New Blog @ TheObamanation.com

Hi,

I've decided to update the blog and move it to a Wordpress blog. I think it will make it easier to have more contributors and give us more flexibility. It's here, www.theobamanation.com/wpblog. Or if you just go to theobamanation.com you'll be redirected in a couple seconds. Please update your bookmarks and stay in touch.

Peace,

Jason

jasonluckett.com

The Julia Moment - Obama's Speech on Race

The easiest place to start is at the tears. And for me it was the mention of the white grandmother "who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world."

I remember first really connecting to my black American self reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X while traveling in Europe. I was in from the beginning, along with the rage, understanding Brother Malcolm's hatred of the "white rapist blood" within him even though the preponderance of "white" blood in me came from histories of love and directly from a courageous woman who moved across a continent and an ocean to marry a man who feared the social repercussions of his choice. And though Malcolm eventually re-evaluates his characterizations of the "blue-eyed devils," embracing a multi-hued community of sincerity--a journey I joined in my reading--I was momentarily just as much with him when he proclaimed that the only thing he liked integrated was his coffee. I understood the history. Parts of my life connected viscerally to his narrative through my own experience and the stories both my father and mother told me. I was caught up in his intelligence and charisma. Ultimately I was inspired by his capacity for change and love.

My father's generation have told me about the moment they saw Diahann Carroll on TV in her show Julia. She was simply a beautiful black woman, sans caricature, neither Madonna, nor whore. A woman.

When we talk of race in this country, particularly in this era, it is generally of tolerance, of how close we are or not to equality, of self-identity, or in platitudinous phrases and descriptions of colorblindness ("Love See No Color" [sic...and gag!]), of a post-racial society. We speak "people of color"--whose opposite, I guess, would be "people absent color(?)."

And I've heard all the justifications for black rage and white anger.

But in political dialogue I've never heard a self-identified black man, speak of the absolute love he receives from his white family, his complete connection to them, even as the nearly inevitable racial experiences create moments of tension within that primary relationship. This was my Julia Moment.

Most of my "friends of color" have had our moments when we said we'd never date a white person again. And I've been asked if that sentiment offends me, seeing that I must have some connection to my whiteness. How could a sentiment that I've adopted myself for a period "offend" me? During my time of self-segregation I discovered that cultural ideas were as jumbled and problematic in my limited community as they were in the larger community to which I belong by blood and experience.

That's the complicated beauty of Obama's speech from Tuesday morning. I cannot disown, we cannot disown the white, the black, the brown, the Asian, the native people of this land nor can we deny the legacies of what has happened in the past and what is happening now that creates division in our society. The "whole" experience, the identity beyond the hyphen that adds divisive distinction preceding the word American, is a world where we can hold the profound and profane in a single family.

I was my maternal grandmother's first grandchild. She wasn't happy with the idea that her daughter was marrying a black man. A year after they were, my grandmother and I started a love affair that would continue into my 30s. We'd hold hands at our favorite bench, looking out at the lighthouse, facing east towards old England, from where our ancestors came in the 17th Century. I usually sat to her left, so when I looked towards her, in the distance southeast was the land where some of my family was bought and brought to this country. Behind us was entire land that used to belong to a brown people and the coast where I was raised in the sunshine. Even further west is the island of Oahu where Barack Obama and I were born. And beyond that is the Philippines where my step mother was born and raised.

This isn't a platitude or a list, this is our family. I don't love everything that happens within it, we're a complicated community, but the bond and the love is irrefutable.

(c) Jason Luckett, March 19, 2008

Definitions

I just sent out my first full blast out about this blog and one of the first dialogues got me to question of why people like me and Barack Obama "only considered and referred to as black" when we're just as much white. Well, of course, that's not going to be answered in a quick e-mail or blog entry. But a simple answer is: it's the power structure. I don't want to repeat myself too much, but a lot of it has to do with the color dynamic I wrote about in the ¡Sí, Se Puede! entry a couple weeks ago. And it starts with the historic "one drop rule." In the quick reply to my friend I came up with this: People are defined by others by what sets them apart, what makes them different from what's considered the norm. People self-define by their source of power. The history of "passing" is about people claiming "white" because that gave the sense of power to elevate above the restrictions of segregation and prejudice. The converse of that is the idea of strength can also come from the triumph over adversity. Outside of racial identification you have people describing themselves as "survivors" over cancer or "(recovering) alcoholics" when they give up their addiction. So perhaps racial self-identification is predicated by the same factors. For light skinned Blacks there is a complicated layer because light skin, "good hair," etc. often affords more privilege. So to remain engaged with the plight of the struggle for all to be afforded equal rights and opportunities, many decide to identify as Black. (Since I started writing this entry an interesting discussion was posted on the New York Times called Go Back to Black which examines the inclusionary history of the US African American community, but also the exclusion of that term and idea when it comes to Blacks from non American-slave descendants. Another interesting post on the subject comes from my friend Meri Danquah.)

So my preferred identification has always been bi-racial (after I took the term Mulatto to be derived from the Spanish/Portuguese word for "small mule" though some disagree with that etymology), because it acknowledged both the privilege and struggle that has come from either definition in either community. I want to be reminded of how individuals throughout the power spectrum perceive me and by not choosing an exclusionary term, and claiming the white and black, I acknowledge that I'm aware of the perceptions of power and welcome discussion that calls into question my participation in an oppressive system. Sometimes I'm oppressed, sometimes I'm perceived as the oppressor. Sometimes I oppress and sometimes I think that I'm being oppressed by an individual when it's largely an unconscious act as a result of ideas formed under a White Male Patriarchy.

So where does all this lead us? It's interesting that Barack Obama would identify as black, aligning himself with achievement against oppression, rather than more strongly identifying with the source of privilege in his life. I've read a few posts online saying that he's not doing himself any favor by not strongly claiming the race of the blood family that raised him, but the reality of it all is that even people like my friend who wrote to me initially recognizes that people like me and Barack Obama are considered black before we're even asked to identify ourselves.

I've often said the great privilege of being biracial is that people from various communities view you as included rather than other, then the biracial person has the opportunity to shed light on how one of the "included" can be treated when perceived as other. So today it's still a very powerful statement to claim to be black when 1 in 15 black adults (including one in nine black males between the age of 20 and 34) are behind bars when distancing yourself from that classification may make your life easier.

So yes, biracial, with or without the hyphen suggests hybridity and duality, as an offensive idea to some as being aligned to a mule. And to claim that as my identity doesn't even allude to what the sections of the "bi" are. But it invites questions which I choose to answer or not. I am black. I have an intimate connection to the diaspora that the term African-American was supposed to foment yet has somehow created distance. And I'm white, formed by the love my blood family and the community that I grew up in. Though it's harder to say the later, because that same community that nurtured me also housed elements that violently reminded me that I was black. And I don't think it's a stretch to say every black person in his lifetime has been reminded at one inconvenient time or another that he or she was not part of the white power elite. And though biracial people may get uncomfortable reminders from their community of color, there's not the same dynamic. Prejudice is prejudice, but racism and all the other so-called "isms" are indicative of an historic and present power structure. And even with a black President of the United States, blacks may still be nearly 45% of all prisoners in the US on "Day One" though representing only 13% of the US population. (Whites are 35% of prisoners, 70% of the US population, Hispanic are 20% and 12%. These are rounded figures based on a 2003 study by Human Rights Watch.) So it also feels like an act of courage to claim your benefits derived from your connection to the power system that has despicable aspects that you'd like to change. (And lest you think I'm going negative by highlighting prison data look at this article from the Associated Press lamenting the loss of Black CEOs for Fortune 500 companies--down to 4 in 2007--including this quote: "10 or 15 years ago, we couldn't have had this conversation, because there was no one to talk about.")

Lastly, what does it mean that biracial (black and white for me) doesn't parse out the English or Scottish of the WASP lineage and the Native American and French of the Black lineage? You know ultimately this stuff can be parsed to the DNA that says white person X has more African Ancestry than black person Y, and in the biology of it all there may be genetic benefits and disadvantages. So the definitions are subjective, but an informed subjectivity acknowledging the objective political and historical reality of racism, colonialism, etc. creates a better dialogue. And that dialogue, acknowledging the historic and present "matterings" of race may get us to point where race matters much less in terms of opportunity and general peace. Mulatto moments may be humorous or learning opportunities, but they're not inherently peaceful.

Perspective and Collective Assumptions

Prompted by Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece and blog today claiming venom from Barck Obama's supporters with regard to Hillary Clinton's campaign and alledged race baiting--which Krugman attributes actually to the media--I've just watched the YouTube video of the question and answer that started this conversation about MLK and LBJ. It is the reporter who picked the segment mentioning King, which was one of several illustrations of "hope" in Obama's stump speeches, to quote back to Senator Clinton. I see no racist intent in her response, nor do I see it as a deviation of her "experience matters" campaign stance. And strategically, one never wants to add complexity to an argument that would cede ground to one's opponent. But her response does echo a patronizing history of majority privilege. It does seem to reinforce the division of labor, that the marginalized should continue to campaign for their goals outside the system and that change is only achieved when an insider, a beneficiary of long established hierarchies decides to ratify the outsiders' ambition. Couple that with former President Clinton's mention of Jesse Jackson's wins in South Carolina, excluding mentions of his own win or John Edwards win or Al Sharpton's loss and you get a picture of Black leaders as marginal outsiders at the very least.

Is that playing the race card intentionally or does it speak to a deeper status quo mindset that views Blacks as inspirational figures but not worthy of consideration for administrative leadership? I don't believe that Hillary isn't sincerely inspired when she realizes that there is an African-American man next to a European-American woman on the stage next to her running to lead the nation. But I do believe that her drive for the office may blind her to the some of the slights people who are not European-American feel everyday. And I'm clearly aware that in my editing of this comment, I went back to insert the word "man" after "African-American" and I inserted "European-American" before the word "woman." Is it a given that a person running for President is a man? And is it a given that a woman running for President is white? Changing our collective assumptions about people in this world should be a vital project for the "Leader of the Free World." It should result in strengthening our international image as well as creating a climate for greater security for us domestically. I think all should avoid using "Missus Clinton" in reference to Clinton as much as all should avoid efforts to attach marginalized Black leaders to Obama, as Bill Clinton has done. Overall I believe that Senator Obama is better positioned to change collective assumptions. However inspirational is her potential to break the glass ceiling, Senator Clinton and her team seem too locked into past divisions of patronage based on race, class and other privilege to offer as effective leadership to a diverse nation and world. If you are baited, it's your responsibility as a leader neither to bite, nor deepen the divide by short sighted or misleading comments. Obama will be tested and baited by the media as the Democratic candidate for President. It is unknown how he will respond to the "Clinton Rules." But we do know that in her self-touted vetting process, Senator Clinton and President Clinton have both failed.

Are they race-baiting intentionally? Probably not initially. Are they trying to capitalize on racial politics? You decide. (Frank Rich thinks so.)

¡Sí, Se Puede!

A couple days ago I added the subtitle: "Mulatto Moments in 'Post-Racial' America." Of course I hope that everyone here would recognize the jest: how could you really have "mulatto moments" if there weren't discoveries that weren't based in truly segregated realities? But I'm consistently surprised. Years ago I used in a song: 'The colorblind man sees better than the rest / I'm trying to believe it's true.' I'm convinced now, as I pretty much was then, was that the operative part of that compound is blind. (There's a good Op-Ed by Uzodinma Iweala that appeared in the L.A. Times on Jan. 23 that breaks down the idea of "Post Racial" America.) And who really wants to be blind? I'm sure there were folks with me at the Democratic Debate in Hollywood on Thursday that saw "a man" staring down from all those posters for Barack Obama. I saw a man, too. But I saw a biracial man, who is called Black, or African-American, by himself and others, who kissed his white grandparents, like I kissed mine. And because I know a little of his story, I know that he's spent some time here and there, in different nations, where different religions were dominant. And I was a little scared thinking about the joy I feel seeing old pictures of similarly hued Malcolm X (probably lighter than the biracial Obama, and definitely lighter than Denzel Washington), and Malcolm's end. I wasn't born then, Barack was 3, and things have changed. Now there's real hope that a man that looks like that will lead this country...a country that was heavily invested in not giving power to anyone even the shade of a paper bag when he was born. (Follow the link and search around, a paper bag test was really the result of internalized racism, but you get the picture. When was Thurgood Marshall appointed to the Supreme Court? And what shade was he? The later's answer is interestingly the day after Loving v. Virginia struck down all Anti-Miscegenation laws in the country, June 13, 1967.)

I'm glad I know this history and can see it.

I don't need to know the concepts behind a great piece of music. I don't need to know the lyrics. But I'm excited by that knowledge, intrigued by the confluence and how that contributes to the power of the work. And I'm annoyed by those who dismiss it, dismiss the traditions of the music. This isn't because I'm getting old, the first song I ever wrote was influenced by Woody Guthrie's use of traditional source material. I was 9.

So I'm equally annoyed by those who are ignorant of the history of color prejudice, who wistfully long for a period when it will not matter in the near future or, even more egregiously, claim that time is now.

Tonight I'm just getting in from a Black/Brown dialogue by way of a Poetry Choir Performance in Highland Park. Really, most of the crowd, however identified, was ironically the shade of a brown paper bag, give or take. Maybe this is post racial, where we're all the same shade but the difference is the cultural traditions. But the shade (the cover that you can't judge!) leads to a story of the alchemy. And part of that alchemy includes the history of prejudice and how it has impacted all of our lives, privileged and not.

But beyond that, (¡Sí, Se Puede!), history is fun and illuminating. I'm at the debates Thursday, and the blue English signs for Obama are all out. So I get the red one, which is in Spanish. I'm not bilingual. And I'm the kid who took French in my upper-middle class suburb. But I dug "El pueblo unido jamás será vencido" better than "The People United will never be defeated" when we demonstrated against Aparthied back in the 80s. And I heard "¡Sí, Se Puede!" then. I heard it in the streets a couple years ago. And I'm completely thrilled. There are probably some cynics that will say it's a co-opting akin to AeroMexico's. But to me it's an embrace, an embrace of the Farm Workers' movement, et. al. I feel like only a true believer with the audacity of hope could think that he could use a phrase so identified with leftist movements to win a mainstream election while signaling his inclusion of people who have been historically shut out. And talk about inclusion, Obama even has a LGBT link on his page! (I wonder what Pat "see sah perda" Buchanan would say about that!). I'm just so excited that my generation, a generation with leaders that are post modern, recognizing the real presence of difference, of cultural circumstance, without bowing to the hierarchies of the past, has the chance to lead. That is the future, not some colorblind, bland, "we're all the same" thing.

Yes we can embrace all these differences and thrive. Remember when multiculturalism was "hot?" Well now it just "is." And we need someone who understands that intuitively, dare I say natively. We don't need someone who'll cynically use codified race baiting on the campaign trail, whether intentional or not, and I know it was Bill, not Hillary. (Remember when Bill Clinton discussed what the meaning of the word "is" is? I embrace ambiguity, but there's a little cynical manipulation going on there. And I liked Clinton well enough. But both Clinton and George Wallace have won the South Carolina Primary along with John Edwards, Jesse Jackson and proto neo-con Henry M. Jackson.)

I said originally that this wasn't going to be a blog just about Obama. And it isn't, but this movement is really inspiring me.

Just a link today...

My mother forwarded me this NY Times blog this morning. It's an interesting discussion...and the comments from what I've seen so far are virtually free of the Internet's usual banalities. http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/race-bait/

And hope moves to concern...

I'd wanted to start publicizing this blog last week when I started it but life gets busy and I didn't jump on it. Today I received a second copy of the "Be Careful, be very careful" email that's circulating after a conversation last night regarding a golf channel announcer Kelly Tilghman's "lynch him in the back alley" comment with really good friends of mine who had no idea of the offense that could cause. So my second post after the primary loss in N.H. is a lot less starry eyed about the state of the nation.

The "mulatto moments!"

So let's start with Saturday night. Me, a Filipino-American, a South Carolinian white American, and a Chinese-American are sitting around after a steak dinner and bottles of wine. Three guys in the neighborhood of 40 and a woman around 30.

"You're black, right?" says the white man with his characteristic jest. He's one of my best friends, and has been for years, so I'm used to the silliness and know there's no malice and potentially ensuing political incorrectness is more Lenny Bruce than Michael Richards.

So did you hear about the white announcer on the Golf Channel and the controversy with Al Sharpton?

I don't pay attention to golf or Sharpton much, so no.

He explained that she had said in the context of a discussion of Tiger Woods' dominance, that the only way to stop that was to "lynch him in the back alley." (It was actually an amplification of her co-announcer's statement that the players would need to gang up on him to pass him.) Sharpton wants her fired. She got a suspension. I'm with Al on this one. Tiger said that Tilghman and he were friends and it was no big deal.

I've bit my tongue. I have and haven't called friends on offensive remarks in the past. It's a subjective thing. Like the law, it's discretionary.

I was asked my opinion and I agreed with someone whom I don't think is an idiot, however goofy he may seem to me at times. My friend kept asking if I thought she should lose her career, based on one remark, by being fired. I don't think necessarily that it is career ending to lose a job, but I do think that people in the public communications business have a responsibility to understand the weight of certain terms in a diverse society. And fairly or not, a white woman from the south saying a black man should be lynched, when a good many black men were lynched and castrated for the appearance of an alliance with white women in the not so distant past, carries a skewed weight of offense. (Anyone remember To Kill a Mockingbird?) So I would fire someone who made such a remark because I wouldn't want one of the faces of my organization to be someone so ignorant or irresponsible. But if in the next awkward breath she said, "Oh my god, that was awful, I'm sorry" I might give her a pass. Jason Whitlock on Fox Sports had a nice discussion of it, and he was cool with the two week suspension. (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7658418) For me, I'd just wish her well and ask her to move on. (I also liked this article regarding the issue: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=112662 which speaks to the comment from Tiger's Camp of the "non-issue.")

But what came up in the discussion later while we all were trying to bring up other contexts with other races, etc. surprised me more. One friend had never heard of the Japanese Internments in World War II and another friend kept insisting that the majority of Americans didn't even know Barack Obama was black, and most likely thought people were talking about Osama bin Laden when they heard the name Obama. Then I had to explain the caucus system to the group. We don't have caucuses in California or New York or Florida, so it's understandable to a degree, but it still makes me wonder how people can vote with such little knowledge of the way government works.

Do we all understand at this point that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy? Though the framers were political animals that caved to a 3/5ths ranking of the humanity of "slaves" who were not allowed to vote, they were smart enough to know that Democracy means Mob Rule and a Republic is a more reasoned and protective sort of government for the needs of all, especially those of minority opinions.

So in a way, it almost seems like the major two parties are misnamed. In high school I wrote a Political Science paper where I compared the Republican Party to the "Id," concerned with individual liberties, "what's in it for me?" and the Democrats to the "Super Ego," concerned with the collective good, sacrificing for the poor, etc. Granted this was the 80s, before "ending welfare as we know it" was looked at as a Nixon in China moment. And I'm abbreviating in my haste to blog as opposed to working for the grade. But my Republican friend agreed, saying that under George Bush he was able to get health care, every job he ever considers makes $80,000/year and he got $600, so he votes Republican. (Do you remember the Bush tax rebate based on our budget surpluses during the Clinton years?) In our discussion he kept asking me to "dumb it down" saying that if a candidate offers $600 and another doesn't most people are going to vote for the one offering $600. I asked if you were a family of three siblings that got to choose your dad and one candidate offered to give allowance and health care to you, but not your siblings would you vote for that candidate knowing that your brother and sister will suffer, but you'll be better off (in those tangible ways)? I know, though I might've had a moment when I was a tyke when that would appeal to me, I would choose the parent that would provide for my family equitably. Suffice to say there was a lot of agreeing to disagree, a few votes of "present" to keep the peace, and a few accusations of people being pissed off. There was also a dispute over which candidate would present a more dramatic symbol to the rest of the world if elected President of the United States.

Then this morning--to speak to the notion of dumbing down--I received the above mentioned forwarded email. And to clarify, both times I received the e-mail it was from a white person sending it on to me with a copy of their rebuttal to the person who had sent it to them. And though I've received my share of inane forwards from friends of all backgrounds, it struck me that these e-mails were sent to white people, and not me. Either my immediate community is hipper than my extended network, or some who might've sent it to me knew I'd think it was inane or worse. I dunno, but there's your answer on the symbolism question. In a world where two thirds of the world is brown skinned or "people of color," many who believe, at best (as do many good, educated Americans) that we would never elect a person of color to be the leader of the free world, and at worst America is an intolerant country that demonizes people of color (despite its tokens) and even more so people of non Judeo-Christian religions especially the "last branch" of the Abrahamic religions, the election of a man (who for the record is Christian), with a non-European, Muslim father, who has lived in the "third world" even if just as a child, would probably seem more significant a symbol than a white woman joining the tradition of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel as leaders of some of the most powerful nations in the world and as leaders of countries where the head of government is of the same dominant race or ethnicity as its populace. (Add to that list most of the women here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_heads_of_government, think of Corazon Aquino, Indira Gandhi, the late Benazir Bhutto, and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.)

All this reminds me of the old gotcha joke/question: What nationality is Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori?

I don't know if it's really smart in consecutive breaths for an Obama supporter to mention that guy who turned out to be pretty bad news. But the idea that the president of a nation is not of that nation's nationality is a mulatto moment akin to my being asked "what nationality are you?" while my features and skin tone reflect the people who were here before Columbus, the people who came after, and the people who were shipped here in chains.

I like Hillary. I think she'd make a good president. She lacks the charisma and some of the political instincts of her husband, which to me make her slightly less suited for the role of "leader of the free world." But they make a good team, with her coming down as probably more passionate about some things I care about than Bill. I like the effectiveness of the Clinton machine. [Addendum Feb 3: At this point, after South Carolina, I've lost respect for the Clinton Machine, I'm just saddened by them.] And I think she would be a great role model to all Americans as one who remains committed to an ideal even in the face of dramatic odds or shame. (I liked this article on the Incremental Revolutionary, comparing Obama and Hillary Clinton: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755).

I just think Obama is a stronger symbol of change and probably better equipped to get the job done in terms of negotiations across party lines (the baggage to experience ratio seems to weigh in his favor in my view), symbolism--which is extremely important in politics, charisma and even political thinking.

So here's the real answer to that question: Peruvian born, Alberto Fujimori, the son of Japanese immigrants to Peru, actually did have dual citizenship secured by his parents for him. So truth and symbolism is more complicated than it appears.

And here's my response to the email smear: (This was actually a response to the original sender's second e-mail maintaining Obama has lied to us about being a Muslim, after my friend called her on perpetuating ignorance. Be careful of using "reply to all" with your emails... click here for the entire exchange, names removed of course.)

It's snopes.com, not snoops.com. And if you look at it you'll see that most of the assertions in this email are lies and the rest are mischaracterizations. The link is http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp There's also a good article called "Sliming Obama" on Newsweek's site: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424.

Unfortunately, by replying to this email by saying "The fact that he is Muslim isn't my concern - the fact that he lied is!" without verifying your information shows a really sad pride in your ignorance on this issue. He's not Muslim (freshman congressman Keith Ellison is and after he was sworn in posed for pictures with his hands on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran) and Obama's at least as honest as any of the other politicians running for office or running the country. (I'd venture to say more so.) Also Clinton fired a campaign worker who forwarded on a similar Obama smear e-mail. (And please don't mischaracterize this as a claim that it originated from the Clinton campaign...as politically ruthless as they are, I can't imagine them organizing something so laughably false. I actually like the Clintons and feel they are really effective leaders on issues of tolerance among many other things.)

I don't know you "---", but you've sent easily verifiable lies twice two more than a dozen of your friends. I can only hope that most of your friends are smart enough to investigate before they believe a chain email and cast a misinformed vote. Things like this make me really happy we live in a republic rather than a democracy. (The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic...follow the links, it's edifying).

Jason Luckett

I changed my subject line to the email response from "Be Careful..." to "Please verify before accusing people of not being truthful." Yet, for a moment earlier in this writing, I was going to attribute these emails as being sent by white people to the white people who forwarded rebuttals to this half-white guy. I don't know that my mother's classmate was in fact white, (though being in her mid-60s from Maine it's likely) nor do I know that my friend's friend was white. What I know is that assumptions often need to be examined. By all of us.

I know I'd be happy in a world where the word lynch didn't have horrific associations for blacks. And I'd probably be just as happy in a world where I didn't know that it had horrific connotations, until I made the mistake of using it in a public forum.

As a six year old child I was happy in a world where the word Nigger meant the same to me as the word Fucker until I called a black boy Nigger and was beat up. My parents educated me and five years later I was beat up by a white kid and told to run home like a Nigger. I knew what it meant.

Did he?

(And PS, I don't mean to characterize my friends as heartless or unintelligent. These are people I love, who are wonderful people, generous and we're about as diverse as they come. I'm just amazed that education and the national media as well as the public discourse has been so weak, that vital moments of history and important themes in the larger context of America's character are unknown to so many of us. What I'm really thankful for is that we as friends, and being of such "diverse cultural backgrounds" have the love and respect for one another to be able to speak frankly, disagree and yet really enjoy each other. That's what the Obamanation is: people gathering in harmony in situations and relationships that less than 50 years ago were seen as anathema in the eyes of much of the public and the law.)

Peace.