Rev. Jackson’s comments were supposed to be private, between two Black men who share a degree of comfort that allowed the communication to occur. The surveillance involved eavesdropping via an open mike created what has been referred to as a “degradation ceremony” involving White news commentators seeking to create a rift designed to cost Sen. Obama votes. A racist “right wing media” has suggested ulterior motives for Rev. Jackson’s behavior. Several commentators have claimed that Obama’s candidacy has served as an example of a generational and stylistic shift in Black political leadership in the United States.

Words, codes and symbols represent and communicate a meaning that is associated with a conceptual thought. Jackson’s comments about Sen. Obama were consistent with the general conceptual context Sen. Obama used. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Sen. Obama’s criticism of Black males is demeaning and psychologically castrating to Black men who are for the most part already powerless to turn the conditions of their lives around. Reverend Jackson insisted: “My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of Black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.”

Words only have true meaning when perceived within a specific context. Rev. Jackson perceived that Sen. Obama was castrating Black men and in turn used language that was contextually consistent. If Sen. Obama verbally castrates Black men then Rev. Jackson verbalized symbolic retaliation. Spoken words are always accompanied by gestures that provide emphasis. Verbal communication also involves tone, volume and intensity. In viewing the taped replay of Rev. Jackson’s comments, his gestures and facial expressions did not reflect the anger and rage that would denote a desire to perform the physical act. Hence, the connotation of his choice of words was clearly symbolically psychological. When violently racist White folks talk about castrating a Black Man they literally mean cutting his testicles off. Words take meaning based on context. Context includes the circumstances under which the communication occurs, the attitudes of the communicators and the shared, concepts, culture, experiences and history of the individuals involved.

This is essentially what Whoopi Goldberg meant by her comments on the July 17 edition of “The View.” A confrontation between Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Whoopi supposedly reduced Elisabeth to tears, calling it a double standard involved when a White and Black person uses the “N” word. Sherri Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg admitted there is a double standard and that there should be. Sherri Shepherd said she uses the word “as a term of endearment.”

Under White Supremacy, Whites reserve the right to say what they want. They also reserve the right to tell Black people how to think and talk. Elisabeth Hasselbeck questioned how she can explain to her young daughter why she is not allowed to use that word, but other kids are, when she noted “we live in the same world,” to which Whoopi retorted that Blacks and Whites do not live in the same world. Whoopi added that Hasselback “just does not understand.”

“I’m sorry it’s the way it is Elisabeth. This is the way it is ... what I need you to understand is the frustration that goes along when you say we live in the same world. It isn’t balanced. And we would like it to be. But you have to understand, you have to listen to the fact that we’re telling you, there are issues, there are huge problems that still affect us. And you’ve got to know this if you want to know us.”

If Hasselback has any obligation it is to provide her daughter with the true history of oppression and violence that America is guilty of perpetrating against Blacks. However, she does not want to deal with that. It is Hasselbacks’ guilt and not Whoopi’s words that drove her to tears. In contrast to a Black person using the word is not the “N” word that angers and causes resentment in Black people. Sherri Shepherd said: “I don’t want to hear it coming out of your (a White person’s) mouth.”

Should a White person have the same right to use the “N” word. I guess so. However, actions have consequences. The problem is not the “N” word. The problem is much deeper. When a White person leverages the “N” word against a Black person, that Black person recalls and might even have flashbacks of emotions and memories which are associated with Slavery and the White Supremacy culture of White peoples’ arrogance, hatefulness, hostile attitude, and demeanor. A Black person is subject to experience Post-Slavery Trauma Reaction (PSTR). The reaction is similar to that experience by people who suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). As in the case of PTSD, words and actions associated with the White skin of the person initiating the confrontation all come into play. Years ago I made the mistake of accepting an invitation to watch “Roots” with some White people that I worked with at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. One of the White males said something that triggered a deep-seated reaction on my part. I can assure you, the results were “not good.” While waiting at a traffic light, a mild mannered friend of mine who lives in Los Angeles was called the “N” word by a White man who drove up next to him. When the light changed, the White man sped away. My normally calm friend was enraged. He followed the White man home and threw a brick through his front window. In truth, many Black people still harbor deep-seated anger and pain associated with the trauma of current and historic victimization. Many Blacks deny their underlying rage when they continue to suppress their feelings while working and living in close proximity to Whites.

(Dr. Harry R. Davidson is a Kansas City based clinical psychologist and author.)