President Carter Makes The Right Call
Posted: Wednesday, September 16, 2009
by Edward Rhymes
Former President Carter in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams tackled the issue of racism and its relation to some of the opposition that President Obama is facing. These are his words:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
I grieve with him as well. The knowledge of this brings me no joy or satisfaction and it angers me far less than some would think. During the campaign (both primary and general election) I said that America would need to show how grown-up it is. That question, in my opinion, is in the process of being answered.
Does this declaration mean that anyone who speaks against President Obama is racist or harbors some deep-seated hatred towards Blacks? Not at all. However, the animosity that President Carter spoke of; the disregard and disrespect for him as President and the vitriol that has been flung at him which attempts to point to some sort of illegitimacy of his "Americanness;" and the allusions to perceived deficiencies in his character that are rooted in his pigmentation, yes, I believe, are entrenched in racism. It is up to citizens of goodwill and integrity to call it such and to take a stand against it. My book, When Racism Is Law & Prejudice Is Policy: Prejudicial & Discriminatory Laws, Decisions and Policies in U.S. History (published in 2007), covered a great deal of this history that President Carter briefly touched on. I believe the thoughts contained in the foreword are especially pertinent to the times that we live in and the challenges we currently face as society and country. The foreword appears in bold print.
As we as a nation are beginning to grasp for some definitive meaning for the word "American," as many institutions of higher learning are beginning to offer more courses concerning race & race relations, ethnicity and culture. As many teachers on every level have started to interpret history through the clear lenses of objectivity & truth and not through the unreliable spectacles of nationalism and prejudice, I wanted to add my voice to the massive refrain of authors who have written volumes concerning prejudice and racism. I believe that these writers understood that for a democratic government to be guilty of injustice and inequality is not only a transgression that many other societies and governments have been guilty of, but an outright hypocrisy and betrayal of the principles that this government was supposed to be founded upon.
There are many who may balk at the delving into the history of the political and social sins of America. They say that "those things happened a long time ago" and the examination of the past "only stirs up trouble."
I will first answer the "it happened a long time ago" argument. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when he said: "there is nothing magical in the flow of time. Time is neutral; it can be used either constructively or destructively." Many people have the erroneous belief that "time heals all wounds," but a wound without proper medical care and attention, left uncleaned, doesn't get better over time but worse. And the infection can become deadly if the wound is serious enough.
It is what we do with time that determines its impacts and benefits. As to the statement of the examination of the past "only stirs up trouble," I say that sweeping also stirs up dirt and dust, but when all is said and done the floor should be cleaner. One should always be apprehensive of a peace that comes at the expense of the truth.
As a sociologist I have tried to view myself as a "social physician," and one the first things any physician wants to know about a patient is the medical history of their family. I have never heard of any patient telling a doctor that by doing this they would only stir up trouble. On the contrary, most (if not all) patients know that, to better serve them, the physician must be made aware of the history. That by knowing the medical history of the patient's family a physician can not only better treat the medical problems that patient may presently have, but also what preventive measures to take as well.
Now, the patient is not the blame for the medical conditions found in their family's lineage that pre-dates their existence, but they do have a responsibility to address any concerns that have been revealed as result of the physician's inquiry; for themselves and for those in their family who will follow. Furthermore, if a patient dares to ignore the medical history of their family and the precautions prescribed by their physician, they court danger and disaster. Along these same lines, I believe, that any country that ignores the ills of their political and social history and refuses to take the necessary precautions to treat those ills, it too courts danger and disaster.
I am neither naive nor arrogant enough to believe that by the revealing of certain truths it will make justice inevitable, but it is my hope to make injustice inexcusable.
This Article has been viewed 488 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (10 total)You are absolutely right, Edward. We need to be reminded of the past or we will repeat it. The reference to a persons medical history as being required information for a physician treating a current malady is spot on.
I did not and do not see Barack Obama as being a good choice to lead this nation because of his far left policies.Wonderful work here, Edward. I am so glad you came to SearchWarp.Thanks for commenting Ken. Yeah, my problem has never been, nor will it ever be, the disagreement with President Obama on policy (there are policies of his that I disagree with). My problem has been the way in which many people are disagreeing --- not based on policy, but against him personally. I had many disagreements with the way Bush ran the country (and didn't vote for him), but he was still MY president and I prayed for him and defended him when he was unjustly accused. This is not what I see in many of President Obama's detractors. And there is a great number of people who are not spewing bigotry, BUT they are also failing to call out those who are --- if we disagree with someone's policies, that does not mean we should agree to them being slandered and disrespected. He is OUR president.I didn't mean to go on like this Ken, but this is close to my heart. I appreciate you Brother and your insights are always welcome.You are right, Edward. I am probably guilty of "failing to call out those who are ... spewing bigotry." Although I do not like him, I will not allow someone to "throw shoes" at him.Ken, goodness always shines through and you have it in abundance. Blessings Brother.
Bravo Edward! I truly appreciate this article. You have hit on some points that I myself often wonder about: "...anyone who speaks against President Obama is racist or harbors some deep-seated hatred towards Blacks..."Thanks for sharing a great article.Thanks Ronyae for commenting. I want to be clear, I believe that you understand but others may not, the line you excerpted needs to be viewed in its entirety:"Does this declaration mean that anyone who speaks against President Obama is racist or harbors some deep-seated hatred towards Blacks? Not at all."I tried to point to a very vocal and biased portion of these protestations against the president and the silence of others who, I believe disagrees with those attitudes and behaviors, that enables them.Thanks again Sister, I appreciate your taking the time to read and comment.
Edward, I agree with you on many points and appreciate your article. I am not an expert on the matter, but my feeling is that Carter's words did more to stir animosity than heal. While you address this personally, it seems that publicly his comments paint anyone who opposes our President as anti-black. While that may be good for Obama, it is bad for our country and for racial progress. Carter's points may be valid, but the timing seems fishy to me. Thanks for writing about this and bringing it to our attention. Your points are well taken.Thanks for commenting J.D. I liken truth spoken in love as spiritual surgery, sometimes we have to be cut in order to be healed. I saw President Carter's face as he spoke this and I saw a man pained and grieved by what he was seeing and hearing from certain segments of our society and country. Racism, at the inception of this country was a very intentional thing; a codified (legal and social) reality of American life. I think the average American citizen has not been as intentional in seeing that it ends. I don't believe it's the people who speak out against bigotry that are the problem, I believe it those who claim to hold certain beliefs concerning justice, love, mercy and truth, that are silent in the face of racism and bigotry --- especially when it is those of us who claim the name of Christ.As far former President Carter's words painting everyone in opposition to our current president as anti-black, let's take a look at his exact words: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." He focused his attention on a certain segment of those protesting. He never said all or anyone, to be fair.Additionally, I don't think this really helps President Obama. With the healthcare reform fight in full swing, this is absolutely the last thing he wants anyone talking about now --- but truth, many times, has this nagging quality of being inconvenient.
Thanks JD for taking the time to read and comment. It is appreciated.
Thank you for this article, Mr. Rhymes. When the arguments don't add up to the accusations, one has to wonder what has filled to void to arrive at such conclusions. I think what President Carter said was important for our nation to hear, though it seems that many have dismissed it without having understood it.Thanks for commenting Bruce. Yes, I've already seen the dismissals and distortions. I was genuinely touched by the way former President Carter approached this subject. He addressed it as an 85 year-old son of the South who had seen racism at its ugliest in this country, but also saw certain promises fulfilled and injustices overturned. And now we are at this very contentious moment in our history as a country. He sees a vitriol and animus towards our president divorced from principle and it brings his mind back to a different time in our country and it grieves him. I totally get that. I wish others would too. Thanks again for commenting Bruce.
Edward - perfectly written. And this a topic that needs to be in the public debate. Thanks, JPThanks JP. I appreciate your compliment and comments. I appreciate it.
Reading your article for the Readers Club this time, Edward. Even better. What a gift you have and I am grateful you are willing to share it with us!And your words of praise are even better the second time around as well :) ! Thanks again Ken!
Well done. I don't agree with many of Mr. Obama's policies, and I have some serious reservations about those who are 'advising' him, yet there is no place at all for bigotry or racism. Those who spew this kind of hatred need to retreat back to the Stone Age. Those on the right need to call out those racists and tell it like it is, as you say. They cannot claim 'free speech' when there is hatred involved.Conversely, those on the left need to stop lumping everyone who disagrees with Mr. Obama as one collective white-hood wearing group. This problem will only go away when the radicals on both sides stop shouting and start thinking. Unlikely to happen since both sides seem so entrenched, yet if people would only start using their brains instead of their past predjudices, we would accomplish so much more.Another great article. Thanks for sharing.Thanks Michael (I like that name, my 20 year-old son's name is Michael). Yes, hate-speech should have no part in honest political discourse. I would disagree slightly with your statement about "those on the left" and amend it to: "some of those on the left," who would attach racist motives to all who disagree with President Obama's policies. In this piece I tried to be careful about not saying all myself, because I don't believe that. But we do, ALL, have an obligation to call WHOEVER on slanderous, bigoted rhetoric. Thanks Mike, your comments are always balanced and always appreciated.
Please identify a white person who can disagree with this administration without being labelled as a racist. Who would it be? The answer, of course, is no one. Therefore, if you are white and do not want to be labelled as a racist, you will need to keep your opinions and ideas to yourself concerning this administration and its policies. In other words, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything. Ratings on this page are from 1 to 5 but it doesn't say which (1 or 5) is excellent and which is poor, so we need to guess at that.I know plenty of white people who disagree with President Obama on different issues and it has nothing to do with racism. But none of them belong to the Sons of the Veterans of the Confederacy (Joe Wilson) or listen with glee to the song "Barack the Magic Negro" (most of the Republican Party.)If you are a Republican who disagrees with Obama's policies with sound reasons, and are not racist, then you (like me) are being overshadowed by the rest of your party.Thanks for commenting Pushed. I agree (and have stated in this piece) that there are many whites who disagree with President Obama on any number of policies (from all over the ideological spectrum) and has NOTHING to do with racism. However, you have touched on something extremely important: the fringe and the extreme will represent the majority when there isn’t a sufficient pushback by that majority. I guess it can be best explained by way of an analogy.
If I am member of a football team (whether coach or player) and there is a disrespectful and unruly group of players (in the minority) and we, as a team, fail to properly address their behavior, THEN they WILL become the face of our team. Even though they, by no means, are the majority of our team they will overshadow the team as a whole. And when that happens, it won’t be the fault of the other teams who point out the unacceptable behavior; it will be ours for not taking a stand against it and putting it in check. Thanks again Pushed for commenting and your needed insights.Thanks for commenting Anon. I want to point to, as I have in other comments, to the exact wording of President Carter's words and mine:President Carter: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." That, as far as I'm concerned, points to a certain segment of those who are protesting, and in my opinion, it is applicable.Mine: "Does this declaration mean that anyone who speaks against President Obama is racist or harbors some deep-seated hatred towards Blacks? Not at all." I think that statement speaks for itself, but I will elaborate. If one's disagreements are not tinged with racist and prejudicial language and attitudes (overt & covert) and they are rooted in fact and sincere concern, then NONE of this applies to that individual. Conversely, if an individual does indulge racist attitudes, behavior and rhetoric, then it needs to be called for what it is.It seems that I'm repeating a lot of what I've said in previous comments, but I believe these things bear repeating. My problem has never been, nor will it ever be, the disagreement with President Obama on policy (there are policies of his that I disagree with). My problem has been the way in which many people are disagreeing. There are a great number of people who are NOT spewing bigotry, BUT they are also failing to call out those who are. Neither President Carter nor I can rightfully be blamed for that. Thank you again for commenting.
Edward,This is a very good article but I think what President Carter said was wrong. It is sad that the race card has been brought into the picture.While I am confident that a small percentage of the population may be racist, a small percentage of the population also believes that we never landed on the moon, that President Bush instigated 911, and that the Holocaust never occurred.The majority of the 1.7 million people who marched on Washington last Saturday were not there to decry President Obama's race nor the healthcare reform. They flew in, drove in, or were bussed in because of their fear of where our government is heading -- an incredibly well-mannered, peaceful group of people, including many Blacks, who are not anxious to see our constitutional rights quickly being stripped away.Not surprisingly, the major networks and newspapers gave this story little, if any, coverage. An event of this magnitude should have been headline news well before it occured. The next morning, the article was on page 33 (or 36) of the New York Times. That is reprehensible. 1.7 million people speaks volumes! Sadly, few on the extreme right were listening."...who are not anxious to see our constitutional rights quickly being stripped away."I think you give a good example of where the disconnect is. I have yet to hear a logical argument for how Obama is stripping away our constitutional rights, as you say he is. Where do such accusations come from?From Conservatives, we've heard that Obama is Muslim, "pals around with terrorists", is the most liberal politician in D.C., has opened our borders to 500,000 Hamas militants, wants healthcare reform as a matter of making reparations to blacks, isn't even an American, is a socialist, hates white people, wants to pull the plug on grandma, and on and on including wanting to strip away our Constitutional rights.There's no reasoning with people who believe such things. I have personally gotten shouted down for just asking what the evidence is to believe these things. It's only logical to start questioning why this group of people would be so quick to believe so much hogwash.
Racism is one plausable explanation. When Conservatives scream out, "I want my country back!" and pray that we return to the values that America had when it was first founded (when slavery was legal,) this only supports that explanation.I so agree with Jim from Atlanta's views below. Edward, I think President Obama's statement on Letterman was the clincher in which he said that he was black before the election. Kudos to Obama! He was voted in office by the white population; and, many who voted him in -- especially the moderates -- are now questioning his politics.Wouldn't it be better, however, if African-Americans could just refer to themselves as Americans? If the liberals keeps pushing race, then race is an issue. Stop letting everything be about race because it isn't.Your comment about the values we had when America was first founded is not what the right is saying. We believe in less government. You believe in more. America is a conservative country and always has been. The democrat in the old days was slightly left of center. Today, many in your party are far left of center. Before Obama was elected, it was widely known that he was the most extreme liberal of all in Congress. That was a known fact by both sides. And that is unsettling.One of the things that has bothered me most about Obama, however, is that he has suggested we pledge to be a servant to the President. I am a servant to no one but God. I will pledge my allegiance to the flag and to my country but I will never pledge my servitude to a person. Sadly, many on the left have no religion; thus, they need a god, an idol, or some type of supreme being and, for many, Obama has become their messiah. No man deserves that title except Christ. While you may look at this statement as unfounded, look at the statistics. The majority of people on the right attend church regularly. The numbers are not anywhere near as great on the liberal side. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.Thanks for commenting Anon. I have contended, and still contend, that President Carter's exact words should be quoted: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." He NEVER said all, but it seems to me that many detractors have chosen to hear ALL, EVERYONE & EVERYBODY. Carter’s statements, to me, speak to a certain segment of those who disagree with President Obama. The statement is speaking to a very real animus that exists, not in every protester, but still, in my opinion, far too many. Also, if we start using words like "anyone," "anybody," or "everything” when that wasn't the actual assertion, it adds to the problem that we say we are seeking to eradicate.Nevertheless, if it is about his politics, then why has some of the discussion gone personal and racial? Why is his citizenship constantly being questioned? Why have there been so many attacks on his, as I said in the writing, “Americanness?”To answer the question of why “African-Americans” don’t just consider themselves Americans is not a question that has a simple answer. First, there are some who do just refer to themselves as Americans. Since slavery and segregation are a part of our nation’s history, the reality cannot be ignored that Blacks initially, by and large, were not: (a) voluntary inhabitants of America (b) able to be considered as citizens of America --- and at times, not considered fully human (c) fully integrated into American life. In other words, those who experience such things usually have a different take on a society and a country than those who haven’t. These are not all, but just some of the possible explanations.Anon you spoke of being a servant of Christ, and I take you at your word. As a servant of Christ I would expect you to keep faith with His words to love your enemies and to be wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves. I would expect from a servant of Christ that when bigoted and racist words are being used that you would remember to remind your fellow Christians to love their neighbors as themselves.The statement regarding the country being founded on the idea of less government seems to ignore the Thomas Jefferson vs. Alexander Hamilton opposing ideological paradigms. The founders were not of one mind regarding the details about how government should work and that is why this debate still continues today. Additionally, I would like some clarification, from what research or data do you draw your conclusions that America is conservative? I’m interested in knowing that information. You also assumed that I believed in more government, from what did you draw that conclusion?Thanks for writing and commenting.Thanks for writing Anon. Although I don't believe the vast majority of the people who disagree with President Obama are racist, I do believe that there are enough people whose views on race are problematic. Further, as I have stated repeatedly, it is somewhat duplicitous that people will attack President Carter for speaking on a subject that has been a part of American life since its inception, but will not challenge those who are being overtly racist; people who are bringing guns to healthcare reform townhalls and the like. All any injustice needs to prevail is enough people to actively participate in the injustice and enough people to be silent about the injustice taking place.I have also contended, in another piece, that if the stripping away of Constitutional freedoms is the issue for so many, then these protests are long overdue and should target all Presidents and government officials who have been involved in such behavior (not just this current administration).There is still debate about the actual number of those in attendance at the rally, so I can't speak too forcefully one way or another, but I do remember seeing it covered before, during and after.I would like to conclude by saying that President Carter, in my opinion was not playing the race card, he was speaking from his heart what he believed was a serious issue in our current political debates. If a race card was to be played, certainly it was not he who placed it in the deck. It was not he that brought it into the picture, but rather called our attention to it.I wish we would all ask ourselves: Do I challenge the attitudes that President Carter spoke of when I see them? Or do I allow them to be said without any objection? Do I challenge and guard against my own prejudices and presumptions about people period? If those questions cannot be answered in the affirmative, then we don't have to look far for the reason the sin of racism is still so pervasive.
Thanks for commenting. I appreciate you taking the time to exchange your thoughts with me.
Racism is not part of the equation. The people that are against the Socialist/Fascist/Marxist/Communist direction of the present administration present logical arguments based on fact. The arguments, and comments, against the attack on the capitalist system are directed not only at Obama but at Pelosi, Emmanual, Reid, and other top (white) Democrat leaders. It's not about race - it's about fundamental principles. Obama was raised and influenced by Communists/Socialists/Marxists whose principles are completely counter to traditional American values and principles. The McCarthy era concerns were incredibly similar and, like then, it's not about race.A classic ploy by liberal groups is to cry racism, sexism, etc. whenever they cannot compete in the arena of factual debate. If your concern was sincerely about racism you would address whether or not you believe that comments from blacks made against Bush are racist? You would address Sotomayor's (sp?) blatantly factual racist comments against white males. Were Democrat attacks against Clarence Thomas racist?And I would really like to learn your views on exactly how a white person's opposing viewpoint can be presented without being deemed racist - THAT has never been discussed.And lastly I'll state that the article conveys a strong sense that "racism" exists as only a white against black issue. The article stems from comments made by (arguably) the worst modern day US President and a member of the only party to have a Senator who was a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Personally I find Carter's entire comments to be offensive and demeaning.Thanks Jim, just as I have asserted that it is not ALL about racism; then I believe it is just as erroneous to say it has NOTHING to do with racism. I believe an element exists in this current debate is rooted in racism and that’s my viewpoint not based upon my emotion or inability to make a cogent argument, but the rhetoric that I’ve heard and the images that I’ve seen. It's not crying or whining, just what I see --- and I pray for those who are guilty of it.
I want to be clear: are we now saying that McCarthyism was a good thing for America? That blanket statements and baseless accusations and blatant attacks on Constitutional freedoms is the antidote to tyranny?In this writing please show me where I said that one political party or the other was morally superior. Did you automatically assume I supported Sotomayor and was against Clarence Thomas? That I support Democrats over Republicans?I speak against racism because Christ did; because scripture calls to me to. I did so before President Obama was a known political figure and will continue to do so (by the grace of God) when his administration is a memory.To answer your question as to how a white person opposing viewpoint can be presented without being deemed racist is to rid their arguments of racist language and bigoted rhetoric; cease from the personal attacks and address the issues. This is my advice for the Republican and the Democrat; for the liberal and conservative; to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites.This analogy bears repeating again: if I am a member of a football team (whether coach or player) and there is a disrespectful and unruly group of players (in the minority) and we, as a team, fail to properly address their behavior, THEN they WILL become the face of our team. Even though they, by no means, are the majority of our team they will overshadow the team as a whole. And when that happens, it won’t be the fault of the other teams who point out the unacceptable behavior; it will be ours for not taking a stand against it and putting it in check.Lastly, the history of racism in this country is vast and long. It predates Robert Byrd's KKK's past and includes every political party we have ever had. It is a fact that gives me no pleasure and no joy; and it is a sin that I will continue to address as long as God gives me breath.Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jim. God bless you.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.