Former President Jimmy Carter’s statement (NBC, 9/15/09) that “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” has generated widespread discussion in the corporate media. But few of the many analyses of Carter’s remarks give you much of a sense of why one might think that many of Obama’s foes are motivated by racism.
No one can look into another person’s heart, of course. But many of Obama’s most prominent critics have talked enough about the president and race to provide plenty of evidence about where they’re coming from. And no one has been more revealing of their inner demons than Rush Limbaugh; who can forget this classic too-much-information rant?
We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president.
Strikingly, the same day Carter made his supposedly controversial comments about racism and Obama critics, Limbaugh (9/15/09) was engaged in all-out race-baiting over a schoolbus fight that was initially reported as a racial incident:
It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white.
If that’s not an expression of a racial animus, what would qualify? Why is it more controversial to criticize people who issue hateful rants like this than it is to make them in the first place?
Unfortunately anything to do with race relations in America causes people to shut down and scream, “I’m not racist!” But Jimmy Carter spoke about it from a place of “unbiased opinion”; and that’s something black people can’t do these days. Our accounts of racism are “foggy”, “clouded”, “biased”, or “manipulative”, and sometimes it takes a guy who looks like Jimmy Carter, someone who has achieved what he has, to make such a statement and be taken seriously.
Can I toss in my grossly overvalued two cents?
I grew up in Miss’ssippi in the ’60s, which doesn’t make my experience with racism that much different from someone in New York or California – aside from the blatant nature and intensity of it.
My daddy was a member of the White Citizens Council – not unusual for a middle class white male in the state at the time. So that shit soaks into you from a very young age.
So I don’t think I ever can be anything other than a “recovering” racist – always on guard for the residual effects of my upbringing.
That said, I try not to cut any slack for fools and villains (and the president is both, as is the erstwhile peanut farmer from Georgia – a little less so than decades ago, I suppose) who happen to have a darker skin pigment than myself. I think one of the major mistakes of “progressives” is to engage in just that sort of knee-jerk defense, as FAIR often does, of Obama and others like him, when the reactionaries attack them.
Call those bastards on their lies – but also call black “lib’ruls” on theirs. It’s not helping black folks, brown folks, red folks, yellow folks or white folks to pretend Obama, Holder, Sotomayor – or Jesse Jackson and others somewhat better than the administration sellouts – are acting in our best interests, when any empirical reading of the facts makes goddamn plain they’re not.
I’m not sure how much sense this is making, but the bottom line is that you look at the bottom line: who wins and who loses.
With the empire – whatever the hue of those who promote it – we, the disempowered of the world, lose.
And time’s running out, big time.
I live in La Ciudad De Panama. I’m sitting at my desk reading American public affairs things because EVERYONE HAS TO BE AWARE OF THE EMPIRE AND ITS ISSUES.
I see every single person up on his or her horse preaching and celebrating. Meanwhile, tomorrow if I take my son to the mall to buy a toy, I’ll see something all of you talk about and none of you know the first thing about — 4 Blackwater contractors eating at Tony Roma’s. I would rather not have Blackwater contractors at the mall when I want to take my son to buy a toy.
This is a reality Americans will not deal with: When I see Barack Obama’s face, I see the face of tyranny. As bad as Bush was, he was not this aggressive with Latin America. Educate yourselves about Plan Colombia. Educate yourselves about the Chiquita/Drummond massacre, which SAINTLY Eric Holder was up to his eyeballs in. Educate yourselves about the F.T.A. with Peru, brought to them by Saintly Barack Obama and Saintly Tom Coburn, and what happened when Texaco wanted to clear out some jungle with PEOPLE LIVING THERE.
Stop lecturing. Stop being such prudes. Stop congratulating yourselves for being so “open-minded”. You talk talk talk talk about things you know nothing about and have no respect for any other culture. I want Saintly Jimmy Carter to hold a consciousness-raising seminar for me when Saintly Barack Obama said that Panamanians and Colombians were “evil” and “poisoning America with their drugs” and “corrupting our banking system with their money-laundering.”
Barack Obama and his glorious heritage are a joke to me with my Mediterranean complexion and “skin-suit” and to ALL Andinos Africanos and their brown “skin-suits”. We don’t want your racial poisons or fantasies or military or thugs or bankers. These arguments to me are offensive. I didn’t know who Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh even were until a month ago when the first of Obama’s storm-troopers arrived for New Plan Colombia.
If you’re going to run an empire, run an empire and stop looking for PRAISE.
Doug, I think you’ve got a very different idea of what a media watch group is supposed to do than we do. Your comments often strike me as boiling down to, “But don’t they sort of DESERVE to have media biased against them?”
Sorry Jim, Mr Evolved Progressive-Man, I understand EXACTLY what Doug Latimer means and I don’t know all of the references but his overall point is correct.
The USA is a tyrannical force in everybody’s lives. You can celebrate the tyrant if that makes you feel good. To me, he’s a pathetic coward just like the pathetic coward who preceded him, except THE SAINTLY NEW BEGINNINGS BARACK OBAMA has a more violent Latin policy than the coward who preceded him.
American “progressives” and “conservatives” alike are the face of tyranny to me. I know all about the Evangelical Extremists. That case is made. Dpne. They scare me. The case that isn’t made is that naive spoiled useless “liberals” are enabling the same tyranny that the Evangelical Extremists do.
I know you don’t believe me. I will do you a favor, though. Advice from a friend: It would not be wise for you to do any of your precious little imperialist “eco-tourism” in Latin America for the duration of the Obama DECADE.
I think you’re having an argument with someone else who isn’t here. Here’s the sort of criticism we do of U.S. coverage of Latin America; I think it’s hard to characterize it as celebrating liberal imperialism.
https://fair.org/index.php?page=18®ion_id=2
** Doug, I think you’ve got a very different idea of what a media watch group is supposed to do than we do. Your comments often strike me as boiling down to, “But don’t they sort of DESERVE to have media biased against them?” **
Jim, could you explain what you mean? I’m not sure how you interpreted my meaning as such. When shit goes down, point to the shitters – Demorat, Repugnacan, lib’rul, “centrist”, reactionary.
I thought I said to call Limbaugh et al on their racist horseshit, but put it in the context of an administration that won’t even *talk* about racism outside of an NAACP speech – then proceeds to make things even tougher for black (and all disempowered) folks once all the pretty words have been said.
Have you ever noticed that it’s groups like FAIR that point out the racism of the admin’s “opponents” (In quotes as, after all, they share the same basic goals, don’t they?) – while the White House spokesperson runs as far away from stating the bleeding obvious as his fashionably-outfitted legs will carry him?
Why do you think that is?
I don’t think they “DESERVE to have media biased against them”. I think we deserve to have the full context of all this – the appeals to racism and selfishness by the corpress, the gummint’s prostrate servitude to the gods of war and commerce, and an acute focus on the real victims of these crimes here and abroad.
Shouldn’t that be the purpose of a “progressive” media organization?
And Pana, muchas gracias, mi amigo, for the support.
(Hope I didn’t screw up the Spanish too badly. -g-)
And for both of us, perhaps you should consider the criticism before responding defensively to it. I can only speak for myself, but I’ve known of and valued FAIR since close to the beginning. You do a lot of good work – I wouldn’t post here or post your material from here and EXTRA! and the alerts et al at my dinky little blog if I thought otherwise.
But Jim, I’m sure you see the bullshit MoveOn and other Kool-Aid drinkers put out defending every goddamn thing this bastard does. You aren’t at that level, to be sure, but don’t you have to concede that your ‘tude toward Obama differs significantly from how you dealt with Dear Leader?
And ultimately, there’s not really a dime’s worth of difference between the two, is there – or I should say between the two halves of a horrible whole.
I think I’m being principled in my criticism, and invite you to point out where that’s not been the case. If so, I’ll gladly accept that criticism and work to correct myself.
Will you commit to the same?
For me, this is all about doing the best we can to make a better world – although the empirical evidence strongly suggests it’s a lost cause.
Still, whatcha gonna do?
Como no, Doug,’y bien ‘echo.
I don’t think they can respond to you or really to me. I went and looked at their Latin coverage. There’s a generally accurate assessment of the USA overly favorable of Colombia during the Pastrana and Uribe years (Conservadores PRO USA) verus the coverage of Chavez (PSdV ANTI-USA). Overwhelmingly so. And they draw the correct conclusion that Chavez is neither a dictator nor expansionist but they only deal with the USA media propaganda which they highlight perfectly.
You’d enjoy living in Caracas. All the the stuff about Chavez is total bullshit. At least in the cities and suburbs it’s a very prosperous country. Economically, I’d say that Chavez was both a classical monetarist and social democrat, but because they’ve been such fiends to hold off inflation, they have a huge budget surplus that can cover a generous social sector.
What’s missing is anything about Latin America after it became clear that Obama was not a very nice man at all with us. But there’s plenty of news. 60 minutes. The Delahunt sub-committee hearings. They could have covered all of that but it would have shown Obama behaving none to “liberally.”
My overall impression is that FAIR is not a worship site like moveon or the nation but it’s the same old thing about the Town people and that sort of thing.
I see Obama worse.than Bush of course but they’re both fascists.
Pana, I think the bottom line is that most all “liberals” and far too many “progressives” – wilfully or not – just can’t get their mind around the concept of one party with two wings, and that’s what we have here in the good ol’ US and A. Adding in race and background (“community organizer”) makes that even more difficult.
But you have to look at the facts on the ground. What the Clintons did in ’93, and what Obama’s doing today, has made goddamn certain that anything approaching quality universal health care won’t become a reality in the foreseeable future. It used to be the Democrats’ function in this country to occasionally make adjustments, such as the New Deal, when capitalism goes off the deep end greedwise, to open the safety valve to release a little steam so that any chance at real democracy gets strangled in the crib.
These days, there’s so little difference between the two parties – aside from a few social issues that are vital, but don’t get to the heart of power – that I’m not sure why there are two parties, other than to give the illusion of a choice in elections. I guess it’d be too hard to keep up the farce of democracy in a one-party state, wouldn’t it?
That’s domestically. As you say, when it comes to the empire, war is war, dead is dead – and both parties’ banners are soaked in the blood of innocents from Columbia to Afghanistan.
The choice for “progressives” is embodied in the words of the old union anthem …
“Which side are you on?”
People are dying, here and abroad.
It’s not about answering to you or me, is it? It’s about answering to the families of the dead who ask why you make distinctions among those who have destroyed their lives.
The bottom line is always those at the bottom.
gente – mi orgullo AfroCubanoAmericano — con sabor de Nueva Yor y Neuva Orleans, entiendes?
that said, i’ve been puzzled over why FAIR’s practice of exposing the racist subtext of the TeaBagger’s/Birther’s/Tenther’s rhetoric has drawn so much heat.
i’ll begin by laying down what i’m hearing so far: first out of the box, “Vibaku” suggests that only a white man like Jimmy Carter possesses the moral authority/objective legitimacy (w/other whites) to call out Limbaugh & his ilk; while “Doug Latimer” seems to think that damning reactionaries also has a chilling effect on deserved criticisms of the Obama administration; and mi hermana(?), “PanaSemitaSioinistaJamas,” grudgingly acknowledges FAIR’s effort to expose media’s inane reporting on the other Americas, but questions its ultimate usefulness for the anti-imperialist struggle. did i miss (or misrepresent) anything here?
i can certainly agree that talking about race/racism is something most Americans (and not a few Latinos) avoid, unless cornered. indeed, for most white-(often)male-Americans, race is a toxic term; anyone introducing race/racism to the conversation is immediately branded–whether they’re defending affirmative action, or talking about “mud people” and advocating war on “sand-niggers.” Americans are taught that a racist outcome is always linked to conscious racist intent. this is why Chief Justice Roberts can claim that the only way to create a Color Blind Society is to act as if it were already colorblind. but in this context, Robert’s plea for “racial neutrality” is merely another term for status quo.
the problem is, few folks (including our president) have more than a vague sense on what they’re talking about–sadly, it ain’t what we don’t know (about racism) that hurts us, it’s what we do (or think we) know that ain’t so.
too many of us accept the notion that “racism” is an individual shortcoming, a kind of sickness born of ignorance, a bad habit-of-mind. they look at the history of fighting racism in this country as a fairly straight-forward arc: from the slave quarter to the back of the bus into the Oval Office. we tend to dwell on overt expressions of racial animus (in the form of laws, words or behavior) consciously directed toward others of a different race as the essence of the racial contradiction. thus, we’re always looking for a Perpetrator to freely express our shock and disgust; no specific perpetrator, no clear intent, no harm/no foul. indeed, the fixation on creating a “colorblind, post-racial America” is a fantasy embraced/promoted by liberals and conservatives alike.
likewise, white racial identity has fueled periods of imperialist expansion (the serial land grabs and genocide of Manifest Destiny, assuming the White Man’s Burden celebrating conquests in Cuba and the Philippines, and the CIA-sponsored proxy wars in the Congo and Angola, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Afghanistan and Iran, to name but a few). and it’s hardly an accident that racism expressed abroad fuels racism at home.
but some of us understand racism in terms of historically-constituted arrangements of wealth and political power that have bequeathed a measure systematic advantage to most people identifying as “white,” and systematic disadvantage to most others classed “not-white.” and because these arrangements cover every conceivable aspect of human interaction, they are deemed “normal”–the real “invisible hand” regulating our social interactions over time. in fact, some have described “whiteness” as a form of real property, benefiting its owners in myriad ways, across generations.
[note: (1) being a “white person” was the original legal basis for all US citizenship from 1790-1952 (see Haney Lopez); & (2) positioning one’s group favorably, relative to “whites” and as far from “blacks” as possible, has always been a common theme of “the immigrant experience” (see Bonilla-Silva)]
during the ’08 presidential primaries, i referred to Obama as The Great White Hype: the Black man most able to make white folks comfortable w/his blackness. i questioned his positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his ill-advised vote on FISA, and his deafening silence on abusive police (Sean Bell’s shooting in NYC) and biased prosecution (Jenna Six, Louisiana). hwvr, my greatest concern was realized when Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and his enire generation of activists) under his campaign bus for voicing some inconvenient truths about the history and reality of US racism and militarism. but not only did he deny his mentor of 20 years, he belittled the man as that “crazy uncle” whose behavior sometimes embarrassed the family.
winding up: (1) for many of us, Obama’s proving not to be “the change we voted for” last year; (2) but recent events are demonstrating that racism is not an artifact of a shameful past, but an effective and reliable catalyst fomenting political reaction in the present; and (3) right-wing attacks on Obama are not just vilifying a black president, they’re a not-so-veiled demand for a return to the days when black men “knew their places” and the dire consequences for being “uppity.” can anyone assure me that someone inspired by those armed teabaggers will not eventually act out their own frustrations on the nearest available black man, woman, or child? like it or not, combating White Supremacy today means demonstrating broad and consistent opposition to racist rhetoric and actions, whenever and wherever they arise.
’nuff said? – tdp, Boston
I don’t know anyone who opposes Obama because of racism. I’m sure there are some who do, just as there are some who support him because of racism (because his being black makes him ‘better’ in some wholly undefinable way). Decrying those who oppose Obama as racists is a brutally cynical political move. Carter should be ashamed of himself.
Carter is right!
Those who dump on Jimmy Carter are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves. The following note tries to explain this point of view. It does not require a simple open mind an empathy for fellow Americans. The moral equivalence you place about excitement of Americans with the haters does not require one to speculate that there must be some racist haters, it stares you in the face – as you follow the Townhells and Becksonian Marches and Tea-Parties. Please ask questions or make comments without resorting to cheap unsubstantiated statements.
It is unwise of the MSM to accept the GOP propaganda that, President Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks on vestiges of racism still afflicting our country, are Democratic Propaganda to divert attention from the real issues. JC is an independent thinker, not a water carrier for Dems. His remarks were thoughtful & deeply felt. He was anguished by the visceral hatred of the President himself demonstrated by some (not all) people purportedly protesting his policies.
An example of the distortion by GOPsters, readily eaten up by MSM, is quoting JC: â┚¬Ã…“overwhelming portion of those protestingâ┚¬Ã‚ have an element of racism. What JC actually said was â┚¬Ã…“overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Obamaâ┚¬Ã‚ is race basedâ┚¬Ã‚Â.
[Majority of protesters] v/s [Majority of those demonstrating intense animosity toward the President]. Minor change of words or turning the whole spirit on its ear?
Jim Clyburn makes a mistake when he asks the President to address the issue and not â┚¬Ã…“let it festerâ┚¬Ã‚Â. Prez has on his plate too many issues of immediate national importance. It is irresponsible to ask his lead on every issue. The country is not devoid of leadership outside the Whitehouse, to tackle the moral issues affecting the country. Please note that Gandhi was not an official functionary inside the Congress Party or the Govt. It is the responsibility of the Social/Political Leaders and MSM opinion makers to conduct a solid discussion of and bring some progress in this charged but critical issue. These Illuminati & Literati have a duty to separate reality from false diversionary propaganda by reactionary forces. If we respected Jimmy Carter’s sage comments and looked at him for moral leadership instead of trying to dump him into the discard pile (MSM is the #1 culprit), we might yet have another Gandhi, unfortunately only his sunset years.
For an insight into state of the MSM today v/s that during Walter Cronkite days please look for the relevant section of Rick Perlstein’s recent article in WAPO. ~ http://is.gd/2OAz8
Hopefully the following note describes the lack of wisdom for any American to dump on President Carter who makes the country proud in the eyes of people whole world. Of course from the ugly tone I notice in the hate speech featuring vulgarities in many apparently unmoderated comments above. It is a blemish on the good name of US of A, to see some people missing the opportunity for introspection and reflection about what we can do to rid our country of the blemish represented by the vestiges of the ugly phenomenon. In the sixties we, at least most us, rejoiced in reaching major milestones in the struggle which began with Abraham Lincoln’s initiatives. If some body bothers to reply, please refrain from using the obscenities and please do not make cheap unsubstantiated comments.
My comment on Jimmy Carter’s remarks on rvestiges of racism:
———————————————————————
It is unwise of the MSM to accept the GOP propaganda that, President Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks on vestiges of racism still afflicting our country, are Democratic Propaganda to divert attention from the real issues. JC is an independent thinker, not a water carrier for Dems. His remarks were thoughtful & deeply felt. He was anguished by the visceral hatred of the President himself demonstrated by some (not all) people purportedly protesting his policies.
An example of the distortion by GOPsters, readily eaten up by MSM, is quoting JC: â┚¬Ã…“overwhelming portion of those protestingâ┚¬Ã‚ have an element of racism. What JC actually said was â┚¬Ã…“overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Obamaâ┚¬Ã‚ is race basedâ┚¬Ã‚Â.
[Majority of protesters] v/s [Majority of those demonstrating intense animosity toward the President]. Minor change of words or turning the whole spirit on its ear?
Jim Clyburn makes a mistake when he asks the President to address the issue and not â┚¬Ã…“let it festerâ┚¬Ã‚Â. Prez has on his plate too many issues of immediate national importance. It is irresponsible to ask his lead on every issue. The country is not devoid of leadership outside the Whitehouse, to tackle the moral issues affecting the country. Please note that Gandhi was not an official functionary inside the Congress Party or the Govt. It is the responsibility of the Social/Political Leaders and MSM opinion makers to conduct a solid discussion of and bring some progress in this charged but critical issue. These Illuminati & Literati have a duty to separate reality from false diversionary propaganda by reactionary forces. If we respected Jimmy Carter’s sage comments and looked at him for moral leadership instead of trying to dump him into the discard pile (MSM is the #1 culprit), we might yet have another Gandhi, unfortunately only his sunset years.
For an insight into state of the MSM today v/s that during Walter Cronkite days please look for the relevant section of Rick Perlstein’s recent article in WAPO. ~ http://is.gd/2OAz8
Criticizing is one thing, theatrics and whackjobs are another and those, you can rest assured, are doing it for all the wrong reasons and, yeah, racism is the first of them.
That racism is a factor in the hate directed at Obama is inarguable. BUT, the most important factor in the movement against anything remotely progressive is class war.
Look at Bill Clinton’s entire eight years in office and you see some of the most vicious, hateful, and dishonest behavior in my 50-odd years of political awareness. Yet Clinton was white and, at most, centrist in his politics. He was labeled a rapist, a multiple murderer (not in the foreign-policy sector, where he *was* a murderer), a drug runner. The attacks on Hillary were horrifically misogynist.
What this tells me is that the racism factor is just another tactic used by the ruling class and their lackeys for the same old purposes. They will and do use whatever is handy to maintain their power.
I see nothing in what Pana and Doug said that is wrong. They are keeping their eyes on the prize: real progress. Obama is another lackey for the ruling class, as is only too evident from what he supports (giving away the treasury to the banksters) and what he opposes (defending union contracts for autoworkers).
Obama is in favor of war, torture, corporate oligarchy; against workers’ rights, a legitimate justice system, real climate change, real health care, etc., etc., and so forth.
One small difference, actually: Sotomayor took the opportunity of her first case to state that corporate personhood is a fraud. This is not trivial, in my eyes.
CARTER IS RIGHT; INDEED!
PanaSemita: Although I do agree with your principal that the US has devastating policies towards Latin America, blaming Obama for FTA is wrong. FTA was signed in by Bush. Secondly, wasn’t it the Bush administration who financed a coop against a democratically elected president- Chavez. Bush good (or not as bad as Obama) for S. America??!!!! Where do you get your information from Fox?
Sorry to go off topic. I think Fair should do more on exposing racism on both sides. Just look at Obama’s knee jerk reaction about Officer Crowley for arresting his buddy Professor Gates. Boy did Obama put his foot in his mouth. Now I do not know if this was just a bad opinion of Obamas based on Gates status or there was some racial motivation. It seems like calling the police stupid because the suspect was a black intellectual and the cop was white could have some racial overtones. Again I cannot look into Obama’s mind but shouldn’t someone on the progressive side call him out on this?
See this is why a lot of white America will not listen to progressive media. Fine, point out the faults of white America. That is what the media is for. If you are truly an unbiased media outlet be just that, unbiased. Point out the faults of others and 60+% of America might begin to listen and react.
What about Van Jones, Obama’s Green jobs appointee? That was nice of him to label white people as the only mass murders. It is fact that 15% of all mass/serial killers are black which happens to be very close to the percentage of the US population that is black. Now Obama appoints him and you hear nothing about his shortcomings in the progressive media.
Carter could very well be right about Wilson but don’t stop there!
When Mr. Carter specifically laid out who he saw as racist I knew his nuance would be paved over into gross generalities—then attacked. He never said they all were or that anyone who criticized Obama and his policies as racist. Only certain among the top most vile attackers showed it was more than just what he was doing. From the ‘birthers’ onward.
Van Jones was talking about environmental racism, not serial killers. The poor would get to be host to toxic unregulated dump sites. Most of them were people of color. What attacks do you mean?
Everyone is biased. That is the lie you have been fed. The ability to lay out all the facts and points of view means you are neutral, not un-biased.
I criticize Obama for his reich wing slant and keeping the fascist polices from the previous administration. I give it to him the way I would give to Reagan or Bush (I&II) and Clinton et al. I don’t care about his personality or his appearance it is what he does as a politico that I care about as should everyone else.
Please give me a break . Why can’t people get above and beyond the issue of race and for Gods sake what’s race,why not use the word population group? The word race has a bad ring to it it’s like speaking of another breed,cat,dog etc….It’s always about the same subject if we all would just judge everyone by his deed the world would be a better place!And that goes for every politician!!!!!!!!!!! and mankind.