Margo Howard | 09/16/2009 5:30 pm

Margo Howard: The Origins of Obama Rage?

Our Dear Margo shares what she fears to be the truth behind the growing dissent for President Barack Obama and his policies.

By Margo Howard

Alert me to Margo's new posts

Editor’s Note: A longtime journalist, Margo Howard went into the family business (her mother was the fabled Ann Landers) in the 1990s as Dear Prudence. Her broad experience and understanding of human nature provide answers for the troubled — and entertainment for everyone else. Margo’s advice column, Dear Margo, appears twice a week — on Thursdays and Fridays — on wowOwow.com.

I wrote this a few days ago, but with my editor decided it might be too incendiary. After former President Carter’s interview, however, I decided to join the still-thin chorus expressing this viewpoint. I think Obama and his supporters have been too willing to turn the other cheek – an admirable impulse in normal times. But when the debate becomes as coarse as it has, rebuttal is needed.

I find what is abroad in the land, as Henry James would have said, simply repellent — forget frightening. An elected official hollers out "You lie!" during a presidential address, yahoos are wearing firearms wherever they go, even at events where the president is, not to mention bars … certainly a great place to have a drunk with a pistol. The desperate lunatic fringe, with some help from the Fox guys, have people (well, OK, the gullible, dim ones) believing that old age is reason enough for execution, Obama was born in Kenya, dissenters will be locked up á la the Nazis and the true mission of this administration is to turn us into a Socialist — if not a Communist — country. Even a true-blue conservative author and speechwriter for George W. Bush, David Frum, is concerned about "the wild accusations and paranoid delusions from the fever swamps." The Los Angeles Times called the increasing number of head case Republicans "the party of the paranoid."

Maureen Dowd wrote what I had been thinking: All this insanity is simply the bigots acting out. I am afraid it may really be true that the loudest naysayers cannot stand it that we have a black president. In what psychiatrists would call "displacement," the anger of some at having an African-American leader has been dolled up with scare tactic complaints and projections. They just can’t live with it, so they’re trying to upend it. Divide and conquer. Read it and weep.

1252 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

What in the world does that mean, what sort of "privilege" am I supposed to have?

By Count Snarkula on 09/16/2009 11:18 pm

e-mail alert

Oh, I was replying to Marjorie C., not you :)

By Zainab A on 09/16/2009 11:39 pm

e-mail alert

:-)

By Count Snarkula on 09/17/2009 12:12 am

e-mail alert

Zainab: …white privilege

So what is white privilege?

By Marjorie C. on 09/17/2009 5:00 am

e-mail alert

What about Rev. Wright and the racism he preached to his congregration? What about the kid that was recently beat up on the school bus by black kids? You mean that kind of racism? You bet it’s rampant.

White privilege enables you to say statements like that. The definition of white privilege, literally, is the unearned benefits you receive from the institutionalized racial system, specifically in this case as it exists in the United States. It is people like you, and Glenn Beck who said that Obama has "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep seated hatred for white people", who have been so insulated in your comfortable position of privilege that now somehow you (in the general sense) have come to this idea that white people are now victims of "rampant racism"! What a ridiculous notion. Sure there are cases of racism against white people, and racism in all its forms is unacceptable. But in a country where white privilege is institutionalized, it’s frighteningly ignorant to go around insinuating that somehow whites are experiencing widespread racism.

And I say this not to belittle or insult you - you’re entitled to your opinions, however much I disagree with them. But as someone who’s studied the sociology of race, gender, and ethnicity, I felt I had to point out that in my opinion and the opinions of many scholars, your insinuations are very much mistaken. And regardless, it was a deflection from the point at issue, which is the rampant racism that IS still present against African Americans and other minorities in the U.S.

By Zainab A on 09/17/2009 10:24 am

e-mail alert

Zainab: White privilege…

I understand the concept of white privilege. If this is a country where white privilege is institutionalized, as you say, then what are we going to do about it—how can we change that? Does a Rev. Wright change anything by preaching hatred for the whites? Does a gang of kids on a bus move anything forward by beating up on a lone white boy? I live in New England. There are neighborhoods around Boston that a white person wouldn’t dare to walk through because he/she would not come out alive. Is this the way to settle the score? A way to get rid of white privilege? If it is, it is not working. We’re simply filling up our prisons with young deadend lives.

…rampant racism that IS still present against African Americans and other minorities in the U.S.

I’m not seeing that.

By Marjorie C. on 09/17/2009 1:25 pm

e-mail alert

I don’t believe you truly understand, still, the concept of white privilege. The racist views that may be espoused by some African Americans against whites (while wrong, as I’ve said before) will not upend or "settle the score" regarding the system of white privilege - as I said, it has been institutionalized in the U.S. If you want to know more about it, then there is too much history and information than I can list here, and you would have to do some independent reading about how that occurred - but suffice to say, this country was founded by white men who had African American slaves (for the most part). Doesn’t seem like a novel concept to think they ensured and codified their own dominance from the beginning.

And if you truly think that there is no rampant racism still present against African Americans and other minorities in the U.S.? Well, then I have nothing I can really say to you about that, because as someone who is NOT a member of a minority race group you obviously have your head stuck deep in the sand.

By Zainab A on 09/17/2009 3:51 pm

e-mail alert

Zainab….your espousing of the concept of "white privilege" is racist in and of itself. If you study your history a little more, the first Africans here came as explorers not as slaves. The Danish were the big slave traders and many (not all) Africans sold as slaves were actually sold by their own tribes. Slavery was not limited to America. Slavery was and is horrible, but it is not gone globally today. Many men, women and children are enslaved in various countries at this moment.

As far as racism goes, it unfortunately still rears its ugly head, but it also involves ALL RACES. I really do not consider African Americans or Hispanics minorities anymore, since I read somewhere that those segments of the population are approaching 30% each. I’m sure I will get blasted for saying this, that’s ok.

By STACY SEARS on 09/18/2009 6:17 am

e-mail alert

Stacey - your comment is, at best, very humorous. First of all, I don’t "espouse" the concept of white privilege, which somehow implies I am supporting the cause - I simply explained what it was to Marjorie, who asked for an explanation. I am hardly a racist for that - and ironically, you don’t even know what race I am, so I would be careful how you throw that word around. Second of all, I was not commenting on the history of African Americans as they first came to this country, I remarked on how this country was first founded, which was by white men who owned African American slaves, which is why I brought that aspect of our history up. I also commented that racism is unacceptable in all its forms, no one is arguing about that.

Lastly, if you had ever studied or had any kind of concept of sociology at all, you would realize minority groups are not considered minorities based on their numbers or proportion within the population, but based on the amount of power they have. Therefore, a sociological minority may include any group (regardless of how large numerically they are) that is subordinate with respect to the dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth, and/or political power. Why don’t YOU pick up a history book or two?

By Zainab A on 09/18/2009 8:43 am

e-mail alert

Zainab…for the record, I did not state you are a racist and I truly don’t give a damn what color you are… you could be purple and green striped for all I care. I stated that the "concept" of "white privilege" implies racism. Maybe you should exercise your reading comprehension skills a little more instead of spouting off about your education in sociology. As a degreed professional, psych and sociology were required, so yes, I do understand that minorities in that arena are not only population dependent. HOWEVER, the African American and Hispanic populations have become a much more prominent force in our society in addition to the population factor.

As far as history goes…our Founding Fathers wanted to eliminate slavery when they wrote the Constitution. Jefferson was one of the biggest proponents of this (despite being a slave owner). However, the issue was so controversial it was interfering with the progress of forming our country, so unfortunately, the issue took a back seat.

As far as me picking up a book or two….maybe we should compare libraries…I find science and history trump sociology.

By STACY SEARS on 09/18/2009 10:30 pm

e-mail alert

Actually, what you said was:

Zainab….your espousing of the concept of "white privilege" is racist in and of itself.

If you know what the word "espouse" means, then your using it to say that my "espousing the concept of ‘white privilege’ is racist in and of itself", means that yes, you WERE calling me racist. Otherwise, you used the word incorrectly, and if you say that was not your intention to call me racist, then I’ll leave it at that.

I can read quite well, thank you, it’s how I got into graduate school - not to study sociology though (my knowledge of it comes from a senior-level undergrad class I took in the subject), but history and politics. Please, try again.

Once again, you said:

I really do not consider African Americans or Hispanics minorities anymore, since I read somewhere that those segments of the population are approaching 30% each.

That implies that you think just because these minority groups are growing numerically, that somehow means they aren’t minority groups, when they are and will continue to be until the factors I mentioned before (employment opportunities, education, political power, etc) change. That is the reason why I explained minorities can be large groups in number but still considered minorities.

And I’m not here to argue about the issue of slavery, honestly. You keep bringing it up, when the points you bring up don’t even have any significance to this discussion. Thomas Jefferson did call slavery "a wolf by the ears", i.e. something America did not want to keep holding on to yet felt forced to. However, the issue of whether they felt African Americans and other minority groups were inferior to White Americans IS what is important, and they did feel that anyone who wasn’t a white male of proper age who owned property wasn’t fit to be a part of the power structure in this country, which they codified into law from the beginning. That was my point.

And maybe we should compare libraries - I have lots of books on science and history, much less dealing with sociology specifically. But, to each his own - I’m sure there are many sociologists who would disagree with you that science and history trump their subject, but since I’m not one I frankly don’t care. You can like what you like, I like what I like, and at the end of the day that’s probably a good thing, since if we all studied and knew the same things we wouldn’t have interesting discussions like this :)

By Zainab A on 09/19/2009 12:18 am

e-mail alert

Obviously Zainbe, you do not understand that each and every country on each and every continent have a "codified dominance" in their culture. It’s called the majority, you might want to look into it.

Women are members of THE largest minority on the planet. We are the one true discrimination that supercedes all races.

By Lauren Sinclair on 09/19/2009 3:22 pm

e-mail alert

And obviously, Lauren, you fail at reading comprehension. What you just said was my point - it’s a fact that in the United States, white, property-owning men codified their dominance from the beginning and this means that naturally, there is much minority groups have had to do (and must continue to do) to in order overcome this. It’s not unusual by any means historically speaking, but I was pointing it out to illustrate a specific point in my comments. Please, try again.

And women are, of course, a minority who still experience a great deal of discrimination, especially in other parts of the world. I was speaking specifically about racial minority groups in my comments, which was the primary discussion of this post (racism). Women, people who identify as homosexual, etc., are all also minority groups.

By Zainab A on 09/19/2009 8:54 pm

e-mail alert

Obviously Zainab, I do quite well. No need to "try again", prehaps you are the one that needs the "do over".

Racism is relative, that should be the point.

By Lauren Sinclair on 09/19/2009 10:20 pm

e-mail alert

Sorry, but I think I’m done with this comment thread. This isn’t about finger pointing and saying "Well everyone else does it too, and has throughout history!" It seems that my main point in this whole thing, that racism still exists in the United States, which I remain concerned about as an American, went way over your head.

By Zainab A on 09/19/2009 10:24 pm