The minute US President Barack Obama opened his mouth last week and said that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someone when there was already proof that the person was in his own home, hundreds of anti-Democrat and anti-Obama bloggers and commentators put their feet in it along with his. Putting aside the more irrational statements, the common thread seemed to be that he ought not to have commented while admitting that he did not have all the facts. So should he or shouldn’t he?
President Obama backtracked the very next day, issuing what was not quite an apology, in which he stated that he never intended to say that the arresting officer – Sgt James Crowley – was stupid. But he did more, he reportedly spoke to the sergeant personally on the phone and invited him and the academic he had arrested, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr, to talk it over at the White House over a beer.
There is an old saying in Guyana that “stan easy better than beg pardon” or words to that effect. It means that rather than say something and then have to apologise for saying it afterwards, it would be better not to say it at all. This certainly would have been a diplomatic way to have dealt with this particular issue, but does ignoring a problem mean it does not exist? Or that it will cease to exist? We all know the answer to that. So should Mr Obama have spoken out? Definitely. But perhaps he said the wrong thing.
Was this a case of racial profiling? Yes it was and doubly so. Sgt Crowley saw a black man who had broken into a house in Cambridge. After he had established that the man had a right to be in that house, he still saw a black man and one who was giving him lip. Professor Gates saw a white policeman who needed putting in his place and he figured he should be the person to do it. Clearly this was also a case of egoism on the part of both men. Both Sgt Crowley and Professor Gates were determined to show each other “who I am.” They both ended up looking more than a bit foolish and certainly, given the circumstances President Obama’s “acted stupidly” comment should have been directed across the board. One hopes that if he does get them off those high horses and into the White House den and with a beer in hand, he will be able to make them both see that.
With regard to President Obama himself, one has to admire a man who will admit to having said the wrong thing, particularly a man of his stature. Backtracking on publicly made statements – even when they are wrong-sided – is not something that one often sees head of states do, especially not in this part of the world. What this incident ought to teach us is that we should never jump to conclusions and that the idiom “a still tongue keeps a wise head” is always applicable.
One expects leaders to always be pinnacles of diplomacy, and perhaps they need to try harder, but we must also be aware that a head of state is a human being first. That said, however, if President Obama had wanted a springboard for an informal discussion on the race issue in America, he could not have chosen a better catalyst if he had deliberated on it.
