Snakes and Scorpions, or Fish and Eggs? Race and the Obama Administration in the Media
Snakes and Scorpions, or Fish and Eggs?
—By David Lott, author of
New Proclamation: Year A, 2011, Easter through Christ the King
Almost exactly one year after the media storm over the misguided arrest of African American scholar Henry Louis Gates in his Cambridge home by a white police officer—which prompted President Obama to declare that the police had "acted stupidly"—the administration is facing yet another racial dust–up. This time it had to do with the brisk firing of Shirley Sherrod, a then–unknown African American USDA official, when a video showed up online that appeared to show her bragging to a audience how she had once used her position to deny aid to a struggling white farmer in Georgia. When it became clear that the video had been edited and that she had in fact overcome her doubts to help save this farmer from bankruptcy, apologies flew forth from all who had vilified her, including agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack, the NAACP's Benjamin Jealous, and even President Obama, along with a new job offer (which she has yet to accept).
In what is an otherwise frustrating and depressing episode, Sherrod herself stands out as a bright light, articulate, gracious, thoughtful, and steadfast in her integrity. Indeed, one suspects that if Sherrod were to become the image and prototype of the outstanding government employee, the antigovernment movements like the Tea Party would have no reason to exist. Though she is surely not without her faults, Sherrod seems to exemplify what we want our government workers to stand for. And, surely much to the Tea Partiers' dismay, there are a lot more Shirley Sherrods in our government office buildings than we realize. Few of them, however, will ever gain her sudden fame and notoriety, and given what she had to endure, they are probably happy that is so.
There was certainly no justification for the ill-–considered actions of the ag department or of the administration, or for the condemnations from even the NAACP, and fortunately, they admit as much. Their speedy, unequivocal apologies were welcome to see. Less welcome, however, were the responses of the quasi–journalist, Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video in the first place on his reactionary right–wing Web site without reviewing it first, or of Rush Limbaugh, who blasted Fox News (!) for backing down from the Sherrod story, as if there weren't an injustice done there. Apologies are simply not part of the vocabularies of these ideologues (surprisingly, Glenn Beck did not pursue the story and said that he thought Sherrod had been wronged).
It's peculiar that Obama and his administration remain so twitchy over racial issues. One can understand that our first African American president does not want to appear to show any favoritism toward blacks. As much as some might want him to act otherwise, he has been, to my mind, admirable in his restraint in bowing to the pressures of such identity politics. Instead, the racial progressivism of his administration has come in more subtle ways, such as in the White House arts programs, Michelle Obama's community outreach efforts, and the like. These may not be major policy initiatives that some want, but they are not nothing, and carry an influence that legislation cannot.
Yet, at times Obama also seems to overdo his racial distancing, and is more reactive to race baiters on the right, who are determined to get their followers to imagine an overpowering threat of whites being subject to a conspiracy of "reverse racism." That is surely what happened in the Sherrod case. Breitbart used the edited video to provide "evidence" of African Americans using their positions of power to discriminate against whites. This, of course, has happened in the wake of the NAACP calling upon members of the Tea Party to denounce the elements of racism that have popped up in their ranks here and there. It was not a blanket condemnation of that movement as racist, as some have charged. But Breitbart and his like seem to want to implant the impression that racism against whites is endemic to blacks in power, not least in President Obama. As Rush Limbaugh said in his condemnation of Fox News about the Obama administration:
This regime is tribalizing this country. They are dividing this country. It's not just enough to say that they are dividing us. They are tribalizing this country. We aren't Americans anymore. We're all members of different racial tribes, and we are to be pitted against each other: Black Americans, White Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans. We're all being divided up racially, by tribes.
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "The pure projection is staggering." He's corrects—it's the Limbaughs, the Breitbarts, the Becks, who are using race to divide the country, to create fear of people of color, to instigate a sense of loss of white hegemony and privilege. Yes, multiculturalism can sometimes distort the relative importance of the contributions of various individuals or groups, but its major contribution to our society is to show that history doesn't belong simply to the white man. That infuriates the right–wing media voices who, in denouncing such "tribalism," aren't interested in some sort of colorblind equality and unity; they want to restore the old sense of white hegemony and privilege that shores up their political and income base. It's cynical, it's unethical, and yes, it is racist.
"Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion?" asks Jesus in this week's Gospel. Sadly, the answer is yes. Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and not a few elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, are more than happy to offer enough snakes and scorpions to poison this entire nation, to people looking for good gifts in the public sphere. Oh, they may tell you that it's a fish or an egg, but take one bite, and the toxins of fear, of racism, of cynicism, of outrage invade your system. Keep feeding on it, and you no longer know the difference between what's nutritious and what's death–dealing.
Why is this so hard for this administration to confront head–on? Why does the media indulge the cynics who use race in such a despicable way, as if it were something morally neutral? Why do we fear one another so, particularly those whose skin color is different from our own? Michelle Obama has set a good example in this country in promoting healthy eating among our school children, and in the populace at large. Maybe the White House needs to take a page from her example in their responses to those who would feed us these scorpions and snakes, reminding us of the dangers they pose and offering better alternatives, instead of running in fear. When the media tries to offer them to us vicariously, we owe it to ourselves to look elsewhere for the good gifts of life. And when fear rises up in our hearts of others, we need to dig deeper into those good gifts we have been given and offer them up, rather than extending what is already poisoning us.
The moving account of Sherrod's encounter with the white farmers, the Spooners, which is at the heart of the disputed video, provides a good counterexample for reading the Gospel. Sherrod's job was specifically to work with minority farmers in rural Georgia; when the Spooners came to her for help, she wasn't sure that she could or should use her position on their behalf. Yet, when the Spooners came asking for fish and eggs, Shirley Sherrod didn't give them snakes or scorpions, if she gave anything at all. Instead, she saw her work as being justice for all, and sought the good gifts for those who made their requests known, regardless of race.
In the end, we don't have easy answers for any of the questions I pose above. We only have the example of Shirley Sherrod and the Spooners, who remind us that we must ask from and give to one another with an abandonment and trust that belies any other misgivings. It is in these sorts of actions that the racism that has stained our country—and yes, our faith—is wiped out. It is in seeing the other as brother and sister that their gaining power and status becomes gift, not threat. That is the sort of courage and trust to which our Lord bids us in the prayer he taught us to pray: Your kingdom come.
—By David Lott, author of
New Proclamation: Year A, 2011, Easter through Christ the King
Almost exactly one year after the media storm over the misguided arrest of African American scholar Henry Louis Gates in his Cambridge home by a white police officer—which prompted President Obama to declare that the police had "acted stupidly"—the administration is facing yet another racial dust–up. This time it had to do with the brisk firing of Shirley Sherrod, a then–unknown African American USDA official, when a video showed up online that appeared to show her bragging to a audience how she had once used her position to deny aid to a struggling white farmer in Georgia. When it became clear that the video had been edited and that she had in fact overcome her doubts to help save this farmer from bankruptcy, apologies flew forth from all who had vilified her, including agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack, the NAACP's Benjamin Jealous, and even President Obama, along with a new job offer (which she has yet to accept).
In what is an otherwise frustrating and depressing episode, Sherrod herself stands out as a bright light, articulate, gracious, thoughtful, and steadfast in her integrity. Indeed, one suspects that if Sherrod were to become the image and prototype of the outstanding government employee, the antigovernment movements like the Tea Party would have no reason to exist. Though she is surely not without her faults, Sherrod seems to exemplify what we want our government workers to stand for. And, surely much to the Tea Partiers' dismay, there are a lot more Shirley Sherrods in our government office buildings than we realize. Few of them, however, will ever gain her sudden fame and notoriety, and given what she had to endure, they are probably happy that is so.
There was certainly no justification for the ill-–considered actions of the ag department or of the administration, or for the condemnations from even the NAACP, and fortunately, they admit as much. Their speedy, unequivocal apologies were welcome to see. Less welcome, however, were the responses of the quasi–journalist, Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video in the first place on his reactionary right–wing Web site without reviewing it first, or of Rush Limbaugh, who blasted Fox News (!) for backing down from the Sherrod story, as if there weren't an injustice done there. Apologies are simply not part of the vocabularies of these ideologues (surprisingly, Glenn Beck did not pursue the story and said that he thought Sherrod had been wronged).
It's peculiar that Obama and his administration remain so twitchy over racial issues. One can understand that our first African American president does not want to appear to show any favoritism toward blacks. As much as some might want him to act otherwise, he has been, to my mind, admirable in his restraint in bowing to the pressures of such identity politics. Instead, the racial progressivism of his administration has come in more subtle ways, such as in the White House arts programs, Michelle Obama's community outreach efforts, and the like. These may not be major policy initiatives that some want, but they are not nothing, and carry an influence that legislation cannot.
Yet, at times Obama also seems to overdo his racial distancing, and is more reactive to race baiters on the right, who are determined to get their followers to imagine an overpowering threat of whites being subject to a conspiracy of "reverse racism." That is surely what happened in the Sherrod case. Breitbart used the edited video to provide "evidence" of African Americans using their positions of power to discriminate against whites. This, of course, has happened in the wake of the NAACP calling upon members of the Tea Party to denounce the elements of racism that have popped up in their ranks here and there. It was not a blanket condemnation of that movement as racist, as some have charged. But Breitbart and his like seem to want to implant the impression that racism against whites is endemic to blacks in power, not least in President Obama. As Rush Limbaugh said in his condemnation of Fox News about the Obama administration:
This regime is tribalizing this country. They are dividing this country. It's not just enough to say that they are dividing us. They are tribalizing this country. We aren't Americans anymore. We're all members of different racial tribes, and we are to be pitted against each other: Black Americans, White Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans. We're all being divided up racially, by tribes.
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "The pure projection is staggering." He's corrects—it's the Limbaughs, the Breitbarts, the Becks, who are using race to divide the country, to create fear of people of color, to instigate a sense of loss of white hegemony and privilege. Yes, multiculturalism can sometimes distort the relative importance of the contributions of various individuals or groups, but its major contribution to our society is to show that history doesn't belong simply to the white man. That infuriates the right–wing media voices who, in denouncing such "tribalism," aren't interested in some sort of colorblind equality and unity; they want to restore the old sense of white hegemony and privilege that shores up their political and income base. It's cynical, it's unethical, and yes, it is racist.
"Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion?" asks Jesus in this week's Gospel. Sadly, the answer is yes. Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and not a few elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, are more than happy to offer enough snakes and scorpions to poison this entire nation, to people looking for good gifts in the public sphere. Oh, they may tell you that it's a fish or an egg, but take one bite, and the toxins of fear, of racism, of cynicism, of outrage invade your system. Keep feeding on it, and you no longer know the difference between what's nutritious and what's death–dealing.
Why is this so hard for this administration to confront head–on? Why does the media indulge the cynics who use race in such a despicable way, as if it were something morally neutral? Why do we fear one another so, particularly those whose skin color is different from our own? Michelle Obama has set a good example in this country in promoting healthy eating among our school children, and in the populace at large. Maybe the White House needs to take a page from her example in their responses to those who would feed us these scorpions and snakes, reminding us of the dangers they pose and offering better alternatives, instead of running in fear. When the media tries to offer them to us vicariously, we owe it to ourselves to look elsewhere for the good gifts of life. And when fear rises up in our hearts of others, we need to dig deeper into those good gifts we have been given and offer them up, rather than extending what is already poisoning us.
The moving account of Sherrod's encounter with the white farmers, the Spooners, which is at the heart of the disputed video, provides a good counterexample for reading the Gospel. Sherrod's job was specifically to work with minority farmers in rural Georgia; when the Spooners came to her for help, she wasn't sure that she could or should use her position on their behalf. Yet, when the Spooners came asking for fish and eggs, Shirley Sherrod didn't give them snakes or scorpions, if she gave anything at all. Instead, she saw her work as being justice for all, and sought the good gifts for those who made their requests known, regardless of race.
In the end, we don't have easy answers for any of the questions I pose above. We only have the example of Shirley Sherrod and the Spooners, who remind us that we must ask from and give to one another with an abandonment and trust that belies any other misgivings. It is in these sorts of actions that the racism that has stained our country—and yes, our faith—is wiped out. It is in seeing the other as brother and sister that their gaining power and status becomes gift, not threat. That is the sort of courage and trust to which our Lord bids us in the prayer he taught us to pray: Your kingdom come.
Comment
© 2012 Created by Fortress Forum.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of Fortress Forum to add comments!
Join Fortress Forum