Will Nader Please Just Stop?

I realize that this is now sort of old news, but I have to comment on it anyway. Ralph Nader recently has fiercely criticized Barack Obama for what he calls “talking white”:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?. . .He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up." <Attribution: Rocky Mountain News 6-25-08>

All right, I know that Ralph Nader is running for president for what seems like the thousandth time (4th time I think actually) and therefore needs to generate some buzz, but... c’mon, now... “talking white?” “White guilt?” Can he please, please, please just go away? Or start grinding away at the “evil” corporations themselves rather than perpetuate old and hateful (by the very resonance of the terms themselves if nothing else) racial themes and really poorly thought-out comparisons and arguments? I mean, “white guilt” derives from Europeans in the Victorian Age feeling sanctimoniously charitable to those poor Africans in the 19th Century—we all saw how that turned out, didn’t we? Africa is just a wonderfully politically stable region of the world thanks to the efforts of European powers over hundreds of years, isn’t it? Doesn’t sound like a winning tactic to me.

And “talking white” (or “acting white,” more frequently) is a particularly nefarious phenomenon that I have heard and read about in some parts of the African American community relating to critiquing peers who attempt to succeed in education and business. To succeed or be educated is apparently viewed as “acting white.” (For those who have not read or heard about this sad phenomenon in some schools and communities, much research has been done about it. Here’s a link to one study about it: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3212736.html). That is a ridiculous way to criticize Obama. First, it does not make sense: it actually is NOT bad to succeed and be educated. So what is Nader saying here? That he believes that succeeding is talking/acting white and that is bad? That intentionally failing is good? The whole concept is a nonsensical contradiction, which is, of course, why the phenomenon is so nasty and sad. Second, how does an old white guy level that kind of criticism? It’s terribly confusing, which no doubt arises from the fact that Nader had no idea what he was referencing.

Perhaps Nader’s reference to “talking white” refers more to the “Uncle Tom” criticism—that a black man “talks white” and is “safe” in order to cozy up to white people and get along, thereby betraying both his pride—because he has to dumb himself down and relinquish his ambitions to be safe—and his minority community. If that is the case—and, again, I would have to say that this would be the first time I have heard a white man criticize a black man for such activity—it is an even worse injection of irrelevant, hateful language from the past to dump into our collective ears. The man (Obama) is running for president. If he is trying to give up his ambitions or dumb himself down, that would not exactly help his cause.

Please! No more!

There are valid criticisms to be made of Barack Obama from the left. Hillary Clinton made one of them, that his health plan does not include everyone. The Green party will no doubt find some flaws in his energy plan. But injecting inflammatory racial rhetoric is not helpful, not even close to accurate, and, to someone like me, in my thirties, is terribly dated and out-of-touch (and really sad to hear, because it is like your 80-year old grandmother making those terrible racist comments that are so out of line now, but you cut her slack anyway, because the environment has changed so much. I suppose no one, not even Ralph Nader, is immune to old age).

Please stop, Ralph.

For the record... please note that I made NO REFERENCE to the fact that Nader’s collection of 2.7 percent of the popular vote in 2000 directly resulted in eight long years of “W.” Whoops, I guess I just did, didn’t I?