In which Debra Dickerson and I discuss Barack Obama's blackness, and other things race-related.
« Death and the Trade Unionist | Main | Oliver Stone's Bush » Dreams From My Bloggingheads08 Apr 2008 08:13 am Comments (9)
"Ross says patriotism is the root of white anti-Wright anger " Now that's funny. 
Great bloggingheads!
Nice so far but the end is missing! Ross says patriotism is the root of white anti-Wright anger (13:40)
ross, wow, it bothers you that michelle obama might still have some anger?! she shouldn't have this anger because she's an ivy league educated woman? that logic is just plain silly. just because aren't a black woman on crack and welfare struggling to keep her kids alive doesn't mean you don't understand and feel the injustices that still exist in our country. you might want to go back and really read the text of barack's speech again. it sounds like you missed something.
Ross, I was able to catch some of your conversation with Debra Dickerson/Salon. She is right about Michelle Obama needing to keep her anger to herself although i think most blacks understand that many of the questions and hits Obama is taking is because he is black. But no one ever said it was going to be easy and I feel he perhaps knew it would come to this, in his attempting to break this barrier. At least he does not come accross as feeling entitled.
I thought the whole diavlog was well done. Great job.
Ross, I think your argument about Michelle Obama's right to be angry being compromised by her going to Princeton was definitively discredited 30 years ago by Garry Wills, in his great essay "Do-Gooders," in "Confessions of a Conservative." Wills was answering Tom Wolfe's similar critique of Leonard Bernstein's upper east side party for the Black Panthers. Plus ca change and all that--in any case, I'd be curious to see your response to Wills' logic and close reasoning in that essay. Is it possible that the problem with Michelle Obama is not political, but simply that she has an irritable temperament, as some might have about slow service in a restaurant, or traffic jams? I find her sort of unlikeable myself, but I don't ascribe that to her politics. I'm not even black, and I get plenty angry at persistent injustices in American society. Is this news, and should it be squelched? Is it wrong to vent an honest emotion? (I'm talking about ethics, not political practicality, where honest is the worst gaffe of all.) However, to kick this discussion upstairs a bit, let me say that after too many fruitless political arguments in this horrible primary season, I have come to the conclusion that 98% of political preference is personal chemistry with and against candidates: I like your imago, and I don't like yours! I'm willing to accept that, but in return, I want people to stop trying to *rationalize* their chemical preference. Most of us, and most bloggers, would do better to work that out on the therapist's couch. Note that I'm not talking about *policy* discussions, which can operate more easily in the realm of rationality (a potential which we often subvert, of course). But this focus on personalities we "know" by television is destroying political discourse, in my opinion. See Pynchon's Vineland for the great poetic analysis of how that works.... Or as C3PO would put it, "We're doomed!" But at this point, I'm actually looking forward to serving my Chinese masters, who could hardly make more of a mess of things than we have, and who, in 30 or 40 years, should be reasonably democratic. Or so I gather from the great James Fallows. I'm sort of kidding, of course--but not entirely...
Because I'm at work, would anyone be willing to post the link to the audio version of this? I assure you, my productivity will skyrocket.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Debra Dickerson is truly one of the most odious commentators around.
Posted by Freddie | April 8, 2008 9:58 AM