I am so sick of hearing “post-racial” bleated in the MSM over and over, seemingly in a desperate attempt to see Barack Obama’s successes so far in garnering diverse support as a sign that somehow, voters are looking beyond race. If you listen to NPR’s Daniel Schorr’s “A New, ‘Post-Racial’ Political Era in America,” you’ll sit there with your jaw on the table. There’s no transcript up yet, but trust me, Mr. Schorr makes some broad assumptions from the results in Iowa and South Carolina.
The short version: “post-racial” means 1) the rejection/diminution of traditional civil rights leadership; 2) the younger generation drawn to Obama is if not color-blind, color-blurred; 3) this election cycle will see less of a focus on race.
Dream on. After all, who doesn’t want to believe it’s possible? It would negate to have any in-depth conversation about race. In any case, I can hang with #1; after all, too many of those the mainline civil rights leadership is tired, ineffective, and so tied into the political establishment for their own sake that they have little connection to today’s minority youth. It’s refreshing, from that perspective, that Barack Obama is not of that generation.
However, if Schorr thinks overt race-baiting, as well as simple race-based ignorance won’t rear its ugly head over and over in this cycle, he has his head in the sand.
For instance, Alec Baldwin shared this bit of business being published in his local (East Hampton, NY) right-leaning paper, The Independent.
On the heels of Barack Obama being endorsed for the presidency by the normally close-to-the-vest Caroline Kennedy, whose invocation of her father’s enduring legacy carries, in some people’s hearts and minds, more weight than any ten such endorsements by others, please read what the local Republicans in my home town are thinking, and publishing, about Senator Obama. This is, quite clearly, not to be believed.The bottom-feeding “Low Tidings” column was written by the Independent’s editor, Rick Murphy. This is what passes off as satire:
“The truth is, I don’t know many black people, but my advisers have drafted a strategy to reel in the black vote:A weak apology was issued, citing a “lapse of judgment.” Yes, I’m sure it was - after all we’re in “post-racial” mode.
1) Call everyone ‘Brother.’ Blacks, I am told, do this even if most of their real brothers are in jail.
2) Talk Jive. Brothers want to hear jive. During my speech I told the crowd, ‘We be, you know, sick of whitey supressin’ and congestin’ so, you know, we won’t denigrate or sophisticate but emulate and populate, you know, the system is, like, broken, y’all!’”And, in reference to Hillary Clinton:
“Ultimately, if she gets too close, one of my New york advisors has advised me to ‘Bitch slap that ho.’ White women, I am told, like that.”
29 Responses to “The fantasy of a ‘post-racial’ election”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
What really scares me about people like Rick Murphy and his ilk is they represent the merest scratch on the surface of racism in this country. And as bad as his “satire” was, it would pale beside what would come out if the most hardened racists really let loose.
I’m also worried that after this election (if Obama makes it onto the Democratic ticket) the “Bradley Effect” will get renamed to the “Obama Effect”.
For many Americans, who don’t want to think of themselves as being racists, supporting Obama now makes them feel like they are doing something “noble”. But I suspect strongly that when November rolls around, being “noble” will have faded in favor of going with what’s “safe” and “well known”…
I’m not convinced that Schorr is being naive when he talks about Obama’s candidacy as “post-racial.” Instead, I think this kind of talk serves a rhetorical purpose; to create (reinforce) a commonplace belief that race is an inadequate reason to oppose Obama.
Liberal and progressive Americans already understand that opposing Obama because of his (bi)racial identity is, well, racist. Unfortunately, we are not a clear majority of the voting public; if we were, Bush would not have been reelected. That said, the large majority of Americans do (say they) believe racism is wrong.
In general, critics who talk about Obama’s “post-racial” candidacy (I didn’t hear Schorr’s piece) are framing the issue of race in a way that I believe favors Obama. If he sells himself overtly as a “black” candidate, then right-wing opponents can get more traction with the claim that he is “injecting race into the election.” Setting aside the ludicrous idea that race would need to be “injected” into any aspect of American discourse, this claim could give voters “cover” (with their communities and with their own consciences) to oppose Obama–not because he’s “black,” but because “he’s making a big deal about being black, and that’s racist.” This is the perverse “logic” of privileged white guys who rail against “reverse racism and sexism.”
Framing Obama’s candidacy as “post-racial,” on the other hand, creates a context where, when his opponents talk about Obama’s racial identity, their own racism will be more obvious to those voters who aren’t already invested in combatting racism. Obama’s critics will be the ones “injecting” race into the campaign, and preventing the public from “getting over it.”
Look, Obama has no hope of getting the support of the editors and readers of the East Hampton, NY Independent and their ilk. Neither does Clinton. But the broader American public, still often unconsciously racist in their (our) lizard brains, but conscious of the injustice of racism in general, can be swayed either way.
Many black politicians (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) frighten middlebrow white voters because they “make a big deal of their blackness.” This shouldn’t be true, but it is. And you can’t win a national election without those voters.
From a rically progressive perspective, claiming to be “post-racial” may not be the ideal stance, but it’s not the same thing as “passing.” And it’s better than losing.
I would have thought that a credible run for President by a US Senator who happens to be black would be good news.
Of course fools will mock Obama with some sad parody of percieved blackitude. If he were Jewish, they’d use that. If he were Latino, they’d use that. If he were old, they’d use that. To a certain low level of mind, anything outside the perceived norm is fair game. But how do you make an end of that sort of thing without taking on the impossible task of banning bad taste and pure insanity?
Yes, people can easily mistake a cock-crow for the dawn. But at the end of the day, many people, and most of the young, see Obama as a US Senator and presidential candidate (who happens to be black), rather than a black guy (who happens to be a US Senator and presidential candidate). That does qualify as some sort of progress, I think.
.
So…I’m having trouble making the Independent website work with my sad old work computer, but someone (Amanda?) posted the link to that article online a few days ago. The thing is, the “apology” and the column are dated the same day (Jan. 23rd) and the apology refers to “last week’s” Low Tidings, which it said it had taken down, and at least a few days ago, both that apology and the Jan 23rd Low Tidings were available online at the same time.
Which led me to think that the apology was for the previous week’s column. And that Mr. Murphy is even more lacking in judgement than one might believe possible.
Like I said, I’m having trouble confirming that suspicion, but it seems worth checking.
I am really glad you’re posting on this Pam, as I just about spat my cereal across my apartment when I heard that NPR piece as I was getting ready in the morning.
‘Post-Racial’ just sounded like nothing more than a re-terming of being ‘Colourblind’, which most now know to be merely code for “I’m pretending racism, and especially my own racism, doesn’t exist”.
The only way we would POSSIBLY be living in anything like a ‘post-racial’ society is if individual overt acts of the most obvious racism are now taboo. I might be willing to give that over.
However, there is a thin veneer of civility that most individual expressions of racism and prejudice comfortably and in continued strength remain present. Individual racisms are just as present as they ever were, they’re merely just not so overt.
This, of course, completely ignores how racism exists also quite solidly at the societal-structural level. We could only live in a post-racial society if these structural aspects of racism (that then inform individual racisms) are no longer present, and as we look at demographics and social indicators, it’s very very apparent that this isn’t the case.
The trouble is, race isn’t the problem. Difference isn’t the problem. Fear of race and difference is the problem. Hence, the solution isn’t to pretend that race doesn’t exist in people’s minds, because all that does it leave the default as the unexamined standard (ie whiteness). Race must rather be embraced, rather than ignored as though it will go away.
All that claiming that we are ‘post-racial’ does is allows whites to pretend that they are wonderful and non-racist while not changing their behaviour or challenging their mindsets.
Framing Obama’s candidacy as “post-racial,” on the other hand, creates a context where, when his opponents talk about Obama’s racial identity, their own racism will be more obvious to those voters who aren’t already invested in combatting racism. Obama’s critics will be the ones “injecting” race into the campaign, and preventing the public from “getting over it.”
Of course that definition makes the case for that view, however, for many out there, to make a “post-racial” declaration is a means to say “look, there isn’t a problem here” and thus if it is raised at all, it’s not in the context about society’s larger problems with race generally.
The subject is too deeply embedded in the American psyche to will it away — remember, Obama doesn’t have to “make a big deal of his blackness.” He’s black, but he’s not carrying the perceived “chip on his shoulder” that Jackson or Sharpton have by default. That’s what scares white folks, because J&S have traded on race merchantry in the past - where all forms of racism - benign, ignorant, overt and violent, are seemingly the same. This only drives further discussion into the closet.
What I am saying is that the underlying reason for promoting “post-racial” (note you don’t see many blacks tossing that around) is more about wanting it to be true so badly so that race doesn’t have to be dealt with. It cuts both ways.
Note you will see folks on the right (and the Clinton camp) complaining that they “cannot talk about race” in regards to Obama. No, they feel they cannot successfully use the familiar political dog-whistles that evoke fear without getting called on it.
It all goes back to the fear of being labeled “racist.” It’s almost as if we need to come up with another term that doesn’t conjure up visions of Klan Night Riders, lest whites recoil at the mere thought that they can hold ingrained biases through no fault of their own by growing up in this culture.
I’m pretty sure implicit bias is what drives much of The Bradley Effect, because many who change their minds and vote for the non-minority candidate don’t see themselves as racist; they can rationalize their decisions in ways that avoid ownership of that factor.
Of course fools will mock Obama with some sad parody of percieved blackitude. If he were Jewish, they’d use that. - sunsin
We should have elected Nell Carter (Black, Jewish, Woman, Homosexual) while she was still alive … if only just to explode the heads of all the freepi and the like.
The Independent must have been so broken up over their lapse of judgment that they had to run this today.
http://www.indyeastend.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2008-01-23&-token.story=72458.113117&-nothing#123
Nice going guys.
Christ, but those people at The Independent are a gang of punks.
What I am saying is that the underlying reason for promoting “post-racial” (note you don’t see many blacks tossing that around) is more about wanting it to be true so badly so that race doesn’t have to be dealt with. It cuts both ways.
I think this is an excellent insight by Pam. These days some elements of the right love to suggest that racism is a problem in America only because minorities continue to make it a problem. They preach that blacks need to “move past” slavery and Jim Crow, that Jackson and Sharpton represent the biggest source of racial division, and that if minorities would just stop being divisive by having “their own groups” like the NAACP everything would be all peaceful.
Even if one doesn’t care for Al Sharpton, this is fatuous nonsense. But it’s very seductive fatuous nonsense to people who don’t want to see themselves as racist but who need justifications for hostility towards minorities. It’s like Jonah Goldberg’s ridiculous Liberal Fascism - what better way to indulge in and justify your own racism than to pull the Rovian trick of making minorities the racist ones?
And the “Obama is post-racial” thing plays right into this scheme.
I’ll be post-racial when we’re all post-racism.
I couldn’t have voted for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton because they share a common trait that I feel disqualifies them for public office.
They’re clergy.
That also removes Huckabee and, I believe, Romney from any possibility (am I correct in my reading of all observant mormon adult males as technically clergy?)
Politics aside, I simply can’t vote for a cleric.
Has anyone else noticed that only right-wingers try to classify themselves as “independants” ? Like it will magically absolve them of this type of racist, sexist bullshit if they pretend like they aren’t really part of the party that’s capitalized on racist, sexist bullshit for over half a century?
“Post-racial” just means “after we all agreed not to talk about race anymore”.
“Post-feminist” means something similar.
Hrm, I’m willing to believe that most Americans believe racism is wrong … but I’m also willing to believe that they simultaneously define whatever THEY do as not racism. I’m not racist, not like those OTHER guys over THERE who are WORSE. It’s like SF fans who aren’t geeky like any other SF fans, but who can tell you stories about all those OTHER ones in Spock ears and fifteen year old t-shirts.
I recall one ex-friend of mine (haven’t seen her in years, and SO not a loss) who, when she heard about some stolen Christmas decorations in her neighborhood — rich, white one, too — literally said “It’s dem damn n*ggers.” I think my eyes fell out of my head.
What really tore it was when she followed it up, without any sense of shame or irony, “Now, it’s not like I’m a RACIST or anything … ” No, sure you ain’t honey.
People are really good at rationalizing anything. “Racism is bad” makes perfect sense alongside, “But immediately suspecting the black employee of stealing office supplies because that’s what those people are like isn’t racist.” Racism is anything the OTHER fellow does.
Well, on a slightly different angle, the whole post-racism skit is bunk, not only for all of the reasons stated above, it purposely neglects one of the key elements of race in America which is that racism often envelopes important unspoken contracts between groups of white people.
Anyone that violates those contracts, black or white, should prepare for a fight, and an often disengenous fight at that, since none of the terms are written down. The trouble is, one does not have to be talking about black people, or women, or whatever to get a fight going.
Most of the things progressives are after do not have all that much to do with racial distinctions, but they *do* make those racial (and sex) distinctions untenable. Hence very fierce fights on things that liberals and progressives might think would be popular, like health care. Health is not a right to these people, it is a sumptuary good that is bestowed onto them, as if from God. It’s also a sign of wealth and class, with the comcommitant reduction in value if everyone has it. A universal health care system, by definition, will overturn roles that many people would think of as necessarily rigid. Black and Hispanics *should* be more plagued with illnesses and environmental toxins. Women *should* suffer “consequences” if they step out of line. After all, they are not the norm of the healthy and pure white male. Of course, if everyone has it, health care becomes shitty and ineffective ?:~) Or at least as their emotional reasoning goes from the handy topics of economic (il)logic.
It’s not even just in terms of what the state has to offer. Meritocracy will also drive these people batty, which is why one of the big elements of whiteness is about not being subject to laws that other people have to follow. Making an effort to hire women and minorities who are similarly or better qualified bring out cries of reverse discrimination, and when that is a very untenable position, like the dominant prescence of asian americans in the California University system or women outnumbering men in colleges in general, they simply demand that white men be privileged outright. So enforcing laws (like those against predatory lending and other laws that protect the poor, who don’t look like the “right People”) and hiring the best people for the job will get you in trouble with an unexpectedly large number of folks who will come up with a wild variety issues with what you are doing, even though it’s completely race and sex neutral.
This is why I never really liked Obama as a politician. He campaigns from the center-right, while everything suggests that he will have social justice inclinations as a president. At the same time, he has attitudes similar to african-americans and afro-carribean americans, much like Powell and to a lesser extent, Tiger Woods, which can mean that he believes that he is external to the “system”, unlike the descendents of slaves, when he isn’t. So I’m concerned that he might not be aware of just how hard and ruthless he will have to be–from the start, just not to get saddled with all the consequences of the Bush Admin and coerced away anything that vested interested don’t agree with through the means of “emergencies”.
Some people just can’t process abstractions without rather concrete aids, and most if not all people need/refer to a gross symbol rather than the abstraction some of the time. ‘isms are about norms. In this case, the healthy person is Da Vinci’s anatomical drawing. The righteous person is the image of Robert E Lee, or the Sun King. Offering norms of easy to process symbols is how a racist and sexist system stays intact. The mental image, and not the abstract words, *is* the contract.
My eyeballs just did a 360.
Let’s be straight about one thing. Nobody, but NOBODY, wants a post-racial election less than the “civil rights” establishment or “progressives.”
Obama could be elected president, and it wouldn’t change a thing. They have their grievances, but little else.
Take that away, and they will have nothing left.
“Obama could be elected president, and it wouldn’t change a thing. They have their grievances, but little else.
Take that away, and they will have nothing left.”
seroj, are you merely attacking the “civil rights establishment” (why you throw “progressives” in too I’m not sure), or are you outright denying that racism is still a huge problem in America?…
Apparently, “Canadian” is a new racist code word. A bewildering choice to say the least, but as I’ve known a lot of white racists in my time, I can safely say I’m not surprised.
“Apparently, “Canadian” is a new racist code word.”
The whole thing is fascinating - sick but fascinating.
There’s one whole group that wants to pretend they aren’t racist and so they cling desperately to the idea that we are “post-racism”, because the applying the word “racist” to them is doubleplus-ungood.
Yet, at the same time there are those for whom being racist and expressing their racism to others is so strong that they must replace commonly understood, but discouraged, slurs with cryptic substitutes just to communicate.
Which proves once again that the power of the words themselves to do harm is limited, but the evil behind their use is very strong and (apparently) immortal…
Also, it’s a little weird to talk about a ‘post-racial’ election as the schools resegregate.
Went to the link re:Canadian… WOW.
In a way, this is hilarious for me. My grandmother’s parents were Canadian (New Brunswick) and Gram was the largest bigot in our family. My dad is just like her in that regard- this would flip him out.
Post-racial election == there’s one nonwhite candidate that white folks don’t automatically consider to be inferior to themselves.
Daniel Schorr is such a pompous ass - his self-satisfied, I’m-SO-much-smarter-than-all-you-listeners voice has always been so annoying to me that the stupid things he says are almost superfluous - I’m ready to throw things at the radio every time he comes on even before I hear what he’s actually saying.
More proof that age !– wisdom, if we needed any…
I can’t help thinking, along with a bunch of others above, that “post-racial” is really code for “we don’t actually lynch people any more, so you can’t accuse us of being racists. Oh, and no, you still can’t join our country club.” Post-racial means that the racists have to use dogwhistles and code words rather than just standing up and shouting “Segregation Forever!”, but it also means that when they say they had no idea the noose on that tree might be in bad taste, because all that happened so long ago, anyone who doesn’t take them at their word is suddenly the troublemaker.
Post-racial sounds to me like “post-feminist”, y’know, the period we’re in now where “men’s issues” like blowing shit up and controlling who gets married are national priorities, and “women’s issues” like health care and education are special interest pleading.
Basically, this reflects reality better than it should.
Post-racial means that the racists have to use dogwhistles and code words rather than just standing up and shouting “Segregation Forever!”
Yeah. I’m a white guy, living in a city, who used to believe that racism was on the way out. Certain life experiences, however, showed that racism wasn’t dead- it had just gotten sneakier and more strategic. And for the past couple of years, racists have been feeling strong enough that they are starting to exert more pressure on society. Anyone who doesn’t see it needs to open their eyes and listen to what’s on the radio, read their papers, and watch how their freinds, family and acquaintances act. You can’t listen to our useless media on this. You have to actually look around you and consider why people speak and act the way they do.
I’ve seen too much in my life to ever again believe that we are living in a ‘post-racial’ age.
I don’t know where to stand on the “America is postracial” issue. At some level, it is naive to think that racial problems will just go away in all generations and in all parts of the country. At another level, though, I see real change in young people’s understanding of race in some parts of the country. People who were alive before the civil rights movement are growing old and dying off. And in their place are young people for whom interracial dating is a non-issue—indeed, interracial doesn’t even seem to be the right word, since neither partner is “raced” in the traditional sense—for whom integration of public spaces is a foregone conclusion, and for whom a presidential candidate’s race is a secondary feature, like his or her attractiveness. That’s not to say racial injustice is gone in the U.S., or that we don’t have a long way to go. That’s only to say that I think many in my generation understand race much differently than many in older generations, and that that difference marks the beginning of a quite profound change in the national conversation about race.
Something y’all can read after your through patting yourselve’s on the backs for being post-racist.
Hillary Clinton contends with gender stereotypes, and Barack Obama with racial ones. Which bias runs deeper in the American psyche? The answer does not bode well for Clinton.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/17/black_man_vs_white_woman/