents share Rev. Wright’s enthusiasm for ebonics or his extreme left brain – right brain dichotomy, but I do believe their devotion to the “logical and analytical” skills Wright dissed can at least be called into question when many in the Times’s orbit (here I’m including devoted readers) believe that it is racist and nativist invective of the worst order for Obama’s domestic opponents to assert that his color has been an asset, not a liability, and to believe, despite heated and repeated denials from the Obamaphiles, that he has Muslim ties while at the same time Times writers and many readers point to Muslim infatuation with his dark skin and “Muslim heritage” as prime reasons why “the mere fact of his nomination” has done “more to improve America’s image in the world” than anything in recent memory.

When Friedman looks at Obama he thinks of Emerson and swoons with Emersonian visions of America as “the country of the future ... a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations.”

Me? When I look at Obama I still see a movie star, but as I mentioned here last spring I still can’t decide whether he is

a) Jimmy Stewart, in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington;

b) Robert Redford, in The Candidate;

c) Peter Sellers (Chauncey Gardner), in Being There; or

d) Laurence Harvey, in The Manchurian Candidate.

I will say, though, that the possibility that he is Mr. Smith has faded into the background.

Say What?

A glance at Rev. Wright indicates that his genetic makeup is probably not purely African. So how much of his thinking is left-brained?

And, of course, if blacks are not good at linear and analytical stuff, wouldn't it be rational for people who have jobs in areas that require linear and analytical thinking--such as law, computers, accounting, and so forth--not to hire blacks? And if not, why not?

Posted by: Alex Bensky | June 12, 2008 8:57 AM

those of us not mired in obamamania know he is not on america's side or on the side of judeo christianity or western civ or even liberal democracy, except to the extent it allows him to use liberalism to do things that are not liberal. but in reality what can he do if he is elected? I assume that most of congress will not go along with any mad plans to destroy israel or establish sharia. Will he dismantle all the precautions to prevent attacks and allow us to be attacked. Even if he is that nutty, will the US go along with it? Having to go against him will be embarassing for the US, and americans will be accused of being against him because he is black and part muslim. Still, that will not make us do what he wants. or will it? are americans that afraid of the rest of the world.

Posted by: Anita | June 12, 2008 9:51 AM

What bothers me is that Osama Bin Laden said, on many occasions after 9/11, that the attacks will stop when America accepts Islam. If it is generally believed in the ME that Obama is or was Muslim, or has a Muslim heritage, well ... what is their next thought.

Posted by: Dom | June 13, 2008 1:03 PM

Anita writes:

>>>"Having to go against him will be embarassing for the US, and americans will be accused of being against him because he is black and part muslim."

Exactly how is Barack Obama "part muslim?"

Have you been reading those "smear Obama" emails again?

Here's a nice place for you to visit:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

The truth shall set you free, Anita.

Dom writes:

>>>"What bothers me is that Osama Bin Laden said, on many occasions after 9/11, that the attacks will stop when America accepts Islam."

Yeah, but you're forgetting what else Bin Laden has said:

>>>"Exiled Saudi Osama bin Laden has cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a core grievance in his self-proclaimed holy war against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. government. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/

And what is the Bush Administration doing right now?

>>>"Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/40372.html

Dom, if you're worried about what the result of a President Obama would be with radical Islam...you should be TERRIFIED over the results of President Bush.

--Cobra

Posted by: Cobra | June 13, 2008 11:40 PM

Cobra, the problem with having our troops in SA (even though it was at the request of the Saudi government) is that it is the home of Mecca and Medina and we were defiling them with our infidel presence. Mecca and Medina aren't in Iraq.

Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) | June 14, 2008 10:26 AM

When I see Obama, I also see Princess Diana.

Posted by: Fred | June 14, 2008 5:46 PM

Cobra,
are you aware that muslims are occupying christian land. the land was holy to christians first. that is why the crusades happened, to get back the holy lands that had forcibly been converted by jihad.

you assume that if a person is a muslim, that gives them a right to say get out of our holy land or else. muslims rule where Jesus walked. eastern europe which is now muslim used to be christian. should we be enraged about it? should we say they are defiling it?

if liberalism is a good thing, why are muslims exempt from its requirements? if it is okay for them to be not liberal, why is not okay for everyone. I raise these questions seriously because eventually they will occur to people. the kind of feeling that muslims have about themselves is something that in other people is called bigotry and racism.

I can respect another's religion. I can't accept that they deserve better than me or that they are superior.

Posted by: Anita | June 16, 2008 9:54 PM

>>>"Cobra,
are you aware that muslims are occupying christian land. the land was holy to christians first. that is why the crusades happened, to get back the holy lands that had forcibly been converted by jihad."

You're not going far enough back in history if you consider any land "holy to Christians first."

Look at the way we measure time itself..."B.C." and "A.D."

>>>"you assume that if a person is a muslim, that gives them a right to say get out of our holy land or else. muslims rule where Jesus walked."

You're forgetting that when Jesus walked, he was walking under the occupation of the decidely pagan Roman Empire.

>>>"eastern europe which is now muslim used to be christian."

Depends which Eastern Europe you're talking about. Your forgetting the fact that much of it was under atheistic Communism for a lengthy stretch as well.

>>>"if liberalism is a good thing, why are muslims exempt from its requirements? if it is okay for them to be not liberal, why is not okay for everyone."

You can be anything you like, Anita. This is America. My beliefs lead me to different conclusions than yours. Using logic, I would think that a wise position for the future would be to try to understand and co-exist with a group that represents a one-sixth of the world's population--since this IS the only world we have for the time being.

Posted by: Cobra | June 24, 2008 10:05 PM

Discriminations

cogitations declarations contemplations inspirations conversations ruminations

Obama’s Brain: Not Just A New Politics But A New Epistemology

TrackBack

Say What?

Post a comment