Letters to the Editor | Reader responses to The Voting Booth | Obama’s unifying speech on racism should be focus

Understanding, not distance, is what must come from the scandal regarding the remarks of Barack Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Allison Good wrote in “Obama must distance himself from divisive pastor” (3.27.08) that the issue with the Reverend’s remarks is that they offered controversial views on racial issues in America.

Isn’t it to be expected that community figureheads, especially in areas where America’s racial past has stood as an immense obstacle, might have controversial views on such an important and painful topic as racism? Obama is certainly attempting to unite Americans around his message of a change in the status quo in Washington and abroad, but the views of his pastor do not necessarily reflect the views he holds personally. Media outlets who focus on Wright’s comments dilute Obama’s message and center on the more radical views held by members of Obama’s community.

Obama responded to the outcry made over the Reverend in an impressively moving and introspective speech. He condemned the remarks, but refused to condemn Wright himself. He likened Wright to his crazy uncle who holds differnt beliefs but whose opinions stem from a historical context that Obama understands. For this reason, he still has a sense of love and respect for the man, regardless of the two-minute soundbyte that has come to define all 66 years of his life and 36 years of his role as leader within Chicago’s black community.

Obama explained in his “A More Perfect Union” speech that this is why he also has love for his white racist grandmother. None of us would have trouble finding a person who has held a great deal of importance in our lives but with whom we did not always agree. Just because the people close to us hold certain beliefs does not mean that we are beholden to them.

Good’s analysis of Wright’s comments in the context of African-American political history is problematic. She describes his sermons as “black power, anti-white,” but says that his “anti-American tirades…[do] not sit well with Americans, who do not find it easy to turn the other cheek.”

“Turning the other cheek” is a phrase related to Martin Luther King Jr.’s call for non-violent resistance. The other end of the spectrum for African-Americans who did not want to turn the other cheek was the radical politics of Malcolm X, The Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, i.e. the Black Power movement. Good is counter-intuitively using the language of the civil rights era and black power to condemn Wright’s sermons for being about black power.

If Obama wins the presidency, it would set an incredible precedent for reversing the culture of racism that has defined American history. Given the deep implications of this precedent and the historical context that makes Obama’s race so important, it should be expected that challenging racial issues are to be brought to the foreground in this election. Shouldn’t we collectively struggle with these problems so we can improve our society?

Why should we favor a colorblind approach to race in America, when America has never been colorblind? If we continue to focus on the controversial views of Wright and ignore Obama’s calls for unity and improved race relations, “Nothing will change,” as Obama emphatically declared in his “A More Perfect Union” speech.

—Daniel Orme ’08