| Imagine if we happened upon a Native American reservation. A Native American stands atop a soapbox talking to a large crowd of people. The people are listening intently and applaud often as the person speaks about conditions relevant to the population before him. This person is a spokesperson of sorts -- self appointed or selected -- the individual speaks to and for the crowd gathered to listen to him or her. This person speaks in a language they understand about conditions they experience. Now let's imagine that one of us non-reservation members observed the spokesperson and decided him or her "unfit" for the position of spokesperson or even leader among these people. One of us, host of a radio broadcast In Madison, Wisconsin, announces his or her dissatisfaction with the spokesperson and suggests the population deny their support to this person. Outrageous? You would think. Saturday, November 18, 2006, I listened to a broadcaster suggest to Blacks that Al Sharpton should not be supported as a spokesperson. He hoped that Blacks would just ignore Sharpton. Some of us properly do anyway. That's fine. To voice opposition to Sharpton or Sharpton's views is also fine. It is a "free" country. But to suggest to the Black population that Al Sharpton is not suitable for Black people's attention is to cross the line as it reveals the advantages of White privilege. We are a population historically subjected to this form of control. We saw this form of White privilege/control surrounding our admiration for Malcolm X. Blacks were told to look to Martin Luther King who became the "preferred" leader only when the powers gauged the fear of White Americans. We know that King was as much feared in his day as Malcolm X. Both men charged Blacks to challenge the inequities they faced in this country. A King, a Malcolm, a Sharpton are examples of Black people courageous enough to speak. The Black population in the U.S. is not monolithic and, therefore, no one spokesperson can or should speak for all. But the issue is this: in a country that, as John Hope Franklin writes in The Nation, is "still in the process of becoming democratic," do we understand the workings of White privilege and how it contradicts the democratic experiment? A democratic nation, Franklin reminds us, is one where "power is vested in the people, all of the people, and one in which power is directly exercised by the people all of whom enjoy social and political quality." Perhaps in a democratic nation we would not have need for spokespersons who can reach the ears of those who, in turn, exercise the power of fear by suggesting less threatening leaders among those who do not enjoy social and political equality. But we are not there yet. Selected leaders in Washington have difficulty voicing the concerns of Black people. Emancipation followed enslavement; the newly free Blacks made gains toward equality. Then legalized disenfranchisement dissipated Black achievement. Ronald Reagan's agenda chipped away at the New Deal and, as John Hope Franklin has noted in The Color Line, effectively stigmatized race discourse in the U.S. in favor of "color-blind" jargon -- like it or not. Affirmative Action is a no-no. "Fairness" to all is in -- as if there ever was historically fairness for all before any of these efforts. The radio host took offense to being called a racist by a Black caller. The host announced that the caller might be a racist. The caller might be prejudiced. We are not talking about White-hooded persons carting crosses down the streets of this country or even the George Allen's or the latest Michael Richards. We are talking about "White privilege," so woven into the unexamined institutional practices, habit of mind, and received truths, the authors of White-Washing Race explain, that it is hard for those who benefit from it to see it. It is everywhere in culturally and economically produced systems of advantage and exclusion that generate privilege for one racially defined group at the expense of another. Blacks do not control the airwaves. Leaders of mega-corporations are not Black. We have one senator among how many? Hatred of Blacks has flooded the landscape in Black blood -- not to mention the rivers and oceans. If we blunder every now and then and say something we should not say out of anger, which I am sure Sharpton like many of us has done on occasion, it is because he, speaking for those who are not the beneficiaries of White privilege, wants to experience a truly democratic society -- with "social and political equality" evident everywhere in practice and "habit of mind." Sharpton might not be the "ideal"spokesperson, but he is recognized by many among the Black population for pointing to the inequities in our society. |
| Voices/ Dr. Jean Daniels Rev. Al Sharpton: Speaking to and about the idea of democracy |
 |
 |