Like the old legal privileges, tax immunities, and public honors accorded to aristocrats, from an early age, black Americans of any ability are taught in today’s America that they are special, immune from public criticism, and entitled to accomplish less at work and in school to succeed. We’re told publicly (and quite unbelievably) “they need to work ‘twice as hard,’” but this is clearly false, as evidenced not least by the lower test scores and lower grades needed for blacks to get into elite institutions, and later in life by the intense mentoring, lower expectations, and tolerance for bad behavior in the work place.
Michelle Obama is a product of this system, getting into Princeton and Harvard Law School throug a combination of her successful brother’s athletic prowess and her race. But she was no longer the class success (salutitorian) as she was at her much less challenging South Side high school; she was uncomfortable at Princeton, studied a “gut” major (sociology), and almost certainly could not pass the bar exam the first time around (as evidenced by her late admission to the Illinois Bar a year after graduating). She later left “Big Law” after refusing assignments she thought she was too good for. She ultimately got a cushy job (six figures) matchmaking “community activists” with the University of Chicago Hospitals, making more than $300K annually when her husband was elected Senator. She’s still very ungrateful.
University of Chicago has always been a brainy place, where students actually care about learning, are intellectually curious, and do not suffer fools. There’s nothing in her personality or life or words or anything else about her to suggest she’d have done well there. During my time there, there were always a good number of “high average” local students–black and white–who did not really fit in and either dropped out or muddled through, not quite sure why so many of their peers were at the library at 11 pm on a Friday. The school has also has been in many ways a compassionate place, where every year hundreds of students volunteer in soup kitchens, tutoring local students, and generally reach out to the largely impoverished and black local community. But the school did not send an invitation to Michelle wrapped with a pink bow, so she’s pissed off to this day. At a commencement speech delivered this week at UC Merced, she remarked:
The context: Many of the UC Merced graduates were the first in their families to earn college degrees, and Mrs. Obama said, “By using what you have learned here, you can shorten the path perhaps for kids who may not see a path at all.
“I was once one of those kids. Most of you were once one of those kids,” and then told the students how she grew up just a few miles from the University of Chicago.
“Yet that university never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me — a bright and promising student in their midst — and I had no reason to believe there was a place for me there.
“Therefore, when it came time for me to apply to college, I never … considered the university in my own backyard as a viable option.”
She really knows how to hold a grudge! It’s sad that her “inspirational” vignettes always come down to “don’t let the man hold you down.” The minor indignities of life always appear in her speeches: her weak test scores, her feelings of alienation at Princeton, and now her beef with her very generous employer of many years. This is, nonetheless, understandable. She has an inflated and demanding sense of entitlement, coupled with the vague sense of inferiority–these, the contradictory traits that always accompany unearned privileges. Why else the $400 sneakers and heavy debt load in the 90s and now the somewhat hard-to-accept makover of herself as the First Mom? She’s a combination of the Real Housewives of NY and Omarosa, a pretty disagreeable (but all too familiar) character that would be causing her husband a lot more problems but for a very compliant and well trained media.
One of the Obamas’ achilles heels might be the habits formed from years of navigating the relatively calm water of liberal, guilt-ridden whites in academic settings. The Obamas are used to being accomodated and coddled, but as soon as they are challenged the barely suppressed anger comes out, particularly in the case of the more choleric and resentment-driven Michelle.
Subscribe To This Feed
Michelle is not more resentment-driven than Barack. She is just not as good at concealing her resentment. It would be a mistake to assume that Barack is not driven by his inner score-keeper. In fact if you want to be able to predict Barack’s next move, try to catch a glimpse of his resent-o-meter. It telegraphs his move every time.
Two people I knew voted for Obama because they felt he would have a positive influence on blacks. I pointed out that dozens of black mayors did not seem to make a difference so why would a black president.
Assuming Obama is around for 8 years, I would like to see an analysis of black school achievement from 2008 to 2016. It would be interesting to see if his example translates into higher test scores, lower drop out rates and a decreased prison population.
The Obamas aren’t very different from other “gifted” individuals who have “made it” and want to be accepted by “the establishment.” They never will be accepted; only tolerated, and admired for their achievements..no small accomplishment. That’s the way it is in any society; for high achievers outside of the established elite.
No, most universities do not recruit minority members from their local backyard. Why? because all universities (and most colleges) want “diversity.” It just so happens that the U. of Chicago is in a large, diverse city…as opposed to Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc. However, the local U. is the alternative for those who don’t get accepted at other schools. You know, live home and go to college to save money etc.
Are Michelle and Barrack “resentful”. You bet! So were immigrant groups; especially the Irish and the Jews who succeeded in this society.
The difference is that the bar was not lowered for either the Irish or the Jews; or other immigrant groups for that matter. Therefore those who “made it” did so by pure grit and tenacity. Both groups knew that bad behavior by members of the group would set the “cause” (i.e. “acceptance”) back. Therefore there was immense pressure for the lower classes of each group to stay within the bounds of the acceptable behavior of the times.
People like Michelle (and Barrack) are aware that some would say they got were they were by the grace of Affirmative Action. (There was no affirmative action prior to the 1960′s). Both would have been successful, had they gone to a U. of Chicago or a Hawaii State type of college and law school. However, being accepted by and graduating from the Ivy League is like having a coldblooded membership to the current American meritocratic establishment.
Black elites have chosen to move into the mainstream of American society or to (resentfully) cast their lot with the Left. Neither group pressured the lower and underclasses to strive for “middle-class” (i.e. “acceptable”) behavior. One sought escape to the establishment and the other sought overthrow of the same establishment.
(To be fair, the “middle-class” was having its own crisis at this period of time–1960′s and even until now with Globalization. so, the definition of “middle class values” was in flux.)
Michelle and Barrack chose to embrace the Left. Therein lies their dilemma. They have to continue to assert that their fellow Blacks are being “kept down” by the establishment. Neither can admit that they would rather “die” than to live like…or with… some of their supporters. Nor can they confess that they used their supporters to advance their own goals and to “feather their own nest.”
Michelle and Barrack can’t state that they were (for all purposes) born into families with “middle-class values” that gave them the tools to take advantage of opportunities; when they were presented to them….just as the Irish, etc. had done. And, therefore would have been successful, no matter what college they attended or whatever their race.
Both have to keep saying that they made it despite “the man,” etc.. Otherwise, they will have to face the reality that their upbringing was different from that of their base. And, that they have little, or nothing, in common with most of those whom they claim to represent. They want to be accepted as members of the establishment, and it’s attending power structures; now that they no longer need those whom they claim to represent. However they have to continue paying lip service to their base.
(That is, “Leftists/Neoliberals” and poor Blacks)
Or, as Fred Astaire said to Gretta Garbo in Ninotchka:
“Confidentially, isn’t it better to be a member of the oppressors vs. a member of the the oppressed?”
“like having a coldblooded membership to the current American meritocratic establishment.
I meant to say “golden-plated”
Oh well, the new “Global Meritocracy” and by extension the new American Meritocracy is a rather coldblooded social group.
Has anyone here read: “The Decline of Middle America and the Problem of Meritocracy” @ http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3038
Or any of the other articles (posts) at FPR regarding this topic?
Like Michelle, I too have felt the sting of establishment rejection.
I grew up in Atlanta, “just a few miles from” Emory University. And yet, Emory “never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me.”
And what’s worse, Emory never gave me a six-figure community relations job. You know, I wonder if Michelle and I are alone in having had to endure these elitist snubs.
It may come as a surprise to the author of this article that the majority of the world does not, nor should not, attribute serving food in urban soup kitchens to the homeless as the height of community service, or the most of humane acts. At best, it is a social exercise meant to convey goodness, and generally lacks that measure of concentrated effort that otherwise prevents soup kitchens from having to exist in the first place. Since many of those who do serve are those with the education and training to choose the community service they do, the choice of serving in a soup kitchen is more disguised diversion of goodness than actual concern or caring for his fellow man.