Barack Obama Could Have Had THE Greatest Legacy of All Time

Looking back to a post I wrote way back in 2008, "Righting the Woes of Black America Starts at Home," it makes me think about how much of a missed opportunity was presented during the presidency of Barack Obama.

At the time, race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were not at all too pleased with certain comments that Obama made on the campaign trail which put some of the onus of many black problems in America back unto themselves.

He did not pass all of the blame on black America mind you, and rightly so. But he did acknowledge that not all problems in black America are the fault of society or the government. 

"We've got to demand more responsibility from Washington. We've got to push aside those special interests and let the voices of the American people ring out," said Obama. He even said that we needed to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. 

"But you know what," he added. "We also have to demand more responsibility from ourselves." 

I thought Barack Obama was right about the comments he made. These were powerful words. These were words I actually wanted to hear. And when he uttered them, I thought, even though I did not support his presidency, that if he could accomplish nothing else, if he could be the force which can turn around all of the past issues facing black America—it would be the greatest accomplishment of all time.

He would have left a legacy as powerful as Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. Of the historic marches for freedom of Martin Luther King, Jr.

If nothing else, the strong words of Barack Obama at that time gave me hope, despite his running as a democrat, despite his clearly being a liberal, that perhaps we might finally see a voice (potentially coming from the podium of the highest office in the land) that would speak for black America in a way that would encourage a newfound path forward instead of against them as so many in the leagues of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did for so long. 

And frankly, that so many in the democrat party did and continue to do to this day.

I am not saying that Barack Obama would have had the power to change everything. But he certainly had the power to foster change quite powerfully among society as a whole. Especially in the black community. It was a message that could have been powerful in that it would have said, "We have the opportunity and the ability and the strength to become what we have always known we can become—that we know we are and rather than be victims, to be leaders of our own destinies."

Words not unlike many spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. frankly. Powerful words that lift a people up. Not hold them down. Words that strengthen the heart and solidify the resolve rather than soften the heart and weaken the resiliency of purpose.

Because that's been my biggest complaint of so-called leaders like Jackson and Sharpton and even of the democrat party. Their message is always one of despair and failure and blame. 

Not for one second will I deny that there aren't a multitude of issues that help to support at least some of the arguments people like Jackson or Sharpton have made over the years, as well as others in their camps. But to deny the internal portion of culpability is to deny, ultimately, the real change that can be made to actually foster progress.

It's sort of like the historical words of John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Those were powerful words as well. It put the onus of America's problems in the hands of everyday citizens and said basically, "We cannot expect the world's problems to be solved by someone else. We must strive to see within ourselves what we can do to help solve those problems together."

Isn't that sort of what Barack Obama said? And how could those words have been interpreted as talking down to black people, as Jesse Jackson suggested, or even anger a people as a whole? Shouldn't words like that provide for an aha moment? A revelation of possibility? A moment of realization of a key ingredient that had been missing all along to finally make the real change achievable?

The key takeaway here for me is that Barack Obama left this massive idea on the table when he made history and became the first black president and took his oath of office. He unfortunately, and frankly sadly, missed the greatest opportunity the world has ever known to rise up black America in a way that would have presented a very different landscape today for all of America and society even today.

The question becomes, when does that opportunity ever come again? And how did he so poorly miss it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on YouTube to keep up with the latest installments wherever The Springboard writes. You can also follow me on X @jimbauer601.

Creating the Illusion of Bigotry is About Words

I want to talk about words, and how certain words are strategically used to create division, and the illusion of bigotry. I use the word bigotry because it has morphed into that from before being mainly just about racism. I say that even though the word "racism" these days carries a very different meaning now than it did not so long ago depending on who you ask to define what it is.

Take the phrase, "Your kind of people." It's a rather benign statement that does not by itself mean anything specific. It requires context in order for the phrase to have meaning or a definition.

The phrase can be used in its entirety, or it can be abbreviated. "Your kind." It means exactly the same thing depending on the context. It also means different things depending on the nature of the conversation in which it is being used.

Many people often say, "I know your kind." Adding the words, "of people," may be a bit redundant because we are all people, of course. But it doesn't in any way change the meaning of the entirety of the phrase.

Unless the one hearing the words wants it to.

Ultimately a "kind of people" can be anything. There are good people, bad people, devious people, unscrupulous people, charitable people, mischievous people. In other words, it can be said that in this world there are "all kinds of people." Another common phrase that is used in the English language.

Depending on who you direct the words to, and often times regardless of the context, "Your kind of people" suddenly becomes a racist statement even if, in the context of how it is stated, it has no racial component to it whatsoever.

In other words, to the ear of someone who wants to create division, the ears will process the word or phrase in a way that creates the illusion of bigotry.

It's not just a white or black issue, though. Thus, choosing the word bigotry over racism. Because the same thing is happening with the LGBTQ community and the "fight for their rights" argument permeating the political landscape today. Words are being turned into something else in order to create the bigotry to further the cause and perpetuate the idea that bigotry exists on a level that perhaps it really doesn't. 

It's designed to widen the divide and justify a reason for the argument. It's a strong-armed attempt to change the conversation.

That's really what the pronoun thing is about when you get down to it. It's a challenge. It's a call to create an argument. It is a cause to force someone into a challenge for which now they must defend themselves and for which the person who believes they are being bigoted against can now point fingers at and assign blame.

"Could I speak to her," now becomes a bigoted statement if it is directed at someone who wants to be called they. By itself nothing at all is implied by the term "her" unless the word means something else to the person it is directed at.

The word, "her," now becomes a challenge. The person who wants to be called "they" now gets to put the other person on the spot to see if they will now assume using the new desired pronoun or will pose an argument against it. And if the person does not comply with the challenge, they are now confirmed to be a bigot.

Communication is the greatest form of bringing people together. But when you redefine words and make the language used confusing, that's what creates the divide. Because when people no longer know how to communicate, some people avoid the communication altogether.

"What do you mean by your kind of people?" asks boldly the black man if it is said to him by a white person. The challenge has begun, and a benign statement now has been redefined and the entire context and nature of the conversation changes from one that had no racial connotation, to one that now does.

You've been put on the spot to now defend yourself but have also been immediately accused. Beyond that, your defense will be harder since the person accusing has, presumably, already made up their mind.

In other words, one side is saying, "You can't use those words." Or they are saying, "You have to carefully choose your words around me." A person who is not racist now has to communicate in a way that proves he is not racist at every word.

When a group of people assumes they are bigoted against, it is on the other side to constantly prove they are not a bigot. They are guilty until deemed innocent. And if you slip? Now the challenge is on—but the accusation remains, often times despite the defense.

Take the word cis as another example. Beyond being so far just a made-up word transgender people use to describe non transgendered people, if you say you are not "cis," but just a man, suddenly the affirmation of the word "man" and the denial of the word "cis" implies you are a bigot. 

And that's the challenge. That's what the so-called bigoted person is now forced to do. Either to accept the definition they have chosen for you and change your verbiage or be accused of being a bigot if you don't.

The English language, or any language for that matter, is supposed to be simple enough that words mean something, but all words must mean the same thing to everyone or else the ability to communicate breaks down.

But of course, context and body language and inflection also play large roles in how we communicate with each other, and even changes the nature of words used. Calling someone stupid can be playful, joking, or serious.

It's all in how you say it and in what context you call someone stupid which determines if the word is being used to accuse or to simply suggest or is nothing more than a joke.

"You're an idiot!" with a furled brow, raised voice and wave away means a very different thing than, "You're an idiot," with a smile and giggle and wave away. The context should immediately assign to the person the word is being directed at what is meant by the word "idiot." And often times it is clearly understood.

Unless they happen to be certain words deemed to have specific other meanings that have been reassigned to the words—again, such as to create the illusion of bigotry or racism. To create the divide and further the gap. To put otherwise normal, benign people on constant alert, and to stand at the ready any group of people who want to perpetuate the illusion of bigotry to challenge it and have an opportunity to affirm it.

When one is predisposed to assume something exists, in any encounter, regardless of the nature of it, that person will deeply look for any reason to find the thing they are predisposed to believe exists. And anything can be turned into an opportunity to say, "See, right there. There it is."

The problem is that the more one or another group tries to redefine language, the more divided as a people we become. The more unable to communicate effectively we become. The less inclined we become to have an open and honest conversation about anything. Especially in situations where any number of words may be up for challenge as to what they really mean depending on who says them and who hears them.

The answer is that any of these "redefined" words or phrases can be bigoted. But they need to be understood on a different level, and the context should be sought just as strongly as the bigotry is being sought to be found. 

Because here's the deal. If you are looking for bigotry, and are predisposed to believing it is present everywhere, you will find it. No matter where it comes from. No matter the context. No matter the meaning. You will find it.

Everyone says we want to eliminate racism and we want to eliminate bigotry. And I think on all sides, deep down, that's what most people really want to do. At the same time, in order to do that, if we really want to accomplish it, we need to stop finding ways to breathe new life into it. We need to stop finding new ways to rekindle flames when the fire is dying down.

Rather than look for ways to divide each other, we need to find ways to come together. And if we can be creative about how we change the meaning of words to perpetuate the illusion of bigotry, I think we can be equally creative about finding ways to remove the illusion and just go back to words meaning what they actually mean.

I think the world would be a much better place if we did that.