That's the New York Times headline on Obama's speech to the NAACP. I don't even know what to say anymore. I haven't heard Obama's speech. But I've seen this play out so many times, that I'm fairly sure what happened. Obama probably said a lot of things, and in the midst of it spent a few minutes on "putting down the Playstation and turning off the Ipod."And then he probably said something about not accepting any excuses from our kids. And thus we have a reductive headline.
Like I said earlier this week--so much of this isn't about Obama himself, but a deep-seated desire to get out from under history. Expiation on the cheap. White guilt isn't anyone's friend. Least of all black people's.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
TNC:
That's pretty much spot on. But read it through. Obama's not an orator who tends to place himself, or his own feelings, at the center of his rhetoric, but this one seemed a little more heartfelt. And I think the Times would have done better had it included this section in its recap, as well.
It is a simple dream, and yet one that has been denied – one still being denied – to so many Americans. It’s a painful thing, seeing that dream denied. I remember visiting a Chicago school in a rough neighborhood as a community organizer, and thinking how remarkable it was that all of these children seemed so full of hope, despite being born into poverty, despite being delivered into addiction, despite all the obstacles they were already facing.
And I remember the principal of the school telling me that soon all of that would begin to change; that soon, the laughter in their eyes would begin to fade; that soon, something would shut off inside, as it sunk in that their hopes would not come to pass – not because they weren’t smart enough, not because they weren’t talented enough, but because, by accident of birth, they didn’t have a fair chance in life.
Agreed. That's awesome. But it doesn't fit into the narrative of "Not our problem." Explains why it wasn't in the story.
Speaking as a member of the demographic the CNN narrative supposedly appeals to, I'd say it's closer to "not our fault" than "not our problem."
What did the principal mean by them not having a "fair chance at life" -- not getting into a special school like the one Michelle Obama and her brother went to, or the prep school Barack Obama went to? What, specifically, was wrong with the principal's school?
This is beautiful rhetoric, but there doesn't seem to be any "there" there.
While I do love a good Gertrude Stein quote, I'm struggling to decipher specifically what it is you mean to be saying.
What is incomplete about the sentiment that children born into poverty and addiction are, through an accident of birth, set with an unfair disadvantage the emotional and psychological burdens of which will only become clear to them as the grow older?
This isn't fundamentally about the quality of schools.
What an insensitive thing to say. Not having a fair chance at life means being born into poverty, (not middle or working class like the Robinsons or the Obamas), being born into an area rife with senseless violence, being born to parents with limited education, going to school with poor resources and often not the best teachers, not being exposed regularly to books, museums, and other cultural touchstones, being born in a country that often does not value people with your skin color and of your class. I could go on. It sounds as though you have the mentality of person who was born on 2nd or third base thinking they hit a double or a triple. You try growing up in an environment like that without having someone who is on you constantly to do more and who makes an effort to push you for more, and unless you are a very special person, you see how you wind up. Exactly like everyone else, poor beaten down, and depressed with no resources to get you out of it. Your rhetoric does not seem to have any "there" there.
I was born in a town that was half-black, and went to schools from k-10 that were 90% black. So you can take your born on second or third base crap and shove it where the sun don't shine, Lisa J.
I've got more to say on this, but my laptop battery is running low, so you get a reprieve for now. Enjoy it.
As another product of one of those "special schools," I find this comment interesting.
I understand his point to a degree, but doesn't his mere presence mean that? Sometimes I wish we (as black folks) could get a policy speech instead of a sermon. Black folks would like to know about the public option, or how the war is proceeding, or maybe tell me to buy an American car to help the economy. It's boring, but it's something I need to know.
I know he's black already. So is my mailman.
The sad part is, he's just enabling the Pat Buchanans of the world. The folks on the right who will co-opt his message to use it for their own ends.
Kawan,
unless you believe in the "dirty laundry" argument then anything President Obama says regarding problems in the black community will be used by the Buchanan's of the world as grease for their arguments.
It's either ignore the issues totally or speak to them knowing that idiots like Buchanan will try to twist the speech for his own agenda.
I know all America is awaiting my take on the speech itself, but I need to read it first before I comment more specifically.
Here's a suggestion, Coates. Do what I've done since Obama's speech in Hampton, VA. Make sure you READ THEM FOR YOURSELF. Because, I promise you, what you read or watch, bears no resemblance to what is 'reported'.
Your cynicism is warranted, Coates.
That's kind of the point. My beef isn't with the speech--i bet it's fine. It's with how it's reporting
Goes back to them trying to tell Black folk that what Bill Cosby said was 'revolutionary', when most Blacks you know hear what he said at the family BBQ all the time. And, when Black folks say that, White folks are like, ' no, that's not true', and you just give them the side eye.
If it's true that white folks become presumptuous about whether or not these things are said at the BBQ (I don't know that I've ever witnessed it), then my best guess is those people are reacting to the vitriol thrown upon Bill Cosby by a lot of black people when he began his series of grumpy old black man lectures.
Now, personally, I have never been to a black family BBQ, but I've known any number of black people in my life to express the general sentiments of personal responsibility, parenthood, and all of that, so I obviously have no difficulty accepting that this stuff gets said all of the time.
As a white guy, I have to say that while I generally agree that the way these lectures/speeches are covered can be a bit tiresome and irritating, I generally think it's important that these things are being said in a public forum. Within white people's earshot. It's important that white people know that this stuff does get said. It's important that black people know that we know. But yeah, it's also important that too much isn't read into all of it.
You trust any NYT reporter? Didn't you learn your lesson with Judy Miller? Or their hiring of Bill Kristol? Or even worse, now, Ross Douthat(Yeah, I know he's a former writer for this place, but he is hideous). The point is that the Old Gray Lady isn't a friend to liberals. Despite all of BillO's rantings, the NYT is a conservative paper.
Yep, the MSM is really just not very good at covering African Americans and Obama. Here's one interesting part of the actual speech, taken from CNNs summery: "The "steepest" barriers are not prejudice and discrimination, he said, but the "structural inequalities that our nation's legacy of discrimination has left behind.""
First of all, I'm not sure if I think that's true. Sure, things like the wealth gap between white and black people is obviously a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, and it's also one of the most important barriers AAs currently face, but I'm not sure we should discount prejudice and discrimination. Not that I want to put words in the President's mouth, it's not like he said discrimination isn't important, but I don't think we can just say structural inequality is more of a barrier than prejudice without any facts or figures.
But that's not quite what I wanted to talk about either. Clearly, the President believes in it. And I think that's why he was so brusque with the question about what he was doing for black people a few weeks ago. I think he truely believes that things like health care reform, energy reform, education reform are not only the best things for the country, but the best things he can do for African Americans as President. Obviously this is something anyone could have easily figured out about Obama long before this speech, but I think his address makes such an inference about his priorties very obvious.
I am so exhausted with this lazy journalism...Huffington Post is running the same headline, also without the rest of the speech, and no reference to America's racist past.
I dismissed critics of Obama's presidential run who said his election would some allow white people an excuse to (continue) to do nothing about racism. But, I am starting to think there may be something to that point (although, I do not think that reason was justification for me to support the opposition).
After listening to Pat "Racist Monger" Buchanan on Rachel Maddow this evening, I just don't know what to think. We continue to get it on both sides---the supposed left leaning NYT and Pat the great Racist...
HuffPo did have that same shitty inference in their headline, but they also put up the link to the entire speech. I'm listening to it right now - it's a beautiful thing. But their header show how pervasive this bullshit implying that what Obama says about education, etc. isn't already deeply embedded in the African-American conversation about how to progress.
Is journalism still considered HuffPo's main reason for existence? I thought they'd completed the transformation to celebrity gossip site.
Me, too. I feel a little naive, truth be told.
"We need to stop the violence. We need more positive role models. We need to break this destructive culture and pathology, which says'"snitching is bad.'"
Signed,
Generic black leader/talking head who means well but really simplifies black folk.
Coates,
MSNBC's Resident Racist is at it again. It's being reported that on Rachel Maddow's show he said,
" "100 percent of White men made this country."
Um.....
I'm off to find a transcript.
I've held my tongue long enough on this mofo.
I think Uncle Pat is talking about the shit that sucks...
Incidetnally TNC, when Obama says the "no excuses lines" it's stone "church" call and response. It's not some dispassionate lecture - he's giving voice to his audience and they're with him 100%.
Again, it's not the speech that's the problem...
I know - I'm just saying...we just finished watching the speech and it was the best goddam speech I've heard in many a month. One of his best ever. Reminded me of why I believed in him 100% early on, went deep out of pocket and spent precious time working for the guy. Totally fucking worth it...
You've gotta watch the speech ASAP. Fuck the New York Times...
I'm not embarrassed to say that I was close to tears and banging my fist on the table when he wound that sucker up !!!!
Ok so I just finished...
It was OK...
It wasn't all of that...
OK, so it was kind of great.
Just kind of, though.
Seriously though, it only makes you feel worse about the coverage. Like, they're missing this big, great thing...I take it hard because it's my business.
Wow - I watched that Buchanan-Maddow segment and actually there was something amazing about hearing the kind of blatant resentment and clueless rhetoric that a significant slice of old (and some not-so-old) white guys either share with each other or drop in arguments with their kids. It was like listening to one of those Thanksgiving-gone-wrong moments when the feisty-but-empathetic daughter comes home from college and realizes that Uncle Pat is a complete and total asshole who lives on another planet and in another age (although in this case, it was obviously no surprise)... Good television and, frankly, evidence of the utility of Pat Buchanan if one wants to put on display an utterly unapologetic bundle of uncoded white resentment. I don't think we're past the day when it's worth looking this shit straight in the eye and at least admitting it's out there. Rachel handled him well - with a kind of more-in-sorrow-than-anger disdain.
TNC
For the most part I agree with you here and I certainly agree with the sentiment of this post, but I do have one minor quibble.
This is one of those areas where people will see what they want to see: Racists will use this as proof that Blacks are responsible for their own problems.
However, I would argue that there is a decent chunk of White people who aren't necessarily racist, but, due to any number of factors (such as self segregation and cultural ignorance - to name a few) simply don't know that this is not a new conversation in the Black community. For them, hearing Obama discuss these issues may help break through this ignorance. Once this happens (again, I am talking about persuadable people here, not rabid racists) some of these people will begin questioning old assumptions and we get progress.
While it's quite reasonable to believe this was not the intention of the NYT here, I do believe this will be the unintentional side effect for a few.
Arghh...I don't think I articulated that very well and I hope people see what I'm trying to get at here.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with him saying it--basically because it's said all the time in the community. I actually don't subscribe to the dirty laundry theory. But the notion that this wasn't being said before Obama, or even before Cosby, is deeply distressing. It betrays a deep ignorance of black people. Which is fine if your a civilian. Not so much if you get paid to write and report.
You and I differ on the ' civilian' part, Coates. I'm tired of grown White folks believing it's ok for them to be ignorant. I told you, I'm not some Black Ambassador. Got over that about a decade ago.
That's a question that always interests me. I lean more toward Ta-Nehisi's approach, because there are so many ways in which I'm ignorant, and so many groups of whom I'm ignorant, and I so often need help and guidance--and so often stumble even when given them--that I'm hardly in a position to take offense at other people's ignorance. (If they're civilians.)
You make a great point Rikyrah. Its absolutely selectively ignorant bliss. Its freaking out over Imus and Letterman jokes gone wild to act like they give a shit and then inviting Uncle Pat over for dinner. The MSM writes explicitly for the lowest common denominator. Obama is too nuanced, and too bright for them to keep up, which of course they can't believe or admit because he's black.
Even Maddow who is one of the stronger talking heads these days spent 5 minutes half-heartedly ripping Pat Buchanan while spending more than 30 talking about Republican sex scandals.
The MSM would get it if they cared, or had to. They don't.
"You and I differ on the ' civilian' part, Coates."
You're absolutely right with the "side eye" and "WTF?" when ordinary folk pull this shit, but I think TNC's point - and a matter of professional prid - is best expressed as "Reporters are paid not to be ignorant or lazy in their observations." Kind of basic job description - although it's violated all the time...
Was it being said by black leaders outside the black community though? And did those leaders have anything close to the star power of Cosby and Obama?
What Black leader is ' outside of the Black community?' You don't mean farces like Shelby Steele, do you?
I don't think you understand. It wasn't leaders-- it was the black community. What you heard from Obama tonight, and Cosby before him, was basically what any right-raised black person heard in their home. Or in their church. Or out on the street. They didn't invent it. They got it from us. And they got it from us, because they are us.
Also, while most of the speech was an eloquent, inspiring version of conventional wisdom on a range of issues or of modestly visionary leadership that's clearly rooted in "the possible", the parts of the speech that were directed to the country in general or reflecting on American history and the "ways to go" in general were at the very least equally challenging and deserving of broad attention. But it's like when he's speaking to black folks, it's okay to only half-listen and not make any effort at anyting but the most reductive, pat analysis.
"On the other hand", if it's any consolation, the reporter - S.G.Stolberg - who covered Obama at the NAACP convention, wrote this about his predecessor:
"Mr. Bush, most experts agree, has taken the American freedom agenda to an entirely new level, by trying to foster democracy in nations that have not known it before, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Some historians have called it folly, and Mr. Bush conceded in an interview with conservative commentators last year that his critics believe he is 'hopelessly idealistic.' "
And came up this doozy (via Brad de Long and Atrios):
Sheryl Gay Stolberg: "The last time Republicans dealt with the passing-of-the-torch question, in 1988, the circumstances were very different. President Ronald Reagan was surging in popularity, and the big fear was that he would overshadow the nominee, the first George Bush, at the convention in New Orleans...."
(The 1988 GOP convention was held on August 15. Reagan job approval during 1988... Approve/Disapprove... 3/8 - 51/37... 5/13 - 50/38... 6/24 - 48/40... 7/15 - 54/36... 8/19 - 53/37...
This reporter sucks...doesn't excuse the NYTs and obviously she's following a pattern in how Obama's speeches to black folk are covered, but don't take the laziness and incompetence of this reporter too personally. Gambling in Casablanca, etc. etc.
But the thing is, right now in America, this message about parents being involved with their kids' education, it could be repeated to every community in America. Why aren't white leaders talking to parents about insuring that their children are becoming scientifically literate? Why did so many white communities settle for a President who could not complete a sentence and think that was cool, folksy? Ditto, Mrs. Palin. Why do so many kids across the American demographic turn off to school by the fourth grade? And then the bigger question for Americans, why does someone these days have to go into debt for over a decade if they want to get a university education?
The current brand of racism, the invisible hand bag of privileged they don't notice they're carrying around and slapping people's faces with, being pontificated in the fourth estate and among entrenched politicians, I can only hope, is like a chainsaw running out of gas, noisy, spurting, signalling an end. Still, it's enough to tear one's hair out.
Regarding education, I agree. I know Obama was speaking in front of NAACP, but I heard the message as if it were for all parents, not just black parents. I don't know if that was what he intended, or I'm just hearing what I want to hear.
That NYT headline is truly sad.
OK, this is a trivial tangent, but the overall sloppiness and ignorance of the NYT hit home the other day when I read this article about my Los Angeles neighborhood in the NYT travel section:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/travel/12surfacing.html
The ignorance and lack of effort shown by the author is insulting.
Example: "But few would ever confuse Highland Park for a cultural district. Until now."
The facts: Highland Park has a tradition of being an Arts neighborhood for over 100 years, a fact easily discoverable by no more than 15 minutes of research (or less if you rely on wikipedia).
Example: "Much of the flurry is clustered along a five-block stretch of York Boulevard, the main drag."
The facts: The author is completely unaware of Figueroa, the mainer main drag of Highland Park. She also focuses on the newer businesses (which conveniently supports her thesis) instead of some of the much cooler businesses that have been there for decades: Verdugo Pet Shop, which sells livestock and feed (in the middle of the city! OK, it's mostly chickens ducks, and geese. They cater to people that want REALLY fresh eggs) or Pets With Fez Weaving Studio, operated by an aging Turkish Hippy/Beatnik named Baba Ji. He wove the scarves worn by Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd. btw.)
I realize this is way off topic, but I needed to get it off my chest. I've been really pissed off at the NYT since I read it. Thank you for your indulgence.
I don't know. Maybe I am older than most of you on this site. I am certainly more cynical.
Don't get hung up on what the MSM reports. Or HuffPO. Or any of them. Even TNC.
(But TNC, you are one of the exceptions on the internet. I can see that you speak and write from your heart. and more importantly from your mind. but...)
People it's all about the $$$$$. It doesn't matter if it is relevant or or misguided, or even true...it only matters that it generates traffic. and traffic means $$$$$.
Mr. Obama is speaking for the record and to the people. After all the noise of the news cycle is gone, the substance will remain. He is relentless that way. At least, so far.
His speech yesterday was to the African-American people. It had nothing to do with anyone else. He doesn't even care what you think. He was speaking to his people from his experience. Nothing more.
He is the best we have. On the other end of the spectrum is Ms. Palin.
Read. Listen for yourself. Decide what you feel and think. Then get on these sites and try to convince people.
Well it's a conversation that's been going on forever but whites have long clung to the more controversial elements of it. Few white people - and none in the commentariat that I'm aware of - talk about the NOI's attempts to inspire self-respect, dress code, clean living. Now I have my own problems with the NOI (corruption, abuse, criminal ties) but that's neither here nor there. So many movements that were reduced to "anti white" or "anti semitic", "reverse racist" or what have you when often the focus was equally if not moreso focused on self-betterment. Now with Cosby you have a man who has a totally nonthreatening public persona, just using the soapbox to shake his fist at the kids and white folks applaud like crazy. They couldn't applaud for Malcolm, though...
It's a perfect example of the sort of racism that many whites don't see.
Journalists report on 'Man Bites Dog' stories, and blacks rejecting excuses and embracing responsibility is so freakishly out of character that it qualifies. Every single time.
I'm not quite sure how to drive the point home, though. Maybe offers parallel headlines. "Wiesel Tells Fellow Jews: Don't Be So Greedy." "Kennedy to the Irish: Don't Get Drunk Every Single Day." "Hillary Clinton Tells Women: You, Too, Can Learn Long Division."
Hey,
I take ofense at that drunk Iriish comment. Im perfecey sober right now.
You should see what I refrained from saying about _pirates!_
yee-ouchh! that hurts!
Rachel came as close as anyone in calling Patty boy out tonight. Maybe since I'm seeing a lot of Steven A. Smith on MSNBC, maybe they can have a little debate. That would be, shall we say.... Interesting.
LOL@ calling Pat Buchanan "Patty".
It would be more properly spelled as "Paddy".
Although in fairness Buchanan is largely of German/English/Scots Irish descent. His "Catholic" roots trace to the German part of his background. Stick the Germans with Paddy. They've had worse.......
That's why I was laughing.
I have a Japanese/Irish cousin that isn't really Irish. His surname is Ohara. He was once upset about some kids at school dogging him for being Asian, so I started dogging him about his Irish "identity".
Michelle Bernard on MSNBC was saying that "we" didn't need to hear about health care or energy policies we needed to hear education. WTF? No doubt education is important but how are these issues the mainstream policy discussions he has with other groups not important to Af-Ams? As was discussed at Jackandjill.com this is how the NAACP becomes irrelevant, through its inability to evolve it's focus away from its historic bread and butter. I do believe we drive cars and pay heating bills, I do believe our communities suffer disproportionate rates of preventable illnesses and have some of the highest rates of HIV infection, so how the hell are health care and energy discussions not what we want/need to hear? Once again how the hell do these idiots get on tv? Is there an inverse relationship between ignorance and telegenic appeal?
The focus on “excuses” uses the personal to obscure the political.
It's a no-brainer to say that we shouldn't find excuses to put forth less than our best effort. But if our problems have political dimensions, we should address them too.
Hey Ta-Nehisi,
I know the gist of this post is about the way that the white mainstream media reports on this type of speech, but you also seemed to be pretty dismissive of a speech you neither saw, heard, or read.
As some people have posted, I thought the speech was one of his best, and was handsdown nothing like the "Father's Day" speeches that you kinda ragged on last time.
He spoke more personally this time, and even discussed his trip to the Cape Coast Catle in Ghana.
I'm glad I watched it myself before hearing commentary afterwards, because I would be having the same preconeived notions that you seem to have had about the speech. Besides, all those people commenting, including reporters, have their own agendas to push anyway.
I thought it was a pretty good speech. I second that you oughta listen to it vs. read it though. I don't know I get a kick out of watching him speak to black folk- when the crowd starts feeling him and puts a little "flava" into his speech and delivery, I dunno it's fun to watch.
Do any of you find it curious that no one, black or white has commented on Pres Obama's comment about Christianity and slavery?
YES! It was a poignant critique of hypocrisy in general and a veiled critique of the Christian Right, which trades on bigotry while preaching "Christian love."
I totally got that, but what intrigues me and makes me want to visit and see it for myself is its potential for being a symbol of the human condition.
I heard that - that people didn't 'practice what they preach', with the chapel and the dungeon both at cape coast castle. That didn't seem all that noteworthy to me. Was that what you had in mind?
Yes, but it was the way he phrased it. I think he said "this is a good example of people saying one thing and doing another". It reminded me of the Saddleback discussion (I refuse to call it a debate). Remember when he was asked if evil exists and what should be done about it? Besides confront and bear witness, he said we should be careful to not hold ourselves as the sole passers of judgment for evil because we run the risk of doing evil in the name of good (I'm paraphrasing).
Here's a link to the speech. Thirty six minutes long.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/07/16/sot.obama.naacp.entire.cnn
I haven't watched it yet. I'm going to hit the grocery store first. I like to shop right before closing time. Limits my exposure to large number of annoying humans, of any shade or variety, in front of me.
I know you all await my incisive "white devil"/spokesman for white America commentary. Or perhaps not.
I'd also like to let Rikyrah know that while she may no longer be an Ambassador for Black America she is the Ambassador to my heart.
Come to Spud!
OK, I'm not leaving until you get back.
I'm listening now.
"It would come from men and women of every age and faith, and every race and region taking Greyhounds on Freedom rides.......knowing they would be beaten, knowing that some of them might never return, because of what they did we are a more perfect union......."
The man speaks and writes beautifully.
Still only five minutes into it.........
Damn, "I stand on the shoulders of giants".........he did have to ruin it by bringing Roland Burris into it didn't he.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/the_cosby_show_and_barack_obama.php
Gotta lighten up the discussion.
The man has a genuine talent. I didn't hear anything new, but this speech was really quite moving and stirring. And as others have commented, this speech was both to the NAACP and the black community AND everyone else in America.
In short, this speech was the perfect rebuttal to the politics of resentment and the culture of victimhood, regardless of which party is espousing them and regardless of the race of the person subscribing.
Marcos, President Obama got to where he is because he is a world class orator. This particular speech was excellent, nearly flawless in both content and delivery, and the preacher cadence is just so beautiful (and very much appreciated by this particular audience.)
I certainly do not agree with President Obama 100% of the time, but when he gives a speech like this I become willing to overlook some of our differences.
I don't know what motivates the NYTimes but I know that I felt a certain kind of relief when the whole Cosby situation broke because while these issues are certainly talked about in the communities affected they had been largely missing from the public discussions which were starting to feel divorced from the more desperate realities of some people's daily lives. To be clear Cosby never said that institutional racism doesn't exist but that if people wait for the feds, or others, to come to the rescue than they could say goodbye to another generation lost to the streets. so I don't know how certain people had become the public/media faces for all things AA but when Cosby spoke up that clearly struck a nerve not just in the media but in also in the communities that he was addressing. A lot of community care/organizing folks that have been in the fight for a long time felt like they were finally being represented so it doesn't seem to be as simple as easing white guilt, tho that's likely part of the broad appeal of the spin on Obama. Given the little bit I know about TNC's dad I would be interested in his take on such matters. Sorry if this a bit of a ramble i'm still working on thinking/writing in this box.
I think some folks here just don't realize how many white people honestly believe that blacks never talk about personal responsibility, etc. And many of these white folks believe that they aren't racist. Obama's very presence and rhetoric confounds these people. They are used to hearing black right wingers like Steele (Shelby and Michael) and Armstrong Williams going off on welfare, etc.; to them, only right wing blacks believe in personal responsibility. Non-right wing blacks just want a hand-out, etc. When a moderately progressive Democrat like Obama blends talk of personal responsibility with structural racism, white conservatives' heads explode.
Did anyone see the post speech coverage on Hardball MSNBC with Stephen Smith and Michelle Barnard? Smith's and Barnard's talking points were very much in alignment with the NYT headline. Both were stressing the "no excuses" theme from the speech and expounding on it. Matthews actually interjected, in his awkward guilty white man way, to point out that despite all the "no excuses" stuff, it was important to remember that discrimination still exists in this country. I am paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it. It was odd and kind of funny.
I thought the speech was awesome, especially at the end. It was just inspiring, no matter your background/race. Not the best speech ever given or anything, but a very good one. It's a shame, that not only does the headline make it about blacks and excuses, but also the text of the article about the speech is all about race, race, race. I think part of Obama's true power as a politician is that I always think he is talking to people like me, even when he is talking to the NAACP. The coverage is so reductive.
You are a smart man Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Here's a better link on YOUTUBE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv6EAaoFNno
It also has the introduction by Julian Bond.
The NYT story really didn't do the speech justice.
As Marcos El Malo stated the speech didn't really cover any new ground for President Obama, but it was beautifully written and delivered.
There's a scene in the movie "Gettysburg" where a dying soldier says to Medal of Honor winner Colonel Lawrence Chamberlain who just held the Union line:
"The army was blessed. I want to tell you, just in case. That I never served.. I've never served with a better man."
One day I hope to say that Barack Obama was the best President of my lifetime and that the nation was blessed. Time will tell.
I said "my lifetime" because without divine intervention no President could be truly Lincolnesque. I hope that we are never in need of another Lincoln because one civil war was enough.
That Col.'s name was Joshua Chamberlain, Lawrence was his middle name. He was a great man, incidentally, and someone Ta-Nehisi might be interested in reading up on, if he hasn't already, as part of his Civil War buffing. When I was in the Army Reserve, Chamberlain figured prominently in the Army's leadership manual. Fascinating stories.
"Lawrence" was the name his friends and family called him. Anyway I just watched the movie again and in the movie his brother humorously kept calling him "Lawrence".
That's good enough for me.
As for the Army Field Manuals..............snore. Although, I imagine I could still conjure up some Airland Battle concepts out of my memory. If the Soviets move through the Fulda Gap I'm ready.
Thankfully Chamberlain read his manuals and between that and his broad education was able to save the day.
I'm chuckling at the concept of Civil War buffing. Apparently Civil War Nerd is a prestige class . . .
What game are you all playing? And are you using 3.5 or 4.0 rules?
Meh. Here's my take on Obama's "no excuses" rhetoric: it's not even aimed at the NAACP or black voters generally. It's aimed at moderate voters and independents who value (to some extent) personal responsibility. And it's only rhetoric. What substantive policies has Obama proposed related to this "no excuses" rhetoric? Has he directed his Justice Department to back off on disparate impact cases because there should be "no excuses" for blacks not doing as well on a job-related test?
Facts and deeds brothers and sisters. Buchanan is a an outright fascist a la modthrough and through, and doesn't hide it. If some one gave you a copy of his latest book, "Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World", skim it, and toss it in the garbage. He somehow tries to convice his readers that the war was a concotion of FDR and Churchill.
Just do yourself and everyone here a favor and don't listen to him, or think he represents anything. He's a roach used by he media for their fair and balanced reporting line of bullshit.
I have said this before and I will say it one more time: the CIA long has a long history of being moles who are reporters for the NYT. Believe nothing that you hear, 25% of what you see, and 10% of what you read. Know who the media is, and go to the source of information. Reject any attempt to let someone tell you what Obama said about anything. The only way to know is watch his speech, and then read the transcript. You don't need a pundit to tell you; in fact these newsnothings are completely useless and not needed: they never think in the abstract, they simplistic filters, and, for the most part ignorant.
The Obama speech. Personally, I loved the the direct connection of chriatianity to slavery. That's been a long time coming. HE is a nuanced, very intelligent, and complex man. The speech is chock full of similar connections. He speaks up to us, not down. Only a president who can educate and evolve will be great. I say we are witnessing an historic time in American history, and we must support the goals of this administration if we believe in them. If you don't, too bad for you.
Carry on. Put your words, actions, and money where it is needed. Make it happen. This isn't on Obama's shoulders, it's on ours.
I've been a news/copy editor for a long time and I think it's important to lay the blame for this where it belongs. The copy editors and news editors are at fault here because it is the headline that is the problem. I think that the story, while fairly bland and flat, gives perspective to the "no excuses" comments and touches on many elements of the speech. The headline, however, does not. It is definitely reductive, perhaps salacious and -- depending on how it came to be there and why -- I might even consider it pandering.
When you're responsible for putting together pages for a newspaper or its website, there is nothing more important to consider than the headlines. Simply put, they are EVERYTHING. If you get them right, your page has a chance, even if you have precious little news to work with. Screw them up and even the story of the year will fall apart on you in its presentation. Copy editors write the headlines and news editors edit them. They determine where they run, how big they are, whether the tone is right, etc. etc. It's a news editor's most critical work, beyond deciding what goes out there. It is extremely disappointing that the NYT didn't do a better job in that respect with something as important as this. I can think of many possible reasons why it didn't, and none of them are acceptable.
It's on the front page of the NYT site. Someone should report back tomorrow if the same headline is on the dead tree version. Sure, you can blame the copy editor, but if it's a front page headline, even just for the site, you have to start pointing the finger at senior management.
If by pandering you mean they are trying to generate page hits via a misleadingly provocative headline, then I agree. It's sad that they would further dilute their already weakened brand with such crass trolling, but there it is.
Marcos,
You are quite correct, of course. Ultimate responsibility always lies with whoever is right at the top of an organisation. I was just trying to point out who was likely to actually be writing/editing this stuff. Most people attach everything to the reporter and that's not really how it works.
My apologies to all here if this is common knowledge around these parts.
Unless the senior management came in to handle this one (not sure about the specifics of the NYT but it would be extremely unlikely at most large newspapers for that to happen) this was the Page One editor's call (or the online equivalent of the Page One editor). That's the top news editor position and under normal circumstances, that's who would be making such a decision.
I was just about to make the same point. Reporters don't write headlines, don't have any say in how they're written, and usually don't see them until the story is published.
That said, I didn't think the article was all that much more valuable. She did, after all, lead with the "No excuses" stuff (which is probably why the paper put that headline on it), and while she did contextualize it some, I came away with the idea that the responsibility theme was the most important part of O's speech. In short, it was clearly an article written by white people, for white people, about a black man talking, at least ostensibly, to black people. Not surprising that much of the dynamics was lost, but the Times can do better.
Why he's in church. I mean, not sitting in the pew, but the President's in church. This isn't the speech you give to people to convince a hostile crowd. This is a speech you give to people who know that they have to face a hostile crowd, but for now they're safe and they need their spirits built up, so tomorrow they can get through the grind again.
I've seen the same theme play out again and again in small churches all over. I've seen Crow Preachers, White Preachers, Cheyenne Preachers, Blackfoot Preachers, Catholic Priests, all give this type of message. I've seen this type of speech at revival tent meetings, and in places where the pews were so plush people were afraid to fart. I've even seen my father give this type of sermon, but that part of my upbringing is another story.
Obama's at the high church of blackness --meaning no offense to anyone-- he knows the drill. The general theme of these speaches is always the same. First make people feel good about themselves and connect them with their history. Then illustrate present problems and dificulties. Step on a few toes and let people know that they can't rest on their laurels. Link the present dificulties to the triumphs of the past. Tell people that if an older generation can over come harder things that they should have no problems overcoming present dificulties. Make a few appeals to personal responsibility. Finally, End with a benediction or a story that links everything together and shows the indomitability of the human spirit.
The New York Times description of this speech misses the boat entirely. However, I think that's for a few important reasons. First how many reporters go to church? No offense intended but the structure of a sermon, which is what this is, is different from the structure of an ordinary political speech. I think if more reporters were more familiar with a bit more puplit pounding they'd understand. Second, and I've seen this play out with Native Americans if not with African Americans. Mainstream society has two stereotypes that they love to continually play out when they talk about minorities. Either members of minority groups are portrayed as drunk, lazy, good-for-nothings, or they are pictured as noble savages resisting the incursions of the evil white man. An alternate variant on the "noble savage" stereotype exists as well. Usually in this variation the "good minority" adapts themselves to the progress of "civilization."
I think the headline of the NYT article, if not the entire article, is a lazy, half-assed, way of reporting on a sermon that was meant to be and was inspiring, if only in a typical Sunday got-to-meeting type of way. In the article the two ways that mainstream society have of viewing those outside are fused. We get both types of stereotypes. On the one hand there's the noble savage stereotype in Barrack Obama. On the other hand, there's an element, in the article, of the "good" minority who's come back to tell the "bad" minority how to adopt the white man's ways and be successfull.
The problem with this entire way of reporting is that somewhere in the fusion of stereotypes people loose their humanity. I said before that the speech was a sermon, and, in the best sermons, people are preached to both individually and collectively. Collectively the president brings everyone into contact with their history. Individually he brings his struggle into relationship with the individual stuggle of the audience members. The end result is to give strength to the individual by preaching a collective message of hope, and to inspire the collective by preaching an individual message of perserverence. Watch the conclusion of the speech again, like all good preachers, and I maintain that on this occasion Obama is a preacher, Obama uses the individual stories of people like Moses Wright to give a strength and a voice to the communal experience of African Americans.
Of course the NYT got it wrong. First they don't understand the tradition, and second they don't understand the dynamic between the individual and his group. Of course if their reporters went to church a bit more, or if they stopped viewing ethnic minorities as monolithic communities they might get a bit more right. However I don't see either of those two things happening in the near future.
Sorry for the long post.
Don't apologize. You made some very interesting points. I'll have to take you at your word on some parts, as I've never been much of a church goer, but what you said makes sense to me. I myself was surprised at how much I was moved (and still feel moved, hours later) by the speech because in general political appeals to emotion or religious feelings leave me quite cold.* But now that you gave it the name, it did feel akin to a sermon.
No doubt, the man is gifted, even more than I thought. If he was a preacher and it had been a religious sermon (rather than a political one), I believe I might well have been converted. And perhaps I have been in a way.
*Militant agnostic here.
sorn i think that you have captured exactly what was happening withn the speech/sermon and the setting and certainly the NYTimes, or anyone else who hasn't spent much time in similar circumstances as evidenced by some of the talk here about homosexuality in many traditional black churches, would likely not understand this rhetorical mode. but i would guess that there was also (in the headline) a context here of the discussion in the media and elsewhere about whether or not the NAACP is an organization whose time/mission has passed and they may have been reading into the Prez's speech his saying that this was so. having spent most of my life around the liberal 'elite' i do have to say that this is not about denying or getting past history but about a need for hope in the face of what often seem like daunting and perhaps unsurmountable odds. all of those teachers, ministers, social workers, lawyers and such who have struggled so hard to try and make a difference and see so little progress and so much suffering found in Obama a reason to believe and this kind of faith is often blind to how it comes across to non-believers.
Sorn,
Please submit this comment to the NYT editors.
Deleted.
I haven't read the who speech yet . . . but I'm always wary of this "no excuses" line. In my experience, blacks (and whites) are not looking for excuses. They are looking for jobs. They are looking for quality education. They are looking for money to go to college.
I would like Obama to specifically address white people and their problems.
My hunch is that he is definitely pandering to the white vote. He has the black vote in his back pocket. He just needs to make sure the white people don't think he is too black.
They really screwed him on that line. He actually didn't say it that way. He was talking about how we raise our kids and said something to the effect of, "We have to say to our kids, yes if you're black you have a higher chance of being involved in a gang, yes you have a higher chance of being involved in violence. But we have to tell them you can succeed. You must succeed. No excuses."
That's not exactly it. But that's the gist. It wasn't directed at "black people." It sucks they reported it that way.
I think if you watch the speech along with reading the text that it will be pretty clear that, in this instance at least, Obama was not trying to appear to be not "too black."
Whoa! Ta-Nehisi, I'm noticing a trend. I had a similar beef earlier this week (http://monikafabian.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/nyts-sotomayor-leaves-passion-behind-wordled/) at the write-up this reporter gave Judge Sotomayor's performance on Tuesday. I know it's only two articles and I definitely hear your larger critique but it's still a coincidence that's kinda "funny".
I hear something in remarks like these that hasn't been mentioned yet. It's very, very hard for anybody to "rescue" someone else's kids. Sometimes it gets done by heroic teachers, coaches, or ministers. And sometimes the state manages to intervene successfully with social workers and child protective services. But, fundamentally, it almost always comes down to family and close community to set the groundwork that makes it possible to deal productively with outsiders.
There isn't anything that I can do to tell a black teenager WHO HASN'T BEEN PRIMED TO HEAR THE MESSAGE about the advantages of staying in school and going on to get a degree. But, if he or she has already heard that message at home, and then turns up in my office as an intern ready to learn the ropes, then I can help. I've done it before, and I will do it again. Not out of guilt, but because I will teach anyone of any color who wants to learn.
(I'm not talking about black peers or bosses, although I have some where I work. The remarks were about youth, so I'm using the older-younger power differential here.)
A lot of the reason middle class people are eager to hear the "responsibility" message circulating among people who aren't middle class (and I'm well aware that some white people are in that group) is that it actually lets us meet in the middle. Without the "responsibility" message, anything we can do would probably be coercive or patronizing, and quite possibly counterproductive as well. With it, though, there are plenty of deals on the table that could benefit everyone. This applies regardless of race.
I agree with a lot of this. But wouldn't you say the whole point you make in the beginning of your post, exposes the futility of a responsibility message? If the kids aren't primed to hear it, what's the point of the message?
It's better than a headline that says, "Obama to White Folks: You're No Friends of Mine."
I think TNC got caught out here- first he's criticizing coverage of a speech he didn't watch and then after he watches it he says its nothing special and then he jaws that it isn't anything rightraised folks haven't been saying forever.
Is he talking about the right raised folks, TNC?
I am a teacher in an complicated city and my fourth graders are from various backgrounds. But about half these wonderful kids whom I adore do stay up and play x-box and psp and what-not, and much of their lives is focused on their games. Come visit my class and you'll be impressed by many things but you will probably be made concerned by the hold their playstations and wii have over their waking hours. In addition, a significant number of my students have parents who are very involved with these games. To some extent fine, we live in the modern world. The games aren't all bad. But I see the impact the extreme involvement is having on their sleep, their mealtimes, their social lives, their academic achievement, their ability to participate in sports or even phys ed. The number of kids who stay up late watching bootleg r rated horror movies over and over (saw III anyone?) and watching wrestling till late is pro-found.
I am not against young parents. I am not against black or latino or bosnian parents.
But you inserting right-raised into your later posts on this thread still misses the point. Someone has to turn off the x-box and the horror movies and the wrestling at a certain hour, read with their kids, and let the house be quiet enough to let them sleep. yes these beautiful kids I work with come to school everyday, yes the kids are clean and loved and cherished. But come talk to my students TNC and find out how many of them eat supper everynight by themselves while playing x-box.
You want to talk nonsense about the new york times and how they got it all wrong, but if you listened to the speech and listened to the crowd I think the times got it a lot more right than you did this time.
i'm late on reading your post but i was there and you are absolutely right about how Obama's speech went down. naacp prez ben jealous, when being questioned by the press after, even commented that it would be unfortunate if the "personal responsibility" angle would be the leading headline on obama's speech--not least because that wasn't its central point.
I am amazed at how not one news article i have read thus far have mentioned President Obamas racist statement per"...accident of birth".
That statement was a popular statement Whites use to make in the 1900's regarding Afrimericans.
It was a favorite saying by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who said the beast thing a Black women could do was kill her baby to keep from having to raise an imbecile.
Being a poor Afrimerican, not adopted or adoptable by the White Ole boy club, I find it sad more and more prominent Afrimericans are White in Blackface, and Black when they can pimp the marketable aspects of Blackness to secure, and prove their use to White supremacy.
Being born Black is not an accident, and any Black person that says and relies on such is a traitor not only to the race, but to themself.
Oh that is so sad... My children were so wanted. I would of never even thought of killing one of my children. My black children were no accident.
Also if your school kids are staying up playing XBox then it is the parents fault. They need to look at their parentage.
Afrimerican.... you sound so angry. There is no need in being angry.
Who are you angry at The WHITE people. SAD
Pardon
Margaret Sanger quote correction, "The Best thing a Black woman can do is kill her baby..."
Ok... What do you think the White People need to do? If people can get pass the WHITE, BLACK thing and be responsible for ourselves and our own children and stop blaming others... What do you think about that. I am a black woman raising children on my own (because my children father is not there for his children) But, I am not going to blame the white people for that. If my children go out and do wrong then who fault is that?? If my children choose not to learn in school ... Who fault is that? Surly it is not the white man fault. I have to take on my own responsibility. My children are my own responsibility. It is my own fault that i did not stay in school. Not the white man fault. It is not the white man fault i am poor.
Not the white man fault that i never went to collage. ALL MY FAULT.
It is easier to blame someone else. I had a chance to finish school and go to collage. So... What do you want the white people to do for us black people?? Black people that does not want to do for ourselves that want things just handed to us. I took it upon myself to get my GED and go to nursing school. I work hard for what my children and i have. My children are upstanding kids and making good grades in school. If i sat back and cried that the white people gets everything and we black people get nothing then i would still be setting poor. STOP blaming everyone and look in the mirror. White people are poor to and have nothing but they are not blaming the blacks for that. What i am seeing more and more out in this world is blacks being racist. I do see the whites trying to better things but the blacks are to busy being mad and blaming whites for their misfortune. If i can get out there and go to school and raise my children so can other black parents.