Putting Black Faces on Imperial Policies
by BAR Executive Editor Glen Ford 

As African Americans contemplate the possibility of Barack Obama in 
the Oval Office, they should consider the ramifications of a Black face 
at the helm of an unreconstructed imperial policy. During the Secretary 
of State tenures of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the face of U.S. 
aggression and lawlessness in the world, has been Black - a hell of an 
image to present to the planet! Barack Obama shows no inclination to 
abandon imperialism as state policy - only to avoid "dumb" wars, while 
placing U.S.-designated "interests" above international law. 


"What a spectacle: American imperialism in black-face." 

"Barack Obama is our son and he deserves our support," declared 
Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr., speaking to a gathering of 
Black Democrats at the party's winter meeting, in Washington, earlier 
this month. By Jones' logic, Condoleezza Rice deserves automatic 
African American support as "our daughter," and Colin Powell, her 
predecessor as George Bush's Secretary of State, was due fealty as "our 
brother." 

Jones' embrace of the entire African American family tree must also, 
therefore, extend to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence 
Thomas, the most reactionary, anti-Black member of the High Court; and 
to "our brother" J. Kenneth Blackwell, the former Ohio Secretary of 
State whose consuming mission in 2004 was to deny the franchise to as 
many fellow Blacks as possible. 

Although the winter meetings are traditionally showcases for 
candidates to display their positions on the issues of the day, State 
Sen. Jones saw no need to present his appeal on Obama's behalf in any 
packaging other than race. In effect, Jones attempted to relieve Obama 
of any political obligation to Black people. Under Jones' formula, the 
relationship between the Black office-seeker and the African American 
public is reversed: it is the people that owe allegiance to the 
candidate, who is in turn set free to woo groups and promote interests 
that may be inimical to those of the Black public. 

"Jones would utterly gut Black politics of all substance, rendering 
the entire electoral process worthless to the Black masses." 

Jones and the larger political current he represents would utterly gut 
Black politics of all substance, rendering the entire electoral process 
worthless to the Black masses. Perhaps the greatest irony of Jones' 
issue-less directive is that it masquerades as a Black empowerment 
strategy. In a transparent bid to shame Blacks in the Hillary Clinton 
camp - another political desert - Jones said African Americans don't 
"owe" anyone. Jones elaborated later, in a conversation with a Chicago 
Sun-Times reporter. "How long do we have to owe before we have an 
opportunity to support our son?" he said. 

In other words, Black people's "debt" to the Clintons - as if such 
ever existed - has been paid, and now it's time to herd Black voters 
behind Obama, like so many cattle. Jones' brand of politics holds that 
Black people don't have interests or political ideals, only obligations 
to one politician or the other. In Jones' world, African Americans are 
constantly indebted, but nobody owes them anything - certainly not 
Obama, "our son." 

 The Emil Jones brand of Black politics is based on the assumption 
that African American aspirations are limited to a simple desire to see 
Black faces on display in high places, no matter the public policy 
content of that representation. It is as if emancipation of the slaves 
could be achieved by moving Ol' Massa out of the Big House, and 
installing the Black butler in his place, while the conditions of life 
and labor in the fields remain unchanged. After all, the butler is one 
of "ours." The slaves should be happy to experience a vicarious 
freedom, through their "son." Further, it would be downright unfamily-
like to pester our own kin about the need for forty acres and a mule 
per household. 

"Barack Obama's stealth corporate presidential candidacy could create 
the conditions for a ?perfect storm' that sweeps away what remains of 
issues-based coherence in Black electoral and institutional politics." 

 Jones' remarks exemplify an extraordinary vulgarization of African 
American politics, the product of uncritical, Jim Crow-era reflexes 
that linger within the Black polity, combined with the growing 
influence of corporate money in the Black leadership-creation process. 
The advent of Barack Obama's stealth corporate presidential candidacy 
could create the conditions for a "perfect storm" that sweeps away what 
remains of issues-based coherence in Black electoral and institutional 
politics. Should that occur - and there is much evidence that the 
unraveling is already well advanced - the collapse of progressive 
American politics becomes inevitable, a high price to pay for a Black 
face in the Oval Office. 

Imperial Obama 

African Americans will pay a special, historical price if a corporate-
molded Black politician becomes the titular leader of an 
unreconstructed U.S. imperial state - and, make no mistake about it, 
Barack Obama is an imperialist.  No one but a deep-fried imperialist 
could describe U.S. behavior in Iraq as "coddling" the Iraqis, as Obama 
said to an establishment foreign policy gathering in Chicago, late last 
year. His Iraq War De-escalation Act, carefully calibrated to make him 
appear slightly less belligerent than Hillary Clinton, allows the U.S. 
to wage war until March 31, 2008, at the very least, and to maintain a 
military presence in the country thereafter. It is a sham measure, more 
helpful in buying time for Bush than in encouraging effective dissent. 

At his core, Obama is not opposed to U.S. violations of other nations' 
sovereignty; he simply opposes "dumb wars" - as he told a reporter for 
the Chicago Reader - meaning, aggressions executed by less-than-bright 
American Commanders-in-Chief. U.S.-designated "interests," not 
adherence to international law, are paramount - the fundamental tenet 
of imperialism. 

"Obama is not opposed to U.S. violations of other nations' 
sovereignty; he simply opposes ?dumb wars'" 
Of the declared Democratic candidates, only Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich 
can pass anti-imperialist muster; thus the near-certainty of another 
imperialist in the White House in 2009. Which brings us to the special 
price that African Americans will pay if the face of U.S. imperialism, 
is Black. 

The Face of Aggression 

There was a time not that long ago, when the historic struggles of 
Black Americans for racial equality, decolonization and peace were 
admired throughout the African Diaspora and beyond. Especially in what 
was called the Third World, African Americans were perceived as 
different than the arrogant, racist "ugly Americans" - the whites that 
strutted around other people's nations as if they owned them. In the 
early years of the Vietnam War, there were many reports of Viet Cong 
attempts to spare Black American soldiers' lives, if practical, as an 
acknowledgment of shared suffering under white rule. When Iranian 
students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, in 1979, African Americans 
were soon released, along with female staffers. 

"Colin Powell emerged from Gulf War One as the personification of 
American military might - and threat." 

It is difficult to imagine such differentiations being made on foreign 
shores, today. General Colin Powell emerged from Gulf War One as the 
personification of American military might - and threat. As George 
Bush's Secretary of State, Powell sacrificed his reputation - and an 
immeasurable portion of remaining African American planetary good will 
- in a lie-soaked justification of the impending invasion of Iraq 
before the United Nations. 

Colin Powell became the Black face of international piracy, to be 
succeeded by Condoleezza Rice. 

In her first act as the Black American female face of imperial 
aggression, in April, 2002, then National Security Advisor Condoleezza 
Rice could not contain her disappointment at the failure of a U.S.-
backed coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "We do hope that 
Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching," she sneered, "and 
that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, 
which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long 
time." 

As Secretary of State, Rice is the reigning imperial drum major. 
Despite a string of Chavez victories in fair elections and his 
overwhelming support among the poor and mostly non-white Venezuelan 
majority, Rice last week loosed another transparent threat against his 
government. "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela," 
she told a congressional committee. "I do believe that the president of 
Venezuela is really, really destroying his own country, economically, 
politically." What a spectacle: American imperialism in black-face, 
threatening a mixed-race president whose government has arguably 
adopted the most racially progressive and inclusive policies on the 
South American continent. 

"Condoleezza Rice is the Black, snarling symbol of U.S. lawlessness."


When Rice claimed that the U.S. had been meeting with Venezuelan 
Catholic leaders who were "under fire" from Chavez's government, the 
vice-president of the Venezuelan Bishops' Conference - no friend of 
Chavez - called her a "liar." Contrast this with Barack Obama's 
exchange of pleasantries with Rice before voting to confirm her as 
chief diplomatic operative of the Bush endless war doctrine. 

From Beirut to Caracas, Condoleezza Rice is the Black, snarling symbol 
of U.S. lawlessness - a perception of our African American "daughter" 
that the NAACP must not have anticipated when it bestowed on her its 
Image Award, in early 2002. Back then, Rice told the civil rights 
group's gala affair: "As I travel with President Bush around the world 
and as we meet with leaders from around the world, I see America 
through other people's eyes." 

After two consecutive Black Secretaries of State fronting for a hyper-
aggressive U.S. regime, the world no doubt sees Black America in a very 
different light. 

African Americans, who care so much for image - some, to the exclusion 
of all else - should contemplate what the ascension of a Black face to 
the Oval Office will mean to world perceptions of Black Americans as a 
group. Would Barack Obama be a worse international criminal than 
Hillary Clinton? My guess is, they'd function identically, as stewards 
of empire. But a Barack Obama presidency would leave an unindelible 
impression on the planet: The Blacks of the United States have arrived! 
They, too, are "ugly Americans." 

BAR Executive Editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford (at) 
BlackAgendaReport.com. 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤