Back to the top

Paul Hue

Who’s Afraid of an Angry Black Man?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed_edition&videoId=us/2010/06/09/cb.obama.anger.management.cnn

For better or worse, one thing is certain: Barack Obama’s presidency forces Americans to face our own thinly camouflaged racial tensions.

Once a taboo subject, race has become a common topic in our public and private discourse. Whether it’s conservative pols using YouTube video to stoke the embers of racial division, my longtime friend and foil, libertarian commentator Paul Hue, challenging racial assumptions and stereotypes on his Facebook page, or the always insightful and provocative, anti-racism activist Tim Wise, debating with Roland Martin, Julia Reed and Don Lemon on CNN, race is now front and center on our computer screens, on talk radio shows and on our minds.

The question of Obama’s anger is especially timely to me because of a discussion I had a couple of days ago with my manager and friend, Cornelius Harris, of Alter Ego Management. He stressed the importance of guarding my own words to avoid projecting what some people may perceive as an “angry black man” persona. Cornelius emphasized that a seemingly harmless and even humorous conversation could be misinterpreted because of our society’s racial conditioning. It’s not just an issue for Obama. This is something black men face in the boardroom, at the bus stop and in the world of music.

John Blake’s article on CNN.com asks point blank: “Who would have ever expected some white Americans to demand that an African-American man show more rage?”

Obama’s presidency forces America to confront its fear of the black man, and along with the immigration debate, the so-called war on terror, and the many aspects of the economic crisis, we are openly talking about our fear of the brown man, the red man, the yellow man and even the white man. Race has become a common topic because in this multicultural society, our fear of “the other” has never been far from the surface.

On one hand, this is a good thing. These are conversations that we’ve largely avoided in the post-civil rights era. The climate of fear is high right now, so perhaps this is some sort of group therapy, where we talk about some of the fears and phobias that persist in our lives.

However, as Julia Reed points out in the CNN segment above, all this talk of race may be distracting us from the real issues at hand. (Notably, the only woman in the debate asks about the logic of even having the argument.)

How much do our racial attitudes play into our perception of public figures and the people we interact with every day in the office, on the street or over the Internet? Do these attitudes (or even the analysis of the tensions) distract us from the real problems of environmental disaster, corporate and political corruption, and economic meltdown?

And perhaps most importantly, can’t we all just get along?

Who’s Afraid of an Angry Black Man?

For better or worse, one thing is certain: Barack Obama’s presidency forces Americans to face our own thinly camouflaged racial tensions.

Once a taboo subject, race has become a common topic in our public and private discourse. Whether it’s conservative pols using YouTube video to stoke the embers of racial division, my longtime friend and foil, libertarian commentator Paul Hue, challenging racial assumptions and stereotypes on his Facebook page, or the always insightful and provocative, anti-racism activist Tim Wise, debating with Roland Martin, Julia Reed and Don Lemon on CNN, race is now front and center on our computer screens, on talk radio shows and on our minds.

The question of Obama’s anger is especially timely to me because of a discussion I had a couple of days ago with my manager and friend, Cornelius Harris, of Alter Ego Management. He stressed the importance of guarding my own words to avoid projecting what some people may perceive as an “angry black man” persona. Cornelius emphasized that a seemingly harmless and even humorous conversation could be misinterpreted because of our society’s racial conditioning. It’s not just an issue for Obama. This is something black men face in the boardroom, at the bus stop and in the world of music.

John Blake’s article on CNN.com asks point blank: “Who would have ever expected some white Americans to demand that an African-American man show more rage?”

Obama’s presidency forces America to confront its fear of the black man, and along with the immigration debate, the so-called war on terror, and the many aspects of the economic crisis, we are openly talking about our fear of the brown man, the red man, the yellow man and even the white man. Race has become a common topic because in this multicultural society, our fear of “the other” has never been far from the surface.

On one hand, this is a good thing. These are conversations that we’ve largely avoided in the post-civil rights era. The climate of fear is high right now, so perhaps this is some sort of group therapy, where we talk about some of the fears and phobias that persist in our lives.

However, as Julia Reed points out in the CNN segment above, all this talk of race may be distracting us from the real issues at hand. (Notably, the only woman in the debate asks about the logic of even having the argument.)

How much do our racial attitudes play into our perception of public figures and the people we interact with every day in the office, on the street or over the Internet? Do these attitudes (or even the analysis of the tensions) distract us from the real problems of environmental disaster, corporate and political corruption, and economic meltdown?

And perhaps most importantly, can’t we all just get along?

The Democrats are Punks Revisited

Charles Pierce’s post on The American Prospect and Greg Saunders blog “Don’t Vote Democrat” on Huffington Post are right on the money.

The Democratic Party allowed some so-called “maverick” Republicans to co-opt the torture issue, and we wind up with Bush getting exactly what he wants: the ability to torture and amnesty for his own human rights offenses.

As Pierce says:

… the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives – “Aggressive interrogation techniques” – the Democratic Party had…no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

Saunders has the right idea about what our response should be:

Since the Democrats don’t seem to be interested in convincing the public to vote for them, then here’s a better idea : This November vote against every incumbent on the ballot. Whether they’re part of the Republican, Democrat, or Connecticut for Lieberman parties, throw out the whole damn lot of them. If the choice is between a party that openly supports the destruction of habeas corpus or a party that’s too timid to take a stand in favor of basic human decency, then I’d rather just roll the dice and try to start over with a clean slate. Continue reading

The Democrats are Punks Revisited

Charles Pierce’s post on The American Prospect and Greg Saunders blog “Don’t Vote Democrat” on Huffington Post are right on the money.

The Democratic Party allowed some so-called “maverick” Republicans to co-opt the torture issue, and we wind up with Bush getting exactly what he wants: the ability to torture and amnesty for his own human rights offenses.

As Pierce says:

… the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives — “Aggressive interrogation techniques” — the Democratic Party had…no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

Saunders has the right idea about what our response should be:

Since the Democrats don’t seem to be interested in convincing the public to vote for them, then here’s a better idea : This November vote against every incumbent on the ballot. Whether they’re part of the Republican, Democrat, or Connecticut for Lieberman parties, throw out the whole damn lot of them. If the choice is between a party that openly supports the destruction of habeas corpus or a party that’s too timid to take a stand in favor of basic human decency, then I’d rather just roll the dice and try to start over with a clean slate. Continue reading

© Nadir Omowale