…. And yet, Sen. Barack Obama’s race speech recently delivered at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, fired the shot that could lead to civil war.
Obama’s justification to be angry when racially discriminated against, is currently the focus of national attention. This is what he said:
“T]he legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed," Obama confirmed. “…[I]t’s not just blacks who are angry — some whites are, too, because they feel blacks are often given an unfair advantage through affirmative action,” Obama justified.
The speech was not only controversial because it offended the legacy of civil right crusader Martin Luther King, Jr. against racial discrimination but also because it was an eloquent nightmare that positioned the country at the end of the barrel of a shotgun stand on racism.
Obama was trying to pacify the racial invectives of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his church pastor-mentor whose sermon incited hatred of racist America and the anger it created nationwide. Wright said that “blacks should damn America for continuing to mistreat them.” Obama justified this racial anger. [supra]
Rev. Wright also interpreted 9/11 as the fault of America that was founded on racism. " America's chickens are coming home to roost" the scowling pastor announced surly, and lambasting America, declared that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run." In the Obama race speech, this is real.
This nasty attack of America as a racist country from Obama’s church was caught by listening websites and brusque reactions to online media coverage of the Senator’s public response inundated the Internet.
What surprised me is that the public hardly noticed that Obama is eloquent in contradicting himself. In this race speech, Obama canceled out himself in public as usual.
This is what I have written in another published article about Obama’s oxymoron in public: The racist pastor is free to speak up his mind. In this free country, Obama cannot claim that Rev. Wright is a property he could own “like how this country was founded and how this country is [was] run” once upon a time when by virtue of slave ownership, he would have the right to order the pastor to keep his mouth shut.
Yet at the same time he had declared in many meaningful ways that if he does not own this pastor at least he owns his allegiance to him. That’s when Obama declared in his speech that he could not disown Rev. Wright and his white grandmother for uttering their racial prejudices.
This is what Obama said: “I can no more disown him [Pastor Wright] than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me … who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Obama is close to his white grandmother who helped to raise him, and to Rev. Wright who inspired him in his practice of Christianity. What is implied is that one need not disown racism – meaning it is okay – if you have such a personal relation with those who practice racism.
In short, the Senator is against racism and any form of racial prejudice, yet he could neither disown a relationship with racists that identified his white grandmother and Rev. Wright as such due to their – in his own word — “uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made him cringe”, nor could Obama denounce them in public.
In effect, Obama positions himself neither here nor there … he is against racists and at the same time he is not, he says this and that and just disagrees with himself. At any rate, records show that this candidate, like rival presidential aspirant Hilary Clinton, is notorious for his oxymoron in the campaign trail.
What is tragic about this Obama quest for the nation’s presidency is that many innocent Americans are hooked by the Senator’s oxymoron articulacy, but not a chance that he could hoodwink millions including me whose mind’s eye could see what hides in the dark, much better than the sonar sight of a blind bat that lives in the primitive cave of ignorance.
It is peculiar if not alarming for Obama to declare in public that he could not disown Rev. Wright and his angry outburst on racism because the preacher inspired him to practice Christianity. Notice this caveat question carefully: What kind of “Christianity” did Obama learn from Rev. Wright which he would practice if elected president? The answer to this disturbing question is a serious cause for national concerns.
From Obama’s church, Rev. Wright is calling on blacks with open insuperable rage to “damn America” which he claimed is run by racists and racism. This kind of racial resentment echoed across the country just before the first shot of the Civil War was fired.
This is not the kind of Christianity that this member of the clergy preaches which inspires Obama to practice his own most likely strange version of Christianity. If it is, we should climb the belfry and ring the bell of alarm. For this publicly declared oxymoron could trigger a civil war.
Notice how Obama is deeply trapped in the vortex of his own contradictions. On the issue of race as a determinant factor in his presidential campaign, his dilemma is whether to denounce or not to denounce the practice of racism and at the same time extremely careful not to lose the votes of those who might get offended. It is obvious that to the Obama camp winning this presidential election is all that matters.
For example, the confused Senator could not say with conviction at the risk of losing an election, that the whites discriminate against his black race because even in his own church, hiding behind the veil of Christianity, his race through the likes of Rev. Wright, also exercises the right to counter-discriminate against the whites … and that is the right to be angry against America run by racism.
To be or not to be against racism publicly is to Obama, a gnawing uncertainty but nevertheless a hell of a tipping point to learn from. The bottom line is, facing the hard challenge of racism in this country, to get along is to bridge the widening chasm of discrimination, not breach the fragile glass of multiracial unity under one flag, or demean the singularity of plurality of races under one nation. 
The issue therefore is not whether or not we could get along, but whether or not we should.
Pitting blacks against whites with a race speech exuding with an excess of oxymoron, especially when it confirms and supports the right to be angry at each other because this country stands supposedly accuse of racism, is no different from lining us up at the end of the barrel of the gun.
We tried this trick before and our animosity did not go away. Instead, in the depth of night of a distant time, we still hear the sonorous sound of the trumpet for the dead as we bury the folly of our dangerously flawed oratory.
© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. Access NWS March 21, 2008
Click on NWS columnist button to know more about the author or you may e-mail your comment to firstname.lastname@example.org.