Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."

Saturday, July 20, 2013

"He Spoke Plain Truth"

President Obama's impromptu remarks yesterday on the Trayvon Martin case: 


 "But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away. There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. And there are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. And you know, I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case. "



After this heartbreakingly honest impromptu speech, the flying monkeys were let loose from the rightwing blogsphere, screeching, honking, and wailing that President Obama is Divisive! Racist! Narcissistic! And other words not fit to print.

But what President Obama spoke is the plain truth.  And damn those who can't handle the truth.  He spoke with sincerity and with a depth of feeling because he has had the awful experience of being a black youth and man in America.  He has had the experience of walking while being black, and he's seen what can happen when a teen, minding his own business, acting without malice, can be profiled, and lose his life.

For those who will come here and go off on how bad the black on black and black on white crime is here in America, save your fingers.  It's not the president's job to control crime in America's cities and towns, it's the job of law enforcement and the mayors of those cities and town.  

The president spoke, to me anyway, of injustices people suffer because of the color of their skin; and to those who will say things are better than they were during Jim Crow when African-Americans were routinely beaten, tortured, and murdered in the south, with impunity, I say that there is still that element in our American consciousness that a black man or woman is not fully "one of us." 

No other president in the history of this country has had to deal with the disgracefully racist birther issue, and no other president in the history of this country looked like President Obama.  

Also, this president urges young men and women--and that means African-American youth--to stay in school, study hard, be responsible young people.  I've read speeches where he emphasizes the importance of doing the right thing and avoiding the wrong.  Some African-American advocacy groups actually FAULT President Obama because he always targets, in particular, the black community to BE responsible.  But the folks who went coo-coo bananas over President Obama's speech don't know that, and they don't care to know this fact, because it would create cognitive dissonance in their determination to demonize this man.

I applaud President Obama for being honest with the American people and for saying what needed to be said and in the way he said it:  from his heart.

As always, the great Charlie Pierce expresses it perfectly:

"But this swill is going to get some traction in more respectable circles because, in making those remarks, and in sounding for one of the very few times like what once was called a Race Man, the president broke what a lot of people assumed was a covenant he'd made with them when they permitted him to be president. 

That covenant was fashioned for him during his speech to the Democratic convention in Boston, wherein he told a divided country everything it really wanted to hear about itself. He was going to be the living demonstration of the progress the nation had made. His job, in addition to being president, was going to be as a redemptive figure. That was the deal by which the country would allow him to be its president. 

 I always thought that speech was overrated. I thought it was dreamy utopian nonsense that did not take into account the well-financed virulence that would be brought to bear on him, and on his policies, and on his entire public career. (I think the fact that he bought it has a lot to do with how stuck in the mud his administration has been, and is, on several important issues.) 

Remember, in his big speech on race during the campaign, he made it a point to mention how his grandmother would tense up when she saw black men on the street. That was the Barack Obama of the 2004 speech. That was the Barack Obama of the redemptive covenant. That was how the country would allow him to speak on race, if he wanted to be its president. 

Today, there was none of that. He didn't even obliquely try to justify sidewalk profiling of the kind that set off the chain of circumstances by which Trayvon Martin was made dead. 

He spoke plain truth, and the reason you know it is so many smart people already are saying how politically unwise it was that he spoke at all. He broke the covenant, once and for all, which ought not to matter, because it was counterfeit all along."


Also, on another note, Dan Riehl is an exquisitely clueless, moronic wingnut not fit to own a box of crayons, let alone an internet platform for spreading his stupidity:

"White victimhood has become the cause du jour for many on the political right and nowhere was it more evident than in a tweet from influential conservative blogger Dan Riehl who tweeted “If you ever had any doubts, Obama is the first Racist in Chief.”


In the delusional white mind of Mr. Riehl no president in our history has ever been as racist as Mr. Obama whose apparent verbal hate crime is that he had the temerity to point out that 35 years ago he was a black teenager. Wow, has any President ever done anything so racist in the history of our nation?

Well, actually yes. Worse even. Much worse.

 Perhaps Mr. Riehl maybe has not heard of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk or Zachary Taylor. All eight of these men owned black slaves while they were President.

 However, in Riehl’s world maybe there is nothing racist about owning people as chattel property based on the color of their skin. Maybe Mr. Riehl is also oblivious to presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren forcibly removing 15,000 American Indians from their homes in the Trail of Tears.

In addition, Dan Riehl is no doubt unaware that Woodrow Wilson screened the pro Ku Klux Klan movie “Birth of the Nation” at the White House and gave it enthusiastic reviews. Two thumbs up from the then Racist in Chief. Maybe Dan also forgot that FDR signed an executive order to put Japanese Americans in internment camps. I suppose Mr. Riehl has been so isolated from access to historical documents that he also never heard Richard Nixon on tape spewing racist venom. 

 And let us not leave out Dan Riehl’s presidential hero, Ronald Reagan who stereotyped black “welfare queens” to rally aggrieved racist white voters to embrace his campaign. Prior to becoming President, Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, calling them “humiliating” to the South. 

According to Lisa Mcgirr, in the book Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right, when Reagan campaigned for governor of California in 1966 he vowed to eliminate the state’s Fair Housing Act proclaiming that “if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.”

31 comments:

Carlo Fortunato said...

The most obvious demonstration of racism is this idea that black people shouldn't be allowed to mention it.

Les Carpenter said...

And the most obvious expression of reverse racism is the idea white folks shouldn't be allowed to mention it.

Slavery By Another Name said...

White folks practiced racism for the greater part of this country's history. Sure there are blacks who dislike whites. Can you have any understanding of why that may be? Any?

Were white majorities ever held as chattel to be bought and sold, beaten and murdered?

As recently as 50 years ago, African-Americans had to have a freaking president of the United States pass a law that guaranteed them the right to vote in their own g-d country, for chrissake! Did that happen to white Americans? NO! White Americans had White Privilege. They were never denied their right to vote because of the color of their skin.

Black Americans were denied for decades and decades after their emancipation the right to attend public schools to which they paid their taxes along with white citizens. Yet they were not allowed to attend those public schools.

Are white males automatically suspected of being criminals when they walk down the street in daylight or at night?

As recently as the 20th century there was slavery by another name practiced in this country. Did that happen to the white prison population in the numbers that it happened to the black prison population.

Do you even fucking know that it happened? Do you even care?

Does it every occur to a white person how the things documented above can grind down an entire population, strip them of dignity, and leave them with the idea that they are worthless and not worthy of what White Americans take for granted?

Do you every think of that?

Any time the truth about racism in this country is spoken, a white man or women cries about "reverse racism."

It's bullshit and it's ignorance of the highest order.

Sue said...

Excellent Shaw, EXCELLENT!

We'll just continue on heaping praise and adoration on our president and his family. His talk yesterday was from his heart, it touched me and many with open minds and hearts. Only the hateful, the racists and the white supremacists had a problem with it. Oh well....

Les Carpenter said...

What is bullshit of the highest order is the denial that racism and reverse racism exists.

I find racism of any nature reprehensible, period. End of argument.

I also find open discussion of race issues to be advisable. When appropriate. In the proper setting.

Do I know what happened? Yes. Do I care? Yes.

Does that mean I, or anyone else that may have a slightly different take on the Zimmerman verdict is racist or stupid? No, it does not.

Pointing out ANY differences from the left's view of the verdict is considered by the left both racist and stupid.

You fit in the choir of the left nicely. I on the other hand do not fit in the choir of the right at all.

The view not being accepted in the choir of the left or the choir of the right s MUCH better. More reasonable too.

More later I'm sure...

Slavery By Another Name said...

Comment wasn't about GZ or TM it was about the history of White Privilege and racism in America, which was obviously too subtle for your understanding...you fit in the rightwing choir perfectly you should be the choir director you sing so well their tunes.

A Cop From MN said...

"I on the other hand do not fit in the choir of the right at all."

You called the presidents speech "race baiting" on your blog. That's exactly what the right is saying.

It's not race baiting to speak facts about the suspicion blacks are held by the police, the justice system and Americans in general.

Do you deny what the president was talking about? Driving while black. Profiling blacks as more dangerous than whites and more capable of doing illegal acts than whites? He's correct, that is what happens. Find out the statistics, the truth.

Your view that not being part of either choir is correct, but by reading your blog, you are part of the choir on the right. Not only because of your post today, but reading your blog going back two years, including the remark about Jews, which apparently just by mentioning, this comment will not be published. Your posts praising people like Rep. (commie counting) West, Palin, your staunch support for Reagan even after 30 years that proved his policies wrong and harmful to the US, and other obvious kooks, tells me you carry water for the right. Yet, you dishonestly portray yourself as being neutral. You don't read your own posts.

Les Carpenter said...

Yep, whatever your delusions.

Les Carpenter said...

Yep, whatever your delusions.

Anonymous said...

"Sean Hannity Asks If Obama Is Like Trayvon Martin Because 'He Smoked Pot' And 'Did A Little Blow'"


No, that would be George W. Bush, who did a ton of blow and was a falling down drunk.

But Jesus saved his rich white ass so, hey, he got to be preznit!

Anonymous said...

Hannity is an ass, just for starters.

Obama smoked weed, who knows what else.

Who fucking cares?

More important matters to be concerened with.

Except for lunkheads. Which come in all shapes and sizes.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Shaw: ...the flying monkeys were let loose from the rightwing blogsphere, screeching, honking, and wailing that President Obama is Divisive! Racist! Narcissistic! And other words not fit to print.

A comment on my blog suggested our president is trying to start a "race war". here isn't going to be any "race war". If some racists riot I certainly will not be participating. And I will cheer when they are arrested and hauled off to jail (where they will have to join the Aryan Nation for protection).

I recognize the absolute truth in our president's statement and say "well said sir". Our laws (stand your ground in this case) and the cops (who perceived Zimmerman to be White) are clearly racist toward Black people. This is a fact that rational thinking people can't deny. It's time to do something about it.

Unfortunately one side is determined to move backward and not forward... the Republicans. This would be the same Republican Party that rushed (in some states) to reinstitute Jim Crow type voting restrictions after the Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the voting rights act.

Fortunately the old racists are dying off and the younger generation is less inclined to share the biases of their elders. Minority populations are growing and the Repubs are doing noting to win their votes. All good news for future Democratic victories. Then, hopefully, we can get to work and strive toward greater equality with less obstruction from the Party that is actively seeking to increase inequality.

"Reverse racism" is anger at being oppressed/discriminated against. As such it is an utterly BS term, IMO. People who use it do so because they can't (or refuse) to view the issue from other side... the victims of racism (real racism, not phony "reverse racism").

A Cop From MN said...

Not my delusions, your words. I am correct, or you might respond with something more than insults.

Josh said...

I don't begrudge the President's speech. He's in a unique, unprecedented position. And there's no surprise that he's a very liberal-minded individual on these matters. So I couldn't rightly hold his feet to the proverbial fire for opinions that I don't necessarily agree with wholeheartedly.

The bone I have to pick is minor, I suppose, and that's the extreme irony in stereotyping an entire people, an entire nation, and then turning right around and complaining about profiling. (And I mean people in general, not just Obama here.)

Assuming that the majority of black people are the same and have had the same experiences goes deeper than Mr. Obama's personal experiences and the experiences of some in his age group.

Implying that most black people are victims of racism is implying that the whole of America, no matter where you find black people, is still racist.

That's awfully divisive, despite the calm delivery. That's blanketing most non-blacks as racists, pure and simple, and also setting it up to be inferred that the definition of racism is strictly any race other than black discriminating against blacks.

Do blacks get profiled more than other races? I certainly believe it to be so.

Is there a thug-like image that follows young black men around when they dress per the latest urban fashions? I'd agree yes.

But in this day and age, do most black people get discriminated against? With as widespread as black people are throughout this nation, do most have similar experiences?

I guess it depends on one's standards, on how one defines discrimination; i.e. the racism that people call "coded" or "hidden," or the fact that skin color is often the only thing looked at if a black person is followed or pulled over or asked for ID.

That is not always necessarily race-based.

It has been, can be, and in instances will continue to be, but it is not necessarily so.

So, that anecdotal things could be extrapolated so broadly over millions upon millions of people -- well, suffice it to say that I wish Obama would have better qualified by following up with what he and likeminded individuals consider to be discrimination based solely on skin color.

Because no matter where you fall on the ideological spectrum, those standards have most certainly changed. These days, if you make the mistake of saying a word like "chicken" in the same paragraph with "black" you might be dragged through the mud as a racist. That's how sensitive the issue of race has become.

People rarely look at the context of particular situations anymore. A lot of folks look only at the color of someone's skin to make the determination whether or not race played a role.

So defining what discrimination actually is, as in having tangible, empirical evidence of it, is something I believe to be important. The "because it feels similar" and other emotionally-based reasons to call something racism is, in its truest sense, profiling.

So, a little deeper next time, please, Mr. President. This was too emotionally-driven for me. I wish he would have elaborated a lot more on the subject.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Here's a differing opinion:



Fox News’ Chris Wallace: Obama was not in any way ‘stoking racial tensions’ in his speech

Anonymous said...

The conservative pigs are at it again. Can they wallow any deeper into the feces than they already are?

Yes. And here's what they have to say:


beamish said...
See Imp's post and read it carefully, Z.

Trayvon's mommy is partying it up with celebrities now that she's "moved on from the verdict." I dare say she's more happy the little dirtbag is dead than the rest of us.

This ain't no tragedy. This is absurdia.

Anonymous said...

Nothing this president does is impromptu. Everything is planned and calculated and if he has no plan, he goes on vacation or campaigns.

He doesn't have press conferences even when Americans have been killed in foreign lands but he does when the news media jumps on racial injustice. He has comments about a cop being wrong admitting he does not know the facts or a son I would have had. It is somewhat understandable that he won because of race and he will continue to keep racial division as his theme.

Do you and he expect anyone to believe a mixed race individual raised by affluent white relatives and educated in private schools can relate to a poor black youth or the black nation as a whole.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Nothing this president does is impromptu. Everything is planned and calculated and if he has no plan, he goes on vacation or campaigns."


So tell us, Anon, how long have you lived inside President Obama's head?

BTW, if you believe that this is the only president, along with his staff, is the only president who plans what he'll do, then you re a strange, strange person, and probably not from this planet Or probably more accurate, woefully uninformed and naive.

"Do you and he expect anyone to believe a mixed race individual raised by affluent white relatives..."

President Obama was raised by his grandparents. His grandmother was a bank teller, and his father was a furniture salesman. Affluent? Only a whiney, pissed-off malcontent would call Mr. Obama's grandparents "affluent." The Bushes are affluent. Either you don't know the meaning of that word, or you're being willfully stupid.


"...and educated in private schools..."


Still pissed off that Obama got into a private school because he was smart, eh. Hundred of smart kids get into private schools if they earn scholarships. You got something against that? Or just that the black kid did it?

Come back when you have something intelligent to offer. Otherwise peddle your lies over in the rightwing blogsphere. They're not welcome here.

Anonymous said...

You are the one who posted "impromptu remarks" and when the fallacy it is pointed out you demean the person who pointed that fact out and deny what you posted.

Shaw Kenawe said...

What proof do you have that this was not an impromptu delivery. He was speaking from his heart.

Did you actually watch this speech? Of course not, at least not without bringing your cynicism to it.

It is you folks on the right who bellowed like gored bulls over something that was true and honest.


Which, of course, seems to be unacceptable from this particular man.

Anonymous said...

Most probable... remarks were prepared, as they are when the President in this setting. It is not unusual for them to deviate from prepared remarks when doing provides punch.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Interesting Obama failed to mention that 73% of black kids are born out of wedlock and over 90% of blacks who are murdered are killed by other blacks.Damn,all the blacks being killed by other blacks in Chicago must have slipped his mind.

Come to think of it the race hucksters Sharpton and Jackson never mention those facts either.Must not be any money in it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RS:

President Obama didn't mention what you hoped he would because he was not talking about crime stats, he was talking about Trayvon Martin and what it means to be a black youth or man in this country.

Neither I, nor anyone I'm afraid, can help you to understand that simple fact.



The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

I just posted an alternate narrative of what happened the night of Sunday 2/26/2012 at the Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford FL. George Zimmerman lied about many things, so why couldn't his version of events be mostly false? If you read please let me know what you think.

Rusty Shackelford said...


Hey sparky,you realize Mr.Zimmewrman was found innocent by way of self defense.Not stand your groung.The jury has spoken....deal with it....oh Carlos Danger.....

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

The Jeb Bush appointed Judge sent the jury to their deliberations with instructions that said "self-defense meant Zimmerman was entitled to stand his ground with no duty to retreat".

The "no duty to retreat" is SPECIFIC to the SYG law (it overrules the Castle Doctrine). GZ's lawyers may have not cited SYG, but THE JUDGE DID! And the cops let him go initially due to SYG.

BTW, is no such thing as an "innocent" verdict... Oh, Carlos Dummy.

Rusty Shackelford said...



DS,we thought you were now posting as "Carlos Danger?"

GZ's defense was.....self defense....obviously six outstanding Florida citizens felt Mr.Zimmermans actions were fully justfied and saw fit to free him.

In fact thank goodness George was free to be able to pull four thankfull people from a wrecked SUV,more then likely saving lives.He may be in line for a medal.

End result is Zimmerman is again out doing good deeds and a thug in training will never harm anyone.

And Carlos Danger,all your silly attempts to rewrite history with your make believe childish stories dont change a damn thing.

Anonymous said...

RS: "GZ's defense was.....self defense....obviously six outstanding Florida citizens felt Mr.Zimmermans actions were fully justfied and saw fit to free him."

Comedy gold!

"In fact thank goodness George was free to be able to pull four thankfull people from a wrecked SUV,more then likely saving lives.He may be in line for a medal.

Foolish gullible RS. You obviously haven't read what really happened.

Bwahahahahaha!

Hero? You mean like a sandwich full of baloney? That's more like it.

Ludoc said...

And your the condiments on the sandwich?

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Rusty Shackelford: DS, we thought you were now posting as "Carlos Danger?"

Nobody but you thought that, dumbass. That Zimmerman is a hero who roams the country doing good deeds is a moron's fantasy held by Rusty. George's actions were prompted by delusions of grandeur brought about by the jury decision to let him get away with murder.

BTW, that he got away with murder is the opinion of one of the "six outstanding Florida citizens" who served on his jury.

Ludoc said...

1 of 6, impressive. 5 of 6... Outstanding jurors differ. Time to get over it.