candidone1 wrote:I guess I am naive then Foxy....I would hope that there would be some widespread recognition accross the spectrum that black anger exists and that there is something to it that speaks to larger issues facing America vis a vis race relations and other social injustices. The is so much anger and animosity accross the color/ethnic spectrum that to continue pretend it doesn't exist will just further harm and divide America.
Many Americans wanted to go toe to toe with Saddam because of the injustices Iraqis have endured at the hands of Saddam (at least that was the claim). They united in the call to reign in global terror.
I would hope that through this Wright debacle, Americans are willing to go toe to toe with social injustices, be it race, gender or otherwise. I would hope that they would see this event or these circumstances as a pivotal moment in initiating positive and meaningful change in their country. I would hope that people of every stripe see this as a legitimate problem facing America in the 21st century....and it's the same problem that Americans faced in the 20th century. It won't, as Obama said, be fixed in one term, or with one presidency....but serious consideration needs to be given to this issue.
....the audacity of hope eh?
It isn't a matter of 'black anger' among the fence sitters, most of whom share mainstream America with people of all races and ethnic groups who are simply living their lives and aren't particularly angry about anything. I am neither defending nor criticizing Obama or his speech here. I am reporting the perceptions of it as I read and hear the comments of those who are familiar with it.
Most of America do not want a 'black President', angry or otherwise. They want a President who will represent them and the things that they consider important. It is fine if that President happens to be black. For most, the issue of race has already been settled by law, in the courts, through Affirmative Action, etc. It is no longer an issue for them.
So the more an image is created of Obama as a black man, justifiably angry, a man who should be forgiven for understanding black anger and the kind of vitrolic rhetoric believed by his Pastor, the more the image will appear to be of a black man who will represent the angry black man and not the interests of mainstream America, the more problem he has. That overtly or sublimally is likely to increase Obama's negatives, even among conservative blacks.
The image of a black man who has transcended race as Bill Clinton was perceived to have transcended race, and who is simply an American emulating and supporting American values is in no way a negative image to the vast majority.
