David H. Ikard - Nation of Cowards: Black Activism in Barack Obamas Post-Racial America

NATION
OF
COWARDS

DAVID H. IKARD AND MARTELL LEE TEASLEY

INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS

Bloomington & Indianapolis

This book is a publication of

Indiana University Press
601 North Morton Street
Bloomington, Indiana
47404-3797 USA

iupress.indiana.edu

Telephone orders 800-842-6796
Fax orders 812-855-7931

2012 by David H. Ikard and
Martell Lee Teasley
All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

Manufactured in the
United States of America

Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ikard, David [date]

Nation of cowards : black activism in Barack Obama's post-racial America / David Ikard and Martell Teasley.

p. cm. (Blacks in the diaspora)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-253-00628-8 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-253-00701-8 (eb) 1. African AmericansPolitics and government21st century. 2. African AmericansSocial conditions21st century. 3. African AmericansEconomic conditions21st century. 4. Obama, BarackRelations with African Americans. 5. United StatesRace relationsPolitical aspects 6. United StatesPolitics and government2009-7. Post-racialismUnited States. 8. Race awarenessUnited States. I. Teasley, Martell L. II. Title.

E185.86.139

2012

305.8'009730905dc23 2012017797

1 2 3 4 5 17 16 15 14 13 12

BLACKS IN THE DIASPORA

Introduction

Is America a Nation of Cowards or Has
Attorney General Eric Holder Lost His Mind?

In my previous writings I called for the framing of issues in a way designed to appeal to broad segments of the population. Key to this framing, I argued, would be an emphasis on policies that would directly benefit all groups, not just people of color. My thinking was that, given American views about poverty and race, a color-blind agenda would be the most realistic way to generate the broad political support that would be necessary to enact the required legislation. I no longer hold this view.

The question is not whether the policy should be race neutral or universal; the question is whether the policy is framed to facilitate a frank discussion of the problems that ought to be addressed and to generate broad political support to alleviate them. So now my position has changed: In framing public policy, we should not shy away from an explicit discussion of the specific issues of race and poverty; on the contrary, we should highlight them in our attempt to convince the nation that these problems should be seriously confronted and that there is an urgent need to address them. These issues of race and poverty should be framed in such a way that not only is a sense of the fairness and justice of combating inequality generated, but also people are made aware that our country would be better off if these problems were seriously addressed and eradicated.

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

IT JUST SO HAPPENED that we heard the media commentary surrounding Attorney General Eric Holder's now (in)famous race speech before we actually got the chance to hear the speech itself. The first black attorney general in U.S. history, Holder used his position as the nation's top law enforcement officer as a bully pulpit to warn Americans that racism is still alive and well in the nation. The mainstream media and blogosphere fixated on the excerpt from the 2009 speech in which Holder characterizes American as a nation of cowards on the issue of race. The mounting attacks against Holderthe bulk of which were coming from a mostly white and politically diverse group spanning from GOP celebrity Rush Limbaugh to liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowdcreated the impression that Holder was speaking out of anger and cynicism. The unfolding white narrative in the dominant media cast Holder in the role of the prototypical angry black mana term used to describe a racially embittered black man who displaces self-imposed socioeconomic failings onto whites. More specifically, Holder's detractors argued he was ignoring the significance of Barack Obama's historic election as the first African American president as well as his own historic appointment as the first African American attorney general. Surely, white racial cowards would not have elected a black man to the highest and most powerful post in the countryif not the worldand supported another as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. With only a few notable exceptions within conservative black political circles, the African American side of the debate was unfolding in a radically different way. In the eyes of most, Holder was not an angry black man with a bone to pick with white folks. Rather, he was a brave and insightful black leader speaking truth to power. Whether they admitted it or not, whites continued to enjoy race privilege at the direct socioeconomic expense of African Americans and other non-white ethnic minorities. Holder was being attacked because he dared to hold whites accountable. In the black narrative, Holder emerged as a heroic figure, offering a salty dose of racial straight-talk to balance out Obama's lofty hope rhetoric.

When we reviewed the speech in its entirety for ourselves, we found both perspectives to be lacking in certain respects. On the black side of the debate, most commentators emphasized the lasting socioeconomic impact of slavery and Jim Crow to black self-determination as if Holder's speech was aimed exclusively at condemning whites. Even as Holder was undoubtedly trying to illuminate the link between white oppression and black self-determination, he was hardly giving African Americans a free pass on culpability. He makes clear in his speech that racial cowardice cuts across race lines. He also makes clear that when it comes to having uneasy conversations about race and racial progress in this country, the tendency for both blacks and whites is to retreat into established and overworn political postures:

Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black and white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. (sec 1)

Even though Holder attests that, on a socioeconomic level, blacks have clearly suffered more in this country than whites because of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and institutionalized racism, he demonstrates that blacks too have an inability to talk frankly, openly, and critically about race. He explains that our nation's stalled racial dialogue is not a white, black, or brown problem, but an American problem that has a disproportionately crippling effect on African Americans and other historically oppressed groups because of disparate power dynamics. To the post-racial and mostly white argument that Obama's election to president and Holder's appointment to attorney general demonstrate the rapidly decreasing relevance of race in the United States, Holder writes that persistent socioeconomic inequalities belie the notion that we live in a post-racial society. He underscores his argument by pointing out that outside of the workplace, America remains a largely segregated society. He opines, On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly [in interracial interactions] from the [segregated] country that existed some fifty years ago (sec 3). What this voluntary segregation outside the workplace demonstrates for Holder is that there are still many social barriers on the issue of race left to overcome, barriers that are rarely engaged or scrutinized because our race rhetoric tends to conflate tolerating racial difference with appreciating it.