THIS WEEK IN RACE

Independence Day for African Americans

2009-07-06T13:56:00.008-04:00

There was a lot of chatter in the blogosphere over the past few days with respect to what July 4 does (and should) signify, particularly for people of color, as we celebrated the first Independence Day with a Black president.

Many folks tweeted or posted links to Frederick Douglass's famous speech titled "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro." In this address, Douglass tries to explain what it is like to see celebration of ideals that have not been realized. He says:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

He begins (and ends) the speech, however, with optimism:

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too Ñ great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

Francesca Biller-Safran situated the holiday in a contemporary context, noting that "for many Blacks who have felt ambivalence, separatism and exclusion; this will be a Fourth of July like no other."

Rikyrah, of Jack and Jill Politics, reminds us that to suggest that Black folk have not been patriotic prior to this momentous time in our history is offensive and misguided. For it is easy to love that which loves you back; loving a nation that has treated you and people like you with disdain, disrespect and deceit is a true sign of dedication.

Indeed, several articles and posts over the weekend attempted to call our attention the difference between nationalism ("my country, right or wrong") and patriotism. Byron Williams notes that patriotism is about celebrating the ideals of a country and Mike Lux argues that the folks whose ideas we celebrate on this day (Thomas Jefferson and his buddies) were radicals and leftists fighting against forces that wished to impede progress. They certainly had their own hangups and were bound by their cultural context, but the ideas for which they fought are the same ideas that many progressives are fighting for today.

This is particularly true with respect to racial progress. THIS WEEK, Barack Obama read for his (sorta creepy) animatronic likeness in Disney World's famous Hall of Presidents. (You can watch the behind-the-scenes video by clicking here or watching below.) It gives one a real sense of the history of his election to consider the power of his likeness on that grand stage alongside all the White men who led this nation through the first 220 years.

Thinking about this moment and reading Frederick Douglass's words prompts one to think about how much has truly changed in the past 150 years, as well as how much work we still have to do.

RaceProject on Facebook

For a number of reasons (most of them technical and boring), we have moved the official RaceProject.org Facebook content from a "group" to a "page." If you were a member of the RaceProject.org Facebook group, please "fan" the new page (which has an easy-to-remember URL: Facebook.com/RaceProject). Soon, we will discontinue the old "group," so please take a moment now to make the switch, or "fan" us even if you are new to Facebook or had not joined the old group.

Framing the Ricci Decision

2009-06-29T13:00:00.009-04:00

Even though we had a really nice blog about images of Michelle Obama almost finished, we switched gears at the last minute to provide an analysis of the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case yesterday morning. We apologize for the tardiness of THIS WEEK's entry.

The case (which involves White firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut suing because the results of an exam designed to lead to promotion were tossed out because the results would have led to disproportionate promotions of Whites over applicants of color) is quite compelling for a number of reasons. TWIR readers might suspect that we would side with the four dissenters, who, anchored by Justice Ginsburg, who authored the dissent, noted that the majority of the Court failed to take historical context into consideration. While it is true that we would have voted with Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer, we do not dismiss the claims made by Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion. Specifically, Kennedy argues that a problem with this case (the facts of which we have discussed previously) is that the city of New Haven determined that the test was racially biased solely based on the output (i.e., that candidates for promotion based on the test would be overwhelmingly and disproportionately White).

From our perspective, such disproportionate results should be a red flag that something is wrong with the test, but there should be a thorough analysis of the test to determine why and to what extent there was inherent bias in the questions, tasks assigned, etc. The justices in the majority believe that there was not enough proof of bias, while the dissenters believe that there is. We strongly suspect that the test was biased, but we cannot ignore the fact that, with such a small sample of test takers, it is possible that the White candidates were simply the best.

IF that is the case (and it is a big "if"), it is important to ask the next question: Why were the White test takers "the best?" Is there something about the socialization process in the fire department that cultivates White firefighters toward management more effectively than firefighters of color? Is the test predicated on other educational characteristics that, in New Haven like everywhere else in America, unfairly benefit Whites? If so, are those characteristics essential to the tasks associated with management? Should New Haven adopt an affirmative action program to level that playing field?

These are all important issues that strike at the heart of what it means to be a person of color competing for jobs, promotions, and access to education, housing etc. in a context where Whites have decided advantages at almost every turn. But while it is appropriate for the Court to take those issues into consideration (as Justice Ginsburg notes), they are charged only with deciding the case that is before them.

In short, while New Haven officials had the right idea (that is, they understand that biases exist, appreciate the value of a diverse workplace, etc.), they goofed it this time. Particularly in this climate where Whites are sensitive (we think overly sensitive) about discrimination against them), we must be very careful to document carefully findings of bias where they are found to exist. But, like the landmark affirmative action decisions in 1978 and 2003, this means only that folks committed to social justice and equality of opportunity need to be more thoughtful about how to achieve those goals. In the Bakke decision in 1978, for instance, the Court (correctly, we believe) suggested, in effect, that the Regents of the University of California were trying to kill an ant with a sledgehammer, and so ruled quotas to be unconstitutional (this will come as a shock to folks who have been listening to opponents of affirmative action incorrectly assert that quotas are still in effect). What is needed now is a process by which scholars are routinely asked to evaluate tests where the results produce outputs that suggest potential bias. We see nothing in the Court's opinion THIS WEEK to suggest such an effort would not be permitted and, as suggested by Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in one of the 2003 cases, welcomed (at least for now).

But what of the press's reaction to the decision?

Stephen is in the midst of his annual course for the Junior State of America summer school at Princeton University, where he had just finished explaining the concept of framing to the students in his Political Communication course. In short, framing is the act of putting information into context. Whether intentional or not, the frame changes the way information is perceived by the reader/viewer by focusing on some aspects of the story over others. In fact, in her dissent in this case, Justice Ginsburg suggests that the Court's majority in this decision has selected a particular frame: "The Court’s recitation of the facts leaves out important parts of the story."

Just hours after the decision was announced (and before much reaction was available), he asked the students to come up with a number of possible frames for the Ricci decision by way of predicting headlines; some of those frames appear below with elaboration and examples from today's blogs and press stories that confirm the existence (or, in one case, absence) of those frames.

Frame 1: Racial Conflict

Perhaps the most likely of frames, this was the most common amongst the primary news outlets in the past 24 hours (see below). Headlines that indicate that Whites prevailed over discrimination are alternatives to those that would indicate that people of color have suffered a setback. In either case (and we see none of the latter among the primary news outlets), the suggestion is that there is an ongoing competition between Whites and non-Whites in America for jobs. In many respects, of course, this is true. Just as frames do not have to be intentional, they certainly do not have to be misleading or incorrect. The point is that by highlighting some aspects of a story at the expense of others, readers or viewers are encouraged to think about the story in some ways but not others.

LA Times: White firefighters were victims of discrimination, Supreme Court rules
NY Times: Supreme Court finds bias against white firefighters
Washington Post (AP): White firefighters win Supreme Court appeal

Frame 2: Reverse Discrimination

This frame presupposes that Whites have been taking it on the chin in recent years and that yesterday's ruling was a line in the sand and a victory for those who are "fair minded" and/or "race neutral." After all, if one believes that everyone in America has an equal chance of making it, that so long as we are not bigoted we are not racist, and that minorities want that which they do not rightfully deserve (because they are lazy), affirmative action in general and the act of overturning such an ostensibly objective test because results were not of the government's liking are signs of "reverse discrimination." This frame highlights the fairness of the Court's decision by implying that such a decision is overdue.

The Wall Street Journal's headline (Ruling Upends Ra ce's Role in Hiring), which features this frame, is actually quite misleading. The suggestion here is that race can no longer be taken into account in hiring practices. The first paragraph of the story reinforces this notion (scholars often look at headlines and lead paragraphs to determine frames): "The Supreme Court set a new standard for employers' use of race in hiring decisions, ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance." After that, the authors quote from Justice Kennedy's opinion, which makes it clear that race can, in fact, be taken into account, but that there must be strong evidence of bias. One can understand, though, how a reader encountering that information after being presented with a headline and lead paragraph such as this would not view the quote from the opinion as it was clearly intended, but rather as a minor adjustment to the stronger sentiment implied by the frame.

Frame 3: Ideological Struggle

Because Justice Souter is stepping down, it is understandable that there would be some interest in the ideological composition of the Court. USA Today's headline indicates as much (High court curves in conservative direction), though the frame leads readers to ignore the fact that Souter sided with the dissenters, which means that his replacement would not change the balance of ideology, at least with respect to this issue. In other words, Souter's replacement, if he or she were on the Court instead of him during this decision, would not have made a difference in the outcome. (The only possibility would have been a larger win for the petitioners.)

Frame 4: Sotomayor Overturned

Because Judge Sonia Sotomayor was part of the three-judge panel that issued the un-authored appeals court decision in favor of the city of New Haven, many have looked at this case as a referendum on her judicial temperament. Such a claim is absurd, of course, as many former and current justices have had their opinions reversed before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Further, conservative commentators latched onto Justice Ginsburg's point that the Circuit Court should not have granted summary judgment, such that many of them -- in language that appears to lend additional credibility to Cappella and Jamieson's finding that conservatives operate in an "echo chamber" -- claimed a 9-0 vote against Sotomayor.

Frame 5: Activist Supreme Court Overturns Decision by Elected Officials

Despite the fact that conservatives are generally on the side of "judicial restraint," they are clear that they would like to see Courts "act" to overturn policies that violate their ideological predispositions (such as legal access to abortion and affirmative action). In this case, the elected officials of the city made a decision that was upheld (not "actively" reversed) by the appeals court, so one could imagine a frame whereby the Supreme Court was chastised as interfering in the workings of democratically elected officials.

We have seen no such frame in primary press.

At the end of the day, Justice Ginsburg provides compelling reasons -- reasons we did not rehash here -- that the test was, indeed, flawed and that it should have been replaced. Since Whites are never systemically disadvantaged -- any perceived "disadvantages" come as a result of programs designed to rectify systemic advantages that they have -- they have no schema available to understand how an ostensibly "objective" test could possibly be unfair. TWIR readers understand, of course, that built-in privilege is, as Peggy Macintosh has famously said, invisible. Eventually, more and more folks will understand how systemic racism works. But, at least for now, to paraphrase the legendary Cubs chant: "White guys win! White guys win! White guys win!"

Rejection, Reflection and (Ultimately) Reception: The Uighur Situation in Palau

2009-06-18T23:30:00.011-04:00

As promised, Stephen blogs THIS WEEK from The Republic of Palau.

I arrived here Monday night (local time) amidst a rare flurry of international media attention. The media attention was not over my arrival, but over the recent decision of Palau’s president to allow thirteen soon-to-be-former detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to relocate here. My interest was to get as much reaction as I could, from as many folks as I could, as often as I could. The short story is this: while initial reaction here was quite cool to the idea of the Chinese Muslim Uighurs (pronounced: WEE gurs; also spelled "Uygurs") settling here after their forthcoming release, folks have turned the corner swiftly as the narrative has shifted from “taking America’s terrorists” to “welcoming marginalized people.”

I spent a half hour this morning talking with Patrick Tellei, who is president of the local college. Dr. Tellei was part of a delegation of four Palauans who visited with the detainees earlier in the week in Cuba, so I wanted to get his impression of them, of the local response to the idea of them moving to Palau, and of the shift in sentiment that I observed over the course of the week. While there were things that he was not able to share with me (for obvious reasons – they’re still being detained even though they have been cleared of charges, so there are lawyers involved), he was able to say that the eight men with whom they had a chance to speak (first in a group and then individually) were being fairly treated, were speaking English pretty well (though translators were around to help), and seemed genuinely appreciative of the opportunity to re-start their lives in Palau.

Dr. Tellei is in the majority position at this point in the week: supportive of President Johnson Toribiong’s decision to tell President Obama that the men were welcome in Palau. This is consistent with what I have heard from nearly everyone I have spoken to about this over the past 24 hours, but quite different from the reaction on Tuesday.

When I first arrived, I heard things like, “They’re terrorists,” and “why should we take them if the U.S. doesn’t want them?” The local papers on Tuesday (they are printed Tuesdays and Fridays) had headlines such as “Toribiong Defends Decision” (Island Times) and “[Senator and former President Tommy] Remengesau Says People Not Fully Informed on the Detainees” (Palau Horizon), which reflected a defensive position on the part of officials supportive of the relocation.

But there was an interesting contrast with a page 10 AP story about eleven asylum seekers from Myanmar who moved here back in February. The only member of the group who speaks English gushed about the reception from Palauans, who have treated them “as their own siblings.” When their money ran out, the Roman Catholic Church housed and fed them. This week, the president’s younger brother, who is also a Senator, decided to move them all into his farmhouse while they are waiting to hear if they are granted asylum.

Further, an op-ed on page 4 of the Horizon that day by Philip Haruo blasted what he saw as unwarranted hostility toward the Uighurs by sarcastically charging that folks who are outspoken about the plan “know more than the CIA and Interpol.” He noted that while he didn’t know much about the men that it wasn’t necessary for him to know: “I do know that they are human beings in need of help and no one seems to notice.” In word, Haruo was calling for (swallow hard here) empathy.

In contrast, we must consider the narratives that are available to Americans. The United States Congress has been clear that detainees are not welcome in the U.S., even if they are cleared of charges. Why? Because as much as we like to think that we value “due process” and the “best system on Earth,” we generally believe, deep down, that if someone is accused of something that they must have done it – or something else. Add to this the anti-Muslim sentiment that is rampant in the U.S. (and in much of the West), and we are left with a group of radicals (they want their own nation – sound familiar?) who are not Christian and, even though the Chinese government detests them and vice versa, are Chinese nationals (read: “communist”). Check out Newt Gingrich’s column in The Washington Examiner from last month where he tries and convicts the Uighurs right there in the Opinions section (and then be sure to read hilzoy’s point-by-point rebuke).

Similarly, the self-described conservative blog Hot Air was quite crass about invoking a common narrative, which has been that Palau is taking the men in exchange for money. (The U.S. has funded Palau since World War II and will likely continue to do so because it is in its strategic interest – there is no need for additional carrots or sticks.) Read through the comments of the folks who make up the private discussion board (comments can only be left by members, and membership is closed) if you want to experience severe insensitivity, hasty generalizations and arrogant mockery of Palauans.

Glenn Beck recommended that suspects be shot in the field rather than having formal charges brought against them. (Think I’m making this up? Watch here or below.)

For his part, Jon Stewart (see below or here) got a good laugh with the inevitable turn of phrase: Uighur, please!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Guantanamo Baywatch - Uighur, Please

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

In the three days since Haruo felt the need to remind Palauans of their duty to humankind and their culture of hospitality, the drastic change in public opinion can be seen by way of an unscientific measure of Palauans’ attitudes. Here are some excepts from letters to the editor in this morning’s (June 19, 2009) Island Times:

[From an American] I cannot imagine the deprivations these men have endured and a warm welcome to your island nation would probably do wonders. I appreciate [President Toribiong’s] compassion and willingness to give these men a chance, and I hope the people of your country appreciate what kind of president they elected.

If we Palauans are proud of our Christian heritage and boast so much about our faith in Jesus, where is the proof? This is the time when we will show the world, if no one cares about these Muslims our arms are wide open to take them in.

The Uighurs are being branded by terrorists by some people. To their countrymen, they are nationalists. Is it wrong of any group of people to aspire to create their own nationhood? If these Uighurs are terrorists to say X country, then obviously they have grudges and political differences against that X country. If they come to Palau, do they have political movement against us? Do you think they want to take over our national government and change us to become Uighurs and not Palauans? I doubt it.

I didn’t cherry pick these responses. There were five letters on this topic in the Times (no letters at all in the Horizon), and all were strongly supportive of receiving the Uighurs with open arms.

These hardly sound like sentiments from uneducated bumpkins who will do anything for money, as much of the Western media has portrayed them. And if they were Americans, we'd say that they "flip flopped" and ridicule them mercilessly for changing their minds and not standing their ground. In societies with more sophisticated discourse, however, it is considered to be growth, stimulated by a recognition that things are not always as they appear and that the complexities in life require us to be attentive, flexible, and reflective of our core values (and the degree to which our attitudes and behaviors are congruent with those core values).

On the other hand, we cannot pretend that the initial response was not at least partially rooted in ethnic and racial resentment. Palauans are quite concerned about holding onto their heritage, and the influx of foreign (mostly Filipino) domestic workers and (largely Bangladeshi) manual laborers is the topic of much conversation here. Xenophobia is not an American invention. There are about 400 or so Muslims in this nation of approximately 20,000, so there are lingering questions about where these men would live, if they have families to bring with them, where they will work, where they will worship, and how long they might stay. These are real (and legitimate) concerns, but the sense here today is that while those questions are important, the welcoming of these thirteen men is not dependent on the answers.

Four other Uighurs were sent to Bermuda last week (left), where reaction has been mixed, where U.S. legislators will have to go to hear their story, and where the men have refrained from car bombing anyone for seven entire days. I communicated with a woman there (a former student) who reports that

[t]he big deal here was not really so much about the men themselves, but in the way our premier handled the situation. . . . It was announced on CNN that the men were here and living in Bermuda and that is the first that anyone heard of it. The governor was told the night before the story broke on CNN. Many people were upset; a lot of people were worrying about them being terrorists, others were worried about a possible Muslim increase on the island. The men did a live interview with our one local news programs for 90 minutes were the public could call in and ask questions, and they were given the chance to tell there story, which is very compelling.

You can read more about the reaction in Bermuda in The Royal Gazette. (While I’d love to make that my next island destination, it’s unfortunately not in the cards.)

There is no question that this is a difficult situation all around. The Bush Administration was certainly overzealous in making arrests and accusations and in labeling people "terrorists," which resulted in the detention of people who are not and were not a threat to the U.S. But once that happened, the bell could not be un-rung. President Obama is moving to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention center, and Congress, responding to fears of Americans, refuses to allow any of the detainees that we took from around the world to stay. Fair enough, especially if they have a home to go back to, but in this case, they do not. This leads to a very complicated and unique situation that is undergirded by ethnic stereotypes and resentment.

For hard-line U.S. conservatives and other Obama Administration critics, there is a triple bind. First, they want Obama to fail (and are refreshingly forthcoming about it), so anything he does needs to be criticized to try to drive his approval numbers down. Second, they hate communism, so they have a tendency to be sympathetic to critics of (“Red”) China, particularly those who have been oppressed by the authoritarian regime there. But all Muslims are (at least potentially) U.S.-hating terrorists, so they find it difficult to rally around these men.

For Palauans, it is clear that they will do what the U.S. will not: honor the rights and dignity of men who have no charges against them, who have no home, and whose lives have been disrupted inappropriately by one imperial power as they struggled against another. We do not need to romanticize their struggle or turn them into saints to have empathy for their position. They are guerilla fighters who wish to have an independent Muslim state in Northwestern China. Maybe they’re even mean. Maybe they’re tough guys who are willing to kill for what they believe. If they were our Founding Fathers or otherwise on our side, we would champion their cause.

The point is this: Palauans are digging deep into traditions rooted in their Christian faith to make space for those who need it. For all the talk of Christian values from the left and the right in the U.S. and among its European friends, none (save, to some extent, British-ruled Bermuda) of us was willing to do as the holy books mandate in this situation. Far from mocking Palauans as money-hungry savages, we should think about what we might learn from our allies in Micronesia.

Perhaps this is a good time for us to take a hard, honest look at who we are and who we want to be.

Update: There are some diverse opinions about Uighur resettlement in Palau on the Palauan blog "Okedyulabeluu." Some of this information is rumor and directly conflicts what what I have learned from officials while I have been here, but in any case, it is worth exploring.

Teaser: Palau Us to Look Into This, Please

2009-06-13T09:47:00.005-04:00

It was reported this week that a dozen or so (the number varies with each report) Chinese Muslim "Uighur" detainees from Guantanamo Bay will be sent to the South Pacific nation of Palau, since the U.S. Congress has decided that even detainees cleared of charges may not reside in the United States.

Stephen is heading off to Palau this evening to get local reaction and will blog more thoroughly on the racial implications of the news next week. After all, there is certainly an ethnic component to this, and there are issues of nationality, as well. Palau, once controlled by Japan, has been quite happy with its association with the United States since the end of World War II, through its status as a protectorate territory until the mid-1990s to today, as the independent nation enjoys significant funding from the U.S. by virtue of its compact of free association. Additionally, most of the low-wage laborers in Palau are from the Philippines, so there is a social structure in place there that is related to ethnicity.

To whet your appetite, see these recent stories, which range from the mundane to the insensitive:

Fox News's Greg Gutfeld refers to Palau as "a place called Palau" and The New York Daily News refers to the prisoners as "garbage.").
The Los Angeles Times reports that locals in Bermuda (where some other Uighur detainees have been sent) and Palau are uneasy about the relocation.
The latest news is that the deal is not as certain as early reports suggested.

More analysis is forthcoming once Stephen gets situated, gets over his jet lag, and settles into the work he was already scheduled to do there with high school students for the Junior State of America (JSA) program.

What? Did you think that we had a budget to investigate global news now? Please. Call it a happy coincidence.

Creating Space for Progress

2009-06-07T09:16:00.006-04:00

The Race Project has a number of volunteer research assistant positions available for the summer. Scroll to the bottom of this blog entry for more information.

There are some Americans who honestly believe that racial minorities have an unfair advantage over Whites (see Pat Buchanan) and others who are simply uninterested in seeing any power whatsoever shifted out of the hands of White men (see the Ku Klux Klan). The vast majority of us, however, understand that the legacy of inequality, manifested in (mostly latent) psychological predispositions about members of different groups, has left us with a system that undermines our espoused shared core values of justice, equality of opportunity and even individualism. While it often feels good (and always gets ratings) to call names, point fingers, belittle, ridicule, mock and otherwise humiliate our political opponents, doing so leaves no space for progress.

THIS WEEK, we consider what it means to leave space for change. In this month's Esquire, political statistics whiz kid Nate Silver argues that there may be a trend toward increased geographical polarization in America, as the poor job market makes it more likely that folks will relocate on the basis of ideology. It's the physical manifestation of the "selective exposure" hypothesis in media effects research: people will seek out that which affirms their existing beliefs to avoid experiencing (and, thus, having to relieve) cognitive dissonance. Last year, we reviewed Cappella and Jamieson's book Echo Chamber, which traces the interconnectedness of the conservative media establishment (Fox News, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show). We may be seeing an emergence of a progressive echo chamber, as MSNBC has attempted to become the Fox of the Left, exchanging information over the airwaves and Internet with progressive websites such as Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Media Matters. The other networks -- which conservatives claim are liberal and progressives claim are conservative -- attempt some middle ground by having hosts or guests from the left and the right screaming at one another and hurling insults at or about anyone who has a different perspective.

This is horribly dangerous for our political discourse because it reinforces the notion that one must hold firm to one's ideas, even in the face of clear, contrasting evidence. Five years ago, Jon Stewart intellectually ambushed Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on an episode of CNN's Crossfire (below), telling them that their sort of discourse was "hurting America."

This moment was situated in the context of a brilliant political strategy on the part of President Bush's campaign team to label Democratic nominee John Kerry as "a flip flopper," a moniker that will likely define Kerry's legacy. Whether Kerry would have made a good president or not is beside the point; whether his changing of positions (to the extent that the claim was even valid) would have been an indication of his abilities is another issue altogether. Our bias, as college professors, is to constantly push for a more complicated understanding of the world, which necessitates leaving space for intellectual growth. The chasm between what we encourage on college campuses and what we champion in our political discourse is wide and seems to be expanding.

In his "Cairo speech" (formally titled "A New Beginning") THIS WEEK, President Obama called for increased understanding between warring factions in global politics (read the transcript here):

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Obama was praised throughout the world for this fresh take, but the position is not without controversy. Conservative pundits accused Obama of pandering and being "soft" because he refused to use the word "terror," a word that Obama realizes is so laden with emotion and perspective that it is virtually meaningless. To accuse someone of being "a terrorist" is to engage in name calling that does not leave space to move us closer to peace.

Similarly, as we argue regularly in this space, calling people "racists" (as contrasted with pointing out racist assumptions) is counterproductive to clearing space for progress toward racial equality.

Perhaps a parallel example would be New Hampshire governor John Lynch's speedy signing of the gay marriage law passed by the NH legislature THIS WEEK. Lynch, who has stated repeatedly that he believes that marriage is "between one man and one woman" gave a speech last month wherein he acknowledged his own limitations:

My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.
[. . .]

Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections. That is what I believe we must do today.

This speech is important in at least two respects. First, of course, it paved the way for NH to be the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Second -- more broadly -- it serves as an example of what can happen when we give public officials the space to grow without punishing them for that growth (though, of course, it remains to be seen how Lynch might be ultimately punished).

Another public shift in position THIS WEEK came when Newt Gingrich retracted his statement (which we discussed last week) that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "a racist." Said Gingrich:

My initial reaction [to Sotomayor's 2001 speech] was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable. . .

Of course, Sotomayor's words are not unacceptable -- even if President Obama thinks they are -- to those who understand how important life experience is to one's outlook and how important that outlook is to providing meaningful (and yes, empathetic) representation and leadership. In terms of overall effect, Gingrich's "apology" is not particularly important. He still opposes her nomination, in part because he is offended by her unwillingness to pretend that she is without perspective, and the clarification may have more to do with trying to soften his image on the eve of a presidential run.

But, while we can only speak for ourselves, we absolutely do "want to have an honest conversation." Further, we wish to assert that it is important that progressives allow folks to revise their remarks to the extent that they are being intellectually honest about beliefs that initial reactions or prior positions were improper. We need to acknowledge and not punish public figures when they show signs of growth. Labeling Gingrich a "flip flopper" or otherwise trying to define him by his initial statement only serves to contribute to a culture of rigidity that rewards stubbornness and discourages change where change is appropriate.

It became more clear THIS WEEK that Congressman Artur Davis will seek the governorship of Alabama. If he is to become the first Black governor of a deep South state since Reconstruction (and only the third Black governor elected anywhere), he will have to count on the (private) votes of Whites who have historically not been supportive of civil rights. Those folks will be more inclined to vote for a Black candidate if they get cues from leaders that, to paraphrase John Lynch, our society's views of civil rights are evolving.

It is important to create and maintain space for that discourse to occur, not because Artur Davis should or should not be elected governor of Alabama, but because there should be a context within which his candidacy would not be defined by his race.

We will get there by way of honest, thoughtful, meaningful discourse, not by shouting, name calling and ridicule. Our success or failure will be largely the result of the space we create.

Update: In clarifying his statement about Sotomayor on today's Face the Nation, Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor "a racialist," which is a term that has no distinct meaning as of yet, but that we are starting to encounter more and more frequently. We will address this language in a later post.

Research Assistant Opportunities

The Project on Race in Political Communication (http://RaceProject.org) has a number of volunteer research opportunities for anyone who would like to be involved with the Race Project. While students are a natural constituency in this regard, anyone is welcome to help. We are entering the most labor-intensive phase of a very exciting element of the Project -- one that we have be planning for nearly eight years -- that will have implications far more widespread than the study of race and political communication.

We are compiling data and constructing a database that will be made available to researchers (in the form of a spreadsheet appropriate for quantitative analysis) and the public (in the form of a Web-interfaced search engine) that contains information about candidates for federal office (U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. president) since 1970, including the candidate's race, gender, party affiliation, number of votes received, amount of money raised and spent, and other variables of interest. Computer programmers are busy at work on the Web-interface, and two Race Project senior research assistants students, Sidra Hamidi and Priscilla Martinez, are prepared to oversee the collection and entering of data over the summer months. Research assistants will be responsible for collecting information from a variety of sources (most of which are online) to compete the dataset. This is an important contribution that has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of elections, as this information is not currently available in one place.

This work requires no prior research experience and can be done from any location and at any time of the day (we can work around work schedules). For students, working as a Race Project research assistant affords the opportunity to gain experience with social science research for the purposes of CV building, instigating an original research project, and/or working toward a better understanding of racial inequality and injustice. Research practicum credit through North Central College (which may transfer to other institutions) can be arranged.

If you are interested, please Facebook message Stephen or Charlton, or send an email to SMCaliendo@RaceProject.org. If you know someone who might be interested (or if you are a faculty member who has students who might be interested), please do not hesitate to pass this information along.

Republicans Battle Over and About Sonia Sotomayor's "Racism"

2009-06-01T10:23:00.006-04:00

It's been one of those weeks.

First of all, there are a number of important issues that deserve our attention. The only African American U.S. Senator, Roland Burris, finds himself in trouble. (BTW: We believe he should step aside; we cal led for him not to be seated in the first place amidst dubious charges of racism in the face of which Senate Democratic leaders caved). A White woman in Pennsylvania took off with her kids and used the familiar claim, "a Black guy abducted us." And Ursula Burns (left) became the first ever Black woman to head up a Fortune 500 company (Xerox).

But, of course, the story that captured most of our attention this week was the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

As has been widely reported, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic American to sit on the high court, and she has not been particularly skillful in hiding the fact that 1) she is, in fact, Latina, 2) is aware of her own gender and ethnicity, and 3) has a sophisticated understanding of the way group identity matters in the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, some on the right either sincerely believe that people can be neutral (as opposed to objective) or are acting as if they believe it to try to convince less thoughtful folks that this is an accurate depiction of the human psyche.

The immediate controversy stems from a lecture Sotomayor gave in California in 2001, where she was talking about how her "story" affected her worldview. In the context of this, she said:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

It is this last sentence (hereafter "the sentence") that has attracted the ire of the usual cast of angry Whites (mostly male + Ann Coulter) who populate the airwaves of overtly conservative media outlets. The refrain is similar and predictable: minorities are stealing their America from them, and someone needs to stand up and say something about it. (For his part, President Obama has unfortunately claimed that "the sentence" constitutes a poor choice of words. Whatever.)

So here is just a partial list of what we saw unfold over the course of the week (for a more comprehensive look, see here and/or see the video that follows):

Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter called "the sentence" "a racist statement." Carlson added that it was racist "by any calculation." (Hmm. Not by ours.)
Glenn Beck called "the sentence" "one of the most outrageous racist remarks he has heard." (Really? One of the most outrageous he has heard? Maybe he should take a look at some of these reactions to a Drudge Report posting about Sotomayor.)
Pat Buchanan called her "an affirmative action pick" and said that it "appears" that she "believes in reverse discrimination against White males."
Rush Limbaugh called her, at various points during his five broadcasts this week, "a racist," a "bigot," and a "reverse racist."

Limbaugh, ever the thoughtful contributor to meaningful dialogue about the hegemonic order, was more accurate in his reflection of what is bubbling under the surface. At its root, this is not about Sonia Sotomayor. Some on the left are very concerned with her record on issues like abortion, so it's not like she is an ideological extremist (a leftist Robert Bork, for instance), and it's not like she's not going to be confirmed. It seems clear that more than 60 senators will be willing to vote for cloture if a filibuster is attempted, and clear-headed Republicans understand that not only is opposing the first Hispanic Supreme Court appointment political suicide, but it will not result in Obama naming someone more to their liking anyway (see Senator Mel Martinez's carefully worded press release on the nomination). There is a strong undercurrent of White resentment and the ongoing fear that Obama is out to oppress White people.

Think we're exaggerating? Limbaugh said THIS WEEK that Obama "is the greatest living example of a reverse racist," and Lou Dobbs said that the appointment was "pandering to the Hispanics."

Former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (never afraid to criticize racial minorities) told Ed Schultz that Sotomayor "appears to be a racist," and, when asked if he subscribed to Limbaugh's assertion that the way to "get appointed to the Obama Administration" is by "hatin' White people," Tancredo told David Shuster "I don't know. . . I have no idea if they hate White people or not."

See the exchange here. Limbaugh's rant (which is shown in the video) is so ridiculous that it almost doesn't deserve our attention. He claims that Obama wants to make Whites "the new oppressed minority" and that Republicans are going along with it by "moving to the back of the bus" and obliging by drinking only out of designated water fountains. The metaphor is silly and offensive, and making such a parallel reveals his utter lack of understanding of the suffering of generations of people of color. Tancredo goes on to express his frustration of "the suggestion" that because he is White, he cannot comment on the situation. (Recall the similar outrage by Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson that we blogged about last year.)

So here is where we are. The truth is that very little of this matters right now because such discourse is firmly on the margins of mainstream political thought, even though the voices espousing the claims are loud and popular in the narrow universe they serve. We still have members of the Ku Klux Klan and there are still neo-Nazi skinheads. Those are the most hateful, bigoted members of our society. There are bigoted people of color who are hateful and resentful of Whites in a way that is similar to the White supremacists in some ways. Just to this side of empathy from these folks are the so-called "wing nuts," who either legitimately do not understand the way power works because they are too blinded by their own racism to wrestle with the difficult questions, or are being intentionally dishonest to stir resentment among Whites in an attempt to gain political advantage. This is most often manifested in the "if the shoe were on the other foot" comparisons that fall apart in the face of historical context.

If everyone started out equally, then it would always be inappropriate to take race, gender, class or sexual orientation into account. Those pining for the "objective," non-activist jurist who "does not see" categories of humanity either honestly believe that all Americans start life equally and are subsequently judged by the content of their character rather than social groupings or understand that making such claims will contribute to the ongoing oppression of minorities. Newt Gingrich invoked the reciprocity fallacy when he stated (immediately after the nomination was made), "Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘[M]y experience as a white man makes me better than a [L]atina woman.’ [N]ew racism is no better than old racism.”

Of course, there is no such thing as "new racism." Such a phrase suggests that racism is an historical artifact -- something that ended with the Civil War or perhaps the dismantling of Jim Crow.

Perhaps Gingrich is referring to prejudice, bigotry, or maybe, as Limbaugh put it, "reverse racism." On those grounds, we agree: it is improper for people to be judged on such characteristics. However, pretending that we are not judged by our race, gender and sexual orientation is foolish at best and malicious at worst. We may strive for such a day, but it is not upon us (sorry, electing a Black president did not end racism either), and arguing that those who are attentive to the way difference matters in America are somehow getting the upper hand in our society is reflective of either intellectual dishonesty or flat out ignorance.

Mainstream Republicans worked to distance themselves from these sorts of statements THIS WEEK, though few that we have heard directly criticized Limbaugh or the other de facto leaders of the conservative movement (if not the Party itself). Consider, for example, Jon Kyle's language from CBS's Face the Nation.

Senator John Cornyn came the closest to a full-on rebuke on ABC's This Week, but fed host George Stephanopoulos the "justice is blind" line, as well:

Well, of course, George, the concern is that above the Supreme Court it says "Equal justice under law." And it's doesn't -- shouldn't make any difference what your ethnicity is, what your sex is, or the like.
We would also hope that judges would be, you know, umpires, impartial umpires. And, you know, the focus shouldn't be on the umpire and what their sex or gender is, or their ethnicity.

Maybe it shouldn't, Senator Cornyn, but it does. It matters a lot. It is wonderful for the good senator to wish that it did not (that means he is not a bigot). Martin Luther King wished that (dreamed that), as well.

But wishing something doesn't magically make it come true. This is particularly hard for Whites (and more so for White males) to understand because they have been socialized to believe that the American values of fairness, justice and equality are rooted in empirical reality -- after all, Whites have been successful in every element of society, a fact that is readily apparent to even the most casual observer. If the disproportionate levels of success in the White community are not rooted in hard work and merit, then what could possibly account for the discrepancy? The answer, of course, is systemic imbalance and a fundamental lack of justice, which, naturally, is difficult for Whites to embrace, since it calls into question their privilege.

So calling attention to difference is uncomfortable for anyone who is not attentive to the way power structures a society. In that same broadcast of This Week, George Will noted that Sotomayor:

. . . seems to have affirmed what's called identity politics, which is a main proposition and a subproposition. The main proposition is, that an American is or should be thought of as his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, that that should define their political identity. And the subproposition is, called categorical representation. You can only be represented by someone of the same sexual, ethnic, racial group as you are, because only they can understand or empathize with you. That is of no relevance whatever to the court, however, because it's not a representative institution.

Will's use of "should" here, is instructive. He uses it to mean that, in the abstract, those of us who subscribe to identity politics believe it to be preferable. That is simply incorrect. It is necessary in this context to take such characteristics into account because they are were consciously taken into account by those who built the system and are subconsciously taken into account by all who are socialized within it.

The subproposition argument is interesting, as well, but Will fails to factor in a fundamental principle of American democracy, articulated most clearly by James Madison in Federalist #10: Democracy is about respecting minority will while also protecting minority rights. The Framers understood that the branches closest to the people will be more likely to support the majority (since they rely on their support for election) and constructed a judiciary that was insulated from direct public pressure so that it could be attentive to minority rights without being punished for it. In fact, that is precisely what has happened. The courts have often been out in front of public opinion and electd officials (ending segregation, gay marriage) in advocating for the rights of those who are in the numerical and power minority.

So while Will is correct that the notion of identity representation is most applicable in the so-called "political" branches, he is mistaken that there is no place for such representation in the judiciary. Further, his suggestion that categorical representation is improper rests on the premise that those who do not possess certain categories can be representative of those who do. We agree with that, but guess what? To do so requires something that conservatives have argued is improper in this very situation: empathy.

Gwen Ifill responded to Will's assertion:

I guess I see it differently. I mean, I've spent the past year talking to a lot of people, who got elected, elected -- black elected officials for a book, and all of them talked about identity politics and defined it differently. They defined it as being -- that being part of what you are, but not all of what you are. And I think that's what the defenders of Sonia Sotomayor are trying to say, which is that her point was, yes, what she is and what we all are shapes us, but it's not all that shapes you.
I always take arguments like this and try to turn them on their heads. And I never hear people say that for a white male, that it's identity politics if he is shaped by his white maleness and by the things that affected his life, and whether privilege affected his life. That's never considered to be a negative. It's only considered to be a negative when ethnicity is involved or race is involved or gender is involved.

This is an interesting idea, and one readers might suspect we oppose given our refusal to allow Whites to use the reciprocity fallacy. But this is a very different proposition because of the unidirectional nature of power (pro-White, pro-male, pro-heterosexual) in our culture. In other words, while it is inappropriate to criticize taking minority interest into account on the grounds that it wouldn't be tolerated the other way around, it is essential to do what Ifill suggests because it is revealing of the belief that Whites often have that they are "without race" or "racially objective." Her assertion is illustrated by Senator Inhoffe's comments THIS WEEK that there needs to be evidence that Sotomayor can "rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences." Since we do not recall similar calls made about previous justices, the implication is that there needs not be a similar test for White males in this regard -- it's understood that they would act "properly." As the folks at Media Matters and Huffington Post point out, there has been hypocrisy on this point, as no one questioned Justice Alito on his similar statements.

Finally, Ed Gillespie followed Ifill by noting that:

We are all shaped by who we are. We all bring that to the table. I do think, though, the -- you know, the conscious injection that you see, in a lot of her comments, of gender and race is what is causing for concern. And not only -- a little different with politicians, I think, our identity, than with a judge, and with a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment.

Conscious injection? Is that the problem? So long as we inject our biases without knowing that we're doing that, it's fine? Consciousness is what is objectionable? Again, it reminds us of the inability of folks to distinguish racism (which resides largely in the subconscious) and bigotry (which is, by definition, conscious). And that, dear friends, is the crux of the problem.

We fear that we have missed yet another opportunity to talk meaningfully about the role of race (and, in this case, gender) in America. As is typical, we have allowed the debate to be reduced to individuals, personalities, and political posturing, when there was an opportunity for real work to be done.

For now, we can simply sit by and watch while some conservatives play on racial resentments as others try to get them to stop without offending these leaders of "the base" (i.e., Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Gingrich). When presented with an opportunity to distance himself clearly from Limbaugh's statements on Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Sessions was very careful:

SESSIONS: I don't think I'm going to use any such words as that. I read her speech. I'm troubled by her speech. I think she has an opportunity to explain that. And I don't think we--that I'm going to use such loaded words. People on the outside can say what they choose to say.

MR. [David] GREGORY: But wait, but do you make a judgment about that? Do you think they're appropriate?
SEN. SESSIONS: I don't think those are words...
MR. GREGORY: You think that's fair?
SEN. SESSIONS: ...that I would use. And I don't think--I don't--they would not be words that I would use.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
SEN. SESSIONS: But we need to focus on what...
MR. GREGORY: Do you think she's a racist?
SEN. SESSIONS: ...she would say.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think she's a racist?
SEN. SESSIONS: I think that she is a person who believes that her background can influence her decision. That's what troubles me.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Right.
SEN. SESSIONS: I would not use those words.
MR. GREGORY: You would not use those words because you don't believe them?
SEN. SESSIONS: I don't think that's an appropriate description of her.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Do you think that conservatives should stop using those words to describe her?
SEN. SESSIONS: I would prefer that they not, but people have a free right to speak and say what they want and make the analogies that they want. This is an important thing. We should not demagogue race. It's an important issue in our culture and our country. We need to handle it with respect that it deserves and the care that it deserves.

Wow. That's some nifty tightrope walking. He acknowledges that "we" need to handle race carefully in our culture, but is anxious that Sotomayor will do so on the bench. Why? Why is it possible (advisable) for "us" to be thoughtful about race but a Latina woman cannot? The implicit fairness of Whites makes the point (for anyone attentive enough to notice): There are (often unstated) assumptions about race in America that serve to advantage Whites. If we are uncomfortable with that, we need to fix it -- not by pretending that it is not happening, but by addressing it head on, honestly, with energy, empathy and thoughtfulness.

Unfortunately, we may be missing yet another opportunity to do so. Here's hoping that the confirmation hearings spark a more honest discussion about race in America than what we witnessed this week.

Thanks to Our Vets and Current Military Service Members

2009-05-24T10:47:00.006-04:00

Memorial Day is, of course, the unofficial start of summer, a day off work for many (but certainly not all), and a chance to bust out that grill, and it is an opportunity to reflect on the women and men who have served in the American military. At a time when Americans are in harm's way in a number of places, we may not need a holiday as much as we do during peaceful times, but it gives us an excuse to discuss the contributions of persons of color -- persons who have a unique perspective on what it means to be American.

In 2007, there were 2.4 million single-race Black military service members in the United States. That year, the Boston Globe reported that while the number of Black enlistees had dropped some 58% since 2000, "the percentage of blacks in the military still slightly exceeds that of the general population: 14.5 percent in the military, as of 2005, versus 12.8 percent in the U.S. population." Hispanics are underrepresented in the military, but their participation is increasing; they comprised 13.5 percent of the military in 2007 (as compared to 15% in the U.S. population). There were more than a quarter of a million Asian Americans serving in 2005, and there are approximately 185,000 Native American veterans in the U.S. (For a detailed analysis of race/ethnicity and military service, download this 2004 [.pdf] document from the Population Reference Bureau.) There are organizations dedicated to African American Veterans, Hispanic Veterans, Asian American Veterans and Native American veterans.

It has been said that in military service, there is no Black, White or Brown -- there is only Red, White and Blue. We agree with that sentiment, but, as always, it is a bit more complicated than that.

First, it is no secret that our voluntary military disproportionately attracts young men and women with few other options (though see this report from the Heritage Foundation, which argues against a draft to rectify this imbalance). In 2005, UPI reported that "[n]early two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. . . . According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits [in 2004] had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average." Young high school graduates who are not qualified to attend college or cannot afford to do so find few jobs available that provide opportunities for sustenance. Black and Latino families face rates of poverty in America that are disproportionate to those of Whites.

Second, while service to country is admirable under any circumstances and putting oneself in harm's way for a cause beyond one's own self interest is laudable irrespective of race or ethnicity, it is particularly admirable for persons to voluntarily serve a country that has been historically hostile at worst and indifferent at best to groups with which they identify (LGBT Americans are similarly situated in this regard).

I got a letter from the government
The other day
I opened and read it
It said they were suckers
They wanted me for their army or whatever
Picture me given a damn - I said "never"
Here is a land that never gave a damn
About a brother like me and myself
Because they never did
I wasn't with it, but just that very minute
It occurred to me
The suckers had authority
[...]
They could not understand that I'm a black man
And I could never be a veteran
-- Public Enemy, "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos" (1988)

So while you are firing up that grill, taking that first swim in the public pool, or otherwise participating in Memorial Day festivities, we join those who urge us to remember why we are asked to pause and reflect. It is not about some blind obedience to a flag (or even what it represents) or the unwavering support for our elected leaders (even when they are making bad choices); it is about the individual and collective lives of those who choose to serve. The most conservative among us understands that if the government has any role at all, it is in national defense. The most progressive among us understands that the military is an indispensable element of a modern democratic society that is often instrumental in helping people around the globe. The men and women who put on (and have put on) a U.S. military uniform each day, many of whom sacrifice their lives on a regular basis, come from all ethnic and racial backgrounds, but share a fundamental commitment to the only identification that should come before country: humanity.

See this page for an archive of African American military service since the Revolutionary War and this page for historical information compiled by the U.S. Army. The Army has also developed this page for information about the history of Hispanic service, this page for information about Asian Americans' service, and this page for information about Native Americans' service.

Hatewatch: Don't Forget the Bigots

2009-05-18T09:03:00.005-04:00

For nearly three years, we have put forth weekly analysis of current events that reside at the intersection of race, politics and language. Specifically, we attempt to apply scholarship from the fields of communication, political science, sociology, anthropology, critical studies and psychology to the news so that the work is accessible to folks who do not have advanced training in the social sciences or humanities.

Our work is balanced on two key points: 1) While we have a primary and fundamental commitment to the academic process and seek to contribute to the scholarly literature, we also have a normative interest in reducing racial inequality. We launched the RaceProject.org website in 2003 and the RaceProject.org Facebook group in 2007 in an effort to bring those tasks together. 2) We join with others who differentiate individual-level racism (what we consistently call "bigotry") with systemic-level racism because we believe that understanding that difference is the key to turning folks' attention to working on the latter. As a result, we have offered some 140 entries here, most of which totally ignore individual-level bigotry, in part because we try to de-emphasize the intent of those who reveal racism in their language and expression.

Every once in a while, though, we need to remember that while bigotry may be taking its last breath in America, it certainly is not dead. Further, it is conceivable that bigotry will make a comeback now that the nation's top elected official is a man who identifies as being African American.

The hard working folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center spend a lot of time, money and energy tracking bigotry, particularly as cases move through the legal process. If you are not an email subscriber of their weekly "Hatewatch" newsletter, you might be surprised about the number and intensity of incidents that occur. We reproduce their newsletter here THIS WEEK to remind readers that, while internalized racism is more widespread and is a more significant impediment to social justice, overt bigotry dramatically affects the lives of thousands of Americans each year. We cannot fall asleep on this front.

White Supremacist Threatens To Kill Judge
Pueblo Chieftain
May 17, 2008
Aryan Brotherhood member Jay Gregory threatened at a sentencing hearing to have a federal judge murdered after referencing the 1984 assassination of a Jewish radio show host by the white nationalist group The Order. [more]

Man Arrested For Trying To Sell Cyanide To Aryan Brotherhood
The Oklahoman
May 15, 2008
Texas resident Jeffrey Don Detrixhe was arrested for allegedly agreeing to sell 100 pounds of cyanide for $10,000, a thermal imager and a fully automatic AK-47 to a federal informant that Detrixhe believed was representing the Aryan Brotherhood. [more]

ACLU: York Public Assembly Law Still Unconstitutional
The York Daily Record
May 17, 2008
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, proposed changes to a York, Penn. law governing protest rallies, several provisions of which were struck down in court after a white supremacist group sued the city, are not enough to make it constitutional. [more]

Sacramento Men Arrested For Gay Bashing
Orange County Register
May 16, 2008
Micah Jontomo Tasaki, 21, Gregory Lee Winfield, 20, and Robert Lee Denor, 19, allegedly uttered anti-gay slurs then beat and kicked a gay man just hours after the California Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning a state ban on same-sex marriages. [more]

A Case for Empathy

2009-05-11T09:45:00.006-04:00

"Crazy nonsense empathetic! I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness!" (GOP chair Michael Steele, May 8, 2009)

Barack Obama took a lot of heat from conservatives and Republicans when he noted that one characteristic for a Supreme Court nominee would be empathy. Here is the full quote:

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

In a matter of minutes, and in the days that have passed since, those who expect to be disappointed by Obama's eventual selection have argued that "empathy" is a code word for "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench." Maybe so.

But before we get to that, we want to pose this question: What's wrong with empathy?

Some might argue that empathy is a fine quality for citizens, but it has no place in interpretation of the law. That seems to us to be a dubious distinction on its face, but nonetheless, it is worthy of being addressed.

Among the alarmists were the folks at Freedom Works, who had this to say: "What Obama is saying here is that the rule of law should be secondary in judicial reasoning to a judge’s own personal feelings. It is nothing short of a recipe for a breakdown of our legal system, and the death of an expectation by participants in court proceedings that they will be treated fairly, particularly if they are not highly sympathetic."

But it is important to examine this claim. There is an important shift in language at work: the blogger at Freedom Works substituted "sympathy" for Obama's word, which was "empathy." Same thing? Not at all.

Sympathy centers on internalizing another's situation, while empathy is concerned with being cognizant of another's situation and meaningfully attentive to it. Sympathy is closer to "pity" than is empathy, which involves being able to put oneself in another's shoes, so to speak. When Bill Clinton said that he felt our pain, he was expressing sympathy. That may or may not be important, but it's not the same as empathy. If he wanted to express empathy, he would have said that he understood our pain.

That sort of rationality in thought is perfectly appropriate in judicial conduct. In fact, we would argue that it is a responsibility, particularly of federal judges, to be empathetic. The Framers set up a system where members of the judicial branch would be isolated from public pressures, in part because they understood, as James Madison articulated in Federalist #10, that democracy is more than honoring the will of the majority; protecting minority rights is also essential.

The executive and judicial branches, with their members selected (directly or indirectly) by the people at regularly scheduled intervals, will ostensibly work for the majority -- at least the majority of their own constituents. It is up to the judicial branch to be empathetic to those with less power. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBT folks and the poor are, currently and historically, groups whose identifiers have less access to power with respect to their flip-sides (men, Whites, etc.). When there has been meaningful change with respect to extending rights to members of disadvantaged groups, it has often been the courts leading the way (think Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas), and that has angered supporters of the status quo.

But that's precisely what is supposed to happen. If the status quo always held, there would never be progress, and only half of Madison's conceptualization of democracy would ever be fulfilled. The majority would always win, and minority rights could easily be ignored. Only an independent judiciary or a tremendously brave (stupid?) group of lawmakers would push against public opinion to stand up for the rights of minorities. When they have done so, they have often had judicial cover. Conservatives hated the Brown decision (though few of them are brave enough to say so now), and they hated the Lawrence decision (and most are very happy to tell you so). But Congress passed civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s, and state legislatures are now legalizing gay marriage.

Of Obama's statement, Sean Hannity said that Democrats “want the courts to take over and engage in social engineering," and Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter told CNN's Howard Kurtz that "[e]mpathy [is] an emotive term [and that] Barack Obama is calling for a judge who will take their [sic] emotions into account when making a judicial decision."

The notion that judges do not or should not take emotion or their own political preferences into account when making decisions is not credible. All humans have bias, and while we can strive for objectivity, that requires a recognition and conscious determination to be attentive to our biases in order to be sure that they are not the driving force in our behavior.

Maybe "empathy" is a code word. So what? Obama is progressive, and he is going to pick a progressive jurist. Of course conservatives won't like it -- they won't like it any more than progressives liked it when President Bush selected judges who would work to reinforce the status quo. That's the way it works. That's politics. And there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around as Republicans gear up to obstruct the nomination in the same way that they complained Democrats did during Bush's presidency, while Democrats are crying about the obstruction even though they used the same tactics for the past eight years.

But while the partisan hacks are staking out their territory on both sides, intellectuals are measuring and considering the President's words more carefully and thoughtfully -- and not just progressives. In the Catholic weekly publication America this morning, Douglas Kmiec writes the following: "No one should win or lose in Court because they are rich or poor or black or white. Yet to be evenhanded is not the same as being uncaringly formalistic or concerned only with systematic consequences. Real litigants stand before the Court. . . . Empathy has a wider, more open-minded nature, asking how law interrelates with the larger culture."

We may fantasize about how law is neutral, but of course it is not. It was created by humans (with biases) in the context of a system that was set up by humans (with biases), and it is interpreted by judges who are humans (with biases). Those biases should be acknowledged by jurists, critics, and citizens alike, but to argue that "judicial restraint" is value neutral while "judicial activism" is value laden is akin to arguing that standing by watching a child get hit by a moving car when one could have easily pulled him or her out of the way is a neutral act.

Because our judiciary is designed to protect minority interests, it requires members who possess empathy, which should not be confused with sympathy. Conflation of these concepts is either intellectually deficient or a blatant attempt to confuse the public as to the proper role of the judiciary in a democracy.

To be clear: the "proper role," as we see it, is not to frustrate popular will at every turn. Madison warned against such "minority factions" being tyrannical, as well. But one cannot be stationary on a moving train. Empathy is a powerful concept, and one that most organize religions preach, at least in theory. Jesus was certainly empathetic and asked his followers to be. In fact, some would argue that the very idea of God sending a son in human form was so that he could experience and teach empathy.

Whether one is a believer or not, it's not a bad model.

Update (5/12/09): Robert Burton, a former neurologist, has a wonderful piece about the scientific aspects of empathy (and the scientific-understood inability to remove personal feelings from judgment) at Salon.com.

Jack Kemp: A Conservative Voice for Racial Justice

2009-05-04T15:53:00.005-04:00

It's easy to speak well of someone after he or she has passed. All of the anger and frustration from personal or political opponents seems to wane in the hours after a death; it's as if we finally realize what we ought to all along: we are all in this together.

But it's unnecessary for us to retire frustrations with respect to Jack Kemp, the longtime Republican who kept minority interests at the center of his agenda throughout his political career. When we commented on the death of Jesse Helms last summer, we asked our colleagues and friends who work for social justice to try to move on:

It has been said that the most important way to give is to forgive, and we urge our contemporaries who are similarly committed to social justice to do just that. We sincerely hope that Senator Jesse Helms find the peace that he worked so hard to deny to so many others during his professional career.

In this case, no such call is necessary. Progressives may not agree with Kemp's supply-side tax strategies, but rather than simply cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and waiting for it to "trickle down," Kemp advocated tax breaks for middle-class folks, too, so that spending power remained in their hands.

More important, though, was his advocacy of "enterprise zones" in urban areas. In essence, these are areas of economic blight that are targeted for tax cuts for businesses who are willing to locate and operate there. It's a typical conservative strategy in the sense that it is based on tax cuts, but it was forward-thinking with respect to being attentive to the unique needs of inner-city neighborhoods and the people who live there.

When we had our exchange with Professor Voegeli last fall, we expressed concern that conservatives not only differ with progressives in terms of how to rectify racial injustice, but they tended to ignore (or give short shrift to) racial injustice altogether. This cannot be said of Jack Kemp. When it came to issues that disproportionately affect racial minorities, he may have disagreed with his progressive contemporaries, but they could never say what Kanye West said about George W. Bush.

Jack Kemp "cared." No doubt about it.

Potpourri

2009-04-26T17:12:00.008-04:00

Every once in a while, there is so much going on that we have to offer a "potpourri" entry. (What that really means, of course, is that neither of us is able to find a clever theme to tie the disparate items together in any meaningful way.) On such occasions, we look forward to your input to expand on our brief analysis.

Jamie Foxx Makes Bigoted Remark

On his satellite radio program, Jamie Foxx and his colleagues enjoyed a brief, but horribly offensive attack on teen pop sensation Miley Cyrus that included calling her a "White bitch." Foxx quickly moved to apologize publicly, appearing on The Tonight Show, but there is no excuse for his behavior. As many conservative commentators pointed out, leftists move to boycott or have fired White folks who make such remarks. While we disagree with reciprocity arguments surrounding elements of racism, bigotry should, indeed, be held to a standard that involves equal punishment for equal offenses. In other words, while it is not appropriate to say that a Black comedian joking about White folks is as troublesome as a White comedian joking about Black folks, racially-provocative name calling and hateful language should be equally condemned. Further, at least in this case, the racial nature of the comment did not work to significantly add to the humor -- it was simply gratuitous.

Foxx was correct to apologize, but conservatives were also correct in this case to call "foul." Defenders who claim that Foxx "goes hard on everybody" (as the person who compiled the YouTube clip linked above does) are not on solid footing here. We wouldn't accept that logic from Don Imus, and we cannot accept it here.

First Black Disney Princess

After a gaggle of White princesses (Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora, Ariel, and Belle) was joined by Native American (Pocahontas), East Asian (Mulan) and Arab (Jasmine) "royalty," Disney has pushed forward with an anticipated film featuring a Black princess. Tiana, who was originally to be named "Maddy" when the film was announced two years ago, will be the central figure in the upcoming The Frog Princess. The film has apparently taken a while to produce because of concerns about how the princess was portrayed in the original script. Jezebel reported last summer that the original name may have sounded too much like "Mammy," and that the character was too submissive, leading to concerns about connections with slavery.

The new formula is getting its share of criticism, too. Apparently, the prince is White, and Tiana is depicted in fashion similar to other "ethnic" princesses (and Barbie dolls, for that matter): she is dark skinned but otherwise has features more often associated with Caucasians (e.g., straight hair, thin nose) -- a "sexualized version of white women," according to Janel at Sugar and Spice v. Rough and Tough. See the CNN story about the film here and the official "teaser," embedded below.

USSC Hears "Reverse Discrimination" Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case that involves claims of reverse discrimination. After a test resulted in disproportionate success for White applicants for promotion within the New Haven (CT) Fire Department, the City determined the test to be racially biased and nullified the results. The firefighters who would have been promoted (a group that includes White non-Hispanic firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter) argue that they are victims of reverse discrimination. There is a lot of legal minutiae in this case, and there are a number of complex factors that have been debated by folks on both sides THIS WEEK. We turn your attention to arguments by Ilya Shapiro of The Cato Institute, the folks at Firelink.com, Acting White, and a panel of law experts at the American Constitution Society.

McCain Works to Clear Name of Boxer

Senator John McCain is working to urge President Obama to grant a presidential pardon to the late Jack Johnson, who was the first African American heavyweight boxing champion. As CNN reported this week:

Less than five years after winning the heavyweight title, Johnson was convicted for violating the Mann Act, which outlawed the transportation of women across state lines for "immoral" purposes.
Johnson was black and the woman was white -- enough to get even a champion imprisoned in early 20th century America. Justice Department lawyers decried it as a "crime against nature" for him to have a sexual relationship with a white woman.

Johnson was convicted by an all-White jury and fled into exile for a number of years until he surrendered to authorities in 1920. He served a 10-month sentence and died in an automobile accident in 1946. McCain, whose civil rights position has been marred by what he has since admitted to be a mistake in voting against the federal Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, is leading the charge with fellow Republican, New York Congressman Peter King.

Working to right an obvious past act of racism is no substitute for working to uproot systemic racism in the present, but it is nonetheless a welcome action on the part of these two public servants. Nice work, fellas! Let's just hope that the president goes for it.

Black Tea, White Tea: Making Sense of the Outrage

2009-04-19T11:57:00.014-04:00

Across the country, angry Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom were White, gathered THIS WEEK to protest. What they were protesting is open to some discussion, but at the very least, there was concern about the latest round of deficit spending.

It has been argued that the "parties," instigated by conservative think tanks, supported and sponsored by conservative media and pundits, and with rhetoric aimed disproportionately at the Obama administration, were exercises in hypocrisy and "faux populism." For our part, we took notice of racial message that came forward, though they were relatively few, in part because organizers asked participants to avoid such messages in their signs.

Supporters of the tea parties, pejoratively referred to as "teabaggers" in the blogosphere, have been very defensive with respect to the racist charges, arguing (validly) that one ought to be able to criticize a Black president without being called "a racist." We use this space to attempt to explain how scholarly criticisms of racism differ from playground accusations, and why the former are appropriate to consider and apply to the parties.

First, we point out that folks who study racism and racial discourse by and large do not use the word "racist" as a noun (as in "He is a racist."). This is because the term is used to refer not to individual-level prejudice, but systemic oppression that is rooted in narratives and institutions that perpetuate and reinforce such individual attitudes. Since everyone who is socialized within a system characterized by historic inequality based on race is affected deeply (and subconsciously) by those messages, everyone is racist. (Note that we did not say that everyone is a racist). Colloquially, the term is used to identify persons who are unabashedly prejudiced on the basis of skin color. For that, we use the term "bigot."

The distinction is crucial because conflation of the terms leads to an assumption that there is virtually no racism left. Since there are only a handful of bigots among us, it is comforting to believe that we are not "racist" if we don't use the "n-word" or consciously base judgments on skin color. That's convenient, but it's dangerous because it has led to our collective inability to meaningfully confront the most pressing issues of racism in America.

Second, people who are supportive of the "tea party" messages broadly have tended to try to explain how some of the signs were not "racist" because there were plausible explanations for the designers' intentions that do not involve race. That is, there are cries that Obama supporters are "using race" to discredit otherwise valid opponents of the Administration. It is important to note that we divorce "racism" from intent because, as social scientists, we are primarily concerned with effect. That does not mean that it is not worth considering the intent of those propagating the messages; it just means that it is a task better left to journalist and scholars in the humanities. For us, it is enough to acknowledge that such messages are potentially not "bigoted" in the sense that someone consciously attempted to play on negative racial predispositions. We are all driven to some extent by our racism (as defined above), so arguments about whether there was consciousness involved in the design of the message is irrelevant to our point that such messages are rooted in and subsequently prime subconscious racist sentiments.

Actor and activist Janeane Garofolo drew a lot of criticism for saying that the "parties" were essentially exercises in racism by "rednecks." Her language is not helpful in the sense that while it drew attention, it undermined more thoughtful and clearly articulated points about the racial nature of the discourse at work at these events.

Huffington Post covered the events and posted pictures of some of the "most offensive" signs, some of which had racial undertones. We took the liberty to lift some of these and post them below with annotations that we hope will make it easier to understand why these messages can be considered to be racially insensitive.

This image depicts a Black man (ostensibly Obama) slitting the throat of Uncle Sam from behind. While the violence is offensive, it also works to prime racist fears of Black violence. If the president was White and a similar poster were made with the White president, there would be no issue. For some, that is the rationale for why there accusations of racism here are unfounded. That relies, of course, on what we (and others) have referred to (in this space and elsewhere) as the "false reciprocity" fallacy. In other words, just because a similar message could easily be made about a White person does not mitigate the racist nature of the message. If there were no history of racism and, thus, no negative stereotypes about people of color, then reciprocal arguments would be valid. But there are no myths about "White violent criminals," so messages like these are more effective as a result of racist predispositions.

This image is racist because it wouldn't make very much sense if the president were not African American. The phrase was made popular by the character Arnold Jackson, played by the actor Gary Coleman, in the 1970s/1980s sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes." If it were a contemporary common phrase, we might not be as concerned, but given the history, it is impossible for anyone to hear (or read) the phrase without an image of little (Black) Arnold Jackson's face, screwed up in a combination of confusion and contempt, rhetorically "asking" his brother, Willis, what he was "talkin' about." The degree of "offense" is lower in this image than in the above image because Arnold was a beloved figure, but the unnecessary connection to race is troublesome because it prompts us to think about Obama's race, thus activating our racial schemata and making accessible other information about African Americans -- most of which is negative -- as we evaluate Obama.

The level of ethnic insensitivity here does not need much explanation. Analogies to Nazis or Hitler are all too common in our contemporary discourse, and this is merely another example. It is clear that a number of people are upset about governmental spending, but suggestions that paying taxes -- even more than one believes is appropriate -- is on par with the attempted systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group are not only unfounded, but profoundly offensive.

Reminiscent of the "little girl monkey" imitation we saw at a McCain/Palin rally during the campaign, this youngster displays a sign that plays on stereotypes of Black folks as "not quite human." Such messages were important during the dehumanization of Africans during slave times and the continual denial of rights to African Americans during Jim Crow. As we have seen recently with the Washington Times editorial cartoon, such imagery still evokes powerful emotions and criticism.

This message references the 1990s-era In Living Color skit that featured African American comedian Damon Wayans as a parolee who does his community service by playing a clown named "Homey." According to a Wikipedia entry, "His goal in life is to get even with 'The Man,' a personification of the white males he thinks are "holding him down." There would be concern about the sign even if it were held by a person of color because it references a character that is criminal and suggests that Obama is motivated by a desire to harm Whites (as was suggested throughout the campaign in a variety of ways). As always, it is even more unnerving to see a White person use Black cultural images to criticize an African American.

ACORN has been criticized for the corrupt practices that have been uncovered in some of their work. The organization is designed to empower poor persons, particularly those in urban settings, by advocating for housing fairness, in part through registering people to vote. The corruption was a result of the organization paying persons for registering voters on a "price-per-registration" system, which led to some folks falsifying registration forms. Republicans and conservatives alleged that Obama's supporters were trying to "steal" the elections (imagery that plays on predispositions about African Americans and crime), even though votes could never be cast by folks who did not exist. While criticism of ACORN's practices are valid, the organization had nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of the "tea parties" last week, unless one buys into the conspiracy theories about Obama's election being a result of corrupt practices.

This sign addresses the non-issue about Obama's birth certificate, where opponents have tried to argue that he is not really a natural born citizen. While the question may have been valid when it was first raised, it has been addressed a number of times, culminating with the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in on the issue. See this video of a "tea party" in Cleveland in February where protesters claim with some confidence that Obama is lying about his citizenship status, some noting that he is Kenyan. This plays into racist notions of Black folks as untrustworthy and "other" that are pervasive subconscious beliefs among Americans.

This last image speaks for itself.

In short, what we hope readers will recognize is that while there are "wingnuts" from all parts of the political spectrum, thoughful analysts who are concerned about racism at these assemblies are neither claiming that all criticisms of Obama are racist in nature nor arguing that even the folks holding these signs are themselves bigots. If we are to make progress with respect to race relations, though, we must be diligent about pointing out where these messages appear, how they work, and why they are effective.

Wrestling with Racism: Neo-colonialism and "TNA"

2009-04-10T15:39:00.016-04:00

We're guessing that our regular readers were anticipating a blog about Betty Brown, the Texas state legislator who suggested that Asian Americans change their names so that they're "easier for Americans to deal with?” It's already getting a lot of attention, and we don't have much more to add. Racialicious does a great job explaining the various elements that render this statement worthy of critical attention.

Or maybe folks expect us to discuss the Turkish newsman who reported on Barack Obama's recent visit while in black face (see below). This one is a bit trickier because while it is patently offensive to Americans, there are cultural considerations that deserve attention in a full analysis. We have asked someone more familiar with the language and culture to draft an analysis for our companion blog, This GUEST on Race. We hope to have something appear in that space soon, but until then, see commentary from Atlas Shrugs, which references a video explanation by Young Turks that by and large confirms our culturally-constrained impression, but offers some context.

Instead, we turn our attention back to the realm of popular culture THIS WEEK, focusing on a genre that we have not previous addressed: professional wrestling.

The April 9, 2009 episode of TNA Impact contained a match that featured a Black woman named Awesome Kong (recall the controversy over LeBron James's image on the cover of Vogue last year, below) fighting three Barbie-esque White women, collectively named The Beautiful People. Before we even get to the imagery of the fight (i.e., the violent interaction of these two symbols), we should give some attention to the parties individually.

Besides the Vogue cover, there has been considerable attention given in the past year to ape or monkey images as applied to African Americans. In this space alone, we have commented on the blatantly bigoted Obama monkey doll and little girl doing a monkey impe rs onation at McCain-Palin rallies in Pennsylvania, the Obama sock puppet, and the insensitive New York Post cartoon. And we haven't even mentioned the Obama Chia Pet (left), which is considered to be racist by many (and has been removed from some Walgreen's stores' shelves).

The image of Awesome Kong (played by Kia Stevens) is striking. Not only is she named after perhaps the most famous primate in popular culture (including the original movie, remakes, and video games), but the character makes menacing animal faces (and does not speak, so far as we can tell).

Dehumanizing images are not new in professional wrestling. Previous generations have been entertained by the likes of George "the Animal" Steele, who had hair in places that we didn't even know hair could grow on a human, as well as a green tongue. Further, the notion of a wrestler whose very species might be called into question has been replicated over the decades (think Andre the Giant, for instance). There has even been another "Kong" -- King Kong Bundy -- who is White. So what's the big deal?

"Why, TWIR guys, is it okay for White wrestlers to be dehumanized but not a Black wrestler?"

First, we should note that dehumanization is to be avoided in any case. We understand that there are times in entertainment and literary contexts where such portrayals have a role, but the line between reality and fantasy in professional wrestling is blurry enough to cause concern. The question about us not being critical when it happens to White wrestlers brings us back to the reciprocity fallacy: what is acceptable for those in positions of relative power and privilege may not be acceptable when applied to members of groups that have been historically oppressed. It's the reason that comedians (of any ethnicity) can make fun of Whites, but only African Americans can make fun of Black folks, for example. If the joke can serve to perpetuate injustice, it's inappropriate; if it can work to undermine it, it is acceptable.

In fact, one of the dehumanized characters in professional wrestling is Junkyard Dog, a Black man who assumed the role of. . . well, you get it. While it is always troublesome for a Black person to be seen in a dehumanized context given the widespread dehumanization that characterized so much of the African American experience, there is more concern when the animal in question is a primate because of the long-standing offensive imposition of that imagery toward Blacks.

So that's bad enough on its own, but Awesome Kong (formerly known as Amazing Kong) has been around for a couple of years, so this is not new. What got our attention THIS WEEK was the contrast in "Kong's" match with three White women dressed in provocative attire (breasts exposed and pushed up high, tiny shorts -- one with fishnet stockings -- or skin-tight pants) and looking very much like living Barbie dolls (an important sexist objectification and dehumanization in its own right). These women, presented as ornaments for the sexual gratification of the overwhelmingly heterosexual male (and White) audience, are conspicuously named The Beautiful People.

The reduction of women to spectacle is part and parcel to what TNA is all about: the very name, which stands for "Total Nonstop Action," is a play on the colloquial reference to "tits and ass" ("T & A"). As the women enter the ring, they writhe suggestively, using the ropes as phallic props (left). Even though these women are presented as villains in the context of the program (their signature "move" is cutting the long hair of their female opponents, presumably making them even less "beautiful" by denying them one of the symbolic indicators of conventional beauty), the bias toward European-style feminine beauty is clear: all of the women are White and have long, flowing blonde hair. Their bodies are artificially curvy at the top and fitness-thin elsewhere. In short, they look as if they just walked off the cover of Maxim or FHM or any other of a number of objectifying "men's" magazines that tacitly advocate that women's only worth resides in what can be seen in the photos.

The clash of these two images -- the White fantasy sexpot and the savage Black creature -- is reminiscent of the colonialist psyche: the good, desirable, refined Europeans are destined to conquer, tame and even enslave the Africans with force. In the match, "Kong" wins, but not before providing imagery suitable for a heterosexual male fantasy of lesbianism (left). As is often the case in professional wrestling, though, the "match" doesn't end when the bell sounds. The "Beautiful People" team up against "Kong" as she celebrates her victory and attacks her (below). (Since neither of us regularly watches TNA, we are not sure why there would be a three-against-one match in the first place.) They beat her viciously (to crowd jeers), and ultimately pull out a pair of shears in an attempt to cut her braids. At that point, another scantily-dressed White woman rushes the ring (some rival, we surmise), and the segment ends.

To get the full effect (if that's really necessary), you may wish to watch the action for yourself. You can see it here (the match begins at about the 55-minute mark of the broadcast).

"But, professors, isn't 'Kong' choosing to have herself portrayed that way? She's Black, so it must be okay, right?"

This provides an excellent illustration of the difference between racism and bigotry. We are guessing that Ms. Stevens does not hate Black people (that is, she's not bigoted toward African Americans). It's also probable that she does not recognize that she is contributing to racist stereotypes by the image she projects. If she is and continues to do it anyway, we should consider the context of that decision: Who is really making the money from this imagery? What pressure is she under to perform like this? What are the parameters of the choices she has?

Racism is not about White people being bad and doing bad things while people of color are saintly victims. The power of racism is that it affects everyone in a racist society in the same direction (to privilege and propagate White supremacy). The fact that actors of color throughout history have contributed to racist stereotypes reflects the pervasiveness of racist images; it does not mitigate the racist nature of those images. The American imagination is shaped by, saturated with and burdened by narratives of colonization that center on manifest destiny and the inherent "goodness" of Europeans.

A critical examination of THIS WEEK's episode of TNA is revealing, interesting and informative. A passive viewing of the episode, though, has the propensity to solidify and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

THIS WEEK's Non-Racists: A Couple of Bigots

2009-04-06T11:32:00.005-04:00

We continue our occasional series featuring "non-racists": people who are caught making racially insensitive statements or statements that reveal their racism or bigotry but claim that something other than racism is to blame. Long-time TWIR readers will recall some of the previous "episodes": Joe Biden, Michael Richards and Clint Eastwood, "Dog" the Bounty Hunter, John Gibson, Don Imus and, most recently, Arnold Kling.

THIS WEEK, the perpetrators are lesser known, but their claims of not being racist are so remarkable that we had to share them with you.

Lyons, Illinois is a tiny village outside of Chicago. On the way to a parade last summer, the village president, David Visk, and a village trustee, Richard Schuppe, were riding in a police car. Visk put on the siren and flashing lights to the car, which, unbeknownst to him, triggered a video and audio recording system (only audio is recorded inside the car) that captured the exchange. You can see a video of the story below (or here), which contains the relevant parts of the recording and some belligerent defensiveness by the offending parties.

In addition to some disgusting displays of sexism (Vick notes that he likes the parade route because it provides a view up women's skirts), the racist elements are clear and bold. From the Chicago Tribune story:

Schuppe is heard using the "n-word" to describe a man who delivered a refrigerator to his home. Commenting on the price of the refrigerator, Visk told Schuppe that the worker should have thrown in a free watermelon, though Visk said the comment was not racially motivated.

"What?" you might ask? "Not racially motivated? What possible explanation could there be, then?"

Oh, dear reader, there is one: "Knowing Mr. Schuppe as many years as I have, he happens to be fond of that particular fruit," Visk said Wednesday.

We could not make this up. The guy actually wants us to believe that he knows his friend so well that, upon learning that a [n-word] delivered his expensive refrigerator, he noted that it would have been kind of the African American gentleman to have provided an advance supply of the fruit of Mr. Schuppe's choice. If Mr. Schuppe was fond of pineapple, this would not even be an issue! Poor guy: a victim of his taste in fruit.

We are less concerned with the actual incident -- these guys are clearly flat-out bigots -- as we are with the explanations and excuses that they offered. Again, from the Tribune's coverage:

Schuppe, who is in the middle of a four-year term, was reluctant to talk about the matter.

"I have made all of the apologies that are necessary," he said. "I have apologized profusely on television over the statements I said. It was something that just came out in the middle of a sentence, and I apologized for it."

Visk said he wishes the incident never happened.

"I made an inappropriate remark about the women and that was out of line," he said. "That was locker-room talk. I regret the entire tape, everything on it, good, bad or otherwise."

Visk said he may have switched on the recording device when he turned on the patrol car's lights and sirens. The village president, who has a daughter, said his comments were inappropriate.

"We didn't realize we were being recorded," he said. "We didn't mean for it to go out in the public like that, and we can't be any more apologetic."

As for Schuppe's use of the racial epithet, Visk said this is the first time he has ever heard the trustee use the term.

"I have known him for quite a long time," Visk said. "He is a former police officer. He has been out serving the public now for his entire life. Obviously, it was a slip of the tongue. He is not a racist. He is one of the top public servants in the Village of Lyons."

Asked whether he would do things differently, Visk said, "If we had known we are going to be recorded, we wouldn't talk like that."

Ok, so let's break this down a bit.

1. Schuppe dismisses the behavior as "something that just came out of [his] mouth." The suggestion here is that it is not reflective of his true feelings. This is a typical response of non-racists. Recall Michael Richards's apology on David Letterman's show, where he said “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.” The "possessed by a racist demon" excuse doesn't fly. As Dawn Turner Trice notes in her post about the Lyons episode on the Exploring Race site, the "apology" is more about being sorry that they were caught than sorry that they harbor racial resentment. Visk dismisses the sexist remark as "locker room talk," which means that it's acceptable there, but what is not acceptable is saying it in polite company. He seems to have no clue as to how offensive, demeaning and dangerous the attitude is (not just the manifestation of the attitude).

2. Also by way of explanation, if not excuse, Visk says that they didn't mean for it to become public. No kidding? Again, the apology seems to be about the fact that it became public. Well, who is harmed by it going public? The women they objectified? The minorities they insulted? Those folks are all harmed by the fact that public figures have these deeply-held beliefs and attitudes in the first place; the fact that it became public only harmed the Visk and Schuppe.

3. In the video (above) Schuppe insists that if Fox News Chicago's Dan Placko got together with his male friends (and, since we suspect he doesn't know Mr. Placko personally, any of us would do) in an "all-male environment," the same thing would happen. While he may be right that most bigots and overt sexists are more skillful in hiding their level of social ineptitude and ignorance, it is not the case that this kind of language takes place in all or even most gatherings of men. For his part, Visk is similarly certain that at any "card game," similar langauge could be heard. This is a good illustration of "projection," which is a psychological concept where people ascribe their own thoughts and feelings to others to innoculate against or combat any dissonance between them and others. Visk and Schuppe very well may have never been to a party where such ideas were openly batted about, but it may have more to do with the company they keep than the realities of "all" men's experiences. On the other hand, it is true that social norms keep the reality of White, heterosexual, men's resentments more or less "underground," masking the true status of our progress toward equality.

4. Finally, in the Tribune story, Visk offers that Schuppe couldn't be a bigot because he's known him a long time and he's never used the word before. First, it's a suspicious claim. Given the social norm against using such a word, what are the chances that a person who knew someone for a long time would be caught using it the very first time? And the rest of the evidence that Schuppe isn't a bigot is equally unbelievable: "He is a former police officer. He has been out serving the public now for his entire life."

Ok. We got it. Public servants cannot possibly have racial resentments. That would suggest that perhaps racial profiling is in practice and the justice, political and social systems are biased against women and persons of color and perpetuate White male privilege. Hey, wait a minute!

In all seriousness, though, the danger is not these two low-level, largely irrelevant bigots, but rather their belief that they might explain away their attitudes with such lame justifications. When we called out Joe Biden and Arnold Kling, it seemed clear to us that their sins were about understanding, not maliciousness. They simply do not understand the racial dynamics that are at work in this country. People like these two guys, Michael Richards and "Dog" the Bounty Hunter, though, are in a different classification. They are caught not just being racist, but being overtly bigoted, yet they try to explain it away by suggesting that the problem was one of the conversation being made public, propagated by political opponents. If the tapes were continually running and an analysis conducted of all of our words throughout our lives, none of us would be spared the label of "racist," though probably very few of us would be caught being bigoted. There is a difference, but at the end of the day, it is reflective of our current racial climate, which is much improved, but nowhere near equal.

In a more racially sensitive world, not only would these two be chastised by the public and the media (as they rightly have been), but they would not have even attempted to sway a portion of the public with their silly excuses.

We advocate for a political culture in which the only available response when something like this surfaces is for the culprits to say, "I don't think that Black folks are as smart, hard working, or deserving as White folks. I know that's not popular, but it's what I believe." That is the truth. That is honest. Any alternate explanation should not even be able to be considered. The fact that we operate in a context where those explanations will, in fact, be embraced by some, is further evidence of the work we need to do.

Can Obama Deal with Race While He's in Office?

2009-03-29T16:54:00.004-04:00

THIS WEEK, Stephen was asked to comment on President Obama's demeanor in his recent media appearances and strategies to win support for the administration's economic plan. Ultimately, the question was: Is Barack Obama still in campaign mode?

That is a question that has been surfacing almost since Obama took office. But to us, there is a related question involved: Can Barack Obama stop putting race on the back burner to maintain the support of moderate Whites?

During the campaign, it was a clear strategy to steer clear of any racial politics so as not to appear to be "the Black candidate." Obama's historic speech on race just over a year ago was a reluctant response to the Jeremiah Wright fervor -- a controversy that, in part, harmed Obama because it highlighted his race. The skill with which Obama dealt with that controversy allowed him to "move on," meaning stop talking about issues that are of disproportionate concern to communities of color or that have race as a fundamental component.

Now that he is president, not much has changed. After his first press conference, there were reports that the members of the Black press, while invited to attend, were upset, feeling that they were mostly ornamental. THIS WEEK, the tone shifted greatly, after Obama gave a question to a member of the Black press during his prime-time press conference. An early question went to Kevin Chappell of Ebony, who asked about homelessness, which is certainly not a situation unique to communities of color (especially in the current economic climate, which was the impetus for Chappell's question), though about half of America's homeless are African American, which is vastly disproportionate to the percentage of African Americans (less than 12%) in the country. Obama's answer did not include any discussion of race whatsoever.

Perhaps it shoudn't have. Perhaps that the presidents decision to avoid any mention of race is evidence that America is truly becoming "post-racial." After all, suffering knows no color. Why should race come into play at all?

The problem is that Obama is smarter than that. He understands that ignoring the racial element of America's problems does not mean that there is no racial element. He has been clear in his writing and speaking that racial issues must be addressed directly and courageously. It's clear that he does not believe this is the time or place for such conversations to occur.

The question that immediately followed Chappell's came from ABC News's Ann Compton, who quite directly asked the question that perhaps only could be asked by a White reporter (lest claims of "racism" be tossed about by White conservatives):

"Yours is a rather historic presidency, and I’m just wondering whether in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up, or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people. Or have the last 64 days been a relatively color-blind time?"

The president gave a very short answer that essentially dismissed the issue altogether. Noting that the inauguration was indeed an historic time, Obama said that the issues he faces affect people of all races.

Well, of course, that's very true. It was true of his predecessor, and of the forty-two presidents before him. But Compton's question is interesting nonetheless, yet went unanswered. And it's probably for the best. It very well might have been a "gotcha" question. There are millions of Whites for whom Obama's election is repulsive. There are millions beyond that who, consciously or subconsciously, believe the Black folks look out for their own (unlike Whites, who care about everyone), and who are waiting for evidence that he is giving preferential time, attention and consideration to "his people."

But there are a lot of us who hope that progress toward racial justice can be made with an administration headed up by a person who is not only Black, but is more thoughtful about the complexities of race than any of his predecessors have been. Right after the election, Cornel West told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman that he hoped Obama would be a "progressive Abraham Lincoln" and that West aspires "to be the Frederick Douglass" to put pressure on Obama. On the other side, however, that potential is constrained by external parameters that range from political opponents to the realities of maintaining widespread public support at a time of national crisis.

So what's a president to do? We have believed for some time that Obama's real work on racial justice is likely to come after his presidency has ended (whether that's after one term or two) because, as the first Black president, he will feel as if he needs to not appear to be "too Black."

In that way, Obama certainly is still in campaign mode.

Through the Eyes of Children

2009-03-23T10:05:00.003-04:00

THIS WEEK, Stephen relates a story about his recent trip to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.

I recently spent an afternoon at the very impressive Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois. The facility is beautiful, with a number of memorable artifacts from throughout Lincoln's life. In addition to two very interesting and well-produced shows, the museum part of the campus is broken into two parts: a log-cabin that traces Lincoln's life until 1861, and a White House that documents his years as president, up to and including resting in State after his assassination.

Overall, it was a powerful day; I highly recommend the experience. I have been troubled, though, by one aspect of the trip, which I thought TWIR readers might appreciate and/or like to discuss here.

After walking through a replica of Lincoln's one-bedroom boyhood home, there is an exhibit about the slave trade that features life-like (and life size) figures such as those that are scattered throughout the museum (see image at left). This display includes a (White) auctioneer with his right hand firmly clasping the shoulder of a Black boy who appears to be about seven or eight years old. The boy is clearly wailing with grief, reaching out for his mother, who is steps away, in shackles, being pulled away by a White man who has purchased her. For her part, the mother is teary, as well, but her gaze is fixed on the eyes of her husband, who is similarly shackled and being pulled in the opposite direction by another purchaser.

My nine-year-old daughter, Amelia, approached the slave auction exhibit with great interest. I watched her face and mannerisms as best I could from behind her, my hands resting gently on her little shoulders. She looked on, but said nothing. As we moved with the flow of the crowd on to the next exhibit, she turned around and craned her neck to look around me for a final glance. A few moments later, as we were looking at the gravestone of Lincoln's young son who died at age 3, she turned to me and said, "Daddy, if we have time, can we go back to look at the slave one again?"

My heart sank. I fought back tears at the exhibit in the first place and couldn't bring myself to think about what must have been going on in her head. Now she wanted to go back. What did that mean? Why did she want to expose herself to that again when all I wanted to do was forget that I ever saw it?

I told her that we surely could go back, and that if she wanted to go back right away, that was okay with me. So we nudged our way through the crowd and back to the exhibit. I stood in the same position (behind her), but this time, she wanted to talk about it. As she pointed at the various elements, she explained to me that sometimes families would be torn apart because people didn't always buy slaves as a family. She knew this, she informed me, because of the story that came with Addy (Walker), the American Girl doll whose family struggled for its freedom. As I turned my ear toward her -- partly so that she wouldn't have to raise her voice and partly to hide my wet eyes from her -- I nodded and agreed that it was a terrible situation. After a few moments, she was satisfied and pulled my hand off to the next room to see what else there was to see.

And there I was -- a man who has spent his professional life researching the power of racism, speaking to students and members of audiences around the country who have gathered to hear my thoughts, giving quotes to media outlets who have published my ideas on the matter internationally -- dumbfounded as to what to say to the one person who most needed him to say something smart.

It wasn't the first time something like this has happened. We live in downtown Chicago, so there are examples of racism and inequality all around us. Four years ago, I came back from the local drugstore with a story about a man who told me that his girlfriend was in the hospital and that he'd really like to buy her a card. I told him that I had no cash (which was true), but that if he wanted to pick out a card, I'd be happy to buy it for him when I checked out with my order. When he met me at the register, he had about $60 worth of candy, stuffed animals, etc. with him. Right or wrong, I paid for it, and went home to share the story. Amelia listened attentively, and then went off to play in her room by herself. When I went in a little bit later to check on her, she said (I remember this verbatim):

"Daddy, you know that man who you bought things for? I know it doesn't matter, but was he light-skinned or dark-skinned? I know it doesn't matter. I'm just wondering."

"He was dark skinned, babe. Why do you ask?"

"I know it doesn't matter," she said for the third time, but it just seems like every time somebody needs help, he has dark skin. That doesn't seem fair."

Great. Now I was in the position of having to try to explain economic racism to a five-year-old.

Look, I am very much willing to admit that some of this is my fault. I can't be easy being the daughter of a guy who spends his life studying inequality. This poor kid. Here's an example: My wife and I are very much opposed to Barbie, for obvious reasons, but we decided early on that while we would not buy Barbie for Amelia, we didn't want to make a big deal out of banning her from the household. So if she got a Barbie as a gift (including from Santa -- more of that in a moment), we didn't force her to give it away or throw it out. But I am absolutely ZERO fun playing Barbies. My Barbies say things like "I don't want to go shopping; let's go to the library!" (And yes, my Barbies use semicolons.) "I'm starving!" or "I don't know how I can possibly stand up with such tiny feet!"

Playing Barbies with me totally sucks.

And race has always been a subtle factor in our play. In my professional work, I advocate acting in counter-stereotypical ways. That is, it's not enough just to be not racist; we must be anti-racist. This has been fine for the most part, but I still sort of regret the year that Santa brought the big-ass Barbie castle with the princess who was "Black" (she has no typical African American features except dark skin) without realizing that there was an actual movie that went with it (and, of course, didn't feature that Barbie).

In all seriousness, though, how should we handle this? We know what the handful of White bigots do: they teach their children that their skin color makes them superior. We know what people of color do: they teach their children that they will probably be judged unfairly by the color of their skin, but that they should push beyond it and work hard to prove themselves. As someone who teaches college at a predominantly White institution, I can feel confident in pushing my students to think critically about race because they are adults and have minds that can handle the dissonance I seek to instill. But a lot of what we face with White college students is a result of progressive parents teaching them to be "color blind." As a result, we have to work to make them understand systemic racism in order to confront it.

Is that really the best plan? Lie to our children in the hopes that either racism will mysteriously disappear before they become adults or hope that they'll learn to confront the truth in a meaningful way later? Isn't that largely passing the buck because it's easier than dealing with the difficult truth of racism in America?

I didn't expect to be so affected by the museum or by my daughter's reaction to it. In a lot of ways, the fact that she recognized so early that Black folks tend to be poorer than White folks is more troubling to me because it is a current problem. I guess that the other parents felt very comfortable and secure telling their children that what they saw in the slave auction exhibit was horrible, but that it was a long time ago, and things are better now.

It's impossible to argue with that sentiment, but I want Amelia to understand that progress, while wonderful, is not the same as equality. At some point (maybe not today), I want her to understand that what she saw in that exhibit is directly responsible for the inequality she sees in her city today. Because what if I don't help her to understand that? By not making the link, I am tacitly supporting the faulty proposition that there is no relationship between slavery and modern racism. Should I let her think that Black folks have the same chances as White folks? If so, the explanation for racial injustice today has to reside in individual choices rather than systemic oppression. In other words, if we don't help our children to understand how the legacy of slavery affects us today, we should not be surprised when they grow up and refuse to support systemic changes for social justice.

On the other hand, don't our children get to be innocent for a while? Isn't it my job to protect her against the hurt she clearly felt at that exhibit? Isn't it my job to help her to understand that America is truly a place where anyone can make it, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.? The easy answer is "there must be balance," but in the moment, that's not very helpful. We need to be ready when those teaching moments arise. Teaching kids that Martin Luther King, Jr. is a hero and that the Ku Klux Klan is bad are easy decisions. Knowing when and how to make the link between bigotry and racism is much more difficult.

We'd appreciate any thoughts you have about this issue. Now Stephen needs to go and make sure that Barbie knows that if, indeed, Ken turns out to be gay, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

To B or Not to B

2009-03-10T11:34:00.004-04:00

Attentive TWIR readers will notice that about a year ago, we started to capitalize the words "White" and "Black" in our posts. We're still not completely comfortable with the decision to do so, but the implications are potentially significant. We are interested in your feedback on this.

Academic journals differ as to whether these shorthand racial classifications should be capitalized. There seems to be unanimous agreement that terms like "Caucasian" and "African American" should always be capitalized (though whether the latter should be hyphenated is another point of contention), but one can open a number of scholarly journals and books and see "White" and "Black" both capitalized and in lower case form. The style guide for the American Psychological Association (APA) -- which communication journals follow and upon which political science formal style [APSA style] is based -- requires capitalization. This is why we made the switch.

On the other hand, Carnegie Mellon University's style guide is clear that these words should not be capitalized. This is consistent with the guidelines of the Associated Press (AP), which drives decisions for most journalistic (as opposed to scholarly) publications.

In a 2000 issue of American Speech, Robert Wachal, professor emeritus of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Iowa, argues that "Black" should be capitalized, as should "White," because they are proper nouns, not color descriptors. Wachal says that failing to capitalize "Black" is "unintended racism" (what we would simply call "racism," since we divorce intent from the concept altogether, leaving terms like "prejudice" and "bigoted" for intention-relevant attitudes and behaviors). To make the issue even more complicated, DiversityInc provides interesting rationale for why "Black" should be capitalized but "white" should not be.

To further the conversation, it is important to consider this exchange about whether it is appropriate to capitalize "Indigenous."

A fundamental assumption of our work through the Race Project, including our weekly offerings here, is that language matters. Those who dismiss gender-neutral language or "politically correct" speech are unappreciative of the ways that language at once reflects and perpetuates power differences in culture. Using "member of Congress" instead of "Congressman," for instance, has real implications for the ability of women to be competitive for public office and to enjoy the respect that men have received "naturally." The critical race scholar bell hooks writes her name in all lower case letters, which reminds us of the arbitrary privilege that some members of society have as a result of their placement (akin to the arbitrary largeness of letters that just happen to come at the front of a word).

So what do you think? Should the terms "White" and "Black" be capitalized or not? In what ways might this matter?

Let us know!

The Future of the GOP: Are the Smart Guys Poised to Take Over?

2009-03-02T11:27:00.007-05:00

Conservatives and Republicans have not demonstrated a genuine commitment to understanding (let alone bettering) the lives of racial minorities since the days of Jack Kemp's creative, if controversial, "enterprise zones" idea (though see our exchanges with Dr. William Voegeli). This doesn't mean that conservatives do not care about racial minorities; they very well might. It's just that it's difficult to tell because the underlying philosophy is that individuals are responsible for their own success (irrespective of where the individual begins or the systemic barriers that are in place). Just as meaningful racial progress requires the support of Whites and minorities, it requires the support, in America's two-party system, of Republicans and Democrats. Sure, Democrats can get laws passed and enact policies without the help of GOP lawmakers, but the sort of change we envision is bigger than individual policies and government programs. To really turn the corner, Republicans and conservatives need to be involved.

That's why we are cautiously optimistic about the future of the Republican Party. THIS WEEK presented conflicting evidence, however, as the GOP continued it's "look, ma, no White guys" show with Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal reciting a curious response to Obama's "not-State-of-the-Union Address." To be fair, speaking after Barack Obama is like batting behind Barry Bonds. The speech was solid, but that's about the most kind analysis we can offer. He delivered very stale (and overwhelmingly rejected) distortions about tax-and-spend liberals and how much we all love America and need to work together behind a nervous grin that was curious given the dire state of an economy that is suffering from years of the very ideas he espoused. In short, while he is still a rising star in the Party, he didn't gain too many new supporters, and he certainly didn't help to cut into the Obama Administration's strong support amongst the public.

But something is bubbling in GOP circles. While the annual CPAC meeting featured such speakers as Rush Limbaugh (who Tom Schaller argued THIS WEEK in Slate.com is the current leader of the GOP) and Joe the Plumber (seriously), the New York Times ran a feature on the last intellectual to head up the party: Newt Gingrich.

It is important to differentiate between being "intelligent" and being "an intellectual." If we can remove the bias of perspective, most of our national leaders are and have been quite intelligent. Not all of them have been intellectuals, though. An intellectual is a person for whom the world is complicated and who has the curiousity to continually work to make sense of that complexity. There is no inherent claim to the value of such persons, but as professors ourselves, we see it this way: We want the person who is best able to work with car engines to fix our cars, we want the person who is most adept at legal proceedings to represent us in court, and we want the folks who are best equipped to deal with ideas to be running the country.

Newt Gingrich is an idea man. We disagree with him on almost everything, and we think that he would be well served to be more reflective of his ethnocentrism (as we all would), but he's bright, articulate, creative and is committed to ideas.

Karl Rove is a partisan hack. So was George W. Bush. So is Rahm Emanual, who, is tacticly trying to paint Limbaugh as the "intellectual" voice of the Party). So is John Kerry. The lists (in both parties) goes on. All these folks are smart -- some say that Rove is a genius. If so, he is a genius at strategy, not at ideas. That's not an insult; most of us are not geniuses in anything. But with an increasingly educated public and a dying off of the segregationist-era generations, the slash-and-burn politics of divisiveness is much harder to sell in America. Gingrich understands this. He believes that his ideas will win out. We hope he is wrong because we see no plans for addressing social injustice in them, but the message here is that at least we can get back to discussing ideas again.

As the GOP licks its wounds after two crushing defeats in national elections, they will have a choice to make. They can turn inward, toward the bigoted right, toward the sensationalist, flag-waving, "remember the old days" crowd of Sean Hannity, or they can look forward to a multicultural world in which their ideas have a fair chance of gaining hold. It is not clear yet whether their candidates will reflect such a clear choice. Those that are in the forefront are not easy to categorize.

Take Jindal, for instance. He appears to be reasonably bright. He has certainly built a nice coalition of supporters in Louisiana. But if he's hoping to win progressives and moderates with a continued revisionist history that does not acknowledge that record national deficits were tallied under Reagan and W. Bush and that ignores the systemic imbalance of our social, political and ecnomic systems, he will take his place alongside those with the dunce caps (see Sarah Palin). If he embraces ideas, rather than politics -- see George Will, for instance -- he has a legitimate chance of posing a real challenge to Barack Obama in 2012.

And why, we ask, are all the Republican "smart guys" just that: guys? Pragmatism and intellectualism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ideology is not always as complicated as it might appear. John Boehner is an ideologue, but has not demonstrated much intellectualism. Ideologues can use heuristics (intellectual shortcuts) to seem as if they are understanding the complexities of the world. Rachel Maddow may be a good example from the left. She's very smart, and clearly consistently progressive, but that does not mean that she is an intellectual. Senator Susan Collins very well may be an intellectual, but in a system that rewards loyalty (rather than smarts) with high-profile positions and opportunities, it's not likely that she'll get a chance to lead. Where is Susan Molinari?

And while we're on the topic of dunce caps, we offer a big one to Senator Roland Burris and the small group of supporters who are trying to tie race to the pressures that the senator is facing to resign. We called Congressman Bobby Rush and others out on this pitiful attempt at generating support back when Burris was first nominated to fill Obama's seat by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Spineless D.C. Democrats like Harry Reid, who intially said that any nominee by Blagojevich would not be seated, relented when the race card was inappropriately played.

THIS WEEK, the senior senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, acknowledged that race was a factor in seating Burris. It shouldn't have been -- at least not in this way. We believe that the appointment should have gone to an African American given the way that the seat was vacated and the tremendous number of qualified Black lawmakers available. But no one nominated by Blagojevich should have been seated, and arguing that Burris deserved it because he is Black feeds into the stereotypes that conservatives have about racial progressives. So not only was the tactic inappropriate, it has been counterproductive to genuine moves toward racial justice.

When Barack Obama moved into the White House, we breathed a collective sigh of relief because even when we disagree with him (like when he invited an openly homophobic preacher to pray at his inauguration), we know that ideas are at the center of his thought process. Obama will be pragmatic (which involves making progressives angry at times), which is consistent with intellectualism. He understands that the world is complex, and he has a vision for a better America. There are Republicans who feel the same way and who have their own visions. We look forward to future battles of ideas by the smart kids.

If We Only Had the Nerve

2009-02-23T09:19:00.004-05:00

It was a busy week in race. The New York Post was soundly (and appropriately) trounced by progressives and moderates for their running of (and subsequent lack of apology for) a racist political cartoon (join the discussion here), Juan Williams was criticized for what seemed like a race-relevant political attack against Michelle Obama on Fox News (see here for an explanation by Williams and an interesting discussion by and about his other affiliation, NPR), and Attorney General Eric Holder came out with what we think is the best (and, appropriately, bravest) statement about American attitudes toward race in decades:

In a speech he gave to Justice Department employees related to Black History Month, Holder said this:

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

The remark is brilliant for a number of reasons.

First, like Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech nearly a year ago, the criticism is leveled at all Americans, not just Whites. White people living in the U.S. today are not the root of racism. A system that was built on White supremacy and that perpetuates White privilege ought to be the focus of efforts to achieve more racial equality; it's about White power, not White people. Holder, like Obama before him, seems to recognize that achieving social justice with respect to race is going to require an examination of the embedded disadvantage of people of color in America that involves an honest examination (and critical analysis) of attitudes and behaviors of people of all races.

Second, it highlights America's hypocrisy. In South Africa under the apartheid system, the White government did not try to pretend that there was racial equality. America's apartheid is more entrenched and difficult to combat because it involves a widespread (and effective) denial of systemic advantages and disadvantages. America's children learn that America is the place where anyone can make it, no matter how poor, as long as hard work and a proper attitude is in place. Barack Obama's election is symbolic of the truthfulness that resides within that myth, but the fact remains that a White child born in America today has a much better chance of being successful (learning to read, staying out of prison, going to college, having a middle-class lifestyle, etc.) than a child of color. By noting that we are a nation that thinks itself to be essentially something that it is not, Holder is calling attention to America's dirty little not-so-secret.

Finally, by calling us (including himself) "cowards," he extends a challenge. The suggestion is that we can have a meaningful and productive discussion about race, but we have just taken the easy road and chosen not to do so. After the speech, Holder told reporters:

If we're going to ever make progress, we're going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified.

Here is a guy, quite frankly, that "gets it" when it comes to race relations in America. He is not taking intellectual shortcuts by labeling all Whites as "devils" or arguing that America is essentially fair. Rather, he tacitly acknowledges the complexity of America's racist history and institutionalized oppression and challenges us all to work together to make it right.

We've got your back on this one, Attorney General Holder. We're going to keep doing our part in this space each week to push in the same direction in the hopes that, eventually, all Americans will be on the same side of the social justice wagon, pushing it down the yellow brick road toward "home."

Note: Stephen will be providing live, real-time political analysis of President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Twitter. The speech will take place Tuesday, February 23, beginning at 9pm Eastern/8pm Central. Follow him here.

THIS WEEK'S Non-Racist: Economist Arnold Kling

2009-02-16T12:03:00.005-05:00

Long-time readers of TWIR will recall that we occasionally point out protests from folks whose racism has surfaced. Because we do not subscribe to conceptualizations of racism that involve intent, it should not necessarily be seen as an insult when we point out racism. From the standpoint of critical race theorists and others who are thoughtful about the complexities of race, denying our racism is, in fact, part of the reason we continue to struggle with race in America. If we would all own up to what is really going on, we would be much further toward getting to the root of our racial problems.

What is frustrating to us is the degree to which people go out of their way to explain away their racism so that they do not have to deal with it. To be fair, it is part and parcel to the system we have allowed to perpetuate. Specifically, since we have reduced the term "racism" to individual-level acts of prejudice, folks are understandably not comfortable with the label. Accordingly, when racism is "charged," the offending person feels that he or she must deflect the label. It's unfortunate. We have often joked to audiences during our events that we are going to have "I am racist" t-shirts made up for folks to wear so that they can instigate discussions about the differences between racism and bigotry (or prejudice).

So while we are sensitive to the reality that racism is a pervasive part of our culture and, as such, will surface from time to time, we have been particularly hard on folks who go out of their way to explain how their racist behavior or language was actually anything but racist.

TWIR readers will recall our treatment of Joe Biden's reference to Barack Obama as "clean" and "articulate" and Dog the Bounty Hunter's comfortable use of the "n-word." They will remember our analysis of Don Imus's explanations about how he meant no disrespect by referring to members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hoes" or Fox News's John Gibson's reference to Iraqis as "knuckle-dragging savages." And they'll think about how we joined in the criticism of Michael Richards's bigoted insults against Black hecklers and Clint Eastwood's ignoring of Black Marines in his film about Iwo Jima.

We have a new one this week.

Vanity Fair's James Wolcott nicely covered everything we would have, so rather than plagiarize or re-hash, we reproduce the text from his blog:

A few days ago notice was taken (I'm practicing my passive voice) of economist Arnold Kling's contention that the Obama stimulus plan was actually "reparations" in disguise. Given the complexion of our new president, this was interpreted as injecting a needless bit of race-baiting into the economic debate, raising the specter of a million Jeremiah Wrights marching on the capital mall with outstretched hands, demanding their cut of the action. Oh dear me no, protested Kling. No coded race talk was intended. He was actually thinking of the Treaty of Versailles, as reflected in the sentence "To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I." Idiotically hyperbolic and baseless as Kling's caricaturing is (seriously, name me one frigging Democrat who invoked violations of Belgian neutrality in railing against the Bush tax cuts), it did open the door ajar to possible acquittal on the racebaiting charge. To cool things down, Kling (an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, which has been taking out all those big ads) closed off comments before the mosh pit got any gnarlier.

Wolcott is referring to Kling's turning off the comments feature of the blog in question because, as he put it, "some other blogger decided that my reference to 'reparations' was a reference to reparations from slavery and hence a reference to the color of President Obama's skin."

While it is true that Wolcott was a bit more accusatory in terms of intent than we generally are ("coded race talk at least implies that the speaker was pro-actively coding and therefore did so with intent), the fact of the matter is that he pointed out that Kling's racism was driving his analysis of Obama's stimulus bill, which is right on point. Even if Kling did have the Treaty of Versailles in mind, as he claims, the word "reparations" clearly connotes reparations for slavery in our current political context. As a writer, he is responsible for being aware of that -- being insensitive to that reality is an example of racism.

But wait: there's more. From Wolcott's same blog:

And there the matter might have rested had not Kling surrendered to heat of candor today at a Heritage Foundation/Club for Growth confab and decried, "Barack Obama is destroying my daughter's future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs."

Now if Kling can't comprehend the implication of racial menace encoded in daughter-gang-thugs/home invasion, he's either fatuously clueless--too innocent for this wicked world--or weaselly disingenuous, and a drama queen either way. Did he feel the sanctity of his home was being violated when the costs of the Iraq war shot into outer space? Did he picture marauders smashing cherished mementoes when Hank Paulson introduced TARP? Anytime Obama's name and "thug" are thrown in close proximity, it's a pretty sure bet that the speaker or author intends to fan the anxiety and animosity of those who think Obama's presidency represents black grievance gloved with the iron fist of the state--and out to punish whitey. No wonder so many would-be Wolverines in the right blogs are talking about stocking up on assault rifles and ammo--they've got ransackers running wild in their imaginations too. I urge these people to confront their racial fears, think of Scarlet Johansson and strawberry snowflakes and the musical numbers in Rent, and join the rest of us in Matisse's dancing daisy-chain of eternal spring.

Wolcott's observation is confirmed, as he nicely notes, by Kling's invocation of the word "thug" to refer to Obama's plan in a way that he would not have (and has not) referred to the "destroying" of his daughter's future by the White men who are largely responsible for the economic recession in the first place and who ran up a the national debt by spending hundreds of billions on the war in Iraq. It is true that a thug can be White and that in other points in our history, the word would not have had a clear connotation of members of Black street gangs. Today, however, it absolutely does. It is considered to be "thuggery" when tax money is spent to build and stimulate job creation; when it is used to destroy or to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans (most of whom are White), there is no street-level-crime metaphor used.

It is a classic example of implicitly racist thinking. It is possible that Kling was, as Wolcott alleges, "race baiting," but even if he was not, his subconscious use of racist imagery -- remember that Rush Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Obama as a "street agitator" and a "thug" during the presidential campaign -- is revealing of his racism. If he meant to do it, he's a bigot; either way, he is racist. We do not fault him for the latter, as it is a characteristic of everyone who has been socialized in America. The fault lies in his inability to reflect on it and accept it, which would then put him in a position to serve as a leader to those millions of us who are similarly dismissive of how much race matters in our culture.

In short, another teaching moment has been missed. One of these days a closeted gay fundamentalist Christian minister or a racist political conservative will be caught in one of these situations and, rather than try to wriggle out of it, embrace the reality and serve as a catalyst for honest discussion about the realities and complexities of oppression in America. When that happens, we will title that week's blog: "THIS WEEK'S Racist . . .," and we will mean it in the most complimentary way.

Here We Go: Post-Racial America is Underway

2009-02-09T11:35:00.004-05:00

Don't say we didn't warn you. Since Barack Obama won the presidential election last November, we have been predicting that there would be a groundswell of "post-racial" rhetoric by conservatives who do not believe that racism is real and who wish to see an end to policies and programs designed to take systemic racism into account.

THIS WEEK, we call your attention to a relatively ignored op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times that calls for the end of racial gerrymandering. As loyal TWIR readers know, we avoid speculating on intent, but it's interesting to note that the piece is written from a representative of a Chicago-based outfit called the Heartland Institute, whose mission is

to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

The author of this piece asks us to believe that he is advocating stopping the practice of taking race into consideration when drawing congressional district lines because, at least in part, it is bad for Black folks. Ralph Conner, who is African American, begins his piece by asking: "Why aren't there more black senators and governors? The answer is not what you might think."

Actually, it's exactly what you think. It is because history has shown -- and scientific studies have found -- that White folks tend not to vote for Black candidates. A handful of anecdotes do not falsify these findings anymore than some unseasonable cold days prove that global warming is a myth (oh yeah -- we've heard that one, too).

Early in the piece, Conner notes that "Obama's election clearly confirms that majority-white America is comfortable with a president of African descent." He then asks, "Then why only one black in the Senate?"

The premise is faulty. Obama's election does not confirm (clearly or otherwise) anything of the sort. It only confirms that America was comfortable with Barack Obama in 2008, not with any president of African descent at any time. So to begin, Conner's argument is built on weak structural footing. In any case, he continues:

The real cause of this paucity of blacks in Congress is not racism, however, but racial gerrymandering, in which black voters are concentrated in congressional districts where blacks predominate, instead of designing districts to follow more natural geographical and institutional boundaries.

The first part represents his primary argument, so we will leave it aside for a few moments. There is yet another questionable statement here, though. What, we wonder, is a "natural geographic [or] institutional boundary?" Think about the task that is involved in redistricting. At the conclusion of each national census, the 435 U.S. House seats are distributed among the fifty states roughly based on population (each state must have at least one seat, and seats may not cross state borders). So a state, such as Illinois, with over 12 million people, must be divided into (in this case) 19 districts that are relatively equal in size. Given that no state contains an even distribution of its citizens, geometric shapes are a pipe dream. Districts based on something "natural" (we presume rivers, mountains or even highways) would be impossible, as well, since citizens are not so kind as to reside in groups of roughly 650,000 to make such district lines are plausible. The fact is that people (politicians) have to draw these boundaries, and when that happens, electoral consequences will be taken into account (for better or worse). Conner's suggestion merely makes racial prejudice and oppression less important than other political issues (party, income, etc.) that factor into gerrymandering.

Then, Conner puts forth what is ostensibly the most reasonable part of the argument. Effectively, he argues that talented Black politicians are not able to be known statewide because they are not forced to campaign to a broader audience. It's an argument that is not bad on its face, but if we take a deeper look at what he is arguing, we see he clearly fails to understand how systemic racism works:

This racial gerrymandering ensures that the best-financed and most well-known black candidates will tend to project a political philosophy that resonates strongly with their district's minority constituents but excludes positions and messages capable of appealing to statewide voters as a whole.

A "political philosophy that . . . excludes positions and messages capable of appealing to statewide voters" is code for "stuff that's not so Black." Why are issues that are of disproportionate intersest to minoritiy communities considered to be less important than those that play well with White audiences? If we consider that, by the very definition of systemic racism, White audiences will not appreciate the importance of such messages (because White folks think that "their" issues are not racial), asking Black politicians to abandon them so that they have a better chance at winning the votes of Whites is foolish. Majority-minority districts are created because of the well-understood truism that if they were not, there would be very few racial minorities elected to Congress. That lack of diversity would not serve the consitutuents or the nation well.

Toward the end of the piece, Conner presents us with this confusing piece of information:

Political statisticians understand the real reason there are so few black senators and governors is that voters statewide are far more politically diverse than the constituencies of "black" congressional districts.

Huh? Of course it is true that the typical voter in a majority-White district has different political beliefs than the typical voter in a majority-minority district, and those differences are not just about the voter's race. Living in a community that is diverse or at least not overwhelmingly White 1) leads to different outlooks on life, and 2) is the result of decisions made with respect to different outlooks on life. Conner's statement, however, seems to suggest that voters in majority-minority districts are politically monolithic, but voters in majority-White districts are open-minded and "diverse." It's a curious position at best.

Finally, Conner puts forward an assumption that is rooted in racism, though he does not seem to acknowledge it.

Majority-minority districts also capture black voters from surrounding congressional districts, leaving white congressmen with no incentive to craft messages appealing to African-American voters. This explains why Republicans receive so few votes from blacks in national elections.

Are we to believe that a district that is 95% White will, if it moves to 85% White, will elect a candidate who feels committed to fighting for his or her newest 10% of minority voters? Even if the district would move to 25% minority, there is no guarantee that a member would find it politically wise to spend considerable time advocating for issues that disproportionately affect that portion of the district. Because this is so, the Supreme Court has consistently held that race may be used as a consideration when district lines are drawn.

And this is not what explains why Republicans get so few votes from African Americans in national elections. Republicans do not win Black votes because they mostly fail to recognize that racism is real, that it is systemic (that is, having a Black friend does not end it), and that the position that it places people of color has real implications for the way policy should be considered and ultimately made. That is why Black Republicans also do not get Black votes; people of color, like Whites, are interested in solutions to problems that they see as relevant. When candidates do not acknowledge those problems, they will not get the votes. Having a handful of minorities in an otherwise overwhelmingly-White district is not a solution to helping White folks generally or White politicians specifically have a richer understanding of the issues that are of disproportionate interest to communities of color.

Today, as Conner notes, approximately 9% of the U.S. Congress is Black (compared to about 13% of the public). Without majority-minority districts, it is unlikely that the number would be much higher than that of the U.S. Senate (1% -- 1 member) or U.S. governorships (2% -- 1 governor). Women make up 17% of Congress, even though they comprise more than half of the population. We can't redistrict to make female districts -- even if we wanted to -- but the result of this is clear: if we expect there to be sensitivity to and advocacy for populations that have historically been oppressed, we need to elect leaders who have those experiences. To do so, we need to make sure there are opportunities for election in communities that value such experience.

We get it. White folks voted for Obama. It's a wonderful signal of potential for a post-racial America. Those who are optimistic need to be thoughtful about the reality, though, and not be lulled into relinquishing the very mechanisms that have allowed this progress to occur.

Majority-minority districts have given rise to a voice for African Americans and (to a lesser extent) Latinos in American circles of power, which has begun to lead to a normalization of their inclusion. White folks were not shocked by Obama's talk about the realities of being Black in America (in his "A More Perfect Union" speech, for instance) because Black members of Congress have been issuing similar statements for years. Eliminating majority-minority districts would reduce the amont of racial minority members of Congress, which reduces the voice of African Americans in national politics. It is that voice that set the stage for Obama to walk across. If we want others to follow in his footsteps, tearing down the stage (or taking away the engineers and carpenters who built it) would be a terrible mistake.

The Heartland Institute uses the term "common sense" a lot in its rhetoric on the website (perhaps a hat tip to Thomas Paine), but TWIR readers know that, as scholars, we advocate sense that is other-than-common. We encourage our readers to dig deeper, think harder, and be more sophisticated than those who wish to persuade them (for whatever reason -- intent is not important) of what seems obvious. There is nothing "common sensical" about racism; it is a very complex and interrelated system of institutions and beliefs upon which world power has been built. Appealing to "common sense" is an appeal to dumb us down. At TWIR, we push in precisely the opposite direction.

NOTE: Those of you who use Google Reader may be pleased to see that we have added a convenient link (below) for you to add TWIR to your feeds. Enjoy us on the go!

Black Steele in the Hour of Chaos

2009-02-02T12:10:00.005-05:00

It is darn hard to be a Republican these days. The voters have been clear over the past two national elections that they are not interested in GOP solutions to the nation's problems. One way to look at Barack Obama's victory would be to say that a Black man was able to win the presidency because America has moved forward with respect to its racist preconceptions (some have even argued that his race helped him). Another way to look at it is that the GOP is in such sorry shape that even a Black guy could beat their nominee. After all, research (and history) shows that in most cases, Whites will not vote for Black candidates. Obama was a special kind of candidate, but the contemporary GOP is an especially pathetic kind of party, too.

It was a weekend ruled by Steel (uh oh, Stephen's football bias seeps in). While the Pittsburgh Steelers collected their record-setting sixth NFL championship trophy, we remain somewhat ambivalent about the national Republican Party's choice of Michael Steele, who is African American, as the leader to get them back to a competitive position in American politics.

In a vote with multiple contenders that required a majority (as opposed to a plurality) to win, it took six ballots before Steele was declared the victor.

In some very interesting rhetorical maneuvering in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Steele repeated over and over that he was going to energize the base and bring back conservatism. He is referring to the "Reagan" wing of the party (Hannity, in typical form, could not wait longer than two minutes into the interview to mention Reagan's name), which historically has ignored if not shown outright disdain for the poor but pales in comparison to the most recent "base." Today's "base" has been a bigoted, anti-gay, anti-science, fundamentalist Christian crew that has rendered the Party largely irrelevant to the vast majority of 21st century Americans. So the first order of business for Steele is to redefine what the "base" of the GOP really is. When he said in his acceptance speech, "for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over," he could very well have been talking to those who seek to push the party further to the right and further into irrelevancy. (How Steele does not think Hannity is one of those people is curious, but Hannity supported him for some reason against more socially conservative opponents in the race, so we guess Steele feels grateful.)

In fact, Steele seems to recognize that AM talk radio might be bad business for the Party:

Asked about the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh and his back and forth with President Barack Obama, Steele was careful not to wholly embrace the controversial conservative talk radio host. "Rush will says what Rush has to say, we will do what we have to do as a party," said Steele.

The election results were predictably met with some skepticism. Like the choice of Sarah Palin, Steele's rise could be seen as a trick -- a hypoctritical quota fill -- by a party for which a perception of exclusion has cost them dearly. Conservatives and progressives alike find such selection distasteful if, in fact, Steele's race was a deciding factor.

The Washington Post reports that the final ballot came down to Steele and South Carolina Republican chair Mike Dawson, who acknowledged belonging to a Whites-only club. Further, concern about Steele largely centered on questions of whether he was conservative enough; ultra-conservative (and also African American) Ken Blackwell of Ohio dropped out after the fifth round of balloting and swung his support to Steele.

So let's recap: despite Sean Hannity's endorsement, Steele 1) was elected despite not being seen as socially conservative enough by many party insiders; 2) beat Dawson, who belongs to an all-White club, after the Party already forced out of the race Tennessee GOP chair Chip Salzman for circulating the parody song "Barack the Magic Negro" (which came from Limbaugh); and 3) Steele has already mentioned America's poor more times in his first couple of days than his last three or four predecessors combined.

For real progress to be made, the GOP's policies have to match its symbolism, but it is reassuring that a White woman and a Black man have been placed in two of the three highest positions in the Party over the last few months. A skeptic will acknowledge that Party officials know that they must make such changes if they are to win the support of younger voters, but irrespective of intent, the outcome is positive. We are sure that we will disagree with Michael Steele on many policy preferences and possibly even political tactics, but the bottom line is that he has lived his life as a person of color in America, and that perspective can only help move forward the cause of similarly situated Americans.

And to be honest, we have always sort of liked Michael Steele because his campaign commercials during his U.S. Senate run in 2006 were so entertaining. But let's not forget: it was Steele who, during his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention, first invoked the "drill baby drill" chant and referenced Jeremiah Wright in order to leverage racist support for John McCain.

Still, given the options and acknowledging our suspicions about pandering, we are pleased for Michael Steele and hopeful that he will lead the GOP in a direction that is rooted in compassion for the poor and sensitivity to America's racist past as it opposes Obama's policies.

Obama Needs to Watch His "Self": Reflections of Class in the President's Language

2009-01-25T11:17:00.007-05:00

Two years ago, Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, stirred up controversy when he referred to Barack Obama as "articulate," among other ostensibly complimentary comments like "clean." As we argued at the time, the comment was reflective of racist beliefs because

[b]lack dialect is considered to be non-standard English – not merely “different” such as a Boston accent or a Minnesota accent, but normatively less desirable.

Even though compared to his immediate predecessor Obama's rhetoric features stellar grammar and mechanics, like most of us, he does not speak perfect English. His errors are reflective of the social class of his upbringing, if not his race.

The non-standard grammar that stands out most prominently is his improper use of pronouns in certain situations. Specifically, he is prone to using "I" when he ought to use "me," as well as placing the reflexive pronoun "myself" in places in a sentence where it is not warranted. These mistakes tend to surface during his extemporaneous remarks rather than in scripted addresses.

Here is an example where he actually makes both mistakes in the span of a few seconds:

Well, President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I to -- to meet with him and First Lady Laura Bush. We are gratified by the invitation. I'm sure that, in addition to taking a tour of the White House, there's going to be a substantive conversation between myself and the president.(Press conference, November 7, 2008, Chicago)

These are very common errors amongst American English speakers, particularly working class Americans. Using "I" in place of "me" is likely a result of the widespread backlash against using "me" in the subject of a sentence (e.g., "Me and my brother are going to the game" or "My brother and me are going to the game."). If one does not understand why it is improper to use "me" in that situation, however, the word "me" in and of itself might be seen as a problem word (alongside "ain't," for instance). But when used in the predicate, the correct first person singular pronoun is, of course, "me."

Similarly, the use of the reflexive first person pronoun "myself" is likely a remnant of the same heuristic; if "me" is bad, it's bad, so it should be avoided. Accordingly, rather than saying "She gave advice to Sally and me," a substitute occurs that, in theory, makes the speaker sound as if he or she is more intelligent: "She gave advice to Sally and myself." But reflexive pronouns are only appropriate when the subject and the object are the same person: "I gave a present to myself"; "They had to second guess themselves."

This does not necessarily fit with characteristics of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), sometimes called "Ebonics," though the close interrelationship between race and class in America is important to keep in mind as we analyze this issue. Working class parents often try to instill in their children characteristics (such as grammatical speech) that will make advancement and acceptance into the middle class more likely. As children, we develop our speech patterns in accordance with our environment, in addition to the formal instruction we get in school. When we carry errors into adulthood, it is the result of not learning to correct the mistakes we are socialized into from childhood.

A common characteristic of folks who have moved up to a higher social class is the fear (conscious or otherwise) of being "found out," of not really belonging. Obama's mistakes are likely remnant subconscious efforts from childhood to sound more intelligent. For folks who aspire to a higher social status (or wish to "pass" as being middle class), the language patterns often take the shape of longer-than-necessary sentences and inappropriately complex verb tenses.

For example, a click through daytime television programs that feature (exploit) the troubles and conflicts of working class Americans will quickly reveal evidence to support this claim. A common error, for instance, is the inappropriate use of the pluperfect tense. In response to a question about why he was carrying on an affair, a guy on the hot seat on one of these programs might start by explaining, "What had happened was, I met her at work. . ." when the simpler "I met her at work" would suffice. "I went to the store" becomes "I had gone to the store." Because we equate short sentences with younger, less proficient speakers, it is sometimes assumed that longer, more complex sentences are signifiers of intelligence.

Since "myself" is both longer than "me" and, well, not "me," it is often used as a substitute anytime "me" would otherwise be used. On the other hand, like most speakers who make this mistake, Obama does not always uses these pronouns incorrectly. Here is an example of his appropriate use of the reflexive:

Right now I want to say hello and introduce myself. (Visit with White House press corps, January 22, 2009, Washington, DC)

That is, the words "me" and "myself" are not interchangeable for speakers who use them improperly; "myself" is substituted for "me," but not the other way around. Further, it is likely that Obama knows when it is appropriate to use which pronoun. In times when he does not have a lot of time to think about his phrasing, though, he is more likely to make the mistake. Similar to the way we can learn about ourselves in those times when we do not have a chance to let our conscious catch up to our subconscious (see the Implicit Associations work for ways in which this is manifested in stereotypes), these slips allow us to have a glimpse into the authentic Obama -- not who he necessarily wants to project to us, but who he really is.

How, though, can we explain away Obama's errors as merely endearing reflections of his connection to the working class when we refuse to do so for his predecessor? Isn't this simply a case of "Black privilege" or "Bush bashing" by liberals?

Regular TWIR readers understand that blanket claims of reciprocity are fallacies in logic. Context matters. It is acceptable, for instance, for African Americans to use the n-word even though Whites cannot because African Americans do not have a history of using it to oppress, and Whites do. Gay men can refer to each other with a derogatory word, but straight men should not call each other such a name (as an insult) or refer to gay men that way because of the heterosexist power dynamic that is inherent in our culture. On and on. It is not hypocritical to criticize one group for doing something while allowing another to do it if context is taken into consideration. Fairness (justice) is not predicated on equality when there is not equality of power (or opportunity) at work.

President Bush's speaking mistakes are not a reflection of his environment during socialization. He grew up with tremendous privilege in an environment of wealth. There is no question that some of his language choices are a function of the Southern influence (which is unfairly evaluated as unintelligent), but his mispronunciations and confused syntax are not characteristics of the language of his youth. Further, President Bush exhibited no other characteristics that would alert us that he was a working class guy at heart. His public policies and behavior aided the wealthiest Americans (tax cuts) and ignored the suffering of the most vulnerable (Katrina). In short, the only characteristic he exhibits of a working class person is fractured speech.

Obama, on the other hand, is the inverse of Bush: he is working class at his core, but has had to learn to assimilate into the upper class. Ivy League education certainly helps, but old habits are hard to break, particularly at times when there is no opportunity to think through the rules.

As far as we are aware, there is no widespread criticism of Obama on these characteristics -- no attempts to make the errors about his race. Obama's few critics in the first week are more focused on their concern that his policies will be successful and the status quo will be unsettled (which is precisely what Obama has promised). For instance, Rush Limbaugh made news THIS WEEK when he openly wished for Obama to "fail." Lost in some of that discussion with Sean Hannity is a continuation of the "racism is a myth" language from the campaign.

I'll tell you, you know, a lot of people right now just — they're absorbed in the historical nature of this, first black president and so forth. Well, that is wonderful. That's great. But I got over that months ago after he won the election.
I mean, Sean, he is our president now. And he's not black, he's not from Mars, he's not — he's our president, he's a human being. We're a country comprised of human beings that the Democrat Party and the left have attempted to arrange into groups of victims, and that's who he appeals to, and the victims are the people waiting around for some grievance to be resolved.

They're waiting around for something to happen for them, and he is parlaying that. I think the fact that he's African-American, his father was black, to me it's irrelevant. This is the greatest country on earth. We want to keep it that way. It is that way for specific reasons.

We want to make three quick points about this before we wrap up.

How did Limbaugh "get over" the fact that Obama is the first Black president? That suggests that he was happy about it for some period of time. It is certainly the case that many Republicans and McCain supporters were happy that the color line of the White House was broken, but those folks are all sophisticated enough to understand that it was a significant accomplishment. For Limbaugh and Hannity (who have not displayed such sophistication), race never matters at all. Racism is a myth, slavery ended generations ago, and everyone has an equal chance at success in America. If Limbaugh spent any time at all appreciating the achievement, it would indicate that he recognizes that race is still a barrier to success in America.
The equation of being Black with being from Mars typically undervalues the importance of racial barriers to equal participation in American politics. It is a version of "I don't care if they are black, purple or green, I don't see color." There are not purple or green people, and to make such a statement reflects a fundamental insensitivity to the struggle of people of color.
Limbaugh blames progressives for attempting to categorize people. Slaveholders characterized people. Segregationists characterized people. As a result, we now all characterize people. If we ignore those characterizations, we cannot do the work that is necessary to reverse the legacy of those powerful Whites who created systems that continue to oppress. Progressives do not make victims (though they may contribute to a mentality of victimization if the focus is on individuals rather than systems); they work to unmake victims.

This sort of Orwellian double speak is what Americans rejected as they propelled the plain spoken yet eloquent Obama into the White House. Conservatives like John McCain and Lindsey Graham recognize this and have acted accordingly over the past five days. John McCain chastised his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate for holding up the confirmation of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State saying, "I remind all my colleagues: We had an election. I think the message the American people are sending us now is they want us to work together, and get to work.

To which Rush Limbaugh replied, "Well, what had happened was . . ."

Moving Forward in a New Era

2009-01-21T10:41:00.006-05:00

It is undoubtedly a new era in American racial politics. While most of the old rules still apply, there is a new dynamic in place that will affect the way we (and others) approach racism in our work. THIS WEEK, we offer our analysis of the inauguration with an eye toward the future -- not just of the nation, but of the Race Project and research, commentary and analysis on race generally.

We have no interest in being the sobering voice that kills the collective euphoria that is sweeping the world this week. The symbolic nature of Obama's rise to power is an important element in the struggle for civil rights in and of itself; the fact that he will probably work to move us forward in this area while in office (and, we believe, even more so after he leaves office) is icing on the proverbial cake.

There was a good bit of hyperbole swilling about yesterday, but a lot of it was accurate. This is, indeed, a new era. There has been a shift to the left that is comparable to the shift to the right that occurred when Ronald Reagan took office. If it can be sustained for a similar length of time, there is a real opportunity to socialize a new generation into the core American values of putting others' needs before our own intersets, acknowledging the lasting power of the legacy of slavery and segregation to earnestly combat injustice and inequality, and fostering a genuine belief in the dignity of each individual that translates into equal opportunities for every American child.

That is a tall order, indeed, and one that is in competition with a very troublesome economy and a fractured foreign policy record for the attention of the new president. Not everyone will be pulling in the same direction. Despite impressive nonpartisan demonstrations from the likes of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and others, there is a small group of folks who could not listen to Obama's speech with an open mind and heart and who have already begun the countdown to the 2012 election (which clearly indicates that they have no plans of helping or even rooting for a successful end to the recession, a smooth withdrawal from Iraq or any of the other plans Obama has for his first term).

In a speech at a forum immediately following the ceremony yesterday, Stephen highlighted three categories of citizens in terms of their response to the historic event. The text of that speech appears below.

Finally, we would very much like to invite TWIR readers to share their thoughts about the inauguration. Where did you watch it and with whom? What did you feel and think? We would love for the comments section to be a repository for the reflections of our readers -- people who are constantly thoughtful about race and politics.

Stephen Maynard Caliendo
Faculty Panel Following Barack Obama’s Inauguration
North Central College
January 20, 2009

Americans’ responses to this event can generally be categorized into three groups:

One group – the smallest – is sickened by today’s events. These folks never wanted to see a minority (a woman or a member of a racial minority group) in the White House.

Another group, comprised of mostly young people, is unimpressed or even frustrated by the attention being paid to Obama’s race. These are folks who consider themselves “post-racial.” They understand that it is a big deal because it is a “first,” but since they are not overtly bigoted (and know very few people who are), they do not fully grasp the significance of the moment.

A third group – by far the largest – is moved beyond words. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, folks in this category reflect upon this, a day many thought they would not see in their lifetime.

The first group, the bigots, will have their day yet. They will not go quietly, though I am confident that they will be rendered increasingly irrelevant. They will devise new ways to couch their racism, deny the impact of our racist history, and make certain that any failing President Obama has will be at least in part attributed to his race. Look for suggestions of an “affirmative action” president from members of this group. They subscribe to the familiar double standard when poor folks need help it’s welfare, but when CEOs need help, it’s government aid. They will use Obama’s presidency as a way to accuse poor people of color of resorting to victimization and laziness – after all, if this black man can be president, racism is clearly not a problem, right?

The second group is, of course, the future. They will push forward with their vision of a color blind society. I would advise members of this group to try to move into the emotional space of the third group today. See it through their eyes. Try to understand that reminding ourselves about the struggle results in two positive outcomes: 1) we are less likely to repeat our same mistakes, and 2) we constantly remember that progress does not equal equality.

It is squarely on the shoulders of the third group to move the significance of this moment forward. For it is you who remember that the streets of Pennsylvania Avenue this morning are lined with the blood of Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, and Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few, the sweat of Rosa Parks, John Lewis, Morris Dees and Jesse Jackson, again to name but a few, and the tears of Nelson Mandela, Mamie Till, and millions of people of all races, ethnicities and nationalities who have watched as a nation that in so many ways is the beacon of democracy, justice and equality has fallen far too short of those ideals for far too long.

But today is truly a new day. The next generation will not see race as a barrier to the highest office in the land any more than the current generation sees having been divorced or having experimented with drugs – both of which were once deal breakers, but now are quite irrelevant.

The next generation must understand, however, that Barack Obama became president in spite of his race. His election does not make it equally likely for a black man or a woman of any color to be elected to any office, though it makes it more likely. His election does not mean that African American babies born today have the same chance at prosperity as white babies born today. His election does not lift from our collective shoulders the burden of doing the hard work that is necessary to heal the wounds of the past and the present. His election does, however, mean that we are much closer to those goals and to that work.

As someone who has committed his professional life to combating injustice and inequality, I’m very proud to be an American today – more than any other day in my life. I’m proud to share this moment with you, on this campus of this College, which has such a strong commitment to social justice. I’m thankful to those of you who decided to share this moment with us, as well. And I’m looking forward to moving into a new era with an optimistic outlook about moving closer to realizing the potential that is America.

Thank you.

Black and White Americans Search for Authenticity. . . Separately, of Course

2009-01-11T14:36:00.003-05:00

There is a considerable body of scholarly literature from a number of academic traditions addressing the concept of authenticity. This is not an appropriate space to parse the differences or in the ways intellectuals from different areas discuss authenticity, but the idea is relevant to the discussion of THIS WEEK’s events.

Chicago Tribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice thoughtfully addressed a topic that we tackled last week: Congressman Bobby Rush and would-be Senator Roland Burris’s allegations that failure to seat Burris as Obama’s successor in the Senate smacked of racism. The argument is leveled against members of the U.S. Senate (all of whom are now White), as well as Barack Obama and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, both of whom are African American and both of whom have argued that Burris should not be seated under these circumstances. Trice nicely captures a dynamic that we first formally identified in 2005 when she asks: “What does it mean to be authentically black?”

It is a question that surfaced in the 2002 and 2004 Democratic primary races between Artur Davis and Earl Hilliard in Alabama and between Cynthia McKinney and Denise Majette in Georgia in 2004. Most famously, the battle for major of Newark, New Jersey between Cory Booker and Sharpe James (2002), as documented in Marshall Curry's excellent film Street Fight, featured questions about whether a lighter skinned, ivy-league educated, Generation X African American could adequately represent the interests of “real” Black people.

Trice points out that this is not the first time Rush has implied that he is “Blacker” than his political opponents. When Barack Obama challenged Rush for his Congressional seat in the 2000 Democratic primary, a similar theme emerged. Trice implies what we argued last week: Rush is contributing to a racist view of African Americans with such rhetoric.

These questions of authenticity amount to a self-stereotyping that is particularly dangerous because, as Trice notes, it places African Americans – particularly Black men – in a box that was constructed by White supremacy. She cleverly asks why a (negative) image of Black men is not only reinforced but perpetuated by Black leaders when the behavior of the White men whose behavior has resulted in the current recession has not resulted in questions about the inherent nature of White men to be involved in harmful, criminal behavior.

The answer is revealed, in part, by a new piece of scholarship published in the journal Science. Dedicated TWIR reader Jessica Nelson brought to our attention a report of this piece by CNN, where the study’s authors claim, “there are still really a lot of negative associations with blacks.” Their proof: an experiment where Whites were placed in situations where explicitly and implicitly racist activity occurs. Results are consistent with our findings, as well as that of other researchers: participants underreport their own levels of racism.

Authenticity is, in short, the way that individuals consciously view themselves compared to who they really are. (If you do not think there is a difference, you are either very mindful and reflective, or, more likely, you are being inauthentic.)

To understand this, it is helpful to conceptualize a three-part hierarchy of thought (adapted from the work of Milton Rokeach) with “values” at the base and “attitudes” on top, with “beliefs” in the center. Values are farthest from our consciousness most of the time and, accordingly, are least susceptible to challenges and change. Attitudes are our conscious thoughts, which we allow to be challenged routinely. Even the most steadfast of our attitudes are more susceptible to change than our values. Between our values and our attitudes lie “beliefs.”

They key differentiation between attitudes on the one hand and values and beliefs on the other is consciousness. Stereotypes live at the belief level. Think about it: few people have core values that involve prejudice. Quite to the contrary, most humans share common core values such as justice, equality, fairness and honesty. At the (conscious) attitudinal level, fewer and fewer people express racial prejudice. So when experiments like the one reported THIS WEEK – or the ongoing Implicit Associations work at Harvard – find discriminatory behaviors and thoughts, they are being driven by information that is stored at the belief level, which is below our consciousness unless and until a stimulus triggers them.

We have found that our students are particularly resistant to understanding elements of thought that involve the subconscious. They believe that they are completely in charge of what they think all of the time – no one can fool them. But, of course, there is a multi-billion dollar industry (in the U.S. alone) that is predicated on being able to affect people’s behavior without them consciously processing information. It is called advertising. If a beer company said, “Look folks, if you drink our beer, you will probably be able to hang around with attractive people, and you will be more attractive yourself,” we would reject the message as absurd. Instead, the prompt us with images to that effect that activate desires that reside below our level of consciousness.

Crucial to understanding authenticity is the notion of self-deception. We deceive ourselves when we refuse to reflect upon the gaps that exist between who we (really) are and who we think we are. When we self-deceive, we cannot feel at ease, which is why it is often those who demonstrate the highest levels of implicit prejudice who are the most adamant about their lack of racial resentment or animosity.

Our lives are filled with countless choices as we exercise free will. If we are not choosing authentically (basing our choices on what we know to be right and wrong, not what is easier or the way we wish it were), we are not really taking responsibility for the freedom that we have. We are deceiving ourselves and being inauthentic. Existentially-oriented psychologists differentiate between passive volition, where we allow ourselves permission to not challenge these inconsistencies (which is often a healthy mental state if not allowed to continue indefinitely) and active volition, where we engage in reflectivity that is designed to lead to higher levels of authenticity.

As we argue often in this space, we must embrace our racism -- collectively and individually -- so that we can work to dismantle the system that has socialized us into adopting racist beliefs. If we differentiate between racism (systemic preferences for Whites and the resulting beliefs consistent therewith among those socialized in such systems) and bigotry (the attitudinal-level hatred or preference for one race over another), we move much closer to authentically making progress toward more racial equality. To the extent that we collectively engage in inauthentic behavior, we at once prolong such progress, reinforce the beliefs that are the manifestation of a racist system, and perpetuate the beliefs that allow the inequality to continue.

On NBC's Meet the Press this morning, comedian and activist Bill Cosby and his coauthor, Dr. Alvin Pouissaint (Come On, People) discussed what Obama’s election might mean to Black Americans. When David Gregory asked Cosby what he expects of the new president, Cosby responded as follows:

I believe he's, he's asking us to be honest. I believe he's asking us to look around and see in all honesty what we can do and what makes sense as opposed to what will go into our pockets or make us feel good or who we can punish according to our religion. I think it's time for all of us to, to do things in terms of community, to stop worrying about what other people think of us and, and just go right on in and begin to talk to our youngsters about correct choices, to not be afraid to, to challenge them and be honest with them and, and, and to not be afraid to just stand and, and work with him and think that we're working with him to make change and choices and challenge.

What Cosby is referring to here, clearly, is that he believes Obama is asking us to be authentic. He is absolutely correct. In fact, later in the broadcast, there was discussion about Obama’s call to Black families to parent more mindfully (which is a major argument in Come On, People).

Gregory replayed the speech from last Father’s Day where Obama made the remarks:

If we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers are also missing. Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes. They've abandoned their responsibilities, they're acting like boys instead of men, and the foundations of our family have suffered because of it. You and I know this is true everywhere, but nowhere is it more true than in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent houses. Half. A number that's doubled since we were children.

When Obama says “if we’re honest with ourselves,” it is the same as saying “if we’re being authentic.” He is asking us to examine the degree to which what we think we are doing matches what we are really doing. As Cosby asserts, Obama is asking all Americans to be authentic.
Yet both Barack Obama and Bill Cosby have been accused of being inauthenticly Black because they have not toed the line of the Baby Boomer generation Black leaders. Michael Eric Dyson has a thoughtful, controversial book that directly addresses Cosby’s admonitions to young Black males. Jesse Jackson was caught making derogatory comments about Obama because of this Father’s Day speech.

In the January 2009 “The Meaning of Life” (quite existential in its own right) issue of Esquire magazine, Jackson provides this somewhat cryptic comment in an expanded version of the monthly “What I’ve Learned” series: “People are screaming for the running back who scored the touchdown. But the lineman knows how he got there” (p. 108).

There is a suggestion that Obama (the running back) does not know how he got there. It is possible that the Jacksons and Rushes feel as if their contributions are simply not being recognized. It is possible that they are resentful for paving the way and not achieving the success or accolades they feel are due to them. And it is possible that they sincerely feel betrayed by the new generation of Black leaders – that they feel as if the identity politics that they (we believe correctly) recognize as crucial to the realization of the dream of equality is being eschewed in favor of a more “mainstream” (read, White) realpolitik. (Jackson includes a comment regarding the “cut [Obama's] nuts off” statement, as well.)

One particularly disturbing aspect of Trice’s column is her report that Chip Saltsman, the chair of the Republican Party of Tennessee who is seeking chairmanship of the national Party, sent a CD with the racist song “Barack the Magic Negro” to supporters. Trice alerts us to the fact that

[i]n cinematic terms, the "Magic Negro," is a character who's just "white enough" in that he's neither violent, threatening nor hypersexual. His primary function is to save the white protagonist and assuage "white guilt." Think: Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith.

While it is, of course, perfectly appropriate for Whites to comment on and be critical of the policies of Black officials and the acceptability of Black candidates, Whites have absolutely no seat at the table for this discussion of Black authenticity. It is a symbolic extension of colonialism and White privilege for Whites to presume that there is any contribution to be made to this discussion.

Whites have their own issues of authenticity with which to struggle, and they are not unrelated to the belief that Black folks cannot sort out their own disagreements without assistance from Whites. It is a direct result of racism that Black folks are wrestling with these issues; recognizing that is a big step toward making sure that future generations of Black Americans do not find themselves having these same conversations.

Jillian Maynard Caliendo, a doctoral student at the Adler School of Professional Psychology contributed to this blog.

Note: Stephen will appear with Dawn Turner Trice at a forum entitled "Race and Politics in the Blogosphere" at North Central College's Koten Chapel at noon on Wednesday, January 14 as part of the College's Martin Luther King Week activities. For other appearances by Stephen and Charlton, bookmark the RaceProject.org "appearances" page, which is updated as new dates are confirmed.