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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)