Op Ed: Racism 'Unsustainable' In ANY Modern Nation For This 21st Century

(BEND, Ore.) - Barack Obama’s direct, courageous and extremely sensitive and wise defiance of “political correctness” to confront and overcome “the racial bomb” in this campaign reflects the highest credit on not only his personal courage but also his professional competence as our next national leader.

There is no question about the serious, continuing damage and the potential destruction this nation faces if we allow further continuance -- and our own complicity-- in an “unsustainable” attitude-and-approach to fellow humans.

That erroneous attitude has no place --and no function! Not even in the new 21st Century, lush and ripe and resounding with opportunity and advance for all, even to the level of equality first conceived and long sought ever since from the days of our Founders and creation of this nation.

Ethical and religious conceptual and practical applications teach us all the tremendous simple truth that we need to know: Humans are humans, skin-color and mental processes and every other component of our being --and believing -- is the same-for-all.

Cognitive, psychological, learning, cultural --and even, now, the entire scope of economic science-- teaches us that single essential and consequential lesson.

The plain fact of hampering and sometimes even defeating any possible advances in this new Century is undeniable and clearly threatening for all who can overcome any possible or potential prejudice or provocation reflected from family or personal life experience.

For others, it may still come down to learning “the hard way” --when the inevitable consequences of continuing color-discrimination come driving home, with whatever widespread blood-and-guts disemboweling may be suffered, as always, with the greatest pain-and-damage to those the least-guilty but still-vulnerable.

If people doubt this definite and historical probability, simple reference to American and World history should set any such doubts to rest.

It (widespread desperate racial riot and conflagration) HAS happened, here and elsewhere, and it CAN and WILL happen again --if we continue our lack of concentration and failure to build strong consensus determination to do better, faster, and further than ever before.

My own case may serve to illuminate the essential and demanded process from prejudice to personal understandings and fully open attitude.

My mother was from the real Deep South - Maryland. Her descent, as for my father’s side, too, is from really desperate Irish immigrants, fleeing British seizure of lush Irish lands.

Their arrival allowed Southern plantation owners to work a difficult transition --from slaves for whom they must provide food, shelter, and other care increasingly costly, then, too-- to usage of Irish “woeful-arrivers” (in the jargon of the day, as mother told me) easily forced to feed themselves, find shelter wherever they could, and cover all other survival costs themselves.

You can “see with your own eyes” via numerous films, plays, books and academic studies, documenting this situation, some in much stronger terms than employed here.

Little-noted now, that footnote to historical reality played a real role in the national economy --focused on wealth/produced by the plantation system all across the South-- and adding to the ultimate pressures prevailing right up until slavery itself, that ultimate cancer-on-society, was excised at huge costs in both blood and treasure by our own stultifying Civil War.

What has continued that real-repression even unto today --driven by that same dollar-dominated, devil-take-all-else determination of some to manipulate, “manage” and make dollar-slaves of all others-- is the corporate and business confrontation with state control, breaking through from the concept of regulation for the commonweal and thus allowing the creation --by false personhood pursued for decades-- of the perverted “corporate campaign contribution”.

That came about early-on, at railroad-ramrodded instigation, as prelude to further determined dollar-domination via denial of many rights, both explicit and implicit, on the shaky and silly basis of untrue and surely now unproven “racial deficiencies”.

Probing historical study has now shown, unmistakably and undeniably, that a dollar-protecting agenda, driven deeper into our national economy --unavoidably, also into our national consensus-- was and continues to be at the heart of this complex, continuing planned attack.

The latter impact, on consensus, was a prime purpose of the attack, stated in some detail among members of the initiating cabal.

The entire picture is now emerging as a desperate diversion and a damaging technique --exercised by those in position to do so, through economic power and control-- aided and abetted by multiple and manifold failures by our vaunted “free press” to properly and promptly inform and teach the citizens; who thus refused the people’s power for precisely the controls-demanded.

Pundits “on air” pounded away on both sides of this issue, with the impact of the Obama speech invariably, unavoidably, less-than- “objectively” described and decimated decidedly and precisely as one might expect from their caption-named political “responsibilities”.

Somehow one could not possibly avoid the very strong feeling that his straight-talk has excised the otherwise-stunning “unbelievability quotient” credited with strengthening and continuing the closed-mind, closet-hiding stance of those who persist in prolonging the many very obvious demonstrations of racism-still-at-work, seen every day, in nearly every way, by anyone who will but look.

What science, culture, economic and working experience has long ago proven-up precisely and portentously --as direct and solid guidance for us in the 21st Century-- is now irrevocably also conquering even the cross/grained and contentious concept of “political correctness” --long the last barrier to basic consensus-acceptance across our whole nation.

I had intended here to run-down the outstanding and long-list of all those situations, sequences, seductions, and similar settings in which every one of us has observed the ongoing application of racism in all its wracking impacts and democracy-worrying occurrences.

I will cite a single incident, reflective of the entire-whole we all know exists daily across this nation, even today, 150 years after our Civil War: This was the day our Supreme Court reversed a life-taking decision for an accused murderer -- because the prosecutor admitted barring persons of color from the jury trying --another person of color.

Somehow, if one will but read the Obama text, that becomes eerily unnecessary since he so strongly covers the entire curious and continuing confrontations still occurring in our vaunted “strongest democracy in the world”.

In fact, I do believe all that is now needed here is to call to your attention, once again, this single definition, surely reflected from the overstrong, ever-repeated, demonstrably-damaging and extremely threatening demonstrations we all know about and have experienced.

Here it is: bigot (as in "partisan") n. : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own .

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Frugal March 24, 2008 1:38 pm (Pacific time)

Yes Henry the dollars and lives keep adding up. It is so unfortunate that the congress did not do more on a legislative level as some say they were elected to do. Why do you think that is? From another article I pasted the below for your review. The data is correct, of course long range costs are anyones guess but here are some figures that reflect some annual operating costs as per government sources, a brief example: In 2004 the government took in nearly 1.9 trillion dollars. Their outlay to the Department of Defense was approximately 455 billion dollars (23.9% of total tax income). In 2005 we took in nearly 2.2 trillion dollars and sent the Departmant of Defense 495 billion (22.5% of total tax income). The GNP for 2004 was 11.7 trillion and in 2005 the GNP was approximately 12.5 trillion. Actually the GNP has shown pretty steady growth since 2000. My point is that the percentage of DOD spending, though high (we are in a war footing), it's percentage of the GNP is something that merits a closer examination, as do those future costs that we will have with the Veterans Administration. Remember, we have fixed costs to maintain our military, something we must maintain. So what is the percentage of say the 2005 DOD outlay compared to the GNP? Approximately "3.6%". The source for the above is the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. As times goes by we will be able to see just what the VA costs may become, but I believe they will be much lower than what the costs are associated with Vietnam veterans.

Henry Clay Ruark March 24, 2008 7:25 am (Pacific time)

To all: Nice to find others in the Edit businesss stating parallel conclusions: Another View: How to pay for $3 trillion war? An editorial from The Des Moines Register,3/16/08 "The fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — a war that was sold to Americans based on falsehoods and that has no end yet in sight — is nothing to celebrate. Everyone should be grateful that violence against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians has declined during most of the past year, after an increase in U.S. troops. But no one should forget that as long as American troops continue to occupy the country, enmity will simmer against the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. U.S. troops' continued presence was predicated on political progress by the Iraqis, who must figure out how to run their own government and provide their own security. But progress has been scant. What should happen now? Ideally, the troops should come home, as expeditiously as safely possible. President Bush has made clear that won't happen on his watch — despite the contrary wishes of the American public, expressed in the 2006 congressional elections and poll after poll. So the country finds itself in an uneasy waiting period, until elections of a new president and Congress. Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton favor the better course of drawing down troops as quickly as reasonably possible. Republican John McCain talks first of ensuring "success" and, much as in South Korea or Germany, envisions some U.S. troops in Iraq for perhaps 100 years. Voters should continue to press the would-be commanders in chief for details about their military plans, but getting much more specific is unrealistic. Facts on the ground could change dramatically in 10 months. There is one aspect of the war, however, where voters should demand a lot more specifics from our next president: How he or she plans to pay for it. Disability costs will balloon The Bush administration has shrouded the costs of the war year after year, financing it through emergency appropriations. Those costs could burden Americans for generations to come. Recently, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, examined those costs, past and future. Witnesses included Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also co-author of the book "The Three Trillion Dollar War." His estimates include the longer-term and less-talked-about expenses, such as providing health-care and disability benefits for veterans for years to come. His honesty is refreshing, but his conclusions are troubling. Stiglitz told lawmakers the country is paying more than $4 billion a year in disability benefits to veterans of the Gulf War, which lasted only a month. "Imagine, then, what a war that will almost surely involve more than 2 million troops and will almost surely last more than six or seven years will cost," he said. "Already, we are seeing large numbers of returning veterans showing up at VA hospitals for treatment, large numbers applying for disability, and large numbers with severe psychological problems." Economic impacts widespread Stiglitz also noted that despite the idea that wars are good for the economy, that has not been the case with the war in Iraq. The huge expense did not stimulate the economy the way investments in infrastructure and education would have. And the price of oil has skyrocketed, which leaves Americans with less money to spend here at home. Add to that families where a breadwinner has had to quit working to care for a disabled veteran. The mounting costs have forced the United States to borrow more money from abroad — debt that future generations will be responsible for. How will the United States address the burden of the war's long-term expenses while also facing steeply higher costs for Social Security and Medicare as baby boomers move into retirement? That is the $3 trillion question for candidates. Answering it will require honesty that has been lacking in the Bush administration. A modest start: Annual budgets should include the immediate costs of the war, rather than accounting for them off the books. But candidates also must address how to ensure there will be adequate dollars to cover the future obligations for health care and disability payments to veterans. In short, they must outline a plan to ensure the war is paid for sooner rather than later, by today's taxpayers rather than our children and grandchildren. The burdens of the Iraq war have been borne disproportionately by the troops who have served there and their families, to whom the nation owes its gratitude. The sobering tally: nearly 4,000 American troops killed and nearly 30,000 wounded. But lurking behind those painful realities of war are the financial costs to the entire country. After five long years, that reality must finally be faced." "Other possibilities: The $430 million spent on Iraq each day could: - Enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start each year. - Put an additional 8,900 police officers on the street each year. - Hire another 10,700 border-patrol agents each year. - Provide health insurance to 329,000 low-income children each year. "Source: Opening statement of Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, on Feb. 28, 2008." "The total cost for the war in Iraq from 2002 to 2008 is $16,500 for an American family of four. That jumps to $20,900 when all potential costs from 2002 to 2017 are included. "Source: Joint Economic Committee"

Henry Clay Ruark March 23, 2008 1:03 pm (Pacific time)

To all: See mine re Fox as propaganda mill (3/221 4:34 pm). Now comes details on the Wallace disavowal of what Fox was doing as distorted and in effect perverted: Appearing on Fox and Friends, Wallace said: "I have been watching the show since 6 o'clock this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this 'typical white person' remark is somewhat excessive, and frankly, I think you're somewhat distorting what Obama had to say." He continued: WALLACE: I've actually ... clipped it out of the paper ... and what he said was: "The point I was making was not that my mother [sic] harbors any racial animosity -- she doesn't. But she is a typical white person," which is where you generally have clipped it ... but what he went on to say is, "who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes comes out in the wrong way. And that's just the nature of race in our society." Wallace later went on to add: "Well, I mean, all I can tell you is that I've been watching on and off for a couple of hours, and every clip I've seen ends at "that's a typical white person," when, in fact, he's going on to discuss the nature of race in our country. And, again, I'm not saying it was the -- if he had it to do over again, that he'd necessarily say it that way, but I don't think that he was making a hyper racial remark. And I guess I just feel like, on a day when he's been endorsed by Bill Richardson, and we have this story about the passports and the State Department officials looking into them, I feel like two hours of Obama bashing may be enough. Noting that Obama "gave a major speech on Iraq on Wednesday [March 19], and a major speech on the economy yesterday [March 20]," Wallace also stated: "I think they [the Obama campaign] would say, in terms of deflecting attention away from the issues, people who really want to hear about it, maybe it's the media doing it, not Barack Obama." ------------ Many more details adding to Wallace-view in the piece I excerpted for you; "see with own eyes" at www.mediamatters.org

Henry Ruark March 22, 2008 5:56 pm (Pacific time)

LaJ. et al: See my reponse to your sharp and probing Comment, which I both appreciate an ADMIRE, on the leader story re the Abama visit at top of page.

Henry Ruark March 22, 2008 2:37 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Inadvertently lost "see with own eyes" link for you-all on last Comment: Here it is: http://reptrust.mygopsite.com/2008/03/20/dems-internet-lead Goestoprove I ain't geekie enough for this assigment !!

LaJean March 22, 2008 11:50 am (Pacific time)

I am not your typical black person, nor your typical African-American female, but many like me are trying to sort through the hype and opinion and make a rational decision. We're starving for unbiased, factual information regarding the two leading democratic candidates actual track records. It would be an excellent journalistic exercise to see a synopsis/timeline of both Obama's and Clinton's public service, including vital elements such as years in elected office, legislation authored, innovative programs executed, attendance and voting records. I'm weary and wary over arguments over charisma, race and gender. I want to see actual past achievements because I do believe past effectiveness greatly informs us about future ability to govern successfully.

Henry Ruark March 22, 2008 11:38 am (Pacific time)

To all: Now cometh the McCain gang admitting initiation of the race issue, and with distorted information at that. Note the compilation of the video was from materials so placed as to aggravate and emphasize the issue, and that person found out and suspended is for undisclosed time-frame: Newsmax.com McCain Aide Suspended for Posting Wright Video WASHINGTON -- Republican John McCain's campaign suspended a staffer who sent out a provocative video linking Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama to the comments of his spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "The staffer, a low-level aide named Soren Dayton, sent out a link Thursday to the YouTube video, titled "Is Obama Wright?" on the social messaging Web site Twitter. "The campaign suspended him a few hours later, although it wouldn't say for how long. "We have been very clear on the type of campaign we intend to run and this staffer acted in violation of our policy," campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said. "He has been reprimanded by campaign leadership and suspended from the campaign." "Last month, McCain swiftly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who, while introducing McCain, repeatedly called Obama by his middle name of Hussein. "The Politico, a Washington-based newspaper, reported that the two-minute video was the work of Lee Habeeb, a former producer of the Laura Ingraham Show, a conservative talk program. "In the video, Wright's most incendiary remarks are mixed with snippets from Obama speeches and interviews, which are edited to make the senator seem to be sputtering and unpatriotic." ---------------- Somehow that doth not seem to me to be "the American Way" about which we hear so much from some "conservatives".

Henry Ruark March 22, 2008 9:10 am (Pacific time)

Betty et al:
So here's another view, this time reflecting the realities Obama understood so well:

"Even before Obama spoke Tuesday, some white observers who know his Chicago church said the context of Wright's words might be lost on some Americans.

"We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past," said the Rev. John H. Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ. "But on the gritty streets of Chicago's South Side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health-care systems, crumbling infrastructure and meager economic development."

"Jim Wallis, a white evangelical activist, issued a letter Tuesday to faith leaders that defended the black church's "prophetic truth-telling" role, and said some whites might be in denial about the anger felt by many black Americans.

"In 2008, to still not comprehend or seek to understand the reality of black frustration and anger, is to be in a state of white denial, which, very sadly, is where many white Americans are," said Wallis, founder of Washington-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal."
(From WPost website today.)

Disclosure: Spent two years in Chicago decade at Time/Life phonebank selling books.
Most of workers were black kids trying desperately to get back to education finishing h.s., then work in both college and university courses.
I KNOW firsthand what went on then and STILL does. The concept of "equal opportunity" was and IS badly distorted.
Incidentally, from work on phones myself as survival job, got tapped to help train others, and ended up redoing the T/L training system there from start to finish --learning from kids on phone what it took to win sales, and ending up setting sales record myself: 40 books in six-hour shift. If you were "victim", my apologies !!

Henry Ruark March 22, 2008 8:43 am (Pacific time)

Betty et al: Post whenever you feel something needs to be added to dialog here, Betty...we're all reading in good faith and all learning from each other here. Re diversity of feelings and thus views on Obama speech, here's another point of view from solid sources with special "right to speak" --which is why this national net-source cites them: "Yes, black people say things about our country and its injustices to each other that they don't say to those of us who are white. Whites also say things about blacks privately that they don't say in front of their black friends and associates. "One black leader who was capable of getting very angry indeed is the one now being invoked against Wright. His name was Martin Luther King Jr. "An important book on King's rhetoric by Barnard College professor Jonathan Rieder, due out next month, offers a more complex view of King than the sanitized version that is so popular, especially among conservative commentators. In "The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me," Rieder -- an admirer of King -- notes that the civil rights icon was "not just a crossover artist but a code switcher who switched in and out of idioms as he moved between black and white audiences." "Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

Henry Ruark March 22, 2008 8:11 am (Pacific time)

Betty et al: Thank you for your fair, insightful and very sharp comments. I agree with your feeling that some of words-said, not only by Obama but by McCain, can and surely will be twisted and perverted for political purpose, by both-party "consultants". That's what they get paid to do, as I know from being one at times in a variety of this and other situations. Tht puts onus (read here "responsibility" !) right in our own laps, to use own brain and own feelings, AND own life experience, to sift, sort out, and evaluate whatever inputs we gather...and THEN to choose on solid basis of PERSONAL values, without retreat and resort to whatever the pundits and the politicians have set up to trap, manipulate and "manage" us. Ain't easy --but is very definitely "the American way" and we must NOW return to it in depth, diversity and with full determination --IF we DO believe in what the Founders taught us in our so-vaunted Constitution and Bill of Rights. Welcome to 21st Century and is now-demanded "new approach" to politics --which, as you can plainly see, is very simple retreat to the fundamentals the Founders felt when they did their probing, world-renowned work setting the frame, and the pace,and the details --AND the DEMANDS, at work worldwide ever since...!!

Betty B March 21, 2008 6:21 pm (Pacific time)

I don't mean to be posting all the time but I just saw on eBay they are selling "Typical White Person" tee shirts. I imagine bumper stickers are next. Then if the late night television shows get in on the act? I think you can see where this may be heading. That is why he needs to clear it up with some type of significant response. I do not want McCain to win!

Betty B March 21, 2008 6:13 pm (Pacific time)

I just reviewed the Huffington Post website. I was disappointed.

Betty B March 21, 2008 5:59 pm (Pacific time)

I actually saw the interview when Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person." I do not watch the Fox channel, so what happens there is meaningless to me. It is my hope that he clears up what he meant by that statement because if I was to say someone was a "typical black person", which I never would do, I am sure my friends and even family would expect me to clarify. The latter could be considered a racial stereotype and so could the former. To develop a meaningful conversation dealing with racial problems, all parties need to accept the fact that taking responsibility for both language and behaviors is a two-way responsibilty. I would also like to find out where Obama stands on "reparations?" I believe my above concerns are normal, and I have heard others echo the same.

Henry Ruark March 21, 2008 4:24 pm (Pacific time)

Betty et al: The Fox network is now well recognized as a propaganda net set up by right-wing funding support to trash and damage anything designated by its masters. Yet even those perps working for that devalued net are now fighting each other over the Obama speech and how it has already begun a new, open and more honest dialog about our national "race discrimination" problem: Fox News Chaos: Anchor Walks Off Set, Wallace Rails Network for "Obama-Bashing" [VIDEO] By Adam Howard, AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/80435/ "Fox News' very own anchors are speaking out -- and walking off -- over what they perceive to be "Obama-bashing" on their network. "This morning on "Fox and Friends," Brian Kilmeade walked off the set after a dispute with his co-hosts Gretchen Carlson (she who celebrates deadly floods) and Steve Doocy over Obama's comment that his grandmother is a "typical white person." "Kilmeade argued that the remark needed to be taken in context and eventually got so fed up with his co-hosts that he walked off set. "Later, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace came on the show and railed against "Fox and Friends" for what he called "Obama-bashing." h/t The Huffington Post Adam Howard is the editor of PEEK.

Betty B March 21, 2008 11:32 am (Pacific time)

The only thing that has bothered me was the other day when he called his grandmother a "typical white person." I hope he explains what he meant by that, otherwise we may start seeing that phrase as a bumper sticker.

Henry Ruark March 20, 2008 6:01 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Preceding Op Ed on war costs now unsustainable used Public Agenda book as a very strong and easily understood source. Here's more on that book: * New York Times Praises "Where Does the Money Go?" The New York Times reviewed Public Agenda's first book, "Where Doesthe Money Go?", saying "if you are going to buy just one book in this presidential election year, you might want to consider “Where Does the Money Go?: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis” by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson. This is a book that manages to be entertaining and irreverent while serving as an informative primer on a subject that is crucial to the future of all Americans." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/media/16shelf.html For other media coverage and to find out more about the book, visit: http://www.publicagenda.org/wheredoesthemoneygo/

Henry Ruark March 20, 2008 12:39 pm (Pacific time)

JM: Your agreement appreciated, as was your Comment re Obama speech. This one reflects nicely the main point I offered there, to yours. Let's continue, as we can, and we should all learn that much more from each other.

JM March 20, 2008 11:54 am (Pacific time)

Yes "intolerance" can often be a double-edged sword, depending on one's perspective and life experience.

[Return to Top]