It was already a lose, lose situation. However, Illinois Representative Bobby Rush’s comments made it more of an uncomfortable one. Rep. Rush’s statements were indicative of old school racial politics. He squashed any questioning of Blagojevich’s appointee by claiming we need more African Americans in the senate. He goes further to put on notice anyone who questions the appointment. To praise the governor simply for appointing an African American is a lame argument.
The racial overtones were clear and unfortunate. While I can understand his frustration with the lack of racial diversity in the senate, to minimize the issue and use the race of the appointee to essentially bully people into submission is unnecessary. Rush attempts to elevate the appointment of an African American to “tremendous national importance.” Sure we need more African Americans in the Senate. We need more people of color in the ranks of government in general to be more representative of our society. However, you can get that point across without using the tactic of shaming us out of questioning the details of this messy situation.
Rush continues beyond his call for numerical increases asking us not to “hang or lynch” the appointee and to separate “the appointee from the appointer.” Again, the racial connotation is clear and to me sounds like an attempt to silence interrogators. He goes a step further to state, “I don’t think any US senator… want[s] to go on record to deny one African American from being seated in the US senate.” This assertion is what got me fired up. Part of me understands that he was trying to stand up in the face of immediate allegations that Burris is tainted based on his appointment by the controversial governor. However, the comment wreaks of old school racial politics.
Historically, it was generally accepted to block the achievements of a person solely based on race. In that pre-Civil Rights Movement climate, it makes sense to call out those who dare to stand in the way of a qualified individual. However, racial politics have progressed. To be clear, racial discrimination occurs, and I’m sure blocks the progress of many. However, the issues are more complicated and to intimidate senators from coming forward to question an appointee because of his race is to send the message that you assume we live in the past tense. It misses the complexities of race today and does a number on intergroup dialogue.
To be fair, Roland Burris does have a long history of service in the state of Illinois. In many ways, it was a safe choice given the fact that the people of IL voted him into office on numerous occasions. However, he has a number of obstacles before him regardless of his race. For starters, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White stated that he would not certify the appointee and majority leader Harry Reid stated the Democratic caucus would not seat the appointee. For these reasons and more that we have yet to uncover, Rush’s use of old school racial politics to make race the front and center issue misses the mark.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
What's in a Greeting?
The holiday season always reminds me how territorial we can be. The “war on Christmas” argument is revived and we are made to feel “damned if we do, damned if we don’t.”
There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying “Merry Christmas,” but there’s also nothing wrong with being sensitive enough to consider whether or not the phrase fits the recipient.
If you know someone is Christian, it’s easy. But if you know that someone follows another faith tradition, why would you be intent on wishing him or her a Merry Christmas? If you are in a friendship circle where you each wish each other a Happy Divali, Eid Mubarek, etc, perhaps it wouldn’t be too out of place. But my hunch is that many of us Christians use Merry Christmas as a greeting out of laziness. It becomes the “How are you doing? Fine.” exchange of the season.
I think retailers have caught onto this reality. If the clientele you are trying to reach is diverse, why use a phrase that narrows your market? You would not want to narrow the pool of potential customers. I suspect conservative Christians might argue that the omission of the phrase is offensive, and the retailer could potentially lose Christians’ business. This hunch certainly seems to be the case for a group of women in Mahoning Valley, Ohio who became frustrated that clerks in stores were replacing “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays.” They raised funds to erect 10 billboards this season to express their views. However, I would caution us from making grand assumptions. Christians are not monolithic in their thinking; therefore, it would be a false assumption that every Christian is offended when not greeted with “Merry Christmas.”
The “War on Christmas” has fueled this false assumption. Bill O’Reilly was the first person that came to mind when I thought about this controversy. But upon further reading (link to http://www.alternet.org/story/111465/the_white_nationalist_behind_bill_o%27reilly%27s_war_on_christmas/?page=1), I learned that the concept had another author. It seems that a conservative writer, Brimelow, birthed the idea years before O’Reilly brought it to mainstream media. His work comes from the perspective that immigrants and other cultures are responsible for the unraveling of the “ethnic core” of America. Our country was founded by Christian men and infused with Christian ideas. Yet from the beginning we espoused separation of church and state and struggled with how to recognize the diversity present in our nations’ inhabitants. Even if Christians have had the upper hand, this position is in no way a guarantee. And furthermore, wouldn’t we want to model respect and inclusiveness rather than narrowness given that we might not always be the dominant group in power?
So, thinking more broadly, how would our society respond if Muslims demanded we greet them with Eid Mubarek or Jews threw a media fit to be wished a blessed Yom Kippur? My hunch is that we would think, “Who do they think they are?” Whether we would admit it or say it out loud is another question. You could argue that there’s no way we would know these important events, because they are not national holidays. That would be true, but then you have to ask the important question: “Why it is that only Christian holidays are national holidays?”
In my opinion, it’s not about what phrases are plastered on TV or expressed by clerks, but more importantly, how aware we are of what different members in our society hold dear. I am reminded of the time when our faculty scheduled a meeting on Yom Kippur. No one caught the mistake until a Jewish faculty member spoke up. I am certain that it would have been caught sooner had the meeting been scheduled on Christmas. No one was purposeful about the scheduling, but it was certainly a clear indication of the fact that we were generally unaware of our Jewish colleagues.
What I think is really going on is that we Christians are having some difficulty sharing. We’ve been the main show, gotten national recognition, and now feel as if something is being taken away from us. We’re like the big sibling feeling displaced by the younger sibling. If we take that analogy a step further, even though the big brother feels as if things are being taken away, the family is really just making room for the other child. This shift might involve recognizing the needs of the younger child and generally making room for the family to grow. Similarly, the USA is working to accommodate the various religious groups that are represented in our society: growing pains.
“Merry Christmas” being replaced by a more generic term merely represents our awareness and sensitivity to the diversity of our nation. It does not mean that we hate Christians, Christmas or Christ. It also does not mean that the term should be outlawed. The older sibling often feels displaced, throws tantrums and swears the parents are playing favorites. Let’s get beyond our sibling rivalry and accept that our family has, simply, grown.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying “Merry Christmas,” but there’s also nothing wrong with being sensitive enough to consider whether or not the phrase fits the recipient.
If you know someone is Christian, it’s easy. But if you know that someone follows another faith tradition, why would you be intent on wishing him or her a Merry Christmas? If you are in a friendship circle where you each wish each other a Happy Divali, Eid Mubarek, etc, perhaps it wouldn’t be too out of place. But my hunch is that many of us Christians use Merry Christmas as a greeting out of laziness. It becomes the “How are you doing? Fine.” exchange of the season.
I think retailers have caught onto this reality. If the clientele you are trying to reach is diverse, why use a phrase that narrows your market? You would not want to narrow the pool of potential customers. I suspect conservative Christians might argue that the omission of the phrase is offensive, and the retailer could potentially lose Christians’ business. This hunch certainly seems to be the case for a group of women in Mahoning Valley, Ohio who became frustrated that clerks in stores were replacing “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays.” They raised funds to erect 10 billboards this season to express their views. However, I would caution us from making grand assumptions. Christians are not monolithic in their thinking; therefore, it would be a false assumption that every Christian is offended when not greeted with “Merry Christmas.”
The “War on Christmas” has fueled this false assumption. Bill O’Reilly was the first person that came to mind when I thought about this controversy. But upon further reading (link to http://www.alternet.org/story/111465/the_white_nationalist_behind_bill_o%27reilly%27s_war_on_christmas/?page=1), I learned that the concept had another author. It seems that a conservative writer, Brimelow, birthed the idea years before O’Reilly brought it to mainstream media. His work comes from the perspective that immigrants and other cultures are responsible for the unraveling of the “ethnic core” of America. Our country was founded by Christian men and infused with Christian ideas. Yet from the beginning we espoused separation of church and state and struggled with how to recognize the diversity present in our nations’ inhabitants. Even if Christians have had the upper hand, this position is in no way a guarantee. And furthermore, wouldn’t we want to model respect and inclusiveness rather than narrowness given that we might not always be the dominant group in power?
So, thinking more broadly, how would our society respond if Muslims demanded we greet them with Eid Mubarek or Jews threw a media fit to be wished a blessed Yom Kippur? My hunch is that we would think, “Who do they think they are?” Whether we would admit it or say it out loud is another question. You could argue that there’s no way we would know these important events, because they are not national holidays. That would be true, but then you have to ask the important question: “Why it is that only Christian holidays are national holidays?”
In my opinion, it’s not about what phrases are plastered on TV or expressed by clerks, but more importantly, how aware we are of what different members in our society hold dear. I am reminded of the time when our faculty scheduled a meeting on Yom Kippur. No one caught the mistake until a Jewish faculty member spoke up. I am certain that it would have been caught sooner had the meeting been scheduled on Christmas. No one was purposeful about the scheduling, but it was certainly a clear indication of the fact that we were generally unaware of our Jewish colleagues.
What I think is really going on is that we Christians are having some difficulty sharing. We’ve been the main show, gotten national recognition, and now feel as if something is being taken away from us. We’re like the big sibling feeling displaced by the younger sibling. If we take that analogy a step further, even though the big brother feels as if things are being taken away, the family is really just making room for the other child. This shift might involve recognizing the needs of the younger child and generally making room for the family to grow. Similarly, the USA is working to accommodate the various religious groups that are represented in our society: growing pains.
“Merry Christmas” being replaced by a more generic term merely represents our awareness and sensitivity to the diversity of our nation. It does not mean that we hate Christians, Christmas or Christ. It also does not mean that the term should be outlawed. The older sibling often feels displaced, throws tantrums and swears the parents are playing favorites. Let’s get beyond our sibling rivalry and accept that our family has, simply, grown.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Faulty Comparisons
The recent criticism of Obama being the anti-Malcolm X is indicative of the tendency to homogenize racial groups. An Al-Qaeda leader suggested that Obama, along with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, were “house negros.” This term refers to Blacks who are deferential to Whites. Obama was called out further as a betrayer to his Muslim heritage. The question of these leaders’ differences and/or similarities has ensued.
The comments are problematic on a couple of levels. Specific to the claim, Obama is not the opposite of Malcolm X. Only if we are limited to a surface analysis do these men appear to contradict each other: Malcolm X the militant hater of the Blue-eyed devil and Obama the peace-loving, bridge-maker. Of course these are gross over-generalization. When you dig deeper and acknowledge the full breadth of Malcolm X’s life, you understand that after his pilgrimage to Mecca, he no longer espoused anti-White views. His desire for connectedness and freedom for all people is far from opposite of Obama. Al-Qaeda conveniently chose one sliver or Malcolm X and Obama in attempt to draw a contrast.
More generally, the comments highlight the assumption that all members within a racial group are and should be the same. First, the premise is false. Biological research has confirmed that there is more within group variance compared to across group variance. People in one racial group are far from monolithic.
Second, these comments mask the real issue- that we use the category of “race” to lump together a wide variety of different cultures and ethnicities. Take the term “Asian-American” for example. What does it really mean? Nothing much given that it is merely an umbrella term for a group, which includes a host of languages, nationalities and worldviews. Yet surely we could name the “Asian stereotype.” These assumptions- that Asians are quiet, good a math and science and so forth- fail to capture the complexities and realities of all those identified as “Asian American.”
Finally, these assumptions perpetuate the problem. The narrow expectations that we create for racial categories limit our understanding of individuals who make up the group. It then seems discongruent if Obama, Malcolm X, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have different perspectives. They are all Black, right? So, they should all be the same.
Judging group members harshly when they don’t conform to the overaching stereotypes merely perpetuates the limited perceptions.
To the final point- who gets to decide what is the norm against which all other group members are compared? Who does it benefit to have such a narrow view of racial groups? It’s worth contemplating in detail. However, generally who ever is in power gets to shape the definitions and it is done so to benefit the status quo. However, once these limitations are set in motion, we all become complicit in the insidious way in which they take the place of true connection and understanding. Failing to see the dissimilarity in people from similar racial groups simply reifies the boundaries we have created. So, rather than spending time entertaining whether Obama is or is not the opposite of Malcolm X, I think it would behoove us to question why similarities are expected simply due to racial membership.
The comments are problematic on a couple of levels. Specific to the claim, Obama is not the opposite of Malcolm X. Only if we are limited to a surface analysis do these men appear to contradict each other: Malcolm X the militant hater of the Blue-eyed devil and Obama the peace-loving, bridge-maker. Of course these are gross over-generalization. When you dig deeper and acknowledge the full breadth of Malcolm X’s life, you understand that after his pilgrimage to Mecca, he no longer espoused anti-White views. His desire for connectedness and freedom for all people is far from opposite of Obama. Al-Qaeda conveniently chose one sliver or Malcolm X and Obama in attempt to draw a contrast.
More generally, the comments highlight the assumption that all members within a racial group are and should be the same. First, the premise is false. Biological research has confirmed that there is more within group variance compared to across group variance. People in one racial group are far from monolithic.
Second, these comments mask the real issue- that we use the category of “race” to lump together a wide variety of different cultures and ethnicities. Take the term “Asian-American” for example. What does it really mean? Nothing much given that it is merely an umbrella term for a group, which includes a host of languages, nationalities and worldviews. Yet surely we could name the “Asian stereotype.” These assumptions- that Asians are quiet, good a math and science and so forth- fail to capture the complexities and realities of all those identified as “Asian American.”
Finally, these assumptions perpetuate the problem. The narrow expectations that we create for racial categories limit our understanding of individuals who make up the group. It then seems discongruent if Obama, Malcolm X, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have different perspectives. They are all Black, right? So, they should all be the same.
Judging group members harshly when they don’t conform to the overaching stereotypes merely perpetuates the limited perceptions.
To the final point- who gets to decide what is the norm against which all other group members are compared? Who does it benefit to have such a narrow view of racial groups? It’s worth contemplating in detail. However, generally who ever is in power gets to shape the definitions and it is done so to benefit the status quo. However, once these limitations are set in motion, we all become complicit in the insidious way in which they take the place of true connection and understanding. Failing to see the dissimilarity in people from similar racial groups simply reifies the boundaries we have created. So, rather than spending time entertaining whether Obama is or is not the opposite of Malcolm X, I think it would behoove us to question why similarities are expected simply due to racial membership.
The Power of Building Bridges
America can change. This much is true. It was evident in the reflections of both candidates. Obama called for a renewed sense of unity, accountability and self-reliance. His speech was a call to action for all Americans to join together. The tracing of the life of Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106-year-old voter, was poignant and displayed the shape and stride of our history.
The speeches provided a glimpse into the tenor of both campaigns. I say campaigns, because this critique goes beyond the men who verbalized the messages. Essentially, both men aimed to inspire our nation to persevere in the face of tough times. However, the way they went about it differed drastically. Obama spoke of unity and attributed his win to the voices of all Americans- “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled.” He used the opportunity to expand the reach of his achievement beyond himself and his race.
McCain’s message was more narrow suggesting Obama won “ by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president.” He went on to say, “This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.” McCain limits the significance of Obama’s win to African Americans. Furthermore, he seems to suggest that the reason for the win was Obama’s ability to inspire the “wrongly” disenfranchised. The problem with this rhetoric is that 1) it is not statistically possible for Obama to have won with that sole voting block, therefore McCain’s comments fail to recognize the range of demographics of Obama supporters. And 2) it fails to acknowledge the relevance that Obama’s win has for each and every one of us.
Part of me believes that McCain did not intend for his words to be perceived in this way. However, he goes on to say, “Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.” This further statement leads me to think that he is not simply complimenting Obama on his win but rather putting on notice the Michelle Obamas and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights who speak out against the injustices of our nation. It seemed a direct challenge to anyone who might critique our nation, because in doing so they would appear ungrateful.
I felt McCain’s comments suggested that being critical of our nation and proud of it are mutually exclusive. That claim is false and counterproductive. We improved as a nation because we had courage enough to face what needed to changed rather than remain blindly loyal to false and contradictory ideals.
The fact of the matter is that Obama’s election does not instantly change the state of the union. His win provides a great opportunity for reconciliation and coalition building does not make racism, and injustice in general, non-issues.
If we recognize that issues of injustice happen on an institutional, cultural and individual level, it is clear that symbolically Obama’s presidency is a major achievement. However, it alone does not change the systematic disadvantages in education; it does not abolish the negative stereotypes of people of color in the media; and it does not limit the individual actions of hatemongers. Despite the historic occasion, we have much work to do.
It is essential that as we move forward in unity that we be accountable to each other as American citizens. That will require each citizen to do his or her part but also us a nation to be honest about the equality of opportunity that we uphold as an ideal. While we should not get caught up in what is wrong with our country losing sight of our progress, it should be clear that we can cherish our American citizenship without being blind to its injustices.
I think the spirit of the candidates’ words last night paralleled the spirit of the campaigns and gave us a sense of how Obama succeeded in blurring lines of division and reaching out to ultimately win the race.
The speeches provided a glimpse into the tenor of both campaigns. I say campaigns, because this critique goes beyond the men who verbalized the messages. Essentially, both men aimed to inspire our nation to persevere in the face of tough times. However, the way they went about it differed drastically. Obama spoke of unity and attributed his win to the voices of all Americans- “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled.” He used the opportunity to expand the reach of his achievement beyond himself and his race.
McCain’s message was more narrow suggesting Obama won “ by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president.” He went on to say, “This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.” McCain limits the significance of Obama’s win to African Americans. Furthermore, he seems to suggest that the reason for the win was Obama’s ability to inspire the “wrongly” disenfranchised. The problem with this rhetoric is that 1) it is not statistically possible for Obama to have won with that sole voting block, therefore McCain’s comments fail to recognize the range of demographics of Obama supporters. And 2) it fails to acknowledge the relevance that Obama’s win has for each and every one of us.
Part of me believes that McCain did not intend for his words to be perceived in this way. However, he goes on to say, “Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.” This further statement leads me to think that he is not simply complimenting Obama on his win but rather putting on notice the Michelle Obamas and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights who speak out against the injustices of our nation. It seemed a direct challenge to anyone who might critique our nation, because in doing so they would appear ungrateful.
I felt McCain’s comments suggested that being critical of our nation and proud of it are mutually exclusive. That claim is false and counterproductive. We improved as a nation because we had courage enough to face what needed to changed rather than remain blindly loyal to false and contradictory ideals.
The fact of the matter is that Obama’s election does not instantly change the state of the union. His win provides a great opportunity for reconciliation and coalition building does not make racism, and injustice in general, non-issues.
If we recognize that issues of injustice happen on an institutional, cultural and individual level, it is clear that symbolically Obama’s presidency is a major achievement. However, it alone does not change the systematic disadvantages in education; it does not abolish the negative stereotypes of people of color in the media; and it does not limit the individual actions of hatemongers. Despite the historic occasion, we have much work to do.
It is essential that as we move forward in unity that we be accountable to each other as American citizens. That will require each citizen to do his or her part but also us a nation to be honest about the equality of opportunity that we uphold as an ideal. While we should not get caught up in what is wrong with our country losing sight of our progress, it should be clear that we can cherish our American citizenship without being blind to its injustices.
I think the spirit of the candidates’ words last night paralleled the spirit of the campaigns and gave us a sense of how Obama succeeded in blurring lines of division and reaching out to ultimately win the race.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
All or Nothing
I’ve asserted time and time again that “race matters,” but given the recent happenings it’s also important to be clear that it is not “everything.” It seems that our default is to claim colorblindness or name race as the cause and cure. The dichotomy that race means nothing at all or drives one’s every move is false. In order to be an inclusive society, we must recognize what an individual’s race and ethnicity might bring while at the same time connecting with what is common among us.
Colin Powell has the right to break with the Republican Party without it being attributed to his race. Interesting that When Colin Powell was in lockstep with the Republican Party, he was “a fine American.” His race didn’t matter. However, when he breaks from the party he must have done so because of his race. The contradiction and convenience of this appraisal should be clear- never mind the thoughtful critique, which prefaced his announcement. Seriously, Powell could have made the same comments and ended with supporting McCain, and there would have been no mention of his race in the post-hoc analyses.
Voters in western Pennsylvania have the right to support McCain without being considered racists or rednecks. If we are willing to be honest with ourselves, all areas of our country have stories that we would be embarrassed to tell related to racial hatred. There is nothing that makes this area of the country “more racist” or “more American.” Again, that sort of either/or, us/them, right/wrong dichotomy is limiting in the long run. No wonder, as a country, we continue to grapple with how to truly become a multicultural society.
Until we are willing to recognize racial and ethnic identity as an important yet not all-encompassing part of peoples’ lives and motivations, we will remain trapped in this dichotomy. Identities are complex. Think about your own experiences that have shaped who you are. It wasn’t just your gender or simply your socioeconomic status. How offended would you be if with every move you made, someone assumed it was because of your class? Religion? Or gender? “That’s not ALL of who I am!” you would shout. So why, then are we intent on pigeonholing others? One answer is that it’s easy. Another is that we are too scared to really get to know the “other” to be equipped to understand them as more than their label. Perhaps Obama’s race was one factor in the many that Powell weighed. Perhaps the same is true for some voters in Pennsylvania. My assertion is that we cannot immediately vilify them if it is nor assume that race is the only factor at play.
It makes sense why some Whites fear people of color in positions of power if the assumption is that one can only act in the interest of one’s racial or ethnic group. If that were the case, then men would only lead for the betterment of men, and the rich only to further promote the interest of the rich. While in some ways as a country we have lived through this worst nightmare, we have also shown the potential to seek the greater good. For example, while it took time and failed attempts for women to receive the right to vote, it was men in political positions of power that made the decision. Those parts of our history would suggest that one does not lead from only one aspect of his or her identity. Fear of the unknown, or perhaps what is thought to be known, is the only reason I can think that people would believe that race would be any different.
Powell got it right when he discussed the inherent falsehood of what has been espoused by some Republicans. He discussed the attempt to use Obama’s Muslim father as slander and a reason to distrust his intentions as president (Notice I am not articulating that McCain, in particular, stated these assumptions. In fact, he stood up for Senator Obama. Rather it is the tone in which numerous members of the party- which McCain has been chosen to represent- have pushed to keep raising these questions perhaps to raise doubts and sway votes. But I digress.) Powell’s response was poignant in that he stated, “The correct answer is that he is not a Muslim…. But the really right answer is, ‘what if he is?’” Powell points out that the fact that the question itself is amiss in that it capitalizes on our fear of difference. If we deconstruct the insinuation, it suggests it would be dangerous and scary if a Muslim ran our nation, because (fill in the blank). As if that person’s faith would rule every decision and those outside of the faith would be persecuted. Were all non-Catholics persecuted after Kennedy bucked the trend of Protestant presidents? No. So why should we make such false assumptions now that we are possibly on the precipice of another change? Perhaps it is the visible nature of this change. We couldn’t literally see Kennedy’s Catholic-ness, but you can’t miss Obama’s skin color. One can only hope that just as we got used to expanding our conceptions of our leader in the 1960s, we might be able to do the same if Obama is elected.
Inclusiveness not only means accepting people along with their differences. It means recognizing that all motivation does not come from that one aspect of who they are. It means doing so without pushing them to abdicate membership in those groups. It means moving beyond dichotomous thinking to complexity. We can’t invoke race when it is convenient and ignore it when it’s a nuisance. While these dynamics are severely heightened during our election season within a two-party system, I believe they are partly responsible for why many find it difficult to envision a diverse and inclusive society.
Colin Powell has the right to break with the Republican Party without it being attributed to his race. Interesting that When Colin Powell was in lockstep with the Republican Party, he was “a fine American.” His race didn’t matter. However, when he breaks from the party he must have done so because of his race. The contradiction and convenience of this appraisal should be clear- never mind the thoughtful critique, which prefaced his announcement. Seriously, Powell could have made the same comments and ended with supporting McCain, and there would have been no mention of his race in the post-hoc analyses.
Voters in western Pennsylvania have the right to support McCain without being considered racists or rednecks. If we are willing to be honest with ourselves, all areas of our country have stories that we would be embarrassed to tell related to racial hatred. There is nothing that makes this area of the country “more racist” or “more American.” Again, that sort of either/or, us/them, right/wrong dichotomy is limiting in the long run. No wonder, as a country, we continue to grapple with how to truly become a multicultural society.
Until we are willing to recognize racial and ethnic identity as an important yet not all-encompassing part of peoples’ lives and motivations, we will remain trapped in this dichotomy. Identities are complex. Think about your own experiences that have shaped who you are. It wasn’t just your gender or simply your socioeconomic status. How offended would you be if with every move you made, someone assumed it was because of your class? Religion? Or gender? “That’s not ALL of who I am!” you would shout. So why, then are we intent on pigeonholing others? One answer is that it’s easy. Another is that we are too scared to really get to know the “other” to be equipped to understand them as more than their label. Perhaps Obama’s race was one factor in the many that Powell weighed. Perhaps the same is true for some voters in Pennsylvania. My assertion is that we cannot immediately vilify them if it is nor assume that race is the only factor at play.
It makes sense why some Whites fear people of color in positions of power if the assumption is that one can only act in the interest of one’s racial or ethnic group. If that were the case, then men would only lead for the betterment of men, and the rich only to further promote the interest of the rich. While in some ways as a country we have lived through this worst nightmare, we have also shown the potential to seek the greater good. For example, while it took time and failed attempts for women to receive the right to vote, it was men in political positions of power that made the decision. Those parts of our history would suggest that one does not lead from only one aspect of his or her identity. Fear of the unknown, or perhaps what is thought to be known, is the only reason I can think that people would believe that race would be any different.
Powell got it right when he discussed the inherent falsehood of what has been espoused by some Republicans. He discussed the attempt to use Obama’s Muslim father as slander and a reason to distrust his intentions as president (Notice I am not articulating that McCain, in particular, stated these assumptions. In fact, he stood up for Senator Obama. Rather it is the tone in which numerous members of the party- which McCain has been chosen to represent- have pushed to keep raising these questions perhaps to raise doubts and sway votes. But I digress.) Powell’s response was poignant in that he stated, “The correct answer is that he is not a Muslim…. But the really right answer is, ‘what if he is?’” Powell points out that the fact that the question itself is amiss in that it capitalizes on our fear of difference. If we deconstruct the insinuation, it suggests it would be dangerous and scary if a Muslim ran our nation, because (fill in the blank). As if that person’s faith would rule every decision and those outside of the faith would be persecuted. Were all non-Catholics persecuted after Kennedy bucked the trend of Protestant presidents? No. So why should we make such false assumptions now that we are possibly on the precipice of another change? Perhaps it is the visible nature of this change. We couldn’t literally see Kennedy’s Catholic-ness, but you can’t miss Obama’s skin color. One can only hope that just as we got used to expanding our conceptions of our leader in the 1960s, we might be able to do the same if Obama is elected.
Inclusiveness not only means accepting people along with their differences. It means recognizing that all motivation does not come from that one aspect of who they are. It means doing so without pushing them to abdicate membership in those groups. It means moving beyond dichotomous thinking to complexity. We can’t invoke race when it is convenient and ignore it when it’s a nuisance. While these dynamics are severely heightened during our election season within a two-party system, I believe they are partly responsible for why many find it difficult to envision a diverse and inclusive society.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Connecting the Dots
Can we please stop acting surprised that race matters? It’s been a focal point in the media’s recent discussion of the election- mostly that some people consciously or unconsciously will not vote for Obama because of his race. Don’t get me wrong. I agree that race is a relevant construct in our present day. However, the media’s sense of shock that their own pumping of negative stereotypes of Black men in particular, and African Americans in general, just might have an impact on the way some perceive Barack Obama is exasperating.
Research has found that not only are images of African Americans skewed negatively compared to the portrayals of Whites but theses images affect viewers’ attitudes. So, those who watched more television were more likely to judge stereotypical representations of Blacks as more realistic. That means that we start to believe the images we see are accurate portrayals rather than distortions. They become self-fulfilling stereotypes. We are then more prone to attend to attributes and individuals who fit our ideas rather than those who disconfirm them. You can easily do your own study to replicate the findings of research that found Blacks were overrepresented as perpetrators of violence by watching your local news. Even though statistically, Whites are more likely to be victimized by other Whites, media and news sources over represent Blacks as criminals thereby increasing fear and mistrust. Therefore, we should not be surprised when some White voters express uncertainty about Obama based on race. If all we take in about Black men is even half true, Obama must be dangerous.
Add to the equation that we live in a segregated society. So much of our knowledge about those who are different from us comes from the media. If you live in a diverse city or an integrated neighborhood, you might be disregarding me at this point. Stay with me. Even if where you live is racially diverse, calculate the percentage of people you have invited into your home that are of a different race or ethnicity. When we fail to have close relationships with people who are different from us, we rely more heavily on the images in the media. How else would we know about the other? For a large number of American’s these circumstances are their reality.
Media images are powerful. If you are still in doubt, consider the field of marketing. Corporations understand that imagery and messaging are key. Otherwise, they would not be spending millions to attempt to sway you to see things from their perspective.
When you put all of these pieces together- negative representations of Black men paired with the omission of positive images, segregation, lack of personal relationships across racial lines- it should not take long to understand why some Whites are skeptical of Obama. They just don’t feel like they can relate to him. They believe he is not trustworthy. He will not represent the interests of all of Americans. He’s a dangerous choice. I’m not leaving people of color out of this analysis, because they are just as susceptible to the negative imagery. Despite the increased likelihood of encountering opposing evidence, when these negative images are internalized, people of color can harbor those same beliefs. They become unable to see a person of color as capable of more than what is perpetuated in mass media. They become skeptical of the “exception.” Barack Obama becomes more than Barack Obama. He becomes a proxy for all of our ideas about Black men. We lose sight of the fact that his mother is White- that his grandmother, who was integral in raising him, was also. People have trouble seeing just him for who he is, and his message gets clouded by their expectations and misperceptions.
Related, I am not arguing it is an appropriate way to select the leader of our nation, but many have expressed affinity for a politician simply because he/she seems like “one of us” that they could “sit down and have a drink/coffee” with the person who seems “down to earth.” Personally, I think this argument is problematic for a number of reasons. However, examining the current issue at hand, it serves as another example of how race might influence voters. Insert images of Black men for Barack Obama and you have certain defeat. It’s the same reason the McCain/Palin ticket is attempting to link Obama to domestic terrorists. Who wants to sit down to for coffee with “that one?”
I am well aware that there are numerous Americans who will cast a vote regardless of race. But for those who are still caught up on Obama’s race, these dynamics very well might be a factor. Can we be honest with ourselves and stop acting surprised and clueless that these issues exist? Yes, race still matters. No, we are not immune to media imagery. And we continue to do our share to perpetuate it.
Friday, September 26, 2008
A Prejudice By Another Name Just Isn’t The Same
I’ve been struck by, well, a number of things in the past month. However, the most striking dynamic has been the consistent hypocrisy of Palin supporters crying sexism when Obama’s camp has been slammed for uttering race time and time again. Initially, I laughed (“Oh, now when it’s convenient, it’s OK to point out inequities.); then I was dumbfounded (“Seriously? You’re going to play the gender card after blasting Obama and Clinton for mentioning their identities?”); and now I think I’ve got it.
It was a common theme post-Palin-announcement and Cindy McCain, along with others, claimed that Palin was the target of sexism. If talking about all those cracks in the ceiling weren’t enough, such a claim certainly “injected” gender into the campaign. I use that term only because it was used when Obama was accused of injecting race into the campaign after mentioning that he does not look like all of our previous presidents (link to Who’s Playing Who). I, personally, think it’s laughable to say that a person is injecting something that is fully a part of who they are. It’s like the elephant in the room. Don’t talk about the fact that Obama is multi-racial or that Palin is a woman. Ridiculous. So, I am not suggesting that we ignore Palin’s gender. However, I am suggesting that it’s hypocritical to criticize Obama for mentioning his race. It’s also contradictory to vilify the spouse of one candidate for lamenting about the missteps of our country and not even blink- or better yet- rally behind the spouse of the other when she feels sexism is afoot.
Yet, I should not be surprised.
My observation of these dynamics is that the reactions parallel the stereotypes embedded in the isms (i.e. racism and sexism). We have a stereotype of women as docile, conciliatory, soft and so injecting gender into the campaign does not seem so threatening. We can tame that beast. It can even work to our advantage. Let’s talk about gender and then show how Palin takes the beauty queen role and flips it on its head. She’s a lady who is also ready to lead. How quaint.
On the other hand, we have a stereotype of Black men as aggressive, dangerous and unruly. Therefore, injecting race into the campaign brings with it a host of issues. We don’t want to engage or even admit to those ideas. If we allow that discussion, we fear it can’t be tamed. It will become out of control and dangerous- note the parallel. Pro-Obamas don’t want to further tie their candidate to the negative connotation of what it means to be Black in
Let me be clear, I am not in the business of ranking isms. I honestly feel that they are inextricably linked. Both isms are problematic. However, the conversations about race become heated much more quickly and are volatile from the outset, because we have created such a toxic picture of what it is to be Black. It’s all the more interesting to note that Obama is multi-racial and not Black or African American as we have traditionally defined the group. Yet he is just as entangled in the stereotypes of Black men, which speaks to the larger issue of how we label people in our society.
You might be remembering that Hillary Clinton got a pretty hard time for naming sexism. My analysis is that she was at a disadvantage, because she did not fit our idea of a woman closely enough. She was perceived as harsh and unfeminine in her power suits and told to suck it up and to stop crying fake tears. Palin is perceived as a caring mother of five, beauty queen who could pass as a librarian in her frames and skirt suit. With that, she can fight the political status quo without being called unfeminine. It seems that injecting gender into the race might even be to her advantage. Since she fits and fights the female image at the same time, perhaps the hope is that she will be embraced by all for whichever suits their fancy.
So what have we learned? At the very least it seems that it is much more acceptable to talk about gender if you are female republican VP candidate than if you are a multi-racial democratic presidential candidate. It’s more acceptable to talk about sexism in our society than it is to talk about racism. As we race to see which targeted group will go down in history as the first, let’s not kid ourselves that we don’t see the relevance of Obama’s race or Palin’s gender. I don’t purport to know why the double-standard exists, but I have certainly seen a great deal of it lately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)