Skip to main content

What Happened to Obama?

 

It was a blustery day in Washington on Jan. 20, 2009, as it often seems to be on the day of a presidential inauguration. As I stood with my 8-year-old daughter, watching the president deliver his inaugural address, I had a feeling of unease. It wasn’t just that the man who could be so eloquent had seemingly chosen not to be on this auspicious occasion, although that turned out to be a troubling harbinger of things to come. It was that there was a story the American people were waiting to hear — and needed to hear — but he didn’t tell it. And in the ensuing months he continued not to tell it, no matter how outrageous the slings and arrows his opponents threw at him.(Image: Edel Rodriguez)

The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred. Our brains evolved to “expect” stories with a particular structure, with protagonists and villains, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be fought. Our species existed for more than 100,000 years before the earliest signs of literacy, and another 5,000 years would pass before the majority of humans would know how to read and write.

Stories were the primary way our ancestors transmitted knowledge and values. Today we seek movies, novels and “news stories” that put the events of the day in a form that our brains evolved to find compelling and memorable. Children crave bedtime stories; the holy books of the three great monotheistic religions are written in parables; and as research in cognitive science has shown, lawyers whose closing arguments tell a story win jury trials against their legal adversaries who just lay out “the facts of the case.”

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.” A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative — and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it — would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn’t tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit — a deficit that didn’t exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.

But there was no story — and there has been none since.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That’s what we saw in 1928, and that’s what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues — and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation’s food supply, and protect America’s land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.

Those were the shoes — that was the historic role — that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve&rdquo, or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

What makes the “deficit debate” we just experienced seem so surreal is how divorced the conversation in Washington has been from conversations around the kitchen table everywhere else in America. Although I am a scientist by training, over the last several years, as a messaging consultant to nonprofit groups and Democratic leaders, I have studied the way voters think and feel, talking to them in plain language. At this point, I have interacted in person or virtually with more than 50,000 Americans on a range of issues, from taxes and deficits to abortion and immigration.

The average voter is far more worried about jobs than about the deficit, which few were talking about while Bush and the Republican Congress were running it up. The conventional wisdom is that Americans hate government, and if you ask the question in the abstract, people will certainly give you an earful about what government does wrong. But if you give them the choice between cutting the deficit and putting Americans back to work, it isn’t even close. But it’s not just jobs. Americans don’t share the priorities of either party on taxes, budgets or any of the things Congress and the president have just agreed to slash — or failed to slash, like subsidies to oil companies. When it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, Americans are united across the political spectrum, supporting a message that says, “In times like these, millionaires ought to be giving to charity, not getting it.”

When pitted against a tough budget-cutting message straight from the mouth of its strongest advocates, swing voters vastly preferred a message that began, “The best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work.” This statement is far more consistent with what many economists are saying publicly — and what investors apparently believe, as evident in the nosedive the stock market took after the president and Congress “saved” the economy.

So where does that leave us?

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling. He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production — two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing. He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day. He gives a major speech on immigration reform after deporting a million immigrants in two years, breaking up families at a pace George W. Bush could never rival in all his years as president.

THE real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.

As a practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience, I will resist the temptation to diagnose at a distance, but as a scientist and strategic consultant I will venture some hypotheses.

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election. Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.

Or perhaps, like so many politicians who come to Washington, he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted by a system that tests the souls even of people of tremendous integrity, by forcing them to dial for dollars — in the case of the modern presidency, for hundreds of millions of dollars. When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear.

A final explanation is that he ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation.

But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm just trying to make a way out of no way, for my people" -Modejeska Monteith Simpkins

 

AFRICAN AMERICA IS AT WAR

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICA

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICANS

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

AMERICA'S RACISTS HAVE INFILTRATED AMERICAN POLICE FORCES TO WAGE A RACE WAR AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

THE BLACK RACE IS AT WAR

FIRST WORLD WAR:  THE APPROXIMATELY 6,000 YEAR WORLD WAR ON AFRICA AND THE BLACK RACE

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

  Folks can WALK around pretending that the WHITE elephant doesn't exist.  They can continue BLAMING my president for the mess that was initially created by Bush all they want to.  But it won't CHANGE the FACT that my president was being sabbotaged the MOMENT he won the presidency.  Cuz why?  Racist America run this country.  And like back in the day, some blackfolks ARE shaking in their boots cuz they don't KNOW what to do.  43 presidents in the PAST and NOT one.....not one has been perfect.  Folks in my opinion are sooooo childish in their view about what is REALLY GOING ON.  Standard and Poors?  A racist move.  The media always hounding my president?  A racist move.  Now congress can go on vacation and stay away a month....but!  My president?  He can't even go away for a week...without the racist hammer coming down on him once again....but!  Not too many were concern about congress....and the country is crisis.  But why is that?  Cuz they are WHITE!!!!! 

 

If this country...the people who voted for Obama back in the day....would just STAND up and have his back....half this shyte wouldn't happening.  But everybody KNOWS he is being sabbotage...SINGLED OUT cuz he is black.  Cuz he is BLACK.  Cuz he is BLACK.  Folks can talk all the political big words hogwash....all they want...but!  The bottom line is:  White man is ANGRY....PISSED OFF...FOCKING MAD...that the President of the United States....the most powerful position in the WORLD......is a black man.  Cuz all the focking idiotic shyte 43 presidents before him have DONE....including keeping humans as SLAVES and still justifying it TODAY ...not one politician will debased them....like they are publically doing my President.  And be clear aint no motherfocker on this earth is perfect....if so SHOW ME!!! Aint no motherfocker can bring back the dead as I always say....so why in the hell can't BLACK PEOPLE do something consistent FOR ONCE????  Don't wanna focking raising your kids....don't wanna get involved in things in your community that will long term effective...let alone Africa....so what the fock good are black people if they cannot STAND UP for their own?  Regardless of the distraction on the outside.  I call it COWARDICE.  Head in the sand angst.  Cuz it's real easy to give an opinion[fake or real]...and talk that shyte on the couch in front of a monitor...than it is to be BRAVE and demonstrate your TRUE belief with ACTION and have a real voice that can be HEARD...like during the sixties.  but oh...I forgot this isn't those original folks.... this the new "black."  Sorry.  My bad...but I'm just sayin

   

  You know my brotha...it's REAL easy.  Don't read MY SHYTE.  And you won't ever have to worry about being BORED.  Cuz from where I sit...you're one of the motherfockers I'm TALKING ABOUT!  How about finding a manchild and becoming his mentor....instead of focking with me.  How about that?  Do sumething productive with YOUR LIFE.... 


How about knowing what the fuck you are talking about every once in a while? 

 

  With you?  It's not that hard....knowing what the fock I'm talking about...that is.  Not hard at all.  As a matter of fact, you're soooooooooooo easy to read.  Just by your irratic disrespectful aint nobody talkin' to your bully azz behavior.  Simple.  All in my koolaid-don't EVEN know the flavor...and yet here you are AGAIN.  I never ONCE say anything to you without having to defend myself.  Either I'm HITTING  a nerve....or there is sumething seriously WRONG with your azz.  Bottom line.  So....go kick rocks or whatever the FOCK you do.

This is a great article, and it speaks (in a lot more detail) to the same concerns I've written about lately. 

 

The "story" of this country's economic problems DOES have a villain.  It's decades of misguided right wing economic and social policies, fueled largely by decades of right wing talking points totally dominating the public discourse.  None of that ever had a chance to change if the new, Democratic president wasn't going to be willing to spotlight the villain. People need to hear it in order to believe it.  And there's really no excuse for why this guy has refused to bring it.

 

He wants to be the great conciliator, but the opposition has to be willing in order for it to work.  And they're not going to be willing unless they see a benefit in being willing. 

 

Anybody who has followed national politics for any length of time knows what the Republicans are capable of.  Except for Barack Obama.  If we're old enought o remember the 1990s, we remember when the Republicans caused a major constitutional crisis by impeaching the President for lying about whether he cheated on his wife.  Under no circumstances was that impeachable, but they didn't care.  They did it anyway.  These people stop at nothing to get their way, and they stop at nothing to bring down a democratic president. Everybody knows that. 

 

Except for Barack Obama.  THIS dude somehow thought that HE would have an easier time dealing with the Republicans than Bill Clinton did.  This Negro somehow found himself believing that right wingers would work with his black ass where they refused to work with Clinton. 

 

And, of course, this time around, the right wingers are even crazier than they were in the '90s.  But the Great Conciliator figured he'd be okay.  It's actually pretty pathetic. 

 

And, of course, this time around, the right wingers are even crazier than they were in the '90s.  But the Great Conciliator figured he'd be okay.  It's actually pretty pathetic.

 

  This is NO secret....by no stretch.  I remember when some presidents wouldn't even acknowledge that Blacks were human. I don't think that Obama was somehow clouded in judging how he would interact  with the terrorist repubs....I just think he REALLY thought these asswipes would finally act GROWN UP and do the right thing with this country.  It seems to me that he thought if he spoke the SAME language[whatever that means] both he and the TR would come to a reasonable medium...since somebody told somebody that we, that is black folks, are actually HUMAN.  He really assumed that we could roll up our sleeves, get down to business and work together with them repubs.  What he forgot....is.. how voil[sp] whitefolks are when it comes to power.  How low they will go....and what they are willing to destroy....in order to not  let a kneegrow have ANYTHING...let alone power and leadership.    And it's as simple as that.  No hoopla angsts, no academic debate, just plain old ordinary RACISM.  That's all it is.  I remember a professor telling me years ago in a political science class that America will fall from the inside out.  And ya know....from what's been going on lately....I think he's RIGHT!  But.  I'm just sayin 

Nothing happened to Obama. I'M sure he sleeps just fine at night. After all, Obama knew exactly what Obama intended to do even before he'd done anything. And after all, who knows Obama better than Obama? 

 

The question is, 'how much of his bulls*it are YOU willing to endorse'?

 

Lest we forget, all decisions have consequences.

 

Originally Posted by roarin1:

Nothing happened to Obama. I'M sure he sleeps just fine at night. After all, Obama knew exactly what Obama intended to do even before he'd done anything. And after all, who knows Obama better than Obama? 

 

The question is, 'how much of his bulls*it are YOU willing to endorse'?

 

Lest we forget, all decisions have consequences.

 

 

That's the question on the table to ALL of black america right now. How much of this BS are we going to continue to take? We had a window of opprotunity to get some of this stuff fixed in 2008 and again in 2010. Opprotunities for us are far and few between. We have to be organized and ready to go at a moments notice.

Brotha Roarin1 wrote: Nothing happened to Obama. I'M sure he sleeps just fine at night. After all, Obama knew exactly what Obama intended to do even before he'd done anything. And after all, who knows Obama better than Obama

 

  Exactly......and since everybody's a critic....I ALWAYS ask:  What yall doin?  Are yall doin' your part in the eye of this storm?  We used to.  Regardless of what massa was or was not doin for US.  And....I happen to sleep just fine at night too.  Cuz I see through massa's racist pranks. 

 

The question is, 'how much of his bulls*it are YOU willing to endorse'?

 

Thank you very much my brotha...cuz that's what it is.  Bullshyte.  Strategy.  Distractions.  And let's not forget LIES LIES LIES.  But!  I'm just sayin

Originally Posted by Kocolicious:

Brotha Roarin1 wrote: Nothing happened to Obama. I'M sure he sleeps just fine at night. After all, Obama knew exactly what Obama intended to do even before he'd done anything. And after all, who knows Obama better than Obama

 

  Exactly......and since everybody's a critic....I ALWAYS ask:  What yall doin?  Are yall doin' your part in the eye of this storm?  We used to.  Regardless of what massa was or was not doin for US.  And....I happen to sleep just fine at night too.  Cuz I see through massa's racist pranks. 

 

The question is, 'how much of his bulls*it are YOU willing to endorse'?

 

Thank you very much my brotha...cuz that's what it is.  Bullshyte.  Strategy.  Distractions.  And let's not forget LIES LIES LIES.  But!  I'm just sayin

 

 

(ehh...actually Sis Kocolicious, I was simply being sarcastic.) 

 

Therefore, I'LL re-dress the question: 'how much of his bulls*it are YOU willing to endorse?'

 

(and add the thought that is probably 'missing'...)

 

'Because he's obviously more than willing to put a few boatloads of it out there'.

 

(sorry for any confusion.) 

LOL @ Roarin'... 

 

From Xumbrarchist: "

Am I supposed to read all of that to learn that being presidetn behind GWB was a really BAD IDEA? That is why I wanted Hillary to get the nomination."

 

From Koco:

"I just think he REALLY thought these asswipes would finally act GROWN UP and do the right thing with this country."  

 

You are both correct.  Xum, I remember running into a staunch right wing friend of mine one day back in 2007 (we're both involved in local politics, and in NJ, ideology doesn't really matter on the local level, so we've been pretty cool).  I was involved in Obama's campaign, he was involved in Fred Thompson's.  We both said the same thing you said -- basically, "I almost hope my guy loses, because I don't want him to get blamed for the disaster that's about to happen."  But my thing was, this seemed like the one guy who, IF things COULD'VE been turned around, he's the one who could've done it.  If you do a search, I wrote about that a lot on this site back then.  

 

If it's true that nothing COULD'VE been done to keep this country from declining, then I'd be less annoyed at Obama.  But the truth is, this guy's behavior has actually contributed to the decline!  If what Kocolicious said is true -- that he really thought the Repubs would finally grow up -- then that was not only a major miscalculation; it was actually pretty foolish of him.  Where was the evidence?  Personally, as soon as I started hearing all of this "socialist/dictator/atheist/secret Muslim" stuff, that would've been all I needed to hear.  I would've been, "Ohhh, they're NOT going to be grownups.  Ooookayyyy, time for "Plan B."  But Obama stuck with Plan A even when it was obvious that it wasn't going to work out.  FAIL.  

 

In that regard, he operated more based on HOPE -- the hope that Republicans would be reasonable -- than on intelligence and evidence.  The sad thing is, I'm afraid most of his supporters are the same way.  

  You know I can't BELIEVE I'm hearing this from yall.  When Obama was running for office....it was a wave of black unity I haven't felt since the sixties.  400 years of slavery should have taught us about "patience" and consistency.  But in this day and age, we live in this fast food mentality when all these changes i.e. progress for us didn't happen in a fast food pace.  To me, it's unreasonable to put all these unrealistic expectations on a first-time BLACK president.  But that's just me.  I'VE never been a follower.  Always had my own perspective...even during the time when that famous mad scientist made a public announcement that blacks were in fact subhuman inferior.  I knew then...HE WAS LYING.  But I was told I was a radical and unfortunately a lot of blackfolks submissively accepted it until other black scholars began screaming at the top of their lungs....that it was another hoax to degrade us, debase us and take away the fact that we are factually the "original human beings."  Wow.   Again.  I see the same thing today.  I've been insulted by the best academic degreed folks who I share a profession with.....I've been told I'm crazy cuz the proof of rejection of our president is evidence of his incompetence.  But years ago I was told as a child we will NEVER get our human rights as colored negroes....so  stay in the house.  I was told that WOMEN had their place and they could NEVER compete with a man in terms of position and salary.  So....put your bra back on. 

 

Additionally, I was even told that black little children cannot learn cuz they have an intellectual disability to prevent them from cognitively grasping knowledge like white children can....so ....they will NEVER hold high power jobs...they are born to be just janitors, maids, field hands...you know ...the help.  But it never stopped me from teaching.  In fact, I lost a good job training a parolee how to use a computer......but!  Today, he maintained a career in that field, bought a house and raised 4 children and now retired.  So.  I'm not gonna EVER stop having a voice.  I don't care how different it is.  I will STAND ground.  Cuz that's just WHO I AM.  I come from a lotta powerful BLACK women who wouldn't stand down either. So yall...just keep thinking how yall thinking.  And watch how progress will cease for the next generation of blackfolks.  Cuz when Hattie was getting her azz beat cuz she went into the rural areas of the south to register blackfolks to vote....they called her crazy too.  When colored teachers were teaching children in one room huts with torn books....many said they were crazy too.  But it NEVER stopped them...and guess what?  It will never STOP me.  Just so you know....I will defend my President...even if I am the last one on the ship and its sinking....cuz I LOOK beyond the visual just like many pioneering black heroes before me did....but!  I'm just sayin  

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×