I was facilitating a group discussion last week and a white participant raised the question of why it's acceptable for black (and brown) people to drop the N-bomb but not white people. "It's an unfair double standard," she said, as have hundreds of other before her.
I've always found this to be an odd complaint. There are all sorts of things that each one of us can say to family and friends that would be off limits if a total stranger said those very same words.
But so many white people have voiced this double standard complaint over the years that I've come to see their struggle as rooted in more than the issues unique to race relations and the disturbing legacy of that word. What I see now is that young white people in this generation do not want to drop the N-bomb (with the "a" ending) as a means of entitlement, "If you get to say it, we get to say it." I'm starting to think that they want to do so because that word has become the "gold standard of cool."
Let's face it. Urban African Americans are the epitome of coolness. It's been like this for generations. Jazz. Cool. Rock -n- Roll. Cool. Hip Hop. Cool. Timberland shoes worn by white people. Uncool. Tims worn by black people. Cool. You get my point.
Watch Dave Chapelle and Chris Rock and a long list of lesser others kicking around N-bombs. What white person with any healthy barometer of coolness does NOT want to be as cool as Chapelle or Rock? And what it looks like these days is you're not going to get there if you can't drop the N-bomb -- especially in mixed company, with black gatekeepers of cool nodding or laughing in approval. THAT is the ultimate statement that says "I'm cool," AND "I've been admitted into the club."
Very simply, young white people may be wrestling with "nigga" not so much as a racial signifier as a signifier of "cool." In comparison to the generations that preceeded them, black people have reshaped the word from its singularly hateful focus and now it stands in the center of the culture as an indicator of much more than the state of race relations.
More to come...
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Demise of the Race Traitor
I first heard the term "race traitor" about fifteen years ago while watching a documentary on white supremacist groups. A KKK member used it in reference to white people who marry outside of the white race and, in her estimation, weaken the "natural and God given supreme power of white people." Years later I began hearing references to race traitors coming from some members of the black and Chicano (i.e., Mexican American) communities. They used it to refer to black and Mexican people who do not embrace the "white privilege leads to white racism leads to black and brown disempowerment" paradigm. An example of this kind of race traitor would be Ward Connerly, the conservative-libertarian African American activist who has fought to roll back government and social policies that put minorities in special categories such that they are, in his words, "treated differently than members of majority groups" (e.g., affirmative action programs).
So recently I've read some references to Obama as a "race traitor" because he has stood behind some ideas that have been popular among people who are often demonized by leftists as racist and bigoted. One of these ideas is that some of the responsibility for impoverishment and disenfranchisement in communities of color rests with the members of those very communities. For example, Obama has excoriated black and Hispanic men for fathering and not taking responsibility for children. (Nearly two-thirds of black babies are born to unmarried women, as are nearly half of all Hispanic babies.) He has chastised people young and old for searching for a quick dollar but being unwilling to suffer through the sweat and strain of school and moving up the social mobility ladder from minimum wage to something better by way of hard work. Yes, this does sound reminicent of the criticisms that I've been listening to all of my life: "all minorities want to be on welfare" and "blacks and Hispanics don't want to work hard."
Certainly the problem is that such blanket generalizations are absurd and, for the most part, racist. Most people on welfare are white, after all, and the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics have jobs and work as hard as anyone else. But as a community activist who has spent many years in neighborhoods that have been rocked by joblessness and limited economic and educational opportunities, Obama has witnessed his share of people who actually do NOT take responsibility for the decisions they make and who consequently weaken the social fabric of their communities. What Obama has said is that when these decisions negatively affect others--as when a poor, unmarried woman gets pregnant or a jobless man gets a woman pregnant--other people must invariably step in to help provide social and economic assistance. In other words, responsibility must shift from one person to another person, family, or even an entire community.
Complicating all of this, Obama has argued, is that sympathetic observers and sometimes the actors themselves often try to defend the negative behavior by claiming that it is caused by racism, as though individuals could not have acted otherwise. This type of thinking, he insists, will never change the underlying structures of inequality that undermine poor communities; it only leads to white resentment and further unwillingness to critically example past wrongs and their present-day consequences.
In this sense, Obama represents a new generation of activists and thinkers in the black and brown communities, people who are willing to publicly examine the ways in which poor people participate in their own plight. They are open to examining the nexus of individual free will and the structural constraints of human behavior. In doing so they offer all of us an opportunity to step away from old arguments that bury opportunities for dialogue and move us toward some new kind of common ground.
Emphasis here, what is new about their approach, is that they want to do this publicly. Members of black and brown communities have always been engaged in this debate--it's just that somehow when the debate shifted to a public volume free will and individual responsibility were toned down while the structural constraints of racism and discrimination were voiced loudly for all to hear, especially white people. The fear has always been that if concerns about individual responsibility were carried into the public arena, then white people would use these concerns as an excuse to no longer accept their share of responsibility for the racism and discrimination that does exist and that does benefit white communities. This is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson whispered that he'd like to "cut off Obama's nuts" for continually attacking irresponsible black men. According to the thinking of Jackson and others, these black men would not be "irresponsible" if it were not for deeply institutionalized racism and descrimination, if they had had a fair shake in the marketplace of school and work.
Jackson's criticism makes sense, of course, but the genie may be out of the bottle and these new activists of color may not be willing to keep these criticisms localized to the black and brown communities. They want an open, honest conversation because they believe this is crucial for the change they want to see. And even if it means that leftists like Obama and Corey Booker, the young mayor of Newark, New Jersey, are sitting at the same table as conservatives like Connerly, the conversation is going to take place in public. The only way to create the change that all sides want to see, they say, is to focus on empowerment and THAT must come by way of a thorough accountability for people's actions--white people AND black and brown people.
As the old guard lose their grip on the public conversation, their ability to silence the "race traitors" is going to become increasingly difficult.
So recently I've read some references to Obama as a "race traitor" because he has stood behind some ideas that have been popular among people who are often demonized by leftists as racist and bigoted. One of these ideas is that some of the responsibility for impoverishment and disenfranchisement in communities of color rests with the members of those very communities. For example, Obama has excoriated black and Hispanic men for fathering and not taking responsibility for children. (Nearly two-thirds of black babies are born to unmarried women, as are nearly half of all Hispanic babies.) He has chastised people young and old for searching for a quick dollar but being unwilling to suffer through the sweat and strain of school and moving up the social mobility ladder from minimum wage to something better by way of hard work. Yes, this does sound reminicent of the criticisms that I've been listening to all of my life: "all minorities want to be on welfare" and "blacks and Hispanics don't want to work hard."
Certainly the problem is that such blanket generalizations are absurd and, for the most part, racist. Most people on welfare are white, after all, and the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics have jobs and work as hard as anyone else. But as a community activist who has spent many years in neighborhoods that have been rocked by joblessness and limited economic and educational opportunities, Obama has witnessed his share of people who actually do NOT take responsibility for the decisions they make and who consequently weaken the social fabric of their communities. What Obama has said is that when these decisions negatively affect others--as when a poor, unmarried woman gets pregnant or a jobless man gets a woman pregnant--other people must invariably step in to help provide social and economic assistance. In other words, responsibility must shift from one person to another person, family, or even an entire community.
Complicating all of this, Obama has argued, is that sympathetic observers and sometimes the actors themselves often try to defend the negative behavior by claiming that it is caused by racism, as though individuals could not have acted otherwise. This type of thinking, he insists, will never change the underlying structures of inequality that undermine poor communities; it only leads to white resentment and further unwillingness to critically example past wrongs and their present-day consequences.
In this sense, Obama represents a new generation of activists and thinkers in the black and brown communities, people who are willing to publicly examine the ways in which poor people participate in their own plight. They are open to examining the nexus of individual free will and the structural constraints of human behavior. In doing so they offer all of us an opportunity to step away from old arguments that bury opportunities for dialogue and move us toward some new kind of common ground.
Emphasis here, what is new about their approach, is that they want to do this publicly. Members of black and brown communities have always been engaged in this debate--it's just that somehow when the debate shifted to a public volume free will and individual responsibility were toned down while the structural constraints of racism and discrimination were voiced loudly for all to hear, especially white people. The fear has always been that if concerns about individual responsibility were carried into the public arena, then white people would use these concerns as an excuse to no longer accept their share of responsibility for the racism and discrimination that does exist and that does benefit white communities. This is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson whispered that he'd like to "cut off Obama's nuts" for continually attacking irresponsible black men. According to the thinking of Jackson and others, these black men would not be "irresponsible" if it were not for deeply institutionalized racism and descrimination, if they had had a fair shake in the marketplace of school and work.
Jackson's criticism makes sense, of course, but the genie may be out of the bottle and these new activists of color may not be willing to keep these criticisms localized to the black and brown communities. They want an open, honest conversation because they believe this is crucial for the change they want to see. And even if it means that leftists like Obama and Corey Booker, the young mayor of Newark, New Jersey, are sitting at the same table as conservatives like Connerly, the conversation is going to take place in public. The only way to create the change that all sides want to see, they say, is to focus on empowerment and THAT must come by way of a thorough accountability for people's actions--white people AND black and brown people.
As the old guard lose their grip on the public conversation, their ability to silence the "race traitors" is going to become increasingly difficult.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Color of Poverty
I was listening to a story on National Public Radio this evening about "poor people"--which turned out to be about black and Hispanic Americans living in a central city somewhere in the U.S. I was troubled by how often we focus on black and Hispanic people when the topic is about poor people--as if the two are the same. Given this lopsided way race and poverty are portrayed and discussed in our media, it is not surprising that so many of us (including black and Hispanic Americans themselves) assume that connection.
In truth, however, half of all black and Hispanic families are "middle class." Granted, that term is extremely broad and, in fact, most Americans consider themselves "middle class"--including many people who earn over $100,000 and less than $15,000 per year. This is because for most people the category has as much to do with cultural values as it does income, wealth, and status.
Nevertheless, with respect to their economic circumstances, families can be considered more or less firmly embedded into the middle class. Economists call this "Middle Class Economic Security," and a report was published this past summer by Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization, in which the security of black and Hispanic middle class families was examined and compared to the security of middle class American families as a whole. (Unfortunately they left Asians and Native Americans out of their analysis.) By and large the research seems to be carefully crafted--and the findings are worth considering.
To begin, they measure "security" according to five broad indicators:
1. Assets: number of months able to live at 75% of a family's current living expenses using only savings
2. Academic Degree: a family with at least one person with a college degree is more secure
3. Housing: percent of after tax income spent on housing
4. Budget: amount left over at end of year after paying taxes and all expenses
5. Healthcare: number of family members covered by health insurance.
From these indicators, they create an "index of security" that they use to ascertain how secure a given family or group of families appears to be. Here is a summary of their findings:
While 31 percent of American middle class families are securely in the middle class, only 18 percent of Hispanic families and 26 percent of black families have the combination of assets,
education, sufficient income, and health insurance to ensure middle-class financial security.
And while one in five (21 percent) of American families are at high risk of falling out of the middle class, one in three (33 percent) African American familes and twice as many (41 percent) Hispanic families are in serious danger of slipping out of the middle class.
Keep in mind that the security index of "American families" includes black and Hispanic families and is not an index measure of white families -- and so it is skewed downward. Having said that, it is worth pondering just how many Americans of all ethnic and racial backgrounds are at risk.
Consider this:
* A full 95 percent of African-American and 87 percent of Hispanic middle class families do not have enough net assets to meet three-quarters of their essential living expenses for even three months if their source of income were to disappear. Both figures are well above 78 percent, the national average among all middle-class families.
* Sixty-eight percent of African-American and 56 percent of Hispanic middle-class households
have no net financial assets whatsoever and live from paycheck to paycheck. Just over half (52 percent) of Americans in general have no financial assets.
Check out the "By a Thread" report. It is worth thinking about.
Though it is essential to understand these differing patterns of wealth and poverty between groups, it is also important to notice how often our perception of this data is skewed by the sheer number of times the media mixes the term "poor" with the term "black" or "Hispanic."
In truth, however, half of all black and Hispanic families are "middle class." Granted, that term is extremely broad and, in fact, most Americans consider themselves "middle class"--including many people who earn over $100,000 and less than $15,000 per year. This is because for most people the category has as much to do with cultural values as it does income, wealth, and status.
Nevertheless, with respect to their economic circumstances, families can be considered more or less firmly embedded into the middle class. Economists call this "Middle Class Economic Security," and a report was published this past summer by Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization, in which the security of black and Hispanic middle class families was examined and compared to the security of middle class American families as a whole. (Unfortunately they left Asians and Native Americans out of their analysis.) By and large the research seems to be carefully crafted--and the findings are worth considering.
To begin, they measure "security" according to five broad indicators:
1. Assets: number of months able to live at 75% of a family's current living expenses using only savings
2. Academic Degree: a family with at least one person with a college degree is more secure
3. Housing: percent of after tax income spent on housing
4. Budget: amount left over at end of year after paying taxes and all expenses
5. Healthcare: number of family members covered by health insurance.
From these indicators, they create an "index of security" that they use to ascertain how secure a given family or group of families appears to be. Here is a summary of their findings:
While 31 percent of American middle class families are securely in the middle class, only 18 percent of Hispanic families and 26 percent of black families have the combination of assets,
education, sufficient income, and health insurance to ensure middle-class financial security.
And while one in five (21 percent) of American families are at high risk of falling out of the middle class, one in three (33 percent) African American familes and twice as many (41 percent) Hispanic families are in serious danger of slipping out of the middle class.
Keep in mind that the security index of "American families" includes black and Hispanic families and is not an index measure of white families -- and so it is skewed downward. Having said that, it is worth pondering just how many Americans of all ethnic and racial backgrounds are at risk.
Consider this:
* A full 95 percent of African-American and 87 percent of Hispanic middle class families do not have enough net assets to meet three-quarters of their essential living expenses for even three months if their source of income were to disappear. Both figures are well above 78 percent, the national average among all middle-class families.
* Sixty-eight percent of African-American and 56 percent of Hispanic middle-class households
have no net financial assets whatsoever and live from paycheck to paycheck. Just over half (52 percent) of Americans in general have no financial assets.
Check out the "By a Thread" report. It is worth thinking about.
Though it is essential to understand these differing patterns of wealth and poverty between groups, it is also important to notice how often our perception of this data is skewed by the sheer number of times the media mixes the term "poor" with the term "black" or "Hispanic."
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama and Undecided Voters: What Role Does Racism Play?
There is considerable discussion these days about how racism of many undecided white voters might be the factor that keeps Barack Obama out of the White House. This is something worth pondering and an idea that I've been thinking for several months now.
In effect, large numbers of white people have conflicted feelings about black people and other racial minorities, just as many black and brown people feel conflicted about white people. And regardless of their political leanings, white people tend to want to be open-minded and accepting of other people who are not like them--and they tend to believe that they "don't see color." However, below the surface many of them unwittingly have questions and concerns that often do not become articulated thoughts.
At the same time, large numbers of white people feel inundated with the message that "all racism is bad." Naturally, they learn a coded language for how to think and act in multicultural situations or whenever one's behavior and ideas about race might be judged; they learn to say the right thing and appear as though they're a member of the multicultural team, even if they play for another side. Extensive research on "latent racism" (i.e., the racism that is largely buried just beneath the surface of our waking consciousness) clearly suggests that when the moment comes to pull the lever for a black man, many white people are not going to be able to do it.
Dick Meyer, an editorial director for NPR Digital Media, has written a very balanced piece that suggests that Obama's run for the seat in the Oval Office may well be derailed by our inability to create a society that is not mired in prejudice and racism. I'd like to think that Mr. Meyer's research is off base and ill-informed, that he's digging up divisive issues and playing the race card, and that the American public is progressing away from racism. But from what I know about the sociological underpinnings of racism in our society today, I think he may be on target.
You be the judge:
Against the Grain: Obama, Race and Undecided Voters
In effect, large numbers of white people have conflicted feelings about black people and other racial minorities, just as many black and brown people feel conflicted about white people. And regardless of their political leanings, white people tend to want to be open-minded and accepting of other people who are not like them--and they tend to believe that they "don't see color." However, below the surface many of them unwittingly have questions and concerns that often do not become articulated thoughts.
At the same time, large numbers of white people feel inundated with the message that "all racism is bad." Naturally, they learn a coded language for how to think and act in multicultural situations or whenever one's behavior and ideas about race might be judged; they learn to say the right thing and appear as though they're a member of the multicultural team, even if they play for another side. Extensive research on "latent racism" (i.e., the racism that is largely buried just beneath the surface of our waking consciousness) clearly suggests that when the moment comes to pull the lever for a black man, many white people are not going to be able to do it.
Dick Meyer, an editorial director for NPR Digital Media, has written a very balanced piece that suggests that Obama's run for the seat in the Oval Office may well be derailed by our inability to create a society that is not mired in prejudice and racism. I'd like to think that Mr. Meyer's research is off base and ill-informed, that he's digging up divisive issues and playing the race card, and that the American public is progressing away from racism. But from what I know about the sociological underpinnings of racism in our society today, I think he may be on target.
You be the judge:
Against the Grain: Obama, Race and Undecided Voters
What DNA Testing Cannot Do for Race Relations
I thought Penn State students were with me on the cusp of a new era. Even though most of us live (and too often die) by the “racial” group to which our appearances give us membership rights, I thought that DNA ancestry testing would inspire us to re-imagine how we identify ourselves—and how we relate to one another.
I was wrong.
It’s not that I don’t spend time pondering these issues. I have been sitting in circles with college students scaling the mountain of race relations for nearly fifteen years. When I do the math, it turns out that I have either facilitated or observed close to 1,000 small group conversations on the topic. Given all of the straight talk and sensitivity, breakdowns and breakthroughs that have occurred on my watch, I can say that there have been no topics too small or too large for us. We talk in earnest about everything from who can call their hair “nappy,” to the nature of historical trauma, to how different cultural groups bathe, raise their kids, and think about the future. I thought DNA ancestry testing would be a welcome addition to our conversational repertoire.
So when Sam offered the opportunity to take such a DNA test (www.ancestrybydna.com) as part of the SOC 119 curriculum, I expected the experience to catalyze the weekly discussion groups in ways that we had never seen. Each student received an estimate of the proportions of their heritage drawn from West African, West European, East Asian, and Native American population groups. Most were shocked to discover that at least two-thirds of them are some “mix” that they did not anticipate. I expected that this surprise would naturally begin the process of dismantling the unsophisticated views of race to which Americans hold so tightly in our politics, our policies, and our personal relationships.
Wrong again.
Instead of critiquing the way we categorize a person as “Asian” whose ancestry may include significant influences from other population groups, or someone as “black” when barely half of their ancestry originates from Africa, the vast majority of students focused on their own results. And they exhibited the gamut of emotion that occurs when individuals learn who was chosen to be on the team or to receive the first place prize. One dark-skinned woman excitedly posted the fact that she was “27 percent European” on her away message, while one light-skinned woman angrily destroyed the CD containing her results when she discovered her ancestry to be 100 percent West European. But this wasn’t meant to be a contest to see who was in and who was out.
So much for the lesson plans.
In almost every instance, my attempts to initiate a discussion of the test were met with unusually curt replies. “The test makes no difference,” I heard over and over again. “I know who I am; a blood test won’t change anything,” many huffed. “People won’t treat me any differently because of the results,” others insisted, “so what’s the point?” This was the tenor of comments I even heard from the teaching assistants who recognized the value in untamed conversations of all varieties and who had been willing to go with me into the wildest terrain. These were not individuals who participated on the margins; these were the ones who jumped in and got wet.
I didn’t get it. Genetic science seemed poised to tear down our accepted racial categories on a massive scale by revealing the false groupings that we follow like a religion—and everyone was acting uninterested. All I wanted was for us to ponder what it could mean if science was showing us that the way we classify our groups is inaccurate, or to explore what might happen if we realized that few of us wear our precise racial affiliations on our sleeves (as so many of us believe), or to picture how things would be different if we had to ask for this information when we met someone (as opposed to determining it haphazardly for ourselves in the time it takes to notice them rushing by to catch a train).
No one seemed to care about all of that.
But finally, I have begun to make sense of the collective malaise I encountered. One insight came last semester when a student posed an intriguing question to one of the discussion groups. He asked, “How would we treat each other if we came together without the baggage of our respective histories?” The consensus was that, without our histories, none of us would be who we are. So the thought experiment was impossible, the group concluded.
Click.
I got it. The ancestry testing did not even begin to discredit our concept of race simply because…it couldn’t. We don’t know how to live without the dividing lines that we have inherited to define us. We don’t know how to identify ourselves or how to recognize one another without them. So we have no choice but to side-step new information, dutifully fitting ourselves “into” the only available categories—even when we sense that those categories are wrong.
So it seems that DNA ancestry testing is a mirror. And if we dare to behold its reflection, we get to see how little imagination we have when it comes to race, and how much we resist living without our familiar fault lines. But genetic science has found its way to the surface and is now demanding that we respond to its challenges with something more substantial than our worn stories and stereotypes.
Unfortunately, what I see every day is that individuals of all colors share a propensity toward provincial views, overly simplified assessments of issues, and thinly veiled prejudices about other groups. That means we are walking together on the edge of a perilous cliff with few among us of any color prepared to truly assess the landscape we are facing. Many seem resigned to waiting for a lightening bolt for direction—like the student who poignantly stated, “It will probably take something a lot bigger than a DNA test to really change my outlook on race and racial issues.” All I could imagine was September 11th. That was the last time I thought something large enough had happened to begin to shift the dynamic of race relations in this culture. I thought it had to offer us a clearer vision of ourselves.
I was wrong then too.
So I’ve learned that what really matters are the tiny epiphanies that happen off stage, one at a time, when one person comes to see what another person sees and they view the world with the same eyes for a moment. In that instant, all who are present feel the ground breaking beneath their feet because, when we have the opportunity to witness a change of heart live, we know something profound is happening.
Of course, these singular awakenings turn out to be more about effort and grace than about lesson plans. But I am convinced that they do more to undermine the tangles of our bigotry than the more dramatic events that we all keep mistaking for the cure. That is why I continue to sit in conversation circles, doing my part to unravel our knotty multicultural macramé, person-by-person, story-by-story—because, as my students and a DNA test have so convincingly demonstrated to me, there are just no shortcuts to undoing the breadth of our illusions.
I don’t think I’m wrong about that.
Laurie
I was wrong.
It’s not that I don’t spend time pondering these issues. I have been sitting in circles with college students scaling the mountain of race relations for nearly fifteen years. When I do the math, it turns out that I have either facilitated or observed close to 1,000 small group conversations on the topic. Given all of the straight talk and sensitivity, breakdowns and breakthroughs that have occurred on my watch, I can say that there have been no topics too small or too large for us. We talk in earnest about everything from who can call their hair “nappy,” to the nature of historical trauma, to how different cultural groups bathe, raise their kids, and think about the future. I thought DNA ancestry testing would be a welcome addition to our conversational repertoire.
So when Sam offered the opportunity to take such a DNA test (www.ancestrybydna.com) as part of the SOC 119 curriculum, I expected the experience to catalyze the weekly discussion groups in ways that we had never seen. Each student received an estimate of the proportions of their heritage drawn from West African, West European, East Asian, and Native American population groups. Most were shocked to discover that at least two-thirds of them are some “mix” that they did not anticipate. I expected that this surprise would naturally begin the process of dismantling the unsophisticated views of race to which Americans hold so tightly in our politics, our policies, and our personal relationships.
Wrong again.
Instead of critiquing the way we categorize a person as “Asian” whose ancestry may include significant influences from other population groups, or someone as “black” when barely half of their ancestry originates from Africa, the vast majority of students focused on their own results. And they exhibited the gamut of emotion that occurs when individuals learn who was chosen to be on the team or to receive the first place prize. One dark-skinned woman excitedly posted the fact that she was “27 percent European” on her away message, while one light-skinned woman angrily destroyed the CD containing her results when she discovered her ancestry to be 100 percent West European. But this wasn’t meant to be a contest to see who was in and who was out.
So much for the lesson plans.
In almost every instance, my attempts to initiate a discussion of the test were met with unusually curt replies. “The test makes no difference,” I heard over and over again. “I know who I am; a blood test won’t change anything,” many huffed. “People won’t treat me any differently because of the results,” others insisted, “so what’s the point?” This was the tenor of comments I even heard from the teaching assistants who recognized the value in untamed conversations of all varieties and who had been willing to go with me into the wildest terrain. These were not individuals who participated on the margins; these were the ones who jumped in and got wet.
I didn’t get it. Genetic science seemed poised to tear down our accepted racial categories on a massive scale by revealing the false groupings that we follow like a religion—and everyone was acting uninterested. All I wanted was for us to ponder what it could mean if science was showing us that the way we classify our groups is inaccurate, or to explore what might happen if we realized that few of us wear our precise racial affiliations on our sleeves (as so many of us believe), or to picture how things would be different if we had to ask for this information when we met someone (as opposed to determining it haphazardly for ourselves in the time it takes to notice them rushing by to catch a train).
No one seemed to care about all of that.
But finally, I have begun to make sense of the collective malaise I encountered. One insight came last semester when a student posed an intriguing question to one of the discussion groups. He asked, “How would we treat each other if we came together without the baggage of our respective histories?” The consensus was that, without our histories, none of us would be who we are. So the thought experiment was impossible, the group concluded.
Click.
I got it. The ancestry testing did not even begin to discredit our concept of race simply because…it couldn’t. We don’t know how to live without the dividing lines that we have inherited to define us. We don’t know how to identify ourselves or how to recognize one another without them. So we have no choice but to side-step new information, dutifully fitting ourselves “into” the only available categories—even when we sense that those categories are wrong.
So it seems that DNA ancestry testing is a mirror. And if we dare to behold its reflection, we get to see how little imagination we have when it comes to race, and how much we resist living without our familiar fault lines. But genetic science has found its way to the surface and is now demanding that we respond to its challenges with something more substantial than our worn stories and stereotypes.
Unfortunately, what I see every day is that individuals of all colors share a propensity toward provincial views, overly simplified assessments of issues, and thinly veiled prejudices about other groups. That means we are walking together on the edge of a perilous cliff with few among us of any color prepared to truly assess the landscape we are facing. Many seem resigned to waiting for a lightening bolt for direction—like the student who poignantly stated, “It will probably take something a lot bigger than a DNA test to really change my outlook on race and racial issues.” All I could imagine was September 11th. That was the last time I thought something large enough had happened to begin to shift the dynamic of race relations in this culture. I thought it had to offer us a clearer vision of ourselves.
I was wrong then too.
So I’ve learned that what really matters are the tiny epiphanies that happen off stage, one at a time, when one person comes to see what another person sees and they view the world with the same eyes for a moment. In that instant, all who are present feel the ground breaking beneath their feet because, when we have the opportunity to witness a change of heart live, we know something profound is happening.
Of course, these singular awakenings turn out to be more about effort and grace than about lesson plans. But I am convinced that they do more to undermine the tangles of our bigotry than the more dramatic events that we all keep mistaking for the cure. That is why I continue to sit in conversation circles, doing my part to unravel our knotty multicultural macramé, person-by-person, story-by-story—because, as my students and a DNA test have so convincingly demonstrated to me, there are just no shortcuts to undoing the breadth of our illusions.
I don’t think I’m wrong about that.
Laurie
Friday, September 12, 2008
A Side Note About "White Power" and Our Political System
I found a seven minute video that offers an interesting analysis of "power" as it is related to our political system. I think it is worth viewing; it will provoke some outside-the-box thinking.
As you watch, however, keep in mind the following:
Politics is all about how people manage the concentration of power in any system. Myriad decisions must be made in every large collectivity and it is impossible for all members to participate equally in each and every one of them. Consider the many collective resources that we all utilize: waste removal and clean-up, water purification and delivery, electrical generation, road construction and maintenance. This list is long and increasingly convoluted.
And because it is impossible for everyone to have a say in every aspect of collective (i.e., governmental) services, we must find ways for individuals and groups to "represent" the interests of the collectivity as a whole. Think about how EVERY organization has leaders who meet and make untold numbers of decisions on behalf of the that organization. There are always too many decisions to make for us to arrange an organization (or collectivity) in any other way.
But how do we select those representatives? How do we decide which individuals or groups will sit at the head of the table and think and act on everyone's behalf?
For most government positions in the U.S. we do this with elections. But how do we determine who has an opportunity to run for one of these positions? If they meet select criteria such as certain minimum age requirements or legal residency of a state or district, any citizen is eligible to run for any office. All they need to do is get their name out to the voting populace and convince those people to vote for them.
And that's the difficult part, of course, because that requires money--lots of money for major elections (i.e., positions of greater power). People who are wealthy can largely self-finance their elections on their own (e.g., Mayor Bloomberg in New York City who is a billionaire) while people without money can turn to other individuals and groups for help. Turning to masses of individuals is ideal--get everyone involved and expand the democratic base--but it takes a lot of effort and upfront money to convince isolated people to donate small amounts of cash. So what generally happens is that candidates turn to fewer numbers of wealthier individuals and groups who can contribute larger amounts. But here's the catch.
Few people give money with no strings attached. Would you donate to a campaign without concern for the specific policies that a candidate will pursue once elected? Probably not. And who could blame you for wanting something in return for your hard earned cash?
And so we have very well-organized and powerful groups contributing the bulk of the funds for political campaigns that each year are more and more expensive, and to the exclusive parties that each season are more and more lavish. It is not difficult to imagine that every one of these groups, let's say the "telecommunications industry," has legislation pending before Congress that could lead to millions or billions of dollars in profits or losses, depending on how bills are written. While this legislation may or may not be in the public's interest, it is always in the interest of the companies footing the bill for those campaigns and parties. Why else would they do it.
So what about race?
Take a look at the video at the end of this essay. Look at the people partying at the exclusive venues during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. What's their racial background? They're nearly all white. It's a club that does not deliberately exclude black and brown people, but white people established the criteria for membership many years ago and seem to be inclined to reserve the few spaces that open to their friends and relatives--who more often than not are white.
This is not to say that there are no black and brown people with power. Far from it. half of all black Americans are middle class, after all. But the people who occupy those special seats of power, the people who make decisions that move millions and billions of dollars into and out of various private coffers, are mostly white. This is something that has not changed much over the years.
Is this going to change if Obama is working out of the Oval Office? You watch the video and respond to that question yourself.
For those who watched the conventions, compare your memories of the extremely "colorful" Democratic National Convention with the images (from the video) of the exclusive parties in downtown Denver where the DNC was held. All the darker skinned people seem to have been inside the convention and not at these parties where the "wheeling and dealing" was happening. That's odd for a party of "inclusion." The RNC in Minneapolis was almost entirely white, so the same contrast doesn't hold--they have no need to pretend.
Finally, keep in mind that this video was produced by ABC which is owned by Disney and is a massive media conglomerate. You might wonder why it is that they would show something that so clearly appears to undermine that corporation's ability to shape the decision-making of our political leadership. I'll let you answer it for yourself.
VIDEO
As you watch, however, keep in mind the following:
Politics is all about how people manage the concentration of power in any system. Myriad decisions must be made in every large collectivity and it is impossible for all members to participate equally in each and every one of them. Consider the many collective resources that we all utilize: waste removal and clean-up, water purification and delivery, electrical generation, road construction and maintenance. This list is long and increasingly convoluted.
And because it is impossible for everyone to have a say in every aspect of collective (i.e., governmental) services, we must find ways for individuals and groups to "represent" the interests of the collectivity as a whole. Think about how EVERY organization has leaders who meet and make untold numbers of decisions on behalf of the that organization. There are always too many decisions to make for us to arrange an organization (or collectivity) in any other way.
But how do we select those representatives? How do we decide which individuals or groups will sit at the head of the table and think and act on everyone's behalf?
For most government positions in the U.S. we do this with elections. But how do we determine who has an opportunity to run for one of these positions? If they meet select criteria such as certain minimum age requirements or legal residency of a state or district, any citizen is eligible to run for any office. All they need to do is get their name out to the voting populace and convince those people to vote for them.
And that's the difficult part, of course, because that requires money--lots of money for major elections (i.e., positions of greater power). People who are wealthy can largely self-finance their elections on their own (e.g., Mayor Bloomberg in New York City who is a billionaire) while people without money can turn to other individuals and groups for help. Turning to masses of individuals is ideal--get everyone involved and expand the democratic base--but it takes a lot of effort and upfront money to convince isolated people to donate small amounts of cash. So what generally happens is that candidates turn to fewer numbers of wealthier individuals and groups who can contribute larger amounts. But here's the catch.
Few people give money with no strings attached. Would you donate to a campaign without concern for the specific policies that a candidate will pursue once elected? Probably not. And who could blame you for wanting something in return for your hard earned cash?
And so we have very well-organized and powerful groups contributing the bulk of the funds for political campaigns that each year are more and more expensive, and to the exclusive parties that each season are more and more lavish. It is not difficult to imagine that every one of these groups, let's say the "telecommunications industry," has legislation pending before Congress that could lead to millions or billions of dollars in profits or losses, depending on how bills are written. While this legislation may or may not be in the public's interest, it is always in the interest of the companies footing the bill for those campaigns and parties. Why else would they do it.
So what about race?
Take a look at the video at the end of this essay. Look at the people partying at the exclusive venues during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. What's their racial background? They're nearly all white. It's a club that does not deliberately exclude black and brown people, but white people established the criteria for membership many years ago and seem to be inclined to reserve the few spaces that open to their friends and relatives--who more often than not are white.
This is not to say that there are no black and brown people with power. Far from it. half of all black Americans are middle class, after all. But the people who occupy those special seats of power, the people who make decisions that move millions and billions of dollars into and out of various private coffers, are mostly white. This is something that has not changed much over the years.
Is this going to change if Obama is working out of the Oval Office? You watch the video and respond to that question yourself.
For those who watched the conventions, compare your memories of the extremely "colorful" Democratic National Convention with the images (from the video) of the exclusive parties in downtown Denver where the DNC was held. All the darker skinned people seem to have been inside the convention and not at these parties where the "wheeling and dealing" was happening. That's odd for a party of "inclusion." The RNC in Minneapolis was almost entirely white, so the same contrast doesn't hold--they have no need to pretend.
Finally, keep in mind that this video was produced by ABC which is owned by Disney and is a massive media conglomerate. You might wonder why it is that they would show something that so clearly appears to undermine that corporation's ability to shape the decision-making of our political leadership. I'll let you answer it for yourself.
VIDEO
Sunday, September 7, 2008
To My Students:
I’m going to write about Obama in these blogs (just as I will discuss him in my race class) because of the sheer historical significance of his candidacy with regard to race relations. But in order to do so freely, without parts of my discussion being misread as a political endorsement, let me explain some things about the way I vote.
I have never missed casting my ballot in a presidential election in my thirty years of legal adulthood. And as a student of political sociology for nearly all of that time, I do the research and I take my vote very seriously.
This year, as we have candidates who are not white and male running in both major parties, we are clearly faced with an opportunity to advance this nation culturally, keeping us in step with most of the world’s more industrialized countries (and many less developed ones) that have already elected racial minorities or women to their highest seats of power. Furthermore, whether we put Barack Obama or Sarah Palin into office, this election will influence how we see all women or all people of color in both subtle and not so subtle ways. Speaking as a sociologist, this is fascinating to contemplate. Speaking as a person whose work involves building bridges between balkanized racial and ethnic groups, it is groundbreaking.
And yet, as I examine the gravity of all of the issues we face, I am left to conclude that the value of cracking one of these twin glass ceilings cannot alone determine the way I cast my ballot. In my view, we need a party that is willing to truly tackle the issues of terrorism and war, depletion of natural resources, the explosion of the world’s population and the deepening of global poverty—and to do so in radically different ways. I don’t mean spinning words to attract constituents. I’m talking about actually encouraging and carrying out system transformation.
Unfortunately, the differences between our two major parties on all of the issues are mostly cosmetic and rhetorical. It might appear as though their differences are significant—why else would their respective members be arguing with one another so vociferously? But I see two parties that are sponsored by and answerable to the same power base—and, for me, that adds up to little expectation for change when we most need it. The following are two broad issues that are of particular concern to me. But there are others:
Natural Resources. I’m not talking about the prices of gas or heating fuel or the sudden spike in airfares. I’m talking about sustaining life on this planet. I think the data we have about global climate change is sobering. Most of it does not appear to be hysterical exaggeration. And I think we are foolish not to genuinely heed this warning. We need to begin by severing the ties between corporations and politicians who are bought and sold in the basements and back rooms of congressional buildings, the White House, and K Street. Because I think this is so essential to making decisions that have the people and the planet in mind, I have never voted for a candidate who is not committed to and capable of putting natural resources ahead of short-term profits.
War and Terrorism. The United States produces and sells more military weapons than the next eight top weapons manufacturing nations combined, and we spend more money on our military than the militaries of the twenty-five next most powerful countries in the world. War will always occur and there will always be threats to our national security. But we can only avert these threats if we cease supporting a military industrial complex whose profits are unfortunately rooted in waging war (and threatening the national security of other nations). In other words, we must stop ourselves before it is too late. Imagine a nuclear bomb in New York City. This doesn’t have to happen. But it is the outcome we are likely to witness if our leaders do not shrink the size of the military industrial complex and curtail the proliferation of weapons. I have never voted for a candidate who does not see this as crucial for our protection and survival.
For my entire voting life, I have observed that neither of the major parties has substantively addressed these (and other) critical issues. And once again in 2008, neither party has made history with their platforms because they are still beholden to vested and powerful interests that maintain the perilous status quo. They have only made history with the faces of their candidates. This is not insignificant, to be sure, but I have to cast my vote for more than that, for a future, for a sustainable world that we can actually live in.
Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)