Do Racial Issues Simply Go Away If You Don't Talk About Them? (3/13/2009)

Race in America is undoubtedly the most peculiar phenomenon in modern history. Based on all that I've seen or heard lately, race appears to be the only problem, issue or negative circumstance that can be strategically changed or eliminated without discussing it, at all.

At least, that's what the President of the United States said last week.

For those who have been out of the room or not paying attention, you should know that, on March 7, Mr. Obama finally decided to comment on Attorney General Eric Holder's courageous and insightful Black History Month speech, the one in which he called the U.S. "A nation of cowards" with regard to discussions about race.

The President made his comment a full 16 days after Holder made his remarks, which led to the Attorney General taking all sorts of political heat from conservatives, media commentators and uninformed people all over the country, in the interim.

Sixteen days!

What took the President so long to offer an opinion on this critical issue? I'm sure he's been very busy, but...man!

Did it take that long for his "advisors" to figure out how best to respond? It shouldn't have. But, then, again, now that we've seen what the "first black president" finally did say it may have been better, after all, if he had continued to say nothing about the subject.

Whether you like it or not, here is what the President actually said about Holder's remarks, after stalling for more than two weeks: "I'm not somebody that believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tension. I think that fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care and ensuring that every kid is learning out there" will resolve the issue.

I guess the part of all of this that the President somehow misunderstands is that you have to do both--focus on all of those macro issues AND be very specific-- race-specific --in your programming, to ensure that black people won't be left out, once again, as "the rising tide lifts all boats." As we are well aware, the "tide" never seems to quite reach our neighborhoods. That's why we're generally so suspicious whenever we hear politicians give speeches like that.

Even worse, the President prefaced that extraordinarily illogical statement (i.e., that you can address racial issues without saying "race") by also stating for the record: "I think it is fair to say that if I had been advising my Attorney General, we would have used different language."

I guess that part of the statement was added to make it absolutely clear to us that the President not only disagreed with the Attorney General, but that he also had no prior indication that Holder was going to say what he said, in the first place.

To that, I say, once again...man!

Was that the "C bus," the "42," or the "23" rolling past the Attorney General's house? With those cold-blooded and dismissive comments by the Commander-in-Chief, Eric Holder, Jr. was very efficiently and unquestionably "thrown under the vehicle."

Did the President make it clear enough that he was "washing his hands" with regard to the subject and that other Obama appointees should also shy away from talking about racial issues, or risk, likewise, being publicly "spanked?" I think the media, at least, got that message, in no uncertain terms.

Judge for yourself. Here are a few of the headlines from the mainstream news coverage of the President's statement:

1. The Drudge Report: "Obama Counters Holder's Coward Comment;"
2. Fox News: "Obama Distances Himself From Holder;"
3. Associated Press: "Obama Gently Departs From Holder's Race Comment;"
4. Huffington Post: "Obama Chides Holder for Comments on Race;" and
5. MSNBC: "Obama Retreats from Holder's Race Comment"

Could it have been any clearer?

The strangest thing about the President's statement, as I alluded to earlier, is that it implies that "race" is an issue that can be addressed and overcome without ever mentioning it, at all. In my opinion, that makes no sense, whatsoever.

That's like saying that the President can resolve the nation's challenges in Afghanistan without saying the word "Afghanistan;" that he can figure out a way to give $700 billion to the nation's banks, in an attempt to cure the national financial crisis, without saying the word "bank."

Why is it okay for the President to say "Afghanistan," "banks," "women," "stem cell," "European economy," "Israel," "helicopter," "nuclear," "Iran," and "executive pay," but not okay to say "race" or "black people?"

How long does he expect us to hang on while he avoids dealing directly with our issues, given that we now have a national black unemployment rate that's grown to 13.4 percent; while our young (and older) people continue to be disproportionately incarcerated, even for the same non-violent crimes as whites: while our businesses, at the national level, still receive just .4 percent of the revenues that flow into all U.S. businesses; while our neighborhood schools continue to dramatically underperform, as to those compared in predominantly white neighborhoods?

How long will it take the new President, who, by all accounts, seems to be a consummate professional and a hard worker, to figure out that Eric Holder is right, that we absolutely do need to discuss "race" and its lingering, horrendously damaging implications for black communities and for the nation, as a whole?

With the glaring evidence that black communities are being disproportionately impacted by the economic recession, how can we not be concerned to see a Stimulus Bill, that was largely driven by him, that carries no diversity mandates, whatsoever, on the jobs or contracts that it will create?

More and more, it seems, we are running into people in the mainstream and also, regrettably, far too many blacks, who want us to believe that they simply don't see "race" or "color" or "blacks," any more. In their minds, it is perfectly acceptable to believe the lingering, race-based disparities can be eliminated without honest discussion, without a bit of discomfort and without a well-conceived plan.

In their minds, they freely acknowledge that there still may be race-based issues in the country, they simply don't "see" them. In fact, they say they're "color-blind." You've probably met with people like them, you may even work with them or for them.

When I see and hear the President and other like-minded people continue, somehow, to publicly deny the existence of race-based disparities and to continue to try to sell us the "look how far we've come" story, rather than offering a specific plan for how far we still have to go, I'm reminded of a statement by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of "Racism without Racists," as he describes a phenomenon called "color-blind racism."

According to Silva, this phenomenon has grown so dramatically in recent years, that "color-blind racism," in his opinion has "crystallized as the dominant racial ideology of the United States."

"Hence," says Bonilla-Silva, "the United States may be on its way to becoming a land of racism without racists, where people formerly known as blacks, Latinos and Asians, will still lag well behind people formerly known as whites. Yet, this inequality, formerly known as racial, will no longer be interpreted as such because Americans will believe...that they live in the best of all possible worlds."

Man...I couldn't have said it better myself.


###########