In their August 2008 article “A Step Forward Seen For Blacks in America,” Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta investigate the role Barack Obama’s candidacy has played in changing the perceptions of American citizens. Cohen and Agiesta are careful to balance the current optimism expounded by the media (“The opinion that Obama's rise is symbolic of general progress for African Americans is shared across lines of party, education and income…”) with less hopeful statistics like the fact that “nearly two-thirds of African Americans saying [race] relations are ‘not so good’ or downright ‘poor.’” Providing a fair assessment of the situation regarding race, Cohen and Agiesta cite numerous studies that point to a general trend of increased optimism among both African Americans and whites, though the optimism among whites is significantly less pronounced. As evidence of the growing racial optimism, they point to a post-convention poll indicating that Obama’s nomination makes “more than a third of U.S. adults…prouder to be Americans” (Michelle Obama, anyone?). Obama’s speech accepting his party’s nomination came on the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream Speech,” highlighting not only the significance of Obama’s historic nomination but also the intricate relationship between the two men.
In his book Stone of Hope, David Chappell details Martin Luther King Jr.’s meteoric rise to the forefront of the civil rights movement. Chappell carefully delineates King’s intellectually influences and motivations to provide a new perspective and context to King’s work. One of the more interesting points is Chappell’s notation that “King could never embrace liberal optimism” (Chappell 46). At the forefront of today’s liberal movement, especially with respect to Barack Obama’s message of “hope” and “change,” is the so-called liberal optimism which Chappell describes as the belief in "the power of human reason to overcome 'prejudice'" (Chappell 3). Thus, it is ironic that the man who some see as the final product of King’s civil rights movement embodies the philosophy with which King could never come to terms. Some might say that this diversion from King’s philosophy signals a regression in the kind of civil rights movement in which King so fervently believed.
I, on the other hand, choose to believe that this discrepancy is ultimately a sign of progress and that Obama may have provided the missing link to a still-incomplete civil rights movement. As Chappell notes with his discussion of other prominent civil rights leaders like Bayard Rustin and Modjeska Simkins, the civil rights movement most certainly did not begin and end with King. Chappell ends his discussion of King and his contemporaries with the acknowledgment that the civil rights movement was just beginning: "[they] left a legacy of thought and experience that later rebels drew upon" (Chappell 66).
Chappell's "rebels" bridged the gap between whites and blacks at some point between King’s assassination and Obama’s nomination. Though some African Americans still suffer the repercussions of past wrongs, it is now evident that the opportunities in the United States are available to all and that all Americans truly are created equal. The difference between Obama’s philosophy and King’s philosophy points to remarkably different phases in the civil rights movement. One phase came at a time of great despair and existential feelings with regard to hope. The other comes today, at a time when minorities no longer believe that to hope would be foolish.
And yet, questions still linger in this political campaign. Will some Americans still vote for Obama simply because he is African American? Will some who still harbor racist ideas vote against Obama for the very same reason? Will others be able to vote against Obama simply because they disagree with his political views and not have to suffer accusations of racism? Or will Americans finally recognize the candidates as equals and vote for—or against—them as such?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Obama's philosophy of "hope" is a key strategy in a time when many Americans are more cynical than ever. The issue of "race" has been present since the country's founding, and most voters are sick of talking about it. Barack Obama seems refreshing when he comes out saying things like "Yes We Can" and titles his book "The Audacity of Hope."
You make a good point about the time periods of King and Obama. King is speaking decades ago when racial issues are still at the forefront of the nation's political discussions. Obama is speaking at a time when many Americans believe (or at least "hope") that the end of racial conflict is in sight.
Elizabeth raises an interesting question—“will Americans finally recognize the candidates as equals and vote for—or against—them as such?” My personal belief is that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have wanted it this way. After all, he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by their skin color, and I share this hope. Yet I still think that his dream will not be realized in this election and perhaps not for many to come. I believe that there will be some people who will not vote for a black candidate. And I also think that many people will choose Obama simply because he is black, completely disregarding his policies and plans for the nation. Both are equally wrong in my opinion. Why is it still acceptable to say that one is voting for a candidate merely because he is African American, but racist if one votes for someone because he is white? Perhaps I am too young and idealistic, but skin color should not even be a factor, either way. In my mind, it is just as backward and wrong to vote for someone because of his race as it is to vote against him on the same principle. If Obama is truly providing hope that the end of racial conflict is in sight, then why has he incorporated his race into so many of his speeches? Will we ever truly be color-blind in this country? I'm starting to think not.
Cohen and Agiesta wisely balance statistics of optimism and skepticism regarding Barack Obama, as you point out. Obama’s nomination is certainly historic, and highlighted by the date it fell on. At the same time, you and the article both touch on the question of whether or not Obama’s nomination truly signals a turning point in American race relations. Despite his unoptimistic views of human nature, King maintained a vision of an equal world. Whether or not Obama represents the culmination or simply a new manifestation of the Civil Rights Movement, I believe King’s dream is being realized, at least in part.
Claire L, I agree completely with what you say about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. It is sad that our country is run this way, but people will vote for Obama simply because he is a black candidate. I feel like that can also be said about John McCain's campaign now because his runningmate is a woman. That was a very strategic move on his part and it could have been done purposely. I also feel that our country is starting vote more on who the person is and what the media says about them, not what their policies are. The shift needs to start moving back towards policies and less about their lives. Black, white, woman, man, these should not be what is looked at in politics. The issues are what is important.
Concerning the presumed "regression" of the Civil Rights Movement, I do not think that is proper word choice (Elizabeth R). Times have undoubtedly changed. America no longer needs to be prodded by angry protesters and televised police brutality in Birmingham to treat individuals equally and civilly. There is still an undeniable sense of animosity between the different races,(specifically white and black) but that sentiment is receding. Progress has, and is being made. For blacks to parade around shouting "power to the people" and acting in other empty pro-black manners would simply harm current race relations. A dead horse does not need to be beaten. I am in no way shape or form implying that blacks are better served to resign to their respective corners of the country in silence because all is well. But I do maintain, to say the Civil Rights Movement has regressed, is to ignore the very reasons it began.
Post a Comment