Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this 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.
“…a nation of cowards…”
great…
I found this a little disingenuous, because people like Holder will keep “moving the goalposts” on the issue of tolerance. [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2009/02/18/eric-holder-and-the-nation-of-cowards/]I develop on that here.[/url]
Holder’s right, and I plead guilty to not discussing race with the non-white people I associate with. I talk with them as fellow engineers, friends and children of God. We complain about clients, discuss upcoming jobs, tell stories about our kids and families, poke fun at stupid government follies and tell jokes. I confess I look at them as people, not black, brown, yellow and white people. I really need to stop seeing them as individuals with distinct personalities, desires and talents and start looking at them as two-dimensional carboard cutouts representing a superficial aspect of their birth.
Thanks, AG Scolder.
Our diocese requires all leaders of any position in any of our churches to go through “racism” training. In that “training” we were first told that we were “privileged” to be white. Then when I indicated that I no longer saw skin color, only people, I was told I was then not honoring minority people by acknowledging their skin color. There seems to be no help for this, so we probably should just ignore it. As #2 says, the goalposts will just continue to be moved, regardless of what any of us says or does. We just have to try to live our lives by the Jesus Creed and let the other stuff go.
RE: “Holder’s right, and I plead guilty to not discussing race with the non-white people I associate with.”
But we all know, Jeffersonian, that you don’t associate with “non-white people.”
Just as recently on this blog a commenter informed us all that we did not live in racially mixed neighborhoods.
We just don’t.
Whether we do or not — we don’t.
And we don’t because we are a “nation of cowards.”
And Jeffersonian — you talk to the non-white people with whom you do not associate about clients, upcoming jobs, your kids and families, stupid government follies, and jokes because you are one of those “nation of cowards” that refuses to talk about race. With the people of color whom you don’t know or associate with.
Holder is a disgrace and should resign.
This is appalling hypocrisy. After calling us a “nation of cowards” for avoiding conversations on race, Mr. Holder’s published statment then contains the following …
[i]”Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. Further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement.”[/i].
Why doesn’t he overcome his own cowardice and plainly state that he’s referring to the LGBT movment ?
How is it that we can have an African-American President, an African-American Attorney General and we’re still supposed to be a nation of bigots and racists?
What does Mr. Holder want me to say to my neighbors? Instead of treating them with friendly and considerate interest, asking about the kids, complimenting them on the flowers out front, offering help when any is needed, working on neighborhood projects together, and enjoying neighborhood parties, he wants me to talk about race?
Oh, I forgot, Sarah. Those neighbors don’t exist. That commenter told me so. I must be hallucinating.
whether lincoln was the greatest president is a matter of personal opinion, regardless of what the media has tried to push lately, but again i can see why some would think that. i just don’t happen to share that view.
“Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear”…. i interpret this to mean that only if you approach the issue by assuming that whites are always at fault, you will have nothing to fear; no job loss, or character questioned or lawsuits…and this has proven to be true.
by him giving this type of speech so early, are national apologies with eventual reparations far behind? i have come to believe that nothing will ever satisfy and we are to be shamed forever.
[blockquote]But we all know, Jeffersonian, that you don’t associate with “non-white people.†[/blockquote]
Ha! You try being in engineering these days and only hanging with the ofay. Ain’t gonna happen. I should amend my post by saying that I don’t discuss race with my melanin-deficient associates, either. It just doesn’t come to mind, somehow. Maybe I’m just a subconscious coward.
Oh, and I find myself much more in agreement with this “[url=http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html]A Nation of Cowards[/url],” no doubt from where Holder cribbed his term.
I think Holder’s choice of phrase was provocative and impolitic, and distracts from his role and the President’s agenda.
That said, from my perspective as rector of a very united and cross-culturally friendly mixed-race congregation, I think he’s right.
We did a month long series on “Traces of the Trade” last summer. We discoverd that discussing race issues with one another was much harder and more painful than we thought. We thought we were beyond all of that. We got through it just fine, but it was an eye-opening experience. Has it changed any behavior? No – but we have greater awareness of the complexity of race still.
I think the difficulty is having this discussion at a national level. We still haven’t apologized for slavery or the slave trade, nor did we put a lot of effort into commemorating the 200th anniversary of it’s abolition (by the British). They dedicated millions of pounds, had national wide symposia and commemorations, etc. They can talk about it as a nation. We still can’t.
I think it’s changing with each generation. I’ve noticed the younger generations who come to my parish are my likely to have mixed-race friendship or marriages and to talk with greater ease. Maybe time will heal wounds, but it’s sad that there is a topic that drives attitudes and behaviors that we don’t know how to talk about very well.
Dirk
I don’t think we’re a “nation of cowards” on race matters at all. Rather, I think many of us are tired of being pigeonholed and shot down when we try to talk honestly about race — and so we’ve decided to stop talking about it at all. It seems that to many “leaders” in the African-American community, “talking about race” means discussing the lingering effects of slavery and the Jim Crow era, police brutality, disparity in sentencing, etc. While these things are important, it is also fair for non-African-Americans to talk about the self-destructive behavior of many blacks (especially black men), the black musical and film culture that glorifies violence and denigrates women, the sky-high black illegitimacy rate, and the refusal of many blacks to take responsibility for their lives. Yet when we do, we’re immediately shouted down as racists. This has gotten so out of hand that the last President of Harvard University (Larry Summers, who is a Democrat and was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary) was drummed out of Harvard in part for actually demanding that professors in the African-American Studies Department actually teach, research and publish instead of just appearing on CNN and promoting rap albums.
So I say to Attorney General Holder that far from being a “nation of cowards,” we simply don’t wish to waste our time having a one-sided discussion where black leaders tell whites how latently racist they are, but whites can’t speak honestly about bad behavior by blacks.
#12: “We still haven’t apologized for slavery or the slave trade,”
That has to be the single most most dishonest or misinformed statement I have encountered in my 4 years on this website. Certainly you are aware that the federal and various state governments has apologized over and over and over for its role in the slave trade:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T5GGLL_enUS263US263&q=slavery+apology+resolution
#14 – My my – most dishonest comment on this site in 4 years? Even more so than all the “he said, she said” going on in the Epsicopal Church? Based on your reaction, I stand by comment that AG Holder is right, if impolitic.
Nothing in the links you posted indicated a Senate version of the legislation that passed the House, despite a commitment from Harken and Brownback to introduce it in the Senate last fall. Without it passing both houses and being signed by the President, there is no truly national apology. Just one group or another saying something. Truthfully, the states are further ahead of the US on this one.
Dirk Reinken
The President doesn’t sign non-binding resolutions, DC. They’re not actual laws.
#12: “We still haven’t apologized for slavery or the slave trade,â€
Personally, I think it’s utterly ridiculous for anyone to publicly apologize for something they had nothing to do with. There is no living person who had anything to do with slavery in the US. This is just pointless posturing.
#16, the Senate still did not offer a version, despite a commitment to do so.
#17, so it’s OK to apologize to Native Americans and Japanese-Americans interned during WW2 (which we have) but not for the slave trade? That seems to suggest we find our treatment of Native Americans and Japanese-Americans more odious than our participation and encouragement of the slave trade .
The US Government, as an entity, encouraged and abetted the slave trade. Shouldn’t it apologize?
It’s not posturing, it’s coming to terms with our history and bringing it to light rather than keeping it in darkness and misunderstanding. If we could just take these steps, the conversation might be easier to have.
Dirk Reinken
#17, so it’s OK to apologize to Native Americans and Japanese-Americans interned during WW2 (which we have) but not for the slave trade? ”
Where did I say that? I’ll repeat, it’s ridiculous for person A to apologize for something that person B did, not to mention pretentious. I had nothing to do with these things, and an apology by me suggests that I did. I find this entire suggestion extremely offensive. You say it’s “coming to terms with” it. That sounds like typical Episcobabble to me. Sorry, but it does.
[i] Many of us are tired of being pigeonholed and shot down when we try to talk honestly about race—and so we’ve decided to stop talking about it at all [/i] —Ouroboros [#13]
That’s part of the point Holder is making:
“We know . . . that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character.”
#19 – I realize you did not say those words, but it is the logical outcome of your position. We’ve apologized as a nation for our treatment of Native Americans and Japanese-Americans, but not for the slave trade. No, of course you didn’t do these things personally. We, as a nation, did. I think it’s particularly incumbent upon since a founding document (which, of course, has no legal standing) states that “all mean are created equal” and then our governing legal document proceeded to count some men as 3/5 of a man and permitted their enslavement.
It is a dark part of our history, and the more we understand it, the better able we are to move forward.
Episcobabble? That’s a very, very cheap shot.
Dirk
Apologies for offense. Episcobabble is a commonly accepted word for flowery language used by us Episcopalians which has no clear meaning and leaves the reader or listener confused as to its intended meaning. If you Google the word, you will see how the term is used. However, sir, I have nothing to comes to term with. My black friends have nothing to come to terms with. Folks who feel the need to go back a century and a half to find something to feel guilt for may possibly have something to come to terms with. I honestly can’t speak for them.
“#12: “We still haven’t apologized for slavery or the slave trade,†”
===========================================================
Excuse me.
In an almost Scriptural outpouring of blood on the altars of the Civil War battlefields, non-African-Americans made atonement for the sin of slavery.
Those who fought for the North poured out their blood on those altars to end slavery and those of the South bled on those altars in an effort to sustain their sin of the abuse of the basic human-rights of African Americans.
In the end both sides bled heavily and the sin was abolished in the United States.
What happened after the Civil War is another story and non-African Americans in both the North and the South ought to read-up on history of that era. Neither the North nor the South should deny their negative role in that complex history.
However, no ethnic or racial or religious group should only look outward when they analyze where they are and how they got there. There are numerous historical examples of groups that have either ‘lifted themselves up’ or have permitted their history to dictate to them that it is futile to try and so ‘why try?’.
#22, Episcobabble is commonly accepted word among those who are determined to smear the anything associated with the Episcopal Church.
#23 Wow. Just Wow. I’m even further in Mr. Holder’s camp than I ever was after this conversation. Thank you.
There really is a great divide. Shaking dust off of sandals.
Reply to #23.
As you “shake the dust off your sandals,’ let me inform you that my son and grandson are African-American.
My point of view is based upon an open and factual view of history and it is one that I have shared and still shasre share with my son.
By the way, do I still qualify as a “coward” as defined by Holder?
Well, well, Mr. A.G. Holder.
Since I am of American Indian Descent (Lenni Lenape tribe) may I say I agree totally. And until such time as those discussions of “race” finish with the American Indian, we’d be grateful – as the first wronged – if you would pipe down and take your place in line.
Oh. I guess that is probably not what he had in mind. Which makes his remarks totally disingenuous, and therefore, irrelevant and merely inflammatory rhetoric.
(And for the record, yes, that was sarcasm. I’d frankly feel insulted and condescended to if anyone gave me “special treatment” for an accident of my birth. Or tried to some meaningless “apology” for a wrong committed by their long dead ancestor to my long dead ancestor. Puh-lease.)
“#22, Episcobabble is commonly accepted word among those who are determined to smear the anything associated with the Episcopal Church. ”
Now, that IS a cheap shot. I would think as a rector you would try to avoid assigning malicious motives to people, especially people you don’t know. BTW, I’ve been an Episcopalian for 52 years, and I love my church. I’m very disappointed in some of those in leadership who use phrases like “live into tension,” however.
RE: “We discoverd that discussing race issues with one another was much harder and more painful than we thought.”
Well, it’s certainly weird, but I don’t think it at all hard or painful.
It’s rather like sitting earnestly with a group of people discussing “eye color issues.” But hey — I’m perfectly capable of doing so with “race issues” and don’t find it hard or painful. And yes — I have.
RE: “There really is a great divide. Shaking dust off of sandals.”
Yep. Sure is.
Any chance that the sandal shaking applies to the whole blog? Or will you comment on other threads where racist bigots are commenting? ; > )
Hope springs eternal.
RE: “Oh, I forgot, Sarah. Those neighbors don’t exist.”
Yeh, Katherine. The mere fact that you claim that you may live in a racially mixed neighborhood proves you’re in denial about the isolation and prejudice of your life.
The late Bill Buckley said something to the effect that if you brought him a 200 year old slave , he would apologize to him. Nuff said!
#29 I like what you said. Of course I wonder when the Brits will apologize for shoving a bunch of Irish (my ancestors included) to American shores as indentured servants. ~1840 AD
[i] Ad hominem removed by elf. [/i]
[i] The late Bill Buckley said something to the effect that if you brought him a 200 year old slave , he would apologize to him. Nuff said! [/i] —#29
Not exactly. Buckley had his own early racism to to apologize for, notably including his 1957 declaration that Southern whites, as “the advanced race,” had a right to rule even when in the minority:
[i] The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” [/i]
#32, Irenaeus, that is indeed a sad quotation from Buckley. A very early one, from 1957, and I don’t have examples from his later writing to prove that he retracted this (because I haven’t looked). I can say that I have been a regular reader of National Review for at least two decades and I have not read this kind of sentiment therein. I would imagine this is one Buckley wasn’t proud of.
An example of why it’s difficult to “talk” about race in the way Holder advocates is this week’s fuss about a political cartoon in the NY Post. Obviously referring to the strange story of the rogue chimp who attacked a woman and had to be shot, it shows two policeman and a chimp they’ve just shot, and the caption is, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” The chimp is not labeled. I, and most readers, took the chimp to mean Congress, or the Democratic leadership, since they wrote the stimulus bill. However, there was an immediate uproar claiming that the Post must have meant the chimp to be Obama. Because he is black, a primate cannot be used to symbolize him, although the hundreds of depictions of Bush as a chimp were okay. In great part it’s this kind of excessive and irrational sensitivity which makes “talking about race” such a risky affair. Non-blacks are wary of being speared for sentiments they do not hold.
Irenaeus, I did an internet search to find the source of your Buckley quote. Really, I had no idea that when Buckley died he was subjected to such scathing and often ugly obituaries on the left. I didn’t read his stuff much, and didn’t watch him; to tell you the truth, I often found his thinking and expression so convoluted that I didn’t want to bother with it. (Shocking, I know, for a conservative.) Even the 1957 NR editorial you cite had additional verbiage which makes what he did say less stark, although not less objectionable. Certainly such sentiments have not been NR editorial policy in the time since I have read it (born in the late ’40s, I was not reading NR in the ’50s or even ’60s). Even The Nation and The New Republic have roots they might not be happy to acknowledge today. I doubt that you will read, in NR, quite such a vicious review of Ted Kennedy’s life when he passes on, although of course they’ve almost always disagreed with him. Or even of Robert Byrd, despite his early KKK leadership position.