Racial Discourse
Opinion Paper: 5 April 2008
–by Mike Murray
Always an important issue, the state of race relations in America has been thrust onto center stage by this year’s presidential contests. In his pursuit of the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama initially presented himself in a racially neutral way. He appealed to voters not as “the black candidate,” but as a candidate who just happens to be black.
But things changed when the electorate got an earful of the preachings of Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama’s long-time “spiritual advisor.” Many of Rev. Wright’s sermons have not comported well with Obama’s message of racial reconciliation. While Obama speaks on the campaign trail of interracial harmony, Wright’s words fan the flames of racial resentment.
The discrepancy between Obama’s stump message and Wright’s sermons presented a problem. Obama decided to address it by giving a speech. In it, he avoided direct explanation of his close embrace of Wright these past two decades. Instead, he opted to present his view of race relations in America.
Much of the media applauded. Numerous pundits opined that such a speech was long overdue, and that it would launch an important national discussion.
Obama is biracial: his father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas. That makes him an authority, in the eyes of some, on the subject of race relations. But such are the vagaries of things racial that almost any degree of African heritage qualifies a person as, simply, black.
Certainly, Obama sees himself that way. An examination of his first book, Dreams From My Father, makes that fact perfectly clear. No careful reader of Obama’s account of the early part of his life can come away with any other conclusion.
Obama’s ancestry might include two races, but his emotional makeup is firmly rooted in one. As did his book, his recent speech emphasizes that fact. Examine it closely.
It is appropriate for people to bring personal perspectives to discussions of race relations. Still, for any conversation about race to achieve legitimacy, its participants must refrain from making blanket moral judgments about entire cultures.
People – of all races – are much more alike than they are different in one significant way: When placed in similar situations, they act pretty much the same. There are exceptions, of course. But the core assumption of many who wish to lead racial discussions – that some races are ethically inferior to others – is absurd.
But absurdity is currently all the rage. Today in America, people of European heritage (males, especially) are held in very low esteem. They are blamed for most of the ills that plague our nation – and much of the world. By contrast, people whose ancestors were “of color” (and females of all kinds) are generally regarded as victims.
Consider a typical portrayal. In the film Dances with Wolves, Kevin Costner plays a conspicuously decent white male. A member of the U.S. Cavalry, he becomes one with “natives” who are oppressed by white invaders. The decency of Costner’s character serves as the exception that proves the rule. Because the movie’s central messages are clear: The “white man” is violent. He is greedy. He is a liar. He is a thief. The “red man,” by contrast, operates on a higher moral plane.
Overlooked in the comparison is plenty of distasteful behavior on the part of Native Americans. They, too, stole land from others. They, too, imprisoned (and enslaved) members of competing tribes. They, too, sometimes maimed, killed, and raped.
If you’re old enough, you recall an old television public-service spot. In it, Native Americans are portrayed as having a “deep, abiding respect for the land” (unlike others who, the narrator intones, “do not”). But the truth is that “indigenous” peoples were as given to entropy, to abusing their environment, as anyone else. They, too, polluted land, air, and water. And they moved on to new grounds when contaminations fouled existing habitats.
Moreover, Indian braves at times killed animals purely for sport, same as Caucasians. Red men were as guilty as white men of occasionally taking life for no good reason. Mindless outbreaks of blood lust are confined to no one race or culture.
And then there is the myth of “Montezuma’s Revenge.” The term is a reference to the misdeeds of Spaniard Hernando Cortez, who centuries ago plundered Aztec treasures. In its modern incarnation, the “revenge” takes the form of digestive discomfort that plagues vacationers who “drink the water” in Mexico.
To this day, the saying goes, Emperor Montezuma II reaches from his grave to retaliate for European sins. Problem is, Montezuma was himself no saint. He acquired much of his fortune by unkind means. And he engaged in the abominable practice of sacrificing living humans to the gods. But it is today politically incorrect to state those facts.
As for the greatest injustice in American history, the choice is obvious: slavery. There is no ambiguity about the awfulness of any “institution” that involves capture, imprisonment, and servitude – to say nothing of physical abuse. Slavery is, by any reasonable person’s reckoning, a vile practice. It takes no courage to condemn it.
What does take courage in these politically charged times is acknowledging the entire truth. The uncomfortable reality is that, while slaves in America were black – and slave owners white – the immorality involved cannot be reduced simply to a difference in race.
Because the embarrassing fact that is almost always excluded from the discussion of slavery is this: A great many of the people who enslaved blacks were, themselves, black. Most of the Africans who were so terribly harmed by the “institution of slavery” began their mistreatment at the hands of fellow Africans. Black people.
Tribal leaders were commonly the abductors, and the initial sellers, of fellow Africans. That reality does not in any way absolve whites who subsequently bought, sold, traded, or otherwise harmed human beings. But it does highlight a very important issue: Slavery is not indicative – as is so often implied – of any moral disparity between races.
People of all colors, ethnicities, and regions have at times committed heinous acts. Half of my own cultural heritage traces back to Ireland. And the stark truth is that, while many of my Celtic ancestors were oppressed, others among them were themselves terrible oppressors.
It is neither skin pigment nor origin of birth that predisposes toward good or evil. Only the ignorant believe, for example, that those who just happened to have been born in Germany during the early 20th century were innately evil. To be sure, millions of Germans fell under the spell of a very wicked man. But countless others would have, too, had they been born into their shoes.
The point is not that people are universally immoral. It is instead that it is a fool’s game to presume ethical inferiority on the part of those who are racially different, or whose ancestors came from some other part of the world. It is wrong to ascribe labels of goodness or badness, victim or victimizer, to whole groups of people – based primarily upon skin color.
There are no “bad” races, genders, or ethnicities. We are all just people. We are sometimes at our best; we are sometimes at our worst. And though we often act collectively, within groups of individuals possessed of similar physical traits, it is not any genetic predisposition that dictates conduct.
It is certainly true that many people do tend to “follow the crowd.” We humans have high social needs. Consequently, we readily form into communities. We establish norms for behavior. We develop patterns of group-speak, of group-think. The need to “fit in” induces many to conform.
That tendency makes us vulnerable to the charms of those who are exceptionally charismatic. Which makes it so very critical that we remain vigilant when evaluating the reasonableness of those who seek dominion over us. We do well when we resist people who use extraordinary powers of persuasion to lead us astray.
It requires keen vision to recognize false prophets. And it takes strength of character to resist them – and their legions of misguided followers.
Consider Abraham Lincoln. Many today accept his greatness. They point to his role in abolishing slavery. And they recall that he preserved the Union. While those were both tremendous achievements, they are not what made Lincoln truly special.
Because the North could easily have lost the Civil War. And had the South prevailed, Emancipation would have been delayed (at the very least). Secessionists would have divided the country into two or more pieces. Had those outcomes resulted, many today would view Lincoln differently. Less favorably, no doubt.
That would be unfortunate. Because what distinguished Lincoln was not his success in accomplishing great things. It was instead his willingness to fight for what he believed in, to “do the right thing,” even when it was extremely unpopular to do so. A war that was for so long going badly had many at his throat. He was vilified – in the North as well as in the South.
Regardless, Lincoln stood firmly by his convictions. He persevered. And that’s what made him great.
History has produced few others of such character. It is one thing to join a multitude of like-minded people in a common pursuit. It is quite another to stand, lonely, against a sea of opposition.
When that opposition is comprised of many of your “own kind,” the burden is immense. Lincoln was called a traitor by Northerners. But he was a man possessed of inordinate courage. Because that was so, he was able to endure what others could not.
One man who probably understood Lincoln’s struggle was Martin Luther King Jr. He, too, shouldered a very heavy load. He, too, suffered criticism from several directions. It must have been hard for King to overcome the resistance of many whites who opposed his push for civil rights.
It was, perhaps, even harder for him to convince some blacks that his peaceful, non-violent approach was the appropriate one. It must have been difficult for numerous people of his “own kind” to accept King’s contention: that it was proper to demonstrate charity toward whites – even ones who had not yet “seen the light.”
King’s refusal to demonize those with whom he disagreed, his endless search for common ground, his willingness to bear criticism from all sides in his pursuit of social justice – these are the things that set him apart. These are the things that elevated him above common men.
There are many contemporary charismatics (ministers, politicians, academicians) who would like to oversee discussions of race relations in America. Most invoke the legacies of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. But unless they truly embrace the beliefs of those two great men – unless they accept their truth: that no person is inherently bad – we should rebuff their seductive solicitations.
It takes wisdom to see that people are just people, that none among us is predisposed by race to behave one way or another. No one – black, white, yellow, red, or brown – is born racist. At the same time, no one is immune to cultural influence. Racism is color-blind in one significant way: everyone is susceptible to its temptation.
It takes charity to resist pointing the finger of blame for the actions of ancestors. It takes courage to stand against a tidal wave of group-think. It takes more fortitude than most people possess to withstand, when conscience demands, the disapproval of one’s “own kind.”
Americans are ready for racial discourse. Honest discourse. Our deep desire for cultural healing and national reconciliation should not, however, tempt us to elevate a false prophet. When it comes to guidance in the matter of race relations, we should follow only those religious, cultural, and political leaders who seek a compassionate and just future – for all.
Copyright © 2008Michael F. Murray All rights reserved.
cross-posted at: mike-murray.com
