Mumia Abu-Jamal: Obama and the Preacher
Posted by Mike E on March 26, 2008
Thanks to Tahawus for suggesting this post.
The Politician and the Preacher
by Mumia Abu-Jamal [written 3/15/08]
The recent quasi-controversy over the comments made by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, retired pastor of the United Church of Christ, to which Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL), both belongs and attends, has shown us how limited, and how narrow, is this new politics peddled by the freshman Senator from Chicago.
Although first popularized via the web, the Reverend’s comments caused Sen. Obama to say he was “appalled” by them, and he has repudiated such remarks as “offensive.”
Just what were these comments? As far as I’ve heard, they were that Sen. Hilary Clinton (D.NY) has had a political advantage because she’s white; that she was raised in a family of means (especially when contrasted with Obama’s upbringing); and she was never called a n*gger.
Sounds objectively true to me.
Rev. Wright’s other remarks were that the country was built on racism, is run by rich white people, and that the events of 9/11 was a direct reaction to US foreign policy.
Again — true enough.
And while we can see how such truths might cause discomfort to American nationalists, can we not also agree that they are truths? Consider, would Sen. Clinton be where she is if she were born in a Black female body? Or if she were born to a single mother in the projects? As for the nation, it may be too simplistic to say it was built on racism, but was surely built on racial slavery, from which its wealth was built. And who runs America, if not the super rich white elites? Who doesn’t know that politicians are puppets of corporate and inherited wealth?
And while Blacks of wealth and means certainly are able to exercise unprecedented influence, we would be insane to believe that they ‘run’ this country. Oprah, Bob Johnson and Bill Cosby are indeed wealthy; but they have influence, not power. The limits of Cosby’s power was shown when he tried to purchase the TV network, NBC, years ago. His offer received a corporate smirk. And Oprah’s wealth, while remarkable, pales in comparison to the holdings of men like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.
Would George W. Bush be president today if he were named Jorje Guillermo Arbusto, and Mexican-American? (Not unless Jorje, Sr. was a multimillionaire!)
In his ambition to become America’s first Black president, Obama is in a race to prove how Black he isn’t; even to denouncing a man he has considered his mentor.
As one who has experienced the Black church from the inside, politics and social commentary are rarely far from the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Martin L. King spoke of politics, war, racism, economics, and social justice all across America. His fair-weather friends betrayed him, and the press condemned his remarks as “inappropriate”, “unpatriotic”, and “controversial.”
Rev. Dr. King said the US was “the greatest purveyor of violence” on earth, and that the Vietnam War was illegitimate and unjust. Would Sen. Obama be denouncing these words, as the white press, and many civil rights figures did, in 1967? Are they “inflammatory?”
Only to politics based on white, corporate comfort uber alles (above all)” only to a politics that ignores Black pain, and distorts Black history; only to a politics pitched more to the status quo, than to real change. Politics is ultimately about more than winning elections; it’s about principles; it’s about being true to one’s self, and honoring one’s ancestors; it’s about speaking truth to power. It can’t just be about change, because every change ain’t for the better! –(c) -08 maj
[Thanks to Prison Radio for making this available. Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Broadcasts, Higher Quality Audio files available info@prisonradio.org, copyright 2008 Mumia Abu-Jamal/Prison Radio recorded 3/16/08, 1) 3:01 Radio Essay - short - Mp3 2) 3:36 Radio Essay - long - Mp3 Mr. Jamal's recent book features a chapter on the remarkable women who helped build and defend the Black Panther Party: *WE WANT FREEDOM: A Life in the Black Panther Party*, from South End Press (http://www.southendpress.org); Ph. #1-800-533-8478.]
March 26, 2008 at 6:27 am
i like his link to MLK and the vietnam war - although i have always found obama’s denunciation of wright to be indicative of his politics and as narrow-sighted as the class interests he upholds, this historical perspective offered by mumia only makes it all the more poignant.
March 26, 2008 at 7:45 am
Conveniently leaving out Condi Rice, of course. And Colin Powell.
March 26, 2008 at 7:52 am
With all due respect to Mumia, this is facile. Another case of seizing on the issue of Wright to evade the question of Obama and how we, as revolutionaries, are to relate to his campaign.
To characterize Obama’s speech as a denunciation of Rev. Wright is really to miss the forest for the trees. It is true that Obama accepted the narrative that wright had said something terrible and hateful and then distanced himself from these (deliberately unspecified) words. And yes this is a bad thing and a reminder, in case we forgot, that we are dealing here with a bourgeois politician.
But that was the the preamble to the speech itself which laid out an analysis of race in the U.S. that, while certainly not a revolutionary analysis, was much more progressive and sophisticated than any ever expressed by a viable candidate for president of this country, and frankly more progressive and sophisticated than those advanced by some folks who consider themselves far to Obama’s left.
Am I the only person here who listened to that speech and was actually MOVED?
I had plenty of “yeah, but” moments while listening to that speech, but I also recognized it for what so many others did, as a huge event in the fight for the liberation of racially and nationally oppressed people in this country. I find the inability of supposed revolutionaries to even seriously analyze this campaign, irresepctive of the conclusions people come to, flabbergasting.
March 26, 2008 at 10:18 am
I watched the speech live and had the same reaction. Yes, he’s a bourgeois politician who’s playing the game. Yes, he’s just pushing a new version of the “American Dream”. Still there was a solid core of demanding dignity for the traditionally marginalized and oppressed that could not be denied, that will be long remembered, I believe. I could not help but be moved, and I was trying *not* to be, by the sheer force of dignity Obama projects. How this will help or hinder the growth of revolutionary currents is hard for me to even speculate about.
March 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm
One particularly unique aspect of this speech was the acknowledgment of the reality and power of popular protest: “What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.” This in contrast to all other politicians who refuse to even hint at it and specifically to Hillary giving Lyndon Johnson credit for the Civil Rights movement.
No wonder liberal and progressive people are getting on board.
All this in the absence of a powerful mass movement with national presence. Could it be that he, and sections of the ruling class, see the potential for such movement[s] arising out of simmering discontent?
March 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“Am I the only person here who listened to that speech and was actually MOVED?”
You were emotionally moved?
Deception and self-deception.
March 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I wasn’t moved to tears, but I definitely recognize the significance of the speech - when else has a bourgeois politician talked about these issues?
It’s significant in the sense that if he keeps going in this direction it may play a role in combating the notions of inferiority proscribed to folks of color.
March 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“To characterize Obama’s speech as a denunciation of Rev. Wright is really to miss the forest for the trees.”
Really?
When Obama says that he’s 100% for Israel, and that is mentioned as more than a “downside”… is that, too, missing the forest for the trees?
I really do want the list of who is expendable.
What other trees do we have to help cut down in order to appreciate the forest?
March 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Tellnolies: what are flabergasted by?
I’m not voting for that man. Nor do I think his skillful politicking is all that “moving”… I wasn’t moved. I was surprised he went as far as he has, but I’ve lived my life in New York, Chicago and other areas of the country where mentioning black oppression is par for the course among many politicians.
Harold Washington, who delivered exactly jack shit for the poor black people of Chicago, would regularly talk about the “400 years” and damn the “racist power structure” of which he was a career member.
Has anyone here ever heard a Marion Barry speech? Or Ruth Messinger? Or Jerry “the anarchist” Brown?
Flabbergasted!
March 26, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Don’t think the issue is whether any of us were “moved”. I think the question is where are various sections of people at and how did this speech impact and what are revolutionaries going to do with all this? This is a far more interesting and challenging question. Addressing the Rev. Wright controversy in the way he (Obama) did was a pretty shrewd and risky thing– in terms of bourgeois political jockeying.
It is important to get at the content of the speech. People “heard” it in different ways, depending on demographic. I would venture majority of Black people found it moving, encouraging and courageous. I think a whole section of white middle class liberals from suburban areas were pushed closer towards H. Clinton because they are not, on the whole, doing very well on the race issue as it grows sharper and more heated where innercity Blacks butt up against professionals andsolidly middle class people. It was interestly applauded by sections of the religious right. Again, people hear what they want to hear. Suffice many people didn’t put it all together. The message was insideous…white racism=black reverse racism, only the whites need to understand more where it comes from. Obama was trying to sell sections of white america on him or at least that he “gets” their concerns.
But it was about conciliation, which denies the existance of national oppression as one of the most deeply rooted structural and ideological foundations of this country. His speech was about the clash as it has emerged today. H. Clinton’s bid and tilt further right was a strategic move to court a certain social base by distancing herself from Rev. Wright and Obama. Her remarks were inflammatory and very very backwards. H. Clinton is also negotiating the future. It could be argued that she’d rather see McCain in over Obama because that sets better terms for her next round. But the heart is how the reality of and the debate oer “race” will be framed. And right now we have two bourgeois frameworks.
I do not think the masses of Black people and legions of Obama fans will be drawn away right now. BUT I do think we have to struggle to change the terms of debate around “race” into a massive discussion of national oppression and racism in America. Obama wants to forge support FOR HIMSELF between disparate sections of people by putting forward a profoundly equivocal position on the character of contemporary US society. As “moving” as his speech was, listen carefully, it apologized for white chauvinism and FAILED to unequivocally state that THE PROBLEM is the hanging noose in Jena and there is a basic question of which side are you on?
April 10, 2008 at 4:34 pm
There’s plenty to critique about Obama, but it’s good to start figuring out what you want to critique him FOR.
For being a candidate of a left-progressive-center coalition trying to get a majority of the votes in November and take the White House? In that case, if he didn’t pursue an alliance with a faction of imperialism, like with Zbignew, and to speak to its interests as part of the coalition, we should get on his case, since there is no way to win in 2008 without doing so.
For not being simply a candidate of progressives? Problem is, he’s never claimed, so far as I know, that that was how he defined his politics. Having working with him tactically over the years, even before getting him that speakers slot at the now-famous Oct 2002 antiwar rally, he’s really followed a line of high road industrial policy capitalism, and soft power multipolar globalism with a social-democratic safety net, but the latter only to a degree. He’s never pretended to be anything else, certainly not a socialist or anti-imperialist.
He is what he is, and my critiques are aimed at holding him to that, and preventing rightward drift, not to try to make him become something he’s not, or, conversely, to prettify him into something he’s not.
In brief, rather than making him into a left-progressive, our task at ‘Progressives for Obama’ is to organize that pole ourselves, independently of his campaign, but in alliance with it, to build something that will last beyond the campaign, but that will also help defeat the main danger, McCain.
One could run a left or anti-imperialist campaign, like PLS, which is fine, but its purpose is not to win, but to do propaganda and agitation among the advanced, and a little party-building. You measure its success, and criticize it, with completely different yardsticks.
Or you can simply stay out of the electoral arena, and go do something else. But if you do, you’re missing boat in ability to work with some vibrant people.
I will agree that Obama could have done better on Palestine/Israel. In fact, he could have stuck to something closer to his original views. But for all his butt-kissing with AIPAC, it didn’t do him a bit of good, did it. They’ve still targeted him for defeat as the most dangerous to Zionism, despite ‘positions.’
April 20, 2008 at 7:19 am
Wow, Obama’s magic works on hardcore marxists too.
April 20, 2008 at 11:53 am
Don’t assume that everyone posting here is a Marxist (hardcore or otherwise).