Piece 2- Primary Source Essay

What’s Not Being Said: Obama’s Identity and Race Relations
Paper 2 Draft 2
The discussions and opinions about Barack Obama as a candidate have been far reaching in many contexts. Many pundits say that he is too inexperienced to lead, that he will not do enough to fix the economy, or that possibly he is not going to take a strong stance in foreign policy, particularly in regards to our current quagmire in Iraq. But more than anything else, the discussion has been race in this campaign: not the racial stratification system of this country nor the institutionalized discrimination that limits minorities’ chances for success, but instead the race of Obama himself. He and the African American figures he has been allied with- most notably his former pastor Revered Jeremiah Wright- have been many a focus of both the primary and general election campaign. It is true that the nomination of Obama has brought up the question of race in America, but it has not gone any farther in the media and the minds of many Americans than the discussion of whether Obama’s race will play a factor in electability. The issues that needs to be discussed are the not necessarily about Obama himself, but the people he represents by simply being him- people of color.
The case of electability based on race is still an issue in this campaign, and remains a concern regarding Obama’s chances of winning in November. In a Wall Street Journal blog article from September 20th, 2008, “The survey finds that many white Americans— particularly Democrats and Independent voters— still hold deep-seated reservations about African Americans… [and that] one-third of white Democrats hold negative views of blacks.” This margin, journalist-blogger Susan Davis notes, is larger than the margin of error taken for the whole survey. The number crunchers are doing there job well in continuing to support those who are concerned with Obama’s race playing a factor in this election. Obama’s race seems to be the biggest issue here, even though many other bloggers and journalists tend to tire of the constant attention given to this issue. Back in January in the midst of the heated Democratic primary campaign, op-ed blogger Christopher Hitchens blatantly stated, “Isn’t there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be black, anyway?” (Slate.com). While Obama’s race may be overpublicized, this same blogger still mentioned Obama’s ties with his then-pastor, before the firestorm of controversy began.
That controversy and the fallout from Rev. Wright’s sermons circulating on YouTube are, after all, what many point to when others say that race has been properly covered. The sheer volume of media coverage that demonized Rev.Wright and attempted to bring down Obama’s campaign was staggering: in a September 2008 article for The Monthly Review mentioned that in the first 125 days of 2008, the Wright-Obama connection was mentioned in editorials and op-eds 15 times more than McCain and his connection with right-wing fundamentalist pastor John Hagee (4). This connection is purely meant to discuss Obama’s identity as a black man, dragging him in the mud for being allied with Wright. Embarking on a simple search of YouTube for news coverage of Rev. Wright’s sermons, titles echoed this one: “Jeremiah Wright-Obama’s mentor-Hate speech.” This title pointedly notes the connection the media made between these two men- a title written by an average citizen. Not surprisingly, this one of hundreds of videos had been viewed upwards of 289,000 times (YouTube, September 21, 2008). This video and the spliced clips of the “angry black man” were made solely to point out Obama’s identity. The media made no mention of any problems of the black people that both Obama and Wright represent. That discussion of race ceases.
Obama has, though, made mention of the real problems of race relations in this country after being prompted by the media’s attention on he and Wright. In his most broad speech, “A More Perfect Union” given March 18, 2008, he talks frankly about the real problems due to the legacy of discrimination. “But race is an issue that I believe we cannot afford to ignore right now,” he mentions early on in the speech, making it clear that he’s finally going to utter words that few in the political arena want to discuss. In a more acceptable way, he echoes the same themes the Wright professed in his sermons without being “divisive”: “We do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” He even mentions directly the legislations and federal actions that have caused the disparities to occur- namely segregated schools that remain unfixed and “legalized discrimination” such as lack of FHA loans that have not given blacks chances to aquire wealth. In this speech he addresses the anger that exists and calls for recognition of these problems in order to work on perfecting this union. Race was talked about as it should be talked about, bravo. A sigh of relief comes over all who fight for racial equality at the words of this speech.
But what since then? Has there been any talk of that kind uttered from Obama’s opponents, any large-scale media organization, or Obama himself? No. The only time that the disparities due to race was mentioned was in response to a polarizing figure like Rev. Wright. There needs to be a continued discussion on the issues raised in Obama’s speech to both white people and people of color in order to build coalitions toward change, and that’s for both sides of the political aisle. When searching for an article about race and Republican nominee John McCain, the findings are much more slim. Again, there is no mention on a large scale what changes will be made if these men get elected that has anything to do with the legalized discrimination in America. While the issue might be implied when discussing the economy, there needs to be a bigger mention of the real problems that face communities of color as the election draws near. One speech will not change the landscape of race relations, nor will the continuous discussion on one man’s identity. The focus needs to be on the people that matter most, those who don’t have the voice of Obama or McCain.

Works Cited
Davis, Susan. "Could Obama's Race Cost Him the Election?" Blog posting. Wall Street Journal Online. 20 September 2008. 21 September 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/20/could-obamas-race-cost-him-the-election/?mod=googlenew_wsj
Herman, Edward and David Peterson. "The Propaganda System: Racial Politics and Jeremiah Wright." Monthly Review. 60.4: September 2008.
Hitchens, Christopher. "Identity Crisis." Blog Posting. Slate Magazine. 7 January 2008. 21 September 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/
Obama, Barack. "Text of 'A More Perfect Union' Speech." Reprinted in Wall Street Journal Online. 18 March 2008. 21 September 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/
"Jeremiah Wright-Obama's Mentor-Hate Speech." YouTube video posting. 20 March 2008. 21 September 2008.


Sarah Weakley
Paper 2 Draft 2 Metacommentary Map
I was able to put a naysayer in the text from the start, when I mention in the second line, “Many pundits say…” about Obama’s identity, and then on the second page I mention the issue of the Jeremiah Wright controversy that many would point to and say that race is talked about. I think I was able to put a naysayer with that controversy and in Obama’s speech as well. This would give credit to my opponents, but I use it to complicate the issue.
The template that I choose to use then, is on page 55. I use the template “By focusing on ….. X overlooks the bigger problem of….” This template is obviously extrapolated, but I feel that statement was properly addressed in my own words in the first introductory paragraph. I only adjusted that template a little bit and also used a concede-counter method to complicate what “race-talk” is in the media coverage of Obama.
I begin the metacommentary of my piece in the title, which leads directly into the underlying issue of “What’s Not Being Said” that I explore throughout the paper. I also use signpost for importance in the beginning, “But more than anything else…” and at the end I restate the issue with, “Again…” For the next paper, I think I might need a little bit more metacommentary, but I don’t want to be too obvious; make the reader work a little more. I’ll have to toe that line as I go.