That said, you could only be offended by that line if you think "the nation" only includes white people. For the record, given the behavior of a lot of "black leaders"--and black people--pre-Iowa, cowardly ain't exactly wrong. Anyway, I really have no idea what Holder meant, beyond what he literally said. I found his speech unremarkable and vague. But I can only take that line as it was--a statement about the entire nation.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
That said, you could only be offended by that line if you think "the nation" only includes white people.
I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean here. This is a bit awkward because I'm not, personally, offended by the line. That said, if we are one people, can't we be offended as one people? Why would Eric Holder calling white people cowards offend me more than Eric Holder calling Americans cowards?
That said, you could only be offended by that line if you think "the nation" only includes white people.
I agree. Speaking as a white person (which I often do), it didn't read to me as an indictment of any particular group, just a comment on the state of US race relations.
Anyway, anyone who's ever ridden the Boston orange line would find it hard to disagree with Holder.
Put differently, if we are in a post-racial era, why do I need urbandictionary.com half the time just to read Ta-Nehisi's posts? ;)
I absolutely did not think Holder was "typecasting" us white folks. FWIW, I felt he was placing the onus equally on African-Americans when it comes to talking about race, based on the following:
The attorney general ... noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."
To me, that was saying: "Look, if you're going to act like it's an insulting, stupid question if a white person asks why a hair appointment takes an entire day, or treat them like a card-carrying Aryan Nation member if they express their belief that Obama is biracial, not black, then don't be surprised that they clam up."
That was my interpretation. YMMV of course.
Look, if you're going to act like it's an insulting, stupid question if a white person asks why a hair appointment takes an entire day
It is a stupid question and I am tired of being asked it. It's none of your business why black beauty shops take forever...
There were a couple of callers this morning into my local AM talk station who were going on about how Holder meant all white people should have "sensitivity" training, etc. Luckily, the hosts didn't take the bait.
Its simple to me. Ask yourself why we still NEED to have Black History Month? Why are people still nervous of having conversations about race relations? Why did black people react so differently than white folks when OJ got off? Why is there such contention when a black person is shot or abused by a white cop? Its because many of us still see each other as fundamentally different when the truth is we are not. The context of what he is talking about is how we should approach Black History Month but you won't hear that context on cable news shows or in the print media. You would think he was talking about investigating white collar crime and just threw that "nation of cowards" line in haphazardly. He is talking about people having the courage to reach out to each other and embrace our different histories and cultures. I know for me that its still true that while the work place is much more diverse, who we hang out with after work doesn't usually reflect that progress. The younger generation doesn't seem as hung up on these differences but that doesn't mean the grown folks shouldn't address it.
Holder was talking to ALL Americans not just white and not just black. Look at the xenophobes and their vitriol towards immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Look at the disdain shown towards middle eastern people since 9/11 in this country. The speech wasn't particularly fiery or inspirational but he did make a lot of good points in my opinion.
He ought to be careful with the generalizations, in any case. I was offended when Phil Gramm called us all a nation of whiners. If I'm not offended this time, being called a nation of cowards, I have to then question if I'm being partisan.
Just saying.
Contrast Holder's speech with Michael Steele's speech about the GOP and reaching out.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/19/steele-gop-needs-hip-hop-makeover/
Man, boring vs. "off the hook" or is that off the deep end? I'm curious to see how that outreach will look.
Uncular1,
I think TNC is going to have to break out our spokesperson, Billy Dee, to comment on the nonsense that is Michael Steele.
"Man, boring vs. "off the hook" or is that off the deep end? I'm curious to see how that outreach will look."
Uncular1 I'm sure you know it won't work. The GOP -- You can dress it up, but you still can't take it anywhere. Their marketing appeal will go over in urban communities about as well as Sarah Palin went over with feminists. Until they address the racist, sexist, homophobic rot at the core of their party, the GOP will remain a regional party.
It was a VERY boring and loong speech, but I found the content to be important and long-over due. We, Americans, have always been afraid, reluctant, and indifferent when it comes to having open, honest communication around race in this country. We -- blacks and whites -- are guilty of this.
DC Fem,
Oh yeah, I know how it'll work, I just love to watch the GOP trainwrecks as they occur. ;)
Does anyone remember the 2000 GOP convention which was meant to underscore their commitment to "Big Tent Diversity"? Truly comedic genius.
"a statement about the entire nation"
I don't know why that had to be said, but it did. Someone should tell cable news...
I rather liked the speech, and thought it was particularly good coming from a politician.
A friend's comment was spot on, I thought:
"Is it me or did the quality of the people in the American administration just jump by about a thousand points? Feels strange to be addressed as an adult."
For my part, I've seen and heard a lot of the impact of "will I be thought of as a racist?" self-censorship amongst whites: 'oh, I don't think the nation is ready for Obama' encoding 'you know, I'm really struggling to trust him, mainly because he doesn't look familiar' (in turn encoding 'because he's black').
TNC's comment, I think, is dead on as well:
"given the behavior of a lot of "black leaders"--and black people--pre-Iowa, cowardly ain't exactly wrong."
Part of Obama's courage was in trusting the Iowans -- for whom he really did not look familiar -- eventually to come around.
Perfect example, the cartoon from yesterday. I am not absolving the cartoonist but I do think a lot of people reflexively assumed it was racist because of the monkey. But we didn't have any problem implying that Pres Bush all kinds of chimps when he did or said something stupid. Im just saying.
So let's clear it up for you -- the racist part of the cartoon was that two white cops had shot an animal which has unfortunately in the past been used to stereotype black people. Just like cops have shot many black men in NY (and elsewhere).
"Perfect example, the cartoon from yesterday. I am not absolving the cartoonist but I do think a lot of people reflexively assumed it was racist because of the monkey. But we didn't have any problem implying that Pres Bush all kinds of chimps when he did or said something stupid. Im just saying."
well, I cringed at that and I'm white, and I know that neither Bush nor I have ever been called "monkey" because of our ethnicity. The chimp thing was huge in British cartoons of Bush, and presumably the English don't make racist cartoons about other English people.
I thought Holder's comment was simply stating the obvious. We do all tip-toe around the issue, That's why that preacher's comment-as-pratyer was such a snide swipe. That's what 40 years of outlawing Little Black Sambo books will do. In the Army it's called the "pain of transition". You just have to embrace the suck and eventually you get through it. That may finally be happening now.
A different image than "embracing the suck" but I think Frost had something to say about Jim's "pain of transition."
"But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go. ....
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence. "
The question, of course, is what.
I think Holder's speech has good content, as several people have stated.
His delivery falls way short of what is needed to get people to listen to you. He may as well be doing a Power Point presentation to a roomful of bankers.
I hope he improves.
"His delivery falls way short of what is needed to get people to listen to you. He may as well be doing a Power Point presentation to a roomful of bankers."
Which is one of the nice things about being AG instead of president. The roomful of lawyers tends to listen to you pretty closely.
the speech was 16 and a half minutes long. The 'nation of cowards' came within the first minute. Holder was on the money with his speech.
You know what this reminds me of: Then Senator Obama’s speech in Hampton, Virginia in October 2007, when the basics of an Urban Policy were given out, and the only thing the ‘ media’ could point out was the phrase ‘ quiet riot’. Choosing ‘points’ which they can exploit, twist and bend, to get off the MAIN point of a speech of depth, substance and meaning.
"Which is one of the nice things about being AG instead of president. The roomful of lawyers tends to listen to you pretty closely."
Exactly.
As for improvement, the standard I am using is Gonzalez and Mukasey, and by that standard the gentleman came into the job as improved as he needs to be.
Jim,
When I said "I hope he improves" I was referring ONLY to his oratory skills.
You cannot give a speech about race and use the same cadence that you would use when you talk about insurance or mortgages or time shares or whatever. Well, you can I guess, but you will be tuned out.
That's just the way it is.
Deleted. You need to find another blog. Your comments aren't wanted here. This isn't therapy.
It's disturbing that few are willing to talk openly about the emergence of race issues in the mainstream scientific community, while behind closed doors and in the academy they seem to be open game. In fact I tried to comment here on this issue but my comment was not posted, hopefully simply because I linked to a contentious and objectionable site. In any case Holder said "an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force," and it seems the issue is being increasingly dominated by a vocal technologically-minded movement that left behind close doors is potentially very divisive. If "certain subjects are off limits" then this one of them.
The part of Holder's speech about voluntary segregation came off somewhat ominous... its not his business who I hang out with on Friday nights. He should worry about enforcing the law, and not trying to be Minister of Social Correctness.
As Attorney General, Eric Holder is not only a government official, but he represents the current administration. What he says publicly then can be taken as reflective of the administration’s views.
The white majority and the black minority have a long, awkward history in the US, and each person tries to get by and get along in their lives as best they can. There are historical and cultural reasons why blacks and whites don’t socialize more than they do off the job, and why whites prefer to live in all-white neighborhoods. Most people are getting along just fine in their private lives or are at least trying to carve out their own brand of personal happiness there. It’s none of Holder’s or the administration’s business what private citizens do in their private lives.
With all the real problems facing America and the world — tangible, identifiable, immediate problems — Why do we have the US Attorney General grabbing headlines for himself by using inflammatory words like “cowards” to discuss sensitive, personal issues such as how people spend their free time and where they choose to live? Does the Attorney General have so little to say of relevance to his own office? Is this sort of irrelevant nonsense what we can expect from the current administration?
"Why do we have the US Attorney General grabbing headlines for himself by using inflammatory words like “cowards” to discuss sensitive, personal issues such as how people spend their free time and where they choose to live?" - Roger Counce
The Fair Housing Act, which ensures protection from discrimination in renting and buying homes, is enforced by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the department that Eric Holder leads.
I agree that Holder and the Obama administration should not try to make it their business to legislate "social correctness" in how white and minority people interact. However, the excuse that people should be able to choose where they want to live has in American history been used overwhelmingly as a way for white people to exclude minority people from "their" neighborhoods and thereby restrict where minority people are allowed to live. Historically housing and neighborhood choice has only been for white people.
And since in America, many other things, such as education resources, public services, retail shopping, employment opportunities, home values, and health services are tied to the neighborhood where you live, the ability of white people to restrict the housing opportunities of minoirty people leads to disparities in those other areas.
Unlike the issue of how you choose to spend your free time, the issue of where you live (in the case of many minority people, where you are allowed to rent or buy a home) is very much the business of the Justice Department and Mr. Holder.
Mr. Holder is quite right when he talks about "voluntary segregation". But that's a far bigger problem than some might think.
Even if black and white people lived in more mixed neighborhoods, would that actually improve things all that much? Who talks to their neighbor anymore? Maybe you know their name or something but it's not like you eat at their house for dinner once a month or something, is it?
Then there are clubs. I've read memberships in clubs has diminished drastically over the last generation; everything from bowling leagues to the Freemasons. The joke that goes around Freemason lodes is that the average age of their members is between 65 and diseased.
Churches aren't that much better. Take the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in America and the world. It has loads of Blacks as members, particularly in Africa. But in America the numbers are very low. That's due to the fact that a majority of blacks in America are still descended from the Africans brought over in the slave trade. Those Africans were brought to the Southern states, where the Catholic Church lack a prominent place, (aside from Louisiana), until the late 20th century. So even today, the black Catholics in who are in America are mostly descended from slaves that were brought to the Caribbean. And didn't the Southern Baptists, (another major Christian denomination), come about from the need of some Baptists to defend slavery? Some churches are even homogenized to the point where only white people descended from certain nationalities predomonate in it.
I once heard not too long ago that people are even starting to segregate themselves in term of voting patterns when they choose to move to a new certain section of a state, liberals try to find "liberal" areas and conservatives do the same, no matter the overall composition of the state itself.
So aside from the workplace, how are you average whites and blacks supposed to get to know each other on any large scale? I mean, sure, the average white can strike up a conversation with the average black at the grocery store, or something and vice versa. But exchanges like that aren't going to move any great national discussion forward very fast. How about, "Invite a White Person Over To Dinner Day"?
Deleted. No one's talking about Wright. Or Sharpton.
"The white majority and the black minority have a long, awkward history in the US, and each person tries to get by and get along in their lives as best they can. "
the so-called white minority has had a long awkward history between is supposed constituent commnuities. False framing of the issues does not advance the discussion.
"Take the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in America and the world. It has loads of Blacks as members, particularly in Africa. But in America the numbers are very low."
Well what's the solution then? Can't people just join the church? Maybe it has to do with their own prefenrce to stay Protestant? It's not as if there hasn't been as much or more blood shed over that issue as black/white antagonisms. Or maybe you are sugesting that the Catholic Church is obligated to go drag black people in out of their own churches?
"white people to exclude minority people from "their" neighborhoods "
More false framing. Many of the exlcided minorities are now considered white, and were physically as white back when they were being excluded.
"Some churches are even homogenized to the point where only white people descended from certain nationalities predomonate in it."
Well that description applies to black churches also. Are you sugesting that the only differences between these churches are ethnic, that people might not have some other reason for choosing these churches, like theology maybe? What exactly would be the big draw to a Catholic Church for someone who grew up for instance in the COGIC?
"That said, you could only be offended by that line if you think "the nation" only includes white people."
Maybe you have something in mind that escapes me but I see no sense in this statement. Holder called us, Americans, cowards for not discussing a topic which we in fact discuss incessantly.
Being called a coward for a reason which is not in fact true doesn't offend blacks? You think whites who are offended for the same reason must believe there are no blacks in the country? Why
Jim -
First of all, if you are going to quote from more than one poster, signify that. Because I, for my part, only said half of what you quoted. Now...
"Or maybe you are sugesting that the Catholic Church is obligated to go drag black people in out of their own churches?"
Are you serious? I'm sorry I don't want to be rude but I can't dignify that with a response.
"Well that description applies to black churches also. Are you sugesting that the only differences between these churches are ethnic, that people might not have some other reason for choosing these churches, like theology maybe? What exactly would be the big draw to a Catholic Church for someone who grew up for instance in the COGIC?"
I am not that familiar with the COGIC. But I suppose most people convert to a different denomination either to marry a future spouse or because of a deep study of theology, more often the former. Though I'd say that the nature of the religious service itself might play a bigger role in keeping members in a particular denomination than any complex theology.
But you are trying to start an argument over a point I'm not trying to make. Under no circumstances did I say anything to suggest that white people pick churches based on their lack of black people. (I myself am white and from a Roman Catholic / Episcopalian background.) Churches tend to spring up around groupings of ethnicities, not the other way around. And most people don't choose churches period, they are born into a denomination and usually either say in it or abandon the religion all together.
My point is most church denominations, particularly the larger ones, are very racially segregated in terms of blacks and white. And as I tried to illustrate in my original post, this segregation from reasons unique to the denomination itself and often from factors that occurred many years ago. Thus integration is a very hard thing to do.
"Cowards" ..."Boring-ass"... "Diarrhea merchants"
It's easy and apparently it feels good to use disparaging epithets for things and people that annoy us, but where does that get us, really?
Those who typically lash out this way seem unaware of the undeniable fact that almost all people have psychologically-compelling reasons for their behaviors, no matter how much they may displease us, or even themselves.
In short, all of us seem to be doing the best we can do at any given moment within our various limitations of knowledge, logic and personal value systems.
The proof for this is that if you were magically transformed into Joe Doakes or even into Travis the chimp you would do exactly as he does for exactly the same reasons that he does what he does. Or did, sadly.
Name-calling is based on the unexamined popular premise that people do bad things deliberately because they're "assholes."
And then we are "shocked, shocked" when our calling then assholes simply makes them more of -- in our eyes -- an asshole.
But so what? At least when we're being ignorantly vicious we're not (gasp) being "boring" are we? Horrors! And our audience may even increase. So I guess it's allright, if that's your criterion of success.
Is it?
I read Holder's speech and thought it was rather odd that the AG is discussing a "dialogue on race". James Cone says the same kind of thing, but, if, as I've heard it said elsewhere, that white people are guilty of racism until proven innocent, shouldn't the word "dialogue" be replaced with a better word, like "trial" or "interrogation" (black to white)?
Nope. Deleted.
Likewise. Deleted.
Brother Coates:
I didn't know what to think of the talk at first being that I didn't hear it. However, listening to all the news stations bash it, I could hear Malcolm saying something to the degree of "what the majority culture says, give it another look for yourself."
That being stated, I finally read the piece in its entirety on yesterday. Honestly, the speech was right on with me, at least 90% of it. The only place where I had to digress was on his advocacy against what he termed "voluntary segregation." Sorry but I want to maintain HBCU's, my Black church and my Black barbershop.
Holder's talk was quite a contrast to Obama's speech on race. Unlike Obama, whose purpose was to appeal to the masses of White Americans for votes by distancing himself from Rev. Wright and later denouncing Minister Farrakhan, the point of Holder's talk was to challenge this country as a whole. I mean, I was shock to read him using Dubose type language such as "the contributions of African people" in his first paragraph.
On the Civil War he was clear, the question was slavery not states rights. His own history called him to bear witness being that his sister was escorted past George Wallace to enter the University of Alabama. He correctly placed the Civil Rights movement in the vanguard of Social Justice movements of the 20th century stating that the anti-war and feminist movements followed our lead. Lastly and most profoundly, he list the "diversity" of the shoulders upon which he stands from integrationist King to nationalists such as Garvey and Malcolm.
Brother Holder was on point and an indication of just how far we've come. To imagine this talk coming from an Attorney General is unprecedented and a breath of fresh air from the "boot-licking" left over from the campaign.
J. Hutto, Sr.