Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly -- An online companion to the weekly television news program
Keyword Search
Topic Index Stories by Week
Home
Current Stories
Headlines
Election Coverage
Special Issues
TV Schedule
Calendar
Newsletter
Subscribe or unsubscribe to the E-mail Newsletter, or edit your preferences.
The Series
About the Series
Funding
Biographies
Awards
Credits
For Teachers
Overview
Lesson Plan List
Tips
Teacher Resources
Resources
Viewer's Guides
Videotapes
Featured Sites
Feedback
Contact Us
Story Suggestions

Recently in African American Category

When I gave a talk for Obama in a Pentecostal church in central Pennsylvania and was warmly received, I knew the Keystone State would be OK. My home state, we had hoped to carry it by 7 or 8 percent, but carried it by 11 percent. I noticed, after the election, a kind of "reverse Bradley effect." Some people who did not want to talk too openly about voting for Obama planned to and did vote for him.

We are in for a roller coaster ride now. Rarely if ever has a president come in with such huge hopes and expectations, and rarely with as many pressing issues to confront. He is bound to slip here and there, and to annoy some supporters (as he already has). But I hope the press -- and the rest of us -- cut him a little slack for a while.

An interesting thought: What if Barack Obama really is a Muslim? How much difference should that make?

--Harvey Cox is the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School.
| Comments (1)

By the time The Speech of August 28, 2008 ended with an artful allusion to the March on Washington of August 28, 1963, the Democratic Convention had belatedly made a case for ending the rule of the Republicans. By then Barack Obama also knew that he had won his medium-sized convention gamble.

The only thing that didn't go right was losing the day-after media attention to John McCain's stunningly desperate gamble. It didn't rain in Denver, and after an outpouring of predictions that Obama would appear physically diminished at Invesco Field, or look egotistically inflated at his Greek temple, or prove unable to hold the attention of a stadium audience, he gave a sensational speech watched by 40 million viewers that looked as impressive as it sounded.

Obama worked a typical Obama theme, this time calling it "the American Promise" of opportunity and responsibility for all, but he was tougher and more specific than much of his previous campaign rhetoric. Stressing the struggles of working people, he called for tax cuts for the non-rich and higher taxes on corporations that ship jobs overseas. He made a strong case for strengthening the middle class, investing in renewable energy, universalizing health coverage, and repairing America's international image. He amplified Bill Clinton's skillful summary of the current miserable economic situation and John Kerry's forceful summary of John McCain's retreat to Republican establishment orthodoxy. With perfect pitch for the occasion, he stressed his differences with McCain and gave a clear picture of what an Obama presidency would be about.

Except that an Obama presidency would also represent something magnificent that the Obama convention played down during prime time. The very thing that made this convention historic was the last thing Obama wanted to be talked about from the podium during prime time.

Convention appearances and a great deal of journalism to the contrary, Obama does not believe the moment has arrived for "post-racial politics," and he explicitly denies he is a symbol or champion of it. His favorite image of how we should think about racial justice is a split screen that holds in view the just, multiracial society that must be created and the reality of an America that is not a just society. You cannot move "beyond race" in the political sphere in a society where race remains a terribly significant marker of social privilege and discrimination.

Obama was a civil rights lawyer, and as a law professor he specialized in civil rights. He understands acutely that we still need civil rights lawyers because racial discrimination is still pervasive in the United States. His very argument for not rubbing the noses of white Americans in the history and reality of white racism is that the problem is too entrenched in white attitudes and social structures to be remedied by race-specific policies or by any appeal to white guilt. As Obama explains in THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, "Rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America; even the most fair-minded of whites, those who would genuinely like to see racial inequality ended and poverty relieved, tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization -- or race-specific claims based on the history of race discrimination in this country."

Since even the most fair-minded whites have a low threshold for anything smacking of black grievance, better not go there in a political campaign. Better not evoke the civil rights movement in prime time at the convention. And better not let on that you understand the racial subtext of the constant accusation that you are an "elitist," a stand-in term for "arrogant," a proud type with overweening self-regard, which calls up centuries of needing to put down the "uppity" blacks who dared to defend themselves and their families.

In A BOUND MAN: WHY WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT OBAMA AND WHY HE CAN'T WIN (Free Press, 2007), published last year, Shelby Steele says Obama cannot succeed because he is caught in the historic double bind between African American bargainers and challengers. Bargainers bargain for acceptance in white America by not presuming that white Americans are racist, while challengers challenge white Americans to prove themselves innocent of racism. Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, and Oprah Winfrey are bargainers, in this telling, while Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are challengers. Had Steele written his book a few months later, undoubtedly Jeremiah Wright would have played a larger role; he gets less than a page without being named.

Invisible Man memorial
to Ralph Ellison

The bargainer/challenger debate takes place between and within the races, setting guilt-as-impotence against innocence-as-power, Steele argues. America needs to be delivered from this sorry either/or, which is why Obama has generated so much excitement. Steele, however, says Obama is too hopelessly bound by the social forces behind these categories to find a voice of his own. Obama is a racial cipher, not an actualized individual. He has a talent for inauthenticity that makes him good at fashioning a racial persona, which is not the same thing as achieving selfhood. According to Steele, Obama constantly negotiates the either/or in a vain attempt to grant racial innocence to white Americans at the same time that he withholds it from them. Thus, like the fictional Tod Clifton in Ralph Ellison's INVISIBLE MAN, Obama has not achieved visibility as an individual. Since he lacks a real self, it is not clear that he has any real beliefs, much less that he would risk his life for any. Writing at the end of 2007, Steele contends that Obama would not be able to win the support of blacks and whites simultaneously. If he bargained zealously, he could not win black majorities; if he opted for challenge, making himself "black enough," he had no chance of winning the nomination. Steele's advice to Obama: give up what you're doing in favor of finding out who you are.

In the category of turning a candidate's strength into a weakness, Steele's bestselling denigration of Obama's personal character ranks with the Swift-boating of John Kerry's military career in the 2004 election. How ridiculous can you get? The reflective, searching, complex, and sometimes painfully honest author of DREAMS FROM MY FATHER has no sense of self? His unprecedented march to the nomination was conducted by a cipher projecting the illusion of personhood? His very success at transcending the morality play of challengers versus bargainers proves he must be a fraud?

Steele is insightful in describing parts of his subject. He notes that challengers are granted distinct roles on special occasions to arbitrate who is racist and what racism looks like, and he rightly stresses that bargainers often have to hide their anger at whites for fear of wrecking the bargain. But his attack on Obama's personal character is absurd, and his political forecast is not materializing. Obama is running close to 90 percent among African Americans, even as he pleads against racial "us" and "them" rhetoric and keeps racial justice talk out of convention prime time.

Obama supports affirmative action but prefers to talk about universal strategies -- better schools, jobs that pay, and access to health care. On the campaign trail he stresses that in the past generation the African-American middle class has grown fourfold and the black poverty rate has been cut in half. Most blacks and Latinos, he argues, have already climbed into the middle class or are on their way, despite the barriers thrown in their way. The politics we need will help others get there. It will stress work and opportunity, making good on the American Promise. And it will not alienate the white working class voters of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania who are going to elect the next president.

We await polling data on how the Democratic Convention played in these election-in-their-hands states and elsewhere, but John McCain may have anticipated that it is going to play too well. On the day after the Democratic Convention, he undermined his chief argument against Obama -- lack of relevant experience -- by choosing the most inexperienced running mate ever selected by either party. McCain's desperation should be a sign to nervous liberals of how very winnable this campaign is to elect Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

--Gary Dorrien is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and professor of religion at Columbia University.

| Comments (2)

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick offered a curious contrast in his Democratic Convention speech earlier this week. He deemed Senator Barack Obama a man of vision and compared him to the policies and programs of the Bush administration. He concluded that America needs vision, not "more policies and programs."

Such a sentiment almost came across as an apology for a candidacy that has been plagued by criticism of "lack of substance," and "celebrity politics" from its inception. In addition, Patrick's contrast set up an antithetical relationship between vision and policy that is both unnecessary in government and foreign to religious tradition.

Biblical prophets cast vision and proposed policy. They offered apocalyptic hopes for future (and current) generations and brought clear indictment to failed policies for the poor, while proffering concrete practices consistent with such vision. People need hope and structures that enact those hopes. People require proscriptive vision and prescriptive vehicles. When Martin Luther King proclaimed his dream 45 years ago from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he was careful to document policy issues such as states' rights and the statecraft of federal government (critiquing charges of "interposition and nullification" from southern states) in his journey to the demographically diverse mountaintops from which freedom should ring.

trulearjpg.jpgLast night's speech was Obama's great opportunity to show that vision and policy do not live in separate worlds. Indeed, his speech needed to reflect the appropriate balance of what African-American Christian ethicist Peter Paris has called the "political idealism" and "political realism" that combine to form "political wisdom." Political realism without vision becomes crude pragmatism. Political idealism without political realism degenerates into irrelevancy and a disconnected otherworldliness. In the prophetic tradition, the best of a prophet's otherworldly offerings set the context for change in this life. Could Obama pull this off?

We got the hope, we got the vision. And yes, the "policies and programs" deemed antithetical to vision earlier in the convention came rushing in amidst the framework of Obama's campaign ideals. Tax cuts for 95 percent of working Americans, equal pay for equal work, investment in support for members and veterans of the armed forces and their families, development of alternative energy sources, and commitment to investment in education from early childhood through college came rolling down like waters. Fair treatment of gay and lesbian relationships, a relentless pursuit of Al-Qaeda, accessible health care for all Americans, and protection of workers' pensions before CEO bonuses came rushing as a mighty stream. The policy came through -- and then the return to vision.

That return expressed itself in a commitment to a form of debate that seeks common ground on the problems we face. The new politics pressed calls for reasoned debates among those who disagree on how to handle unwanted pregnancy, same-sex unions, and other issues that have drawn a fundamentalist stridency from all sides. Obama appealed to a democratic spirit of rigorous debate and discussion and to the common purpose at the root of the American dream.

The speech was not perfect, nor all of the answers emotionally satisfying for this observer. As an African-American Republican whose party affiliation predates the right-wing hijacking of the party, I still have views of policy that differ greatly from Obama's. As an evangelical Christian, I am diametrically opposed to his views and votes on how to deal with unwanted pregnancies and same-sex unions. But I am all for the need for a different style of debate and statecraft, even if some of Obama's own behaviors, such as dissing and ditching Jeremiah Wright, reflect the old politics of expediency. And I will vote for him.

I will vote for him because of the hope for a new form of debate and a commitment to some of the policy proposals he has advanced. And I will vote for him because he is Black. That may seem heretical in a "post-racial" society, but I am not alone in saying that post-racial is not a-racial. To be truly post-racial is not to deny the history and realities of race, but to remember and think of them differently. Forgiveness, in the biblical tradition, does not mean to forget what has happened, but to overcome the bitterness inflicted and to remember the pain of the past in ways that empower the future -- to use them as occasions to rise above the hurt and seek justice that precludes others from past pains made present.

And so I remember the pain of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. I remember the national consensus on denied opportunities to minorities that led to Thurgood Marshall prodding a judicial activism in 1954, because legislation would never lead to justice as long as electoral politics reflected a national culture of racism. I remember being a child of the '60s and believing that if a Black man were ever elected president, it would be in 2000 or 2020 because, at the time, every president from Harrison in 1840 to Kennedy in 1960 who had been elected in a year divisible by 20 had died in office (and I couldn't get it out of my mind last night as I watched the speech that someone might shoot Obama before my eyes on national television; I let out a sigh of relief when he was finished).

I will vote for him because I choose to remember the racial past differently, for only then can we envision a post-racial America where the oppression of the past becomes a springboard for courageous living in the future. The new terms of the debate proposed last night give me that opportunity. We have the opportunity to live in Paris's notion of political wisdom for the first time in a generation.

Harold Dean Trulear is associate professor of applied theology at the Howard University School of Divinity.
| Comments (4)

In her welcome address to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, DNC chief executive officer Leah Daughtry describes the "sacred responsibility" of Democrats to improve the lives of others. Daughtry, a Pentecostal minister, also spoke about the first DNC interfaith gathering, which was held on August 24th in Denver.

Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.



| Comments (0)

Democratic Congressman James Clyburn represents the 6th district of South Carolina, serves as House Majority Whip, and leads the House Democrats Faith Working Group, established after the 2004 election to reconnect the party to communities of faith. On August 5, he spoke about the Letter of James and the story of the Good Samaritan at the Progressive National Baptist Convention's annual meeting in Atlanta. The son of a fundamentalist minister, Clyburn said he tries to carry out his congressional duties "in such a way that the world would see a sermon in my work," and he told his audience that during "this most unusual year" in religion and politics they should "do what is necessary to prove ourselves good neighbors" to those in need.

Listen to audio excerpt of his remarks in Atlanta

| Comments (0)

After months of controversy, Barack Obama finally resigned his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ, his congregation of more than 20 years. RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY managing editor Kim Lawton discusses Obama's departure from the church and questions raised about whether candidates and public officials should have a zone of religious privacy.

Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.



| Comments (2)

Harold Dean Turlear, an associate professor of applied theology at Howard University School of Divinity, talks with Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly about Jeremiah Wright, black church history and traditions, and the need for reconciliation that "takes disaffection into account."

Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.



| Comments (4)

In his response to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's recent remarks, Sen. Barack Obama denounced Wright's comments as "destructive" and said they do not accurately portray the black church or the candidate's own values and beliefs.

Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.



| Comments (3)

I humbly submit that Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright is wrong. Not about Mr. Obama, or the media, or the November election. He may indeed be wrong about such matters, but that's not my matter of concern here. As a person who has spent a lot of time in the pews and pulpits of African American churches, the issue I raise is not about politics. It's about prophecy.

Rev. Wright has repeatedly claimed that his recent screeds are prophetic utterances; that he stands in a tradition of prophetic critique that extends from the prophets of the Bible and the African American preaching tradition that is the legacy of those prophets.

But his arrogation of that legacy begs the question, the question on the minds of (at least) many faithful African American Christians struggling to make sense of the nonsense that constitutes much of the controversy swirling around Rev. Wright and Mr. Obama: What, after all, is truly "prophetic"? How do we discern the difference between sincere prophetic utterance and self-promoting pontification?

Let's read the signs. First, prophets are generally media-shy, seldom calling press conferences to announce their prophetic vocation. The Gospel of Mark says that Jesus avoided the big cities altogether, preferring town hall meetings and impromptu mass gatherings that he himself did not convene. When it came to outing themselves, as it were, the biblical prophets were down-right dissimulating. Amos, that hillbilly from southern Palestine who famously declared, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as an ever-flowing stream," said of himself, "I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet." When a delegation of religious leaders from Jerusalem confronted John the Baptist with the question, "Are you the prophet?" he emphatically replied, "No." The biblical prophets tended to be straight shooters about everything but their own vocation.

Second, the hard words that they pronounced to their own people were at least as hard on them. For them, prophetic pronouncement was not a media op. Jeremiah (the biblical Jeremiah, that is), has been called "the Weeping Prophet" because all the while he was telling his country that it was going to hell he was very, very unhappy about it. The Book of Lamentations, traditionally attributed to him, is an extended blues riff on God's destruction of Jerusalem. It's clearly the work of someone who was clinically depressed. The prophets did their duty to speak truth to power. But whereas the threats of their rhetoric were from God, the tears were their own.

Finally, prophets knew that their vocation was, by its very nature, an unpopular one. They were rejected and reviled when they weren't ignored. Jeremiah wrote a book of warnings that he sent special delivery to the king of Judah who, outraged, tore it apart and threw it into the fire page by page. God warned the prophet Ezekiel, at the very beginning of his career, that he was being divinely commissioned to speak to a people who would not listen to him. The congregation of Jesus' inaugural sermon in Nazareth was so incensed with his prophetic critique that they tried to throw him off a cliff. He escaped, and quickly left town. Sometimes the prophets even welcomed disagreement that wasn't so disagreeable as a sincere form of engagement. The Spirit spoke through the prophet Isaiah pleading with the opponents of his message, "Come, let us reason together." Prophets were neither surprised nor offended when people rejected their hard words. They expected to be rejected, and their expectation, like their words, seldom went unfulfilled. 

The prophets of old didn't announce their prophetic prerogatives at press conferences and press clubs. They fled the limelight, even as they plied their divinely ordained trade in the public square. Indeed their message didn't include their own claims to prophetic status, about which they were sometimes self-effacing. The pain of their denunciations was pain they felt even as they inflicted it. Their only gain was the health and healing of their hearers. And they suffered rejection not as an affront, but as an occupational hazard.

This is what the prophets of the Bible did. So the question is, is this what Rev. Wright is doing? If not, then Rev. Wright is wrong to wrap his recent media attention in the mantle of the prophetic tradition. And if he, for whatever reason, has confused his own resentment as righteous indignation and his own urgency as opportunism, it behooves African American Christians -- and others -- not to make the same mistake.

--Allen Dwight Callahan is director of the Instituto Martin Luther King Jr. in Salvador, Brazil and the author, most recently, of THE TALKING BOOK: AFRICAN AMERICANS AND THE BIBLE (Yale University Press).

| Comments (7)

Dr. Iva Carruthers is general secretary of the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, a predominantly African-American coalition of faith-based social justice advocates, and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. She agrees with Jeremiah Wright's assertion that the Black Church has been under attack in recent weeks and calls for a new national conversation about race, politics, and "prophetic" ministry.

Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.



| Comments (3)


Tag Cloud