Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama: 2 kinds of Black leaders, 'Challenger' and 'Bargainer'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:54 PM
Original message
Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama: 2 kinds of Black leaders, 'Challenger' and 'Bargainer'
'Challenger' and 'Bargainer'

Starting in 1972 with 87 church members, Jeremiah Wright built up a congregation of 8,000 and became one of the most highly-regarded inspiring sermonizers of his generation. Many seminary students bought recordings of his sermons to learn how to preach. What is in the hundreds of thousands of minutes of his 36 years of sermons Sean Hannity did not cherry-pick to make him sound unhinged?

A Chicago Tribune profile (at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-070121-relig_wright,1,294740,print.story ) points out that Wright pragmatically combined traditional Baptist preacher-talk with sharp challenges to "white" society and a message of self-reliance for African-Americans. Barack Obama recently criticized his former pastor's style as something that was appropriate for the 1960s but may not always be appropriate for the 21st century.

You see, there are TWO kinds of Black leaders.

Compare Obama with, say, Al Sharpton. Obama himself, in his book 'Audacity of Hope', says that a secret of his success is his learning early that "white people tend to just LOVE a Black man who does not seem angry".

Right-wing psychologist Shelby Steele turned this Obama insight into an entire book (see http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Excited-about-Obama-Press/dp/1416559175 ) that contrasts what he calls "challengers" (for example, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Wright) with "bargainers" (for example, Obama).

Since the 1960s, most whites have come to fear abjectly being portrayed as "a racist". Challengers are "militants" who let whites know they assume racism is in play unless shown otherwise. He points out that when whites get in racial trouble (like the MSNBC morning show host whom Scarborough replaced), they often go to Sharpton because Sharpton can provide racial absolution or racial penance as well as damnation as an irretrievable racist.

In contrast, in exchange for advancement, "Bargainers" let whites know they won't cry "racism" unless they see clearly irrefutable evidence of individual prejudice or individual acts of discrimination. They are the kinds of African-Americans who make whites feel more comfortable. I agree with Steele that Obama and Oprah belong to the rare group of brilliant African-American racial tightrope-walkers who demonstrate to whites they are "bargainers" while simultaneously convincing Blacks they are not "sell-outs".

IMO, Obama's political opponents DESPERATELY want to portray him not as the "bargainer" he is but as the "challenger" he is not. They want a "scary, angry Black Man" to run against, not the cool and calm national unifier that has earned Obama the majority of Democratic primary votes, delegates, and States he has amassed. If they can't get Obama himself to lose his cool and snarl on camera, they'll settle for "linking" him to someone else who rubs millions of whites the wrong way.

IMO, this is a thread that has run through HRC's entire campaign so far, from the time Bill Clinton pointed out (just before the SC primary) that Jesse Jackson had won that state twenty years ago, to the "apology" HRC made over Ferraro's carefully-crafted comments last week. Hillary made a point of mentioning Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama in the same "money" sound byte that was sure to make it onto every on-air media report.

So, on this view, much of the racial strategy being used by Obama's political opponents is designed to have him seen as a "challenger" rather than a "bargainer". This insight has been valuable for me in understanding the political furor that developed last week.

What do YOU think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bunch of racists
If racism weren't so prevalent, none of this would work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. IMO, "racist" is too broad a word to convey "shades" of meaning since last week
Do you mean "white racial prejudice": "institutionalized white racism"; or "white privilege"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Racist
I refuse to slice and dice to enable white people to rationalize away their irrational attitudes towards minorities. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. "Irrational attitudes toward minorities": Aha, you evidently mean "white racial prejudice"
which can run from the woman who unconsciously clutches her purse with two hands when approaching an African-American, to the Pennsylvanian Gov Rendell said would NEVER vote for ANY black candidate, to the KKK member who burns a cross on a Black family's lawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. No I meant all of it
Any incident or institution wherein the implication is that minorities are less - it's all racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. OK. But IMO very few people will grasp exactly what you mean when you
use a very rough approximation like "racist" to the fine distinctions you may intend.

Unfortunately, as a browse through GDP the past 10 days will attest, there's a lot more ignorance than knowledge out there when it comes to race relations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
20. I take it your broad brush applies to all white people, then.
Have fun winning the GE without us.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It's a two way street. imho.
Great article. Thanks for posting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Sure, there are Blacks who are prejudiced against whites and rarely give them a chance
But the reality of political and economic power does not permit very many African-Americans to avoid whites entirely, while whites can thrive on excluding Blacks from every facet of their daily lives, especially in predominatly white suburbs.

Members of the dominated group has very few opportunities to act out any prejudices they may harbor, while members of the dominant group can be 100% prejudiced, 100% of the time.

IMO, defensive, completely justified African-American SUSPICIONS of white motives are often mistaken by whites for Black "prejudice".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Some of what you say is true but I disagee
with the notion that all the suburbs are as white as white on rice. I live in the suburbs and there is diversity and I see diversity in every town around me and in the businesses. Maybe it's like that where you live or maybe you're speaking about the uber rich neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure I've had prejudice directed at me by AA's and/or any other group, including men. I've experienced it myself, so I am aware of the difference, although not on a scale like an AA or any other group. I don't think the "dominant" group is prejudiced 100% of the time, all the time though; anymore than the non-dominant is either but it happens and yes, I agree it exists in Gov. (See "Heck of a job, Brownie") and other institutions, including the private corporate sector. I agree that defensiveness can be misinterpreted by many non AA's and they put their own spin on it, instead of understanding where that anger is coming from. Maybe soon, America can continue bridging that gap and gain better understanding soon. I hope so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. So we agree more than we disagree
BYW, I meant SOME "members of the dominant group CAN be 100% prejudiced 100% of the time", although admittedly that's not unambigous in what I said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I hope we agree more than we disagree!
:hug:

I know what you meant. ;) I got it. I get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I think we do. I've agreed with just about every post I've seen of yours in other threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Good analysis.
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 08:17 PM by Window
:thumbsup:



:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. WSJ: Shelby Steele HIMSELF puts a RW "spin" on this insight, founded on the "20 yrs
of AntiAmericanism" myth about Wright's sermons.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=googlenews_wsj and, on why "20 years" of extremist statements in Wright's sermons CANNOT be true, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5139226&mesg_id=5139226 .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
18. obama and Wright are not a "black leaders"
Yes, Obama is a political leader and he is black. Yes, Wright was the leader of his congregation and he is black.

But calling them "black leaders" marginalizes, pigeon-holes and stereotypes them based solely on their race - and forces them into boxes that no white public figures are confined to.them

White ministers are NEVER called "white leaders,l even when their congregations are lily-white. They're called "religious leaders," as should be Rev.Wright, whose congregation.

Hillary Clinton is never characterized as a "women's leader" or a "white leader.". John Edwards is never called a "white leader.". Like Senator Obama, they are or have been United States Senators.

Barack Obama is a leader of many people of many races. He is much more than a "black leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Agreed--he's not "just" a Black leader. But IMO anybody who gets > 85% of the vote
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 09:40 AM by ProgressiveEconomist
from the African-American demographic in primary after primary IS a "Black leader". Do you disagree?

And where did I say Obama is "just a Black leader"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. No, I don't agree
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 10:57 AM by EffieBlack
White candidates regularly get overwhelming percentages of the white vote in primary after primary, even when black canddiates are running, but they are NEVER called "white leaders." White candidates regularly get overwhelming percentages of the black vote, even when black candidates are running, but that does not make THEM "black leaders."

The fact that Barack is black does not make him a "black leader" any more than the fact that a white candidate is white makes them a "white leader." The fact that Barack gets large percentages of the black vote does not make him a "black leader" any more than the fact that a white candidate gets large percentages of the black vote makes them a "black leader."

By calling Obama a "black leader" - whether you include the word "just" or not - you are differentiating him and marginalizing him in a way that white politicians never are. He is not a "black leader." He is a United States Senator who is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary race for President of the United States. He's more than earned the right not to be pigeon-holed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC