|
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 03:21 PM by Supersedeas
Maybe, you find no fault with any of Mr. Holders words. Maybe, you think that labeling the entire county a "nation of cowards" was THE most appropriate word choice and the most timely rhetoric that the People's Attorney could use in the wake of the most historic election in this nations history. You obviously like Mr. Holder's rhetoric -- so enjoy.
Others will simply disagree with the timing, tone and vagaries underlying his rhetoric. For those who voice disagreement, disagreement alone does not make them some kind of foot-stomping, inarticulate white person unwilling to engage in conversation requiring them to leave the room since they are so obviously full of faux outrage. Disagreement with Mr. Holder's rhetoric also doesn't mean that they disagree with all of the major points that Mr. Holder was trying to make. You can tell alot from the tone of peoples reaction to Mr. Holder's speech. But you can also tell alot from the tone of people who defend Mr. Holder's speech in knee-jerk ways. Word choice can be revealing.
I'm not suggesting that Mr. Holder apologize for calling us a nation of cowards. But, if he is going to use that kind of incendiary rhetoric, he'd better be able to back that up with some substance and some courage of his own.
There are those who have the courage to disagree with his rhetoric. Here is what Harry Jackson, Jr. had to say:
"Perhaps it was wishful thinking for me to believe that Holder would have set a tone of celebration that would motivate people to take more groundbreaking steps concerning placing African Americans in critical roles in the nation. Holder resembled a specialist that had rushed out of the dusty back rooms of the legal world to deliver a book report instead of the manifesto it could have been. Filled with pride of learning, he forgot to be a statesman. I hope he will analyze his mistake and avoid 'hoof and mouth disease' in the future."
John McWhorter had the courage to disagree with Holder's speech, so what does that make him...another loony toon full of faux outrage:
"I suspect those who call for this "conversation" know the claim has become more gestural than concrete. Otherwise, they would state their case directly rather than asking to "talk.""
Isn't that what courageous attorneys do...state their case directly.
The essential question is about the lack of specifics in the Holder speech over and above the more grandious/gestural rhetoric about the United States being ESSENTIALLY a nation of cowards. Why are we essentially cowards?
Holder concedes the reality of electing an African American President.
Holder concedes that we have done a pretty good job in melding races in the workplace.
Holder concedes that during work hours and shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race.
Yet, ESSENTIALLY, we are a nation of cowards. Why?
1. Because when we talk, certain subjects regarding race are off limits, and
2. On Saturdays and Sundays, America looks like it did fifty years ago.
Holder suggests that the Justice Department has a special responsibility here. What are these off limit subjects that the Justice Department must confront? Are there any specifics to put on the bare bone subjects that remain off limits? What specific subjects are so germane that it gives rise to labeling us a nation of coward?
Mr. Holder does mention affirmative action and the need for a legitimate debate (hardly an issue people are afraid to talk about).
Mr. Holder does mention inner city crime in the broader context of the need to understand Black History and the civil rights movement (again, hardly off-limits -- and the connection to Black History is tenuous at best).
But, whereever Mr. Holder was going with those two subjects, and any of the other off-limit issues which he fails to specify, (those issues that make us cowards are not delineated with any clarity), it doesn't seem to lead anywhere in his speech.
Eric Holder is the Nation's Top Attorney, the Attorney General. The selective use of words goes with the particular occupation and especially at that level where the Attorney speaks for the Department of Justice for the entire Federal government.
Still Eric Holder was appointed with high hopes from many of us. But, he wasn't alone.
When a Federal Judge was appointed to replace Albert Gonzolez, there were high hopes that Michael Mukasey would have the courage to enforce the rule of law. Instead, the nation had to endure another attorney general, full of lofty rhetoric, but who adhered to political expediency in order to appease partisan/factional interests.
It is within the context of his predecessors that we should judge Mr. Holder's wordchoice here:
Mr. Holder's use of lofty rhetoric provides a perfect opportunity...to focus like a laser beam on the ACTIONS of the new attorney general who has been given the authority to enforce the law in places where it might not be comfortable politically.
If Mr. Holder is going to use his high position to lecture us about being a nation of cowards, he'd better be able to back it up when it comes to his duties over and above his obligation to give lofty speeches devoid of specifics.
Contrary to the cautionary note extended in Mr. Holder's speech, "We still speak too much of "them" and not "us"," it is much easier to categorize those who disagree (as one of "them" foot-stomping, white folks full of faux outrage) rather than confront the specifics examples of courage and cowardice head-on.
Mr. Holder has set the bar of courage pretty high by labeling us all as essentially a nation of cowards, lets see how his actions as Attorney General measure up to his faultless rhetoric.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
