I kind of get what your saying but it seems a bit all over the place. What is really so wrong and off base about that quote, blacks have all the reason to be mindful of stalled progress; jim crow and reconstruction anyone? I've read you rail against white guilt/sympathy a number of times and I don't get it. You seem to conflate the acknowledgment of white privilege and the benefits that come along with that by whites with sympathy. Even worse you seem to imply that the the meager benefits gained via affirmative action proportionally add up to the reverse of white privilege. Also, why do you always point to Ivy leagues in these discussions, what about all the state schools that have benefited from AA? Is that type of one-sided analogy any different from the folks who point to welfare queens when they argue against public assistance? I see nothing wrong with addressing structural and cultural privilege skewed towards whites for various reasons, race being central. Would you deny that this is the case? I agree with the points that dropout rates, teen pregnancy etc should be folded into a larger American agenda no doubt but that doesn't dismiss the need to acknowledge and keep track of the role of privilege as well. As proven by the rise of Obama and others these agendas are merging into a broader American agenda, maybe not as quickly and as intellectually concise as you would hope but it is happening so what's you beef?
Hmm, quite a bit there. The short answer is that my beef is with the idea that an Obama administration is somehow bad for black people, but let's back this up a sec. I think I should say that I have absolutely no problem with structural critique of the country. To me, the biggest problem, in terms of the black-white gap, is that Jim Crow/racial terrorism/housing covenants/red-lining/job discrimination effected a wealth transfer out of black communities. I don't think you can get away from that, and if you just think about it for a minute, you become instantly unsurprised at why things are as they are. Moreover, there are some very solid studies which show that job discrimination continues even up to today. I don't know what you call those sorts of things, if not structural.
So my beef with these guys is not that they make structural critique, it's that they seem bound to a set of strategies that just haven't gotten us anywhere. Again, I need to hear about something else besides Affirmative Action and a vague notion of social justice. And then I'd like to see it pitched in such a way that it makes the broader country see their own interest in our interest. That's not merely crass politics--I actually believe that Jim Crow was ultimately bad for the broader country, not just for black people. I don't think boom in prisons is a good thing for any American of any color.
Backing up to the original critique, I think this theory that an Obama presidency makes it harder for us to press our case to white people is flawed on several levels. But let's deal with just one--the myth that pressing the case was ever simple. Every advance that black people have made in this country has been coupled with a new more complicated reality which in turn requires different solutions. You couldn't fight lynching like you fought slavery, and you couldn't fight segregation like you fought lynching. Each time there's a historical marker achieved, the terms change. An Obama presidency is the same thing. The world becomes a little more complicated with a black president, and old solutions--which weren't really working before anyway--become totally outmoded. I just don't see that as a bad thing.
Also, on the point of Ivy Leagues, more accurately, I tend to use "elite" schools as examples--like Berkeley in the original post. That's only because so much of the energy over AA is expended discussing those schools. It's also the portion of the debate I most strenuously object to. I'm just not losing much sleep over the fact that some kid has to go to lesser state school (or Heaven forbid an HBCU) because AA was phased out. My stress is over black kids who basically have no shot at college.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"Berekeley"? Okay, now you're just messing with us.
Sorry to beat a dead horse about Jackson '84/'88, but here (FWIW) is the wikipedia summary of Jesse's campaign platform from those years:
That clearly goes way beyond AA to address a broad range of concerns, while also dealing with a lot of what affected the African-American community at the time in the context of a very inclusive program. Jesse and his allies tried very hard, and in a lot of ways with a lot of success, to build that vision in the teeth of Reagan and the New Right, in the face of hostility from within the Party, before the internet facilitated communication and fundraising. If history has passed them by, it's not because they never gave it a shot.
That line about about a lack of agenda isn't a stand-in for Jesse--and certainly not Jesse circa 88. I haven't seen him argue that an Obama presidency would somehow hurt black people. He's disagreed with him. But he hasn't gone that far,
Sorry about Berkeley. The hand is quicker than the mind. And the hand isn't even that quick.
Don't worry about the spelling. Just remember to spell Stanfurd correctly.
Could it be that the anger about Obama from some might be about inferences of false consciousness and frustration related to that -- the inference being that supporters of Obama think that the Struggle is over? Those delivering the critique might think that an Obama win means everyone lets their guard down, and then all hell breaks loose.
Certainly part of it. It says something that this critique mostly comes from the elders. Even before Obama, they were worried that we were taking The Struggle for granted. From that perspective, maybe they see Obama as just confirmation of that. Add in the fact this dude basically took the black vote without an "traditional civil rights" appeal.
Jacob Weisberg wrote:
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives
http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
I suppose Weisberg isn't exactly endorsing this point of view -- but, he doesn't seem to find it ridiculous. I think it is! I mean, I'm sure there were people that claimed that the fact that "The Cosby Show" was the most popular TV show proved that racism was dead. Obama being elected President would certainly be sign of progress, but, for example, it wouldn't suddenly make it non-problematic for a black man to wave down a taxi.
Based on no statistical evidence whatsoever.... my gut feeling is this:
White people who would point to a President Obama and say: "See! See! What are you black people complaining about?" are the same white people who already say "Why are black people always complaining about being oppressed?"
Look, there's always going to be disingenous talking heads and journalists who are skilled at ignoring data or writing the storyline they wish to write out. Sure, a black president can be spun by these disingenous people to minimize continuing racial inequalities in schools, wealth, homes, employment, etc. But it's not like they don't already do that right now. They'd engage in that behavior whether or not Obama is President.
And the people who care about race issues today are the same people who will continue to ask hard questions about the price of bread in Detroit during an Obama presidency.
And (based on my statistically uninformed gut call) -- what a President Obama and First Southside Lady Michele can do for bread-and-butter issues that affect black communities will probably outweigh whatever ammunition The First Black President gives to those Americans looking for an excuse not to deal with 250 years of racial baggage.
AA has, in many ways, mis-served black America because it has shifted the focus from exactly what you're talking about. Black teenagers trying to get into college will do alright in life no matter where they're going or how they got there, on average. Many black teenagers will occupy some part of the middle class with little or no help from the government. The remainders will remain in a permanent underclass that has its roots in slavery/Jim Crow etc. but addressing that does nothing to help solve it now. I don't think anything short of full scale colonization of permanently poor black neighborhoods for a period of generations will solve the level of chronic poverty we're talking about. And what problems and resentment would that cause? Some aspects of the human conditions are more or less permanent and its ultimately self-defeating to even try to change it.
"White people who would point to a President Obama and say: "See! See! What are you black people complaining about?" are the same white people who already say "Why are black people always complaining about being oppressed?""
Three points:
1) To echo Breukelyne, Ok... Ok... "you are really oppressed, and have been for a long time." That and $2.00 will buy a cup of coffee.\
2) True enough, but "we" (whoever we is ;-/) point to Bill Cosby, or Booker T. Washington, or Tiger Woods. That debate can keep chasing its tail until the terms of the debate get changed. And it may not be such a bad thing for the response to be "I'm complaining about crime in the streets, and an education that squanders the minds of our children, shouldn't you be complaining too?"
3) The Obamas move into the White House, the world still respects us, we don't become a third world country, and all the myriad spoken/unspoken fears of the white paranoics do not come to pass. At the very low end, this is progress. This especially if you believe that a significant portion of white racism is _structural_ i.e. it descends from the belief that a structurally racist society helps guarantee their personal well-being.
And a final point: it is worth noting that a lot of the Liberal white reluctance to accept Obama may come from their prejudices about white racists (read working class whites) and their unwillingness to accept these 'racists' may not just be uncurable pathologues, but rather people struggling to further their own self-interest.
This latter issue may be particularly important: it's a lot easier (one hopes) to show people a _different_ path to achieve their own self interest than it is to change the character of their soul.
@ Carrington: Was there liberal white reluctance to accept Obama? They've always been part of his base, far as I could tell.
I think this election is going to get nasty and it's going to be awfully depressing to see people's prejudices hanging out. BUT if Obama is elected, I believe your point #3 is exactly what will happen at the end of his time in office for many otherwise unconvinced Americans. This is particularly true if Obama can manage to actually accomplish some practical stuff like get the economy back on track, rework the national train system, etc.
At least that's what happened with Harold Washington in Chicago, if history is any guide.
And a bunch of kids born in '96 reach the age of 20 with the mindset that "of COURSE I can have a black boss/professor/mayor/whatever-- look at the PRESIDENT for cryin' out loud!" And that makes a difference.
And Cory Booker/Deval Patrick/whomever has a better chance to be the *second* black President because the scary is faded. And that makes a difference.
Of course, all this assumes that Obama doesn't turn into Marion Barry and is able to keep his pants zipped around the interns-- somehow, I think that's a safe bet.