Initially, this article was to be about why Western nations have become so politically correct and bend over backwards to accommodate various cultures and beliefs – often to the detriment of their own. Why there has been the creation of such things as Hate Laws in the United States, the Human Rights Commission in Canada, and other sundry assaults on free speech and actions in most Western nations.

However, with the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency looming, based not upon his experience and qualifications, but upon his skin color, and the fear of race riots if he doesn’t, it’s time to look at something that has been happening not only in the United States, but in a number of other Western nations as well.

There is an underlying shame in countries like America and Canada for the same reasons: not for one’s own actions, but the shame of events which occurred in the past such as slavery and what was done to the indigenous population. While it is more commonly known and talked about what happened in America, Canadians still bear the burden of their history. In other countries, while not racially motivated, a number of events were ethnically, economically, politically or religiously motivated.

Germans, most of whom weren’t even alive when the holocaust happened, bear the shame of their forefathers. It’s due to shameful events in their history, that most Western nations bend over backwards to prove they’re not racist or prejudiced. The families, descendants, and sometimes whole ethnic groups or races also bear the shame of having been victims.

Although the majority of Western nations operate under a guilt culture, which is basically the “innocent until proven guilty” concept, most have an underlying current of shame.

While not the same, shame and guilt are related, and are often confused. Shame can be an extension of guilt, for an event which may or may not have happened, or for which a person may or may not be responsible. Shame is about our inner self rather than our actions, and doesn’t have to be “rooted in personal wrong doing or blame.” People can feel shame for actions they were neither involved in nor responsible for.

One can feel shamed by something over which they had no control, such as a birth defect. A woman who has been raped often feels shame, even though there was no personal causality. People often have a sense of shame for events they were not involved in, or responsible for. People who were victims of a crime or abuse often feel shame because they feel they should have been able to do something to avoid it. The shame of being the product of an illegitimate birth, although less so now, can follow a person throughout life, even though he had no control over those events.

“For example, there is some evidence that children of Nazi war criminals have felt a great sense of shame, even though they were only infants when their fathers were convicted. We might feel shame because of the actions of another family or group member if we are known as “one of them” or as “cut from the same cloth…. …in some societies shame by association can be so acute that honor might only be restored by murdering the one who has brought the shame on the family (e.g. killing a wife or daughter for illicit sex)” (Shame: Interpersonal Behavior, Psychopathology, and Culture by Paul Gilbert, Bernice Andrews).

“…Shame seems always to involve a more-or-less sudden decrease in self-esteem, a moment in which we are revealed as somewhat less than we want to believe.”

Guilt comes from a sense of having done wrong: something you did, were responsible for, or felt you were responsible for. This is often confused with shame, especially when the offense is something over which they really had no control. The stereotype of the Jewish mother is a good example of this: a person who controls her children through guilt. One form of expiation is the Confessional:  a method used to liberate one from their guilt, as once spoken, and penance done, it absolves us of our guilt. It is “a simple trade of one action for another.”

Donald Nathanson, author of In Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self explained that the discomfort of shame is often so great that people will go to any lengths to avoid it. “Many of us who have studied shame in depth believe that it is a primary force in social and political evolution. Shame – our reaction to it and our avoidance of it – becomes the emotion of politics and conformity…its influence in human civilization is paramount.”

The behaviors associated with shame, whether triggered to cope or conceal, to avoid being shamed or shame being discovered, are often similar. Socially, they can be “focused to soothe others,” to act as a form of appeasement or, as some authors have suggested, evidence themselves as “anger and even aggression.” 

This could explain the hostility and distrust many Caucasians discern from many African Americans, whether or not the Caucasian is racist, has committed any offense towards them or their people, or whether or not their forefathers had anything to do with slavery. There is a “you’re one of them” attitude, based solely on color. It is, in essence, a reverse racism, which simply put, is discrimination based on race or skin color. Just being White is enough.

In order to employ “tactic[s] of shame avoidance, one must have some sense that investing in [these] strategies is worthwhile – that shame is so painful so deleterious to the self that it must be avoided.” It is not always an overt decision, and can be a subconscious attempt to avoid the feeling of shame.

The psychoanalyst Leon Wurmer explained that one way of dealing with shame, whether personal, familial or societal, is to keep the event a secret. “Such bypassed shame is dealt with by silence or threats of possible revealers or exposers – whistler blowers. Examples may include Jewish gold hidden in Swiss banks; the way a society treats it’s minorities or even gender issues. It can be shameful to acknowledge social shame.” Social shame that is not discussed can neither be worked through nor repaired.

In his discussion of shame and guilt, Darwin stated that shame is raised not by one's sense of guilt, but, rather, by "the thought that others think or know us to be guilty."

Some cultures have “various rituals for the repair of shame,” also called Shame Reparation. In essence, the call for financial reparations for slavery from American taxpayers is an attempt to do that. Congressman Dennis Kucinich favors them, while in 2004 Barack Obama was noncommittal, but said he “felt slavery had left stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated.”

Obama has made his views in this area clear. When he gave his speech in Philadelphia this was his take on the Declaration of Independence: “…The document they produced was eventually signed, but ultimately unfinished.  It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery.”

While Obama’s views on “slave reparations” aren’t clear at this point, it must be noted that not only are the members of his erstwhile church staunch supporters of “slave reparations,” but he has been involved with a number of people, including former Chicago Alderman Dorothy Jean Wright Tillman “who led an effort by the Chicago City Council to demand reparations for slavery.” This is important, as one often associates with those who hold the same views.

Which brings me to the subject at hand.

According to Fox News, Obama recently told a group of Florida donors that “Republicans will try to make voters afraid of him, and suggested they would use his race to scare up votes for John McCain…They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?..”

“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards.” Shown what cards? Obama and his supporters are the ones who continually make race an issue. He is the one who has played the Race Card. There is an assumption being made that because Conservatives are generally perceived to be White, they will eschew someone who is not. That couldn’t be further from the truth: what Conservatives want or don’t want has nothing to do with color  - it has everything to do with ideology and what they believe he will do if he wins the presidency.

Its clear Obama is Black. And, it’s clearly not something that can be ignored. In fact, it’s something to be celebrated, because to a certain degree, it shows how far the nation has grown since the days of Jim Crow laws. But, unlike what he and his supporters are implying, it’s not the basis of the Right’s dislike or distrust of him. That is something he’s done all on his own – and it has nothing to do with color or race.

It has to do with the fact that on more than one occasion he proudly presented information that was found to be untrue. The fact that he lacks experience; even in the job he was elected to do. And, the fact that a number of his stances and associates have been found to be questionable. That’s why people are saying things.

And, it is the presidential race, where the big boys play. Things will be said, he will be questioned. Is this not to happen because he is Black? The questioning of issues, of experience and his associates are part of the normal course of an election, particularly a presidential election, and have nothing whatsoever to do with color, although Obama and his supporters continually try to make it so.

Obama and his supporters repeatedly brought up the issue of race during the primaries. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell stated, “some white voters just wouldn’t support Obama because he’s black. Another supporter, Geraldine Ferraro, said Obama was seeing such success because of his race.”

To some degree, I think she was correct. The hard cold facts are, had Obama been a White man, it’s doubtful he would ever have gotten as far as he has. It’s highly doubtful that any White person, with minimal experience and a far left agenda would have achieved his degree of success. Shelby Steele, the author of White Shame said, “"Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance… Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin."

Obama and his supporters have wisely preyed upon one of America’s not so secret shames. The shame, never to heal because people won’t let it. The shame of some whites having had slaves. Of African Americans being treated as less than. And, the victimization which has subsequently allowed many people of color to benefit from it’s legacy, through various programs including Affirmative Action programs, which give precedence to just about anyone other than a white male, regardless of financial need. As if, somehow, these things would expiate our supposed sins. But, they won’t. Nothing tangible will absolve those who feel shame because they feel their race were victims, or their race was the perpetrators of the crimes. The penance or compensation will never be enough. Not even voting in a Black man for president would be enough.

That’s because shame is an internal feeling, it’s about us, not our actions. According to Eve Sedgwick, guilt is a bad feeling attached to what one does, shame is a bad feeling attaching to what one is. Remember, shame doesn’t have to be “rooted in personal wrong doing or blame.” People can feel shame for actions they were neither involved in nor responsible for. It’s not the forgiveness of others, which absolves us of shame, it’s something we must do ourselves. Forgive ourselves.

Axel Honneth looks at shame in an additional way: “shame is the psychological bedrock of political action, and the goal of political struggles is the elimination of shame.” He sees shame as the "missing psychological link" which, due to poverty or social repression, can motivate people to engage in political struggle. In other words, among other things, shame explains how people can be moved to action.

Shame can bring a person, group or society to the realization that it is dependent on the “recognition of others for its own sense of self.”  The perceived view of the self is often the impetus “to identify specific others as the source of oppression, and, hence, as the target of political struggle.”

Consequently, the playing of the Race Card. The implication that issues with Obama are based upon race. It taps into not only the White shame, but also the Black shame and anger. There have already been rumblings that if Obama is not elected, there will be race riots like those of the past.

The issue of Obama’s race is one people should not be afraid to broach. He is Black. If it is an issue, it needs to be openly discussed. Some feel part of his agenda is a “Black” agenda. If that is so, there needs to be open discourse on the issue. To deny something that is obvious, his color, is foolish. However, despite what Obama or his supporters seem to want to imply, I do not believe it is correct to insinuate that issues regarding Obama are based upon his race. Nor is it correct to try to shame people into voting for him, which playing the Race Card does. Race is not a good reason to elect the President of the United States, nor is it a good reason not to.

“Instead of fantasizing about the end of shame, Sedgwick proposes that shame be acknowledged, embraced, and put to transformative political use. In this framework, the goal is not the end of shame. The goal is the refiguration of shame as ‘a near inexhaustible source of transformational energy,’ and its creative deployment in political struggles. “