Tavis, Obama, and Black People
This commentary was inspired but they recent announcement that Tavis Smiley will be discontinuing his 12 year relationship with the Tom Joyner Morning Show, in part (according to Tom Joyner), due to the less than favorable comments that he has received from the Black community regarding his concerns/reservations on Barack Obama.
“Don’t fall so madly in love (with Obama) that you surrender your power to hold people accountable. … I’m not saying overlook Senator Obama, but you now better be ready to look him over.” –Tavis Smiley
No truer words have ever been spoken. And if there ever were one grouping of people who would adamantly defend something that they know least about, it would arguably have to be Black folks…….at least as long as the thing defended “appears” to relate and operate in their best interest.
After all, who was it that coined Bill Clinton the “first black President”??? It surely wasn’t Caucasians. And who was it that voted for George W. Bush in record numbers after he stated that he is a Christian that is against gay marriage? Again, it was black folks. If your memory doesn’t serve you correctly, try this link http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/Newsday11-14-2004.pdf .
No truer words have ever been spoken. And if there ever were one grouping of people who would adamantly defend something that they know least about, it would arguably have to be Black folks…….at least as long as the thing defended “appears” to relate and operate in their best interest.
After all, who was it that coined Bill Clinton the “first black President”??? It surely wasn’t Caucasians. And who was it that voted for George W. Bush in record numbers after he stated that he is a Christian that is against gay marriage? Again, it was black folks. If your memory doesn’t serve you correctly, try this link http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/Newsday11-14-2004.pdf .
One African American woman who admittedly voted for George W. Bush, Jr. because of his Christian belief and stance on gay marriage went as far to say that “He’s strong in his morals.”
This may or may not be true considering that we don’t really know what his morals are. However, what we do know is that these so-called morals aren’t what most of us believed them to be.
If you still feel that Bush is a Christian, then ask yourself “Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus leave stranded in a coliseum without food and water for 5 days???” I guess that Bush couldn’t find those 2 fish and a loaf of bread that Jesus had, but I’m sure that the National Guard could have provided it for him since they were guarding the stores that these hungry black refugees were looting,…….but I digress.
“To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.” – Mahatma Gandhi
I echo Smiley’s sentiments, concerns, and reservations regarding Obama albeit not exactly for the same reasons.
Smiley criticizes Obama for not attending symposiums that were geared to address concerns in the Black community; namely, the State of the Black Union in New Orleans and the Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of MLK in Memphis.
I think that Obama’s absence from these events was clear. Politically speaking, there was no need for him to attend these events. If he already knows that he has the Black vote in pocket, why expend the energy, time, and effort to attend such events when he can use it to target a demographic that he has yet to convince? After all, he is trying to win an election!
Consequently, it is this very reason that Hillary Clinton was motivated to attend the State of the Black Union. It was a glaring opportunity for her to win over the Black vote amid the disappointments of Obama’s decline to attend. If she would have had the Black vote secured already (like Obama), you can rest assured that she would not have attended the forum either.
In short, his attendance wasn’t politically feasible. Hers was.
It seems, however, that such an action would raise concerns as well as “red flags” as to whether or not the candidates are more concerned with the “Black Vote” as opposed to the “Black Community”, because surely, a person truly concerned with the community would place the progress of the community over his/her own political agenda – right? You would think so; but not in politics.
In politics, perception always trumps principle - and herein lies the problem - because it is this dichotomy that determines integrity.
Integrity is the right that one does even in the absence of an audience; and principle is the adherence to such. Therefore, principle is always more valuable than perception because it never seeks validation outside of itself.
Perception, however, is merely the “appearance” of correctness, therefore, its validity is determined by how it looks and is received by its audience.
For example, it is because of perception - or rather misperception - that America is now led by a tyrant whose practices and policies are in lockstep with Adolf Hitler’s (For more info regarding this, click here: http://www.28daysmovement.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1377). Most people are acutely unaware of his familial ties to the evil dictator himself (Prescott Bush, George Bush’s grandfather, financed Hitler).
Additionally, it is because of perception that the Catholic Church is now led by an ex-Nazi (Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI), who was also the Prefect of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as The Holy Office of the Inquisition).
This may or may not be true considering that we don’t really know what his morals are. However, what we do know is that these so-called morals aren’t what most of us believed them to be.
If you still feel that Bush is a Christian, then ask yourself “Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus leave stranded in a coliseum without food and water for 5 days???” I guess that Bush couldn’t find those 2 fish and a loaf of bread that Jesus had, but I’m sure that the National Guard could have provided it for him since they were guarding the stores that these hungry black refugees were looting,…….but I digress.
“To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.” – Mahatma Gandhi
I echo Smiley’s sentiments, concerns, and reservations regarding Obama albeit not exactly for the same reasons.
Smiley criticizes Obama for not attending symposiums that were geared to address concerns in the Black community; namely, the State of the Black Union in New Orleans and the Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of MLK in Memphis.
I think that Obama’s absence from these events was clear. Politically speaking, there was no need for him to attend these events. If he already knows that he has the Black vote in pocket, why expend the energy, time, and effort to attend such events when he can use it to target a demographic that he has yet to convince? After all, he is trying to win an election!
Consequently, it is this very reason that Hillary Clinton was motivated to attend the State of the Black Union. It was a glaring opportunity for her to win over the Black vote amid the disappointments of Obama’s decline to attend. If she would have had the Black vote secured already (like Obama), you can rest assured that she would not have attended the forum either.
In short, his attendance wasn’t politically feasible. Hers was.
It seems, however, that such an action would raise concerns as well as “red flags” as to whether or not the candidates are more concerned with the “Black Vote” as opposed to the “Black Community”, because surely, a person truly concerned with the community would place the progress of the community over his/her own political agenda – right? You would think so; but not in politics.
In politics, perception always trumps principle - and herein lies the problem - because it is this dichotomy that determines integrity.
Integrity is the right that one does even in the absence of an audience; and principle is the adherence to such. Therefore, principle is always more valuable than perception because it never seeks validation outside of itself.
Perception, however, is merely the “appearance” of correctness, therefore, its validity is determined by how it looks and is received by its audience.
For example, it is because of perception - or rather misperception - that America is now led by a tyrant whose practices and policies are in lockstep with Adolf Hitler’s (For more info regarding this, click here: http://www.28daysmovement.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1377). Most people are acutely unaware of his familial ties to the evil dictator himself (Prescott Bush, George Bush’s grandfather, financed Hitler).
Additionally, it is because of perception that the Catholic Church is now led by an ex-Nazi (Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI), who was also the Prefect of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as The Holy Office of the Inquisition).
Of course the Inquisition is an event that the Catholic church would like to forget and move beyond, but the remnants of religious persecutions that still exists today make it rather difficult.
And let us not forget that Hitler was also a devout Catholic.
Therefore, it is only right that President Bush ceremonially greet Pope Benedict XVI – replete with pomp and circumstance - on his arrival to America. What other way to welcome your greatest accomplice? Is it not suspect and contradictory for the Pope to condemn the atrocities of the war while simultaneously breaking bread with the warmonger???
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” – Sinclair Lewis
Guess whose home!
Perception provides the opportunity to mask the truth, particularly in the absence of principle; and through the guise of great images and flowery speeches, we relinquish our personal power to the comfort and control of perceived power. We are more concerned with the appearance of legitimacy and piety than the action of it.
So, how does this relates to Tavis, Obama, and Black People? I’m glad that you asked!
Because Obama is black, and speaks of his community work in impovershed neighborhoods, many black people assume that he is attuned and empathizes with the concerns and struggles of the black community, and as a result, they tend to hope for the best from him; that as President, he would do more than any of his predecessors to sincerely address the concerns of black people in America; almost as if he is Black America’s secret weapon and last hope.
And let us not forget that Hitler was also a devout Catholic.
Therefore, it is only right that President Bush ceremonially greet Pope Benedict XVI – replete with pomp and circumstance - on his arrival to America. What other way to welcome your greatest accomplice? Is it not suspect and contradictory for the Pope to condemn the atrocities of the war while simultaneously breaking bread with the warmonger???
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” – Sinclair Lewis
Guess whose home!
Perception provides the opportunity to mask the truth, particularly in the absence of principle; and through the guise of great images and flowery speeches, we relinquish our personal power to the comfort and control of perceived power. We are more concerned with the appearance of legitimacy and piety than the action of it.
So, how does this relates to Tavis, Obama, and Black People? I’m glad that you asked!
Because Obama is black, and speaks of his community work in impovershed neighborhoods, many black people assume that he is attuned and empathizes with the concerns and struggles of the black community, and as a result, they tend to hope for the best from him; that as President, he would do more than any of his predecessors to sincerely address the concerns of black people in America; almost as if he is Black America’s secret weapon and last hope.
He may or may not be a secret weapon - either way - you can guarantee that he won’t be one that is for the betterment of Black people, regardless of his intent, not as long as the presidency remains controlled by special interest and despots. But again, I digress.
As a result, Obama gets a pass from the black community at large, even when he “misspeaks”. Case in point: Obama recently referred to his Caucasian grandmother as a “typical white person”. Although this comment is blatantly stereotypical, many black people turned a deaf ear; possibly because many of them can also relate to this comment, resultantly serving as a confirmation for them that “Barack is truly one of us…..truly one who understands the Black plight.”
Now, imagine if Hillary – or any other white politician for that matter – referred to another African American as a “typical black person”. Many in the black community would most certainly be incensed and offended, and would likely accuse the offender of being racist.
So, is Obama a racist, or was it just a Freudian slip? Maybe it was both. Like the old saying goes “If it isn’t in you, then it won’t come out of you.” But when the comment comes from somebody we admire, we tend to look the other way and not hold them accountable to principle, because again, we are more driven by perceptions. You can say or do something bad as long as you continue to look good.
For many black people, the possibility of seeing a black man in the role of President is too alluring. The excitement of a black man achieving such heights in America is redemptive. The opportunity to thumb their nose at a white America that has historically and heinously discredited everything brown and black is too tempting. Not only do black people want to be led by someone who they can identify with, but also, by somebody who can identify with them. And since there are many white people who are equally enamored with Obama, his viability is further validated and the awe compounded.
Now all that is needed is an Obama music video, some footage of him playing basketball, and a video snippet of him doing the Electric Slide while saying “Yes I Can”, and it will be official. Well, two out of the three isn’t bad.
As an unfortunate result however, any black person who is not enthralled by Obama, who asks the black community to be even more skeptical and dubious of Obama’s wide acceptance given the history of an American government that has the propensity to use minorities when convenient….who decrees the use of “accountability” as being the true test of “integrity” and the revealer of intent as Tavis Smiley attempted to do…..is immediately perceived as a sell-out, a trader, a “crab-in-the-bucket”, a detractor; someone who is not for the advancement of the black community; suggesting that any line-of-thought that does not follow the black status quo is divisive and non-constructive. The ideology becomes “either you are with us….. or you are against us.”
Resultantly, reason succumbs to reverence.
Consequently, since Hillary is white, and has the perception of being calculating and opportunistic, many blacks have come to expect more of the same, which is the very reason her recent “misspoken” comment (more commonly know as a “lie”) regarding her vivid and repeated recollection of being under sniper attack in Bosnia was shrugged off as “typical Hillary”; alluding to the known and common tactics of political embellishments and habitual lying all for the sake of winning. It is the “political” way.
“The political has noting in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim [the people], but we must in no wise be guided by them.” - Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion (Protocol #1)
But aren’t Obama and Clinton both politicians??? Yes, they are!
Since the word “politician” has come to be synonymous to lies, deceit, corruption, and conspiracy, the most successful politician will be the one who can appear the least like one. The pundit will need to appear more personable than political; more charismatic than conniving; and this is largely where Obama prevails and where Clinton falters.
Obama’s political history - or lack thereof - gives little for those to check against the perception that he has created, with the exception of the two books that he has written; while Hillary’s political history lends a trail to remind us just how much of a politician she truly is, despite the book that she has written.
But in all honesty, what person casts himself/herself in a negative light in an autobiography, particularly when they are seeking a role of political leadership? No one! Even if one admits to various indiscretions and improprieties (which they most often do), it is always followed and ended in an commendable and praiseworthy “lesson learned”; an inadvertent stumble to contribute to forming the wonderful person that he/she is today.
Even Hitler portrays himself as a valiant hero in his semi-autobiography, Mein Kampf. Therefore, an autobiography serves to be no more than personalized propaganda use to create a desired perception.
Simply put, Obama just may be a better “politician” than Hillary….but that is not necessarily a good thing.
But with an empowered, informed, and thinking populace, the power and lure of politics wanes, which is the very reason that people like Tavis Smiley are so important and necessary, even if you don’t agree with their points-of-view and opinions.
Personally speaking, I’m not the biggest Tavis Smiley fan in the world; however, I do recognize and appreciate his contributions by way of his willingness to facilitate open, intelligent, discussions and interviews with various people of all colors, cultures, characters, and creeds.
At a bare minimum – at least for on open-minded community – such insights provide for opportunities of reflective thought, dialogue and discussion; something that the propagandistic, one-way media does not provide. This is the only way that we can grow as community; through open communication that is founded in “principle”, not “perception”.
Open your mind. You just might learn something.
“The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.” – Mahatma Gandhi
As a result, Obama gets a pass from the black community at large, even when he “misspeaks”. Case in point: Obama recently referred to his Caucasian grandmother as a “typical white person”. Although this comment is blatantly stereotypical, many black people turned a deaf ear; possibly because many of them can also relate to this comment, resultantly serving as a confirmation for them that “Barack is truly one of us…..truly one who understands the Black plight.”
Now, imagine if Hillary – or any other white politician for that matter – referred to another African American as a “typical black person”. Many in the black community would most certainly be incensed and offended, and would likely accuse the offender of being racist.
So, is Obama a racist, or was it just a Freudian slip? Maybe it was both. Like the old saying goes “If it isn’t in you, then it won’t come out of you.” But when the comment comes from somebody we admire, we tend to look the other way and not hold them accountable to principle, because again, we are more driven by perceptions. You can say or do something bad as long as you continue to look good.
For many black people, the possibility of seeing a black man in the role of President is too alluring. The excitement of a black man achieving such heights in America is redemptive. The opportunity to thumb their nose at a white America that has historically and heinously discredited everything brown and black is too tempting. Not only do black people want to be led by someone who they can identify with, but also, by somebody who can identify with them. And since there are many white people who are equally enamored with Obama, his viability is further validated and the awe compounded.
Now all that is needed is an Obama music video, some footage of him playing basketball, and a video snippet of him doing the Electric Slide while saying “Yes I Can”, and it will be official. Well, two out of the three isn’t bad.
As an unfortunate result however, any black person who is not enthralled by Obama, who asks the black community to be even more skeptical and dubious of Obama’s wide acceptance given the history of an American government that has the propensity to use minorities when convenient….who decrees the use of “accountability” as being the true test of “integrity” and the revealer of intent as Tavis Smiley attempted to do…..is immediately perceived as a sell-out, a trader, a “crab-in-the-bucket”, a detractor; someone who is not for the advancement of the black community; suggesting that any line-of-thought that does not follow the black status quo is divisive and non-constructive. The ideology becomes “either you are with us….. or you are against us.”
Resultantly, reason succumbs to reverence.
Consequently, since Hillary is white, and has the perception of being calculating and opportunistic, many blacks have come to expect more of the same, which is the very reason her recent “misspoken” comment (more commonly know as a “lie”) regarding her vivid and repeated recollection of being under sniper attack in Bosnia was shrugged off as “typical Hillary”; alluding to the known and common tactics of political embellishments and habitual lying all for the sake of winning. It is the “political” way.
“The political has noting in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim [the people], but we must in no wise be guided by them.” - Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion (Protocol #1)
But aren’t Obama and Clinton both politicians??? Yes, they are!
Since the word “politician” has come to be synonymous to lies, deceit, corruption, and conspiracy, the most successful politician will be the one who can appear the least like one. The pundit will need to appear more personable than political; more charismatic than conniving; and this is largely where Obama prevails and where Clinton falters.
Obama’s political history - or lack thereof - gives little for those to check against the perception that he has created, with the exception of the two books that he has written; while Hillary’s political history lends a trail to remind us just how much of a politician she truly is, despite the book that she has written.
But in all honesty, what person casts himself/herself in a negative light in an autobiography, particularly when they are seeking a role of political leadership? No one! Even if one admits to various indiscretions and improprieties (which they most often do), it is always followed and ended in an commendable and praiseworthy “lesson learned”; an inadvertent stumble to contribute to forming the wonderful person that he/she is today.
Even Hitler portrays himself as a valiant hero in his semi-autobiography, Mein Kampf. Therefore, an autobiography serves to be no more than personalized propaganda use to create a desired perception.
Simply put, Obama just may be a better “politician” than Hillary….but that is not necessarily a good thing.
But with an empowered, informed, and thinking populace, the power and lure of politics wanes, which is the very reason that people like Tavis Smiley are so important and necessary, even if you don’t agree with their points-of-view and opinions.
Personally speaking, I’m not the biggest Tavis Smiley fan in the world; however, I do recognize and appreciate his contributions by way of his willingness to facilitate open, intelligent, discussions and interviews with various people of all colors, cultures, characters, and creeds.
At a bare minimum – at least for on open-minded community – such insights provide for opportunities of reflective thought, dialogue and discussion; something that the propagandistic, one-way media does not provide. This is the only way that we can grow as community; through open communication that is founded in “principle”, not “perception”.
Open your mind. You just might learn something.
“The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Tungz
No comments:
Post a Comment