Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Published on Saturday, February 28, 2009 by Extra!
Let’s Talk About Race—or Maybe Not
Coverage of Obama and ethnicity says more about media
There were early indications that corporate media coverage of Barack Obama’s candidacy would be squirm-inducing, putting on display the elite (mainly white) press corps’ murky ideas about race much more than any straightforward reckoning of black Americans’ situation or what an Obama presidency might mean for their concerns.
Journalists were sometimes embarrassingly frank about how they interpreted Obama’s blackness and what they hoped his success might mean. “No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery,” declared NBC’s Chris Matthews (1/21/07). “All the bad stuff in our history ain’t there with this guy.” “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer,” opined the New Republic (2/5/07). “Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone [Al] Sharpton, too.” (See Extra!, 3–4/07.)
Looking to find parallels for the “stuff” they did like, journalists turned to fiction, as when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/27/08) alleged that voters “decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson,” or when CNN (6/22/08) told viewers that Michelle Obama “wants to appear to be Claire Huxtable and not Angela Davis.”
The fondest hope seemed to be that an Obama victory (if not his strong candidacy alone) would absolve us of any need to talk about racism any more. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (5/14/08) wrote that, in announcing his run for office, Obama "was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes."
It’s not clear if Fineman meant Obama said that exactly, or if it was just implied by the way he “radiat[ed] uplift and glorious possibility.” Alas, he continued: “Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would.”
Of course, “we” didn’t all imagine that a nonwhite man running for president would mean an end to racism; that belief seems endemic only in a press corps with a myopic understanding of how racial inequality works.
Thus Fineman lamented, “far from eliminating racial thinking from politics,” Obama’s campaign actually drew attention to the subject—in part because Obama let the Finemans of the world down by having a “message” that was “race-aware, if not race-based.”
Fineman, like many pundits, seemed to think that acknowledging the distinct experiences faced by people of color is tantamount to claiming these differences trump all other factors in life. Talking about race equals harping about race, and, well, that’s being racist, isn’t it? The goal is to be “post- racial,” which seems to mean maintaining that racial differences have no impact, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For some, last November 4 saw the disappearance of racial inequity in America (“Promised Land: Obama’s Rise Fulfills King’s Dream”—Oklahoman headline, 1/19/09), and with it the need for any countervailing measures.
Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg (Chicago Tribune, 1/22/09) suggested that “opponents of racial quotas and other champions of colorblindness on the right should be popping champagne,” not to mention “rubbing Barack Obama in [the] faces” of all those foreign “finger-waggers eager to lecture . . . America about race and tolerance.”
For those who don’t see racial inequity playing out every day in disparate joblessness, incarceration or mortality rates, the presence of a brown-skinned man in the White House means there’s no more structural work to be done; those struggling from now on have no excuse.
At the very least, the black guy winning proved that there are no more voting rights concerns. USA Today (1/9/09) wondered whether the whole Voting Rights Act should be junked “now that a black man has won the presidency.” And for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jim Wooten (1/20/09), the Obama victory “plainly” meant that “the political system that discriminated and the people who designed it are dead and gone.”
The Obama victory was credited with the existence of a demographic of “successful” blacks, as illustrated by a magazine (Uptown) that launched in 2004 (“Magazine for Age of Obama,” New York Daily News, 1/19/09). And the hiring of an African-American to coach the Yale football team was “particularly significant in light of both the election of Obama as the nation’s first black president and in the consistently meager numbers of black head coaches at the top level of college football,” according to the New York Times (1/8/09)—though the particular relevance of the former is kind of hard to figure.
If being “post-racial” involves pretending race/ethnicity doesn’t affect opportunity, acting “post-racial” means renouncing any measure aimed at ensuring that. Post-election, Obama was called upon to follow through on his “promise” in this regard in early decisions on appointments and policy.
The New York Times (1/15/09) gave the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen space to put some questions to new attorney general Eric Holder, including: “Do you agree with Mr. Obama’s implication that the Supreme Court needs someone who will side with the powerless rather than the powerful? What if the best nominee happens to be a white male?”
The L.A. Times editorial page (12/28/08) lauded Obama’s cabinet picks, in so doing matter-of-factly contrasting the hiring goals of “quality” and “identity politics”—in this context meaning the hiring of anyone who is not a white man; Obama, it declared, “has succeeded on both levels.”
Obama could also prove himself to be the right sort of black leader—the kind who places responsibility for black people’s problems largely with black people themselves—with an embrace of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law. USA Today (1/6/09) draped the case in appropriately patronizing tones with the cringe-worthy “How to Turn Obama’s Success Into Gains for Black Boys”:
Black mothers encouraging their children? Just imagine!
The idea that, in the Age of Obama, a little early morning encouragement is all that separates black Americans from socio-economic success was abetted even by less unctuous reporting; in the midst of a fairly thoughtful, 8,000-word piece (New York Times, 8/10/08) on complexities in black political leadership, for instance, one is jarred to read that, now that “legal barriers no longer exist,” the “inequities in the society are subtler—inferior schools, an absence of employers, a dearth of affordable housing—and the remedies more elusive.”
If discriminatory treatment in education, employment and housing are deemed “subtle,” little wonder that calls for institutional change are heard as strident and outmoded.
Some journalists’ desire to “not see” racism as an obstacle led them to downplay the historical significance of Obama’s election. Finding “all the hoopla” unseemly, press critic Howard Kurtz scoffed (Washington Post, 1/20/09), “It is hard to envision this level of intensity if John McCain were taking the oath of office.”
It is indeed unlikely that McCain would have been heralded as the first black president in United States history; that’s true. Nor would he have been greeted with the overwhelming relief of those who wanted above all to see the back of a Republican White House that has brought endless war and economic havoc.
There are probably a number of multi-layered reasons many people—including, yes, some in the media—greeted the Obama victory with some measure of satisfaction. But when rich white pundits start suggesting that “there’s a lot of advantages to being black. Black is in” (Larry King, 1/21/09), all you can do is laugh.
As the Obama presidency moves forward, we should expect continued awkwardness: chin-stroking on how his “loping stride” and “fondness for pickup basketball” make for “a new White House iconography” (Washington Post, 1/19/09), and contentless verbiage a la Joe Klein (Time, 2/2/09): “He came to us as the ultimate outsider in a nation of outsiders—the son of an African visitor and a white woman from Kansas—and he has turned us inside out.”
Also unlikely to abate is elite media’s recourse to a litmus, usefully vague and changeable, as to whether Obama is performing like the approved sort of black politician, who is, in Howard Fineman’s words (Newsweek, 1/24/09), “shaped but not limited by [his] heritage.”
That line between being “shaped” and being “limited,” of course, will continue to be defined, and vigorously policed, by the elite white press corps.
Journalists were sometimes embarrassingly frank about how they interpreted Obama’s blackness and what they hoped his success might mean. “No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery,” declared NBC’s Chris Matthews (1/21/07). “All the bad stuff in our history ain’t there with this guy.” “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer,” opined the New Republic (2/5/07). “Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone [Al] Sharpton, too.” (See Extra!, 3–4/07.)
Looking to find parallels for the “stuff” they did like, journalists turned to fiction, as when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/27/08) alleged that voters “decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson,” or when CNN (6/22/08) told viewers that Michelle Obama “wants to appear to be Claire Huxtable and not Angela Davis.”
The fondest hope seemed to be that an Obama victory (if not his strong candidacy alone) would absolve us of any need to talk about racism any more. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (5/14/08) wrote that, in announcing his run for office, Obama "was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes."
It’s not clear if Fineman meant Obama said that exactly, or if it was just implied by the way he “radiat[ed] uplift and glorious possibility.” Alas, he continued: “Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would.”
Of course, “we” didn’t all imagine that a nonwhite man running for president would mean an end to racism; that belief seems endemic only in a press corps with a myopic understanding of how racial inequality works.
Thus Fineman lamented, “far from eliminating racial thinking from politics,” Obama’s campaign actually drew attention to the subject—in part because Obama let the Finemans of the world down by having a “message” that was “race-aware, if not race-based.”
Fineman, like many pundits, seemed to think that acknowledging the distinct experiences faced by people of color is tantamount to claiming these differences trump all other factors in life. Talking about race equals harping about race, and, well, that’s being racist, isn’t it? The goal is to be “post- racial,” which seems to mean maintaining that racial differences have no impact, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For some, last November 4 saw the disappearance of racial inequity in America (“Promised Land: Obama’s Rise Fulfills King’s Dream”—Oklahoman headline, 1/19/09), and with it the need for any countervailing measures.
Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg (Chicago Tribune, 1/22/09) suggested that “opponents of racial quotas and other champions of colorblindness on the right should be popping champagne,” not to mention “rubbing Barack Obama in [the] faces” of all those foreign “finger-waggers eager to lecture . . . America about race and tolerance.”
For those who don’t see racial inequity playing out every day in disparate joblessness, incarceration or mortality rates, the presence of a brown-skinned man in the White House means there’s no more structural work to be done; those struggling from now on have no excuse.
At the very least, the black guy winning proved that there are no more voting rights concerns. USA Today (1/9/09) wondered whether the whole Voting Rights Act should be junked “now that a black man has won the presidency.” And for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jim Wooten (1/20/09), the Obama victory “plainly” meant that “the political system that discriminated and the people who designed it are dead and gone.”
The Obama victory was credited with the existence of a demographic of “successful” blacks, as illustrated by a magazine (Uptown) that launched in 2004 (“Magazine for Age of Obama,” New York Daily News, 1/19/09). And the hiring of an African-American to coach the Yale football team was “particularly significant in light of both the election of Obama as the nation’s first black president and in the consistently meager numbers of black head coaches at the top level of college football,” according to the New York Times (1/8/09)—though the particular relevance of the former is kind of hard to figure.
If being “post-racial” involves pretending race/ethnicity doesn’t affect opportunity, acting “post-racial” means renouncing any measure aimed at ensuring that. Post-election, Obama was called upon to follow through on his “promise” in this regard in early decisions on appointments and policy.
The New York Times (1/15/09) gave the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen space to put some questions to new attorney general Eric Holder, including: “Do you agree with Mr. Obama’s implication that the Supreme Court needs someone who will side with the powerless rather than the powerful? What if the best nominee happens to be a white male?”
The L.A. Times editorial page (12/28/08) lauded Obama’s cabinet picks, in so doing matter-of-factly contrasting the hiring goals of “quality” and “identity politics”—in this context meaning the hiring of anyone who is not a white man; Obama, it declared, “has succeeded on both levels.”
Obama could also prove himself to be the right sort of black leader—the kind who places responsibility for black people’s problems largely with black people themselves—with an embrace of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law. USA Today (1/6/09) draped the case in appropriately patronizing tones with the cringe-worthy “How to Turn Obama’s Success Into Gains for Black Boys”:
"You can see the message on brick wall murals in inner cities: Yes we can. You can hear it in the music of Black Eyed Peas’ frontman will.i.am: Yes we can.
You can imagine hearing it pass the lips of thousands of black mothers, perhaps after awakening their sons early to complete homework before they head off to school, just as President-elect Barack Obama’s mother did: Yes you can."
You can imagine hearing it pass the lips of thousands of black mothers, perhaps after awakening their sons early to complete homework before they head off to school, just as President-elect Barack Obama’s mother did: Yes you can."
Black mothers encouraging their children? Just imagine!
The idea that, in the Age of Obama, a little early morning encouragement is all that separates black Americans from socio-economic success was abetted even by less unctuous reporting; in the midst of a fairly thoughtful, 8,000-word piece (New York Times, 8/10/08) on complexities in black political leadership, for instance, one is jarred to read that, now that “legal barriers no longer exist,” the “inequities in the society are subtler—inferior schools, an absence of employers, a dearth of affordable housing—and the remedies more elusive.”
If discriminatory treatment in education, employment and housing are deemed “subtle,” little wonder that calls for institutional change are heard as strident and outmoded.
Some journalists’ desire to “not see” racism as an obstacle led them to downplay the historical significance of Obama’s election. Finding “all the hoopla” unseemly, press critic Howard Kurtz scoffed (Washington Post, 1/20/09), “It is hard to envision this level of intensity if John McCain were taking the oath of office.”
It is indeed unlikely that McCain would have been heralded as the first black president in United States history; that’s true. Nor would he have been greeted with the overwhelming relief of those who wanted above all to see the back of a Republican White House that has brought endless war and economic havoc.
There are probably a number of multi-layered reasons many people—including, yes, some in the media—greeted the Obama victory with some measure of satisfaction. But when rich white pundits start suggesting that “there’s a lot of advantages to being black. Black is in” (Larry King, 1/21/09), all you can do is laugh.
As the Obama presidency moves forward, we should expect continued awkwardness: chin-stroking on how his “loping stride” and “fondness for pickup basketball” make for “a new White House iconography” (Washington Post, 1/19/09), and contentless verbiage a la Joe Klein (Time, 2/2/09): “He came to us as the ultimate outsider in a nation of outsiders—the son of an African visitor and a white woman from Kansas—and he has turned us inside out.”
Also unlikely to abate is elite media’s recourse to a litmus, usefully vague and changeable, as to whether Obama is performing like the approved sort of black politician, who is, in Howard Fineman’s words (Newsweek, 1/24/09), “shaped but not limited by [his] heritage.”
That line between being “shaped” and being “limited,” of course, will continue to be defined, and vigorously policed, by the elite white press corps.
55 Comments so far
Show AllI think if we gave reparations, as well as enacted universal single-payer healthcare/education, and gave everyone a decent paying job, the negative aspects of black culture would end.
patgarret, I am concerned about how such a bag packing might occur. I have Native American ancestry, possibly an eighth or 16th, but the rest is conquering white hillbilly. Do I stay or do I go? Do I pay or get paid? I'm not trying to be flip (well maybe a little) but you've got to think about logistics.
I think that when I came into this world I had the same potential as you or anyone else, the opportunity for a life that would be the best that I could make it. I got lucky in alot of ways, but I've also worked hard at some difficult jobs to make a living. I try to live a good life. Not "The Good Life", but a life in which I do more good than bad. I try to judge each person as an individual. Not an easy thing since I am human after all and human nature tends to be harsh sometimes.
I personally did nothing to harm you or anyone else that I can think of. So what's my role in the issues of Native Americans?
Got my attention in order to be kinda rude to me. Please don't assume that you know my interests.
I went to the article in the link and I don't have time to read it right now. It's pretty long and it keeps flashing every few seconds even if I did have time. Why don't you summarize?
Maybe we can discuss the high points and you could answer the couple of questions I posed merely as they are. I am asking you how your goals would work out in reality, and I'd like it if YOU told me, not Ward Churchill.
But if you go from the point that I am some kind of squatter, then we're never going to see eye to eye, despite our possible shared genetics.
Pat, it's YOUR issue, and I'm trying to hear your explanation of it. Honest to God, yesterday I had to visit a sick friend in the hospital and today I have to go work in a few minutes.
What's the problem with you enlightening me right here? You are the one belitting the issue, not me. I am actually asking you to help me understand it. OKAY?
No, elaine: You need to stop whining and prioritize your life so that you can understand important issues.
Nobody has the responsibility to open your cranium and pour in knowledge. And, more to the point, they are not going to.
If you have time to hassle me with posting here, you have time to read. And it would certainly behoove you more.
Okay, today I have time, and I did read the Churchill piece. I do understand the issues, and I understood them pretty well before. With a few notable exceptions, it was a case of preaching to the choir. So let me restate my original questions:
1. How can this plan/vision be implemented in this world, today, working with what exists now?
2. How does this plan affect me personally as a person of mixed racial heritage?
I agree with the concepts and the goals of bringing equality of race, gender and
sexual orientation, of respect for natural resources, of population control and living within one's means. But I question the process.
Logistics - Logistics is the science of planning and implementing the acquisition and use of the resources necessary to sustain the operation of a system.
You deny the need for any such logistics but I say you can't achieve your goals
without a better plan than Mr. Churchill lays out. Another reading of his article will not convince me of the possibility for successfully implementing his plan. I have repeatedly asked you to summarize, highlight and discuss the plan, but you won't or more likely can't, because it is intrinsically flawed. The main thrust is to get back land, about 1/3 of the US continental area. HOW? Get the government to give control of 1/3 of the country over to a group that currently amounts to about one percent of the population "once non-Indian America acknowledges that Indians have an absolute moral and legal right to the quantity of territory which was never ceded." This is the premise on which this plan hinges, but nowhere is there a realistic suggestion of how to bring non-Indians to this way of thinking.
In fact, some of the things this man says are openly hostile. Talking about per capita consumption being roughly equal to one American per 75 Chinese, Churchill blurts: "Lay that one on the next soccer mom who approaches you with a baby stroller and an outraged look, demanding that you to put your cigarette out, eh? It is plainly absurd for any American to complain about smoking when you consider the context of the damage done by overall U.S. consumption patterns. Tell 'em you'll put the butt out when they snuff the kid and not a moment before. Better yet, tell 'em they should snuff themselves, as well as the kid, and do the planet a real favor. Just "kidding" (heh-heh)."
I'm not going to defend the behavior of any soccer moms, but this is not kidding, not funny, and not going to persuade anybody to adopt your cause.
Neither is cutting off people's water supply to what he might think they can live on. He may not be advocating taking people's land, but he gleefully relates how the
population will decline due to this adjustment in their water supply.
Neither is allowing only 2 million people to live on this land. How are you going to determine who gets to stay if there are still people who "choose" to come in after the quota is filled up? Start with indigenous peoples? Lots of people can claim some indigenous ancestors, especially all those Latin Americans. Or is this only for North American indigenous peoples? How do you keep the extra people out? Build a fence? Or, if everybody can stay, is it really going to be any different than it is now?
Why should the responsibility for creating this utopia be given to Native Americans? My own personal affection aside, I can only say that when I think of the Native contribution to today's society it is limited to gambling and cheap tobacco. Playing on the weaknesses of human nature, especially when it brings in a lot of the white man's money, must seem like a satisfying bit of payback, but it hardly sets the moral example that I am looking for in a leadership group. Your lot doesn't sound any better than the lot that's running things right now.
You, through churchill, say that your philosophies include:
Women's rights, yet native american women are one of the groups most likely to be
abused;
Tolerance of homosexuality, yet only one tribe allows same-sex marriage and many
tribes actually have banned it;
Peace, though he glosses over Indian wars as "a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males and not much more". Tell that to the dead guys. Much better to accept the true warloving nature of mankind and not act like Indian wars were more noble or less deadly than any other kind;
The advancement of indigenous peoples everywhere, yet what have you done lately? Why would additional land enable you to do something you have not yet been able to
achieve?
I agree that George Bush is a huge flaming asshole, that we are literally eating
ourselves out of house and home, that we treat our fellow humans abominally, and that we should try to change all that for the better. But I do not agree that your Mr. Churchill has the right way of thinking, or that what he proposes has a chance in hell of working.
This is much less of a reasonable plan than one deeply frustrated man's wet dream.
Dreams are good to have, but we all need to be able to separate dreams from real
progress. How has "demanding the impossible" been working for you all so far?
You can't turn back the clock; not to 200 years ago when the earth's population was more managable, not to 500 years ago when Europeans began their
genocidal plans for Indians, not to the time that the Romans took the Christan
philosophy to use for their own conquest of power, not back to the mythological time when Yahweh told Adam he had "dominion" over all the land and its creatures.
So what I am asking now, again, is this: what is the solution in today's world, right now, with exactly what we have to work with and no more? Because I am ready, READY and waiting to join the right fight. I like what you say you want, but I don't see the evidence that you can achieve your goals. Give me a plan, step one, a process, how it works: Logistics. I don't think you and Mr. Churchill have the answer, at least not enough to get me on board.
Pat, you said: "I would like to see a discussion--a real one--about race."
Yet when I responded I immediately felt your wrath. You dismissed me and my interests, called me a whiner, DEMANDED that I read the piece you recommended, REFUSED to discuss it with me until I read it, then when I did read it and still disagreeed with you, you called me hostile.
I wrote you a long, detailed, well-considered response, and did you DISCUSS IT with me? Did you defend any of the points I raised? Will you analyze and use my arguements to strengthen your position?
No. Your wall is up, and was from the beginning. You don't want to DISCUSS, you want to IMPOSE your views.
And you're damn right I'm going to stay where I am, because rather than waste my life waiting for someone to GIVE me some land, I worked my ass off my whole life and BOUGHT some.
The sad part is that I really am sympathetic to many of the stated goals of Native Americans. Living within the limits of nature, respect for all life, a greater understanding of our spirituality; all are of great concern to me. I think we should work to embrace those concepts in our daily life, and I do that in whatever way I can.
But you are being held back by the very first tenet of your plan, that of getting the land back. This, then, looks like your number one priority, not living in harmony with the earth and all its inhabitants. That's your WALL, the one you put up right off the bat, the one you're beating your head against, because it ain't gonna happen. Give it up and work for the good of all tribes not just YOUR tribe.
Give Native Americans reparations also. I don't deny what was done to Native Americans. You're going to have one empty country if everyone else leaves and an overcrowded everywhere else.
touche pat
that should be priority number one
truly
ward churchill is a wise man
the genocide committed against the first nations is a blot on american history
the biggest among a plethora of blots
cheers, b
bryanD - what do you DO after saying "that should be priority number one"? Sit back and wait for someone to do something?
truly.
I'd like to know.
For over 20 years I lived in a small city in NE Ohio where blacks and whites have lived shoulder to shoulder for many generations. During that time there was also a surge in the population of the Latino community. I confess I had/have a much harder time accepting the Latinos, since I just want to holler "don't you realize that you are just tools of the powerful, helping to destroy the very standard of living that you came here to enjoy?"
There was conflict and resentment between the different races as they competed for the same scarce jobs, housing and government services. Employers insisted that they needed the cheap labor to "grow their business" (god I hate that phrase) and put up a big stink every time there was talk of slowing down the flow of immigrants, most of them undocumented.
I remember getting up in front of City Council and saying that unprotected, underpaid, undocumented workers were bad news for the American worker. I got the same fish eye from council that I got when I got up and asked them for a resolution against the war in Iraq. The message was clear: big business needs war, and it needs cheap labor. Obviously cheap labor is pretty much why we have a black population in America at all.
There was/is a lot of interracial mating in the community and lots of the kids were "mixed". In Ohio, miscegenation laws were repealed in 1887, but for many states, especially in the south, whites and those of other races who inter-married were subject to prosecution. Some of these states did not repeal their anti-miscegenation laws until the Supreme court case Loving V. Virginia in 1967!!! Now I hear people say that one semi-black man in the White house erases all that previous racial inequality. White America need no longer feel any guilt or respnsibility for the "black man's plight". Of course this is the spew of right wing talk radio, but I heard a lot of people repeating it.
And since we're talking frankly here, how about the idea of a man who's at least half white being called black. How about Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Tiger Woods and Eric Holder being called black? Within the black comunity there are benefits to being "light-skinneded" or having "good hair". If Obama was the color of his father, if he didn't have a white mom from Kansas, I don't think he'd be in the White House now.
Since I did live in a community of mixed races, I feel somewhat qualified to declare that when a mixed kid is raised by a white family, he or she adopts the culture of the whites. He also acts, talks and thinks white. Despite a possible propensity for street ball, most of the mixed kid's world is white. It is much easier for him to move between the cultures, however, and I think Obama has had an unusual opportunity to move between the black and white cultures on a worldwide scale.
I'm glad that Americans are grown up enough to have elected Obama. He may be just a man of pretty words, but I think he's got a "secret plan" for action that he hasn't quite revealed yet. I think we saw part of it with the economic recovery bill when he gave Republicans his consideration and treated them well, only to have them march together in voting no. Now he has every reason to ignore them and use his majority to pass the laws he wants.
Well, enough for now. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but that's the risk you take when you talk about race.
elaine comments on the displacement of blacks in the cheap labor pool by latinos
relevant point
all across the states there is a preference in cheap labor hiring of latinos over blacks
once again the brothers are supplanted
this also happened in the 1840's when the irish arrived
the brothers just can't catch a break
i now work and have for 22 years with many black people and i find them, as a group, to be honest, decent hard working folks
the best kind of people
none of the blacks i know look like dennis rodman, fitty cent or even the much venerated snoop dog, whom i like very much
it is just too bad that there is no real discussion of race in america
truly a nation of racial cowards
i think it is a mistake for blacks to frame so much of their issues in terms of white racism
there are many pressing issues they face which are in-house, so to speak
cheers, b
I was a snoop dog fan until he became a spokesman for "Girls Gone Wild."
What would a discussion of race in America look like to you? I would really like to know. Thanks.
gia - my discussion would not be much different than malcom x
it would have to do with economics and war and the inter-relation between them
it would be about freedom - both physical and intellectual
none of it would be about skin color
cheers, b
Elainem: Re your comment "I remember getting up in front of City Council and saying that unprotected, underpaid, undocumented workers were bad news for the American worker."
In early 2008 there was a radio discussion in NE Ohio (where I also live) amongst people who own landscaping companies in this area. For years and years they hired the same workers from Mexico (documented) who came here for the season to work and earn a living. Last year these companies weren't allowed to bring many up from Mexico (can't recall the law about that). They posted advertisements for help with their landscaping companies. Men and women from NE Ohio applied. The owners had a terrible time finding help because as they said - the AMERICANS couldn't pass the drug tests and/or didn't have valid drivers licenses because of DUIs and other offenses, whereas the Mexicans they hired always had drivers licenses and passed the drug tests.
PS - one final comment - in 1977 my uncle who lived in Cleveland all his life was murdered in his home by 3 black teens whose aim was to rid their neighborhood of the remaining white elderly residents. My uncle was the 2nd white man they killed. The neighborhood knew who they were but the police had no hard evidence until after the 3rd murder. Racism is a two way street. No one in my family is racist because of what happened to my uncle. We recognize this as 3 dumb kids on a bad mission, not as evidence that ALL minorities are racist.
Hey let's face it - life isn't easy for anyone. If we're in positions where we hire - we must select from the largest pool of good candidates. If we carve out the women, the blacks, the latinos, the orientals ... we only hurt ourselves, our companies, and our country.
As a 2nd generation American, I am weary of the race discussion. I have some black friends and it's hard to be with them for any occasion because the music has to be black, the food has to be soul, and every other word out of their mouths has to do with race. Why can't THEY adjust? I really would like to know. I'm the one who introduced them to the excellent PBS programs with Professor Henry Louis Gates from whom I've learned so very much. His programs are the level of race discussions that fascinate me - the individual histories, some of which surprised his guests by showing their white lineages. (None are mine since my four grandparents didn't step onto this land until the early 1900s.)
Another topic that we should all learn more about is mitochondrial DNA which is the proof that we ALL go back to Africa and all share the same origins - black. (I'd personally love to be at a KKK meeting when this topic would be brought up - haha.)
We're never going to stop ignorance or its bastard child, bigotry - any kind of bigotry. That's all I have to say. For now.
I understand where you are coming from right now because I used to be there myself. I suspect you're young and/or live in a tolerant, mixed not completely poverty- stricken neighborhood. This gives you leeway and not much perspective that would tend to make you say, "I'm tired of the race discussion"
You ask US why can't THEY adjust? What's holding you back from asking the people involved? Sounds like not much authentic race discussion is going on in your group. Maybe you DON'T really want to know, because then you would see the real pain that leaves you feeling helpless as their NOT BLACK friend.
It is also up to those of us who are not African American to discuss the legacy of racism on ALL of us and I agree with previous posters that the racism discussion is not limited to the legacy of slavery, but that of imperialism as well.
I felt compelled to answer you, GIA because I used to feel as you do, growing up as a middle class white "minority" outside Wash.DC in a lower middle class, majority nonwhite high school neighborhood. Now that I live in a 98.8% white rural small town (1300) in the upper midwest, 20+ years later, I see what the fuss is about. Then I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Now I see the kind of thinking that drives institutionalized racism from the very few but powerful policy makers. I think by having these discussions what will happen is larger, then more active segments of our population will begin to see that "race" ( as you rightly pointed out) is an artificial construct meant to wedge the lower class apart and to keep us from holding the rich accountable to a vision that works for all us by meeting the basic needs of food, shelter, healthcare, education, dignified living wage work etc. PEACE OUT .
Thank you netminnow. I AM young - 58 this year - and live in an affluent neighborhood (where I can barely make ends meet - not unlike a lot of people these days). My associates at work are probably 30% black, 20% international (China, India, Russia - scientists), 50% white. I work in human resources where for four years now we've had problems with two black employees we cannot terminate for any reason for fear of a lawsuit. The white problem employees - no problem. We terminate them. But I'm rambling here.
Why is it, netminnow, that "race" ("an artificial construct meant to wedge the lower class apart....") did not stop Oprah from becoming who she is? Did not stop Barack Obama from becoming the president I prayed for for most of my adult life? Did not stop the Colin Powells and Denzel Washingtons and the Stokes brothers and Dr Henry Louis Gates and Dr Maya Angelou and Bill and Camille Cosby (both Ph.D.s) and thousands of others?
Thank you for your response.
wow. commondreams published a woman of color. miracles do happen.
Excellent article, as is usual from FAIR (I highly recommend the 30 minute weekly CounterSpin, which is available on podcast at www.fair.org).
I've been impressed so far with Obama's living within the anemic race symbols of our popular media and consistently complicating the conversation in a way that doesn't automatically polarize any group. It seems to be a great skill of his, and one that's impact on US culture I don't want to underestimate.
What's in a race? Everyone has been guilty of discriminating one way or another. No need to point fingers, it only leads to disputes and anger. Why not be less critical and live without prejudice. Perhaps we can have a better world.
Let's just attend to our own businesses without hate and prejudice, there is only one world to live in after all.
I think Obama's presidency shows that we have moved forward somewhat, but there's still a waaaayyyys to go. The right-wingers are still grumbling. I'm still confronted with racism daily and find myself in constant conflict with others because of it.
We do need to talk about race, but we need a discussion of class to go along with it. We need to realize that racism is a device used by the elites to fracture human bonds and create discord between the rank and file. They want blacks, whites, red, browns, yellows to all thoroughly resent each other, distrust one another and blame each other when we should be uniting and looking above to see who the real enemies are.
bryanD-I do think there are issues within the black community, but at least most of the same issues are in lower-income white communities also. White men father kids out of wedlock too. White people drop out of school. White people rob and kill and carouse and get VD's. We just had an incident in my neighborhood where a white kid violently beat and almost killed three acquaintances in a nasty incident. They're all poor. Poverty, desperation, drug addiction, all conspire to make poor and working people nihilistic.
Hip-hop can be socially conscious too. It's not all about thuggery and materialism. Hip-hop, while not my cup of tea (I won't be a poser and pretend to be 'down' y'know?), has an underbelly, just like everything else. I'm a metalhead. Should my genre of music be defined by NSBM bands and guys who burn churches or brand inverted crosses onto their foreheads? Hip-hop is the music of the urban poor. It reflects what's going on in those communities.
Farrakhan is no more a representative of the black community anymore that David Duke is a spokesperson for the white community. And they're both capitalists. In fact, people would be surprised at the amount of affinity white supremacists and black supremacists have for each other. They share common goals and enemies.
"though it is a work in progress i think that white america has done much more than black america in terms of owning up for the past and trying to move forward, which is the task at hand"
Wow. You must not get out much. But again, this is an example of part of the problem with racial discussions in America. We're always putting one group on a pedestal and damning another. Then another group switches them around, as if anyone in this country deserves poverty and disenfranchisement.
Again, there are issues in the black community. We've had record numbers of homicides in my city over the past 20 years, and most of them are young black guys dead at the hands of other young black guys. But what creates that? There's not only poverty, but capitalism, which teaches people to claw their way to the top. Hey, I bet if any of the white power brokers and moneymakers and elites were born into poverty, they'd be pimps and drug peddlers also. There's also the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow for which no real restitution has been made. There's urban renewal, redlining, white flight, the funneling of guns and drugs into black areas, that causes a minority of blacks to make the decisions they do, and I emphasize the word MINORITY as the majority of black people are law-abiding and are no worse or better than anyone else. I've learned that through experience.
Why are the reservations are as they are? Do Native Americans deserve their poverty?
How about white people in the Appalachias or rowhouses of McKeesport?
All of the bad isms are connected to one another, create other isms, and can all be ended simultaneously. There are ways. The last thing working people need to be doing is throwing shit at one another. At least 90% of us are being held down, maybe some more than others and in different ways. If we unite, we can beat THEM. They are the Galactic Empire. We are The Rebel Alliance.
thegreatrockyhill
glad you read my post
i do get out a lot
thanks for the fedback
cheers, b
You want to talk about race? Try convincing full time racists out here in the Magnolia to stop calling single payer healthcare "n*gger care". In fact, on just about every issue, they'll take the liberal side and associate it with race in a racist fashion. If only the economic populists could outnumber the social conservative populists out here.
Why does race in America almost exclusively relate to African Americans? Genocide is arguably still the policy of America relative to Native Americans. Not one treaty has been honored. One hundred billion dollars of earned funds have been withheld via the Interior Department....www.indiantrust.com , Native lands are still being stolen... http://www.mpi.org.au/default_202.html , sacred places are being defiled.... http://www.manataka.org/page278.html or
the defiling of the Sacred Peaks with sewer water to make snow for skiers .....
http://www.pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=6167 , and an endless and ever increasing attempt to secure the lands and resources of the Native American People. Why do we only talk about African Americans?
excellent points.
This should turn out to be an interesting thread...
I wonder how many comments will be flagged and deleted by the time it cycles off the CD home page...?
It seems to me that America still has a lot of healing to go through regarding race and class divisions...
This cannot happen without honest discussion and frank conversation about all those issues that make us feel uncomfortable...
I understand flagging comments with derogatory remarks or racist epithets... But deleting the comments of folks who have a backwoods or unenlightened view (like BrianB) on race issues is a useful part of the conversation, to hear why they feel that way, and counter-arguments & perspectives of others who have transcended the racial wedge issues (a class war tactic)...
Just because someone quotes Ralph Nader for making a racial comment in referring to Obama doesn't invalidate their point, or deem it worthy of being flagged... We shouldn't ban Huck Finn for using the N-bomb either...
Hey, I totally agree, GoldenMean. The "unenlightened" views (ie. one's I don't agree with) are the particular ones we need to engage. The flagging of a view a person disagrees with may be a good indicator of how frightening it can be to find that racist sentiments resonate on some level.
I would submit that questioning the impulse to censor an uncomfortable position might be a good place to start exploring one's own thoughts and feelings on race.
To quote a constructive hip-hop album (this goes out to you, bryanD): "Don't fight the feeling, you better deal with it." --"Memory Loss," Deltron 3030
Die MSM!
Racism seems to be Whitehouse policy directed from Tel Aviv:
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:02:22 GMT
The US reportedly decides against participating in a UN-led anti-racism conference in Geneva following hectic Israeli attempts to denounce the event.
Thank-you Ms. Jackson. Excellent analysis.
The media is indeed reflecting white-suburban disinformation and even openly racist attitudes, and reinforcing this disinformation.
There is indeed a certain black yuppie minority - like Obama himself, who within the confines of their posh gentrified or gated suburban communities, and in their corporate towers, experience litte day-to day discrimination.
But for the overwhelming majority - the black working class - education, job, housing, and law-enforcement discrimination is a fact of life. This is obvious to anyone who spends any time in typical US urban area. Or, if you aren't living where this is obvious you are just a few google search terms away from enlightenment - try "job discrimination research" or the like - make sure to include the word "research". Some reporters could stand to do this too.
The Obama-touting, racism-denialist remarks like "if only black mothers would encourage their children to do their homework" are of course profoundly racist stereotypes in themselves. What they are effectively saying is: "why can't you lazy, violent irresponsible blacks, all just be like Barak Obama?...No I'm not going to hire you; you don't look and act like Obama!"
And no, just because this blame-the-victim denialism comes from blacks like millionaire Bill Cosby or perhaps Obama himself does not change the argument.
---USAn---
i've said this several times here before, but, living outside d.c., i went into d.c. everyday during inauguration for work. the pride and joy of the african-american community was on full display, and was very moving.
alas for reality and the massive disappointment ahead, the relative meaninglessness of obama being an african-american. like the msm re colin powell in 90-91: omg, so gratifying to see a black man directing our weaponry against iraq, or lying to the world about iraq in '02 & '03.
why is it so difficult to see that racism is a structural/societal problem first, manifesting itself as psychological/personal problem 2nd? it's easy to see why for the msm: talking about structural problems would lead to discussions of class, and can't have that.
the ascension of obama to the whitehouse is perplexing to the black leaders
no longer can they say that a black man can't make it in america on the one hand but as this article points out - it doesn't change a lot of other realities of race in america
though it is a work in progress i think that white america has done much more than black america in terms of owning up for the past and trying to move forward, which is the task at hand
the anti-white preachers in the black community - like farrakhan and others - spew 50 year old, ill thought out racist rhetoric that is as offensive as it is untrue
there are many issues in black america that belong to black america and i would argue they play a big if not the biggest role in the day to day lives of black people
1. single women with children who receive no support from baby daddies - especially when these women are ill-educated and have limited earning power. this is a black issue that pervades mother africa as well as black neighborhoods everywhere
2. i read some month ago that over 50% of black female teenagers in nyc have std's
3. black kids quit school in larger numbers than any other group
4. the ethic of society expressed in rap and hip hop doesn't exactly engender solid life planning
the reason there is not much debate in america about race i feel is that white people don't see the value of listening to this one sided offensive by blacks about the white race - when there is no acknowledgment of their own in house issues
history notwithstanding, the question is this: why is it that black people, in a country full of folks from every corner of the planet, most non-white, why is it that blacks gravitate to the bottom of every economic measure one can assess
the answer to that is not racism
cheers, b
"history notwithstanding, the question is this: why is it that black people, in a country full of folks from every corner of the planet, most non-white, why is it that blacks gravitate to the bottom of every economic measure one can assess
the answer to that is not racism"
bryanD, thanks for sharing your thoughts with the CD community.
In regard to the question above, I am curious to hear your impression of how our history of slavery and Jim Crow effects black communities now.
palerimo thanks for the feedback
"our history of slavery and Jim Crow effects black communities now"
obviously it is profound
my thoughts are these:
we have to move forward
all of us together
without war
in freedom and peace
race bashing - either direction - is not helpful
the few blacks who are ready should be hooking up with the few whites who are ready
i asked some questions relating to the current model of social organization within the black community
they are not loaded questions, nor are they coded questions
surely blacks are not waiting for whites to help them with the drop out rates
their teenage pregnancy rates
their single parent issues
are they
cheers, b
Rather then suggest these reflect a "Societal Issue" with the Black Community, you would be better off to investigate whether this an issue of ones Socio-economic standing.
In other words rather then compare the Black Community as a whole against that of the whites when measuring STDS, School drop out rates, crime rates, drug use and so forth, compare them to groups in the White Community who have the same economic standing.
What is the school dropout rate of white children living in families that are living in poverty.? If you do not have that answer you can not draw the conclusions you are drawing.
You make a chicken and egg arguement in other words. Thus you are offering up opinions and any person who wishes to question your conclusions does have the obligation to question how you arrived at such, even if they hurt your feelings.
Bringing Africa into the mix hardly demonstrates anything. It a poor continent and always has been. You will find the same problems in an India with ITS poor people.
In India the poor send their children into servitude, they throw out the widows of husbands that might have died early with these women living by beggary and or via prostitution.
The caste system in India is alive and well with the peoples at the top of the economic ladder making very much the same arguements you make, that being the poor of India bring it on themselves when in fact it more accurate to say that the CULTURE of India of which they are ACTIVE players, keeps those people on the bottom.
The Women of India are not seen as the equals of the men. Would you make the arguement that they bring this on themselves just because some like an Indira Ghandi rise to positions of power and that there no sexism in that society?
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: Very well said.
Years ago I worked with a talented cartoonist. I would explain the image I wanted relayed and she did a great job creating it. The cartoon that comes to mind in resonance with your apt description of India is that of woman being burned as a witch in the 16th century. In the foreground are two women observers, and one says to the other, "Do you think she had a problem with self-esteem"?
In other words, INDIVIDUALS are blamed, as if they possess specific flaws, when what's really toxic is systemic, built-in inequities of manmade systems of privilege and punishment, hardly reflective either of any "the natural order."
I've been listening to the Tavis Smiley's State of the Black Union meeting on C-SPAN for a couple of hours, and have watched it several times over the years. They are very dedicated to finding ways of building their race into a strong, and productive race. I've always found it a very inspiring meeting. Granted, they do look at government programs already in place for help, but they don't moan and groan about racism and the white race. They do stress personal accountability, and ways they can save their children from lives of gangs, crime, and hopelessness.
I remember back in the '70s, I think it was, when a white man lived as a Black man and wrote the book "Black Like Me" about his experience as that Black man.
As to the question of why they gravite to the bottom of every economic measure one can access, maybe that slave era their ancestors went through, an era that left a huge black hole in their past, unless, like Ophra and a few other well-to-do Blacks, they can hire genealogists to reconnect them to their ancestors, has somehow passed a generational disconnect of some sort on to them.
The other non-white races, Native Americans included, have been through horrible histories as well - the difference being they weren't slaves, and they were able to pass on their family histories, even if it was only in spoken stories.
bryan,
Actually, statistics show that single black fathers are more likely to support their children than single white fathers.
Sales of rap and hip-hop are predominantly to white people. A lot of hip-hop is very correct in it's social critique. The more misogynist and violent hip-hop is promoted by white music corporations.
In my former inner city neighborhood, the majority of intervenous drug users are white.
I have had people from the Nation of Islam treat me - a white person just fine.
The critique of Rev. Wright - particularly regarding US foreign policy are quite correct.
I have witnessed frequent open racial profiling by the police.
I witnessed my neighbors openly admit they deliberately exclude sales or rental of their houses to blacks.
I have witnesses open discrimination in job hiring - particularly in construction trade unions and/or contractors - one of few way out of a poverty wage job.
And, consider the attitudes you expressed, it seems very likely that you would discriminate in hiring yourself. Based on what you stated above, the black person would be a bigger risk to you firm, right? So play it safe and hire the white guy, right?
Please check my comments above.
---USAn---
PJ - thanks for the feedback
i agree with what you say - except the EFFECT of gangster shit is much more profound in the black community
deluded white boys eventually pull their pants up and go on with life
even the junkies
the effect is more long lasting in the black community though
wouldn't you agree
lastly, i'm glad generated a lot of discussion, largely free of hate
isn't that the point
cheers, b
wow bryand. where to begin in response?
please turn your penetrating gaze for a moment away from the africans, here in the u.s. or in africa, and look at another, by and large, "drop-out/failed" community: native americans.
please enlighten us about how their personal/moral failings have led to their problems.
sure rush
we killed the native americans as fast as we could
we doped them with smallpox
we stuck them on non-arable lands
we plied them with alcohol
then we killed them some more
you sound like the israeli apologists who cry antisemitism as the one size fits all retort
you twist my post into a "personal/moral failings" gambit - sneaky ploy but i reject it
those are your words
i am suggesting it is a social ethic, their model of social organizzation that is the problem - i don't give a fuck about your "personal/moral failings" twist
i have plenty of those myself
finally, even with all of the genocide perpetrated against them, the first nations, as a group, still out perform the blacks
i think a measure of introspection would be helpful
who agrees with me: bill cosby, jesse jackson and even the racist farrakhan..........
cheers, b
ok, i'll bite on the native american thing.
what did the native americans do that allowed them to have some measure of success (at least vis a vis blacks)?
rush:
income and education levels
hope you are not dragging me back to that moral shit again
i thought it was clear we were talking about economics
cheers, b
There definitely is a laughable (yet extremely sad) level of seeming cluelessness in the media as to the effects of racism, colonialism and other forms of discrimination (such as sexism and homophobia), yet, my question, will always be - are they that stupid or are they just appearing to be? Is this intentional or purely accidental ignorance?