Jack & Jill Politics

I loved the article and T. Coates analysis, thank Rikyah to nitpick; at the very top/banner of his article he leaves out the really before "proud, in Michelle's infamous quote.

Succinct idea from the article: "In all my years of watching black public figures, I’d never heard one recall such an idyllic youth. ...and for years the rule was that all our bios must play on a dream deferred, must offer a nod to dilapidated public housing and mothers scrubbing white women’s floors. But Obama waved off Richard Wright. Instead, the blues she sang was the ballad for the modern woman. "

When I was little I saw a talk show interview- I really don't remember who the two people where - except one was a black guy (entertainer) and the interviewer was a white guy. The interviewer just point blank asked his guest if he was "poor" growing up-the black guy paused, and said, he wasn't sure- he would have to ask him mom. Loved it! Later, I do recall seeing B.B King on the Tonight Show(?) and literally tearing up about how happy and blessed he was coming from the cotton fields of where ever to his material success. It really had the feel of him doing *what was expected*- e.g. only in America, I'm so thankful blah blah blah. Fast forward to "we had it hard coming up, drugs gangs, blah blah". I can't impose my reality on anyone else, and resent anyone imposing theirs on me: It's great to see our (normal) Americanness front and center, in the person of Michelle.

go over to The Atlantic blogs, and leave that ' nitpick' over at Ta-Nehisi's blog.

Rikyrah, what is the link to the The Atlantic blogs

Ta-Nehisi over at The Atlantic

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/

Sorry--- that first sentence should have read: thankS Rikyah . full stop. The next sentence was meant to be a interrogative /rhetorical sentence as to why the really proud</> didn't make it into his qoute of her.

I suppose if I still feel critical later today, I'll take your advice and voice my concerns to Mr. Coates. Thanks again for another great tip!

Hi there!

I agree with WhiteRoseBuddy that there are plenty of families like the Obamas in black America... PLENTY... they are not some rare and exquisite example of the black family. There are solid black families with two devoted parents who are raising wonderful and happy and well-behaved children who are thriving.

It is always a bit disconcerting for me to hear black people making comments that high-achieving black couples are just soooo stunningly unusual in their experience...

One thing that Michelle Obama's PR team has been trying to do is to dismantle the notion that a black person ONLY represents blacks and not the whole of America. It will take a lot for that message to sink in.

Michelle Obama IS an American not a "niche group" American that only "the niche" can identify with.

Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa

"It is always a bit disconcerting for me to hear black people making comments that high-achieving black couples are just soooo stunningly unusual in their experience..."
------------
Yes!


You know what I can't firgure BWBT?

Why is it that Coates as a black person bought into the stereotype of blacks being poor and ignorant to such a degree that he categorized what Michelle was saying as 'sounding like a white person'? What created that level of distortion in his mind as an educated black person, how could he have had those same stereotypes to the degree that he is perpetuating them with his article as so uncommon place that he as a black 'educated' male...thought Michelle was 'white'?

What is up with that mentality?

Crazy ass "progressive" site I visit had a thread with this bullshit , "just need to know kind of post"
***********************************************************************************************
Anyone know "why" Michelle Obama has a "court ordered" inactive law license? And why did she drop her law license in 1993? I found this on Snopes as both my parents were lawyers,this seems a bit "irregular" to me. Any attorney's out there have any thoughts? Obama himself gave up his license to practice law in 2007. Obama fans are acting as though this is "normal" but I don't recall any other Senators or Reps giving up their licenses. Bill and Hillary didn't( untill they revoked Bill's for Monicagate) I remember Obama being accused of "lying" on his bar application shortly before he dropped his license( but I am unaware of anything pointing to a lie except a rumour about some sort of parking or traffic tickets) but this "court ordered" inactive status for Michelle is very puzzling. Is it possible all requests for inactive status are considered "court ordered" in Illinois? Anyone know?
**********************************************************************************************

Site is made up of few feminists in their sixties, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and V for Vendetta fanwankers.

I am so tired of the paisley, petculli and tie dye. And yet most were Edwards supporters who had a real good senate term.

Hey V for Vendetta was a great movie! A bit over the top but still interesting.

Good idea when they are plotting already against Obama? They are a twisted bunch. Crybabies who couldn't handle the DU.

Just because he's black doesn't make him perfect. They guy has issues, and you all have been DUPED. Don't worry... we won't tell you "I told you so". I suspect many are beginning to know this already.

rikyrah: GREAT READ!! :>)

These heralds offer a deeper understanding of African American life, a greater appreciation of the bourgeois ordinariness of our experience. “People have never met a Michelle Obama,” the soon-to-be first lady said toward the end of our interview. “But what they’ll come to learn is that there are thousands and thousands of Michelle and Barack Obamas across America. You just don’t live next door to them, or there isn’t a TV show about them.”

There is now.

TRUTH!! [Right THERE!! ] As my fellow congregants say! :>) GREAT POINT!!

It was a great article, and I think it highlight the diversity and normalcy many African-Americans have to the rest of America. Hopefully with the Obamas in the White House Americans as a whole will figure out that African-Americans do not all live in the ghettos with exceptions here and there, but rather is a diverse community that covers all of the different economic and social classes (though disproportional to Whites)

If the election of Barack Obama — a 47-year-old black man with a political resume as phemeral as a Mets pennant drive and a governing philosophy as dubious as Paris Hilton’s choice of boyfriends — accomplishes nothing else, it should illustrate the peculiar distorting effect on American society of white liberal guilt.
The final nail in the coffin of John McCain’s presidential candidacy, it now seems clear, was the fact that the American economy tanked in the months before the election. Fairly nor not, voters blame such downturns on the incumbent party. Whatever caused the current fiscal crisis, therefore, must be considered a prime factor in McCain’s defeat. The seeds of the crisis date back the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 — which initiated a concerted, decades-long effort by the federal government to coerce banks into making loans to lower-income borrowers.

The sentiment was noble, albeit rooted in a desperate race consciousness: If more black families owned their homes, the theory went, they’d accumulate wealth as the properties increased in value. They would pass that wealth down to their children, and the financial inequalities stemming from America’s sordid racial past would gradually diminish.

The problem, of course, is that mathematical probabilities don’t bend to noble sentiments. The reason banks weren’t lending to black borrowers as frequently, or on as good of terms, as to white borrowers, had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with risk analysis. Writing loans to lower-income, lower-collateral borrowers means more defaults.

With the rise of subprime lending, lenders were able to make up for the increased risk by charging higher interest rates. To further mitigate the risk, lenders sought to reformulate and repackage the riskier loans, share their exposure, and tap into other sources of revenue. Congress paved the way with various forms of deregulation. The price of real estate soared because of new demand from those who’d otherwise have been unable to buy a house; speculators naturally moved in, because there seemed no way to lose; and then, well, here we are. In a mortgage meltdown, with grotesque foreclosure rates, on the precipice of a deep global recession and credit crunch, because sooner or later mathematical probabilities have their way.

Ironies abound. The most bitter is that a disproportionate number of foreclosures have affected black homeowners, because they were riskier buyers to begin with. But the most profound is that the fiscal crisis precipitated decades ago by the Community Reinvestment Act has contributed decisively to the election of the first black president, Barack Obama.
Many conservatives are licking their psychic wounds at the moment, but an Obama presidency may yet wind up as a healthy development — if it forces us to confront the ways in which white liberal guilt has warped our political landscape for the last four decades, especially since the primary victims have proven, time and again, to be blacks.

Take, for example, the calamitous decision in the 1960s to expand benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. AFDC began during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, intended to assist impoverished widows and their children. But its scope broadened during Lyndon Johnson’s administration to include payments to unmarried mothers with children. Why? Because the out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks in 1963 stood at a record high of 23.6 percent, and thus many black parents were ineligible for help. The government, in effect, began sponsoring illegitimacy.
By 2005, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks had tripled to almost 70 percent. Is there any social pathology known to man not found disproportionately among children born out-of-wedlock? With only good intentions, the Johnson administration did more to undermine the structural integrity of the black family than did decades of Jim Crow laws, eventually spawning a degenerate urban culture in which the phrase “my baby’s daddy” eclipsed “my husband.”

LBJ’s Great Society fiasco inaugurated the era of white-liberal-guilt politics, whose distorting effects have reverberated ever since. The 1970s brought forced busing in an effort to integrate under-performing, predominantly black inner city schools. This ignited white flight to the suburbs, which actually further segregated schools, eroded local tax bases, and thus cut funds for the very school systems busing was intended to help.

Then there was affirmative action, a policy dating back to a Kennedy administration executive order barring federally funded projects from practicing racial discrimination in hiring or employment. Affirmative action soon evolved into the practice of discrimination in favor of blacks in order to redress past grievances. The consequence, when applied to college admission, was to channel black students into higher-tier schools than they were prepared for, thereby ensuring generation after generation of higher black dropout rates. A 2004 study published in the Stanford Law Review, for example, shows that affirmative action in law school admissions has resulted in significantly fewer black lawyers now practicing in the United States.

The fallacy behind the Community Reinvestment Act, AFDC expansion, forced busing, and affirmative action is that government intervention can accelerate the natural progress of blacks in American society. Experience has shown, time and again, that the government can only ensure equal opportunities. It cannot compel equal outcomes. That’s the work of generations — just as the subjugation and exploitation of blacks was the work of generations. The white-liberal-guilt-besotted desire for quick remedies to racial inequities has produced more far more misery than redress.
On election night, at the moment Barack Obama’s electoral vote count surpassed the necessary 270, I was walking down Ninth Avenue in midtown Manhattan, a bar-and-restaurant district. People streamed out onto the street, screaming and cheering; men and women, friends and strangers, black and white, young and old, began hugging. A number were weeping with joy. Amid the commotion, a 30-ish black man came running up the sidewalk and yelled, “There’s a new sheriff in town!” I didn’t realize he’d directed the remark to me until I saw him pass a young black couple with a knowing nod, then yell it again at a group of three white women.
Two days later, I received the following group e-mail from a white middle-aged woman, a colleague of mine: "Rosa sat, so Martin could walk. Martin walked, so Obama could run. Obama ran, so we could FLY. Hope rose on our wings. November 4, 2008. HOPE has risen to new heights!"

No one has ever assumed the presidency with the unrealistic expectations Obama faces. Judging from an altogether unscientific sample of conversations I’ve overheard over the last two months — a sample weighted towards college faculty and students, Manhattan pedestrians and diners, and, of course, CSPAN callers — Obama’s white supporters seem to think he’ll single-handedly heal our partisan rifts and make America beloved abroad, bring peace to the Middle East and capture Osama bin Laden, balance the budget and save Social Security. Yet even those absurdly lofty expectations pale (pun intended) beside the hopes that black voters, who cast ballots for Obama at a rate of over 95 percent, have invested in him. Blacks seem to view him as an amalgam of Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson, Thurgood Marshall, Miles Davis, and Julius Erving — except with a better outside shot.

Obama, therefore, is certain to disappoint as soon as he passes from promiser to decider. But he’s also uniquely situated to effect a genuine change in America’s race consciousness. The fact that his march to the White House resembled less a traditional campaign than a cult of personality — a cult that included much of the media — has a potential upside. Obama will set up shop on Pennsylvania Avenue owing less to his party’s leadership and lobbyists than any president in a century. Think about it. How many Democratic bigwigs endorsed Hillary Clinton before drifting to Obama? How many labor unions initially favored John Edwards? President Obama could, if he were so inclined, tell anyone, anytime, to take a hike.
What good could come of that?

The best-case scenario, though the least likely, is that President Obama, in a Nixon-to-China moment, turns to the NAACP, the Congressional Black Congress, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the entire ethno-grievance chorus and says, “Enough.” There are, he explains in a primetime speech, no governmental quick fixes to the collective inequalities in American society. Indeed, every time the government intervenes, it sets back the cause of justice for generations. Over time, without government interference, through parental sacrifice and individual initiative, inequalities will even out — unless, of course, you believe that black people and white people are innately different in their potentials.
Again, that’s the least likely scenario. But even without anything so dramatic, Obama can still cause a sea change in racial attitudes. He can do this, first and foremost, by example. He’s a husband and a father. He dresses in suits and ties. He speaks the King’s English. And he’s president of the United States. In other words, he’s no victim. If he’s authentically black — and what black person in America will dare say he isn’t? — black authenticity cannot equate with victimhood.

Obama isn’t being kept down by the Man. He is the Man. How will that fact sit with the subset of blacks, especially black men, who attribute their personal failures to invisible racist conspiracies working against them? The thought has to cross each of their minds: If nothing stopped a black man from becoming president, then maybe the reason my life is screwed up is because I’ve screwed it up.

But even if that’s too much to expect, how about Obama as a thoughtful, articulate, well-mannered, tattoo-free alternate image of black manhood to foul-mouthed rappers and dirtbag athletes? How many young black men will stay in school because Obama did? How many will bury their noses in homework because Obama did? How many won’t be ashamed to be seen with a book under their arms because Obama wasn’t?

In the final analysis, if an Obama presidency accomplishes any of the above — if it brings an end to the politics of white liberal guilt, or provides a role model for struggling blacks — it could serve a cause that outweighs and outlasts whatever wrongheaded policies the president-elect might pursue.

We'z bee hoodwinked and bambooozzzle by Da man! I'z gwin fall out na, ya hear?

You could probably spend your whole life arguing with Paul Krugman but every once in a while the great Nobel Prize Winner comes up with a doozy that can't be ignored. (He won the prize for international trade, not political analysis.)
Last week Krugman announced the Republicans have become a permanent minority and it's their own fault. The reason is that the only issue Republicans have going for them is race:
Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party's champion, to the Bush administration's pervasive incompetence, to the party's shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
Does that surprise you? Did you know that in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviets, welfare reform, budget deficits, international trade, immigration, Islamic terrorism and financial meltdowns, all we've really been talking about is race? (It you want to find a race-obsessed tribe you could do no better than to look among Krugman's editorial-page staff at the New York Times, but that's another story.)
How to deal this argument? Here's one approach. The other day I came across a bio of Larry McDonald, the five-term Georgia Congressman who died aboard KAL Flight 007 when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983. Here's what Wikipedia says about him:
Larry McDonald was known for his conservative views, even by Southern standards. [O]ne study named him the second most right-wing member of either chamber since 1937. He . . considered [Communism] an international conspiracy…a view later echoed in the words of President Ronald Reagan who called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire". In another sense, McDonald [was] a precursor of the Reagan supply-side revolution….An admirer of Austrian economics, he was an advocate of tight monetary policy [and] a passionate advocate of laissez-faire or market based policies.
His staunch conservative views on social issues attracted controversy. For instance, McDonald is noted for using amendments to stop government aid to homosexuals. He also advocated the use of a non-approved drug Laetrile to treat patients in advanced stages of cancer.
Now here's something else interesting about McDonald. He was a Democrat. In fact in 1983 just about every Congressman from Virginia to Texas -- the boundaries of what was once called "The Old Confederacy" -- was Democratic. On economic, social and foreign policy issues they were probably the most conservative constituency in the country. Yet all of them voted with the Democratic Party and had been doing so for over 100 years. Why? The explanation comes in one word -- r-a-c-e.
The "Solid South," which gave the Democratic Party its most reliable base from the last half of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century was there for one reason -- because the Democrats had fiercely defended the Confederacy during the Civil War. After 1865, the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" -- meaning the anti-prohibitionists, the city immigrants, and the former Confederacy. The Solid South gave Woodrow Wilson the Presidency. (Wilson, originally from Virginia, was virulently anti-Negro.) It formed the biggest electoral bloc of the Roosevelt Coalition and gave the Democrats control of the House of Representatives for half a century from 1954 to 1994. All this was payback for the Democrats supporting the South during the Civil War. Most Democratic governance during the 20th century would not have been possible except for this historic anomaly.
What happened in 1994 was that -- under the guidance of historically conscious Congressmen such as Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm -- white Southerners finally forgot their Civil War allegiances and joined their natural constituency in the Republican Party. As Gingrich said at the time, "the Civil War is finally over."

Whatever!

If you're gonna copy/paste stuff from the National Review and the American Spectator, at least let people know that's what you're doing.

i wouldve thought this was from Drudge or the wall street journal. he could at least give the author of the article credit for his work.

The other night I was watching C-span. I really LOVE watching C-span. Other shows on television either depress me, or I don’t feel like I’m gaining any knowledge-- so I very seldom watch them. Except for the U.S. version of “The Office.” I LOVE LOVE LOVE that show.

C-span was playing a rerun of a congressional Black caucus forum.

I immediately pulled out my laptop and began to write interesting quotes from the "Representatives." One noteworthy comment was, “…[we can finally come to a place] where we can clean up the dirty finger nails of America…” Seriously....What does that mean? For real? After the last election, I am finally convinced that the American people want to be lied to by their politicians. I am also convinced that most Americans are only concerned with hackneyed talking points, and most are enamored by phony politicians and the way they make them feel.

Wait...I have a bright idea! Why don't we...'clean up' the dirty fingernails of the Democrats? (*cough* Blagojavich, Richardson,…even though I kinda like Richardson for cutting taxes and helping New Mexico’s economy )--- What do Black people gain, in the end of the day, when they are told by liberal leaders that this country has finally vindicated itself of a racist past?

Another noteworthy comment: “[Since the victory of Obama] now we can hold America to a higher standard…” *sigh* As if the abolition of slavery, the ending of the jim-crow DEMOCRATIC south, Voting Rights act, Civil Rights act...blah blah... were all inconsequential until we appoint a ‘black man’ to the highest position in the free world? That’s the kind of stuff that gets me riled. I had to control the impulse to throw an object at my brand new flat panel tv. (Sidebar--...I wanted to buy a television before inflation hits big time because of the geniuses we elected who will "stimulate" the economy by taking money out of one part and putting it in another part ...you know... the whole illusion of "fixing" what is broken...I don't know about you, but I can't wait till prices for everything goes up--but my wages stay the same and my spending power diminishes*cough* stagflation !!!) I digress. I am a Guidance Counselor and have ALWAYS and will ALWAYS tell my students that they can be anything they want to be as long as they take their education seriously and they don’t get ‘caught up’. I cannot imagine EVER telling my students that the Obama victory is somehow a ‘beginning’ for them.

Liberals continue to be elected because they know if they rock the boat and sound the alarm on real issues, they won’t continue to have their power. I was talking to a conservative friend of mine, Akindele Akinyemi the other night. He said that Black people are primarily concerned with 'social justice' and important things like economic independence are not prioritized enough in our communities. That's why we protest on behalf of the Jena 6 but are relatively silent on the real obstacles in our communities--like education, crime, and health disparities. Liberals gain more from us when we're helpless. Seriously, think about it. Why would they want “us” to grow economically? Then we’ll vote Republican and they will lose their power.

It really all boils down to accountability. As long as they continue to point fingers, and allow “us” to do so, they deflect attention off of themselves and their failed policies.

The panel discussion wasn’t all bad. At the very least, Rep. Diane Watson had enough balls to say that the homosexual movement is not the same thing as the Black Civil Rights movement. Something many people think... but are afraid to say.

Yes… Obama made history. Yes… my students will finally see a president that has darker complexion. No… his win doesn’t erase our problems. Need I remind you that liberal policies exacerbate problems in the Black community? (Social Security, school choice vouchers, gun control) I can testify to the fact that since Obama’s victory…it's business as usual... in da hood…

Someone told me that after Obama won, a crack head said that Obama will “give” him a job. Sadly, what some members of the CBC were saying, in essence, is not too far removed from this statement. It’s that ‘handout’ mentality. Somehow a black man winning is going to relieve us of our 'painful' past, relinquish us of personal responsibility--simply because he’s going to look out for “us.” He’s doing a great job looking out for “us” because he has so many of “us” in his cabinet, right?

I don’t really care for identity politics. I just wish people were more cognizant of the blatant hypocrisy of the Left…







.

I LOVE the Office also but I disagree with everything else you have written.

But nonetheless, regardless of what anyone says about this country making up for its racist past, the effects of racism/slavery are very much still here and sorry to tell you, aren't going anywhere. I am glad that you as a guidance counselor can tell your students that they can be anything they want to be; I will assume you genuinely mean it. But through my own, my family's and friends' personal experiences, you cannot convince me that the passing of a few laws and acts made everything okay. I am not sure what your experience has been but you're fortunate enough to have such a positive and "innocent" outlook on things.

Everyone may not agree with me, but PE Obama did not need to fill his entire cabinet with people of African descent. I think it would be completely IGNORANT to think that he should. He can still look out for the best interests of this country, which includes Black peoples' best interest, without having an all Black cabinent. What did you really expect the man to do?

Also, because you may not hear about people speaking out against the disparities in our communities (education, health care, etc) as you mentioned, does not mean it doesn't happen. Jena 6 gained national attention; do you expect to hear about every challenge that we are trying to overcome on CNN's top of the hour news?

Unfortunately, your 'conservative' friend cannot speak for me; I am not only concerned with social justice and I am sure many of the people on this blog aren't either. When attempting to criticize such things, are you and your conservative friend examining WHY?

Why is it that we are expecting a handout all of a sudden? Sorry, the rich white folk got all the handouts that will be given during this Guv'ment Fiscal Year. Also, I can't agree with the whole Left wing policies worsen the Black community bit. Realistically - every legislation passed is not going to be in everyone's best interest. This is not to defend Democrats but the list you are complaining about, I am sure there are twice as many on the PRO side of the list.

Let me get this right. If a crack -head wants Obama or whomever to give him a job, then you consider that a hand-out?


Ju....You really have a twisted mentality. Actually, you're a moron!

It must be so miserable for you morons, knowing a black man will be running the country for the next four years....possibly eight! Eat dirt.

The latest harbinger omen foreshadowing PEBO is the Blagojevich, Burris, Reid debacle. For those of us savvy enough to see through the kah-kah (code for bull_S**t) can you believe the cojones of Harry Reid? Liberal elitist believe that they only have to follow laws that they like apparently. Trust me, I no fan of egomanical Roland Burris (check out his monument to himself) and Blagojevich is as slick as snake oil but this appointment is perfectly legal and should stand. Uber-liberal democrat liberal Harry Reid shows his true feelings towards the black folks who overwhelmingly support his party as the Chicago Times reports that Harry Reid makes it clear to Blago in an FBI taped conversation that:

" Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell
President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top
Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post:
Jesse
Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones." (Source)


How curious that all three are black. Where are the black quasi-socialist progressive fundamentalist racism chaser? Bull Conner and George Wallace would be so proud of Harry Reid. Where is the outrage with TOP SENATE DEMOCRAT, huh? Could it be that house negros are allowed but senate negroes are not? Could it be that the democratic party that is so interested in helping black folks has done all they are willing to do in the next 4 years by not vetting and then nominating PEBO?

I'm no longer astounded by these antics. PEBO hasn't even taken office yet and scandals abound. Bill Richardson had the good sense to step down to bad the same can't be said for Rahm Emanuel as it's only a matter of time before he is implicated in this Blagojevich senate seat matter. "No Drama Obama's" demons are on their way out of the closet but it's doubtful whether or not his acolytes will put down the "obamium" pipe long enough to notice.

I understood the piece as well. I grew up in the same type of family and community: my mother stayed at home and my father supported us (4 children) on a shift workers salary.
I am a bit older then most of you however. All of us have college degrees. We live in Ohio, not Chicago.

Rikyrah

Great read.

I was struck by the way Coates, said he thought Obama was a white woman. I watched the video and read his rationale for that.

I was immediately aware that due to the serious color issues in our own community that, had Michelle, not been such a shinning example of high melanin production...her same story would have been denounced by the black community and that same nostalgia that Coates heard would have been dissed and described as pretenious and phony. And he would have used the same Cosby quote to authenticate his rationale. While folks would have muttered and sputtered, lightbrightanddamnnearwhite..whoshethinksheis..ain'tnoblackfolkslivinglikethat.

I am happy that God did bless this nation with not just a black woman who has lived like ordinary Americans but one who had the right skin tones to be accepted on those terms by the majority of our own community.

Unlike Coates, I did not find Obamas' story to be surreal, rather as Michelle notes at the end of the articles, there are thousands and thousands of black Americans just like us, and lots and lots of them lived in Detroit and grew up the exact same way..

Thanks again for the awesome link. Rikyrah

but one who had the right skin tones to be accepted on those terms by the majority of our own community.

I intially felt insulted when black plp would make this observation, and on a different blog- (non black) I acutally chided someone for making this point... paper bags are for sandwiches . But the reality is- for many of "us" it still has other uses. Some of the same people who get hot and bothered about white plp "claiming" Barack becuase of his mother- will in their very next breath utter some nonsense reasoning which is based in the logic of the sentiment you comment on ; lightbrightanddamnnearwhite..whoshethinksheis..ain'tnoblackfolkslivinglikethat.

You know Dilettante, I rarely make skin tone observations but Coates article was biased based on Michelle's skin tone and her figure being that of the' traditional' black women. I was really perturbed by his perspective and his rationale for it was like something straight out of a Kingfish or Chapelle show. Where did this man grow up and how is it that he is so compelely ignorant of his own culture?

I was quite ticked about how Coates rationale for why he was describing Michelle as a white woman. It highlighted for me what a huge cultural knowledge gap he has in terms of what life was like for blacks in the 60s. He came across as ignorant to the same degree as a white person. I had to ask myself why does a black person have such a skewed view of what it was like to be middle class and black in the 60s with ONE parent that worked and an intact family. Why is that? To me Coates sounded as ignorant as a white person because his rationale was that she could not be describing life as a black person, no different from whites who think all blacks grew up poor and uncouth without the benefit of both parents or a working father in the home. Where the hell did he get this impression, and how could he dare perpetuate the same friggin stereotype of us as the mainstream does AND worst of all how dare he called Michelle 'white' cause she had that background. It is no different from black kids calling another black kid that studies 'white' as if this is a way of life only whites can have?



His ignorance when it came to understanding that made me realize that had Michelle actually looked like Beyonce, Alicia Keys or Halle...he would have dissed them.

How can someone of his background have such a huge cultural gap...and he is college educated?! WTF?

He's college educated and seems to be consicious whatever that might mean in 2009. I read the peace fairly quickly and his comment about her being white came at the top and I wondered what the heck he was talking about. As I read on I have to admit I kind of forgot about it.

I agree with you that we don't often allow for diversity in our own community. I was listening to what seemed to be a reasonably well read, self described college educated black man on an NPR News and Notes interview ... about interracial dating. He felt compelled to state that he was a black male, he said this, *not only* to explain how his race colored his views, but to point out his specialness he literally said some people might think he was white- because of his speaking voice (used standard English). Same goes for the /originator of the magic negro meme in the L.A Times who wrote: "The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty,"[SIC] as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be." End quote. This guy is an art/movie critic who travels to the South of France/Cannes film festival for a living, seems to be fluent in English etc, yet perpetuates the same garbage he claims to be a victim of.

"yet perpetuates the same garbage he claims to be a victim of."
---
YES!
What has happened to educated black minds? They go to school and come out as ignorant about their culture as white folks now? Have they literally bought into the black stereotypes to such a degree that they now think what is commonplace norm for educated and workingclass blacks is an anomaly, as Coates seems to convey? What is this reverse discrimination against our own culture being perpetuated by educated blacks? How in the world can he get a college degree and think that being poor and uneducated and growing up in a single femaleheaded home is the norm? You know what I think? It is HIS norm!

Actually, that can't be right, can it? Cause his father is on that video with him and his father also expressed how he 'hated' that hook as well. Yet this is supposedly now 'new generation black' mindset?

Lord help us!

Regarding that idiot on NPR...where do people get the idea that speaking correct English is 'speaking white'? Where do they get that.

Although, my sons grew up in the burbs, they were ridiculed when we went to our parents neighborhood with that 'white speaking' crap.

When they repeated it to me. I told them there was no such thing as speaking white. They were in elementary 7&8. at the time and I asked them did they want to be successful and achieve all their dreams. Did they want to be prosperous in America where capitalism rules. They said 'what's that' . I said do you want to make a lot of money based on your own achievement. They replied yes.

I said well there is no such thing as speaking white. There is only speaking poor and speaking affluent. If you speak poor, you remain poor. If you want to make money in this society you acquire the language of affluence.

What those kids are calling 'speaking white' is actually 'speaking affluent'..it is the language of wealth in America.

I never heard another word about it. I am certain that both boys were able to tell their hecklers from then on that the way they spoke was the way folks who aspire to have money speak in America, and that they chose not to be poor.

Two phrases that make me see red are 'acting white' and 'speaking white'

Cause they are total bull! Designed to keep our children from learning the social mores/values of mainstream society and tokeep them ignorant and impoverished in mind and capital. And that Coates is an example of how that mindset is so deep it remains even in an educated mind.

Ignorance abounds in our neighborhoods and it needs to be called out whenEVA it rears it's heads....like in this Coates article!!

You know what else just makes me livid? Coates is suppose to dispel these myths. As an educated black person he has a responsibility to not perpetuate these stereotypes. If there are other black folks out there like him he is suppose to have written his article in a way that says 'we have always had it like this'! To instill pride in our youth and in other youths who are struggling so that they know their culture has always been about dignity and pride and that we TOO, raised our families with the same hopes and dreams, on small incomes with values and aspirations where dad went to work and mom stayed home. He needed to affirm that not only whites but blacks as well, EVEN THEN, had it like that! Instead, he bought into the racist bias. YES, he should be saying that was REAL it was the reality for THOUSANDS of black kids growing up...which means you need not buy into the stereotypes. That you too can have it like that and it ain't all that uncommon. So rise up and be all you can be.

Millions of childrens needed him to give them that pride of history and culturage lineage.

Instead, he is acting like some WASP or redneck that thinks all blacks are uncouth and they are 'white' if they speak about their childhood like Michelle did.

And that having Michelle's childhood is exceptional, and being white, just like that educated man on NPR spewed that ignorant belief that he was 'speaking white'

Unbelievable.

I can't stand what Coates wrote.

I've already bookmarked this and I can't wait to read it.

A must read for sure. And viewing the video helps to gain a better understaning of the meaning behind the first sentence of the piece.

I'm wondering if originally being from Chicago has somehow colored my appreciation for this piece. I look forward to hearing the opinions of those not as familiar with the city as I am.

I know what you mean. Coates had me from the moment he dropped Timuel Black's name.