Right-wing reaction to ‘a nation of cowards’ speech

There’s been a backlash to the comments by newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in his Feb. 18 speech on U.S. race relations. Holder, the first African American to hold this top position, stated that “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

He added, “Though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial” and “we have to have the guts” to dialogue about race issues. He also commented that this country remains “voluntarily socially segregated.”

Holder also stated that President Obama’s speech on race during the 2008 election campaign was an opening for the country to discuss the issue and “an opportunity to begin the process of healing the racial division that has long separated us as a people.” Holder’s sister, the late Vivian Malone-Jones, was blocked from entering the doors of the University of Alabama in the 1960s by the segregationist Governor George Wallace.

Holder urged society to come together and resolve our differences for the good of the country. But based on the right-wing response, you would have thought he had just declared World War III. The usual elements of mainstream corporate media, led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, again saw an opportunity to kill the messenger in order to divert attention away from institutionalized racism in the U.S. And, as usual, truth-telling and honesty raised in even the mildest manner were rejected.

[These reactionaries] objected to Holder’s observations and to the use of the word, “cowards”. They called his remarks “racist words” and “stupid.” They defended their positions by saying that it’s normal for people to associate with people of their own group, as opposed to socializing with people who are different; [adding] that’s what freedom is all about—the ability to voluntarily choose with whom you want to associate.

They added that there’s no room for government intervention in personal interactions [or for government] imposing involuntary association with others. They even used the term “tribalism” to emphasize their point, saying that different ethnic groups have always self-segregated by cultures.

They concluded that the attorney general, who is far from being a radical, was “overstating the problem” of racial divisions. They also pointed out that there are four “high-profile Blacks” in President Obama’s cabinet and that since Obama himself is Black, this is proof a post-racial society. They seem to have forgotten that the sixth largest newspaper in the U.S., the New York Post, recently portrayed the first African-American president as a chimpanzee in an offensive cartoon.

Holder’s critics seem threatened by his call for the country to begin a serious dialogue on race. Are they afraid that talking may lead to actual changes in the status quo? Why does the mere suggestion of honest discussion about the country’s long-standing legacy of racist policies and practices incur such wrath? Are they again saying that we’re moving too fast and rushing things?

Is this country not yet ready to even dialogue? Or “to begin the process of healing the racial division that has long separated us as a people” and “ultimately get this nation to the place where it can and should be”, as Holder proposes? Is denial the preferred vehicle for promoting healing?

Rather than begin any dialogue, the media prefer to abort it in its embryo stage. Perish the thought that the country takes advantage of an opportunity to put reality on the table. In a white supremacist country, it seems the code of silence around its ideology and practices must forever be observed, by any means necessary. It must not be questioned or addressed—for fear of disclosure.

Over the years, there have been countless overlooked opportunities to examine and engage in race-related dialogues. But the country has steadfastly refused to, choosing instead to remain in denial, while the giant Elephant remains in the room. Distortions and myths about freedom and justice for all continue to be propagated, while inequality remains the reality. And hypocrisy abounds.

The negative, right-wing responses to the attorney general’s speech reflect the country’s domestic policy regarding racial issues. They also resemble its foreign policy of refusing to talk or negotiate with certain nations, choosing instead to go to war, or impose embargoes and sanctions. Why is it easier to drop a bomb, invade and occupy than to talk? Why is it easier to deceive than be truthful? Is there a bigger payoff for maintaining the status quo than there is for resolving differences?

On Feb. 27, the U.S. rejected another opportunity to discuss the issue of race and racism. The Obama administration (in the so-called age of change) announced that it would boycott the U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia & Related Intolerance (also known as the Durban II Review Conference) if the conference document does not eliminate all references to the issue of reparations to repair the damages of slavery and discrimination and also to Zionism equaling racism pertaining to Israel. This, despite ample evidence of lingering racial economic, political and social disparities which continue to impact the lives of descendants of enslaved Africans in the U.S. The conference is scheduled to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20-24 of this year.

Not talking about racism in the U.S. has been policy for far too long. The time for this country, the so-called “land of the free and home of the brave,” to be courageous and honest is way overdue. For if not now then when?