“A Nation Of Cowards”?

NOTE: This post has been UPDATED twice three times: first with a pointer to a Paul Mirengoff post on Power Line; then with a long, perceptive comment by Roger Clegg; finally with pointers to excellent articles by Heather Mac Donald and John McWhorter.

In longwinded remarks at the Department of Justice commemorating Black History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder called us “essentially a nation of cowards” because “we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. And though the world in which we now live is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race

HatTip to Jonah Goldberg, who observed, first, that

we talk about race a great, great, great deal in this country….

Second, to the extent we don’t talk about race in this country the primary reason is that liberals and racial activists have an annoying habit of attacking anyone who doesn’t read from a liberal script [as] “racists” or, if they’re lucky, “insensitive.”

Thus “cowardice” is defined as refusal to do as [you’re] told when that would in fact be the cowardly thing to do.

“[I}f we are to make progress in this area,” the Attorney General intoned, “we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.” I guess that makes him a fan of DISCRIMINATIONS.

Or maybe not, for he also says:

There can … be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest

As someone on one of those “extremes” — the one that insists that treating some people better and others worse because of their race is wrong — I resent the accusation that my friends and I are “using” this issue “to advance nothing more than [our] own, narrow self-interest.” (Now, if someone would pay me handsomely, or even un-handsomely, for writing this blog, I might have to rewrite this objection.)

Most of the Attorney General’s speech was taken up with a lament over our lack of meaningful conversations about race and our continued social segregation, but I did find one interesting comment:

As a nation we should use Black History month as a means to deal with this continuing problem [voluntary social segregation]. By creating what will admittedly be, at first, artificial opportunities to engage one another we can hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized.

I have a suggestion: if the Attorney General really wants to hasten the day when we are all judged as individuals based on our character, not our race, he can do much better than give a rhetorically fluffy speech once a year. He could draft an executive order and legislation that would eliminate all federal policies and programs that employ preferences based on race.

UPDATE [19 Feb.]

Paul Mirengoff makes a similar point on Power Line. Referring to Holder’s comments that I quoted above on affirmative action (which Mirengoff calls “a coward’s name for race-based preferences”), he writes:

So in one breath, Holder calls for a frank discussion of race, rather than the normal polite talk that evades tough issues; in the next breath, he attempts to rule out of the debate positions that he finds “extreme” while demonizing those who hold them. In the one instance where Holder is willing to be specific, we learn that his real complaint is not the absence of candid discussion, but rather the articulation of positions he doesn’t like.

We have plenty of problems as a nation. I doubt that insufficient discussion of race is one of them. But if it is, Holder’s mind-set is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

UPDATE II [19 Feb.]

Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, sent the following characteristically perceptive comments on Holder’s astonishing speech:

Here’s my theory on Holder’s speech: It was ghost written by a racist.

For starters, any sane person knows that it is just wrong to give a speech that calls America “a nation of cowards” when you are the Attorney General of the United States. Not just wrong, but offensive and insulting. So, you have the first African American AG begin the speech this way.

The next step is to establish the speaker’s liberal credentials, to make it easier to smuggle in the racist’s real message later on. To do this, the speech manages to be predictable and cliched, but still disappointing and depressing to anyone who isn’t liberal. For instance, the main theme of the speech, to the extent one can be deciphered, is that Americans don’t talk about and focus enough on race. Huh–don’t we talk of little else?

To drive nonliberals even crazier, sprinkle in plenty of Fieldisms (that’s Sally, not W.C.): “Truly meaningful,” “truly valued,” “really comprehend,” “truly understand,” etc.

So, having now established beyond any doubt the AG’s liberal bona fides, you then smuggle in your racist agenda.

First, having people of different races treat one another straightforwardly as fellow human beings has become the norm, and we can’t have that. So let’s encourage racial conflict and misunderstanding. “I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters.” Good idea: Hey, Lamont, what’s it like being a black guy? That’ll get things going.

There’s a passage on affirmative action (which all us racists hate–just ask any liberal). And sure enough, the passage uses the words “self interest” and “divisive,” but obliquely–just enough to remind people that that’s what affirmative action is all about:

We still speak too much of “them” and not “us”. There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced.

And another paragraph, while also pretty opaque, seems to be saying that African American equals crime and poor–and they’re all coming to get us:

And today the link between the black experience and this country is still evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, present and future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.

So there you have it. The speech also manages to be self-congratulatory (I’m brave enough to talk about this and you aren’t) and self-pitying (although I am the Attorney General of the United States, I am still one of an oppressed people) at the same time, by the way. Sort of like George Wallace in his prime.

UPDATE III [20 Feb.]

John McWhorter writes in The New Republic that “[w]hat Holder wants is not a conversation but a conversion.” Read the whole thing.

But one small nit (I can’t pass up the opportunity to presume to correct a noted linguist): McWhorter writes:

To what extent will this “conversation” entail blacks teaching whites about institutional racism, ensuring them that black people still experience racism, and that our having a black president doesn’t mean that white people are “off the hook?”

Doesn’t he mean either assuring them or ensuring that whites know that …?

Finally, also be sure to read Heather Mac Donald’s excellent piece in City Journal. Speaking of Holder, she asks exasperation, “Is he nuts?” and then proceeds to demonstrate in some detail that he is.

Say What? (22)

  1. Peg February 18, 2009 at 8:18 pm | | Reply

    Excellent post, John, and I cited you at what if? Unfortunately, though, my trackback didn’t come through again :(

  2. Cobra February 19, 2009 at 12:23 am | | Reply

    John Rosenberg writes:

    “[I}f we are to make progress in this area,” the Attorney General intoned, “we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.” I guess that makes him a fan of DISCRIMINATIONS.”

    Well, I don’t think this blog was what Holder was ultimately aiming at.

    Don’t get me wrong, John. I thoroughly enjoy this blog. I like reading what the other side thinks and engaging in vigorous debate.

    BUT…

    What are bloggers and the people who read and post to blogs if not people engaged in simultaneous long-distance anonymous relationships? There’s no skin in this game, John (forgive the pun).

    While the internet has provided an unquestionable explosion of social networking, it’s also a convenient dodge for physical proximity and interaction. Self-segregation can still be maintained via IP address.

    “Poking” a old classmate on Facebook isn’t the same as having that person in your life, and I’m sure that many of the intense, verbose melees I’ve joined in here would be unimaginable in a bar or a backyard barbecue.

    Is cowardice a strong word? Perhaps, but I also think that many who post here exhibit “keyboard courage.”

    –Cobra

  3. willowglen February 19, 2009 at 9:10 am | | Reply

    Cobra – I agree. Not many would openly use the menacing moniker of “Cobra” at a backyard barbecue.

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

    And I agree with Holder in a sense, although I don’t think cowardice is the right word. There is a lack of candor and frankness in discussions about race. But don’t forget that in 2009 that goes both ways. We have made significant racial progress, but if one cares to make racial identity the primary focus of a discussion, there are some negative issues that will also be talked about – e.g. the same kind of dysfunctions that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams are now raising. So breaking resistance to candor means that all sides are going to hear stuff they don’t want to hear. And that culpability goes to all parties involved.

  4. revisionist February 19, 2009 at 10:16 am | | Reply

    I think Holder is right about cowardice, but not in the way he intended. Whites have been too cowardly in confronting anti-white racism from people like Al Sharpton, Janet Murguia, Reuben Navarette, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Rudy Acuna, Armando Navarro, Jose Angel Gutierrez etc. etc. Whether it be Black Nationalism or Chicano Supremacy (MEChA, NCLR, Por La Raza Todo…), the mainstream media has been absolutely silent on these non-white racists.

  5. Mike G February 19, 2009 at 10:21 am | | Reply

    The Attorney General orders you to be more brave in discussing things the government has been known to prosecute people, hound them out of their jobs for, etc.

    How did an insulated, clueless bureaucrat like Holder even get this job? Remember, how you answer that question may subject you to the provisions of the Hostile Work Environment Act of 1996. Be brave and forthright in your answer, though!

  6. MarkJ February 19, 2009 at 10:21 am | | Reply

    If Eric Holder is looking for “cowards” then he should look in the nearest mirror. Holder could have done the right thing and stood up to Clinton on the FALN and Marc pardons…but he didn’t, did he?

    Obama could have picked somebody with real talent and integrity for AG. Mr. Hope & Change settled instead for an obnoxious, arrogant, ignorant, ethically-challenged, toadying creep.

  7. fareast February 19, 2009 at 10:27 am | | Reply

    In view of Eric Holder’s lack of morality in facilitating pardons for traitors and terrorists and his mealy mouthed rationalizations and denials of those actions, I question not just his own obvious cowardice but his complete and utter lack of moral authority.

    He has no business lecturing America on moral matters. But then, he also has no business holding the office he holds. Yet there he is.

    Most straight-thinking Americans will disregard this as well as any and all other lecturing this moral midget engages in the future.

    We ought to be able to find more attractive nominees for Attorney General on the underside of large rocks.

  8. Cobra February 19, 2009 at 11:01 am | | Reply

    Willowglen writes:

    “So breaking resistance to candor means that all sides are going to hear stuff they don’t want to hear. And that culpability goes to all parties involved.”

    So we both basically agree with Holder, with some quibbling on semantics?

    ’nuff said. I don’t want to kill this moment. :-)

    As far as the Cobra thing goes, trust me…I’m called that with affection.

    Now, Roger Clegg on the other hand is quite stupifying. He just doesn’t get the fact that Holder’s statement rings true. A good question for February 19, 2009 wouldn’t be–

    “Hey, Lamont, what’s it like being a black guy?”

    It could be, “Hey, Lamont, what do you think about that cartoon in the N.Y. Post?”

    That’s even glancing over the social segregation aspect of the Holder statement, which accurately depicts what happens to America on Saturday and Sunday–who we live with, play with and worship with.

    –Cobra

  9. mj February 19, 2009 at 12:31 pm | | Reply

    1. The cartoon refers to Nancy Pelosi, not Obama, since she wrote the income redistribution to democratic constituencies bill.

    2. The left has spent the last 8 years directly comparing Bush to a chimp.

    So now we’re supposed to be outraged by an indirect tie to someone other than Obama? I guess this does accurately reflect Cobra’s understanding of the world. I wonder when he’ll realize his own foolishness. Maybe he can visit the Dalai Lama and receive total consciousness on his deathbed.

    Holder’s an idiot. To the left there are only two positions: leftist orthodoxy and racism. So Holder’s statement is a pathetic complaint that his political opponents won’t allow him to call them racists more regularly.

  10. Bob Miller February 19, 2009 at 1:08 pm | | Reply

    The goal of this Black History Month should be a close examination of the historical process whereby African-Americans became burdened with so-called leaders trying to push them deeper into dependency.

  11. Jay February 19, 2009 at 9:13 pm | | Reply

    This country is a country of cowards. We talk but do not walk. The “execrable” speech you all so glibly speak of is only truth, nothing more or less. You couldn’t find anything useful in it because it hit you all too close to home.

  12. revisionist February 19, 2009 at 10:09 pm | | Reply

    And once again Heather MacDonald nails it.

    http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0219hm.html

  13. Cobra February 19, 2009 at 11:58 pm | | Reply

    MJ writes:

    “1. The cartoon refers to Nancy Pelosi, not Obama, since she wrote the income redistribution to democratic constituencies bill.”

    Well, that’s NOT what both the cartoonist himself, Sean Delonas said it was about, and that’s not what the New York Post claimed it was about in their half-hearted apology.

    MJ writes:

    “2. The left has spent the last 8 years directly comparing Bush to a chimp.”

    This is one of those “Stand Up and Speak Out like Holder” moments.

    Many Whites have spent the last 4 Centuries directly comparing Black people to chimps, apes, baboons and other simians. It is part of the American lexicon. It played a part in the 2008 Campaign.

    The Original Obama Monkey Doll

    Curious George Obama T-Shirt

    Now, here’s an interesting quote for the guy who was selling the T-Shirts, Mike Norman:

    “Norman acknowledged the imagery’s Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey. We’re not living in the (19)40’s,” he said. “Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears — he looks just like Curious George.”

    41% of the people who took the Atlanta Journal Constitution web page poll of the story AGREED with Norman.

    Take it from a cartoonist who draws controversial stuff… I believe the NY Post was well aware of the message they were putting out with that cartoon, and what inferences could be drawn from it.

    Let’s all stop being cowards and tell it like it is.

    –Cobra

  14. mj February 20, 2009 at 12:15 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    “Many Whites have spent the last 4 Centuries directly comparing Black people to chimps…”

    Some day you may figure out that we are not guilty of what others who share our skin pigmentation do. More likely, you already know this but don’t allow it to influence your racism, simply hating is much easier after all.

    Next let’s discuss logic. You object to the cartoon. It doesn’t say what you claim it does, but if it did it would be objectionable because the simian imagery dehumanizes the subject. And yet you not only failed to criticize such imagery when clearly directed at Bush, you actively engaged in it yourself. Pointing out that someone else engaged in this offensive activity does not justify your engaging in it. Either it is acceptable to do this, as by your actions you show you believe, or like me you think they are both outside the bounds of civil discourse. If as you do you try to both use it and claim it is offensive, you should expect everyone else to recognize and point out your hypocrisy.

  15. willowglen February 20, 2009 at 2:36 pm | | Reply

    Cobra – I can’t speculate as to what Holder was thinking.

    It was a poor choice of words.

    As a said, a lack of candor is the problem.

    But note dispensing with the lack of candor means fairly and openly discussing Heather McDonald’s piece rather than lamenting about some silly cartoon.

    McDonald’s piece reflects what all to often many are afraid to say, including many black citizens, who in private absolutely agree that there is inadequate discussion about self-inflicted problems. To be honest, you yourself strain at every opportunity to openly address McDonald’s data. Again, a lack of candor – not sure cowardice is a term that is accurate or helpful.

  16. Cobra February 20, 2009 at 4:53 pm | | Reply

    This blog thread is a perfect example of what I’ve been talking about.

    M.J. writes:

    “Some day you may figure out that we are not guilty of what others who share our skin pigmentation do. More likely, you already know this but don’t allow it to influence your racism, simply hating is much easier after all.”

    Readers, I KNOW John get frustrated with me at times because I exhaustively post facts, quotes and statistics to back up my points. No honest person can walk away saying “Cobra’s making all this stuff up.”

    I also think that John understands what I’m trying to do is NOT kill the bandwidth on his blog, but put out a substantiated alternative viewpoint. You don’t have to agree with me. Most here don’t. But simply disagreeing with somebody doesn’t automatically mean you “hate” them. Eric Holder in the quote John posted:

    “Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced.”

    Willowglen writes:

    “McDonald’s piece reflects what all to often many are afraid to say, including many black citizens, who in private absolutely agree that there is inadequate discussion about self-inflicted problems. To be honest, you yourself strain at every opportunity to openly address McDonald’s data.”

    Actually, Heather MacDonald is a perfect example for this discussion. It’s no secret that I’ve always taken her to task, but not for the facts and figures. Listen to the simplicity of her world-view/big picture statements from the piece:

    “Young people growing up in the last 30 years live on a different planet when it comes to racial attitudes—until the educrats start playing with their minds.”

    Hello? What policies have been in place in the last 30 YEARS that helped land America on a “different planet when it comes to racial attitudes” among young people? Integration, Affirmative Action, Multicultural education, etc. The very concepts MacDonald abhors.

    MacDonald again:

    “Commentators on NPR’s “black” show, News and Notes, recently groused about the lack of black policy experts on the Sunday talk shows but ignored the possibility that the education gap might have something to do with it.”

    MacDonald then goes on to list SAT score averages, suggesting that blacks on average, score lower, suggesting that as a reason. She offers no excuse for why ASIANS who she lists as scoring HIGHER on average than Whites, are even LESS visible.

    MacDonald’s coup-da-grace:

    “If inner-city blacks behaved like Asians—cramming as much knowledge into their kids as they can possibly fit into their skulls—the lingering wariness towards lower-income blacks that many Americans unquestionably harbor would disappear.”

    MacDonald in this statement totally dismisses the segregatory, historically racist treatment of Asians in America.

    Eric Holder is RIGHT. Let’s not be COWARDS when discussing racial issues.

    –Cobra

  17. Laura(southernxyl) February 20, 2009 at 8:11 pm | | Reply

    Well, I resent being told by Holder, who doesn’t know me, that I am a coward who doesn’t say what I really think. Since he’s such a mind-reader, perhaps he’d like to draft a statement for me.

  18. mj February 21, 2009 at 9:55 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Perhaps your problem understanding reality stems from this thought:

    “What policies have been in place in the last 30 YEARS that helped land America on a “different planet when it comes to racial attitudes” among young people? ”

    The answer? Irrelevant. The change is not driven by government policy but the attitude of Americans generally. 50 years ago racism was a widely held view. Now it isn’t. There are exceptions of course, by people like you for example, who perversely insist that whites today bear guilt for statements made by other whites 400 years ago.

  19. willowglen February 21, 2009 at 12:07 pm | | Reply

    cobra – why don’t you take McDonald to task for her facts and figures? Because they are largely unassailable?

    We have spent billions upon billions on social programs – reparations if you will – many of them if not directed at black citizens grossly disproportionately benefiting black citizens. Yet the gaps since the 60’s civil rights era – in crime (incredibly depressing), education levels, and life dysfunction – you name it are larger than they were before the civil rights era? This is progress, and we are to continue to drink more of it?

    What say you, Holder, and a host of others that continue to use race to advance a political and economic agenda? Doesn’t an unfortunate culture that is absolutely destroying notions of accountability and responsibility for one’s actions play a very significant role? How much more can be achieved through manipulating white guilt? Seems like the focus has to change. McDonald’s facts are what matter – just as Jesse Jackson pointed out – people do avoid young black men – and unfortunately, with reason.

  20. Cobra February 22, 2009 at 1:11 am | | Reply

    Willowglen writes:

    “cobra – why don’t you take McDonald to task for her facts and figures? Because they are largely unassailable?”

    Willow, didn’t you read my last post? I clearly displayed how “her facts”, became “my facts” when I used them to invalidate the dubious conclusions she came to. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their “own facts.”

    I take heartfelt glee in openly rejecting most of the rhetorical “unhappy meals” on race that MacDonald is wont to serve up online.

    It’s funny you know, because of what my style has been on this blog. I post facts and figures till the day is long on this blog. Never stops the anti-affirmative action types from “assailing me.”

    Willowglen writes:

    “We have spent billions upon billions on social programs – reparations if you will – many of them if not directed at black citizens grossly disproportionately benefiting black citizens.

    First of all, who is “we?” Americans of ALL races pay taxes.

    Second, please cite for me which social programs you are discussing? Are you on the welfare kick again? Don’t you know that most government assistance goes to White Americans? Social Security? Medicare?

    I KNOW you don’t want to talk about the billions spent on corporate welfare, or BAILOUTS of companies run overwhelmingly by White people, right?

    Willowglen writes:

    “What say you, Holder, and a host of others that continue to use race to advance a political and economic agenda?

    But that’s part the conservation that Holder’s calling Americans too cowardly to have. The racial/social segregation of the American people isn’t by chance or accident. It’s not based upon behavior or performance on standardized test scores, either.

    Let’s get to the HEART, Willow. What’s the REAL story? Let’s ante up and put all the cards on the table.

    Let’s not be cowards.

    –Cobra

  21. willowglen February 23, 2009 at 5:52 pm | | Reply

    Cobra – there have been billions and billions spent on improving the plight of minority folks. Yes, people of all classes benefit but a significantly disproportionate benefit has been received by black citizens. And it goes far beyond welfare. Section 8, all sorts of affirmative action and contracting programs, you name it – it has cost money. And the proof is more or less self-authenticating, because politicians that attempt to cut these programs are often deemed racist. Fine. These programs were worth trying. But they have not worked.

    And if you want the real story, the real story is the development of culture that is just harming black folks. You can of course look to history as the “cause” – but not sure what that gets anyone. The problems have become worse since the civil rights era, and the great promise we held then has been so frustrated by the limits of that culture.

    And let me get personal. I am from poor circumstances. I went to college on a track scholarship. I was a nationally ranked runner. But I came from nothing. But poverty with a future is actually quite emancipating.

    In any event, at the lower end of my event range, most of my competitors were black. So having observed the discipline and hard work my competitors brought to this endeavor, I am relatively immune to invitations to white guilt that are so often levied upon folks like myself. The stopwatch didn’t lie or manipulate, and my friends and competitors got there the same way I did – hard work and discipline – and asking for and expecting nothing other than what was earned. Fair is fair – discrimination is wrong – but so is not holding people accountable to certain immutable principles.

    The crime, the standardized test scores (at least with the enormous disparity), the family dysfunction – they all matter, even if they didn’t appear by accident. But I know to a certainty today that black folks can do a heck of a lot better, and there’s little excuse for all of this dysfunction to have become worse after the civil rights era. And I do believe it is both fatalistic and in a sense racist not to expect a whole lot more. The negative culture is the elephant in the room.

  22. Cobra February 26, 2009 at 1:33 am | | Reply

    willowglen writes:

    “Cobra – there have been billions and billions spent on improving the plight of minority folks…

    And the White dominant society has made billions and billions exploiting minorities, either via stealing their lands, centuries of slave labor, indentured servitude, in-sourced underpaid legal & illegal immigrant labor, or outsourced underpaid overseas third world labor.

    Come on, Willow…we’ve been down this road before.

    Willowglen writes:

    “These programs were worth trying. But they have not worked.”

    What’s your definition of “working?” Of course Section 8 housing “works.” It provides people with shelter. Of course AFDC works. It feeds the children of poor people, and there’s a whole lot more of them of all colors thanks to the Busheconomy.

    But we’re not going to get anywhere simply flinging statistics at each other.

    The KEY word that Eric Holder said isn’t “Cowards.”

    It’s SEGREGATION.

    So I’m going to ask you, and any other Discriminations poster/reader the same questions I asked on another blog on this same topic to get to heart of the matter:

    “Are you an integrationist, or a segregationist?

    Do you believe that “races” should remain sacrosanct, or mix to the point where the concept is completely irrelevant within three generations?”

    Let’s see who has the courage to honestly answer these questions.

    –Cobra

Say What?