Obama’s Philadelphia speech is destined for the American history classrooms of tomorrow (if there will be such things). And it has generated a wave of responses nearly as fascinating as the speech itself, not least of all in the nascent entity called the jazz blogosphere. Which would seem to refute the idea that jazz and its minions have ceased to be political since the ’60s (something I’ll be commenting on for Jazz Times in the near future).
Darcy gives his
two cents and points to several other entries, including
this “Dear White America” letter by the always stirring alto saxophonist Matana Roberts.
There’s much to agree with in these reactions, but something is missing. Darcy writes:
“People might also consider why anger, especially African-American anger, is considered so politically radioactive, when it is precisely righteous anger at oppression and injustice that fueled many of the great civil rights activists of the past century.” [Emphasis in original.]
Righteous anger has indeed fueled the best activists, it’s true, but it has also fueled the worst. To differentiate between sound and unsound ideas, and identify the shades of grey in between, can’t be viewed as just an imposition or a waste of time. While the Fox Newsification and
swift-boating of Jeremiah Wright and Obama is offensive and getting worse, the fact that some of Wright’s statements are considered “politically radioactive” is probably as it should be.
Every collective response to oppression and injustice has in some way reflected a split between universalist, liberal, democratic impulses and more radical, often illiberal, sectarian and authoritarian impulses. The key virtue of Obama’s speech is that it encourages the liberal impulse, condemns the illiberal impulse and then urges us to respect the elemental humanity of both. Yes, it’s a lesson in tolerance for the benefit of white America, but it’s also a rebuke to the worst political features of black America. And Obama’s not just saying it to cover his ass. He means it, all of it.
Matana writes: “Though some of you reading this may be part of the group of white folks that has always supported the rebellious negro (thank you!) there are many out there that I believe are ‘shucking and jiving’ (no pun intended) around this very delicate issue.” It’s a pointed and serious challenge. My response would be that rebelliousness in the civil rights struggle has taken many forms, some deserving and some undeserving of support — and I mean support from whites, blacks and anyone else who cares enough to engage the issues.
Jeremiah Wright, for me, represents the liberal and illiberal impulse warring in one man, and in that sense he’s emblematic of the post-’60s age in which we live. Most of the fuss over Wright centers around “God damn America,” a regrettable soundbite to be sure, but there’s more to the story than patriotism or the lack thereof. Of course we should, as Darcy writes, “reflect about where the reverend’s anger is coming from,” but that doesn’t resolve what I would call the most problematic aspect of Wright’s oratory: his perpetuation of AIDS conspiracy theories. “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” Wright has said. Nick Kristof
points out that this is believed fairly widely in the African-American community, but he fails to note the chicken-egg aspect: Perhaps it’s believed because respected figures like Wright use their pulpit to validate it.
Of course this conspiracy theory derives its force from incidents of actual government wrongdoing, like the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment. But Wright’s remark is something worse than an expression of “righteous anger.” It’s an example of what author Damian Thompson calls counterknowledge, a kind of disinformation from below, and it can actually hinder the fight against AIDS by making people suspicious of proven treatments. A similar dynamic has affected disease-control efforts in the developing world, where rumors and conspiracy theories about “poisonous” medicines have sabotaged wholly laudable immunization campaigns by public health workers.
So in short, the debate over Wright has already hit a wall: rightists demonize him for forcefully attacking American racism, and leftists rally around him for the same reason. There are other grounds on which to reject Wright’s rhetoric at its most excessive.
