Experience has made it painfully clear to many whites that some who express a desire for an honest dialogue on race are being patently dishonest.
By now, there are few people unaware of the comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder. It seems, though, that few people, left, right, or other, have offered a proper response.
Holder, no doubt, grossly miscalculated the effect that his poorly selected choice of words would have on those to whom they were directed. It is both necessary and desirable that, at long last, we have a genuinely honest and civil discussion of race. And while he indicated no animosity toward America as a whole, but only in connection with what he perceived to be its general attitude toward this one issue, by referring to it as "a nation of cowards," he stupidly insured that his invitation to conversation would be lost.
Holder's provocative assertion raises at least two questions. First, to whom he is referring, all Americans or only some?
Though he speaks of the American nation, there can be no real question that it isn't black Americans that Holder chastises, but whites. As I have pointed out several times in previous columns, for all its accusations against its opponents of "code speak," the Left has an extensive code language of its own, and when it excoriates "America" for its sins, it is in truth white America of which it speaks. Holder, then, is charging white people of being cowardly when it comes to engaging their black brethren on the issue of race.
The second question that demands a reply: is Holder correct?
Insofar as the notion of giving honest expression to their views on race, especially when confronting blacks, is no slight source of considerable trepidation for white American generally, there is indeed truth in what the Attorney General says. But the mere possession of fear is not sufficient to establish cowardice, which from antiquity to the present has been regarded as a great vice, for the cardinal virtue of courage would be impossible without some fear to surmount.
Furthermore, that many whites lack the disposition to engage blacks and, for that matter, one another, over the issue of race, need not be due to fear at all. I, for one, have bitten my tongue more times than I can count over the years when this issue has arisen, whether I was speaking with academics or laypersons, blacks or whites. This, though, wasn't at all because of any fear that I had of "offending" anyone. Rather, I had suspicions that my interlocutors were neither interested in having an honest discussion of race nor, quite frankly, particularly capable. So, from self-love I discontinued the engagement so as to utilize my time in more fruitful ways.
Still, there is no question that many whites are indeed fearful of speaking truthfully to the issue of race, and some are sorely and shamelessly lacking moral courage. However, the most important question that the Eric Holders of the world wouldn't even think to consider is the obvious: why is there such fear on their part?
Maybe Holder and his ilk won't attend to this question because they know all too well the answer. Whites fear speaking honestly of race because they fear being on the receiving end of the predictable accusation that they are "racist." Beyond this, it is precisely people like Holder — those who constantly whine and scream for a dialogue on race — who are the first to resort to ad hominem attacks against those who threaten to disturb their monologue, a monologue that invariably amounts to a diatribe against America (i.e., whites).
A conversation, whether regarding race or any other topic, presupposes that certain unwritten, informal, but indispensable rules of civility be observed by its participants. Accusations and character assaults spoil the well of discourse; the accusation of "racism" evaporates the well entirely. In short, conversation is impossible unless its participants are committed to both refraining from insults and listening to what their partners in the conversation have to say.
Sadly, experience has made it painfully clear to many whites that the Eric Holders of the world who express a desire for an honest dialogue on race are being patently dishonest. It is not us, but they, who stop at nothing to preclude such a conversation from transpiring.
So Mr. Attorney General, what are you afraid of?
The reality is that "white guilt" is too precious a commodity to squander and it must be carefully cultivated to keep it growing strong. If it can produce a black president, imagine what else it can do! Holder's comment only serves to embellish white guilt, making white's even more defensive and confused when dealing with race issues. But Liberals, not actually required to think, must believe Holder's claims as true (otherwise they would be racist), and since they know they are not cowards (otherwise they would be racist) they can only assume that Holder was referring to white conservatives.
Ultimately the media handling of the issue will be based on whether or not they wish broach the question of conservative cowardice … and it must be understood, from the onset, that any position conservatives take will be interpreted as cowardice (the AG says so).
Having been raised a Liberal, and having black progeny, I have run the gamut of the racial dialog, and can say with reasonable confidence: While many conservatives may be afraid to express their views on racial issues, Liberals (of all races) are generally too afraid to even develop their own views on race.
The problem is that liberals and their designated victim groups do not know the difference between a "dialogue" and a "monologue" – a conversation and a lecture. When Eric Holder says he desires a "dialog" about race, what he really wants is a pulpit from which to deliver a monologue to what he sees as oppressor groups on behelf of what he sees as oppressed groups. Even if he does desire an actual two-way dialog, it is a scripted one wherein the oppresor group makes apologies to the oppresed group, and the oppressed group helps the oppressor group to understand how they can be more sensitive and less oppressive.
A dialog on race is only relevent from a historical perspective. Cowards or people profiting from group or race generalizations, continue to caterogize people and society this way.
Brave people talk solely in terms of access to education, middle class culture and economic power on an individual basis.
We can generalize about current and past situations, but only empower individuals.
jprairie,
While agreeing with the substance of your post, I have never liked the word "empower." Its use has been the general domain of the Left as they embrace the victimhood of those from whom they want votes.
Even regarding individuals, I think there is no such thing as empowerment. It suggests that there is some sort of quantifiable status that can be mystically bestowed on otherwise hapless persons.
Like the self esteem purveyors in public education, most of those who talk of empowerment are simply engaging in psychobabble.
"a nation of cowards," sounds like a line from a Rev. J. Wright's sermon. Not a lot of honest discussion there.