Barack Obama gave a major speech on race in Philadelphia today. Inflammatory statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have been receiving a lot of media attention — they feed into fears that many Americans have about a black guy with a funny-sounding name. Obama has strongly condemned the statements, but refused to dissociate himself from his pastor.
Instead, as evidenced in this excerpt from his speech (which he wrote himself), Obama is choosing to respond with a nuanced and honest assessment of race-based resentment in America. It’s a novel strategy; we’ll have to see if the collective attention span of the media and public is up to the task of absorbing something like this.
… This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
A bit more below the fold.
This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina – or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
A lot of thoughtful people are impressed with Obama’s speech, and his writing it himself. As for Wright, I realize he has bitterness but as Obama says, there’s no helpful point in ranting and making so many others mad at Wright in turn. (MLK didn’t talk like that, did he? He criticized US policy and history, but didn’t use inflammatory expressions of the “God damn America” sort AFAIK.) The problem about Wright and our inciting 9/11 however: to say that we incited or stimulated a reaction is like saying that splashing mud on gang members stimulated them to shoot you – it isn’t a validation or a claim of “just deserts.” Wright may have thought some Palestinian etc. gripes legit anyway, but that doesn’t change the basic warning that it doesn’t pay to piss certain people off, and that not being a claim it was OK for them to react in that way.
I still find Obama attractive, especially since Hillary seems bent on getting the nomination even if it damages the nomination process and the Democratic party. If McCain does win, he seems to be decent enough, relatively speaking, as politicians go, and seems rather competent. I just hope his temper doesn’t cause him to zing off something that we regret.
Wow a lot of people here have their head up Obama’s you know what. It’s all politics!!! He has made this a bigger issue to detract attention from himself and the controversy HE is involved with.
I really don’t take any particular offense to what his pastor says. I see the point he is trying to make. Some of it makes sense actually.
He paints himself as centrist when he has THE most liberal voting record of anyone in the Senate! There is nothing wrong with that but don’t paint yourself as something you are not!
In the three years that Sen. Obama has been in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 53 bills that have attracted Republican co-sponsors. Over the same period of time, Sen. Obama has sponsored just 24 bills that have attracted Republican co-sponsors.
Further HE LIED. Last Friday he clearly said that he was NOT present at the sermons where Wright delivered his inflammatory anti american and deragatory comments. Today in the speech he admitted he was!
Come one people wake up stop drinking the kool-aid.
He is a false prophet.
Neil- — “especially since Hillary seems bent on getting the nomination even if it damages the nomination process and the Democratic party”
riiight and Obama is NOT bent on getting the nomination? Give me a break.
You need 2025 delegates(without MI and FL) to win. Neither candidate will have the required delegates. So how do we define winning??? I don’t know myself but I do know
1. Hillary will win the popular vote (PA, Indiana, West VA, Oregon, Puerto Rico and perhaps FL and MI are left) and look good for her. He will get NC probably. Maybe Oregon but she has the support of active governor there.
2.She easily has beat him on electoral votes already!
3. She is also winning battleground states! That is very important
So why should she drop out now????
Thank you AstroDyke. that is great speech on science by senator clinton. I was actually not aware of that. Thank you.
Neil B.: To understand what makes people angry about the argument that “sure the US didn’t actually deserve 9/11, but still, it was our own behavior that caused it…,” consider an analogous argument that liberals in particular rightly despise: “sure she didn’t deserve to be attacked, but still, it didn’t pay for her to dress provocatively and lead him on…” The trouble, in both cases, is that the person making the argument insists on talking forensically about a situation that’s fundamentally game-theoretic. In other words, it might be perfectly true that the victim’s behavior influenced the attacker, but by focusing on that one gives the attacker too much power over the victim’s future behavior (which might have been precisely the goal). It’s to Obama’s credit that he seems to understand this; that might be the reason why he didn’t even try to “contextualize” Wright’s 9/11 comments as he did with the comments on race.
khurram,
Please let’s get a grip on reality. NY, CA, and MA are solidly democratic no matter who the nominee is. So her argument about the “big states” is flawed. Obama can bring in some traditionally southern states, VA, NC and perhaps GA. Do your electoral math before spouting the Clinton line.
e.
Elliot- I have done the electoral math and Clinton is way up! If she was going against Obama she will have more than the 270 needed to win after PA.
I never said he wouldn’t win NY CA and MA. I have no idea where you get that from. I said battleground states not big states.
I have never heard Clinton say anything about Big States. I have heard the media say that. It’s about battleground states- Ohio, PA and FL.
She is also up by 15%! in Arkansas with 6 electoral votes enough to offset Mccain winning new hampshire’s 4 electoral votes.
There is NO way he will win GA. GA (along with one other state) were the only two states on super tuesday where the republican turnout was higher than the democratic turnout. count GA out.
But i do think he has a chance as winning Kansas (also 6 electoral votes).
he has roots there + support of democratic governor.
khurram,
Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota all track better for Obama than Clinton.
She is only percentage points behind Clinton in PA, OH, MI against McCain vs. Clinton and after he is the nominee and she, as a loyal democrat, backs his candidacy, he has a solid chance of sweeping the rust belt which has been particularly hard hit by the failed economic policies of the Bush administration.
Hillary, in my opinion, simply brings too many negatives to the general election and energizes the GOP base. On the other hand Obama brings a fresh message and energizes the democratic base as well as bringing new young voters into the process.
I would not be disappointed with either a Clinton or Obama presidency. I think on the issues they are not that far apart and would welcome an end to the war, universal health care (or something close to it) and a return to fiscal sanity by allowing the Bush tax cuts to mercifully expire.
My fear is a McCain presidency which will lead to 4 more years of gridlock, deficits, war, and further decline in the moral and economic status of the United States in the world community. I just think that Obama has a stronger case against McCain, than Clinton.
e.
khurram wrote: “He paints himself as centrist when he has THE most liberal voting record of anyone in the Senate!”
The same organization that tabbed Obama as the most liberal Senator this time around named John Kerry the most liberal senator during the last election cycle.
Coincidence? Or a sign of a flawed algorithm that pushes Senators to the extremes of the rankings if they’ve missed a bunch of votes (say, to campaign for the Presidency)?
Anyway, I can’t believe that anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the Senate actually thinks Obama is or Kerry was the most liberal. Personally I have an easy litmus test. As long as I can say “Man, I wish _____ was remotely electable, but since he’s not I’ll take Obama” then Obama isn’t the most liberal.
I wonder about the naiveté of people. Surely Obama and his team knew this was coming. (If he didn’t know that there would come an attack on the known”inflammatory rhetoric” of this “family” member of his campagne, then that would show a lack of understanding I really don’t want to accuse him of) So his speech must have been prepared well in advance and although this doesn’t detract from the content of the speech ( which I think is very well written), It put some reasonable doubt about the spin of two days and nights it took him personally to write this. He may have updated and tweaked it and he may have written it himself, but surely not in the last week.
As someone who used to be a faithful church goer – I can tell you that I would not want to be held to the words my pastor uttered. After 10 years of churching, I would be hard pressed to remember a small fraction of things uttered, inane or enlightened.
I am sure there were times I was offended by things said, or strongly disagreed. And I am sure that nearly every pastor in America could have quotes lifted from their sermons that would sink almost any candidate that attends their church.
This is not a reasonable standard to hold any candidate to.
For those who don’t wish to vote for Obama – don’t. No need to try to look under every rock and try to justify your choice to the rest of the world. If you don’t want to vote for him for funny looking ears, that is your choice.
I am surprised at the support Obama gets from rationalists. Hillary is methodist because she was born into it. She did not seek it out later in life to fill some personal void or weakness or to find some identity that she didn’t already have. The fact that Obama did, in addition to bothering me as a scientist, makes me question his personal strength and sense of identity. Like most people born into the “old” protestant denominations, which already tend to strongly emphasise knowledge and are strongly rationalistic (within obvious limits, of course), I do not believe that Clinton’s life and leadership decisions will be based on faith when opposed to reason. In fact, if she is like most “old” protestants, they will not be based on faith at all, which suits me just fine.
Can’t see what all the fuss is about. There is understandable rage about racism in some sections of the African American community. The pastor’s remarks are understandable in that context, forgivable, too. Obama does not need to agree with every word of every sermon in order to attend the church of his choice. He did a good job of rising above the fuss. Otherwise, it was a rather mundane speech which stated the obvious. It said what we all know to be true about America. I wish the man well.
Carl Brannen,
Perhaps it comes as a chock, but for a country in both economical and moral crisis, the science budget is not the most pressing thing 🙂
I still have problems understanding what Rev. Wright said that was wrong.
Everyone (including Obama) rails about the “despicable” the Reverend’s comments were and I don’t really understand where he was wrong. Sure his comment about who “invented” HIV was wrong but everything else he said can be substantiated as fact. You may dislike the way he said it, but it’s pretty hard to discount his raw assertions.
The most obvious bone of contention, that we brought 9-11 down on ourselves, is easily supported by the facts that we meddled in Middle Eastern politics for years before they struck back at us for our interference.
If Canada had deposed and installed US leaders for years as the US did in the Middle East; Do you really think there would have been no blowback?
White colonization of the New World was the blowback experienced by British Empire for it’s marginalization of the poor and minority religions. Why would whites be surprised by black anger at financial and political marginalization?
So, how exactly, was Rev. Wright wrong?
hi,
Great speech by Obama. He took admirable risks and succeeded. But what do you think the “Limits of Uncertainty” for the speech were? Let’s say we could estimate the speech’s success. Measurements of success are measured in Successertrons. 100 Successertrons would be considered a very successful speech.
Actually, hard to say: I would put the speech at 90 ± 35 STrons. (OK, I’m trying to be funny here :-).
OK, I have a question that is wildly off topic.
It’s a long story but I’ve become interested in physics lately (questioning the lifelong assumption that I am adamantly a Non-math, non science person)(but first I feel like I have to relearn and learn a bunch of math before I start in earnest). (FYI: I’m not a kid— I’m an adult woman).
Anyhow, I read through the first section of the the first physics lesson by this author named Robert Lehrman.
It’s about the “Limits of Uncertainty”.
“All measurements are limited in accuracy because of errors introduced by
the nature of the measuring instrument and the object being measured. ”
“Ultimately, on the atomic scale, all surfaces are fuzzy.”
He also talks about the imperfections of our eyes.
“In scientific work, every measured value must be accompanied by a statement
of its uncertainty. (although he goes on to say that “. . .even the uncertainty has its uncertainty.”)
So, he gives the example that the height of a cylinder measured in centimeters has “limits of uncertainty” of ± 0.1 cm.
So, first question: Where did the particular number ± 0.1 cm come from? Lehrman says that this number is “not absolute” — he doesn’t explain where the figure comes from though. (Probably too complex for the very first lesson, but I was just curious, not looking for a detailed answer, just a general idea). Is this the “gospel” “Limits of Uncertainty” for a cylinder measured in centimeters?
Two: So, as far as we can tell, no physical object can be, for instance, be exactly 15 cm tall? Or if it was, we couldn’t know it for sure?
OK, BUT. .. What if I were Ultimate Queen of the Universe and I was jeolous of all other rulers, even aluminum ones, and decided to set up my own measuring system and I deemed that the primary Unit of Measurement from now until forever would be: The Venti Starbucks cup. To measure height, volume, etc. The height would be called a VSBuck (which would be segmented into tenths called a CenBuck) (it would quickly get nicknamed “Buck”, people would be marking “Bucks” and “CenBucks” on their walls as their children grew up. . .) So, in that case, the height of my particular Venti Starbucks, which is the new standard for all of the world, would be EXACTLY One VSBuck tall. Exactly. Right?
(hey aren’t we almost there anyway, what with Sbuck’s taking over the world? I mean, doesn’t “Tall” already mean “Short”? I wonder how many VSBucks cups are there to the moon) 🙂
Thanks.
I too see little wrong with Rev. Wright’s comments. I presume Obama feels he has to pander to the mentality of a population that is highly sanctimonious when so-called “patriotism” is involved.
Amazing speech! This is the guy the US needs *right now*…before it’s too late.
Visiting from the Kiddie Pool,
1) The 0.1cm probably comes from whatever he uses to measure the cylinder. If it’s a typical ruler, the finest refinement on it is about 0.1cm, so on average you might get it wrong by about that amount. Due to the rounded edges of a ruler, some wear and nibbling or whatever here and there, there would be a fundamental limit to how well you can use a ruler. You can then get a better ruler to measure the cylinder but then it too would have its most refined length, maybe it would be 0.01cm.
2) Absolute measurements. There are two reasons why your starbucks would not work that I can think of. The first is that not all starbucks cups are the same, there could be slight impurities in the plastic here and there, et cetera. The second is that due to the fact the speed of light is now recognized as a constant of 299 792 458 m / s, you cannot define length and time separately, you can only define one of them, and then the other has to be defined in terms of the first one.
So scientists chose to define the second as 9 192 631 770 microwave oscillations of cesium, and the meter as the distance such that light will travel 299 792 458 of it in one second. These peculiar integers were chosen so that the new standards would be very similar to the old standards, and people would not have to throw out the old ruler sticks.
Back to the cups, you cannot make them all “exactly” the same size due to manufacturing limitations. But even if there were no manufacturing limitations, there would be quantum limitations which as far as I know are currently much smaller than manufacturing limitations for all industrial applications. Atoms, particles, et cetera don’t exist in am arbitrarily specific spot, they bounce around in a random manner.
From Sean’s post: “…we’ll have to see if the collective attention span of the media and public is up to the task of absorbing something like this.”
The current evidence is that many physicists reading about Obama’s speech in a (usually) science blog are not up to that task.
Quite a unique speech in the annals of American political discourse on race – I can’t think of anything similar, personally. I do wonder what the “play count” on the old television will be – will Obama’s speech get as much play as his pastor’s comments have?
The speech could be condensed to a soundbite: “Hey folks, lots of bad history here, lots of water under the bridge, on all sides of the color coin. However, we don’t really have time to indulge in such childish behavior anymore – so grow up, everyone.”
As far as the suitability of a politics post on a physics blog. . . well, if there is any area of life as chock full of political maneuvering as that within the halls of U.S. academic institutions, I have yet to hear of it.
For example, if you want to ignite a political firestorm in academia these days, go ahead and promote non-exclusive licensing for all intellectual property produced on the taxpayer’s dime – then you’ll see some manic political behavior by university administrators, guaranteed.
hi Xenu,
people visit this blog for various reasons. i myself am mostly interested in the political entries and this one was top interesting for me.
all bloggers have their own style. you are free to just not read the post. i for my part enjoyed it very much.
Xenu, you have a point. However, despite the overall reputation of this blog for being about science related issues, note the blurb at top: “random samplings from a universe of ideas.” There’s plenty of science (and some philosophy in general, albeit often sophomoric IMHO w.r.t. the highest level of thought) on this blog.
khurram: I wasn’t getting after Hillary for very much wanting the nomination, I clearly said “…getting the nomination even if it damages the nomination process and the Democratic party.” It was her apparent willingness to cause such harm that I complained about. Those distinctions about consequences matter very much, and when commenting on other comments you should pay careful attention to that. I am not suggesting that she should drop out. It might be helpful to winning against McCain, but it isn’t clearly her responsibility at this point w.r.t. Obama.
Visiting from the Kiddie Pool: I carefully pick whether to reply to OT questions (I should talk, heh, see below …) but will this time. The particular type of uncertainty you read about and quoted concerns engineering practices of using “significant digits” – read up on it. It is a matter of convenience and practical concerns, like how much tolerance matters and how easily to measure it with mechanical devices etc. Sure, it is biased due to our arbitrary base-10 number system. If we used binary, we’d have to pick something like sixteenths to be what matters etc. In any case, do not confuse that with quantum type uncertainty. And no, an object cannot be exactly 15 cm tall. Consider that when the spec, gets to about atomic dimensions, you have atoms and their fuzzy electron clouds, the uncertainty of their overall positions even talking that into account.
One issue I still worry about sometimes: People say, no problem with the deBroglie wavelength of a baseball etc., since at some velocity they gratuitously pick to make the point, the wavelength is very tiny like maybe 10^-15 m etc. But in principle, the ball could be at or nearly at rest, with a wavelength of meters etc. Sure, there’s the Fourier addition of the possible momenta to make a wave packet, but even so: in principle that could hash out to some value bigger than the ball, and then what? And REM the oddity of deB wavelength being based on mass of “a particle” – it reminds me of Galileo’s critique of Aristotelian physics, when he asked, if you tied two rocks together should they count as “one” of larger mass or “two” separate masses, for figuring rate of fall under the false theory of the mass-dependence of velocity. How does the same paradox work out in quantum mechanics, if I may ask an OT question myself FWIW. Maybe a good answer will happen to fit at another post, LMK.
#26
It seems you don’t really realize the amount of pain and suffering that the US has inflicted on large parts of the world, even *before* 9/11. It certainly amounts to more than ‘splashing mud on gang members’; in fact it – in numbers – massively outweighs the victims of 9/11. The sanctions agains Iraq alone has cost an estimated 600.000 children their lives. This was not an act of the US alone, sure, but it has certainly played a, if not the, leading part.
Not said thereby that anyone deserved 9/11; that would be a moral statement that made no sense. The victims of 9/11 had nothing or very little to do with the crimes of the US foreign policy.
From another point of view, though, it is painfully predictable that people will strike back with whatever they have, at whatever target they can hit. Like the palestinians of Gaza fire primitive, garage-manufactured missiles against any target within range, justifiable and efficient or not; it was very much to be expected that with a US military so massively superior to anything else around; the only way that is left for anyone to strike back is agains innocent civilians.
This statement would be a moral defense of the 9/11 attacks only if you consider the US a genuine and true democracy and, thereby, consider the acts of the US governmenmt and intelligence around the world to be the honest and decisive will of the people of the United States. It is, however, my experience that the average US citizen has little idea what is going on out there, and ever so often plain wrong. You only know what you’re told.