Here's a fun fact

Morning folks. Here's a quote that commenter Nquest and lot of us on the Obama bus will find interesting:

He has ventured into areas of criticism only he could get away with, unabashedly calling problems of individual conduct that bedevil the black community and the quality of urban life by extension. No white politician could presently challenge black people to get off drugs and raise the babies they make, to stop being lackadaisical in public school, to work their way out of problems rather than merely whine as they sullenly accept their conditions. Any white politician so bold would be shouted down as racist, or as one given to dangerous generalizations... He therefore has more than meager appeal to whites...

White conservative meditating on the effect of Bill Cosby telling black folks to stop blaming the white man? New York Times columnist reflecting on the impact of Barack Obama urging black America to take responsibility for its own problems?

Not quite.

More like black writer commenting on Jesse Jackson as he ran for president in 1988. Sorry I don't have a hyperlink. My man Jelani Cobb dug this up for a book he's working on. Most of you know I've been critical of Jesse--though not for the same reasons as most conservatives. Still, quotes like this serve as a useful corrective to this noxious notion that black people have, post-1968, been held captive by victimologists toting around a "culture of failure." More likely, media likes the victimology narrative because it offers a nice easy counterpoint to "individual responsibility." It also has the luxury of fitting in snug with the established, if crude, right/left paradigm. Of course this narrative does have one significant drawback--it ain't true.

Comments

Mr. Coates,

Sorry to do a bit of thread-jacking, but I posted this in the Nikki Tinker section from yesterday and decided to drag it up here.

I was wondering if I could get your take on Lacy Clay's comments when he decided not to allow Congressman Cohen join the CBC:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

My initial feelings are that it would be counterproductive to limit membership to the CBC based on race if white Reps wishing to join were doing so in good faith. Do you think Clay's decision is an attempt to ensure that white Reps cannot take credit for any policy gains the CBC makes? Would such semiological considerations be legitimate?

Posted by Scipione | August 8, 2008 10:09 AM

Commenting now. In the future, no need to hijack, just hit that "e-mail Ta-Nehisi" button. I usually respond.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | August 8, 2008 10:19 AM

Actually, rather than being untrue, I would argue that it's partially true, which is ultimately providing more cover for the get over it crowd. Everyone, white or black could be taking more responsibility for themselves and working harder. I think there's a substantial majority who wants to declare racism over and move on. It's easy to just say that we're past all that and it's time for people to take responsibility for themselves.

You could say that people are just making like ostriches and that's true. But it signals that it's time to move past a narrative of victimhood espoused by the civil rights generation into something more nuanced. Yes there are obviously still problems but let's talk about those rather than still pushing issues that are over. (ahem reparations). It seems like Obama is trying to strike out on some sort of modulated space even if he is currently sounding a bit like the get on with it crowd.

Posted by Nathan | August 8, 2008 10:57 AM

Ok, I'm confused. If that's what Jackson was doing in 88 - when I voted for him, btw - then what's with the nut-cutting?

Posted by Phoebe | August 8, 2008 11:18 AM

A distinction ought to be made between the rhetorical nods toward individual responsibility made by Jackson and Obama and the policies they intend(ed) to enact. Jackson has made a career of shaking down corporate America, and Obama's start in politics was as a "community organizer" -- someone who agitated to get tax payer money given to his poor, black constituents.

Obama is of course a smart politician, so he knows he can score points with mainstream whites by telling black audiences about the need for personal responsibility. But as a died-in-the-wool lefty, if he gets elected president, make no mistake: his aim will be to increase redistribution, not to berate blacks for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2008 11:34 AM

Fred,

the trouble with your post above, is most of the readers have also read your somewhat whining post about how you didn't get into Harvard because of AA, so we know you might not be quite so objective.

Even if Obama ends up more redistribution than Clinton, the idea that there is no gap between Jackson and Obama is ludicrous.

Posted by James | August 8, 2008 11:41 AM

that was well said Ta ! I'm really tired of cable news identifying and dumbing down what our positions should be. There is no either/or on this arugment, we're ALL accountable.

Posted by shani | August 8, 2008 12:15 PM

A distinction ought to be made between the rhetorical nods toward individual responsibility ... and Obama's start in politics was as a "community organizer" -- someone who agitated to get tax payer money given to his poor, black constituents.

Constituency-based procurement and policy enactment efforts (or "agitation" as you charmingly call it, a term that is positively loaded with unfortunate baggage) has a much more common name: lobbying.

This is not evidence of a victim's worldview, it is merely evidence of political participation.

as a died-in-the-wool lefty

Freudian slip? Liberals are not all bad people, even if they disagree with you.

Posted by Brad L | August 8, 2008 12:42 PM

The point of the quote is that white people are just not allowed to say some things that most black people know are true and agree with.

Posted by captcrisis | August 8, 2008 12:55 PM

Good point Brad. I guess those oil companies are lefty victimologists for demanding subsidies.

"the trouble with your post above, is most of the readers have also read your somewhat whining post about how you didn't get into Harvard because of AA, so we know you might not be quite so objective."

In addition, he has also stated he believes that the so-called "studies" showing black people are genetically stupider than white people are somehow factual.

Posted by Reality Man | August 8, 2008 1:31 PM

Reality Man,
Fred's story has been bothering me since it was brought up yesterday.

Here's Fred:

My test scores were high enough to get me into an Ivy League grad school if there were no affirmative action taking away spots from applicants like me. I know this, because I know the gender and racial background of the applicants, and I know what their average test scores were for different groups.

and

I applied to grad school at non-Harvard Ivies. My scores had to be higher than at least 99% of the female and minority applicants (since they were higher than 96% of the overall applicants).

This strikes me as either bunk or a bad misreading of the situation. Here’s why:

1. Even if the schools released average score information, it seems unlikely they released the raw distribution of scores. How can one look at an average score and know that they are in the top 96%?

2. Accepting that, it is even more surprising that they would do the same thing for applicants by race or gender. Why on earth would they?
And even if their averages were lower, that says nothing about the distribution of scores necessarily.

3. Even if all this were so, having a score in the top 4% of applicants to a number of schools, and not being selected by any of them (even factoring in some "unavailable" spots) is strange, and suggests there is a different sort of problem with the application.

My guess? My understanding is that most grad schools don’t make the same efforts as being needs-blind as undergrads do. Funding matters.

The irony, of course, would be staggering if Fred is blaming the wrong group of people entirely – "his" spot may have been taken by people with lower scores but more money. But there are other explanations: he might have had a non-score related weakness, or he may just have been supremely unlucky, though having a good fallback should have taken the sting of that away and given him a strong path to success.

Posted by Brad L | August 8, 2008 3:22 PM

Fred, the fact is; you make opportunities for yourself. Instead of complaining about others not "pulling themselves up by the bootstraps", maybe you could do some heavy lifting on your own. Piteous whiners like yourself will always find themselves under life's heel.

Posted by Life | August 8, 2008 5:41 PM

Thanks, Ta-Nehisi. I wasn't aware it. I am aware, however, that Jesse's presidential campaigns and his persona get a bad rap because of the way people like to pigeon public figures.

People have an issue with Jesse "shaking down" companies. Blame it on MLK. That kind of 'strategy' goes back to Operation Breadbasket which, of course, was fully endorsed by King.

Also, especially since John Edwards is in the news, Jesse's campaigns were more akin to Edwards. Jesse was a populist and Edwards is a poor-man's Jesse, IMO (pun/turn-of-phrase intended).

It would be an interesting history class to have right now: to pull out all the stuff that happened during Jesse's campaigns and compare and contrast it to Obama's in terms of how much race played a role.

I know Jesse had more than just a Farrakhan test. His was like a 80% of your grade final exam. I also remember all the "what does Jesse want?" stuff that was going on and, because of that, I do feel like Sen. Clinton was/is 'owed' something.

Posted by Nquest | August 8, 2008 9:04 PM