“Powers keep on lying/
While your people keep on dying/”
-- Stevie Wonder, “Higher Ground,” Innervisions
(1973).
“No
one called the late J. Edgar Hoover a terrorist, though that is
precisely what he was: and if anyone wishes, now, in this context,
to speak of ‘civilized’ values or ‘democracy’ or ‘morality,’ you
will pardon this poor nigger if he puts his hand before his mouth,
and snickers—if he laughs at you.”
--
Baldwin, James. Just
Above My Head.
New York: Dell Publishing, 1979, p. 332.
Ya’ll can’t handle the truth in a courtroom of lies/ … Blind leading
the blind/ … A generation pure in it’s own mind/ ... When the Son
of Perdition is Commander in Chief/ The standard is Thief/ Brethren
can we candidly speak?/ … It’s time for rebirth/ Burning up the
branch and the root/ The empty pursuits of every tree bearing the
wrong fruit/... You’ll find what you sought/ Was based on the deception
you bought/ A perception of naught/ Where the majority remains caught/”
-- Lauryn Hill, “Mystery of Iniquity,” MTV
Unplugged No. 2.0
(2002).
The radio/TV journalist
Tavis Smiley has again found himself between the crosshairs of angry
Black people. This time, Smiley is being faulted for soliciting
the services of mortgage giant Wells Fargo & Co. A March ‘09
NAACP lawsuit, filed with the U.S. district court in Los Angeles,
accusing Wells Fargo and HSBC Holdings Plc of subjecting African-American
lenders to “disparate adverse treatment,” by imposing disproportionate
loan terms, is being touted as legitimate reason to accuse Smiley
of moral fraudulence. [Context: It’s important to note that the
same NAACP President, Ben Jealous, now being hailed as a 21st century
messiah, was the one who, in 2002, stood
aghast as BlackCommentator.com columnist, Jonathan Farley, was
undergoing merciless persecution—ultimately chased out of the country—by
a modern-day
KKK sect. It was none other than Jealous, himself, who told
Farley that he had “asked for it,” and now had to bear the consequences
of his action.] Because Wells Fargo is also a title sponsor
of the C-SPAN broadcast “State of the Black Union” (SOBU), which
Smiley hosts annually, his detractors feel confident in asking that
he cast the racial demons out of, and denounce his associations
with, the mortgage company.
No one can argue that Tavis
Smiley’s partnership with repressive corporations like Wal-Mart,
McDonalds, and ExxonMobil is of no benefit to the Black community.
Very few people are willing to openly defend his alliances. Nevertheless,
most of the noise-makers, in this instance, are less interested
in the impact Wells Fargo’s alleged racist practices is having on
the Black Community, but rather, see this as a perfect opportunity
to jump down Smiley’s throat, for his call early last year that
Black people hold then-Senator Barack Obama accountable, along the
road to the White House.
In January 2008, Tavis Smiley
offered a commentary on the nationally-syndicated Tom Joyner
Morning Show—which boasts the largest audience of African-American
listeners. In it, he remarked that, in spite of the hysteria over
Obama winning the Iowa state primaries, Black people would do well
to keep a disciplined mind, vis-à-vis the Obama campaign. He suggested
accountability as the only dependable medium through which victory
was attainable. For saying this, Smiley would come in contact with
the rabidity of Obamamania. Before long, his personal and professional
life was turned upside down, as death threats to family and relatives,
including his mother, came flying in. Before the death threats,
however, Smiley attempted to put into context his worries concerning
Obama’s unremarkable record on the problems afflicting Black America.
The first sign of Obama’s
reluctance to being branded the “Black candidate” seemed to come
from his refusal to attend the 2007 SOBU forum. This decision made
furious many attendees, including Princeton University’s very own
Cornel West, who accused Obama
of “walking” a “tight rope.” Dr. West, later on a surrogate for
Obama, explained that “he’s got folk who are talking to him who
warrant our distrust.” West expressed some skepticism over the
apparent coincidence of Obama’s plans to announce his run for the
presidency on the same day Tavis Smiley had set up the SOBU event—a
year in advance. He suggested that Obama’s Springfield announcement,
given that context, was appearing to be more “about somebody else,”
than the Black Community. West continued: “He’s got large numbers
of white brothers and sisters, who have fears and anxieties, and
he's got to speak to them in such a way, that he holds us at arm’s
length, enough to say he loves us, but doesn't get too close to
scare them off.” A year later, Obama, again, was nowhere to
be found. Opting, unlike Hillary Clinton, to speak elsewhere on
the campaign trail in Texas, Tavis Smiley took him to task for dodging
an opportunity to speak directly to Black people about the issues
confronting the Community. Obama, in a cynical move, would offer
up Michelle Obama in his lieu. Tavis Smiley, flatly rejecting this
pitiful gesture, argued that Michelle Obama is no politician, and
shouldn’t be expected to act as such. Unfortunately, many Obamamaniacs,
and downright Obama supporters, weren’t thrilled about Smiley’s
confrontation with their leader. Before long, he had assumed the
status of the most hated Black man in America.
The drive to hold up the
PBS host as an example of what could happen to Obama’s Black detractors
was mostly fueled by the campaign of YourBlackWorld.com founder,
Dr. Boyce Watkins, also a Syracuse University Professor. As one
whose allegiance to Obama remains unbroken, coming after Smiley
was a no-brainer, for him. In a February 2008 column, Watkins commended
Obama, because he, in his words, “owes no one, he has a new team
and he refuses to be beholden to the Civil Rights Movement.”
This display of ignorance, mixed with misinformation, is what led
many into believing Obama was a “new kind” of politician, without
the old stale of Washington—without a dependence on D.C.’s ubiquitous
corporate interest groups. Public figures like Watkins were able
to sell the lie that Obama shot to fame from relative obscurity,
even when simple internet searches, let alone serious academic research,
could swiftly put their unfound theory to bed. It was such bold,
declarative statements that kept
at bay the truth, about Obama’s corporate
funding and donorship. Watkins, through his website, began waging
a war of words against Tavis Smiley. Dr. Watkins hastily
condemned Tavis Smiley for his “snub of Michelle Obama,” which
he described as a “slap in the face of Black women everywhere
who have tremendous respect for Michelle.” Watkins deliberately
inserted himself into the brewing controversy over Smiley’s comments,
and catapulted himself to a national stage, where he could best
perform as a referee of sorts, in the desired boxing match between
Smiley and Obama.
Watkins is one of the few
gifted communicators we have left. He has an uncanny ability to
suggest one thing, while meaning the other. This tactic helped him
during the Smiley brouhaha, as he untruthfully suggested feeling
“sorry for Tavis after seeing the reactions of our readers,”
though he confessed to using his, at the time, “nearly 100,000
Black readers per week,” as a “fitting venue to let the world
know
how I feel.” Watkins, a self-described “hardcore capitalist,”
posted a sympathetic outlook, while taking some comfort in the fact
that Smiley’s “life [became] a mess,” as a result of his actions.
Watkins successfully walked the middle of the road, so as not to
get hit from either direction. This makes it easy to reproach Tavis
Smiley for possessing an “express objective of obtaining revenue
and profitability for his corporate sponsors,” although refraining
from any suggestion that he “sold out.” Another Obama supporter/surrogate,
who liberally provided cover for his docility on Black issues, is
Princeton Professor of Politics and African American Studies, Melissa
Harris Lacewell.
Unlike Watkins, Dr. Lacewell
was more explicit in her convictions. She railed
against any Black leader demanding accountability from Obama,
informing them that he “can deliver the black vote to himself,
by himself, with little help from these self-proclaimed racial power
brokers.” Lacewell, like Watkins, accused Smiley of being “jealous,”
and thus, one need not take serious his calls for holding Obama’s
feet to the fire. In an op-ed piece, she asked the question: “Does
Tavis realize that Obama is trying to win an election?” Those
who think like Dr. Lacewell and Watkins were the ones who helped
Obama clinch victory, with a 96% Black electorate support, without
any specific commitment to the Black Community. Those who think
like them were the ones who bypassed the opportunity, unlike
Dr. West, to inform Obama that abusing Dr. King’s legacy, by
skipping his Memphis memorial service for an Indiana campaign stop,
is an unforgivable offense. Those who think like them saw no wrongdoing
in Obama’s cynical
dismissal of Dr. King as a mere “young preacher from Georgia.”
Black thinkers, academics,
scholars and intellectuals like the two listed above might not be
a direct threat to the development of future freedom-thinkers, but
they aren’t helping the cause, either. They might skillfully masquerade
as insurgent intellectuals, but when the going gets tough, and reality
confronts them at the fork of the road, we’ve see which direction
they’re quick to take.
Obamamaniacs
come in all shapes, shades and sizes. Young and old. Obamamania
holds no prejudice. Its only litmus test is an uncontrollable level
of commitment to whatever Obama says, and an avowed readiness to
lend him whatever breathing room he needs, in bypassing all political
checkpoints. Obamamaniacs are more than willing to provide the President
with all the requests and demands he tables—whether in the best
interest of their communities or not. Obamamaniacs are always willing
to fight on behalf of Obama—even if he fails to practice reciprocity.
Obamamaniacs find no other joy than in the censoring of views that
contradict theirs. Obamamaniacs are relentless in defense of their
candidate, in spite of policies that are perceived as inhumane and
ungodly. Obamamaniacs see the truth as a contaminated substance,
which they refuse to tamper with. Obamamaniacs are instantly recognizable
by their double-speak: “I want an end to the wars, but I’m willing
to give him a chance.” Obamamaniacs, through no fault of their own,
are charmed by the oratorical prowess of their idol, who, at every
stop, keeps handy a teleprompter to dictate to him what he can say,
and what must be abstained from. Obamamaniacs are parasitic in their
admiration of Obama, and find no fault in telling (other) Black
people to “wait till he gets in first,” “wait till he settles down,”
“wait till he fixes the economy,” “wait till he fixes healthcare,”
and finally, “wait till he gets reelected.” Obamamaniacs have been
touched by the angelic promises of the emperor, and can’t wait to
share with the world their excitement. Obamamaniacs have no mind
of their own, and, as a result, do no thinking for themselves!
As Black folks, we can’t
afford to hit the snooze button anymore. It’s time to wake up—to
rise and shine! Our waking hour is long over-due. Our eyes have
been opened—we just refuse to see. Clinging to the emotional appeal
of having a first Black president is useless when the very man is
confident that the “justifiable pride” in moving beyond “some
of the searing legacies of racial discrimination in this country,”
only “lasted about a day.” What other confirmation do we
need? What else do we require before starting to take matters into
our own hands, and doing for self? What other signs do we seek,
before beginning to hold President Obama accountable?
BlackCommentator.com Columnist,
Tolu Olorunda, is an activist/writer and a Nigerian immigrant.
Click here
to reach Mr. Olorunda. |