DANGEROUS TIMES
  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
  • Photo

Day 1091

1/16/2020

0 Comments

 

A GRATUITOUS REFERENCE TO RACE. AND
A LESSON I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO RELEARN

Picture
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA in the Oval Office in 2012 with Bo, who was not the least of the First Family's charms. CREDIT: Official White House Photo by Pete Souz
RACE IS A DIFFICULT SUBJECT. It’s easy to take a wrong turn, even for a supposedly “sweet” hound. But one of my most treasured readers has pointed out that’s what I did in my “Tracking Trump - Day 1090” posting yesterday.
   This is my attempt to put things back on course.
   The blog post was headlined:
    2020 DEMOCRATS: Exciting as broccoli. But each one is a healthy choice.
   The veggie theme grew out of my initial disappointment in the blandness of the winnowing Democratic field, showcased in the Jan. 14 TV debate. I wrote that the panel’s charisma was equivalent to that of broccoli and other veggies, as opposed to the menu that  Donald Trump’s cooked up for his “Base.”
   I noted the excitement generated by iconic past Democratic presidents:

 While Donald Trump has been feeding his supporters red meat for the last three years, we all expected the Democrats would produce a sumptuous candidate – a rare Franklin D. Roosevelt, a well-bred Jack Kennedy, a nicely-browned Barack Obama.
   I’ve underlined the problem area that prompted my reader’s critique, which she began on a kindly note, saying the piece was “well written:”
    "I’m wondering if it’s a poor choice of words however to call Obama nicely browned. It’s just for the other two presidents you mentioned, there is no racial sounding adjective yet an obvious one for Obama. I just don’t think it’s necessary to the story line and I think it’s best if possible to always avoid any adjective with a racial tinge unless you are tackling the issue directly and critically."
   She got that right. I’ve redone the paragraph, hoping to maintain the food references, minus the tasteless attempt to mix humor and race. The changes are highlighted: 

While Donald Trump has been feeding his supporters red meat for the last three years, we all expected the Democrats would produce a sumptuous candidate – a rare Franklin D. Roosevelt, a high-protein Jack Kennedy, a refreshing Barack Obama.
 I OFFER THE FOLLOWING as an explanation for my original wording, not to excuse the blunder, but because when it comes to race, it may help to be transparent, if that’s possible.
   Obama is a hero in our house, and part of our fury at Trump is the comparison to the man who preceded him. Obama is an eloquent, principled and charming man, whose every moment in the White House seemed an attempt to unite and advance the country; he failed sometimes, but presidents are imperfect. By contrast, Trump is a barbaric, racist and cruel huckster, out to divide and destroy the country he promised to make “great,” and as a sideline, to obliterate Obama’s every accomplishment.
   By including Obama in the pantheon of Democratic greats, I wanted to acknowledge the obvious landmark established when the country not once, but twice, elected a man of color, something that still is astonishing and inspiring.
   The “nicely browned” description was meant to be serious and lighthearted simultaneously (itself a danger sign to a writer), by continuing the food references, and, in referring to his color, assigning the word "nicely" to double-duty, since it was a positive that he’d been elected.
   Also, I was thinking about the disappointing turn of events, in which the 2020 candidate field is steadily losing diversity, with the most recent debate stage featuring an all-white lineup. I thought mentioning Obama’s color was a subtle dig at that failing .
   But my critic is correct in pointing out that nowhere else in the text was race and diversity brought up, and therefore that single reference indeed was gratuitous.
   I should have done initially what I’ve tried to do now, relearning the lesson that a writer should avoid trying to be clever with a subject that is so personal and hurtful to so many people, and that continues to be so destructive to our national aspirations.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    A "sweet dog" and a smart opossum consider a nation at risk.

    The writers

    Picture
    PHOEBE, a "sweet dog" who came to Rhode Island in 2010 as a stray puppy from Missouri, was a political agnostic until Trump's catastrophic election. She tracked his presidency in a blog, which she decided to resurrect it this year  when it became obvious that Republicans are committed to Trump's destructive policies
    Picture
    MR. O, an opossum, showed up in Phoebe's backyard somewhat mysteriously. He turned out to have genuine insight into political matters, and he agreed to assume co-author duties of the blog after Phoebe's previous writing partner, Cat, a cat, died.
    Picture
    CAT

    Archives

    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly