The New Republic

It was Holder who failed to appeal the Rothe Development affirmative action case to the Supreme Court earlier this month. His transition team was undoubtedly aware of it. If he really believed in his extreme positions he should have defended Congress' extreme statute for DoD. Yet he didn't, and the media should call him on it.

- Look in the Mirror

February 20, 2009 at 12:46am

I wrote this on another thread here. The posters here, most of them, have it, to my mind, incisively right. What a confusion and how inappropriate is Holder’s speech. I’d need somebody to delineate its clear and coherent line of argument. He notes that de jure America is fundamentally different than it was 55 years ago. He notes that race related issues form a significant portion of the American political discussion. He notes that the races have “melded” well in the work place. He says the civil rights movement forced Americans to examine their “basic beliefs and long held views”. He says, “…Separate public facilities, separate entrances, poll taxes, legal discrimination, forced labor, in essence an American apartheid, all were part of an America that the movement destroyed…The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, better.” He says the civil rights movement nourished the social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century in America and the fight for equal treatment. He notes that he and others of his generation have done well in America owing to the great achievements of those blacks on whose shoulders they stand. So what makes Americans, “…in too many ways, a nation of cowards”? It is, it seems, that de facto, as has been noted on this thread, people seem to stick to their own race and class, that people don’t open up enough to each other and have real conversations about race and racial issues, don’t press each other enough across racial lines to know each other better, that “…America… is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.” And what does Holder look forward to? He looks to “…hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized.” And what will he do in aid of that? “..(T)his Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.” So your country has made great legal strides forward on racial matters to the point where Holder says it is “if not perfect better.” The work place, a predominate social institution in peoples’ lives, is “melded”. People along the way have gone through fundamental introspection and changed fundamentally in the result. While there is underclass blight that cannot be gainsaid, America has prospered including American blacks who have ascended in large numbers into the middle class. So what does the Department of Justice have to do with how people choose to spend their private time? Is Holder going to enforce laws forcing people to discuss intensely affirmative action, to really get to know each other? Is he going to Oprahize America? So, really, what “new birth of freedom” is he going to lead “the nation” to? How will he do it? Can he do it? What, exactly, is his “duty and solemn obligation? In short, he has conflated de jure and de facto issues, and the Department of Justice seems stuck in his conceptual sludge. By the way, the de jure changes Holder points to make a hell of a difference 55 years later to Saturdays and Sundays in America. As well, even de facto, Holder never mentions the rise of in inter-racial marriage over the past fifty years, a good indication of changed attitudes . In 1945, inter racial couples were a rarity. Today, it nary raises an eyebrow, particularly and increasingly amongst Xers and their successor generations. And this goes to an important flaw in Holder’s reasoning. He says that insufficient de facto attention to race: “...in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted- and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years- the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization. We cannot allow this to happen and one way to prevent such an unwelcome outcome is to engage one another more routinely- and to do so now.” Not only does inter marriage contradict his concern, but on what conceivable theory can he see the stagnation of and polarization of America 50 years hence? There will be no racial majority. Why won’t time’s passing lessen the racial issues, de- intensify black white issues and make for a more melting pot America. And what can the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do about it anyway? In contrast to Holder’s speech I recommend this essay: www.theamericanscholar.org/the-end-of-the-black-american-narrative Finally, I have come to admire Obama a great deal, more so with each passing day. But I have never thought his race speech, save for it as political theater and a political instrument designed to deal with a discrete problem, was a particularly great statement about race in America, and I have read it a number of times. But it is eloquent, thoughtful, articulate and coherent. And compared to Holder’s speech being mooted here, it takes on the stature of the Gettysburg Address.

- itzik basman

February 20, 2009 at 1:51am

Sir, Your definition of the Eric Holder statement, is missing an essential point, provocation, that's what he was after and thats what he recieved back from all that heard him. In this dispensation of human history, we are a sorry lot, all of us for hiding behind words or definitions of words, that suite us. The old adage " if it looks like a duck, it's a duck " applies here, even as we breath our next breath. Mr. Holder is a type cast racist, by his own words, not mine, I've always taught my children to not judge others by the whole, but by the heart of the individual. When Mr. Holder states that "Americans are cowrads " and then adds the, "frank conversation" bit he's showing that pragmatic view of the "I'm a beat up BLACK MAN, hear me " I give as much respect to his remarks as do I to, Americans who give themselves a surname adding to the title of being called an " AMERICAN ". This must be very difficult for some humans in this OUR country, to be just equate themselves with being AMERICANS.....indeed this country is a melting pot for humanity, too bad lots of folks haven't learned what that really means. I Sir, am embarressed by the comments of Mr. Holder as an AMERICAN, that he would show the weakness in his character, and try to provock others with this political office, and bruise this historic chapter in the evolution America, maybe he should try to look in the mirror every morning and say to himself " I'm an AMERICAN " move forward or stand still, his choice. But please don't ask me to subscribe to the same ignorance, as is pushing to others, I'm willing to discuss any racial issue, anytime, anywhere, Mr. Holder wishes....don't ask for something you really don't want Mr. Holder. Thank You, Gary L. Hope " AMERICAN "

- Gary Lee Hope

February 20, 2009 at 3:04am

Take the Mirror Test. I suggest that everyone (including the Attorney General) take a close look in a mirror and study carefully what particular shade of skin they see on the face in the mirror; and while doing so, ask themselves whether the color of that skin or any other color of skin is really of any significance whatsoever, or whether, in fact, the real issue of concern is what goes on inside the skull in the brain that is currently looking at the face in the mirror - the intelligence, knowledge, determination, character, work ethic, honesty, language skills, learning ability, trustworthiness, personality and all the rest. Racial discrimination is illegal in our country and if instances of racial discrimination are taking place the Attorney General needs to see that such cases are prosecuted. Otherwise, perhaps we can agree that skin color is irrelevant and refocus our attention on the many significant problems we currently face, on things that actually do matter.

- Robert

February 20, 2009 at 4:56am

There is no black race. There's no white race. There's no Asian race. There is no gene or DNA that defines a human as being black, white, yellow, red or green. We're all humans. Physical variations in appearance don't constitute race. Dividing groups of people based on physical characteristics is intrinisically wrong. It's bigotry.

- Gerry

February 20, 2009 at 5:51am

Let's talk about race. Why won't Black men marry their women, BEFORE, (or even after, for that matter), they knock them up? Why are over 70% of BLACK children, born to a single-(mother)-parent household? This is what animals do. The Male knocks up the female, and then he moves on to the next one. How is it that 15% of the population-(Blacks)-commit 53% of ALL VIOLENT CRIMES? Hmmmm? Anybody wanna talk? When the Black man starts BEING A MAN, then things will change. When the Black Man takes RESPONSIBILITY for the child that he SIRES, then things will change. But we're not supposed to TALK about that. Are we, A.G. Coward.? Don't lecture the White Man about the problems of the Black Man. The Black Man IS the problem of the Black Man. AND the Black Woman. AND the Black Child. And EVERYBODY knows it. Right, Eric?

- Timothy L. Pennell

February 20, 2009 at 8:53am

This is an open invitation to Mr. Holder to come sit at my kitchen table for some coffee & cookies and some frank discussions on race. I have a lot of experience at this. Decades of it. Sincere talk about racial issues doesn't take place at social events. That wouldn't be polite. It doesn't happen at work. That could get you fired. It does, however, occur frequently when people gather for coffee & cookies, especially at my kitchen table. So, Mr. Holder, put up or shut up. The invitation is open to you only, no media, no handlers. Nothing to fear from me...I pay my taxes, go to church, and abide by the laws of the land. Nothing to fear unless you are afraid of hearing common sense. Let's see if you can stand by your words, Mr. Holder. BTW...my nickname is Cookie because I bake the best cookies you've ever had. Let me know your favorite and I'll make sure they're on hand when you arrive.

- Catherine

February 20, 2009 at 9:00am

I agree with the writer that Holder essentially wants a capitulation of the most conservative of white Americans, to the condition of the most dispossessed of Black America. Ain't gonna happen my friend. By and large we as a nation of mixed cultures and heritages have moved past this being a skin color issue to the point that it is a cultural issue. Personally I have little to no respect for gang-banging, no-snitchin', drug dealing, no-"white acting", baby-daddy, bling blingin' black dudes and their equally uneducated, welfare stealin' baby-momma, dropouts, who equally neglect their offspring and breed new generations of degenerates to crap in the nest they call urban America. But guess what? I even more despise the WHITE imitators of that cultural wasteland who were not born in to that mess, and actually have chosen to follow a path colloquially known as being a "wigga". THEY should know better and do not have the excuse of being the prodigy of those who were legitimately victims of white racism generations back. This is why Holder's charges of cowardice don't hold up for the most part. Those of existing in the civilized world - be it upper, middle, or lower class, black, white, Hispanic or Asian, have largely moved past that world of bias and bigotry. That is why so many of us more than open to voting for an Obama - he's like all of us. He's educated, law-abiding, etc... BUT, I suspect Holder is really targeting conservative white America to acquiesce to the depravity of that permanent mostly Black underclass and legitimize it's behavior. THAT is never ging to happen, and the more that those two cultures are forced in to melding, the more resistance it will breed, amongst both groups.

- Mike N

February 20, 2009 at 9:44am

One of the posters, amidst his ignorant racist rant, makes the apparent claim that certain human beings are ANIMALS. Now I am not sure that he is from this planet, because as far as I can tell we (homo sapiens)are ALL mammals; hence, ANIMALS. It is amusing how a fellow animal can display its' ignorance so willingly. Finally, perhaps Mr. Holder merely meant exactly what he said. "If the shoe fits...".

- Rob

February 20, 2009 at 9:50am

Really we are tired of it all Mr. Holder it is like being 65 years old and stil blaming your parent re how your life turned out. We can wonder why no one invites us over or we can realize it is because we sit there doging out our parents the whole.

- tj

February 20, 2009 at 9:54am

Here's an idea: Let's start the conversation by asking why an entire group of people continues to define themselves with a hyphen as in "African-American". By that definition I'm a Scot/Irish/German/Native American, who by being a member of the human race, according to scientists all of which may have begun in Africa, also am I guess an "African-American". We can extend that to ask why our new President chooses to continue that trend, especially when he's half of something else entirely. Let's ask another question: When will Liberals let us STOP talking about "Race" and just let us talk about being human beings and Americans?

- Mike

February 20, 2009 at 9:58am

Here is a conversation about race that actually took place: For forty years an exterminator, a white man, worked form my parents and then my husband and me. He sold the company to Terminex. I signed on with Terminex and they said that a former worker of my extermintor would be doing the job. The next day a black man who looked familiar came to the door and said he was the employee of my exterminator wo occasionally had done my house and he had been fired from Terminex. "Do you think you would hire me to do your work if I started my own business?" I immediately took him in to meet my husband and explained his story make sure you know we are white). My husband took him to his heart, encuraged him, offered him business advice, told him how to set it up and nine years later this is a success story that has moved on from an old dilapidated truck to a beautiful new truck, good equipment and the recovery of most of the old customers of our former exterminator. The above was a real conversation between races. What the hell is Holder talking about? The ongoing conversations with "Bill" continue. We never miss a visit without discussing some issue from race relations to our mutual frustrations with life's troubles.

- Bette S

February 20, 2009 at 10:06am

well: This is weird. I keep up w/most news, browsing several newspapers each day. I do recall some headlines about AG Holder's call to have a discussion about race, but frankly, Holder was background noise to news about the stimulus bill, health care nonsense coming from the Right, what the SB will do for public transportation advances/needs in Atlanta, GA, the ups and down of the Market and my retirement fund, President Obama's trips to states/districts he did not carry but received warm responses anyway... More nonsense noise from Rush and company about not bailing out undeserving people who got homes they couldn't afford (after much searching, I think conservative talk radio has found its 21st century welfare queens. Eureka!!!!)... So: Interesting that Holder's call warranted a LONG commentary from McWhorter (who makes his living being the Black voice of think-tank/political conservativism)... a LONG commentary prompting passionate LONG responses from some people (not all) who have evidently been waiting a LONG time to vent... hmmmm... How can I say that Holder's comment (in what context???) was in the scheme of things this past week - remarkably unimportant??? But McWhorter and company should go right ahead and continue to hash this thing out while (I suspect) the rest of us try to sort out how to move forward... Good luck to all of you!! And thank you, AG Holder for throwing JMc a life-line.

- mphillip

February 20, 2009 at 11:23am

Wow! It is predictable but still surprising that Holder's statement of the obvious would draw such a reaction. Of course we (black and white...and Native American, Asian, Hispanic) don't want to talk about racism in any personal or intimate way. It is altogether to painful and embarrassing as well as high risk for conflict and discord. Most of us will choose to do something else if we can. Maybe "coward" was a more provocative choice of words than needed, but why quibble over what is obviously true? This is not to say that it never happens, nor is there any suggestion that there is not a growing number of individual instances of friendship and intimacy among persons of different racial and cultural backgrounds. But more often in any race-focused exchange we will hear the multiple variations of "you don't take responsibility for your actions", each allegation more or less accurately applied to the other participant in the ongoing conversation. But here is the real test as well as the milestone that will evidence America's passage to a truly non-race conscious society: when you visit an average Church on Sunday morning and find the faces you see more or less representative of the population at large. That will be the day. Or, if you prefer a non-sectarian frame of reference just substitute, Kiwanis, Rotary or some similar civic or community organization meeting. I think that outcome is still far in the future. In the meantime a determined civility and patience with one another is required.

- David W

February 20, 2009 at 11:41am

mphillip, wow are you ever busy! Perhaps you should go somewhere quiet and just rest for a while. We mere mortals will try to hold down the fort for you till you get back.

- Rob

February 20, 2009 at 12:17pm

One of the reasons most white (and those of ethnicity other than African-American) have not wanted to plunge headlong into conversations about race (presumably between themselves and African-Americans, but also possibly amongst their own demographic) is that they know they are most likely to provoke a volatile response, even if the impressions and ideas offered are stated in the most circumspect terms. This holds whether you are a conservative, a centrist, or a liberal. My perception also is that, outside the realm of punditry and social activism, most Africa-Americans aren't exactly chafing at the bit to engage in dialogue about race with whites, either. It was completely irresponsible of Mr. Holder to make the charge he did without at least giving some sort of clear idea what he believes the conversation about race should entail, and what he hopes it would accomplish. Do we really have "permission to speak freely?", a la Spock on Star Trek. Will this be a case where African-Americans can vent to their fullest inclination, but where whites and others are expected to hew closely to political correctness, or will we be encouraged to (as Edgar in the final scene from King Lear) "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." Doubtful. Mr. Holder has expressed no clear thoughts regarding hoped-for outcomes of conversations about race, thus I expect we must default to the idea that the conservations will be mostly about African-Americans venting, and the rest of us in sheepish political correctness just taking it. By the way, my estimation of Mr. Obama's choices for his team has nose-dived precipitously. Mr. Holder seems to speak without thinking - the others in Obama's cabinet (with the exception of Hilary) seem nearly as clueless. I voted for Obama, but I don't know if I could vote for Obama & Company again.

- Phil Taylor

February 20, 2009 at 1:03pm

I thought this was one of the best columns I've ever read in TNR. Thank you Mr. McWhorter for cutting to the chase.

- Vera Mehta

February 20, 2009 at 2:03pm

Liberal definition of a "conversation about race".....whites admit they are racists and prejudice and blacks agree.

- Mac

February 20, 2009 at 2:16pm

Excellent article.

- WandreyCer

February 20, 2009 at 3:51pm

My great+grandfather fought for the North in the Civil War. I teach my children to look not at the color of a person's skin, but the kindness in their heart. However, I am still judged by both colors. I am a Native America/BlackIrish woman. I live in a Dutch community; you have never seen such a bunch of stick up their hind-end jerks...I have lilywhite freckled skin and they look down their noses at me someting fierce! Some people think that I am not white, some people think that I am not black. I am discriminated by lots of colors and once didn't get a job because the manager didn't think that a woman should wear slacks to work. My mom told me when I was a teenager to ignore people who discriminated against me and get my butt out and work hard, study hard and not to let anybody stand in my way. I am still going at it. I wish that people would understand that EVERYBODY is discriminated against; not just somebody who is Black. I will talk to anybody. I talk to many Black women about my favorite subject: our kids. We mothers have our children and their welfare in common. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." ??

- Abby

February 20, 2009 at 4:27pm

Many of these posts show clear evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder is absolutely correct. In their own words, posters show proof that, in spite of their righteous denial, racism is alive and well in America. One would have to be socially ignorant to find no racism in yesterday's NY Post cartoon. There was nothing funny about it; there was no possible humor in any interpretation of it. And an editor's apology is not an apology when it is directed solely at "those who may have been offended" and not at "those who disagree." Accusing your critics of opportunism shows no contrition. Hatred and resentment for whole groups of people based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity is just wrong. Why is it that those who harbor these hateful, ugly feelings claim to be religious, patriotic, family values, REAL Americans? There is no doubt that America needs to have a frank conversation about race. To be so narrow as to refuse to even talk about something, is the height of cowardness.

- Carol A.

February 20, 2009 at 4:33pm

It has always been my understanding that virtually all generalisations are born of bias that belittles the worth of the individual

- retafvet

February 20, 2009 at 4:33pm

George Bush actually was often portrayed as monkey. I think that if that cartoon had been printed when he was president the reaction on the right would have been apoplectic. I am for free speech as much as the next person, really quite more so, but drawing a cartoon which could reasonably be read to advocate the assassination of the president by police is an area were I would recommend treading with extreme caution. Even if you have the right to do something you may have a corresponding responsibility to do it responsibly. I'd prefer the right to free speech be a legal right, but it doesn't absolve the speaker of personal responsibility to behave up to their own personal morality and that which they publicly espouse with others. The problem with the civil rights movement is that it played out very differently for different groups of blacks. For the Obama's of the world it wasn't the best it could be but it worked out ok. Race alone didn't prevent him from reaching the highest office in land. Though as a member of a mixed race couple, I have to say racism is still out there and is a pretty everyday event. If you are white, try spending the whole day at an African American church, or even better in an virtually all black neighborhood, then imagine that everyday of your life. Some of it is innocent some of isn't and probably it isn't going away. But you can't pretend that isn't there. For the poor and working class blacks however the civil rights movement was just too late. The transitional moment for most American families was WWII and its immediate aftermath where millions were either in the army or working in home front and then transitioned into jobs that led to the middle class. The majority of the black lower classes were barred from this, especially in the south. They didn't get that union job that paid their children to go to college. And those jobs are never coming back. In a sense these blacks are worse off than if the civil rights movement hadn't happened at all. Their leadership in the black community was effectively decapitated as they left the black community and entered the multi-racial community of success. These people as well as the poor whites who didn't get picked up in the post war upward mobility have very little to hope for in our country. And it is a big problem that is eating away at what always thought we were.

- Robert Lee Hotchkiss, Jr.

February 20, 2009 at 8:52pm

Years ago I learned that generalisations are the product of bias and demean the individual which IS a generalisation...quite the conundrum

- retafvet

February 20, 2009 at 9:30pm

I do not understand what Mr. McWhorter means by conversion, quite frankly. I was more cautious about this in my response to Marty's post, but here I will be a tad more blunt: I am white, disabled, and have lived in inner city Philadelphia for more than twenty years, partly to be independent from my family, and more narrowly, to live by my once liberal principles. What am I supposed to convert to? The black man who assaulted me in a failed robbery attempt just outside Temple University? Or later, the attendants who saw me as a target of exploitation, stole from me and more than once violated my personal dignity? For me, Mr. McWhorter, with all due respect, Philadelphia educated me in bigotry, and I have had to struggle against my experiences to not slip into hatred due to anger, and to check my contempt at the door over ignorance, and not the ignorance of white to black racism. If the Attorney General wants us to lose cowardice in the movement toward true social equality, the feast on white guilt, in and of itself, is getting a bit old.

- Jozanny

February 21, 2009 at 12:13am

Ethnic self determination is generally respected by liberals, but in this country the notion of whites exercising it is verboten. This is a fundamental contradiction of values and is really at the heart of what the Holders of the world sense is wrong with America.

- JH

February 21, 2009 at 10:44am

Stand still I'm not done beating you, you racist coward.

- Max

February 21, 2009 at 5:31pm

To "Look in the Mirror": Holder's statement that we are a nation of cowards with regard to discussing race, whether right or wrong, does not logically require him to take any particular position regarding affirmative action.

- dhurtado

February 21, 2009 at 6:02pm

Mr. Basman, our nation remains largely segregated along racial lines except perhaps in the workplace. There remain signficant racial disparities, e.g., economic disparities, the "achievement gap," disproportionate number of black males in prison, etc. There still are large segregated areas of America's cities in which blacks (and Hispanics) live in subcultures of poverty and violence. There is no particular reason to believe that any of that will be ameliorated, and that the races will start integrating socially, simply because America's racial groups may eventually become relatively equal in size. As to your statement that interracial marriage barely raises an eyebrow anymore, that is not consistent with my experience at all. I live in a community that is known for its diversity, and I know firsthand that there are interracial couples who have moved to my community because they believe they and their children would be subjected to hostility and ostracization in many other American communities. So we need to be careful about making generalizations based solely on our personal experience. I grant you that it is not clear how Holder could address any of these issues as AG. But the general reaction to Holder's comments has not been that he is right, but there is nothing he can do about it as AG. Among those who have reacted negatively, the general reaction has been that there really is no problem anymore. Which proves his point.

- dhurtado

February 22, 2009 at 9:21am

Phil Taylor, why should we "default" to the assumption that Holder wants a one-way conversation in which blacks vent and whites concede guilt? Why not take his words at face value, that when it comes to discussing race, we are a NATION of cowards? Why not assume he meant the obvious, that we (and "we" means Americans of all races) have difficulty speaking to each other about race because we fear it will provoke hostility? This entire thread of comments proves Holder's point. No one can make a public statement about race in our country without provoking a firestorm of hostile and defensive responses, including some of the vile and racist comments that appear in this thread. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about what the state of race-relations is in this country, or about whether we need to talk about it more or less than we do. But when the very mention of race makes people start circling the wagons, that tends to persuade me that Holder is right.

- dhurtado

February 22, 2009 at 10:04am

Dear The New Republic, It is clear that Mr. McWhorter neglects to understand the issues that continue in the realm of American race relations, especially since Truman, USA presidents have launched pre-emptive military strikes\invasions\occupation in the name of pseudo-democratic principles: freedom, peace, justice, harmony ( the list is ad infinitum) ... Russia should launch an invasion of the US to help the disenfranchised inhabitants of the North American continent : The First Nations : Apache, Navajo, Dakota, Iroquois, ... When will there be a new consciousness in the US?

- peppino naccarato

February 22, 2009 at 12:33pm

Mr. McWhorter has revealed with insightful clarity the nature of the conversation Holder is calling for. Progress towards ending racism must be ongoing, but can hardly be advanced by blacks calling whites racists, or by whites calling blacks lousy parents. Racism is best is best fought in our own hearts and lives. People must stop the finger pointing, and give one another the benefit of the doubt. (Btw, shame on you Pennel-----comment 6----, for your hateful, angry rhetoric! There is some truth about the tragic breakdown of the family in the African-American community, but you appear to revel in it, and your tone reveals your motivation. ) That being said, as long as there is a national dialogue about race, I'm glad that McWhorter contributes to it. (His books are a great read too.) Oh, and Gerry, (comment 5) if there is no such thing as 'race', then can there be racism? (And actually, the science that 'debunked' the existence of race is faulty and outdated-----social scientists have not kept up with the literature in genetics.)

- kerFuFFler

February 22, 2009 at 12:42pm

Us white folks aren't cowards for avoiding conversatoions about race Mr. Holder we're just tired of being accused of being racists for saying anything that could be construed as negatively portraying black people. I am happy to talk about race issues but avoid doing so with people who are hyper-sensitive or reactionary. It's just not worth it. And besides racism seems to be a fairly minor problem in todays America. There will always be racist people but they have less influence every day and are taken less seriously than ever before.

- JJ Murray

February 22, 2009 at 3:49pm

I don't know if Mr. Holder wants to hear it, but what's not being said is that most white people don't want to have sex with most black people, and that's why we remain segregated socially, which he finds objectionable.

- David Raphael Smith

February 22, 2009 at 4:02pm

Add to Mac's definition in #18: liberals urge the government to give blacks preferences in hiring and school admissions, without regard to qualifications.

-

February 22, 2009 at 9:13pm

I must concur with Gary L. Hope. And, I must say that Holder denies Martin Luther Kings words of judging not by color but by character. Most non-blacks could give a rats about color. I know that I could care less about it. I am most concerned about a persons character. Of course, we all come to where we are because of our personal experiences and our foundational upbringing. Mr. Holder needs to check himself, as you said, Gary, in the mirror. He gives me the impression by his words that he despises his color. Too bad for him. It only shows what a weak character he is. I have noticed one outstanding thing among many blacks, and that is that it will be the non-white that gets hostile about race before any one else does. Why is that? Could it be that the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's, Jeremiah Wright's, and their ilke are the real oppressors? In short, you are either American or 'other'. Which will it be? Lets get away with this nonsense of hyphenating our heritage. I don't call myself an Irish-American Indian-American. How silly. Men's blood was shed for all of our freedoms, collectively, as Americans. There is more unification in just being an American than an African-American, Hispanic-American, or otherwise. Maybe, it's that Holder and his like don't want us to unite but rather divide us. It is easier to conquer a divided people than a united people. Let's be Americans first, personally appreciate our individual heritages, and not push our differences on one another. Most of us are appreciative of the fact that we are all different as individuals, not because of color, but of our characters and personalities. I think this over emphasis is the real problem. Just get on with life.

- deb

February 22, 2009 at 11:08pm

Holder should start with his boss, a man who chose, despite a plethora of multi-racial options, to attend the most race-centric church (outside of the nation of islam) imaginable. Despite the presence of a few token whites (I saw one white woman in the pews during Wright's deranged sermons), Obama chose what he wanted for himself (and his children) with his feet.

- Nietzschean

February 23, 2009 at 9:59am

Holder essentially stated that we have come a long way with regard to race-relations, but that we still have a long way to go, and that, when it comes to discussing race, he believes we are a nation of cowards. His statement was not made in anger, and did not single out any particular race. But just look at all of the hostile responses in this thread. It is readily apparent that racial hostility continues to seethe under the surface, and that Holder's comments are timely indeed.

- dhurtado

February 23, 2009 at 6:56pm

to dhurtado #29: The deeply grievous problems to which you point have very little to do with Holder’s speech. While he nods to the black underclass, it is an epiphenomenon in the vision of America he asserts—one of fundamental de jure progress; one of ascending black prosperity; one of work place acceptability-an America, if not perfect, better, in his words. You are emphasizing a different America, and a different black America. The problems you point to, sad to say, will not be resolved by more candid inter racial conversations—would they could be. Increased social integration will not solve the problem of the black and brown underclass in America. That problem bespeaks something terribly dysfunctional amongst poor blacks, a kind of cultural cancer. Government needs to what it can to lend a hand, and to try to help overcome such seemingly intractable dysfunction, but the Great Society infusion of money will not solve the problem, never mind more candid conversations between middle class and upper middle class folks. It may be that blacks need to have more “honest conversations” amongst themselves, like the kind Bill Cosby, Alvin Poussaint, John Mcwhorter, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, Juan Williams, Barack Obama—sometimes, urge on blacks. And in these terms, the cowards are the race hustlers who never saw a grievance they couldn’t magnify, a victimhood they couldn’t exploit. You know who they are. When you say that you don’t know how Holder could address these problems as A.G., you point to a fundamental misconception informing his misconceived speech. But you suffer from a similar species of confusion if you think that his speech had anything to do with the problems you refer to, or that his solutions for diminishing self segregation have anything to do with them.

- itzik basman

February 26, 2009 at 3:49pm

Before critiquing the comments of Attorney General Eric Holder, delivered at the Department of Justice’s African American History Month Program held on February 18, 2009, I wish to say I have found Dr. John McWhorter to be one of the leading scholars working in the popular electronic media today. I first came upon his brilliance, when I withdrew from my local library his lectures in DVD format, produced by the Teaching Company, as part of its Great Courses series, entitled The Story of Human Language, which can be found at: www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1600. I had no idea how the artful study of linguistics could unfold the dynamic narrative of human history. Now, I find I can agree with Dr. McWhorter that Americans converse about the nature of racism in America year-round. Evidently, Mr. Holder is not a faithful PBS viewer. If he was, he would have known all about the documentary entitled, Looking For Lincoln, by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. It aired on my local PBS channel on February 11, 2009, the week before Mr. Holder delivered his controversial challenge. If so, he could have watched Dr. Gates, Ph.D., a black man from Harvard, and Dr. David Blight, Ph.D., a white man from Yale, opine over the racism of Abraham Lincoln. If the Attorney General was looking for an audacious discussion on racism in America, what better way to initiate such a dialogue, than to explore the “infamous meeting” at the White House of August 14, 1862 in depth? I am ready to do so. I will assert that on the two hundredth anniversary of his birth, Dr. Gates has done President Lincoln a great injustice on two counts. First, he gave short shrift to Mr. Lincoln’s pro forma advocacy of the notion colonialization, which we know he deemed infeasible, and to his full intentions pertinent to the “infamous meeting" of August 14, 1862 and his hope for the relations between blacks and whites in America, then and now. Secondly, by inexplicably omitting Mr. Lincoln’s storied walk through the streets of Richmond, on April 4, 1865, from his documentary, Dr. Gates failed to tell the entire story of President Lincoln‘s illustrative journey towards national emancipation. And so, I cannot escape the feeling that Dr. Gates has conducted himself more like that of a used car salesman, than a professional historian, as he chronicled Lincoln’s political life with the whiz and flare of a bait-and-switch artist. Lincoln’s views on race reflect the social sentiments of most white Americans from the founding through the nadir of race relations in America that went well into the 1900s, as Lerone Bennett‘s early own life paradoxically points out. We cannot indict Lincoln for his earliest views on the inequality of the races, without indicting American society for the past 400 years. Indeed, it is fair to interpret that Jefferson’s liberating ideas on human equality were derived from the needs of all people and not their innate faculties. Illuminated in this light, Lincoln believed that the Declaration of Independence of the United States applied to all people, throughout his adult life. Why else did Lincoln refuse to let the slave states secede from the Union? On thoughtful reflection, it should surprise no one that Lincoln realized most white Americans would not accept blacks as their equals for a hundred years following emancipation. Sadly, did not history ultimately prove him right? It has been said that Lincoln’s greatest attribute as a politician was his ability to see things as the truly were. In the end, blacks have fought for racial respect for more than a century after Lincoln’s martyrdom. Notwithstanding the limits of his direct experience with African-Americans, prior to his presidency, blacks have had no greater friend than Abraham Lincoln, throughout the annals of American History. If only he had lived, we would most surely have come out of Reconstruction a more united and equitable nation. Not until the last years of the Civil War - as hundreds of thousands of freed blacks demonstrated their love for this country and risked their lives in mortal combat for its preservation - did Lincoln’s affinity towards black Americans transcend stereotypical racism. It was only after what David Blight called that “infamous meeting of August 1862” on the feasibility of colonialization did Lincoln learn first-hand how much American blacks loved this country and were prepared to make a go out of living freely, if not equally, along side American whites. Until then, given how they had been so mistreated, what reason would he have had to believe that they would really wish to do so? Six weeks later, on September 22, 1882, President Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclamation. With all that was revealed about the man, no image of Lincoln was more provocative than that of the statue of “Father Abraham the Great Emancipator,” which depicts a black man bowing on his knees before Lincoln. Given the racial sensitivities of our era, it is difficult not to be a little mortified by this image. Yet, we need to remember this statue, which stands in Lincoln Park in Washington, DC, represents an accurate historic event. To my mind, this scene glorifies the day Lincoln risked his life to joyfully walk along the streets of Richmond, Virginia, among a jubilant crowd of blacks, who had been enslaved only hours before. It would have been only fair and right to have quoted the President, who said to the man who kneeled before him - that he should stand up and kneel only to God, to whom he should give his thanks for his liberty. In this instant, the spirit of Lincoln’s humanity shown through eternally. And so it is that Father Abraham emancipated every American, who would follow him! And, where will race relations be, should Barack Obama become one of the greatest presidents in American History, will we finally look upon the motivational needs of the poor and the undereducated, without regard to race?

- George Cook

March 3, 2009 at 1:43pm