THE RACE RELATIONS PROJECT BLOG HAS MOVED

go to: www.racerelationsproject.org

Cultural Transformation and Our Personal Lives

Returning to Tuesday's class in which I discussed the dynamics of cultural transformation and how such transformation generally occurs on the fringes of collectivities...

When we encounter the "change makers" in a culture, more often than not they're people who have moved away from the mainstream and sought out ways to think outside the box. Most of us, most of the time, aren't doing that; we're smack dead in the middle of schools of fish carrying us through the well travelled and comfortable waters (that we don't even see as H2O). Einstein wasn't a professor or a student in some top physics program when he envisioned his theories, for example. Those professors would have scoffed at his imaginative discoveries and likely would have lured him into their unimaginative clutches for fear of not belonging. But his independence from the judgement of those he admired allowed him to follow his own call and create a new way of seeing the world.

As I think about all of the sub-cultural groups into which I'm embedded and that cajol me to continue to be a supporting actor in my own life, I'm constantly struck by how much I think inside the boxes that are all around me. I dress like my colleagues; I eat most of the same foods and dishes as others around me; I carry the thoughts that are similar to those of my friends; my music is a mix of the styles to which I've been exposed. That's an interesting example, by the way. I was recently listening to classical Chinese music and it didn't arouse my senses. So I kept listening...and still nothing. Why not? What am I missing by not hearing a synthesis between those melodic tones and the others that clearly appeal to me. I could be sitting on the most intriguing and dynamic fusion of sound that I could ever encounter, one that would open in my mind some amazing breakthrough idea about life -- but I don't hear it because maybe, just maybe I'm too stuck in the center of some familiar cultural system.

I understand that this is normal, that this is inevitable, that this happens to everyone. But I'm searching for dynamic wisdom...for something much larger than myself Maybe that's just me.

Check out this video:

What Are They Thinking?

In this electronic image of a poster with head shots of U.S. Presidents, take a look at the "photo" that was selected for Obama. Let me help you. Check out the lower right-hand corner. The image was a joke sent out in an email by an aide in the Tennessee state legislature. I think you can assume that the aid was a GOP staff member--but don't be fooled to think that there are no Democratic aides that would make a similar blunder.

This goes into the file labeled, "What in the world were they thinking?" I'm torn between assuming, on one hand, that the people who end up in this file are just a few knuckleheads AND that this is emblematic of the depth of racism in our society on the other. (People really do seem to make a lot of racist jokes...or so I've heard.)

Here's another one for the file.

Shortly after the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a Boston police officer and member of the Massachusetts National Guard sent out an email--and to lots of people, I should add--in which he called Gates a "banana eating jungle monkey." Ouch.

By the way, there is a sub-folder in this file that is titled "What the F are they thinking?" and this one probably goes there. The police office, Captain Justin Barrett (he's not a twenty year old rookie), asserted that he felt remorse and was sorry for the email and that he is not racist because, afterall, he has friends from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. "It was a poor choice of words," Barrett said. "I didn't mean it in a racist way. I treat everyone with dignity and respect."

Can I disentangle this just a bit. It seems to me that if I went to a KKK meeting and asked someone in a hood to define "negro," they just might say something like, "Negro? Why yes, son, that would be a 'banana eating jungle monkey'." What else would they possibly say that would be acceptable to the racist hoards waiting to reclaim the country from the brown skinned barbarians?

Here's another one for the WTF file:



Unfortunately, this guy only had the funds to pay an entry level, mail order public relations clean-up person and so he couldn't come up with something more convincing than blaming it on supporters of Charles Darwin. That was a pathetic attempt to spin this slip and it went nowhere. My god, brother, have some respect for our intellect.

I find myself saying some pretty off-the-hook things at random moments and yet I never seem to slip into this level of racist banter. I guess since I don't have the thoughts, the words never leave my lips. But I have to wonder if this how many of us think in our private moments. And then when these private moments get loose in the public domain, they spin about until we're all dizzy with the feeling of impending dread of having to suffer another media circus.

Sometimes the "attack of the racists" goes a bit too far -- like the condemnation of the poor schmuck who a few years back correctly and unwisely used "niggardly" in a meeting among colleagues. He got hammered pretty hard because his office mates didn't know what the word meant. (Of course, he might have been baiting them because without the "dly" the word is pronounced just like the N-bomb.)

Other times, however, I suspect that people who engage in what is so obviously offensive and racist behavior clearly deserve what they get. "We don't give a damn if it's part of your cultural heritage; we don't do that any more." Sure there can be a very fine line between these two reactions, and I don't want to be the judge of who crosses it. But sometimes enough if enough.

How to Write and Save Your Blog Entry

Political Correctness or Blatant Racism?

Microsoft in Web photo racism row Click on link if you would like to read an article about this.

So someone at Microsoft decided that a black man in an advertisement directed at Polish consumers is not a good idea. Or perhaps I should say "a black man's head," since his hands were fine.

If this had happened in the United States, I think it's probably more likely that the "photoshopping" would have occurred in the opposite direction--a white guy would have been replaced by a black guy. "We can't have a photo without at least one woman and one person of color, afterall." Given that this was directed at Polish consumers, however, I have to imagine that someone made a calculation about how much "color" would be acceptable to that very white population. I spent two months in Poland and it is clearly the "whitest" locale that I've ever visited--even whiter than the BJC during THON. (Can't we do something about that, by the way.)

Here's another way to think about this. Companies shift their advertising to appeal to different markets all the time. An ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, for example, while the exact same advertisement for Memphis or Miami buses would replace the model with a black woman in Memphis and an Hispanic woman in Miami. Is that racist? Someone decided that a black person will be less appealing to Polish consumers. Would you use photos of straight couples in your advertisements in LGBT magazines? Sometimes, no doubt, but you'd more often opt for a gay or lesbian scene.

At the heart of the Microsoft issue is that they cut out the black man's head and replaced "it" with one from a straight up white guy. It just feels raw. Maybe the event got press simply because the manipulation that drives the advertising dimension of marketing was exposed for what it is...manipulation. And maybe it's because when companies shift the "cultural inflections" in their ads, it feels right. But when they do the same thing with "race" it comes across as disingenuine. And maybe, just maybe, all of those people sitting around the table in that photo represent one single culture -- corporate culture. To tell one of them that he has to "relinquish his seat at the table because of his race" is...well...racist. Isn't that what racism is?

But really, don't accept my interpretation of this Microsoft debacle. What do you think?

How the Great Beer Summit Failed

If you didn't hear about the "beer summit" and the events that led to it, then clearly you were not paying attention to the mainstream media during the latter part of the month of July. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a very famous and well known professor to any regular viewer of PBS television, was arrested on his front porch by a police officer near (or actually on) the Harvard campus. CLICK FOR: summary of events.

We're not particularly interested in debating who was "right" and "wrong" in this mess, nor whether the arrest was fueled by racial profiling or racism. What is interesting is the follow-up and it's impact on race relations. So is this it? We give two aggrieved parties a beer and, as Laurie Mulvey says in the video, they agree to disagree and we call it "dialogue"?

Tell us what you think about what she's saying. Is the event (and the spillover) indicative of our need for racial dialogue and racial healing...or is it merely another case of a small incident getting blown out of proportion by mass media outlets in search of sales?

When Does a Conversation Step Over the Line?

How Jewish is Hollywood?


A few weeks ago we discussed African American elites and their privileged place in the socioeconomic hierarchy of the United States? Interesting conversation and one worth having. Here is another...

From the early days of the founding of this country, a belief running through this largely Christian culture has been that Jews are an enemy of the christian churches, will suffer the displeasure of God until they accept Jesus, and in more recent years, are members of a group that is intent on bringing down the United States government. Jewish people, many god fearing Christian Americans assert, and some very powerful ones at that, control both the banking and entertainment sectors of our society.

For those of you who do not know the history, and I'll assume that this represents most of you, the Christian churches have always had a rather rancorous relationship with Jewish people. In spite of the fact that Jesus lived and died as a Jew, and presumably will still be a Jew when/if he ever returns. In spite of the fact that early followers of Christ who wrote the Christian New Testament all considered themselves to be Jewish throughout their lives (yes, I'm not kidding). Jewish Christians turned against their Jewish brethren and throughout the years painted members of this group as the persecutors and murderers of Jesus--not the Romans. Why this happened is an interesting story, and one that I'll leave you to explore if you have any inclination to do so.

But the bottom line is that Jewish people have long suffered the wrath of Christians with long (albiet distorted) memories and short tempers...and a predilection to savage and brutal behavior. Martin Luther, for example, perhaps the most important figure in the emergence of Protestantism, wrote the script for Adolph Hitler. "Round up the Jews, the scourge of civilization, and put them in work camps or kill them," is essentially what he said. (Here's a summary.)

So it is with this in mind that I'm led to the current posting about the prevalence and power of Jewish moguls in Hollywood. Keep in mind that Hollywood does not determine this culture -- even though it certain plays a role in how we see ourselves as a people. To understand my reluctance to post the article one only has to read some of the comments that readers made about it. Some are thoughtful and considered, but all too many demonstrate a near total lack of understanding of a very complex issue. For those in this group, the article merely confirms their anti-Semitic thinking.

So when is it acceptable to open up a "pandora's box" of bigotry and misinterpretation? A few years back the Jewish Theological Seminary sponsored a coffee table book that described how Hollywood is run by Jewish people. It is called "Entertaining America," in case you're interested. Hmm... Check out the article and reflect on the implications.

Race and Advertising -- We're in a New World Now

"Race Becomes More Central to TV Advertising"


As a sociologist, I'm always reflecting on cause and effect. So, for example, once the parade is underway, does the horse pull the cart or does the momentum of the cart motivate the horse to keep moving? Did the Civil Rights Movement occur because Americans had altered their views about race? Or did their view points change largely because this movement got underway and led to cultural transformations that they could no longer ignore.

In a similar vein, what role do the mass media and advertising have in the continued alteration of our perceptions about people of different racial and cultural groups? Are media decision-makers telling us that multiculturalism is "hip" and we are now buying the message just like any other message? Or are the thoughts and standards of the public changing such that the magicians of Madison Avenue and Hollywood Blvd. must get on board the multicultural express.

When I see a brochure advertisement for Penn State with a photo of five people from five different cultural groups, there is a side of me that feels cynical, as though someone felt the need to be inclusive of everyone. A likely case of political correctness, I surmise. But at the same time, if I saw the same brochure with students of only one background, I'd be equally cynical and wonder what they were thinking to use such a photo. Like the statue of the children playing on the Hintz Family Alumni Center -- who are all white. There's just something about that statue that does not sit well with me.

And yet...I despise political correctness. And yet...what was the artist thinking? And yet...thankfully the artist didn't go out of his or her way to find child models who were all ethnoracially different. And yet...why didn't he or she do this?

It's quite a "catch-22"--you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Clearly this article is telling us that we're on the threshold of a new era of race relations and that it's bound to be positive for everyone, even as there are sure to be a few bumps in the road as we move forward. What do you think?

What's Funny About Obama...And What's Not.

In a world full of smart people, it seems we all still struggle with the question of where the line between funny and offensive should be drawn. My personal take has always been that people who get easily offended shouldn't take themselves so seriously (mostly because, in all likelihood, no one else takes THEM seriously).

In this instance, I'd like hear your thoughts on some of the very predictable jokes that have found their way into our cultural as part of the "first black president inauguration package." Let me preface these with my own reaction - LMFAO. I imagine some of these are gonna be touchy so if you feel a little uncomfortable, breathe . . . wooo-saaa . . . or picture Dave Chapelle doing it on his show and maybe you can find some humor in them.

And maybe not. Maybe none of them are funny; perhaps they're all in bad taste.

Countdown:

5. Basketball Obama



Of course all black people play basketball! Even the Ivy League lawyer types who make it to the White House. The only thing more stereotypical to highlight from his personal hobbies would be if he were caught playing spades with some friends on election night.

4. Obama's Stimulus Bill











. . . maybe not the bill you expected, but with the rising cost of food, jobs being lost and a president who never misses a chance to brand himself we all should have seen this one coming. I wonder if this gives you an extra discount on "black" foods like watermelon and chicken. (O.K., forget I said that.)

3. Obama Fried Chicken



Speaking of chicken (lol), well what do you know - seems like the president in cashing in on the community. Obama Fried Chicken, right in my neighborhood here in New York City. (Really. I couldn't make this up even if I tried.) True to Obama's diplomacy, it seems like the store offers Gyros for Greeks, Bagels for Jews, Pizza for Italians, and Halal meats for Middle Easterners.


2. The Gift of Music



I put this one high on my list of favorites because Obama actually brought this on himself. Since it seems to be well established that black people love music, Obama decided to share the love by giving the Queen of England an iPod as a gift. WHAT! LOL! It's hard to imagine how folks get along in life without some back-in-tha-day tunes but Obama won't have it. The jury is still out as to whether it was pre-loaded with some old school love jams and Motown favorites. But it did seem to include a few of his best talks. Now that's one confident man who could do that! And speaking of confidence...

1. Swagger Like Barack

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all die and go to heaven. God looks down from his throne and asks McCain, “Do you think you deserve to be in heaven?”

McCain takes a breath and then replies, “Well, I think so because I was a great leader and tried to follow the words in your great book.” God looks down and then says, “You can sit to my left side.”

So, McCain takes his seat and then God asks the same question to Hillary, “Do you think you deserve to be in heaven?” Hillary thinks for a second and then replies, “I think so because I have been fighting for the rights of so many people for so long.” God again looks down and this time says, “You can sit to my right side.”

Finally God turns to Barack Obama and asks, “Do you think you deserve to be in heaven?”
Obama smiled and replied, “I think you’re in my seat.”

Alot of people (mostly white) think Obama has a "God complex". But it's not a complex at all - it's swagger! Swagger is a subtle thing that many people who are not black don't seem to get. (Sorry.) Swagger is about one thing: respect. Rest assured, if President Obama feels disrespected, he will find himself dodging the "angry black man" bullet.

Check out this interesting article: "Cartoonists Tread Lightly When Drawing Obama"

The Mess Beneath the Words

This article critiques the way political groups find ways to discuss the brutal facts of war and combat without having to upset anyone in the process. Similarly, you might notice how we learn to use and not use certain terms in our conversations about race and culture by using words that "scrub up" the facts that are uncomfortable to face. And so we use language that permits us to exchange ideas without having to feel the facts that lie below those ideas. Think about it: We can discuss "inequality" without picturing children who truly do not know where their next meal is coming from -- those facing empty refrigerators and no heat or roofs over their heads -- or imagining others who regularly throw out large amounts of edible food and have more than enough warm space in their homes. And when we discuss "privilege," we don't have to imagine individuals with an attitude of detached entitlement to comfort and status, people who may actually be connected to that empty refrigerator. (Those privileged individuals, by the way, would clearly be anyone who is reading this blog -- if we contrast our lives to the less fortunate two-thirds of the world's population.)

Read the article:
"The Words Have Changed, But Have the Policies?"

Consider the term "enemy combatant." Many agree that this term is functional to us. This is tantamount to agreeing on a stereotype without having to consider the person who is being labeled "enemy combatant." How different is this than calling someone "ghetto" or "dot-head" or "illegal immigrant"? "Dot head" is a great term here because that mark on the forehead of a person who is Hindu (the "bindi" or "tilaka") actually has meaning that is related to a religious belief system as well as a person's station in life. This is quite different than "ghetto" -- a term that refers to an existing geographic location, an actual physical place that some people would always consider a "neighborhood" and not a "ghetto." How many of us could walk through New York City and agree on which parts of it are actually "ghettos," for example?

So "enemy combatant" doesn't reveal the meaning behind some line that we draw in the sand. How do we determine who is on one side of it and who is on another? So we must mystify and whitewash our language in order to convince ourselves that a person is inherently bad or good or violent or of one mind or another.

Now reflect on the article with the following questions in mind:

1. Which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand?
2. To what degree is the current (Obama) administration constrained by the same assumptions as the former (Bush) administration?
3. How much are we being manipulated so that our collective thinking gels into a mindset that supports the status quo? And how might that benefit YOU and for all of us?

With all of this in mind, I feel obliged to relay what President Obama said yesterday to a group of Turkish students: The United States is like a giant oil tanker. I moves very slowly and cannot be easily turned. Give it time...give me time. We cannot change things over night. (I'm not putting quotes around this because I don't recall his exact words.) So perhaps he sees some things more clearly than it might at first seem. Who's to say?

So You Think You Deserve an "A," Do You?

I'm reluctant to say much about this for fear of being labeled a crusty old relic who is out of touch with the demands of the new global marketplace and the difficulties of landing a job or a position in some post graduate program. However, as we enter the final weeks of this academic year, I suppose now is as good of a time as any to push the issue, even if it doesn't have much to do with race and ethnicity.

I do want to say that it's a relief that some people are starting to seriously explore this issue of grades and entitlement. Here at Penn State I've watched the total number of "A" grades jump from 27 percent when I started teaching in 1990 to over 40 percent today. I'm reasonably certain that students have not gotten THAT much smarter, although I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong.

This issue doesn't stop here at Penn State but rather appears to be a nationwide phenomenon -- and one that is most visible at more expensive private schools. And from within my own anecdotal experience, grade inflation has occurred at the same time as we see a widespread decline in reading -- which is to say, my students seem to read less and less.

Just read the article. I'm sure you'll have much to say: "Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes"

I want to add that many schools have pursued policies of "grade deflation," in which they have tried to actually limit the overall number of A grades. Check this out from USA Today:

Since Princeton took the lead among Ivy League schools to formally adopt a grade-deflation policy three years ago — limiting A's to an average 35% across departments — students say the pressure to score the scarcer A has intensified. Students say they now eye competitive classmates warily and shy away from classes perceived as difficult.

"It used to be that you'd let someone copy your notes if they were sick," says Mickel, 21, of Monroe, La. "Now, if someone misses classes, you'd probably still let them, but you're also thinking: 'Gee, you might get the A while I don't.'"

There is no quota in individual courses, despite what students think, says Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel. Still, the policy has made an A slightly more elusive. In the first two years, A's, (A-plus, A, A-minus), accounted for 41% of undergrad grades, down from 47% the two previous years.

Though a typical Princeton overachiever might blanch at the mere mention of a B, the university is sticking by its policy, Malkiel says. Students' employment and graduate school placements actually have improved the past two years, she says.

Perhaps we'll start doing this at Penn State.

Those Damn Mexicans Are At It Again

The other day I received and email from a friend that contained a video of a story that Fox News broadcast a couple of years ago. The tag line said that I needed to watch it to understand a terrible injustice brought about by liberals, illegal immigration, and political correctness -- not necessarily in that order. It was one of those emails that I receive once or twice per week. Take a look at the video for yourself (it's only a 36 second clip):



If your first response is to tilt your head to the side and scratch the back of your skull while having a dazed and confused look on your face, then you know exactly how it affected me. The thought that went along with said reaction, however, was the same one that I had when I was a kid and someone offered me the opportunity to see a "bearded lady" at the local carnival that passed through my home town each summer -- "this simply sounds too crazy to be true."

Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to conduct an investigation to see if I could get to the bottom of it and find out what really happened. I started by reading some of the comments that were being made on YouTube. They were pretty scathing: "Round 'em up and send 'em home," said one patriot. Another brain surgeon in the making chimed in, "This is what happens when we elect a black man as president." (The politically correct violation that is referenced in the video occurred a couple of years ago, by the way, long before Obama entered our national spotlight.) Clearly, these blockheads were not searching for the real story and so I would not find it there.

So I plugged some combination of words such as "Oregon Mexican firefighter fired" and quickly found what I wanted: a statement from the State of Oregon's Department of Forestry that explained the matter in considerable detail. It took me all of about 45 seconds to read, but what it revealed was very depressing (given the number of people who watched and believed the original story).

It makes sense that so many people hate liberals and Mexicans and political correctness. With stories like this floating around on the WWW, who wouldn't be clamoring for the microphone to add to the shouting chorus of red-blooded Americans who want to preserve the United States for the "real Americans" (not to be confused with Native Americans, of course).

So how many times have you been duped by such an email or a rumor? How often do you find yourself saying, "No way. Can't possibly be true. I've got to look that up before I let it lodge into my RAM?" As opposed to, let's imagine, "This sounds fishy and so I'd better explore it before I pass it on."

This stuff cuts both ways, mind you, because misinformation enters the public discourse from both the right and the left wings of the political spectrum. (This story originally aired on Fox News, but left-wing blogs and web sites picked it up and carried it as though it was true, by the way.) My gut inclination tells me that the right is slightly better at putting out misinformation than the left, and that the right has less scruples about lying--but only by about a 51/49 margin. Perhaps that's just because more of their political operatives have written tell all books about their strategies and misdeeds. (If you haven't read any of these and you fancy yourself a conservative, then perhaps you ought to take a look.)

An addendum: One respondent who is a firefighter noted the utmost importance of communication while fighting fires and pointed out that non English speaking firefighters would be problematic on English speaking crews. I absolutely agree and would maintain that Mexicans who do not speak English should NOT be on crews with U.S. firefighters who only speak English. The point of this blog entry is to highlight anti-Mexican hysteria.

For the Sake of the Children, Please Keep the Disabled in the Closet

I just read through today's copy of the New York Times but I'm feeling none of that pessimism and negativity that I usually feel about my fellow Americans. In fact, I'm feeling a might chipper about living on this side of the Atlantic, a bit palpably relieve to be an American -- and all because I stumbled across this story about some narrow-minded Brits. My how advanced we Americans have become. How open-minded we are. How 21st century.

And I'm suddenly feeling nostalgic and fuzzy about political correctness. Thank goodness for the PC police...bless their finger wagging souls.

Okay. I should let you in on the story. You can either read about it or pull the same information from a video.

Disabled Host of Kids Show Draws Criticism



So would this happen in the United States? Can you imagine a network here receiving this many complaints? If we're different on this side of the drink, is it because we're beyond this issue or is it because we've learned NOT to discuss it, that it would be crass or improper to raise this as an issue?

I'm struck by a couple of things. First, I'm amazed that it's legal to have children before we know what to say to them when they encounter a human being with only one hand. I've thought about the merits of sterilization for people who believe it's fine for children to free base coke or chase the dragon, or even for adults who do not believe in child safety seats. But now along comes these people. Obviously these parents have learned to write (since their complaints seem to take the form of the written word), so they didn't suddenly emerge from a cave where they've been living. But to need so much rudimentary parenting advice is really beyond the pale.

Second, I'm struck by how it is that any of us would be uncomfortable around someone with only one hand. I understand that most people have two hands and that we all experience surprise at things that are unnatural or abnormal for us. But I'm thinking now about how strange it is that we so quickly establish standards of normalcy and walk through the world with those standards lighting our paths. Why do we do that?

So am I alone on this issue? Granted they only receive twenty-five complaints, but since the story broke they have received even more complaints -- I guess people who thought themselves rude if they spoke up. Keep in mind that the vast majority of Brits think the complainers are idiots, dolts, and blockheads.

Where do you think Americans would stand on this issue?

White People Will Never Win the "Race Game"

Take a look at this clip from a 60 Minutes interview that Mike Wallace conducted with Morgan Freeman. (You might want to watch it twice -- it's only 55 seconds.)



Here's what Bryson Nobles, the former program director with the Race Relations Project, had to say about it:

While I've never been all that enthusiastic about Black History Month, I've also never thought it to be something to get all bent out of shape about. I love Morgan Freeman - but I think he's wrong here. I imagine that at his age he is exhausted by being a "black actor," and with the feigned and unconvincing empathy that many white people exhibit during February. But I also think that having a month to celebrate black people is no less silly than having a day to celebrate your birthday - both are spaces of time set aside to give someone who deserves year-around acknowledgment attention for something they played a relatively small role in bringing into the world -- mostly because it is customary.

White people are not relegating our history to a month; most are simply being cordial the same way that our family and friends are cordial on our birthdays so as to avoid the consequences of not acknowledging what most people probably find unimportant (or uninspiring) to acknowledge in the first place. Some of us love birthdays, but probably most of us hate the attention and find birthdays more annoying as we get older.

So indifference is more likely to be the emotion people feel about BHM - let's not displace our disinterest or make white people play the race game that we all know they can never win.

Not talking about race doesn't improve race relations any more than ignoring a cavity helps your tooth or ignoring lust helps your marriage. Race is real and it's okay to talk about and it's only as boring and unproductive as your inability to say anything original about it.

Morgan Freeman had an opportunity to say something constructive, and if he couldn't, the default should not be a disarming attack that only makes white people more unwilling to talk about race. He should have just graciously moved on to another subject.

So what do you think about Bryson's words? How is Freeman playing into the race game? And what do you think he means by calling it a game "that white people can never win"? Hint: What happens if Mike Wallace says, "Well, yes, I think that Black History Month is silly and that we should stop celebrating it?"

Follow-up comments from Bryson Nobles:

Try to imagine the overplayed black guy who grew up in "da hood," plays basketball, wears “do rags” and “tims,” will eat a small mountain of chicken (with hot sauce, of course), wash it all down with "red" kool-aid and top it off with watermelon flavored Now 'n Laters for dessert . . . then throw in one more ridiculous stereotype for fun - that's the Bryson Nobles you've been responding to.

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to watch, read and respond to the Morgan Freeman clip. This is important stuff that many people are afraid to touch it so please keep talking, asking questions and not be put off by those who are too afraid and/or too lazy to talk about it.

If you will permit me, I'd like to round out the Freeman discussion with a few thoughts:

I, like most of you, believe Black History Month should not be "the" means for learning about black people's involvement in American history. But THAT is the unfortunate consequence of being birthed and distributed by an education system that tends to compartmentalize things. The roots of Black History Month actually begin with an educator (a black one in fact, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, circa 1926, based upon his teachings at Howard University) to celebrate the "birthdays" (ironic to my analogy) of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass and their importance to black people. As a side tangent here, this is what's curious about black people who frame Black History Month as though it was created by white people to pacify us or "relegate" our history to one month. With all due respect, this is why talking matters because most people don't seem to know that or fail to talk about it.

But my original criticism is that we should not spend February talking about "we only get February." Morgan Freeman hardly added anything meaningful to the race dialogue. Just because talking about it hasn't worked to this point doesn't mean it can't. Maybe we need to learn how to talk about race. I sharply disagree that talking about our differences has to result in driving us apart. Men are different from women. Sure we have tons in common but we are different and that's awesome. A lot of white people can't dance (save Justin Timberlake - lol). A lot of black people like chicken (I do). A lot of Hispanics come from huge families and play the music God-awful loud (I married into one). A lot of Asian dishes are made of noodles, and yes, a great many Hollywood executives are Jewish. But how do any of those things rank us among each other? They don't, but they do exist all the same whether you share my light-heartedness or not. All those "differences" make for an interesting story - one that we would be remiss for overlooking.

Lastly, I agree that we should learn about all these cultures and races and histories. I earnestly do. But I am afraid that this is not one that we should leave up to the school systems. Mark Twain said, "Don't let schooling get in the way of your education." A school system's poor handling of sharing our histories is EXACTLY why we can't stop talking about it.

Say "Hello" to My New Black and Brown Friends

Here's a great Washington Post article by Roxanne Roberts and Krissah Thompson on black integration in the "A list" world of Washington, DC.

D.C.'s High-Level Social Scene Now Mingles Black and White

Here's what stands out to me. There is a national assumption that black Americans are, as a collective group, on average, poorer than white people. Not that every black American is poor--but when people think "black" they'd be much more inclined to connect it to the word "poor" rather than the words "middle class" or "rich." This is damaging to our collective psyche in general and race relations in particular because it means that other groups, especially white people, don't naturally feel as though they have something in common with large blocks of black Americans. But the truth of the matters is that half of all black Americans are middle class -- which means that those in the other half are either rich or poor. And as middle class Americans, fifty percent of blacks have all of the same struggles as all other members of the middle class--including all of the mundane and often boring concerns such as whether using the coupon to purchase a toaster at Wal*Mart is a smarter option than sending in the rebate that Target offers.

Granted, a disproportionately larger number of black Americans are poor when compared with white and Asian Americans, and racism continues to affect the life chances of people with dark skin who live in America, but the focus of this article is wealthy black Americans. That is to say, RRRRRRICH black people whose powerful and privileged lives would be so alien to most white Americans that the latter would not even have a longing to be like them. This has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action, by the way, and everything to do with using connections to make more connections and cashing in privilege to gain more privilege. And while these black men and women might feel some unease walking the halls of power given the history of "their people," one likely would not know it by listening in on their conversations. Moreover, these black A-listers probably care about black people in need just about as much as white A-listers care about white people in need. You can decide for yourself if you think that both groups care "a great deal" or "not much at all."

And keep in mind that this article could well have been written about the privileged strata of Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans because the elites of each of these groups have also carved out lives that by and large remain mysteries to many tens of millions of white people.

So how does this article stack up against how you think of black Americans and, if you have time to listen to his shtick, what might you say to Chris Rock? When you think about "white privilege," how do you integrate these African American (and Latino, Asian, American Indian) "A-Listers" in to your thinking?

Embracing Muslims in the Heartland?

Here is a story about an interesting experiment. A professor took a few of his students on a journey across the United States in order to better understand how people react to Muslims, members of the world's second largest religious group.

"Muslim in America: A Voyage of Discovery"

A couple of things stand out from this story.

First, even in small towns the film crew dressed as Muslims were largely treated with detached respect or perhaps benign indifference. According to survey data, many people they encountered had negative thoughts about Muslims, but they didn't seem to let on that they held antipathy toward them.

"Recent national polls find that four in ten Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam, five in ten believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence, and six in ten believe Islam is very different from their own religion. All this despite the fact that seven in ten admit they know very little about Islam. And yet Americans rank Muslims second only to atheists as a group that doesn’t share their vision of American society."

Second, for as much as Islam is in the news these days, and has been in the news for the past eight years, people don't seem to know much about the religion. Nobody should be surprised by this--and yet I continue to feel my head shake back and forth in wonderment. (Keep in mind that half of all Americans cannot name the U.S. Vice President at any one moment because, as one might imagine, it's not an easy thing to keep track of between episodes of the Real World and American Idol...and searching out good deals at Wal*Mart.) Nevertheless, I'd like to think that people would put a modicum of attention into some basic elements of a religion that is followed by nearly a quarter of the world's population.

So what do you think about both this project and how they were treated?

Click HERE to watch an interesting video of the crew visiting in Arab, Alabama.

This is Racism, in Case Anyone is Wondering

I'm not sure how to make sense of this story other than to see the reactions of these New Yorkers as "racist." Anyone who knows me well also knows that I am very careful about throwing out that word. But in this case, I think I can use it freely...and without constraint.

The attached article from the New York Times is a bit long, but it's well worth the read. I'll spare the details and not pontificate about all of the things that I see in it. However, I do want to say one quick thing.

All of these people who are complaining about Asian Indians "taking over" this Queens, New York neighborhood seem to imagine that their people, the relatives who came before them some 60-80 years ago, did NOT take over that very same Queens neighborhood from some other cultural group. For you see, at some point in the not too distant past, the relatives of these Asian Indian haters who are featured in the article were the ne'er-do-well "invaders" who were destroying some other group's way of life (and I don't mean some Native American group). Their relatives were the scourge, the vermin. THEY were the ones who did not want to assimilate; THEY were the foreigners; THEY were the people who were going to ruin the flavor of what the neighborhood had become.

It's rather remarkable how we don't like to look backward...and how what comes around seems to inevitably go around.

By the way, I love the gesture of Mr. Patel, the one Indian owner, offering to sell the property to anyone who wants it--at a loss. "Okay...quiet now please."

Read the article.

Those Undocumented Thieves?

So a buddy of mine sent me an email with a video link discussing "illegal immigrants" using health care facilities in the United States. Along with the video came some text (that he did not write). It's one of those emails that gets sent around to the ever present protesting subculture of web users. Here's the text that was in the email:

This is one small hospital in Florida...Unbelievable! PLEASE WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO. EVERYONE NEEDS TO HEAR THIS. IT AFFECTS EVERY ONE OF US!!! This is why you can't afford good health care. This should offend every US tax paying citizen. This is not only happening in Florida, but every state in the U.S.

Before I make any comments, you'll need to watch the video.



So you're probably outraged that this could happen, especially if you're one of the many tens of millions of Americans who do not have health care or who are in mountains of debt because of health care bills that you can not pay. Imagine returning to your country of origin and leaving all of those bills behind -- and not even having to pay for your return flight! I'm sure you're thinking that that would be a nice option to have.

But as matters such as these go, especially things that seem so incredibly outrageous, there are always other factors to consider.

Let me discuss just one. There are over four million U.S. citizens living permanently in other countries. This doesn't include students studying abroad, nor are Americans serving at U.S. military bases on foreign part of the mix. It does include people working for multinational companies, however. So if we assume that half of this group (two million people) are simply living on their own in foreign countries and not for some company that probably provides them with health care, we probably should also assume that a large number of the remaining number of people are uninsured. Anecdotal observation on my part while spending years living abroad would lead me to conclude that there are a lot of people who just wanted to blow out of the U.S. and live somewhere else because they didn't appreciate their lives here -- like many of the nearly 700,000 Americans currently living in Canada.

Here's the hitch. A significantly large segment of these uninsured, free-wheeling expats are living in countries where they have access to government health care (e.g., Canada, UK, Mexico, among probably a hundred other places). What do you think happens when one of them who is living on the Cliffs of Moher on the west coast of Ireland is suddenly stricken with pneumonia? Do you think that the locals just let them die? Absolutely not. He or she goes to the hospital and the Irish doctors and nurses take care of the problem. And when it's time to pay? Sometimes the hospital is reimbursed and other times the staff simply says "You're welcome" as our fellow countryman or woman walks back into their Irish life.

Back in the 1980s I spent three days in a hospital in Mexico City having my appendix removed. It was a crazy story -- and I mean A CRAZY STORY -- and one that I never seem to get around to telling. It was in a hospital in a particularly gritty part of town and the doctors said that an appendectomy was a simple procedure for them compared to the gun shot and knife wounds they typically dealt with. My total bill? A pint of blood. They asked me to donate a pint of blood...adding to the end of the request, "if you wouldn't mind." That's it. Here's this gringo hanging out in Mexico who eats too many jalapenos and drinks too much tequila and ends up needing an emergency appendectomy -- and the people of Mexico have to pay for it. I'm sure some investigative journalist could have done a provocative expose about the hospital beds that were being occupied by "rich Americans" while poor Mexicans were being turned away.

I'm not saying that all things are equal and that U.S. citizens should be happy and willing to pay for the health care of people who are living as undocumented laborers in this country. What I am saying is that I'd like to see someone add up the total health care costs of Americans who are living abroad that are paid by foreign tax payers. If I had to guess, I'd surmise that the total cost for foreigners who lack insurance and are living legally or illegally here in this country would be more, but only because our health care costs are inflated. Many of the million dollar charges discussed in the video are largely unreasonable, even if they are true on paper. For example, my wife had shoulder surgery last summer and her insurance company was billed twenty bucks for a small bag of ice that they got out of an ice cooler. So I imagine that if the Guatemalan man receives a few packs of ice every day for a year, that amounts to $22,000 -- and I'm sure the hospital is keeping track of every single charge hoping that they'll one day be reimbursed by somebody...anybody.

I'm also not saying that this is something about which we ought not be concerned. And it's unreasonable to think that any hospital should absorb all of the charges for the care of someone who is not even a resident of the state in which that hospital or clinic is located. However, let's keep these matters in their proper context because when we point a finger at someone else there are always three directed back at us.

American Cowards

Our new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has found himself in hot water with some comments that he made on Wednesday: "In things racial we have always been, and I believe continue to be in too many ways, essentially, a nation of cowards." Pundits, particularly those on the right, have called these words "reprehensible" and "inflammatory." While he actually said nothing new, it seems to be the fact that he used the word "coward" that has people upset. But which people? White people? Black people? Brown people?

Beyond this single statement, listen to this portion of his speech and try to find something that is outlandish.



What he said, in a nutshell, is that Americans are afraid to discuss race. What is wrong with making that claim? Is he off-base about that? He didn't single out any group. Or are some folks assuming that he implied that only white people are the cowards? How would this be received if this was George Bush saying this? Or Bill Clinton?

Lots of people are saying that fifty million cowards seemed to have gotten beyond their fear and put an African American in power who would then appoint Holder as the Attorney General. However, he's not discussing any singular act of racism or anti-racism or racial preference but, rather, the way we live our lives -- which is to tolerate other races in our work lives but maintain very segregated personal lives. By the way, the data pretty clearly support him on this.

The overarching problem with Holder's words is that white people don't know how to interpret them--and so they return to the old script: "It's a black guy speaking about race. So he must be critiquing us."

Another element of the old script is that most any statement made about race from one group is going to offend another group. That's exactly what Holder is talking about. So if we're not a nation of cowards, we would just allow him his critique and keep talking to each other, don't you think?

Let's Stay Focused

The killing of Oscar Grant III, an African American, by a white Oakland police officer is startling in many respects. For one, the question of responsibility in the vast majority of such killings is murky at best, and never has there been video that so clearly captures and validates the claim that is made by so many people of color, especially black people -- that police regularly mistreat people of color and sometimes kill people in cold blood (and then receive immunity for their actions). Even the case of Amadou Diallo had some gray shadings in the middle of the facts -- the police thought that he was reaching for a gun when he was reaching for his wallet. In Oakland by contrast, it certainly seems to me that there was virtually no possibility that the police officer could have imagined that Grant was a danger to anyone, not even himself. In fact, the video makes it look like an open and shut case of cold-blooded murder.




Let's comment on this -- but do so in light of the following six statements:

1. The only police officers in this country who are NOT appalled by Grant's killing (aka: "murder") are likely those who are members of some underground white supremacist organization for cops or the police officers who are just plain psychotic. So don't t say something like "the police are racist" unless you are also willing to stand behind some other stereotype such as "Mexicans are lazy" or "Irish are drunks."

2. The vast majority of murders of young black and brown men in the United States are committed by other young black and brown men and NOT the police. That many of these murders are committed for inane reasons (e.g., "he called me out") seems to me to be an excellent reason to riot in the streets and call for and end to the violence.

3. Racism allows people to act toward people from other groups in ways that they would not otherwise act -- and we have to imagine that the officer did not see Mr. Grant as one of his own people (i.e., his nephew, his brother, or even a version of himself).

4. It's not easy being a police officer in neighborhoods where large numbers of people hate you until they need you (and therefore call 911 and expect you to help them in some way). It's a very stressful job and one that operates on fear and suspicion. It's not a reason to commit cold blooded murder -- but it is a point to reckon with and one that few people ever take the time to entertain, until they become a cop.

5. This killing happened three weeks before the swearing into office of the first "black" U.S. President.

6. Because you rarely hear about violence committed by the police it doesn't mean that this is an isolated case. Watch this if you don't believe me:



So what do you think? What do you make of these two killings? And why haven't we heard more about the second shooting at the hands of the New Orleans Police Department? How many more egregious acts of violence and hate do law enforcement personnel commit against innocent people that never make the news?

If your first response is "I can't believe that this could happen in the U.S.," then what do you think actually does happen out there on the streets? I mean, what do you think is REALLY going on? What might you not be seeing?

Spike in White Racism?

I generally have a low tolerance for people who want to make a big deal out of isolated incidents when it comes to racism, sexism, homophobia and what are generally intolerant actions and attitudes. And so with that in mind, I'm a bit reluctant to discuss what appears to be a spike in intolerance among some segments of the U.S. populace as a result of our recent election.

Nonetheless, I'd be remiss for not examining what may be an issue upon which the "everything is better crowd" needs to reflect. None of this is surprising, of course, but it might be happening under the radar of our major media outlets because there is more important news to cover--like the end days of the global capitalist empire. Just a small story that merits a few weeks of saturating coverage.

Check out this article by Andrea Shalal-Esa that was carried by Reuters: "White Community Adapts to Obama Reality"

White Supremacist Recruiters "Thank" Obama

Check out this article about Obama and white supremacists. No, the movement is not dead; it was not driven into obscurity by the groundswell of populist racial solidarity that seems to have swept through the country last fall. But when was the last time you read a story or watched a TV feature about some off the hook neo-Nazi or KKK family? If you're under thirty, and even if you've been paying attention to the popular media feature stories in recent years, I'll wager that you've probably never heard of the Aryan Nations, David Duke, W.A.R., Posse Comitatus, and the A.N.P. That last acronym, by the way, stands for the American Nazi Party.

I can assure you that such stories were commonplace in the 1980s and most of the 1990s. There was talk of the entire state of Idaho being taken over by white supremacists--and some people argued that we should let it happen in order to "just get rid of this country's rogue elements." You could hardly turn on the daytime television without surfing past a story about a family that thinks Satan lives on earth disguised as a Jew or that black people "rose out of the mud." The news of marches and beatings and secret societies captured the public imagination back in those years. And while these groups never went away, they've certainly not captured the interest of mainstream media outlets for well over a decade.

But they're back. The skinheads, the Nazis, and the Bruders Scheweigen--they're all back and they have some things to say to everyone who is not a convert. They want to talk about this Barack Hussein Obama guy. They have some things to discuss about Mexicans and gays and lesbians...and this country's future. And if we are to believe the following article, pretty soon we're all going to once again start finding their recruiting leaflets on our windshields when we return to our cars after a fun day of search for blue light specials at K-Mart. I'd like to imagine that we've moved beyond such polarized thinking, but I'm afraid that that has not happened. And so we are probably in for some rather interesting 20/20 episodes--"Are there Nazis working somewhere in the White House?" On the bright side, the return to the limelight of these nefarious characters will surely keep Jerry Springer on the air for another four years.

"Obama Called a 'Visual Aid' For White Supremacist Recruiting"

When Do We Cross Over the Line?

Being an iconoclast and a humorist, I find that I am often amused by irreverence. This is especially true when the impious behavior is directed toward poking fun at the rich and powerful, regardless of their race, ethnicity, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. And yes, in my own attempts to juxtapose disparate ideas or simply get a laugh, I have certainly stepped over that ever shifting and often unrecognizable line between being clever and being offensive. I never try to offend, I should add, but when pushing into new territories of thinking, sometimes it just happens.

Recently I have been struck by some pieces of humor directed toward Barack Obama and I have been trying ascertain whether the creators have crossed a line. The first one, the photo with the watermelons (above), is titled something like "No, children, there will be no Easter Egg hunt at the White House this year." Playing directly on the stereotype that black people lose themselves in the presence of watermelon, any of us would have a difficult time maintaining that the photo was created in the spirit of a good, healthy laugh.

But why would it be seen as offensive? First, when someone says that something is "offensive," that person is actually saying that he or she feels attacked--and that the attack hurts. Second, feeling attacked in this way stems from sensing that the attacker believes that there is some degree of truth to their offensive statement, video, photo, etc. I've always thought that "offense" is the wrong way to describe such a feeling, but it's the one that we're stuck with for the time being.

While I find myself saying that people can too easily toss around the "I'm offended at that" statement, particularly because when asked many cannot say exactly what they are offended by, I do recognize that the essential feeling of not wanting to be judged is what is at the core of the feeling--and how many of us mind if others compare us to people who are like us in some identifiable way (e.g., from our nuclear family) but then engage in some immoral or improper behavior (e.g., walk around town naked while proclaiming the gospel of L. Ron Hubbard)?

I've heard people argue that joking that black people like watermelon is much like joking that Japanese like sushi or that Koreans like kimchi or that Mexicans like hot peppers. Sure not all do, but by and large those foods are extremely popular in those three cultures and so the generalization works. The difference, and hence why the White House watermelon image is offensive, is that blacks have been historically portrayed as hapless, stupid and apelike while eating watermelon. In other words, the watermelon has been used as a prop to drive home the point that black people are inferior.

So last year someone produced a CD with a number of songs on it and passed it around in (mostly) conservative circles--after Rush Limbaugh hawked it on his radio show. Most of the songs simply poke fun at liberals and hypocrisy (e.g., John Edwards Poverty Tour"), but others were written to provoke. One was called "Barack the Magic Negro" (the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon" with lyrics about Obama). My first question to myself was, Is this how Republicans are hoping to recapture the black vote? In fact, one of the men who was vying for leadership of the Republican National Committee, Chip Saltsman, sent it to his supporters. That's pretty dumb. Forget about political correctness for a moment, and whether free speech should be curtailed. Just ask this question: Would you want a guy leading YOUR political organization who thought it was okay to send such a song out to people who are already considered by many to be oblivious to race concerns--if not outright racist? Oh yeah, THAT GUY will surely revive the Republican Party.

Listen for yourself:

"Barack the Magic Negro"


Here's another song making light of Latinos who are perceived to not want to assimilate into the United States and who, it is thought by many, want to turn this country from one that is English speaking to another that is Spanish speaking. So imagine that you are like the majority of Mexican Americans in this country and have taken residency in the United States, speak English, and swear allegiance to the stars and stripes. Along comes a song that tells others around you--your barber, your electrician, your boss, your child's teacher--that Mexicans don't want to be Americans and have fealty first and foremost to Mexico. The negative repercussions could be enormous, like the Latino residents who have recently been killed by angry youths on the streets of NYC who simply wanted to beat down an immigrant. Clearly someone or some thing helped these youth to cross over some line between humor and offense--and the shift had grave consequences for those who died. (One, by the way, was from a tiny town in the Ecuadorian Andes where I spent several weeks working with the local priest, and so the story did hit home with me.)

Listen to this song:

"Star Spanglish Banner"


What do you think? Do YOU know how Mexicans feel? With how many Mexicans have you spoken about this issue? What do you know about how such sentiments positively or negatively affect their lives? How would you feel about Mexican neighbors or co-workers or roommates or playmates for your child AFTER listening to this song?

What's in a Name?

There is a family in northeast Pennsylvania who wanted the bakery at their local ShopRite supermarket to make a cake for their son and they were upset that the store refused to put their child's name in the frosting. They went public thinking that they would get some sympathy--all they wanted, after all, was for their son to celebrate his birthday as other children do--but the compassion wasn't forthcoming. Clearly this is one of those stories that necessitates an understanding of ALL of the facts. So here they are:  the child's name is Adolph Hitler Campbell. (Pictured in the photo is JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Adolph's younger sister, and the father.)  Keep in mind that "Adolph Hitler" is just a name; nothing more than a unique vocalization that creates a sound that others can recognize as descriptor for, in this case, another person. But most of us don't look at it like this particular name because attached to the sound of Adolph Hitler are some very dark associations.

This reminds me that Adolph is one of those names that has been pretty much stricken from the list of options in all but white supremacist communities. It used to be a pretty common German name, and a nice one at that.  But the actions of one man ruined it for all of the future Adolphs of the world.  Osama is another, unless you run with certain crowds. And while many Hispanics name their boys Jesus, how many English speakers refer to their son by the same name as the being who Christians consider to be the "Son of God"?  "Come up here Jesus and clean your room like I told you." That sounds like the start of a good joke.  Why does that somehow work in one culture but not another?  Nobody thinks twice about Jesus the Mexican taxi driver or Krishna the Indian waiter.

Like the fish that can't comprehend the water that is all around it, most of us miss the chance to see the funny and ironic connections between names and meanings in our own culture.  If I said that Bulgarians are prone to naming one another after trees and that Oak, Maple, Hickory, and Pine were particularly popular, most of us would think this odd since we don't do it in our culture.  But 19th and 20th century English speakers in both North America and Great Britain commonly named their children after flowers such as Rose, Violet, Daisy, Lily, Iris, and Hyacinth.  And along with old school names like Hazel and Hannah and Emma, little girls are once again receiving such flowery monikers.

So below is an article on the unique names that many Zimbabweans give their children.  Their creativity is reminiscent of Native Americans and names such as Huata (which means Carrying Seeds in a Basket) or Kaliska (which means Coyote Chasing Deer).  Both are from the Miwok Tribe -- who appear to be particularly creative as compared to people who name their children Bob and Bill and Sue.

I guess I'm struck by how many names have some deeper meaning that has been lost along the way, and how often do we find things of other cultures funny and strange when we could see the same phenomenon in our own way of life -- if we were interested enough to look.  Check out the article and then reflect on how often you find the names of others odd.

"In a Land of Homemade Names, Tiffany Doesn't Cut It"

Samuel, by the way, means "one who is heard by God."

What "Bringing Everyone to the Table" Really Means

Rick Warren and Barack Obama appear to have a strained relationship. Apparently they first met a couple of years ago when Warren invited the then Senator to speak at his church in southern California. I guess it went well enough that Obama was invited back during the presidential campaign--but was then summarily shown the door by questions (from Warren) that he was not prepared to answer. Seems it was the singular moment in an eighteen month run where the masterful politico slipped and fell.

And now, suddenly, the jeans wearing minister is back on the national scene after being invited to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration. The problem is that this man with a modest wardrobe but an enormous influence embraces a number of views that many Obama supporters do not accept. And more than a few of the Warren critics think that choosing him for this role in the day's ceremony is a slap in the face to thousands of LGBT people and their supporters who worked long and hard to elect this 44th President.

Here, for example, are some of the minister's comments about same-sex marriage that were pulled from a December 2008 interview with Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet:

Waldman: Do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Warren: I don't know if I'd use the term there. But I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles, or whatever stuff like that. So I fully support equal rights.

Waldman: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

Warren: Not a problem with me...I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000 year old definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Waldman: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Warren: Oh, I do. For 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single ulture and every single religion...as a man and a woman.

My somewhat imperious nature emerges when it comes to religious belief systems, and so I feel the urge to say something about the "5,000 years" comment. Here goes.

Most people have a idyllic vision of marriage and families when they look to our past--which they characterize as guided by a noble moral order and cultural practices that were inspired by and acceptable to their creator. But in fact, families, sex, and marriage were rarely characterized by behavior that current moralists would endorse. So, for example, even as recent as the late 19th century, the age of consent (for marriage) for young girls was ten years of age in over half of the U.S. states and territories--and very often ten year olds were married off to men two and three times their age. This is just one small factoid from a past that most Christians would not want to recognize for their "Christian nation"--but it's enough for me to raise an eyebrow in any moralistic reference to our "glorious past."

And now to bringing people to the table, the issue at hand...

Given my distaste for anything that even remotely smacks of heterosexism or homophobia, I can understand the annoyance of Warren's detractors. However, I have to give Obama credit for sticking to his word about bringing everyone to the table. The "table" he is referring to, after all, is (or should be) the one where important decisions are made and "everyone" includes the very people with whom he disagrees most vehemently. Anyone can pretend to involve the other side in their decision-making conversations by pretending to listen to their ideas--much like a savvy parent learns feign interest in the protestations of a teenager. But Obama's critics are off the mark if they think that a man should be left off the guest list when his views about same-sex marriage are in line with 52 percent of his state's (California) residents. Warren is the spokesperson for other side and his people, regardless of how distasteful their ideas to some, would take up over half the seats of that table if they all received invitations to come dialogue.

Somewhere in here is a lesson for most of us. How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree--and then attempt to see the world from their eyes? How often do we see ourselves as they do -- as crazy and out of touch, or as too intransigent in our strident opinions. More often than not, I would venture to guess, it's considerably easier for most of us to simply lob derision grenades in the direction of our enemies.

Bush failed at being a uniter. Clinton wasn't serious when he claimed that he would surely listen to all perspectives. Bush, Sr., Reagan, Carter, et. al. -- they all claimed that they would work to build alliances but then fell short of this estimable goal. Obama, by contrast, a man who is turning out to be the consummate politician, might surprise us all; he might actually mean what he says.

The Grief of War Comes Full Circle: The Essence of Race Relations

Sometimes one person can change the tide. A single life. A single story. A single face. Someone to whom we can relate, someone who we can imagine as a friend. Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish may now, to his own horror, fit the profile of one who can help change the course of the violence in some small measure in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dr. Abuelaish is an unusual man, a Palestinian doctor who reports for Israeli television. Though he lives in Gaza, he was educated in Israel, speaks Hebrew, and works in an Israeli hospital. Dr. Abuelaish has been giving Israelis daily reports on the military campaign in Gaza, and he is a man who works for peace, who builds bridges between worlds. This past Friday, he witnessed three of his daughters and a niece killed by Israeli bombs (and another daughter seriously wounded). His first panicked moments of terror were broadcast live on Israeli television.

WATCH a three minute video of this television segment.

As we all know, there is often little compassion between warring people, little willingness to recognize the humanity in one another. After all, how would it be possible to kill others if we didn't see them as less human than us? How would Palestinians find justification for launching rockets into Jewish civilian neighborhoods? How do Jews justify bombing Palestinian civilian homes in their search for their enemy?

But ironically, Dr. Abuelaish is the face of a friend to Israelis. That very simple fact is what has the power to make a difference, to crack open hearts so that enemies begin to see one another as human, as suffering, as wanting the same things for themselves and their families.

So what if we apply this to our own wars? What if we knew the faces and the stories and the pain of hundreds of thousands of grieving Iraqis as well as we are coming to know the faces of the passengers on U.S. Air Flight 1549 (the plane that landed in the Hudson River)? What if, just as we saw ourselves in the cracking composure of the father who could return home to kiss his five year old daughter after surviving a plane crash, we could see ourselves in each relationship and family that is lost and torn and broken by war? How would "our" Iraq war be different? How would we be different?

And what if we step back and apply this to the way we war with one another figuratively? How differently would we treat people who we hate from a distance if we could see ourselves in them, and if we could actually see the shared pain we all carry within?

So this story is not simply about Israelis and Palestinians; it's about all of us.

WATCH another video that includes reactions from Dr. Abuelaish's Jewish colleagues.

Did Hell Just Freeze Over?

Really. That's the question that I'm asking myself right now.

Why? Because I just read that a CNN poll from last week found that 69 percent of blacks in America currently believe that MLK's vision "has been fulfilled." This is quantum levels of optimism beyond a mere majority. Say what? Black people? You mean the very people who for as long as we've been doing opinion polls have been the quintessential pessimists? Yes...those people.

I know you're thinking that if black people are so effusive, then white people must practically unanimously agree that we have reached the promise land. And in this case, you would be wrong...because only 46 percent of them do.

Yes, we have suddenly turned the world upside down.

Let me give you some context. When asked if this country had fulfilled Martin Luther King's vision in March 2008, the poll numbers were as unnewsworthy as they were predictable: 34 percent of black respondents said "yes," compared with 35 percent of white respondents. If we go back several years, before Barack Obama entered the public limelight, those numbers were more like 20 percent for blacks and 40 percent for whites.

This just might be the first time ever in our history that African Americans are more optimistic than white Americans with respect to the position of black people in the United States racial hierarchy.

OK, so what's going on? That's what I want to know. What's this mean?

I have a few thoughts. Black people are riding a spiritual high that crescendoed right after the election when, for the first time ever, a majority said that we would eventually find a solution to our race conundrum. And now on the eve of a (half) black president, the glee is too much to contain. Sure, the enthusiasm will wane, but for the moment how can the world not look rosy and cheerful -- as long as people with brown skin refrain from riding the subway in Oakland. (OK, I'm being cynical here; I'll return to that story in a future posting.)

The white celebrations, by contrast, do not have the momentum of 400 years of mistreatment and second (or third) class citizenship. Maybe white people are feeling a bit nervous about having their racial universe turned on its head. Sure, there are positives to the transformation -- like the prospect of being able to have normalized relationships and straightforward conversations with black and brown people. But on the negative side, there is a visible crack in the foundation of white privilege and I can only imagine that it's weakening the support beams holding up the house of normal -- and white people are feeling the stress.

But really, I feel like I'm shooting plastic ducks floating past at one of those midway stands at a carnival -- and it's highly unlikely that I've tagged the one with the star on the bottom. In other words, I'm at a loss on this one. Someone tell me what these poll numbers mean.

Identity: Do we choose it or does it choose us?

Soon, the first African American president will be sworn into office. Let’s leave aside the historical nature of this event and analyze what makes Barack Obama “African American.” Clearly, he has African roots; his father was Kenyan. But his mother was a white woman from Kansas and one of her parents claimed to have some Native American ancestry. And his stepfather, the man who helped shape his personal moral and ethical sense of the world, was Indonesian. But while he hardly knew his African father, having spent only a couple of weeks in his presence as a young boy, he was well acquainted with his stepfather. And while his mother is the person about whom he says “the best parts of me are because of her,” he also spent considerable time with his white grandparents. So how is it that any of us would think to simply call this man "African American"?

It is possible to imagine how these relationships could develop in Barack Obama a global, multi-ethnic identity. But they do not. For in spite of the fact that he is the quintessential "multicultural, multiracial human being," at some point in his post teen years he chose to identify himself as African American.

But did he really choose?

Consider this: If identity grows out of culture (the people and environment in which we grow up as opposed to the blood that flows through our veins), one would think that Obama might consider himself white—or maybe even Indonesian. In fact, technically he has as much claim to being a "white American" as to being a "black" or an "African American," and clearly he is more personally connected to white culture than he is to black or African culture. But he nonetheless refers to himself as "black" and "African American."

We know that he was seen by others as “black,” and those of us who have up close and personal experience with multiracial people know that they are generally labeled by their dominant features. But people who are multiracial do not have to accept those labels...right? So could Obama have chosen to identify himself as white? What about refusing to choose one or the other and instead claim his biracial status? Was this possible?

Here's the question for the moment: What is it that makes Obama feel most connected to (i.e., identified with) black people? And what is it that allows most of us to accept this identification with little dissonance?

And what about the identities of each one of us? Why do we select the racial, ethnic, and ancestry labels that are applied to us? Think about it: Why do we respond in the way that we do when someone asks us, "What are you?" What aspects of our culture/biological ancestry/physical appearance are we including and excluding in our identifications? Are we merely mimicking our parents and grandparents?

Check out this map of the "Obama extended family" from the New York Times.