Views > March 18, 2008

The Man or the Movement

By Salim Muwakkil

In writing a book about Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, I wondered whether it was the people or the person that made the movement.

I had initially subscribed to the notion that the people produce the leadership, but my look back at the Washington years forced a change in my thinking. Washington’s success was largely a product of his personal dynamism and unique political virtuosity. Had he not existed, I concluded, Chicago would still be looking for its first black mayor.

The political phenomenon of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) again brings to mind that question of what came first, the person or the movement.

The thought that Americans may actually elect a black man to be commander in chief is an extraordinary development for a nation that fully enfranchised African Americans only 43 years ago. For many Americans—particularly older African Americans—the prospect of a black president seems almost inconceivable.

A multiracial movement made up of political enthusiasts is propelling Obama’s candidacy. They are folks who are motivated by something beyond partisan passions.

But, again, is Obama a product of this movement or did he, with his unique combination of personal qualities, produce it?

Before the Obama campaign caught the fancy of the nation, many social critics were describing our current racial climate in increasingly dismal terms. Were I pressed to characterize the period, I might have called it the age of two “n-words”: niggers and nooses. But again, that was B.O.—Before Obama.

This n-word negativity began intensifying after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It revealed the desperate plight of the nation’s black poor and it was reinforced by the Bush administration’s inadequate response. Rapper Kanye West famously quipped on national television that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” and his remarks resonated across black America.

Following the Katrina debacle, a number of rancorous racial incidents began darkening the public mood: actor Michael Richards shouting “nigger” and evoking lynching at a comedy club; shock jock Don Imus uttering “nappy-headed hos” on the public airwaves.

Then, thousands gathered in Jena, La., in 2007 to register their anger at the racially disparate punishment of black students following the incident of a hanging noose on school property. The case triggered one of the largest black protest marches since the civil rights movement.

When nooses began popping up all over the country, many commentators began bemoaning the return of overt racism. A series of racially charged cases of police abuse reinforced those dire assessments.

Last August, the predominantly black National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) news service published an article with the headline “Mounting Racial Tensions ‘Resegregating’ America, Activists Say.” The piece typified the growing consensus that the racial climate was worsening, and it quoted a number of people who charted the decline.

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that monitors racial hate activities across the nation, told the NNPA, “It’s undeniable that we are resegregating education in a dramatic way and we are also becoming more segregated residentially than we were.”

Potok was not alone in his assessment that these are troubled racial times.

In 2008, however, analysts are struggling to account for white America’s apparent willingness to hand the nation’s reins to a black man. But how has the racial attitude changed so drastically in a matter of mere months?

One reason: Obama.

Activists tend to debunk the so-called “Great Man” theory of history because of its potential to demobilize movements.

And other influences deserve consideration, of course. Hip-hop, athletics, movies, the news media and political activism have made many Americans more comfortable with African Americans’ presence in the public square.

However, all of that was true last summer, as well. The difference between then and now is the prominence of a movement created by one black man’s presidential campaign. That movement would not exist without Barack Obama.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  “In 2008, however, analysts are struggling to account for white America’s apparent willingness to hand the nation’s reins to a black man”

  The answer is so very simple, but you and your type will not understand. White America does not care about race. We aren’t voting for Obama because he is black. **Race has nothing to do with it.**

  Again, this is undoubtedly inconceivable to you and yours, since apparently all you can see is race. But perhaps if you talk to your children or their generation, you may get a glimmer of what America is really like.

  Posted by wolf on Mar 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM

  Without “the movement” to erode and eventually negate the misguided role of race as a qualifier for anything, and the very striking (though not complete) changes in the US it has helped bring about, the man himself would likely have been held back and badly harassed had he shown any kind of similar ambition as he is showing now. Maybe he would have been attacked physically for being what used to be called “uppity”, i.e. not willing to stay put in the lower echelon of society or to kowtow to white-dominant social norms.

  In the America-that-was, his complexion would have trumped everything else. He would have been a non-starter, and anyone not descended from certain varieties of European stock would have been too.

  Fortunately “the movement” has had at least some real effect, as the staying power of Obama’s candidacy implies.

  His eloquence and the context of grave discontent that so many feel toward the “same old” Republican and Democrat faces and policy agendas don’t hurt. There’s a lot of discontent being expressed, and people who back Obama imply either their sincere belief that he could do something substantive about the things that worry them or they devoutly hope he could. They apparently don’t identify him as one of the more senior leaders with whom many feel let down, but perceive him as a potential breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale and sickening political environment.

  However, we don’t know yet whether he’s a Great Man. It’s entirely too soon to give him that tag. Star-power isn’t greatness. In fact, due to his facility with public speaking, it could be easy to associate the feelings we get when hearing a very adept speaker with our response to the rarity of true greatness, which people feel inspired by just as they can feel inspired by a speaker who possesses that “way with words”. A lot of people are motivated by that inspired response; for some it’s little more than a conditioned response. Or a fond hope.

  Obama’s eloquence, like anyone’s, should be regarded as similar to glamour. It may be lovely or even captivating, but in the end the pleasing veneer is not necessarily the same as substance.

  This is not to damn him in advance, only to say that it’s really the clear answers to hard policy questions that give the public the best idea of what he (or his opponent/s) would be most likely to do as Prez, and that will carry the day in Denver and ultimately in the big November contest.

  The eloquence factor, like the novelty factor, should be kept in mind and should not be confused with the substance of clear policy agendas and their anticipated results.

  The best attitude toward anyone trying to gain that level of power is that of healthy, skeptical, critical evaluation. it’s not wise to be too generous in interpreting promises from someone (anyone!) who is reaching for that kind of potency. But whether he gets the Democratic nom or not, at least a real corner has been turned, or at the very very least, we’ve begun to turn it. That will be true whether he wins or not. “The movement” has borne fruit, even if it isn’t (yet) a bumper crop.

  Posted by Kuya on Mar 19, 2008 at 12:17 AM

  I think an excellent illustration of your point is this story, wolf.  The whole episode turned out to be not a story of racial strife by the students, (the students didn’t know about nooses and they weren’t meant for black people) as Salim so wants us to believe, but about how a smug elite media created a story to fit their Salim-ilar world-view. 

  This country is very, very much wanting to move on from issues of race, and especially the young are doing incredibly well on that front.  BUT for the continued efforts by Salim et al to keep us from doing so.

  That’s the appeal of Obama to whites, and probably many blacks who long to be thought of as just Americans and not black Americans.  He comes across as sympathetic to this desire, and seems to want to help it come about.  Thus, we don’t think of him in racial terms—as it should be—as MLK would have wanted it be, presumably.

  A challenge to Salim.  Write an article about Obama focusing on issues, any issues, except race.  It would be much more interesting, useful, positive and healthy for blacks and whites and everyone in between.  And it would put an approving smile on Dr. King’s face.

  Posted by Natalie on Mar 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM

  Natalie - thanks for the link, fascinating. When i had more time, the CS Monitor was one of my favorite reads.

  I do not recall seeing Salim ever write anything that was not centered on racial issues (and those from an extremely limited point of view), so i very much doubt he will even consider your challenge seriously. I am sure he has had his own unique history to shape his viewpoint, but from mine he looks to be a dinosaur.

  MLK had it right - “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” His dream, my dream and that of many many US citizens of all colors. A dream that has been becoming more and more true as time marches on - surely he would be proud of what we have become, even if we never reach perfection!

  Kuya - good observations. I hope and pray if Obama gets elected (he got my vote in the primary and will get it in the election, if he makes it that far - Hillary would NOT) he succeeds. He could move the nation forward in leaps or bounds, or confirm the suspicions of some of the worst of us. Being the “first” of anything has both its risks and rewards, fairly or unfairly.

  Posted by wolf on Mar 19, 2008 at 8:18 AM

  “The answer is so very simple, but you and your type will not understand. White America does not care about race. We aren’t voting for Obama...because he is black. “

  “...a glimmer of what America is really like.”

  Posted by Major Major on Mar 19, 2008 at 8:52 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 8 posts.

Member Login

Also by Salim Muwakkil

• Chicago’s Olympic Dreams Undeserved
  
• Israel’s Openly Secret Nukes
  
• The Vendetta Against Black Men
  
• A Speech Even Condi Could Love
  
• The Man or the Movement
  
• How Black is Obama?