Provocative pieces on Obama , the Sopranos at blackagendareport.com.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

Never heard of this site before:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/

Provocative pieces on Barack:

Barack Obama's candidacy for president reveals critical fissures in the historical African American worldview, forcing Black citizens and activists to make a choice: will we support a cosmetic change in regime that is no more than skin deep - endorsing the ruling structure because it has a Black face - or continue on the long journey to self-determination, true social democracy and peace. Obama, the political twin of Hillary Clinton and the corporate Democratic Leadership Council her husband helped found, is determined to liquidate Black politics as an independent force in the United States, having already proclaimed, "There is no Black America."... more.

... and the Sopranos:

America's love affair with the gangster-killer-thug Soprano family proves beyond doubt that white violence is exalted in the culture, while Black violence is Public Enemy Number One. Tony Soprano needs a high-priced psychiatrist, but a million Black men and women deserve a living death in prison. Gangster-actors Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart are revered as cultural icons, while Seventies so-called "Black-sploitation" films and contemporary rap recordings are condemned as symptoms of African American social pathology. Violence, apparently, is an exclusive White Right.... more.

[HamdenRice]

1. "to liquidate Black politics ..."

to liquidate Black politics as an independent force in the United States, having already proclaimed, "There is no Black America."...

I think this is very troubling about Obama and perhaps difficult for our white brothers and sisters to understand. It often gets swept up and characterized as a superficial accusation that that the critique is "Obama isn't black enough" and therefore illegitimate.

It's much more complex and troubling than that.

[sandnsea]

3. This is just sad

Black America missed the point in 2004 too, bought into all kinds of smears against John Kerry that weren't anywhere near true. I sincerely hope they don't get played again.

Obama wasn't saying there aren't racist problems in America. He was saying we are more than that, we are better than that.

"I'm not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Uh, what?

"Black America missed the point in 2004 too, bought into all kinds of smears against John Kerry that weren't anywhere near true. I sincerely hope they don't get played again."

Kerry got 90% of the black vote in 2004. Who's getting played?

[sandnsea]

9. I understand that

But there was a lot of misinformation on black radio that was just ridiculous. Like Teresa claiming to be black since she was from Mozambique, just ridiculous shit that doesn't help turn out the full vote. Especially when wins are on such narrow margins these days.

This crap is coming from the Clinton campaign. With the numbers that came out yesterday, that Hillary's support is coming from women without advanced educations, she has to put pressure on Obama in the black community or she is sunk. That's all this is. Clinton's policies hurt severely and really created the investor class and the servant class. He isn't speaking out about how his policies need to be implemented either. I don't know that Obama would be better, but I sure know Hillary is no friend to poor people so I know she is no friend to blacks either.

[HamdenRice]

11. That's all this is.???

So all the African American commentators troubled by Obama are just pawns of the Clintons?

No, I think there is genuine concern about his candidacy that has nothing to do with the Clintons.

[sandnsea]

13. I disagree

I think blacks are being manipulated by the Clinton campaign. They are very very very good at what they do. Look at the support Hillary has at DU, which makes absolutely NO sense at all.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. "This crap is coming from the Clinton campaign."

This is from the the Clinton campaign?:

"Obama, the political twin of Hillary Clinton and the corporate Democratic Leadership Council her husband helped found, is determined to liquidate Black politics as an independent force in the United States..."

[sandnsea]

17. Obama not black enough crap

How people are duped and choose to write about Obama's so-called black problem is how you know the Clinton smear machine is working.

[HamdenRice]

21. Predictable

From my first post, I predicted that some people would misunderstand this with the incomprehensible slogan of "not black enough." That's not what the cited article is about and not what any post in this thread is about. You are trying hard not to understand.

[sandnsea]

23. That's where it came from

The Clinton campaign exploiting that idea.

Yes it means a whole lot more than identity. Yes Black America is right to look at the policies of every candidate, the color of someone's skin is not enough to generate loyalty.

They also need to consider how someone else will exploit those issues. Someone. Anyone. Even Bill Clinton.

[HamdenRice]

26. My apologies

I didn't realize you were referring to my post.

Also, I think I dislike Clinton as much, or more, than you do. Hillary is so far down the bottom of my list of candidates that she has fallen off.

It's just that I don't think they are as in control of things -- and certainly not in control of the African American perception of Obama -- as you do.

[sandnsea]

27. The Clinton Machine

It's not a rumor, it's a reality. Don't underestimate it. They ARE ruthless.

[dmallind]

6. OK I'm listening

and I kinda like complex new insights. I didn't quite dismiss it merely as Obama not being black enough although teh connection did spring to mind - I saw it more as an accusation that he is ignoring the need to be a specifically BLACK politician, and instead trying to just be a politician who is black (or biracial technically). What I understood from that is that the writer believes there is a greater need for black identity as a distinguishing trait in politics than there is for completely race-blind approaches. I disagree, but then I'm one of those white brothers and sisters so I do not share the same experience. To me Obama is doing the right thing in making his campaign only very tangentially about race, and is not running as some kind of black savior who will lead his people to the promised land. Not only could he not deliver on that, but he would then be seen as marginal on other very important issues such as healthcare, the economy, foreign policy etc. Blacks may (heck almost certainly DO) face greater challenges in all those areas, but they are not "black" problems or issues per se.

I certainly believe there is, sadly, still a need for black identity defined groups who will work for racial justice, equality, and economic opportunity, but I don't agree a presidential candidate should be the one leading that. A candidate for that office cannot afford narrow perspectives however noble or necessary.

[HamdenRice]

10. It's not about identity, per se, but about policy

The African American community, historically and today, does indeed have a specific politics. Part of those politics are quite traditionally Democratic. That's why about 90% of African Americans voted for both Gore and Kerry. We also tend to be pro-labor and are generally opposed to militarism. African Americans are perhaps the most progressive identifiable voting block within the Democratic party.

There is also an added element based on history and experience. African Americans typically have experienced discrimination, live in segregated neighborhoods and attend public schools that are more segregated than they were in the 1960s. I think most Black Americans would agree that there is "unfinished" constitutional business that America needs to address. Moreover, unlike most white ethnic groups who have experienced discrimination (such as the Irish Americans and Italian Americans), Black Americans' politics tends to universalize the problem of this unfinished business, extending that concern to Latinos, Native Americans and women. In other words, there seems to be reluctance to take the deal that has been offered others: take your slice of the pie (or your political office or your house in the segregated suburbs) and shut up about fundamental structural injustice.

As a result, African American politicians who represent Black districts tend to have very progressive political positions, and can hold those positions safely because of the views of their constituencies. That's why politicians like John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney and other members of the Black Congressional Caucus take stances that very, very few white politicians take (Dennis Kucinich and Berney Sanders are notable exceptions). It's also why African American politicians cannot be elected in "general" elections -- but given their commitments, I'm not sure they want to.

It seems to many of us that Obama isn't proposing simply to not be a Black politician, but through his embrace by white America to help end Black politics. Here is how the Blackagendareport put it, quoting Obama:

<quote>

"There is no white America. There is no black America. There is no Latino America. There is no Asian America. There is only the United States of America." Hallelujah!

Therefore, there is no specific oppression of Black people in America (carried out by whites), and there is no Black polity worth paying attention to. Voila, the problem of centuries is solved!

<endquote>

I don't think there is or has been a single self-identified black politician -- including office holding politicians and non-office holding politicians -- from the age of Frederick Douglass through Booker T. Washington Ida B. Wells, to Roy Wilkins, to W.E.B. du Bois, to Martin Luther King, to Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters or John Conyers, who would have made Obama's statement.

Perhaps Obama will carve out a niche for himself in national politics as a lone African American figure with substantial white support who has no effect on Black politics. But to many African-Americans, he seems to be holding out to white America the very end of substantive black politics -- which to many Black people, isn't necessarily about reaching out and ending race consciousness, but as Cornell West might put it, bringing a specific "prophetic" and redemptive self-knowledge (based on the experience of or acknowledgement of that unfinished business) to a country that has steadfastly refused to introspect. And white America's embrace of Obama's candidacy (especially his identity) seems to be yet another example of that stubborn refusal.

[dmallind]

15. But help me out here if you would.

I understand as much as I as a whitey (and European-born immigrant whitey at that, meaning I don't even have the same history or family background of the civil rights era or earlier on the white side let alone the black side) probably ever can what you are saying about black polity and the reasons for the progressive nature of much of the Black Caucus, but I'm still having trouble seeing how a rather vapid if noble sounding pablum like this:

"There is no white America. There is no black America. There is no Latino America. There is no Asian America. There is only the United States of America." Hallelujah!"

means or even implies this:

Therefore, there is no specific oppression of Black people in America (carried out by whites), and there is no Black polity worth paying attention to. Voila, the problem of centuries is solved!

Isn't it much simpler to read those words as at worst a naive expression that we must work together as one society to improve all of society, and at best a sincere attempt to employ that worldview as a candidate? I don't think "there is no black America" means that there is no racism or oppression of blacks in America. Whatever Obama is, a blithering idiot he isn't, and you'd have to be to claim that racism is nonexistent. But there is not, or at least should not be, a separate America by of and for black Americans. To me I just see this line as a way of saying "I won't work to improve the lot of white Americans, black Americans, or Latino Americans, or Asian Americans, but ALL Americans".

Again there's a certain risk of naivete here but I agree with him. We can't compertmentalize society and expect to reduce the racism and oppression that you speak of. The more we separate ourselves - white from black OR vice versa - the less likely we are to understand or care about the other. I mean surely the reduction in racism (no not elimination) that eventually followed desegregation demonstrates that having a separate "black America" is counterproductive? This doesn't mean there is no shared black experience, or culture, or art or whatever any more than there is no Irish or Geramn or, more germane here Italian culture, and that blacks must somehow become "not black" but it does mean any attempt to self-segregate politically and as Americans is more harmful than beneficial. Maybe this is the immigrant in me, but I don't see a necessary contradiction between being an American pure and simple (not a white one or immigrant one or European-born one) and still retaining some of the characteristics, mores and culture I inherited by being born into a different group than the majority of Americans. I don't mean to equate foreign born with black socially, as they are entirely separate animals in terms of receiving equal treatment and opportunity, but there is an analogy of "different-ness" that can be made, and how that "different-ness" does not conflict with being just another part of the American polity.

[HamdenRice]

20. Here's the key phrase: "self-segregate"

I think that by zeroing in on this passage, we can get to the difference between the progressive white and progressive black understanding of America.

It has been nearly a half century since the Swedish researcher, Gunnar Myrdal, was commissioned to study American racism and concluded that in effect there were two Americas. Hundreds of studies since then have come to the same conclusion. Objectively speaking, there are indeed, at least a Black America and a Latino America and a Native American America.

I live in what the census bureau has indicated is the most middle class black majority district in America -- in southeast Queens, New York. But it is probably around 95% black. The schools are up to 99% black.

But this neighborhood is de facto segregated not because of law, nor because of "self-segregation." It is segregated because of a stupefyingly complex arrangement of institutions that produces segregation in America in the wake of the desegregation era. From my perspective it is utterly obvious that we live in a pervasively institutionally racist society -- that although we might hope someday for one America, there is a Black America, a White America and a Latin America. Of this, I have a level of certaintly that approaches 100% and am reminded of it every day. These complex institutional arrangements produce a range of severe harm even in a middle class neighborhood -- from making it geographically convenient for the political classes to deliver inferior services, to radically suppressing the accumulation of real estate value, to stiffling our political voices within "general politics."

The recognition of these arrangements produces a certain political awareness. Not just about race, but about the all institutions that produce produce many of the most egregious and murderous ills of society such as militarism, imperialism, anti-labor policies, corporate media control -- a whole range of things that to many black Americans seems obvious. To us, white Americans, who do not see this, seem to be either in denial or simply uninformed.

These politics are not "self-segregation." They are politics based on our grasp of reality, which may be empiracally more thorough than the average person's grasp of reality. That's because we see your world everyday, we know your reality, and you don't ever see our reality. We have an empirical advantage.

Obama's statement therefore must mean one of any number of things, none of which is particularly comforting. You rightly describe it as pablum, but it is also counter-factual, a polite way of saying it is a lie. Is he telling a lie just to get elected? (He wouldn't be the first politician to do so, but we expect our black politicians to tell the truth at least about race.) Is he telling it to white people to comfort them? If so, a result could be less attention to racism. That seems to be the biggest concern. White America wants to hear that there are not separate Americas, even though by any statistical measure there are, and telling them that lie is like giving smack to an addict. This is a dangerous thing for a politician to do -- as dangerous as saying that there are wild eyed Arabs out there who hate us for our freedom.

If our community insists on our black representatives acknowledging that there is a Black America and a White America, it's not because it is a statement of our goals or an expression of group cultural pride as you seem to imply; it's because in order to make good policy we have to understand reality -- something Americans are loath to do. That's what Cornell West says is the role of black political voices; that's why he notes that a remarkable consensus of black political voices across the centuries, whether from the right or the left, have also been "prophetic." In other words, when it comes to justice, we prefer our politicians be right, to being elected.

[dmallind]

24. This is a help - but one more question and some comments if I may

You are talking I think mostly about segregation in the economic and societal sense - living apart, going to different schools, shopping at different stores and so on. That to me is both the result of racism yes but also a perpetuator of it. We - and not just whites - are more likely to be suspicious of and resentful of those with whom we have little contact. I fully acknowledge that there is much racism and injustice in the reason for the de facto physical segregation of minorities in substandard areas, but even here (which is not what I was talking about, but interesting nevertheless), self segregation comes in to play even when not forced.

I wish I could recall the name of the area but I recall reading about a very upscale neighborhood in IIRC Atlanta which is almsot entirely populated by successful black professionals. I understood every single one of the reasons they gave for seeking out such a segregated area - less likely to have cops wonder why a black man is driving a Lexus, neighbors who don't greet them with reactions ranging from condescension to outright hostility, a greater number of positive black role models for their kids, and so on. But I STILL think there is more harm than good caused by that since it leaves cops in other areas even less likely to see a law abiding black man in a Lexus, leaves white upper classes even more isolated from meeting blacks on an equal footing to themselves (and therefore more likely to maintain stereotypes that none are), and reduces positive black role models and examples for both nonaffluent blacks and affluent whites.

Would I do it if I were black and wealthy? Probably - I'm not a martyr and I'm like most people in being more comfortable around people I can relate to from shared experiences. But that doesn't make it a good idea if the overarching goal is to reduce racism. We would best achieve that by living in as racially and class mixed neighborhoods as possible. Do I? Well in Nebraska the opportunities are not that high I confess, but I live in a fairly upscale neighborhood which has some moderate minority representation, but not much it's true. The unfortunate fact and one you expressed very well is that to live in a more racially diverse neighborhood, I'd have to live in a much less comfortable and spacious house with fewer amenities. Again, my personal behavior falls short. However in a nasty and ironic way, it's not that racially diverse neighborhoods need more upper middle class white professionals like me as role models since we're on every TV show and every paper - but they do need more upper middle class black ones, and these need to be seen BY people like me. In other words, sorry it's not fair and it's not right, but to reduce racism it's more important for even moderately successful blacks to live amongst whites of all classes than it is for even very successful whites to live amongst blacks of all classes. Wish it were not so, but undeniable IMO.

What I was talking about though I think you only touched on a little later in your post - and that is political self-segregation. One thing I can do with the credibility which I lack in discussing black politics is speak about the reaction TO black politics from the outside. I honestly don't think Obama comforts whites with the idea that there is no black America. Some maybe, but none who would likely vote for him anyway. Nor do I think that black politicians who are more in line with the idea that there is a "black America" are thus because of community pride. In fact, and I hope this doesn't cause offense as I don't see it in your words at all, a not unusual white reaction and one I have had myself many times is that the insistence that race is THE issue and THE problem says quite the opposite - an unbecoming self-loathing that says effectively "All I see around me is racism. It's the only thing I see". That turns off white voters not because we (again most of us) deny that racism exists but because we deny that it is all that exists. I don't speak for all but I have a feeling I speak for many whether they admit it or not, but when people like Jackson and Sharpton and even West sing the same note every time on every subject, it dilutes the very real and necessary complaints about genuine and genuinely harmful racism. When black politicians are perceived - even unfairly - as having only one concern - that of "black America" and white racism - their voice is tuned out after a while. I don't deny racism exists, but I DO deny Jesse Jackson has any verifiable ability to tell me anything about it I haven't heard countless times before from him. I've honestly learned more about politics as seen by politically aware blacks in your last two posts than I have in 20 years of Jackson's speeches and interviews. Yes that's a deserved compliment to you, but it's also an indictment of his approach and its ability to sway even pretty liberal whites.

Again Obama doesn't need to convince blacks to do something about racism inasmuch as he wishes to address the issue at any time - he needs to convince whites. Whites - of all political stripes - are more likely to listen to a discussion about racism from those who have shown they can meaningfully discuss something else, and whose opinions cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy before they are expressed. I doubt this is a unique revelation to you, but I'm learning from your posts and enjoy a rational discussion on a very touchy subject, so I'd be interested in your take on this. Couldn't Obama actually help more if he can get more whites to listen?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. Thanks for the analysis.

[dmallind]

2. ermmm....

Did they miss all the films in the last couple of decades showing black crime figures? Who is more of a cultural icon now - Edward G Robinson or 50 Cent? And since when did The Sopranos show "white violence" in a sympathetic light let alone exalt it? The characters were pretty much universally portrayed as self-indulgent insecure psychopaths with all the introspection and genuine self-respect of earthworms.

I mean sure racism still exists and sure there are many obstacles black people must overcome, but looking for racism in EVERYTHING is a sign of neurosis that would require just as expensive a psychiatrist as Tony Soprano's fictional one. It's a damn mob show - it's kind of hard to have a mob show without white and violent characters.

As far as Obama goes the only rational answer to the rhetorical question posed above is "neither". Vote for him if you think he's the best option to run the country. Don't if you don't. It's that simple. If the fact of his "blackness" or lack of the genuine article comes into it, then it's a twisted worldview regardless of the color of the writer's skin.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. No.

"Did they miss all the films in the last couple of decades showing black crime figures?"

They saw all the movies you did, and black criminals are routinely portrayed as sadistic savages, while white criminals loo cool.

[dmallind]

7. Then they didn't see the same ones

Because the ones I saw certainly portrayed black crime figures sympathetically, just like Cagney films did for white crime fugures. And since when were the Sopranos not sadistic savages? Sure didn't look cool to me. Rich and flashy perhaps, but not cool.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Oh come off it.

"And since when were the Sopranos not sadistic savages?"

Everybody likes the Sopranos, and the Corleones, and the Montanas.

There's a major racial disparity in the media. The same people who complain about 50 Cent and all that awful rap music are the same ones who dig the Sopranos.

[dmallind]

12. Nope. Still on it.

I like the Sopranos as television, but not the characters as people. I don't know of a single Sopranos fan who sees them as positive or noble. I'm sure such silly people exist, but of course the same could be said of people who lionize fictional black criminals too.

And what does rap have to do with crime drama? They are not connected at all. People who like the Sopranos may or may not like rap and vice versa. The same blissninnies who complain about violence in rap music (I just complain about the "music" personally) are the same people who complain about the violence and supposed satanism in lily-white heavy metal. PMRC predates 50Cent's birth let alone his music. Again name me a group of people who complain about black violence on TV but not white violence. The uptight people who think that anyone watching a black gangland figure shoot an informant will automatically shoot someone themselves are saying exactly the same thing about the Sopranos.

[Nedsdag]

16. I'll take them seriously....

when they endorse Dennis Kucinich for President. Kucinich is more progressive than both Hillary and Obama yet I don't see them supporting his candidacy.

Otherwise they're just writing to see their names in print.

[Bullet1987]

18. Black Agenda Report is a Black militant website...

that has always been anti-Obama for as long as I can remember.

[Laughing Mirror]

22. "Obama, the Phony Anti-War Candidate: Kucinich is the Real Deal"

This is from the 27 April 2007 issue. Do you take them seriously now, or did you just post that to see your post in print?

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191&Itemid=34

There is only one peace candidate in the Democratic primary race: Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He's the only one that actually voted against giving Bush War Powers in 2002, the only one to vote against providing another nearly $100 billion for the war, this year, and the only one who categorically rejects going to war with Iran. Only Kucinich would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq and withdraw the more than 100,000 U.S. "contractors" - a euphemism for American mercenaries paid for with U.S. tax dollars. Obama and the other candidates say nothing about these soldiers of fortune, although they are an integral part of the U.S. war machine.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Sounds Like They're Whacked Out Of Their Gourds From Those Snips.

Who exactly are they? Are they just completely insignificant? Never heard of em.