Tag: racism

The Readers Reply to the Racism Question

“It seemed to me that everyone was so very quick to disown racism that none of us had anything to really work on. It made me think that if the Church is going to effectively bring healing in this area it is going to have to make a distinction between racism as an ideology that some subscribe to, and racism as the fear, suspicion, or broken attitudes that blight all of us to various degrees as a result of being fallen creatures in a broken world.”

About six months ago, I laid out a scenario, about a white woman going into a halal shop, and asked, “Is it racist?” I was unconvinced that it was, although I recognized a likely ethnic-based discomfort.

And I got three really fine, and well thought out answers:

Francisca, a “white woman living in Asia” noted that “most of the time what I get is profiling to my advantage (it helps that I’m the smiling type and people generally like my face). The scene is complicated by my Chinese-born husband, who regularly gets mistaken as my driver, my interpreter, or my employee…and gets treated accordingly…”

Uthaclena said: “I think that the use of language has become very sloppy; my 15-year old informs me that ‘racism’ is used for ALL SORTS of discrimination, incl. what I myself would identify as sexism. Racism implies to me more of a power-based form of discrimination: ‘I will actively prevent you from obtaining something that is your due because of your race or ethnic background.’ I think that there is far more BIGOTRY than there is out-and-out racism, ASSUMING something about a person because of their stereotypical traits.”

Then there was Anthony: “I think I read somewhere in the writings of N.T. Wright that when Paul speaks of Christ dismantling the barrier between Jew and Gentile, implied within that idea is that Jesus overcame the forces that contribute to tribalism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, etc.” I would specifically add sexism. My Biblical scholarship is lacking, but I recall Jesus being called out by a woman about his sexist attitude.

“This idea is also associated with Christ’s cosmic work: the overcoming of the powers and principalities which distort God’s creation and the healthy functioning of social institutions.

“I mention this, because a number of years ago I was at a Christian college where I and various staff members were involved in a study on racial reconciliation by Raleigh Washington & Glen Kehrein called ‘Breaking Down Walls,’ and it seemed to me that everyone was so very quick to disown racism that none of us had anything to really work on. It made me think that if the Church is going to effectively bring healing in this area it is going to have to make a distinction between racism as an ideology that some subscribe to, and racism as the fear, suspicion, or broken attitudes that blight all of us to various degrees as a result of being fallen creatures in a broken world.”

Boy, did I relate to THAT! Organizing Black History Month in predominately white churches, I have definitely seen that. Not incidentally, this notion of a post-racial country in the US, because the country elected a black President, I always thought was absurd. Our tribalism runs deep. We may not all be racist, but we aren’t finished creatures, either.

I recommend you read all three excellent comments.

The Racial Aspect of Obamaphobia Revealed! (Maybe)

A category of biracial, which has been recognized for less than two decades culturally just does not trump centuries of someone who looks like Barack Obama, with a black parent, being categorized as black.


Last month, I wrote this blogpost about the shooting of 20 people, six fatally, in Arizona. Got a lot of comments, some of which inevitably fell off the mark. In fact, a duologue developed between two commenters, and I pretty much stayed out of it until one wrote:
Also calling the President a “black” man would be wrong. He happens to be biracial.

This made me peevish. I responded:

It would NOT be wrong to call the President a black man. He identifies himself as a black man. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17958438

One of the interesting things that the OMB in 1997, in anticipation of the 2000 Census, did was to allow people to opt to identify themselves as of more than one race. Previously, someone like Barack Obama WOULD have been identified as black by Census.

There are plenty of Americans who identify as white [that are] of mixed heritage, just as there are mixed-race people (Halle Berry, whose mother is white, comes to mind) who identify as black. Their decision, not anyone else’s. I should have noted that Berry’s mother ENCOURAGED her to identify as black since that’s how the world would see her anyway.

To which he responded:
Mr. Green
You would be correct, at the end of the day, it is the person that wishes to be identified with a race or group. I just know my wife was a tad upset when he kept calling himself a black man. It kind of disavows half of you, I guess.

Then suddenly, I GOT it. Barack Obama identifying as a black man means, to some people, that he is rejecting part of himself. That WHITE part of himself. And in doing so, he must be, to their minds, kind of reverse racist.

That idiotic “365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy” I’ve referred to actually also addressed this: “Next time you hear a reference to ‘America’s first black president,’ counter by referring to Obama as ‘America’s 44th white president.’ Explain that you’re doing so on feminist grounds: ‘What? You’re trying to tell me that his Caucasian mom’s genetic input doesn’t count? But that’s so SEXIST!'”

A category of biracial, which has been recognized for less than two decades culturally just does not trump centuries of someone who looks like Barack Obama, with a black parent, being categorized as black. In the 1970 Census, the 1980 Census, the 1990 Census, he would be considered black (or Negro or African-American – whatever). When Barbara Walters asked him on The View why he didn’t consider himself biracial, I suspect that she already knew the answer from his autobiographies and from her understanding of history.

Not that he rejects his white mother, for whom he has expressed great love, and who was present when his father was not. Or even her race, as when the President-elect referred to himself as a mutt, which displeased some people, many of them black, who did not want to diminish in any way the significance of a President of African descent.

So race in America is still a bit of a landmine, even with a black – or biracial – President.

Editing literature and the N-word Questions

As usual, The Daily Show addresses the Mark Twain controversy well.


You’ve probably heard about someone wanting to take the works of Mark Twain and republish them, replacing the word N@$$%! with the word “slave”. I think this is pretty lame as I have previously indicated.

Yet, while I’m not crazy about the word, I’m less bothered by it when it’s 1) used in historic context or 2) to make a particular point. Film critic Roger Ebert got into some hot water using the word recently. He didn’t bother me, but some of the comments I’ve seen in response to his use – “well, he has a N@##%! wife” – seems to justify my general antipathy for the word.

Should Huck Finn and other works of Mark Twain be edited to remove a word current sensibilities might find offensive? If so, how should such a book be labeled?

When, if ever, are racially charged words acceptable? There’s a John Lennon song that I believe is making a larger point of social commentary.

As usual, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart addresses this well. NSFW, if the use of N@##$! might get you fired.

Half Way In

In Tucson, he showed up as the charismatic leader rather than the policy wonk which seemed to lead people to believe the message that he’s “not one of us,” however one means that.


It’s halfway through Barack Obama’s first term as President, and I’m filled with a lot of mixed feelings. On one hand, I think his rhetoric far outstrips his ability to govern. In other words, he promised much more than he could deliver. On the other hand, if Bill Clinton was hampered by a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” that was nothing compared with what Obama has been facing.

What initially struck me about the President-elect back in December 2008 is that he was already acting as though he were already in charge. The bad news about the economy was becoming more fully released, and he appeared fully involved in trying to fix it. My wife noted at the time that he seemed more visible than the 43rd President.

So his inaugural speech was less inspirational than I might have wanted; still, we were promised the audacity of hope. Thus, it seems that a lot of people saw Barack Obama the way they WANTED to see him. Surely, he’ll get rid of the onerous secret human rights violations that many were distressed about under his predecessor. That did not prove to be the case.

The American participation in the war in Iraq had greatly diminished, as he said would happen, but he was never allowed any credit for that in some circles because he had opposed the war in the first place, and moreover opposed the surge that most analysts suggested allowed for the withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan has expanded, with the endpoint pushed back later (2011) and later (2014).

In his dealings over health care, it seemed that this man has never played poker. “Oh, here’s what I have in my hand. Let’s go.” So it is not, as some pundits claim, that the Left is upset that the health care bill didn’t provide the universal health care provisions it had hoped, and that then-senator Obama seemed to favor. It was that he folded on it, well before it was necessary. Thus, the bill that was finally passed was ultimately only a Democratic bill, even though it was twisted and altered to get Republican support that largely never came.

It did not help when Obama, and Vice-President Biden, for that matter, lectured the Left on how grateful they should feel and that they were the best hope they could expect. That is in stark contradiction with newly-elected President Obama requesting the Left to keep him honest, make noise.

Yet, it’s difficult for me not to have some sympathy for the President, who had to deal with the birthers, those who have him pegged as a socialist fascist.

Ah, a black President! Our racial problems are over! The President can help us in dialogue. What we end up with is a hastily arranged beer summit, and perhaps a realization that we are not as “post-racial” as previously thought. I don’t blame that on Obama but on our own self-congratulatory rhetoric. And I’ve discovered that there are certain folks who are genuinely offended that he refers to himself as a black man, rather than biracial because he seems to be denying part of himself; I received a comment saying as much just last week.

The President does have skills. Even FOX News was hard-pressed to criticize him for his speech in Tucson last week. Here he showed up as the charismatic leader rather than the policy wonk which seemed to lead people to believe the message that he’s “not one of us,” however one means that, who showed up explaining health care or the BP oil spill, though getting $20 billion from BP I thought was a masterful stroke that didn’t get enough credit. And, as I’ve said before, I believe his seeming aloof manner may be a studied attempt not to come across as an “angry black man.”

Frankly, I had him pegged as a one-term President for certain after his first 22 months in office, only to be surprised by his successes with the START treaty with Russia, the elimination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and a food safety bill.

The narrative is now that he’s moved to the center, and this will save him. His willingness to compromise with Republicans over the tax cuts presumably shows his leadership. I never pegged him as a liberal, but rather a moderate. But the narrative has improved his job approval ratings.

In any case, who knows what the next several months will bring? It’s unlikely that the Democrats will challenge him in the primaries. As for his Republican opponent, who knows? Because the GOP changed its rules, a lot of the early winner-take-all primaries have been changed to a more proportional delegate distribution.

Who will I vote for in 2012? Well, it depends. Might be Barack Obama; depends on what the next two years bring.

Getting All Post-Racial with MLK, Jr.

Everything I’ve read, all of his speeches I’ve devoured, suggests that MLK would still be in the fight for equal justice, not convinced that we’ve already gotten there.


Since the King holiday is coming up, I thought I’d mention that noise I’ve been reading about Martin Luther King, Jr. being a Republican. This involved posters over the past couple of years and his niece declaring it to be so. Frankly, I have not come across a totally credible source proving it one way or another.

The Republican party, of course, was the party of Lincoln, while the Democratic Party, particularly in the South, where King lived, was the party of George Wallace and other segregationists. So it is quite plausible that he was a member of the GOP, at least until the 1960 election of John Kennedy. Surely he voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964, his public comments make clear.

But most of the conversations miss the greater point, which is, “Would Martin Luther King, Jr. be a Republican in the 21st Century?” Those who suggest that the answer would be “yes” generally zero in on one section of his March on Washington I Have A Dream speech in August 1963, the part that goes: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. The clear implication is that race-based remedies for past or current discrimination should be off the table.

But read the very end of the speech:

from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men, and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

So the real question becomes this: would MLK think Americans are equally free in these days? Or would he think the increasing economic disparity between the rich and the poor needed to be addressed? Would he fret over unequal access to food, shelter, health care? Would he weep over the resegregation of education?

Obviously, I don’t know for certain. But everything I’ve read, all of his speeches I’ve devoured, suggests that MLK would still be in the fight for equal justice, not convinced that we’ve already gotten there. A big issue in his latter days involved a disproportional number of black soldiers fighting and dying in a war he considered unjust. The garbage collectors fight that brought him to Memphis just before his death was as much about economic disparity as it was about race.

I’m a Census guy. Many people tell me they wish we’d stop measuring race. Why is it that the government still counts people in that way, other than the historic reasons? The government measures race and ethnicity in part to delineate equality or disparity in income, housing, and the like. Maybe we’ll stop counting race when we stop being unequal. I really do hope we get there someday.
***
SamuraiFrog shares Glenn Beck taking back civil rights from MAD magazine.

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial