by Ishmael Reed
As the domination of the country by an Anglo-Protestant culture, one that began in 1607, gives way to an American mosaic of cultures there will continue to be a merger of the white left and right. As the Obama administration continues on its course, Negro Mania will increase.
The year began with Barack Obama being hanged in jeopardy in a Georgia town. The tea baggers who came to Washington carrying signs of Obama as a witch doctor, Hitler, and The Joker, a socialist, a terrorist, etc., were up to their tricks. On January 5, Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, footage was run of a tea bagger dressed in a black gown and hood like an Inquisition executioner, flogging a man with an Obama mask and a woman with a mask of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. They were covered with fake blood. Even with this kind of showing of racist imagery, which has become standard for the tea-party pageants, David Brooks of The New York Times gave them his grudging respect though he said he disagreed with them. He received a ton of mail for his remark after the earthquake that the problems of Haiti were cultural.
Is it the country that is addicted to Negro mania or is it the media, which believes that they are spreading the hysteria for profits? Up to their old tricks. Why else would extensive Michael Jackson stories be more important than news about the Iraq war, or why would The New York Post feel that news about Tiger is more important than news about 9/11 which resulted in three thousand lives lost? Reasons offered by David Carr don’t quite explain it. There is something deeper going on. Susan Block, a psychologist tried to explain the Tiger mania by citing testimonies from her white male patients. I wish that she’d interviewed some of the white women at Salon.com and The Huffington Post to discover what excites them about Tiger.
One may disagree with Block’s analysis but her bringing the subject of Tiger mania and yes Obama mania (MTV portrayed Obama as a sexual Mandingo in bed with Hillary Clinton—yes, they had to pull it) under a more sophisticated analysis than the one offered by Carr opens the door for further research.
Maybe we need experts from other professions to analyze Negro mania, an American sickness. I’m using “American” in the same way that the Jim Crow media use it. By the beginning of 2010, the Jim Crow media had done its job. By giving a small band of angry white voters a platform just for screaming and shouting and calling themselves tea baggers, a movement begun by a Fox News correspondent and supported by the insurance companies, a few billionaires and insurance-industry-backed phony “populist” organizations like Freedom Works, they had, according to commentators gloating over the election of a tea-bagger senator from Massachusetts, broken Barack Obama. An all-white panel on CNN was just about jumping for joy over the election of a man whom Keith Olbermann described on January 19 as “horrifically unqualified.” Two of the most thrilled were Obama critics, Dana Bash and Gloria Borger, white women, and though the new tea-bagging Senator Scott Brown had a record that was unfriendly toward women’s rights, without the votes of white women he would not have been elected. Keith Olbermann described him as “a homophobic racist reactionary sexist ex-nude model and advocate of violence against women.” Rachel Maddow said that he campaigned “dishonestly.” But Maddow and Olbermann were the exceptions. Because of low-intelligence commentators, or at least intellectually incurious commentators, resulting in low-information voters, fifty-two percent of Americans say President Obama has accomplished nothing or not very much after almost a year in office, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted January 12-15, 2010. (Forty-seven percent believe he has accomplished a great deal or a good amount). Those fifty-two percent probably got all of their information about Obama’s record from Saturday Night Live, a comedy show written by uninformed white writers.
On January 20, Andrea Mitchell, a wealthy woman who socializes with the people whom she covers, grilled Obama aide David Axelrod about whether Barack Obama’s health reform would fail as a result of the election of Scott Brown, who said he’d vote against it, even though he voted for similar legislation in Massachusetts. Left out of her exchange with Axelrod was any reference to the role her network played in spreading tea-bagger mis-information by endlessly featuring Sarah Palin’s remark that health reform included provisions for death panels, which was called by Politifact, “The lie of the year,” and although the media line was that Massachusetts voters were repudiating Barack Obama, a poll conducted by Republicans found him to be still popular in that state. Motor City Liberal reported: “Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates: Obama held a fifty-nine percent favorability mark and fifty-five percent job approval rating among MA voters. A January 20 Politico article reported that a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates exit poll found that ‘Obama’s personal favorability remained high with voters.’ The poll found that ‘Obama boasted a fifty-nine percent favorability mark’ and ‘Obama’s job approval rating even stayed at a respectable fifty-five percent as voters trekked to the ballot box to oppose the candidate he campaigned for just two days earlier.’ The president even earned a passing mark on his handling of the economy (fifty percent approval) and received a clear majority’s support for his work on the war in Afghanistan (fifty-nine percent approval). Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates is a Republican polling firm.”
Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews and David Brooks have been given immense power to form public opinion, yet they don’t always feel the need to study the facts. Both Matthews and Mitchell said that the United States played no role in Haiti’s situation, a remark that many scholars and intellectuals would find laughable in light of a history of American-Haitian relations, which included invasions, a lengthy occupation under President Woodrow Wilson, a Klan admirer, and the recent abduction of an elected president and billions that Haitians had to pay to European nations that never forgave Haiti for ousting the colonialists. David Brooks, an Obama critic, was even more outrageous when he said of Haitians two days after the earthquake: “There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile.” For the stupidity of this remark Brooks was reproved by a number of bloggers from different parts of the world. I asked Robert Farris Thompson, Trumbull Professor of the History of Art at Yale University, to comment. He wrote:
I have worked for more than thirty years, doing, off and on, art historical research in Haiti. I have sat down with many priests and priestesses of vodun [not “voodoo” which to me is a Hollywood term, drenched with racism] during this period. And I never heard anything remotely matching the allegation that “life is capricious and planning futile.” Who are his sources? Which voduist said that when, where, why? His is an outsider’s assumption raised to the category of definition. In point of fact, to use an even deeper name for vodun in Haitian terms, sevi lwa [meaning the service of spirits under God} with its acts of charity and herbal healing, provides an island of art and caring within the larger world of Haiti. Wiser minds than mine have found this to be so, like the North American women scholars Maya Deren and Zora Neale Hurston, like the distinguished French ethnologist Alfred Metraux and more recently the Harvard-trained ethnologist Wade Davis. Vodun has inspired generations of superb painting. When Metraux said vodun was waiting for its Homer, Ishmael Reed responded to the challenge with a novel about the power and persistence and inherent beauty of vodun. All of the above distinguished researchers, not to mention the religious leaders and initiates of vodun themselves, are “called out of their name” by the false allegation that sevi lwa is essentially nihilistic. Things are bad enough in Haiti without maligning the national religion of the people. Gran Bois pa nan betise ave yo!
David Brooks found religion at the University of Chicago, a neo-con temple whose presiding deity is the late Ayn Rand, the Queen of Selfishness. His catechism includes slogans like “the free market,” and “cultural relativism.” The difficulties of other nations, whose traditions he doesn’t feel necessary to give even a cursory examination, are due to their culture. They should embrace the ways of the white man. His is the kind of smug closed mind that confronts Obama, the i
nternationalist, as he starts his second year.
While white progressives and gays might lament the election of a tea bagger who doubts whether Barack Obama’s parents were married when he was born and a man who is opposed to gay marriage and supports water boarding, the constant carping against the president by both groups might have diminished the progressive and gay turnout of voters in Massachusetts. The white progressives spent the Wednesday after the Massachusetts election criticizing Obama and giving him advice.
Now look what they got. Since, for many white commentators, we live in a post-race period, they overlooked the money from racist groups that poured into the state from right-wing and racist sources. The total was thirteen million dollars. The insurance industry was there in the form of Freedom Works. Their goal, according to the January 21 Times was to “derail federal health care legislation.”
The other panelist, Alex Castellanos, was licking his chops. Though he confessed to his profitable ties to the insurance industry, CNN’s president Jonathan Klein has kept him on his job. That of criticizing President Obama.
Has President Obama been broken, which was the verdict of all-white panels appearing on January 19 and 20? Chris Matthews summed up the verdict of white progressives and their new buddies, the right, when he announced that President Obama’s first year “ended badly.” The next day, progressive radio talk-show host Thom Hartmann said that Obama had “pissed away a year.”
On the same day, it was announced that because of the stimulus plan, which expands earned-income credit for certain workers in construction, permits for future projects rose eleven percent, indicating that the housing crisis was coming to an end, the economy in the United States was rebounding better than the pace in Europe, an economist, writing in The New York Times was congratulating Obama’s proposed tax on big banks, and it was announced on January 21 that during December all economic indicators had surged: for the media, however, Obama’s bad week had become a bad year, without any acknowledgement that it would have been worse had a depression occurred. Little attention was devoted to the day’s economic news. Cable was fascinated with a rumor that Tiger had undergone sex therapy. Senator DeMint showed up to announce that Obama had been broken. He’d had his Waterloo, a reference that the younger generation of students would have missed. Again ignoring the sentiments of blacks and Latinos among whom Barack Obama’s numbers are high, progressives continued to assert, arrogantly, that Obama’s “base,” which by now has become a code word, had deserted Obama. That remains to be seen. As this book has shown, they’ve been wrong before about Barack Obama, but a speech he made at a black church on Sunday, January 17, revealed that the criticisms of the first African-American president, the racist bile that was being retched by segments of some of the backward segments of the American population, were beginning to ruffle his cool demeanor. He said that “the words hurt,” and “the barbs sting.” But his “faith” kept him going.
For years, I’ve been asked the following question: what is the role of the writer? I’ve been reluctant to hamper any writer’s creativity with any “role.” But now I believe that there is a role for a writer whose group is being out-propagandized by moneyed opinion, and that is to pay attention. I have had the good fortune of living a life that has provided me with an opportunity to engage in contemplation, of reading and mulling over what I read, and discussing it with other intellectuals. I view myself as a one-man communication center that provides a check on the propaganda attacks on besieged groups and individuals who don’t have the means to fight back. No, I don’t wear a cape. One black intellectual told me that, “If it weren’t for you, I’d think that I was crazy.” That’s how they’ve dismissed the black voices ever since a black writer picked up a pen. We’re paranoid to them. In the words of Laura Miller, the kind of critic who fantasizes about being a character in a Jane Austin novel, we’re “rowdy.” We write “rants” and “diatribes.” We’re conspiracy theorists. We’re controversial because we oppose the view of the world held by them. But now the paranoid community is expanding. Not only among blacks, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics, which, for now, belong to communities where only forty percent are Internet users, but a foreign community of paranoids. My zine, Konch, draws readers from all over the world. So do my commentaries carried by CounterPunch.org. And I can also consult those ancestors whose experiences were similar to mine and whose witness was captured in slave narratives and folklore like the following:
Ole Sis Goose wus er-sailin’ on de lake, and ole Brer Fox wus hidden in de weeds. Buy um by ole Sis Goose swum up close to der bank and ole Brer Fox lept out an cotched her.
O yes, ole Sis Goode, I’se got yer now, you’se been er-sailin’ on mer lake er long time, en I’se got yer now. I’se gwine to break yer neck en pick yer bones.
Hole on derer, Brer Fox, hold on, I’se got jes as much right to swim in der lake as you has ter lie in der weeds. Hit’s des as much my lake es hit is yours, and we is gwine to take dis matter to der cotehouse and see if you has any right to break my neck and pick my bones.
En so dey went to cote, and when dey got there, de sheriff, he wus er fox, en de judge, he wus er fox, en der tourneys, dey was foxes, en all de jurrymen, dey was foxes, too.
En dey tried ole Sis Goose, en dey ‘victed her en dey ‘scuted her, en dey picked her bones.
Now my chilluns, listen to me, when all de folks in the cotehouses is foxes, and you is jes er common goose, der ain’t gwine to be much jestice for a pore nigger.
The Jim Crow media are full of Foxes too, and we are the Geese.
Ishmael Reed
Oakland, California
February 22, 2010
Appendix
Poll Shows the Jim Crow Media is Barack Obama’s Chief Opponent
The Daily Kos conducted a poll from January 20 through January 31, 2010, which revealed the dangers of Americans receiving all of their information about the world from the Jim Crow media. All of the shocking responses to Barack Obama’s presidency were inspired by the media, especially Fox News, which, also shocking, was found, in another poll, to be the network most trusted by the American people. Public Policy Polling found that forty-nine percent of Americans trusted Fox News, ten percentage points more than any other network. The poll also found that twenty-five percent of whites favor secession. A Washington Post-ABC News poll announced on February 11, 2010 found that seventy-one percent of those polled say that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president. Even among Republicans her poll numbers are low, forty-five percent, yet, as the Daily Kos noted on February 11, 2010, the media were still pushing her as a viable presidential candidate, even televising a speech live from the Tea Bagger’s convention, more evidence that the media is Barack Obama’s chief opponent and that a non-elected talk show host is the leader of the opposition, something, which, as far as I know, is unprecedented.
QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
YES
NO
NOT SURE
All
39
32
29
Men
43
30
27
Women
35
34
31
White
40
31
29
Other/Ref
31
41
28
18-29
38
33
29
30-44
38
32
30
45-59
40
32
28
60+
40
31
29
NE
34
35
31
South
42
29
29
MW
38
32
30
West
/> 37
36
27
Def
40
31
29
Vote
39
32
29
Not Like
38
34
28
Def Not
37
35
28
Not Sure
37
35
28
QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
NO
YES
NOT SURE
All
36
42
22
Men
39
37
24
Women
33
47
20
White
37
41
22
Other/Ref
28
51
21
18-29
38
39
23
30-44
38
41
21
45-59
35
43
22
60+
34
43
23
NE
29
47
24
South
43
39
18
MW
33
43
24
West
31
44
25
