Moral Health

It is a truth that not everything is about race even when different races are involved.  Given what goes on in the United States these days, one would not know that this is a truth.  A most recent and flagrant example of someone who has racialized a matter although race was almost certainly not the factor that he has made it out to be is Father Michael Pfleger, speaking at the Trinity United Church for Christ on 25 May 2008.  His claim is that the reason why Hilary Clinton has been distraught is that simply that a black man, namely Barack Obama, has upstaged her in the race for the democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential race.  In particular, the charge is that Obama, a black man has deprived her of what she, as a white person, felt was hers by entitlement, namely the democratic nomination.

Father Pfleger is, at once, so very wrong and so very right.  It would seem that he is absolutely right in his thinking that Hilary Clinton felt entitled to the nomination.  Indeed, a mere six months ago—December of 2007—it seemed almost certain that she would get it.  But this sense of entitlement on her part most certainly had nothing to do with her being white per se.  Certainly, the sense of entitlement she had did not operate only with respect to blacks.  Not at all.

Hilary Clinton’s sense entitlement held across the board, regardless of ethnicity or gender or whatever.  Her credentials as former first-lady for 8 years and a current United States senator for the State of New York were thought to give her a lock on the nomination, no matter who any other candidate might be. Certainly, it would not have occurred to her or anyone else that someone manifestly junior to her in experience would be able to upstage her.  Once more, this line of thought held regardless of race or gender or whatever.

It is sheer nonsense; it is petty; and it is malicious to hold that it was only against blacks (or some other minority group) that she supposed that her lock on the nomination was utterly secure.  Indeed, insofar as she was thought to have a lock on the democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential race, she had to have thought that this lock held against white men as well.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to think that had a white male upstaged her in an Obama-like fashion that Hilary Clinton would have thought “Oh my, I guess I was wrong.  I concede to Mr. White Male”.  Indeed, I suspect that she would have attacked Mr. White Male in a most vituperative manner precisely because the issue of race would not have been a factor.  She could have said any dirty thing she wanted about Mr. White Male without anyone supposing that her motives are racist.

Not so with Obama, however.  The least critical thing said about him by Hilary Clinton is easily viewed as an expression of racism on her part at some level or the other.  And in a very real sense this is profoundly unfair to her; for if there is anything we know, it is that that the presidential campaigns becomes horrendously vicious, as each candidate does whatever it takes to undermine the credibility of the other.

This I say—not because I support Hilary Clinton—but because it is the truth.  In the United States, a black can say with impunity just anything he damn well pleases against whites as a group (and so cases of legal slander and libel aside).  One would have to be socially naïve to the nth degree not to know this.

It is beyond question that Father Michael Pfleger knows this.  It is beyond question that Barack Obama knows this.  It is also beyond question that this truth—namely the truth that blacks can criticize whites with impunity but not the other way around—gives Obama a very significant advantage over any white candidate.  It is disingenuous for anyone to deny this truth.  It is disingenuous for blacks to deny this.  It is disingenuous for Barack Obama to deny this truth.  Likewise for Father Pfleger.

Father Michael Pfleger has viciously and malicious racialized the sense of entitlement with which Hilary Clinton began the race for the democratic presidential nominee; and in so doing, he has done considerable damage to the American political landscape.

An Uncle Tom is a black who, at the expense of his own moral self-worth plays to whites.  Alas, modernity has produced a white counterpart to the Uncle Tom.  Perhaps we should call such a white an Uncle Teddy!  Father Michael Pfleger is an Uncle Teddy.

Speaking at the Trinity United Church of Christ on 25 May 2008, Father Pfleger made himself all but indistinguishable in style of delivery from any traditional fiery black preacher.  Just as whites used the Uncle Tom to legitimate their morally warped views of blacks, the blacks at the Trinity United Church of Christ used Father Pfleger, their Uncle Teddy, to legitimate their morally warped views of whites.  On behalf of blacks, Father Pfleger is playing the race card.

Father Pfleger could have truthfully spoken about Hilary Clinton’s sense of entitlement to the democratic presidential nomination without turning her into one who harbors deep racist sentiments against blacks.  One hardly needs the view that she is racist in order to make sense of her being tremendously disappointed.  Anyone in her shoes would be—including Obama himself.  If tomorrow, a Black-Latino lesbian were to upstage Obama, we can all be absolutely certain that he would be sorely disappointed.  It would make no sense at all to claim that his disappointment is owing to either his sexism or his heterosexism or whatever.  For he would be rightly disappointed for the obvious reasons, namely that the victory that he thought would be his was suddenly snatched away from him.  Obama would have to be other than human in order not to be extraordinarily disappointed.

The only difference is that if the person were a white individual rather than, say, a Black-Latino lesbian, Obama and his supporters could cry racism.  And this is to turn the idea of racial equality into something that is very morally obnoxious and inherently unstable, involving three untenable theses: (1) whenever a black loses to a white, it is racism; whenever a white is disappointed in losing to a black it is racism on the white’s part.  By contrast, (2) whenever a black wins over a white, the only explanation is talent and none other than talent on the part of the blac.  Together, theses (1) and (2) entail another thesis, namely that (3) the black candidate is always better than, and so more qualified than, the white candidate.   Needless to say, not only is (3) false, it is absurdly false in every conceivable way.

Accordingly, insofar as the idea of racial equality embraced by blacks sits upon these three theses, it is not racial equality at all.  Rather, it is an unvarnished claim to racial superiority.  Alas, the claim of racial superiority is not more palatable when blacks are the one who are claiming to be superior.

American may or may not yet be ready for a black president.  The irony, however, is that one very poignant reason why America may not yet be ready for a black president is that there are both blacks and, as Father Michael Pfleger makes abundantly clear, whites who embrace theses (1) – (3).

Now, it does seem that the Father Pfleger’s projects have benefited financially from the good priest’s association with Barack Obama.  Which unsavory alternative do we have here: racism as usual or business as usual?

Sometimes, the hero is a very “ordinary person” who is just going about her or his business.  It would not occur to him that she or he is doing anything unusual or exceptional.  The people of the town of Le Chambon were like that.  Standing up to the might of Hitler’s army, they saved thousands of Jews; and they have often expressed puzzlement over the idea that they did anything extraordinary, while the rest of us are trying to figure out which part of the word “extraordinary” do these people not understand.

Well, there is someone whom I regard as something of a hero. His name is Keith John Sampson, a janitor and a student at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indiana (IUPUI).  Of course, it would never occur to him to put himself in the same league as the people of Le Chambon.  And I do not mean to put him that league either.  But heroes come in a multitude of gradations.

Sampson is a 50 year old white man who busied himself during his break by doing something rather unusual by today’s standards: he read during his break. And if that were not enough, he even read substantive material during his break.  His reading material included Todd Tucker’s book Notre Dame Versus the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Klu Klux Klan.  This is not the sort of reading that one might typically imagine anyone doing unless that person is a history major. And Sampson is not a history major, although he is a student.

I have already posted an essay regarding the debacle that came about as a result of that: see IUPUI.

At any rate, there are some rather ugly moments in American history; and to learn about the details of those moments in order to become a better person is to do something rather commendable.  This would be rather like the German who studied German history from World War I to World War II in order to understand how Germany slipped into one of the most evil moments ever to take place in history; and the German did this with the hope of making sure that such a thing never happened again.

So this is one reason why I regard Sampson as a hero.  But here is another more poignant reason.  In response to someone who read my essay about Sampson and wrote “I hope he is a racist now”, Mr. Sampson had this to say by way of a response:

NO! You hope wrong.  Why would I become a racist because of the incompetence of a bureucratic office?  That is silly.  Besides, the first person to reproach me, over my reading the history book,  was an obtuse AFSCME Union official.  Dale Basey is a ignorant foolish white man.  Should I hate whites? Of course not.

I do have a deep distrust of mindless bureucratic idiots who would use a union or the A.A.O. to show their ignorance by ignoring my Constitutional Rights.   But I do detest the Klan still and I would proudly stand with any Black person, Jewish person or any other minority if the Klan ever showed up at IUPUI.

Chancellor Banz, who will not acknowledge the wrong to me, is white and the IUPUI Media office is run by whites and they are still attempting to smear me by claiming it was not the book but my actions that were the problem.  What? I quess if I had been reading a comic book that would have still been offensive to the un-educated Nakea Vinson and the IUPUI media office.

No, I will NOT become hateful because of the asinine actions of a few. After all hate and ignorance comes in all colors. So if you hoping I’ll join the hateful Klan keep hoping cause I believe that we are all human beings and no one race is better than another.

Quite simply, Keith Sampson’s response is majestic and beautiful.  His response reveals a depth of moral excellence that I find all too rare nowadays.

For you see, Mr. Sampson could just as easily have responded anonymously and said all sorts of hateful things.  Or, in any case, he could have identified himself, and then have gone on to wallow in anger and bitterness.   He could have become so caught up in disappointment that his grip on principles of the right loosened.

Sampson never even came close to suggesting that the KKK was right after all in thinking that: “Blacks are so bereft of intellectual ability that they do not even possess commonsense”.  As I say in my letter to IUPUI Chancellor Charles Bantz: Mr. Sampson could not, as a white persosn, have been behaving in a more politically correct manner short of giving blacks the shirt off his back than reading a book about how the Fighting Irish was a thorn in the side of the Indiana Klu Klux Klan.  And the fact of the matter is that many a person has had horrendously inappropriate thoughts, although the wrong which they have experienced was far less egregious.  Mr. Sampson was accused of being morally insensitive to the moral pain of blacks.  In my earlier essay on this, I suggest that it is very likely that the person who made the accusation could not read.

So this is the other reason why I regard Keith John Sampson as a hero.  There is no better indication of what a person’s true moral mettle than that the individual does the right thing by others even when she or he is in serious moral pain.  And Sampson has proven himself to be a man of enormous character.  He stands as a vivid example of what Black America says it wants from White America, namely an abiding moral commitment on the part of Whites to doing the right thing on behalf of Blacks.

It is my hope that Chancellor Charles R. Bantz of IUPUI will be equally courageous.  Sampson has provided Chancellor Bantz with what I have referred to in my letter to the Chancellor as a morally beautiful opportunity.  Will Chancellor Bantz squander it?  Or, will he rise to the occasion?  Will the Chancellor be more interested in placating Blacks who have effectively eviscerated the charge of racism by using that charge merely as a means of leverage?  Or, will he turn the moment into one of the most extraordinary learning experiences that have even taken place on a university campus?

It is very rare that fate hands us such an extraordinary opportunity to make such a difference by drawing attention to and underlining a moral ideal of excellence that has been marvelously showcased in the life of an “ordinary citizen” of the community”.  This can be done without accusing anyone of maliciousness.

Chancellor Bantz would no doubt like to leave his mark as head of a major university.  Well, here is his chance.  The question is whether he will fumble because liberalism has insisted that the only role that whites can play in overcoming racism is call other whites racist.  Or, will he throw an extraordinary moral pass by showing that the seeds for a better tomorrow have sprouted among the constituents of the IUPUI community.  We have cowardice in the first instance and courage in the second.  Mr. Keith John Sampson has the courage not to be racist and to do what is right even when he has been palpably mistreated by blacks.  Will Chancellor Charles Bantz match Mr. Sampson’s courage in a way that is suitable to the vast means that the Chancellor has at his disposal?  One thing is for sure: time will surely tell !

Note: The Affirmative Action Officer, Lillian Charleston, is retiring.  Is this mere coincidence or does it reflect the recognition that she made a horrendous mistake in the Sampson matter?