In light of claims that we have reached a place of post-racism, Latoya at Racialicious aptly points out multiple examples of how this is actually untrue. In light of the events of Hurricane Katrina, the Jena 6, the Jersey 4 and the Duke Rape case, all highly public moments where racism proved to be a relevant factor, we can hardly claim to be in a post-racial country.
But the very nature of our conversation about whether or not America is post-racial proves that, in fact, it's NOT. Just look at the competing narratives on the right and the left about what role race has played in this election. Last week I suggested that Colin Powell put his support behind Barack Obama at least partially because of race, whether he said it out loud or not, and that this support is understandable given the history of racism in this country. In response, there were some suggestions that perhaps this act was in itself racist. I want to talk about what comments like these tell us about how we understand race, especially in the context of this election.
Voting for Barack because he is black is considered problematic for two reasons:
The first reason, pushed by conservatives, is that this is somehow reverse racism (despite the clear proof that the McCain campaign is appealing to people to not vote for him because he is black). This reason is firmly rooted in white power, fear and control of this countries government and the potential threat that a black leader is to this establishment. It is just blatant old fashioned racism. I am not sympathetic to this line of analysis.
The second reason, pushed by liberals, is that he is a qualified candidate outside of being black, so we don't want him to be the affirmative action candidate and play into the right wing agenda of calling us "racist against white people." This reason is based in a belief that we are in a potentially post-racist time where we are actually witnessing a "reverse Bradley Effect" in which Americans are so past their racism that they want to prove it by supporting a black candidate.
It is worth noting these contradictions. Take a look at how themes of post-racialism play out in Frank Rich's Sunday editorial:
There are at least two larger national lessons to be learned from what is likely to be the last gasp of Allen-McCain-Palin politics in 2008. The first, and easy one, is that Republican leaders have no idea what "real America" is. In the eight years since the first Bush-Cheney convention pledged inclusiveness and showcased Colin Powell as its opening-night speaker, the G.O.P. has terminally alienated black Americans (Powell himself now included), immigrant Americans (including the Hispanics who once gave Bush-Cheney as much as 44 percent of their votes) and the extended families of gay Americans (Palin has now revived a constitutional crusade against same-sex marriage). Subtract all those players from the actual America, and you don't have enough of a bench to field a junior varsity volleyball team, let alone a serious campaign for the Electoral College.
I agree with Rich and I find most of his argument to be solid, but I do think he is attempting to pull from the post-racist frame. He even makes the "reverse Bradley" argument -- that voters want to vote for Obama because he's black -- later in the piece. But here's my question: Is a "reverse Bradly" possible considering one of the largest liberal messages being pushed right now is that this isn't about race? Aren't there almost certainly other racial factors at play here -- that white Americans are disgusted by the race-related tactics that McCain has pulled and that Obama's blackness isn't very threatening to them?
With these two frames about race, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. On one hand, we recognize the clear and blatant racist attacks that Obama is facing. On the other, we claim not to notice or care that the first black president is actually black. The simple truth is that in fact there are Americans voting for Barack Obama because he is the best choice AND because it is important for us to have a black president. As we said over and over again during the Democratic primary, gender is a factor but not *the only factor* in choosing a candidate to support. The same goes for race.
But this tension -- is race a major factor or a non-existant factor? -- is at the heart of this election, and I don't believe it is proof that we are in a post-racial space. Perhaps we are stuck somewhere in the middle of two different ways of understanding race. It is so important that Barack Obama is elected (and obviously not just because he is black) but let us not forget what this election is bringing out in all of America -- and not just the "real" Americans as defined by McCain and Palin. We must continue to push the way we understand race in American society and push to change the racist conditions these beliefs have created. Saying that we are post-racial or don't see race does not change the actual condition of our country.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Post-racism verses the "real" Americans.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10103
Wait, who said we were in a post-racist society? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I also have to point out that I have a problem with the term "reverse racism". It implies that the "correct" racism is towards Black people. It also implies that there are only two races: Black & White. The term itself is racist.
Anyway:
The way I see it with race and Barack Obama is just like Hillary Clinton and gender: it's the icing on the cake. Obama and Clinton are both great political leaders without considering race or gender. But acknowledging how much race and gender impact one's life experience, and the long history of only having White dudes run the country, being able to vote for a great candidate who also happens to be Black or who also happens to be a woman is even better.
The only time it would be comparable to affirmative action is if you had two equal candidates and you pick one or the other based on race and/or gender as the deciding factor. When it came to Clinton & Obama, I don't believe that Obama rose up just because he's Black, even though I was a Clinton supporter. I think people generally felt that he was an inspiring speaker, with a more consistent voting record and who ran a better campaign. But right now, it's clearly not about picking a White or Black or male or female candidate. It's pretty clear where both sides stand and who is going to be a better pick for America.
I doubt there is much that is "post-racist" about this election, but it can be helpful to break it down a bit.
I'm a Democrat and would probably have voted for whoever the Democratic candidate was, assuming the person wasn't completely unacceptable in some way (the Dem version of Palin, maybe). So if Obama were white but otherwise the same, it wouldn't affect my vote.
That said, I'm extra happy to vote for him because he's black, and I suppose if I were truly torn between the candidates, it might have been the deciding factor.
But that's leaving something out which is harder to figure out, which is how Obama's race affects my perceptions of him. I'm a white American (from the south no less) and I've felt enough racism within myself from time to think it probably has some effect. Do I see Obama differently from how I would see a white guy who behaved identically? I bet I do, but I have no idea how. I'm not even sure if the effect would be negative or positive for Obama specifically.
I recently read someone discussing a poll in which one of the questions asked of respondents was "Is race a factor in your voting preference?" The presumption, I would imagine, is that white people who said yes would be voting for McCain and that black people who said yes would be voting for Obama. And I got to thinking, how would I have answered that question? I am a white woman voting for Obama, and while his race isn't a factor in my thinking he's a good candidate for President, per se, issues of race and racism are certainly large factors that affect who I want to vote for. (For example, seeing McCain and Palin employ racist tropes and dogwhistles certainly makes me like them even less, while seeing Obama's approach to dealing with issues of race and identity makes me think he is an intelligent and forward-thinking person.) So in a sense, my answer would be yes, race as a concept is affecting my vote... but certainly not in the way that I would be the polltakers would expect.
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with voting for Obama because he is black or a minority. The same argument is fallible against candidates like Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, and Bobby Jindal because none of these individuals claim to represent the interests of blacks or minorities in this country. By highlighting the need for a national dialogue on race, Obama is clearly interested in advocating for different racial groups in America in a way that shows that racism is bad for everyone - those affecting, those perpetrating, and those caught in the middle.
To me, "post-racial" implies that a person's racial identity is of no importance. Because the news media and individuals are discussing it, however, I tend to think we are not yet "post-racial."
America will not be post-racial anytime soon. Certainly not anytime in the next three decades or so.
While you correctly point out that the Republicans have isolated various racial and class minorities, remember that there are huge swaths of the country where racial minorities are virtually nonexistent (think Wasatch front, midwest, etc.). Those areas are the reasons why America is still a center-right nation, and will likely remain that way as long as we have an electoral college system in play.
Racism is alive and well. And it will stay that way for quite some time, whether we coastal city folk like it or not.
Not that all midwesterners or Wasatch fronters are racist. But I think we can agree that the bastions of racism can be found in those states.
I am so tired of people claiming 'the midwest' is some lily-white bastion of red state ignorance. Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Gary, St. Louis--these are all cities in the midwest. They are far from all white. And let me remind you that Obama is from my true-blue state, which hasn't gone Republican for president in many many years.
"The "Midwest" covers everything from Ohio to Oklahoma, a ridiculously diverse set of states and climates, political and otherwise, and you really can't generalize anything about it.
For someone to say that race is not a factor is kind of like back in the day when a white person would emphatically say to their black friend, "but I don't see you as black, I just see you as a person." Well-intentioned, perhaps, but denying reality and slowing real progress. To keep moving forward, we need to be able to acknowledge how issues like race and gender affect our opinions and decisions.
Samhita,
While race is a cultural construct, racism continues in the USA.
This is no post racism era.
As for voting based on race, I think Obama's character was partly developed by overcoming racism, I appreciate his physicality, but, I am not voting for him based on race or skin tone or good looks.
However, there will be more African American's at the polls this year. There will be more mixed race people at the polls this year. There will be white people voting just to vote against him. They are using the word Muslim when they want to say the N word, but, can't because they are in public. Racists will be voting. Civil rights activists will be voting. Race is a factor in this election. Post racism is a nice dream, it is not a reality. If you have doubts, come to L.A. and pass as Latino for awhile.
@Alan: Actually, I can't agree. Bastions of racism are everywhere, not just in convenient states out in the midwest. You'll find rural communities as far north as New York and Pennsylvania that suffer from the same problems as the midwest. (Hell, I know at one point PA had more hate groups per capita than any other state).
The only time it would be comparable to affirmative action is if you had two equal candidates and you pick one or the other based on race and/or gender as the deciding factor.
I agree. And I think that if it came to that, if you had two candidates who were absolutely identical except for their race, then your only option is to vote based on race (unless you flip a coin). At that point it would make sense to look at our history and the monopoly that white guys have had on the presidency. Your vote is saying either, "Every president in history has been white, and I'm voting to change that," or, "Every president in history has been white, and I'm voting to keep it that way."
how could anyone ever think that we are living in a post racism america. with skinheads plotting to kill obama, and stating that the jews are responsible for the economic crisis that were in is just completely absent minded. everwere you look you can see various inequalities in anemican society.
Great post.
I just want to say that I of course see Obama as the qualified candidate he is. But as you say you just can't ignore race, not in this election. (I don't see anyone talking about McCain's ethnicity/heritage, however) But I'm pretty stoked about Obama running. How can you not be? I listened to his speech at the DNC partly because I knew it would be good and also because I knew it was an historical moment, because of his race.
@AVies
By saying that the bastions of racism can be found in predominantly white midwestern and Wasatch front states, I wasn't excluding the possibility of racism elsewhere (I even said so in my comment).
I meant that, relative to states like NY and PA, those are states where racism is SAFER and much more accepted in dominant institutions. Certainly, racism is spread all across America. But if you're looking for the racist strongholds, the geographical locations which multiply and reaffirm America's racist past...
Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing is more infuriating than being shoved into a category like this. I don't know if its in reference to all of the comments on the last post...
but:
two peoples stances on race relations don't necessarily align b/c they share the same skin tone!
So to say race IS a big enough deal to influence your vote is fine. However, to assume that someone will think like you do on race relations because they share the same skin tone is god damn INSANE.
This debate isn't new.
Look at George Schuyler vs. Langston Hughes during the Harlem Renaissance.
So you're telling me you'd vote for Schuyler, or Alan Keyes, or justify someone voting for them b/c they're black? Seriously?
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they fit into those fucking categories.
I think race is still a huge issue in this country. A big enough issue to have a problem with someone justifying voting for a person b/c of their appearance - and not their beliefs on things LIKE race relations.
Side note: Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain by Hughes directly addresses this issue of colorblindness if anyone is interested. The first paragraph alone is amazing.
The old phrase I heard from an NAACP leader in the early seventies still applies: "We're not where we ought to be, but thank God we're not where we were."
I've long been in Obama's camp, despite some significant disagreements I have with him on policy issues (the ironically named "Employee Free Choice Act" and "refundable" tax credits, for example). Occasionally, though, I run into a string of thought in pro-Obama camps that make me wonder it I should change.
Samhita's link to her April, 2007 post on the Duke lacrosse hoax is an example of such a string. Her earlier post went up after the NC Attorney General's press conference declaring their innocence but before the full printed report was available, I cut her a little slack on it. Somehow, though, I doubt she cited the case as an example of how reverse racism is still around, too. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.)
I note Danyell's objection to the reverse racism term, but it does describe a phenomenon and it's not limited to the Black/White divide. It simply is a recognition that the term "racism" usually applies to white prejudice against any people of color, and the term "reverse" is a recognition that the prejudice can flow the other way. Yeah, I know the argument that prejudice and racism are different terms and the latter only applies when prejudice is combined with political power. Without agreeing with that argument, I would point out that even with that paradigm, the Durham case is still an example of the phenomenon.
But when I waver because of the presence of such "fellow travelers", I remember Obama was one of the few prominent lawmakers who called for federal investigation of the prosecution shenanigans down there. And that includes the Senators from the states of which the defendants were residents. BO has the potential to be a transformational figure, as Powell said, and a transcendent figure. I also remember McCain has a few (more even) fellow travelers I cringe at.
MiddleageLiberal,
I really wonder what you're trying to prove here, but I must say I agree wholeheartedly with that first sentiment, as I'm certain most everyone does.
Actually, Samhita brought up the Duke case to show that very real racial tensions exist in this day and age and it's ridiculous to assert that we're in a "post-racial" era. Did you even read the post to which she linked? It was pointing out the ways in which the case played out in popular discourse and how they follow some fairly discernible patterns. It never made a claim of fact about guilt or innocence in either direction (though it was read that way and responded to by people who thought they knew better). Whatever.
Would you agree that the Duke case showcased several special ways in which race is played out in our society? Even the way in which the DA stepped forward before all evidence was known in order to forward his own career, the ways in which sides were taken to before any details had come out, the initial shift toward sweeping it under the rug, the McFadyen email, etc. Whatever you took away from that case, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that the US is "post-racial."
Since you would like to use the Duke case as a way to explain the difference between prejudice and racism (and, perhaps, an explanation of why there can be no such thing as "reverse racism"), let's look at the long-term effects:
Kyle Dowd and another of the accused received failing grades in one class, which were later reversed as part of a settlement.
The lacrosse team was reinstated in 2007 and the players were allowed by the NCAA to play an additional year to make up for the missed season.
The lacrosse coach (who had no problem with underage drinking and strippers at a team party) received an amicable settlement from Duke. He is now a coach at another (Division I) university.
The families of the accused received an additional (undisclosed) settlement from Duke.
The families are suing Durham for $30m. They are also pursuing a conspiracy case against Nifong, the DNA lab and some other parties.
So power has a lot to do with what racism is; it is a longer-view kind of phenomenon than prejudice. Certainly I've had my voice mocked late at night in Prospect Park, but I can also act a fool without worrying about how it's going to reflect on my race. One is momentary (we could call that prejudice, and that may flow both ways) and the other is constant (and almost always a one-way street).
So, don't cringe too hard... recognize that, yes, these kids were accused of a crime they most likely didn't commit. The public sprang to action on both sides of the fence and the resulting melee showcased the incredible amount of distrust, tension and downright hatred lie just under the surface of this "melting pot."
And that, if anything, lies at the heart of Samhita's point. If you disagree, I'd love to know why; whether or not the Duke students were guilty is kind of beside the point... even beside the point of the post you find so "cringe"-worthy. So, please, take a moment and read it over. Read all her posts if you'd like - don't just cherry-pick, but try to get a sense of what she was saying, the points below guilty/ innocent (on which Samhita didn't really make a clear assertion), the points about how continuing the season of lacrosse should not be the first concern of a university in light of a rape accusation, the points about the sort of reaction she (and other bloggers of color) received in regards to the story, the points about the culture of sex at Duke, the Bay to Breakers shenanigans, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, there was a whole lot more mentioned than just the Duke case, but, hey, that's really easy for people to get mad about, so let's just bring that up, right?
There is a lot going on here and, if you take a second to get past the knee-jerkiness, you might actually agree with Samhita more than you could ever imagine. You'd have to read what she writes with a bit more of an open mind, of course, but what's more "Liberal" than an open mind, right?
Be well.
This is so far down now you may not get back to it but I'll reply anyway. What made me cringe was looking at Samhita's last post linked to the Duke case. It was an example of the many folks who cling(ed) to the idea that "something happened" in that house beyond a duller than usual stripper show and some 19 year olds drinking beer. And she claimed the prosecution was dropped instead of ending in a declaration of innocence as it did.
Instead of an example of the effects of white racism, the case in my view was an example of AA racism against whites. The case is Exhibit A inthe proof that reverse racism cand and does exist. Although the prosecutor was white, he knew well that the greatest number of votes which could keep him in office were AA and he fanned the flames of black resentment toward "privileged white" boys by keeping the case going long beyond the time he knew the evidence for their innocence was overwhelming. Black precinct votes went over 90% in his favor.
Anyone who wants to use the Duke case to make points about race and sex in society and who was on record as assuming the guilt of the players must first say he/she was wrong in the earlier writings in order to maintain any credibility. She doesn't deserve hate mail for the positions she took and her refusal to recant, but she deserves to be challenged for that whenever she brings it up.
I confess to having substantial subjectivity on the topic. My (non-athlete) son was a freshman at Duke when the case began. I watched all the developments with an acute sense that he and therefore his family could very well have been the ones picked out of the blue for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I do appreciate the good will that comes across in your post. And I agree that we are far from being in a "post-racial" world.
Middleage Liberal,
First and foremost, thank you, too, for making an effort to keep it civil.
Next, let me be clear: I can't recall - or find a post in which - Samhita alleging the guilt or innocence of the Duke players, merely impugning the way in which the case was handled. And, if that is the thing on which your argument is hinged, it's not very stable.
Re: Nifong; he was among the more ethically compromised individuals in this case and he was a white guy who stood the most to gain if the prosecution had been successful. As you noted, he cynically played on racial tension in order to promote his own self.
Re: guilt/innocence; while the AG "declared" the players innocent, the case was actually dropped; ie, they were not found innocent in a court of the law, the prosecutor dropped the case. These are different and, technically, Samhita's reading was correct - just read the ABC news story to which she referred in the cited post.
Finally, Samhita never said "something" happened, she said, "None of us actually know what happened that night," which is spot on. Couple that with the consistent use of the word "accused" in her posts and you'll see that she never went "on record as assuming the guilt of the players." So, she should not have to recant for a strawman, plain and simple. She has had valid points all along and those points still stand. This case brought out nasty sides in a lot of people and institutions which need to be addressed, regardless of what happened on a night for which none of us were around.
Peace.
Oh, btw, I'm glad we're all in agreement on the major issue here, which is that the US is by no means "post-racial." It's important that forward-looking people challenge one another, yet find the spaces in which we share common ground so that we can move onward in creating a better world for ourselves and all those who will follow us.
Just looking at this again ('cos it's buried and I want to know what your thoughts are, ML) and realized my last sentence was weird... by "follow us," i mean generationally, not politically.