Sunday, March 4, 2007

media Lynching of Barack Obama

The Very Public Lynching of Barack Obama
Progressive Daily Beacon A. Alexander, March 4th, 2007

So this is what passes for news: "Obama's White Ancestors May Have Owned Slaves."

Gosh, do ya think?

Republican Strom Thurmond's ancestors owned Al Sharpton's enslaved relatives. Though Thurmond, the bigoted segregationist, wouldn't have admitted it publicly his white ancestors probably created some not-so-Caucasian cousins. Come to think of it, ol' Strom himself created some not-so-Caucasian children.

The point is that in the United States, the chances are pretty damned good that most African-Americans have white ancestors who not only owned slaves, but owned what would now be their relatives. And by "their relatives" it is meant the black person's relatives and the white person's relatives, because they often, as Strom Thurmond's own history suggests, became one-in-the-same. Al Sharpton's ancestors were probably not only owned by Thurmond's family, but somewhere along the line their families likely joined.

If the media wasn't aware, and how could they not be, Thomas Jefferson's mistress was also his African-American slave and they had children together. Following that through to its logical conclusion, the contemporary African-American ancestors of Jefferson's slave and lover, Sally Hemings, had a white relative, Thomas Jefferson, who once owned slaves. Shock!

Goodness me! That means, too, it is almost certain that Martin Luther King JR and Malcolm X's white ancestors, assuming they had a few, were also slave owners. Hey, what's the chance that Jackie Robinson's ancestors were enslaved by white slave owners who, perhaps, consummated a relationship with his black ancestors...? Ut-oh...how many slaves did Condi Rice's white ancestors own?

It strikes me as bizarre that the U.S. mainstream, corporate-owned media doesn't play these little games of "gotcha" with white candidates. Perhaps, the real story might be that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or John McCain's ancestors owned slaves. Somehow, however, we never address those issues. I wonder, since the slaves were emancipated, how many stories have the U.S. media done that covered a white candidates relationship to slave ownership? Probably none!

Funny, too, how it is that a black candidate -- the same black candidate with white slave-owning relatives -- was more-or-less accused of being a terrorist. It seems this silly slave issue is part of the claim that Barack Obama, an African-American, isn't 'black enough'. Let's see...the black candidate has been called a terrorist, has had his 'blackness' called into question, and stands accused of having white slave-owning ancestors. It doesn't seem like America has moved too far beyond its slave-owning and racist roots, does it?

What's next, a commercial about Obama "the big black buck" who can't get enough of the white girls? Sorry, they've all ready done that to Tennessee's Herald Ford.

You'll pardon my cynicism, but it just doesn't seem to me that the United States has moved all that far from its racist, slave-owning past. Honestly, Obama's candidacy makes it quite clear that America hasn't progressed much at all. Sure, we like to tell ourselves that we've left our slave-owning, white sheet wearing, lynch 'em for being uppity, and segregated past behind...but what is happening to Obama, with a major assist from the media, makes it clear that not much has changed. You see, to say a black man isn't 'black enough'; to accuse him of being responsible for the enslavement of his own peoples; and, because of his skin color and name, to label him a terrorist...is the most insidious form of racism. It's just a little more subtle and the people perpetuating it -- perhaps GOP operatives or Hillary Clinton's campaign -- and the media know full well what they are doing.

This is the very public lynching of Barack Obama.

2 comments:

blair said...

Obama's link to slavery should b a non-issue. It is not surprising that Obama has slave owners in his family tree. Virtually all Americans, regardless of their race or ethnicity, have ancestors who owned slaves. Many African Americans who researched their family trees would be shocked to discover that have black as well as white ancestors who were slave owners. In the United States, free blacks as well as whites owned slaves (one of the South’s biggest slave owner was a freed black man notorious for his harsh treatment of his slaves). The percentage of free blacks who owned slaves was small, as was the percentages of whites who owned slaves, but the intricacies of the genetic pool guarantee that virtually everyone is related to them. African Americans who traced their heritage back to Africa would discover that virtually all their African ancestors were involved in the slave traded. The African tribes ran the “supply side” of the Atlantic slave trade. The ancestors of Hispanic Americans owned both black and Indian slaves. American Indian tribes practiced slavery both before and after the European discovery of America. (The Cherokee Nation, for example, voted overwhelmingly yesterday (3 March 07) to revoke the tribal citizenship of about 2,800 blacks who are descendants of Cherokee slaves.

It makes no diference which side of the Mason-Dixie line you were born in. Slavery was practiced in all the Northern states prior to the American Civil War and was still being practiced in many of the Northern states during the Civil War. That's why Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to states that had rebelled against the Union.


Posted by: Blair at March 4, 2007

audacious said...

just amazing what a political campaign will bring up ...

from what i've read, obama seems to be an interesting / positive candidate.