Different Day, Same Shit.

Some of us have an Inner Child. Others have an Inner Nigger. Is Holder the president’s conscience? Or his Inner Nigger?

A lot of people went off on the fine chap in the above photo for that quoted line. And why not? "Inner Nigger"? Come on, son. It was the fact that he dropped the dreaded N-word on a relatively mainstream Internet site that was beyond the pale for most folks. And I'll admit, I got caught up in the initial outrage over it, too.

My first inclination was to jump on the laptop, piggyback on whatever open Wi-Fi hotspot I could find and just go with the flow. In the immediate days after Rich Benjamin's assessment of President Obama's post-Zimmerman trial introspective, I would have verbally whipped this D.L. Hughley-lookin' mofo's behind up and down the block like your momma did that one time, with the Hot Wheels race track.*

But life outside of DDSS got in the way of that. So now I'm approaching this with a clearer head. Pangs of spoon-fed outrage subside with time and distance from the subject at hand.

So let's see what this Rich Benjamin feller's piece is all about:

Finally the president has spoken about George Zimmerman’s acquittal. Even as the country waited for his singular response – the nation’s leader and a law professor who once looked like Trayvon Martin – the president danced around the issues. And what a dramatic anti-climax, listening to the president refuse to say anything insightful or profound about the acquittal. In signature professorial style, the president gave us the “context” to the episode and to black people’s “pain.” But he didn’t offer a meaningful opinion on the episode’s hot molten core: racial profiling, vigilantism, and “Stand Your Ground” laws.

The one complaint I noticed from those in the black community about President Obama's speech is how he didn't get down deep into the nitty gritty of what's ailing the community. He wasn't as aggressive as some folks wanted him to be. Instead of jolting America awake over the unending saga of racism towards blacks (young males especially), his speech remained, as Benjamin puts it, "safe and airy."

I did my own review of the president's speech and what I said within still stands: the president is not just the president - he's "America's President™" and any attempt to voice his own deep-down personal outrage over this injustice would cause many Americans to tune him out. As Benjamin himself notes:

From a tactical standpoint, it’s wise for the president to avoid discussing race and Trayvon Martin. Many white Americans don’t want that discussion. Many whites avoid that discussion due to their sincere ethical desire to wash the stain of racial differentiation from our nation; they see themselves as Reverend King’s color- blind disciples. Still others avoid the topic because they suffer from racial fatigue. They feel harassed and hectored by so-called race hustlers. Enough with that: They want to focus on the technical and legal aspects of Zimmerman’s acquittal.**

So the president, as always, remained as presidential as he could be while attempting to address his own frustrations over Trayvon Martin's death, Zimmerman's trial and everything in between.

But Eric Holder doesn't have to be so presidential, which is Benjamin's point:

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder delivered trenchant thoughts on the acquittal, demanding action. Before an audience of supporters, Holder recently called for a full investigation of Martin’s death after Zimmerman’s acquittal. Holder vowed that the Justice Department will act “in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law. We will not be afraid.”

“We must stand our ground,” he told supporters.

And this is where the whole "Inner Nigger" thing comes into play. In Benjamin's assessment, Holder's playing the role of Obama's so-called "blacker conscience," someone who's able to speak truth to power without worrying about being tarred and feathered with the "angry black man" moniker. But I have a bit of a problem with that.

What if Eric Holder's just being his own man? What if the above words aren't Holder playing point man for Obama's innermost thoughts, but rather Holder's own commitment towards insuring that justice is actually served on this matter? And how come the media constantly attempts to force the attorney general into that role?

---

Of course, Holder's been outspoken before. After all, this is the same guy who called America a "nation of cowards" for studiously avoiding any serious conversation on ethnic relations. After countless well-meaning white Americans patted themselves on the back for being so forward thinking in voting for a black president, this came as a grievous insult. To many whites, the whole thing just smacked of utter ungratefulness from a black community that not only didn't seem to appreciate their efforts, but went out of its way to chastise their many, often times misguided, attempts in accepting and empathizing with black Americans.

As a result, I sense many white Americans have decided to throw in the towel on black rapport and instead are retreating into a unique form of racial cynicism. Because their often insincere, paternalistic and patronizing attempts often went over like a solid tungsten balloon, many white Americans have decided to shed their "white guilt" and instead call a spade a spade, if you get the drift.

That's where things like "race realism" and the constant arguments about the N-word and its usage come from. It's also where guys like Rand Paul get their allure - instead of incessant black appeasement that seems to get white Americans nowhere, there's the refreshing libertarian perspective that isn't afraid to accept certain interpretations of crime stats and the belief in natural black criminality as gospel. They're no longer afraid to tell blacks to "stop whining" or wonder why blacks simply can't do as various immigrants have done and blend into the greater American fabric instead of, and I believe I'm quoting some of the darker corners of the Internet, "wallow in their own filth." Ultimately, they're free to tell themselves "it's okay to be white," as though it was some sort of curse imposed upon them as other minority groups take advantage of their generous nature.

But enough about that. In summation, Holder's reputation as "rogue Negro" to the president's "magic Negro," whether actually deserved or not, continues to ring true in many corners. I don't think that deserves him being referred to as the president's "Inner Nigger," "repressed Id," "blacker conscience" or anything of the sort. If the president wants to break character to have a "real talk" moment, that's entirely his prerogative.

As for Rich Benjamin, I'm not as upset with him as I was before. I understand where he's coming from. Like many folks, I wish he didn't have to resort to the N-word just to get his point across.

On the other hand, it is what it is. How he makes his point is his own prerogative. After all, it got people's attention, mine included.

*That shit hurts.
**Note the bolded. When Americans claim to want a colorblind perspective of the case, this is what they mean. However, sticking to the technical and legal while disregarding the racial paints a completely different picture of the entire case, one that disregards over four centuries of ingrained and institutionalized prejudices, bigotry and anger - things that often lead to the Emmit Tills of the world being exposed to a unique and deadly form of "justice."

Graffiti means a lot of different things to different people and how it's used - or even its mere placement - brings out a wide variety of reactions from people.

Graffiti, at its core, is vandalism, since it involves defacing a public or private area without permission. The presence of graffiti marks an area as run-down and unkempt. The longer it stays on a surface, the further that image is embedded into the conscious of passersby.

In hotly-contested gang areas, it's a demarcation of territory to be respected on pain of conflict and possible death. Crossing out another gang's "tag" with your own is grounds for deadly retaliation.

Graffiti is also an art form, as evinced by the colorful, ingenious and expressive works found throughout countless urban environs. Some graffiti artists manage to gain national and global fanfare for their works. Kobra, Banksy and David Choe, for starters.

Graffiti is also a way for the traditionally voiceless to voice their opinions and vent. Whether it's frustration with law enforcement, an impromptu and brief eulogy for friends and family passed, or to reaffirm one's identity, it's often done with a can of spray paint and a fleeting moment.

If the graffiti happens to be of the sort the likes of Banksy would produce, it's often admired and photographed by passersby. Otherwise, it's often ignored until the property owner or another graffiti artist or tagger covers it up or tags over it.

Sometimes, the underlying dynamics surrounding graffiti and assumptions about those who are most likely to do it...makes people uncomfortable.

---

Grant Henry is an Atlanta-area artist and owner of Sister Louisa's Church of the Living Room and Ping Pong Emporium, a church-themed bar and lounge located in the Old Fourth Ward, not far from Ebenezer Baptist Church and The King Center.

Henry and a fellow patron at his bar covered up the above graffiti posted on a building located on the corner of Irwin and Randolph Street, after it had, in his words, "brought fear to the core of my being."

"Brought fear to the core of my being." As a gentleman of color, I pondered this statement. Exactly what does Grant Henry have to fear from a simple tag left behind by someone obviously affected by the outcome of the Zimmerman trial?

In Henry's own words:

Last night around 10:00pm I drove up Randolph and at the corner of Irwin saw the graffiti that brought fear to the core of my being, fear that riots could change the face of our neighborhood in the shadow of The Martin Luther King Center.

Many thoughts went through my head:
1: Who owns the building?
2. Could I be arrested for covering it up?
3. Is covering evil graffiti justified?
4. Should I call the city?
5. Should I get permission from someone?

Out of fear that this evil message would spread like wildfire, I got home and grabbed a can of black spray paint,went to CHURCH and grabbed a witness, then went back to the scene and painted over the graffiti.

I was running to my car after blacking out the hate...then bolted back to add the (heart symbol) to justify that my graffiti was not compounding the message of evil.

When the adrenaline ceased from the fear that I felt, I found out that at the exact moment of adding the (heart symbol), the Zimmerman NOT GUILTY Verdict was announced.

Whoever owns the building, i am willing to pay to have the wall painted over the graffiti.

I apologize to whomever, but I would probably do it again to try to nip danger in the bud and to ensure that the positive we are trying to build In our City is not lost to the ignorance of a few.

"The ignorance of a few."

In light of the turmoil and trauma surrounding the Zimmerman case, people have chosen to vent in their own ways, many of them extraordinarily productive, others in the most destructive way possible.

I don't condone graffiti done in public or private venues without permission. However, I do understand a person's need to vent, especially after an emotionally charged event like this. The individual who left the message "Fuck APD RIOT 4 TRAYVON" was venting.

With a bit of black paint, Mr. Henry, in effect, silenced that individual's voice.

That's what gets to me. The fact that someone's voice can be silenced wholesale by someone else who hasn't shared any of the trials, tribulations and experiences of that person, after invoking an international black icon for peace and equality to justify his own actions, gets to me.

Black voices are constantly silenced, muffled, moderated and curated by others who simply don't feel comfortable with these voices ringing loud and unfiltered. Apparently, Mr. Henry just didn't feel comfortable with that so-called "message of evil" being left behind in his neighborhood.

I'm sure like so many others in his position, Mr. Henry's intentions were rather noble. While many of history's major issues are resolved through the hot fires of violence, many of history's issues have also been settled through peaceful means. Many people have clutched their pearls over the possibility of violent riots, but people who chose to stand in solidarity with Trayvon Martin and others like him have chosen the route of peaceful protest. I'm sure Mr. Henry did not want to see the Old Fourth Ward or any other neighborhood die in the white-hot fires of anger, frustration, misplaced vengeance and hatred.

With that said, that doesn't justify speaking for another by censoring that person's message. In fact, the only "message of evil" I see is one consisting of three black bars...and a heart symbol. I'm not feeling the love, here.

"Just because I criticize the president doesn’t make me a racist."

Of course it doesn't. You merely assume blacks automatically see you as a "racist" for not agreeing with the president's policies. Because you assume everyone must be on-board with the president to be seen as "not racist." Because somehow supporting the president is a matter of "racial loyalty."

You know what that makes you? That makes you one assumptive motherfucker.

Racism is a charge which is a conversation ender. It stops discourse and should, because of this, be used sparingly and only in the most obvious and egregious cases.

However, racialized speech, which is speech that is often dehumanizing, condescending, and aggressive- passively so quite often, must be examined in terms of who is saying it, and what is being said.

I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's back this bitch up to the beginning.

Professor Melissa Harris-Perry penned an article asking a good question about whether Obama's flagging approval numbers were related to the number of well-meaning white liberals who were disillusioned about Obama not being the Magic Negro™ they all voted for. Bill Maher bemoaned how he ended up with a standard run-of-the-mill white guy pol in blackface instead of the "genuine" black guy he was looking for, and Michael Moore wondered on The View when Obama was gonna start showing off his "gangster" side, apparently standard issue equipment for all blacks.

For well-meaning white liberals who fancied themselves as being enlightened individuals who not only understood "race," but also considered themselves above "race" and viewed black individuals and causes with an open mind, Prof. Harris-Perry's article stung hit a vein. All of the hard work they did and black folks still see them in the same way they see those godawful Teabaggers? Essentially, "Us? Racist? No way, you're just over-reacting/being overly sensitive/crazy/whiny."

Sometimes, I'm not even sure if it is racism that's involved. That's the whole problem with parsing the motives of most folks when it comes to blacks and many other races - the well of social and political discourse was poisoned by racial discrimination from this nation's beginnings. Reconstruction offered one of the rare, genuine moments to detoxify the well, but the expediency of keeping some aggrieved groups of people satisfied and on their side short-circuited that opportunity and since then, the poison's continued to flow unabated.

The poison was once overt and "out there." You could see the symptoms as plain as day. Over time, it evolved into something so vague, so transparent, that it's become something akin to AIDS -- it may look like it's all good on the outside, but there's a war going on inside. That means I, as a person of color, have to wonder if there's a racial subtext behind the way many white liberals are behaving about Obama, because so many people who may disdain the president based on some ill-conceived stereotypes, but they're not gonna tell you outright and be embarrassed in public -- instead, they'll smile and say it was nothing.

I can recognize the racially charged Teabagger bullshit. The overt displays of disrespect for the president (remember "YOU LIE!"?), overt name calling ("Socialist Kenyan"), outright refusal to accept him as the president of these United States and equal refusal by conservative Congressmen to work with him for the good of the nation. Everything short of calling him a "Nigger," since that'd finally wake the nation up to how Obama's been treated and effectively put whoever or whatever group that said it out of polite media circles for good. I can see that.

This rather insidious, low-level, passive-aggressive racism that seems so dismissive, condescending and blithe...it's hard to see it at first glance. It's the sort of unthinking, unconscious racism that one makes a quick quip about, with absolutely no introspection as to whether that should have been said at all. It's pretending you know more about the mistreatment of a group than the actual members of the mistreated group, while expecting the member you're talking to to nod in both agreement and deference. It's all voiced in a way that causes a black liberal to question whether their white counterparts are more than what they seem to be.

For instance, instead of seeing Obama as a president who could change the way this country is run, he was seen as a Magic Negro™ type capable of fixing America's woes in just a few months. Others saw him as a living trump card against people calling them "racists." Yep, somehow supporting President Obama inoculates you from accusations of racism. Over time, President Obama proved he wasn't the Magic Negro™ many white liberals were looking for. Dissatisfaction with President Obama's policies grew, rightfully so in some cases, and wrongfully in others. At any rate, the long knives started coming out -- his own supporters started calling him weak, indecisive, effeminate, cowardly, a failure, a punk, etc,. Many people out there want to primary him against a Magic Female™ (usually Hillary Clinton), since the Magic Negro™ obviously didn't work out for them. Notice the constant comparisons between Obama and Bill Clinton, the "first black president."

They wondered aloud if President Obama was too much of his mother's son instead of the fiery black guy they thought they got. That explains Bill Maher's disappointment about the supposed "bait and switch." A lot of people don't see him as being "black," because a black president would have done this or wouldn't have stood for that or enacted this or that. The president is his own man, and I doubt he identifies with race as some would want him to. He identifies with the American people, as a whole.

Nevermind the stereotypical desires by liberals for Obama to show his "black side" or get down and gangster with it. They almost peed their pants when Obama went all Willie Dynamite and put the Congressional Black Caucus on notice. And perhaps that's why the CBC is in such a shitfit over being "called out" when no one else was. Something that whites love to see but won't admit they love seeing by far and large is black people chastising each other in public. In a way, it validates all of the faults and stereotypes many whites see in blacks, plus it's the closest thing they'll get to blacks admitting they've got their own problems. For a group of people constantly being accused of being "racist," it's a refreshing change of pace and a brief respite from feeling like the world's biggest punching bag.

It's no wonder the piece didn't go down well with a lot of liberal whites. Joan Walsh's reaction was that of condescending disappointment in "her friend Melissa" for daring to suggest that she and her fellow contemporaries were in any way "racist." David Sirota dove in to put her in her place, metaphorically speaking, on Twitter. John Aravosis stood behind Joan Walsh, stepped up to the plate and delivered a vicious line drive:

Are you disappointed with Obama simply because you’re a white racist and he’s black? Unlikely. Because if we were all white racists, we wouldn’t have supported Barack Obama in the first place. And we did. Far more than we probably should have.

Damn. I guess this is what Angry Black Lady meant:

At this point, I much prefer the comment section of Fox Nation to the comment section of Salon.com or Firedoglake. At least when you walk into the lion’s den at Fox Nation, you kow what to expect — unabashed, KKK-style racism. But on the left? As a black person, you never know how you’re going to be received.

Maybe on Monday you’re their best friend and they invite you to a panel on their podcast or radio show. But then on Tuesday when you speak out about something that they don’t want to hear, they try to silence you. They demand proof and data. They discount your experiences. They call you divisive. They turn your life experiences into a joke. They play the victim. They start naming black people who agree with them (because Negros are a hive-mind, you see). They tell you about that one time they wrote an article about how racism really sucks and that proves incontrovertibly that they aren’t racist. They play dumb and act like they don’t know the difference between being A Racist, and Saying Racist Shit. They tout their liberal bona fides, thus ending all discussion. White liberals cannot be racist. It’s in the Bible. LOOK IT UP.

Hell, maybe white liberals do know more about racism than the black folks who suffer under it. After all, they helped invent it, didn’t they? Maybe we hapless Negros should just shut up and let the white people talk. Maybe they will tell us what’s best for us. Because apparently a renowned professor who studies and teaches race, gender and politics simply does not understand racism in the way that a white douchebag on AM radio does.

But hey, what do I know. I just used the term “white liberal” — repeatedly — without specifying precisely which white liberals I’m talking about, so I guess that makes me the real racist.

Of course Prof. Harris-Perry fired back, but she was sick and tired of having to defend just about every little thing she said on this and other issues. And I agree -- it's exhausting when you have to refine and break down what you've said further and further for the "benefit" of the affronted and disbelieving, and black commentators are always being told to further explain themselves as to why they say this or that. As I said, it's exhausting.

At least John Cole got it:

As a general rule when a black person or persons tell me something is racist or bordering on racist, particularly people I respect like ABL and TNC, I don’t argue. If I disagreed with them initially or just didn’t notice the racist aspect of something, what I try to do is just be quiet for a minute. Then I try to figure out what it is that made me not recognize something as racist. I’d say a lot of it has to do with the fact that I am a middle-aged white guy from a state with a small minority population, and I just don’t have the same experiences...

And I’m done talking about this crap. I’m seriously sick and tired of some of you who every time ABL posts something, you go ballistic and start calling her a race-baiter. It’s absurd, and ABL isn’t the one who looks stupid. Sure, she is over-the-top and in-your-face, and she’ll admit to it, but maybe you should just take a moment, shut the fuck up and be quiet, and think about why she is interpreting things through a different lens than you are. Or, if issues of race are so unsettling to you, you just scroll past her posts and continue to convince yourself we live in a post-racial America, and you won’t have to trouble your pretty little head with the kind of ugly crap that good people like ABL, TNC, and your President and his wife and beautiful daughters go through every day. It’ll be easier that way. You can tell yourself “I’m not racist, so therefore it doesn’t exist.” It will keep you from grappling with things. It will keep you from saying “Wow. You know, I never knew that something I used to say or do could be perceived as racist.” You’ll not have to deal with the fact that good people can still say stupid ugly things, even when they don’t mean to. You’ll never have to think about the fact that maybe you’ve been doing something or saying something hurtful or ugly without even meaning to, because your intentions are as pure as the Virgin Mary. You can just keep on rolling on, and mutter to yourself about all those hyper-sensitive black people.

He's on to something. Every time the black community attempts to verbalize their experiences and air grievances, they're told they're just "whining." Or being "hyper-sensitive." Or "ungrateful." What some of these folks want is for blacks to finally shut the fuck up about themselves and their troubles, so whites will no longer have to feel uncomfortable about interacting with blacks or feel guilty about NOT interacting with blacks, and so they won't have to hear or see stories of how their parents, grandparents and great-great grandparents treated blacks, or have to deal with the whole "sins of the father" issue. And yes, these are white liberals thinking these things, but they'll never let on to it, even outside of polite company.

This isn't a post designed to beat white liberals or people who don't support or like President Obama like rented mules and re-captured slaves. It's both an observation of how this unconscious racism resides deep in many people and how it takes little to bring it out in a variety of ways.

I couldn't care less what people thought of this piece. Like Prof. Harris-Perry, I'm tired of having to defend what I write to people who will never be satisfied with the answers I give.

"Angry Black Lady Chronicles" has an entire series of posts dealing with the fallout from Prof. Harris-Perry's pieces.

Here's a last-minute find of Morgan Freeman on Piers Morgan Tonight. Hat tip to TREGP, although the poor bastard was trying to say something entirely different when he posted the video. Hmm...does he even deserve the hat tip? *cue Philosoraptor*