Log in
Obama is an....... American!!!
I was just conversing with a student, a likable guy who supported McCain, and asked him how he felt about the entire world being so jubilant about Obama's victory. His answer was so prophetic, simplistic and penetrating that I thought it worthy enough to share. He responded by saying that "the world would not be so jubilant when they find out that he is an American".
Wow!!! Obama is, afterall, an American. Will that mean that he cannot, will not and should not be engaged in and with the world? Obama faces an uphill battle in balancing the needs of human decency and maintaining control of the US agenda.
What does it mean to be an American? Can minorities also be "Americans"? (The same questions could be posed using Canadians, French, British, Norwegians, Swedes, Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, etc.)
But, ultimately, there is something in the air, for right now anyway, that is different.
The Monthy Review contains a plethora of excellent and critical commentaries on what ails the world. Michael Dawson has written an insightful piece on the limitations of the Obama political agenda. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/dawson051108.html
Peace!
Paul
- Paul R Carr's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- 345 reads
tags for Obama is an....... American!!!
About Paul R Carr
Bio
Videos.jpg)
Journals.png)
Teacher Resources
Tag Cloud
JOIN US ON:
Professional Drupal themes by ThemeArtists.com
Comments
I saw this recently in my home state paper. The Op-Ed addresses how people view "American," especially as related to Obama. I have posted this for my courses and have had some discussions with students about this—it is troubling. One point the research noted here is that people associate Kate Winslet (British) with being "American" and Lucy Liu (American) as not. . .
http://www.thestate.com/satopinion/story/574059.html
Paul Thomas
Hi Paul,
Great comment and article. With so much euphoria about how no one sees race, it is interesting to note how people who are not White (and many Whites as well) consider the Obama victory to be a fundamental step forward in a White normative (and supremicit) cultural context.
The article you linked really makes the point about how we pre-judge and experience reality. The use of language is also effective in diminishing the other. In addition to the reality that Obama's skin pigmentation is not White (although are Whites really White and Blacks really Black?), many folks, condoned by the media, hammered away at him because he is a... socialist, communist, terrorist, muslam, arab, etc., all of which is, well, we know the routine,... not very American.
Cheers
Paul
Paul,
During my 18 years of teaching English in the deep South, I had virtually every class I taught read King's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." Once, a white male student swept the handout of the essay off his desk with a "I'm not reading this. King was a communist." Each time I heard the endless chant of "socialism" on right-wing media, I thought of this young man, who also used a racial slur openly in my class and was shocked when I refused the language. I am certain he had never in his life heard a white person reject the term.
We must pay attention to the data from the election. Many, many whites did not vote for Obama. Many white males did not. Percentages in the South are high and disturbing. It is currently open season to speak openly and harshly against "socialism" and "homosexuality" (pay attention to some of the votes across the US on the same day we elected Obama). Words as code for beliefs. Candy-coated poison. Oppression wrapped in a flag.
Much should cause us to pause. Much is left to do. Classrooms must be asked to look closely and to think deeply.
Paul Thomas
Paul Carr,
Very inspiring blog and article. It reminds me of a lecture I watched from Peter McLaren's website in which he stated that we need a "permanent revolutionary critical pedagogy." The teaching, learning, activism, and action should never end. I think many people realize this now, and if it is remembered, we are not likely to find ourselves in this current sort of situation again.
in solidarity,
vanessa
Cool thread, all. Is it safe to say that the term "American" is about to go through a significant re-tooling? With the election over, the main thoughts spinning round in my head are about the inherent complexity that comes with being a U.S. citizen. A few short years ago, my fellow citizens (and I) elected a life-long capitalist with a team of war-mongers to the office of President. Only 4 years later--4 years--we have chosen, overwhelmingly, a community activist who actually ran on the platform "out of Iraq." (Indeed, the 2006 mid-terms plus the 2008 results are nothing if not the people's collective "bring them home now.") What changed? Of course, the reasons are plentiful. Perhaps, though, more important than the reasons for change, is the idea that we Americans did change, demonstrating the agency that Freire and crit peds knew we've had all along.
I felt like an outsider these past few years--a stranger in a strange land. Today, I truly feel as though I am a citizen of a great democracy. Indeed, today, I am proud to be an American.
Dave
Dave, Paul and Vanessa,
Great thoughts on the aftermath of the election.
A student told me today, point blank, that no one who isn't Christian can or should be President, and there is still significant doubt if Obama is a Christian. I guess that twenty years of church attendence doesn't cut it. I know that I'm now certainly disqualified from running for President. Of course, this is only one opinion but one I've heard many times.
Elsewhere, in the student newspaper, and on the radio, it's now official: raciam is dead, we're now in a post-racial society, we are indeed color-blind. To understate the case, it is extremely dangerous to think that race does not play a role in US society.
With the election of Obama, did Whites collectively agree to:
With the goodness of Obama and his election, there is the removal of same-sex marriage in California (why?), a democracy that is far from democratic, the sentiment that the US has lunged forward when there is little evidence to support this, and a disastrous economy and political spirit on life-support from immoral and illegal war activities, and many others manifestations of disunity.
But, and this is where I, and many others, are torn, Obama does represent something. Although he was badgered to no end for being a socialist, the sad irony is that he is no where near being a socialist. I wish that he had not so vigorously and roundly bashed the socialist bogeyman like a pesky fly but he did, and, as I'm told, he had to. Who cares about labels anyway? But having to defend yourself against being a "distributionist" of all things takes the cake, especially when what is being distributed, in many cases, is money earned off of the backs of working-class folks. Having to see $700 billion flow up to folks who earn $50 million in bonuses is clearly not redistrubtion but sprinkling a couple of thousand on poor folks so that they can purchase a home is not short of communist voodoo,
I am wondering why Obama won with such a narrow margin, and as Paul suggests, why more Whites did not flock to the anti-war side? There are only two parties, albeit drinking from the same fundraising, corporatist, neoliberal well, so it is inevitable that there will be a natural altering of power between them. The two parties decide to keep the corporate dictatorial monopoly, excluding others from debates, the media, any and all positions of authority, senate meetings and investigations, and just about anything that signifies open "democratic" debate. Obama won but if a White had been in his shoes would it have not been a landslide?
As a last note, and I don't know how much longer I will have the moral fortitude to do so but I listen obsessively to talk-radio. These folks are not jubilant and euphoric in support of Obama: they, and the they is the tens of millions who listen to them, and they do dominate almost all of the stations in the country, are fixated on:
In other words, the US is not really united. It would be nice to think that it was. But Dave does raise an excellent point: Obama does make it a lot easier to acknowledge the humanity in the US. Is Obama an American or will he be villified as a traitor the moment that he shows humanity to the "Other"?
Peace
Paul
Paul,
Vanessa,
Great insight. Now we enter into a different Zeitgeist. An evolving criticality meets an evolving socio-cultural setting. Again, we have to rethink who we are and what we do.
Evolvingly yours,
Joe
Joe L. Kincheloe Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy Faculty of Education McGill University
Joe,
Thank you for supporting my effort to make a comment. As I reread my response above, I realize how unclear it really is and how it might be misinterpreted, yet you know what I was trying to say.
Vanessa
References
Martin, G. (2007). Marxist political praxis: class notes on activism in the corporate university. In A. Green, G. Rikowski, & H. Reduntz (eds.). (2007). Renewing dialogues in marxism and education: Openings.New York
Paul and Dave,
One thing I love about the Freire blogosphere is the amazing conversations that erupt unexpectedly in the interaction of brilliant minds. Paul, your blog is so timely and Dave, your response is so insightful. I think that most of us in the critical domain are thinking many of the thoughts you both are discussing. Yes, there is no doubt that the election of Obama is a historic step in the right direction. And yes, we all knew there would be "blowback" with the assertion that we are living in a post-racist era and that presto, a new era of progressivism has begun. No surprises. Dave, your notion of who you are in relation to the election is compelling. And Paul, how do we strategize our responses to these new mythologies that arise in relation to the election is thought provoking. How do we resist? How do we cooperate? Thanks so much for articulating so adeptly the collective consciousness of criticality in November 2008. Great conversation.
Thanks to you both,
Joe
Joe L. Kincheloe Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy Faculty of Education McGill University
Joe,
Thanks for your comments, as always, and also to Dave, Paul and Vanessa for opening up new avenues of questioning and thinking.
I have three thoughts I would like to share:
1) In my humble opinion, the dialogue that we are engaged in is infinitely more engaging, critical and inspiring, I hope, than the last twenty-four months of the mainstream networks blathering on about how great democracy is. Democracy is about critique, about difference, about conflict, about resistance, about new ideas, about accepting that no one knows everything. Democracy is about more than a couple of political parties shilling to get elected. Democracy is about people, about culture, about living. I always start my classes by writing on the board “The more I know, the less I know”. This dialectical, discursive dynamic of trying to seek the truth is so much more meaningful, to me and I hope others, than the staid and stale and deflated two-party system, replete with fundraising, extremely predictable debates, and a host of talking heads who are vested into the process. Here’s an idea for an election panel to critique the two-party system in the US: Joe Kincheloe, bell hooks, Henry Giroux, Angela Davis, Peter McLaren and Shirley Steinberg. I wonder if they would gush at the importance of Joe the Plumber? More importantly, would any network allow such a panel to hit the stage without hitting the censure button?
2) I too, Dave, am concerned about endless, infinite, and systemic critique. It is hard to stop it, and it can lead to being perceived as or labeled as uncooperative, hostile, not a team player, pessimistic, cynical, etc.. The questions is, as you’ve nicely put it, how can we rejoice and work for good, and, at the same time, be vigilant so as to not want to be seduced by the visual, the superficial and the cooptable? Obama is Obama, and this is good, but the US is the US, and that is not necessarily bad but there is some baggage there. 700 military bases in 100 countries is a catastrophe. Poverty in the US is a catastrophe. Massive wealth concentrated in the hands of a few is a catastrophe. Can things change? This is what we all are hoping for, and what we’re working for.
3) Lastly, what is critical pedagogy? We come at it with different lenses and angles, different experiences and identities, and different expectations and means. There is no one response. It is about, I think, in part, the constant questioning of how power works, how society works, how we can make for a more decent society. We are all involved in some way or another. Education is a key site for these debates. Obama’s stated position on education is a … (would it be too harsh to say?) a catastrophe. As I say this, I do not want to be more harsh against his ideas than those of Bush and others, and that is a dilemma when we critique people we support. But he hasn’t done anything yet, only said that he favors merit pay for teachers, charter schools and a few other things. Perhaps he will transform schools and society but, for the moment, he hasn’t really addressed social justice, the need for a qualitative meaningful democratic education and the need for Whites to be engaged with others. He has said that he wants better access to postsecondary institutions but this will not have an impact if there isn’t an improvement in elementary and secondary education.
As I mentioned above, we are all hoping that the new tone, which is visible and palpable, will translate into a new America.
It’s great reading your posts.
Peace!
Paul
Paul,
Your point #3 is something that has been gnawing at my soul, refusing to allow me peace. The mainstream and popular voices try to situate Obama as radical left and the Republicans as the conservative norm. The reality, as you note, is that the partisan Left and Right are BOTH wrong about education, both steeped in blindness by their partisanship and their mindless commitment to ideology—primarily the free market mantra. Those of us who embrace critical pedagogy as a way of being (and not as yet another partisan ideology) are forced into the untenable position of being critical of both the mainstream Left and Right as two sides of the same corrupt coin. It is the partisan imposing of ideology on the marginalized that must not be allowed to exist without the cleansing power of light. That said, I may actually feel inclined to be even MORE harsh to the Left that has a greater potential, sits in some ways closer to our quest for those conditions conducive to empowerment, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a critical ideal (not a simplistic flag for the oppressors to hide behind). Obama does offer a glint of hope, but as the lesser of two evils, not as a risen Other. He too must be asked constantly, Why?
Paul Thomas
I raise a proverbial glass to Paul, Dave, Joe and others engaged in this important discussion. I agree with Paul that education is the key site for this dialogue, and I am grateful to this community for the space, passion, and brilliance that is generously offered to all. As most readily expected I experienced the "blowback" in the classroom this semester. In one composition course I taught I chose Composing a Civic Life as a primary text, and engaged the students in issues of positionality, identity, citizenship, and social justice centering on their narratives, perspectives, and contexts. I have learned that it is imperative not only to pedagogically begin with the self but for me to come to understand who my students are. In September I listened bemusedly as thirteen white and two black undergraduates informed me that racism was, in fact, over pointing to Obama's candidacy as evidence. In addition to a discussion on not committing the most basic research error known, I knew precisely where to begin. Joe's clarion call to consider how we engage with these emerging mythologies is, well, critical.
Kathryn,
What is the "most basic research error known?" And where do we begin "precisely?" And what is "Joe's clarion call," exactly, which you are referring to?....sorry for all of the questions; I don't want to make assumptions that I know what you might be referring to.
Also, while I agree that education is a place to address these issues we are discussing, it can't stop in the classroom or at education itself; it is also important to take action - thus as we have been discussing - a "perpetual revolution," as supported by many critical pedagogues. This is of utmost importance at this particular moment in history. Obama is not going to change things. Change rests with the people and being able to organize for change and then taking action to ensure the changes are implemented.
In solidarity,
Vanessa
Thank you Kathryn and Vanessa for your probing comments. And also thanks to Joe and Dave for making this conversation all the more interesting.
Like you, I am torn in my support for what I hope is change and hope... and the reality that the same hegemonic system that had done so much harm to so many people is largely intact. As I have been told, we need to give Obama a chance, give him some time, give him some... hope.
At the same time, I see with his election the removal of rights for gays and lesbians. How can we remove rights? Is democracy about the majority oppressing the minority? Is democracy about money ruling the day in convincing people through misinformation how to vote? If we can remove minority rights, how many White Americans would vote against interracial marriage? Would there have been civil rights? Would women (especially White women) have been afforded numerous policy and programmatic advances in the last fifty years? Unfortunately, to build a society that is more decent, it is sometimes important to be... well, more decent.
With a million Iraqis killed since the invasion five years ago, why, in the world, would “religious” groups lobby so hard against gay and lesbian rights, and not to end the immorality of what the US is doing abroad?
Of course, most observers believe that Bush won in 2004 precisely because of the gay rights vote, sending in his representatives to every church in the land to obfuscate the reality that war is evil.
So, about Obama, as I`ve mentioned before, it is difficult to not like him, for many reasons. I sense that he would like to be progressive but he simply cannot do it.
If we`re looking for change in the team he has assembled, disappointment would be an extreme understatement. All seasoned Washington insiders, mainly from Clinton’s cabinet, many with strong links to major lobbying groups, most with center-right or conservative views and leanings...
The former Harvard president who believes that women can’t be good scientists because of smaller brains is the lead economics advisory, Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, is the lead foreign policy advisor, etc.. This is not change. At best, this is a less harsh veneer that what Bush has presented.
The problem, at least from my humble vantage-point, is that Obama and his team have not questioned neo-liberalism as the cause of the economic meltdown on Wall Street, and they have been quite aggressive in helping those who would never help us, AND Obama has not denounced American militarization, with the some 700 bases in 100 countries, and a war economy firmly entrenched in the conquest of others. Lastly, there has been so much back-slapping about the superiority and goodness of the American ideal that, as Kathryn has pointed out, we cannot now discuss social justice and racism, the very reason many of us wanted Obama to be the leader. The irony is palpable.
Will Obama denounce the highly superficial Republican-Democrat paradigm as being representative of 300 million Americans? Will he reach out to working people, marginalized people, progressive people, and those who do not fit neatly within the Republican-Democrat monopoly?
One last point on this wish-list: will Obama denounce the nefarious nature of the US mainstream media? This is a fundamental part of moving the US society forward, making it alright to be critical without being labelled... cynical, anti-patriotic and misinformed. Political literacy will make for a better, more decent society, and this is why education remains the key.
But, on a positive note, it cannot, I hope beyond hope, be any worse. Obama`s very presence is good for the world.
This thread has been, for me anyway, extremely invigorating.
Peace.
Paul
The Change Needed is Clear: The Question is, What Do We Do To Get There?
Paul,
First, I love that picture you tagged Joe in....what were you guys doing, anyway??? I feel like I missed out on the fun. (You don't have to answer this question).
I have found your blog and this thread to be quite fascinating, too. But, with every day that passes, I begin to feel more like the more things "change" the more things stay exactly the same. Look who he's putting in there! We are back to Hiliary and Bill Clinton, not to mention all of the other "fat cats" who just support the same-o same-o. Nothing's gonna change at all. In fact: By 2010 we will likely have a draft (or at least be even closer to it) in the form of mandatory civil service for every child graduating or not graduating from high school. Lovely.
I find little consolation or hope in the observation that "Obama's presence is good for the world." The "world" often sees our reality before we do, if we ever see it at all (as a nation). We are just too good in the US at sweeping things under the rug or staying in denial. I am just as bad as everyone; I put my hope in Obama. I feel very deceived, but on the other hand, what hope was there, besides Obama? Weren't THEY clever, picking someone who would support their cause who people would vote for and lean on (and not take ACTION) because their hope can be in Obama!
If we (collectively) do not take action, we are just doomed for more of the same. If we do not take action, then I guess we get what we deserve. The problem is: WHAT DO WE DO???? Just talking about it or dealing with things in a classroom is just not going to cut it this time. Not that it shouldn't be happening, too, of course it should be, and it will help for the future. But how do we deal with the present that's staring us in the face and obviously only going to get much worse very soon?
In solidarity,
Vanessa