I'm mad as hell and you should be too

I have been working on this for the past three hours so I am just going to post it without proofreading it and go to bed. It took me forever because I read the entire document, twice, and I do not have the easiest facility with typing. Anyway, here is another installment of the dumbest email I have ever received:

I received an email tonight that purported to quote a thesis written by Michelle Obama, Barack Obama’s wife. It was separated into small bits of often fragmented sentences and accompanied by commentary by an unknown source. At first I responded to the contentions made by the anonymous writer of the email, showing the ridiculousness of his or her assertions. But then I decided that that wasn’t good enough; I know better than to take someone else’s word for what someone else is purported to have said or written. Consequently, I set out to find the original thesis and read it for myself.

I found it. I read it. I am appalled. Those of you who have not read it but have read the email that is making the rounds and agree with it will surely be nodding your heads and ecstatically patting yourselves on the back for being right about those evil Obamas. Not so fast, sparky. The part I find appalling is that the email that has been circulated takes fragmented sentences out of context and distorts the intent of the thesis itself. I compare the email tactics to something like saying that Mein Kampf was the feel good book on Jewish history we all know and love. In other words, it is more than intellectually dishonest, it is outright untruth.

Let’s start at the beginning of the email:

“In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred". Moreover, she stated that whites in America were "ineradicably racist". The 1985 thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.”

Unfortunately, the pdf that is available of the thesis is in picture form. I should have tried to keep a look out for these specific phrases, but I forgot that I wouldn’t be able to search the pdf by word. That said, I just went back and skimmed the thesis and could not find the above statement. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, but it does not leap out at you. I’ll leave this one for now, perhaps coming back to edit once I have thoroughly reread the study to find (or not find) this “crime and hatred” phrase.

“Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to "Whites at Princeton , it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first..." However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, "If those "Whites at Princeton " really saw Michelle as one who always would "be Black first," it seems that she gave them that impression".

Do I really need to address this, “reported by” contention? It is undocumented and, I would be willing to bet, made up. Or, it is, like everything else in this email, contextually removed. Obama did make the comment about being “black first” in the eyes of her white classmates. I don’t find that problematic as I attended a small liberal arts school in New York two years later and I can recall all of two black students in attendance. It’s not that I don’t remember larger numbers, the numbers simply did not exist. When I mention that fact to my students today they are always stunned. I would imagine that if I were to walk into an all black institution in the 1980s I would be looked at as white before anything else. I suspect this is still true, on both sides of the race line. What it is not is a significant indicator of separatist ideology. Rather, it is an observation of feelings of the strong attitudes of society on the way we appear to others. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a morbidly obese person attended Princeton today they would be looked at as obese first, student second. It is simply the way our society functions in its need to identify with group and therefore separate those who do not belong.

"Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms "separationist" and "integrationist" when describing the views of black people.
Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a "separationist" view of race. "By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."

So, she’s saying that we should be separatist because only then will we understand the true plight of the lower class? Oddly, no. She is making a correlation between the fact that respondents reported more hopelessness as they became more separatist than they did as they became more inclusive because they were directly involved with the plight of the lower black class. Wow, that’s a very different intent, isn’t it? Funny what context does.

“Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

I’m a bit confused by the problem with this statement. She seems to be asserting that there is a fundamental disconnection between what it is to be black in America in 1985 and what an ivy league education leads you toward. That doesn’t seem all that radical to me. At the time of her writing of this thesis the black population at Princeton was 10%. (or so she claims) As I have already mentioned, I also experienced this, though I did not have the disconnect Ms. Obama felt because I was part of the majority. Why is it wrong for Ms. Obama to feel isolated by the conflicting worlds she was traveling between? Wouldn’t you?

“Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.”

Clearly she does not. In an effort to understand what the world of academia and post academia life would hold for her and future generations of black students she undertook a sociological study of the attitudes of black alumni. Where is the chip? Show me.

“Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but she elevates black over white in her world.”

Um, what? Where? She wrote nothing of the kind in the document I read. Did the email writer read a different thesis? I assume they are endeavoring to take the language of the study out of context and force it to mean what it does not. Let me put it this way: Let’s just say it is 1985 and we are discussing South Africa. if I point out that there is a system of apartheid in South Africa and that it must be difficult for both races affected to live in harmony, does that mean I am saying that there should be apartheid in South Africa? Of course not. Ms. Obama was studying prevailing attitudes, not making a separatist argument of her own. Nor did she say anything that indicated a superiority on either side.

“Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:"There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost."

This statement was made after she realized that people who graduate from an ivy league school and who, by implication, are in a better position to help the black community with resources, tend not to. Now consider this: have you gone out of your way to help a community you are not a part of? How much money have you given for Antiphospholipid syndrome research? Prostate cancer research? How about abysmal school conditions in south central Los Angeles? That’s what I thought. Why is that? Because it doesn’t concern you and you have things that do concern you. How is that hard to understand? Ms. Obama saw a need based on prevailing attitudes in the black community and she decided to dedicate herself to helping with that need in her own community. Gosh! She must be stopped!

“What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America?”

Oh noz! She’s planning to give them all to the darkies! She’s made that so abundantly clear with her actions in her career and her husband’s political career so far! Oh, but she hasn’t. So, are we to believe that Ms. Obama will devote all of the resources at her disposal if her husband is elected president to the black community based on the fact that she expressed a desire to work for the betterment of the black community twenty three years ago? Or, should we look at what she has done? Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama
Edited to add: It is further incumbent upon us to realize that if Michelle Obama had devoted her time to dedicating her resources and energy to the black community, there would be nothing wrong with that. If the contention being made is that an Obama presidency would benefit only the black population of the country I have to ask, how would that be different from what we have now? We have a presidency that intentionally only benefits a certain portion of the population. But the fact remains, neither Barack or Michelle Obama have indicated this polarizing idea in their careers or political life.

“The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration."Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments."

In 1985? Yeah, they were. The purpose of this statement? To illustrate the changes black students go through as they progress through their academic career. Why? Because when they were at Princeton they naturally sought their peers as a support in an otherwise unsupportive community. That is not to say there were cross burnings on campus; rather, they were a tiny minority in a world that hadn’t considered them relevant until recently. They naturally clung to one another and identified with their particular culture because the experience of being isolated from family and community was new to them. What would any of us do when faced with a similar situation?

“The conclusion of her thesis is alarming. Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

A certain level of identification with their culture? How dare they! In a world where white people in the U.S. often heavily identify with their cultural heritage, we expect black people to just assimilate and leave it behind? Why?

“Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.”

Beg the question much? The email writer has no idea why the other alumni didn’t answer the questionnaire. I don’t know, do you open all of the mail you get from your private universities/schools? Because if you do, I’m impressed. I get a crapload from the four I attended and I open about half of it since I know it will only be a plea for money. Might that be a motivation? Could be. Could be any number of reasons.

“Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another. "

I don’t even know how to respond to this one. It isn’t indicated in her thesis or in her actions as an adult.

“The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism.”

Uh huh. A trove of her thoughts from twenty three years ago. Does anyone see the world without the goggles of race? If you think you do, man oh man, have you had it good. The reason you do is because you haven’t been forced to see your race as an issue in itself. Lucky you.

“This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.”

Oh just read the study already and quit with the lying.

“Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.”

The words “refined, and “racism” do not go together in any context. It’s what we who are intellectually refined call an oxymoron. As already stated, there isn’t any racism in the thesis itself, only in the mind of the email writer. Interesting! I believe that is what the Freudians call “projection.”

“Now maybe she's changed, but she certainly sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America. Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn't.”

Hold up! Maybe she’s changed? Oh! That’s incredibly insightful! I don’t know about you, but twenty three years ago I was sure I was going to marry John Taylor from Duran Duran. I’ve changed a bit. The funny thing is, you don’t even allow for the possibility because you can’t avoid adding a “but” in that sentence. She has an ax to grind! Well, damn it, I have a twenty three year old ax to grind, too! Where is John Taylor? I don’t see him in my house, where the hell is he?

The press, oh the press. Let’s just address that with the next comment.

“The main stream media (MSM) tells us that Obama is an agent of change.”

Main stream media. Oh dear, oh dear. I wonder if they’re referring to Rupert Murdoch’s immense presence in the main stream media? Huh… it’s a pickle.

“Has anyone stopped to think what kind of change; really?”

The implication being that change isn’t necessarily a good thing? Because things are going so well for us now! Of course, it’s really easy to find policy platforms in the days of the internets. Odd how these people always assume an ignorant audience and will therefore resort to lying to get their point across, thinking that no one will catch them. Maybe it’s my expensive private institution education that allows me to rise above the lies. Who knows? Someone should write a thesis.

“PS: We paid for her scholarship”

I give up. You win. Let’s all remain uneducated and bitter like you.

Come on people, stop it. Just stop. In what world is a divided country a good thing? We did that, it didn't work out so well for us in the short term and it seems that many of us (you) are still fighting that battle. Can't you see that continuing to feed the monster that is the animosity between the "left" and "right" is doing our country a grievous harm? What do you honestly see coming of it? All that comes from a house divided is more strife, more war, more chaos.

It is time to put away the hateful rhetoric of "us versus them." We can't afford to face the future without a strong backbone of support from the foundation of the belief in the equality of all people. If we are continuing to fight for the cause of "our side is better than yours," then we are continuing to support anyone who would seek to ruin our country. In fact, we're doing it for them. It boils down to this: in supporting crap like the email quoted above you are furthering the agenda of anyone who wants to bring this nation down and replace it with something that mocks freedom. You are a part of the push to end the idea that all people are created equal and all people are deserving of being in control of their own destiny. By continuing to support the ideology of hate that engenders racism, lies and bitterness you are striking a further blow for the freedom we fought so hard to recognize.

If we continue down this road we will lose our identity, our freedom, our integrity and our self worth. When we replace thought with vacuous belief we lose the right to call ourselves free. You cannot call yourself free if your mind is enslaved by hatred and deceit. You cannot call yourself free if you do not control your destiny by allowing those who seek to profit from freedom's demise to decide what it is you believe to be true. You cannot call yourself free if you do not exercise your ability to reason and understand and grasp something larger than your singular identity. You cannot call yourself free if you sell your soul to the highest bidder because it is better or easier for you but worse for everyone else. You cannot call yourself free if you believe that the only way forward is by denying that those opposite you have importance and their reasoned thoughts have validity. You cannot call yourself free if you give in to the polemics of people who only care about their own interests regardless of the harm they cause.

Do you want to be free? Do you? Prove it.