One last note on that Lowery thread. While I do get why it rubbed some folks the wrong way, let us be careful to not tread into that "I deserve credit for not being racist" territory. We do a lot of people a favor when we we aren't racist--but none more than ourselves. White people who voted for Obama may well have been looking past race, but more specifically they were voting their interest--as well they should. This isn't to single out white people. I'm with Chris Rock on the fatherhood piece. You don't get credit for doing what other hominids generally do--especially since it benefits you, in the long-term. It's the baseline expectation. This country has generally gotten an F minus in race relations. Advancing to "C" is progress--but it's progress to where we really should have been long ago. That is, if we were looking out for our interest.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I ain't never been to jail
Coates
Is there an 'our interest' as a country as it relates to race relations? I say no. I think like markets there are a bunch of people and groups making decision in their best interest. Sometimes those interest converge (w/o intent) but most often are divergent.
So I guess what I'm saying is I get your point and the Rock analogy and I'm with you in theory, as humans we should have been at an A long ago. But in practicality you and I both know while blacks may be potrayed as subordinate en masse they're really viewed as potent competitors, and as long as you're generically viewed as an opponent there is no convergent interest, wins and losses.
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
Spelling, TNC. in the title, it should be "you're", not "your".
"We do a lot of people a favor when we we aren't racist--but none more than ourselves."
thank you for this, TNC. It's the absolute truth, and it hearkens back to Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations. nobody really does anything solely for other people. they do it because it because it somehow benefits themselves, too.
The best situation is when both sides feel a sense of fulfillment.
just wins and losses
k1
K1,
That assumes a kind of permanence in regards to race and ethnicity. Compare how the Irish and Italians of New York see each other today, compared to 100 years ago. It was never supposed to stay this way.
Great point, TNC. Let's keep the standards high, ya'll. America started pretttttyyyy bad -- that is, if you know the history. Perhaps all this controversy over fault, and blame, and guilt just requires a common revisiting of history. Then we can all be on the same page.
Nina,
Much of the problem stems from the fact that a lot of people, especially white people, don't want any thing to do with revisiting history. They want to look at these things as if what happened yesterday has no bearing on the situation today. And then convince themselves, and try to convince others, that we can move forward without acknowledging what's behind us.
I agree 100%, TNC, but there's a distinction between "I deserve credit for not being racist" and "Don't blame for something that I personally did nothing to cause." I'm not a big fan of either position, in this context at least, but the second one is a lot more defensible than the first (and, really, more representative of what I saw in the Lowery thread, though I didn't read all 200 comments).
>>We do a lot of people a favor when we we aren't racist--but none more than ourselves.
I don't think being "not racist" is enough. When we stop there, people want credit for what they're supposed to be doing, and history gets airbrushed and flattened. When we're sitting on a C (are you grading on a curve?), it takes active, intentional anti-racism to move our grade up.
I think White Americans too often think about racism as an individual problem instead of a group problem. The idea is that if those crazy racists would just stop being racist, everything would be fine. But those crazy racists are really a comfort to most - they ensure that there's always someone who's a caricature of racism, so the rest of us are okay by comparison (a C to an F-, perhaps).
Something like anti-racism reframes the problem. It means that I not only have to evaluate myself (Am I a C? If so, how do I get to an A?), but I also have to take some responsibility for others who are bringing us down.
Anna Stubblefield has an interesting book called Ethics Along the Color Line, where she encourages Whites to think of each other as family. Sounds kind of dangerous and supremacist at first blush, but her real point is to make those who are doing the right thing feel the need to reign in the crazy drunk uncle who makes the whole family look bad.
In the first Lowery post, TNC mentions the Southerner who isn't racist and who is embarrassed by the South and wishes the whole region could just move past its racist past and present (I'm paraphrasing). The question Stubblefield asks - and that an anti-racist should ask - is what that embarrassed person is doing to help. "Taking care of me" doesn't cut it in this case, and I hope that becomes one of the primary lessons we learn about race relations in the next four (eight, let's hope) years.
I read the comments last night with a sense of dismay, but no surprise...we won't get to an A without a lot of work and another generation. I am firmly in elw, RobertM, Deborah but especially Maya's camp.
K1, Ta-Nehisi is exactly right, concepts of ethnicity evolve. The learning curve is gonna be steep for some folks, but it IS in their own self-interest. Our children will be operating in a majority brown America, they need to know American history.
D-Sel, your argument that "Don't blame for something that I personally did nothing to cause" is not defensible in my view. African American history is not separate from my history as a Northern European American. My husband and I have benefited from white privilege since our birth.
Well put.
I think an important thing to echo is how much racism and racial debates have shaped this country's politics for the worse.
Threats of racial change have been -- for a long, long time -- one of the things that has prevented white folks from acting in their own interest.
With due respect to your post on talking heads, TNC, Pat Buchanan is a great example of somebody who internalizes and projects this dynamic. He was a brilliant politician ... God forgive him, he made a career on the Southie corollary to the southern strategy. But his own personal entanglement in racial anxiety makes him impotent to understand Obama's political appeal.
D-Sel,
Sorry to disagree, but neither is legit. The "wasn't me" defense, is patriotism on the cheap. Either you celebrate the majesty of the 4th of July, and all that it means, despite having not lifted a finger to liberate this country, or you do not. Likewise, either we--emphasis on "we"--move forward with the work our ancestors couldn't complete--despite not being personally at fault--or we don't.
You take the good with the bad. We buy into ourselves as heroes in WWII, as well we should--despite the fact that "we" personally weren't there. If that's the case, then we also have to buy into the fact that those same armies that went off were segregated. That in the previous war soldiers who died for this country, came home and were lynched. We haven't recovered from that yet. It is a cheap, "party all the time," patriotism that seeks to opt out of that enormous responsibility.
@B
That is certainly not "my argument" and your second and third points are complete non-sequitors. Read my comment again. I explicitly said I don't like that argument in this context. But it is a different argument than asking for credit for something you're supposed to do. Benefitting from white privilege and not being a racist are two very different things.
I am white, and I loved Lowery's benediction. I agree that white people should not "get credit for not being racist." We all should do the basic human things - be good parents, friends, and neighbors. We all benefit when prejudices and bigotry lessen.
I do think there is a subtle difference between wanting a prize for not being racist and not wanting people assuming you are racist just because you are white. (This is in response to some of the comments, not Lowery who was not saying anything of the sort) As someone, who is not racist and who minored in African American Studies, I don't think it's wrong for me to bristle at the idea that just because I am white people assume that I am racist. I don't want a cookie for the basic decency of not being racist - I just don't want to be judged based on the actions of people I have never met or who died before I was even born.
It's kind of like how it is wrong to assume that a black or latino teenager must be a gangbanger, because the majority of gangbangers are black and latino teenagers. These are unfair judgments.
TNC,
Again, totally agree in this context, but just to reiterate my (very limited) comment, there is nevertheless a distinction, no? And I still find the second position more defensible, even if I personally disagree with it. It's one thing for Whites to say "I'm not a racist," quite another to pretend that they have no responsibility for the mess their ancestors created and/or the benefits they continue to receive as a result of it. My observation (again incomplete) was that most of the posts yesterday acknowledged that responsibility but felt, wrongly in my opinion, attacked as somehow not "right," (read: racist), by Lowery's comments.
I really have to run so I can't get my thoughts down in complete form. But to be perfectly clear, I'm decidely not in the "it wasn't me, so don't bug me about it" camp.
I don't think I deserve credit for not being racist. However, I get pissed when people try to lump me in with every other 'white' person in existence. I don't do this to other people, and I expect the same in return. Check your inbox.
Justin,
The family idea is an interesting approach. The artist Adrian Piper touches on a similar idea in some of her art, especially the piece Cornered. She challenges the viewer to interrupt racist jokes. She challenges the white viewer to accept the fact that they might actually be part black considering the country's history. She challenges the white viewer to identify as black. Basically, she confronts a lot of people's assumptions about race and racism. Then she challenges white people to become active in fighting racism.
I am kind of torn on this issue.
As a value judgment, I agree that asking for credit for things you are supposed to do is silly, whether used in the context of not being a klansmen or in Chris Rock's riff on parenthood (additionally, I would add, not voting for McCain, but that's another thread).
That being said, I wonder if we are considering the persuasive aspects and the ability to bring people over to our vision of a just and civilized world.
To borrow TNC's grade analogy, if we don't at least credit people getting from an F to a C do we risk that those people who now got to a C average say "screw it, no one recognizes the improvement I have made" and then tread happily down to their F average? I don't know if they do or not but it seems like part of what we want to consider.
"where she encourages Whites to think of each other as family."
This will never happen. I don't know a single white person who looks at their whiteness as being a core part of who they are. Now obviously, this pretty gets to the heart of white privilege, but its the truth. I have as much in common with a white bigot in Arkansas, as I do with a Puerto Rican gang member in the Bronx. Okay, that might be a stretch,(being from Missouri and all)but that's how I feel...
"Pretty much gets to the heart..."
To this half-Anglo-Saxon, half-Mediterranean American, the last comment of Rev. Lowery wasn't mean-spirited, but more in the sense of "it's given to you to set right what once went wrong." Those of my ancestors who were in the USA before the Civil War were, for the most part, Northern farmers scraping to get by, but if I have the means to set right the ancient wrongs of their countrymen, then I have the responsibility.
I don't have a problem with that at all.
It's something else when, during a period of my life where my net income wasn't enough to pay my medical bills, and I would have been living in a box on the street (and probably dying from endogenous chemical imbalances and a then-unknown vascular condition) despite a graduate education if not for the heavy-duty support of my parents, I kept hearing that I was the beneficiary of an invisible privilege, and that the only way for me to be righteous was to give up that privilege. It's a little tough to swallow when you're barely keeping your head above water, constantly worrying about being dragged under to drown by the undertow.
Of course, having to move to a foreign land to find work opened up my eyes a little. I've been discriminated against based on my language skills (or lack thereof), my religious faith (or lack thereof), and my national heritage.
True. Should have been there long, long, long ago. I don't know how much things have changed with younger men (maybe not that much) but women have seen this with men too, where they seem to expect much more credit than due for doing something like, oh, emptying the dishwasher once in a blue moon?
For your white readers: Beverly Daniel Tatum wrote a great book on the insidious ramifications of privilege and skin color in Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In The Cafeteria, and Other conversations About Race. Highly recommended reading for whites (don't worry, white folks, it's not a We Hate Whitey thesis, it's inclusive and respectful of all people). Education is a key, a path to enlightenment.
TNC,
I agree with you on this one. It has been an odd thing having a child who is gaining awareness of the world at this time (almost 4). She asked me on Monday what Dr. King's dream was (Thank you Little Bill for a great short about it BTW) and I had a difficult time explaining to her that only 40 years ago she wouldn't have been allowed to play with some of her friends because they looked different. Racism, when you talk about it out loud, makes no sense to a child and that's a good thing.
That being said the fact that so much racism still abounds in this country tells you a little about the values that parents, the media, and other socializing agents have instilled in the generations that have come after the 'Civil rights era'. So all things considered I guess a 'C' is a pretty high grade, maybe we're just a high 'D'.
Wow that was a little rambly. ;)
Anna Stubblefield has an interesting book called Ethics Along the Color Line, where she encourages Whites to think of each other as family. Sounds kind of dangerous and supremacist at first blush, but her real point is to make those who are doing the right thing feel the need to reign in the crazy drunk uncle who makes the whole family look bad.
I don't completely disagree, but who exactly is the drunk uncle? Is the the old white guy you run across at a bar who states that the Detroit Lions suck because they have too many black guys in the defense backfield, or is it some Hollywood liberal who thinks he is doing right by blacks because he donates to the right causes and always votes for Democrats, but has a lily white professional staff?
It is easy and I have seen that it is even effective to say to a person "don't use that word in front of me, it isn't right", however it is obnoxious when a white guy acts the role of racial policeman and labels those who oppose affirmative action as racists.
"Should' is a funny word.
Fear of "the other" would seem to be the default setting throughout human history. I imagine that anyone who manages to rise above this very human trait deserves a little credit, whatever the color of their skin.
(additionally, I would add, not voting for McCain, but that's another thread).
So the starting point for decency is that you don't vote Republican?
As you say. 'Enlightened self-interest' is the technical term.
Sorry, it may have been a little tongue in cheek, but it was directed toward McCain rather than any individual who may in the future run on the Republican ticket. Though I find it pretty unlikely my priorities are going to be in line with that party anytime soon.
To me, a white person who gets miffed at Lowery's joke is like a homeowner who takes offense at Pete Seeger singing the "No Trespassing" line in This Land Is Your Land.
Mricha1, I'll check out Piper. Sounds like the same idea expressed aesthetically instead of philosophically. It also echoes the idea TNC always comes back to: it's in everyone's best interest to move beyond racism, not just the historically opressed group's.
Stacy, I don't understand the 'It will never happen' sentiment. Seems defeatist and passive. Of course it's difficult to get white people to see skin color as a valid contributor to who they are - that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. In fact, difficulty is probably why it's so important to try. Otherwise, no one's volunteering to go down that road unprompted. I wonder why you feel no connection to the bigot in Arkansas, or, more pointedly, why you don't see the value in taking responsibility for that person's actions? If (a white) someone doesn't step in and tell him/her to get in line, how will anything ever be different?
Eh,
I voted for Barr but I'm still glad Obama won. I make no apologies for my vote, as I do believe that Barr would have been the best choice for president to accomplish the thing I want most, the reduction in the size of government.
That being said, Obama was the best choice from the major Candidates... by far. His views on Torture, his cabinet picks, and his pragmatic, incremental approach to things, give me optimism for his Presidency.
I just wish some of the other libertarians would stop all their whining. Particularly the ones who didn't say jack about Bush and his 8 years of obscene government growth.
DougEMI says
I would say both, and neither. Words AND actions matter. You would love for every person's actions to match their rhetoric but thats not always the case. And while its easy to label the guy at the bar a racist, for all we know his actions might not reflect his feelings on football. Believe me I have seen both situations. But the truth is the point that was being made in my opinion is that in both situations someone should call both of them on their bullshit.
Justin,
Yeah, it probably is a bit defeatist. But as long as whites are the majority(or plurality) in this country, they just won't look at things that way. I don't feel a connection to a bigot in Arkansas, because, to me, he's just another dude. An asshole, most likely, but just another guy that I don't know. I don't feel a connection to white people. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to stop bigotry and racism, but I would never view that person as belonging to my "family."
I probably shouldn't ask this, but TNC do you really think the US has been getting an F-minus in race relations until recently? Or is the F-minus cumulative since the 17th century?
I am a liberal white woman. I used to think that race relations in the US were really terrible until I lived abroad and started traveling more widely to places where racial/ethnic tensions really are terrible, and it totally changed my perspective on the US. I have been told, in public and without any apparent embarrassment, that "maternal mortality rates are high in the Andes because "they" (indigenous people) are "like animals, and it is common for animals to die while giving birth." In Guatemala in the 1980s the army did not want to "waste bullets on Indians" so they taught the enlisted men how to bash little kids heads on the adobe walls in order to save bullets.
Not that we should be proud of "getting a C in race relations" and certainly there is a lot of room for improvement, but if the US has been getting an F-minus what does Rwanda in 1994 (or Kenya in late 2007/early 2008 for that matter) get? There is still considerable inequality of opportunity in the US, and of course we have a history of conquest and chattel slavery, but at least we don't hack each other to bits in the street based on our last names or whether we look more Nilotic than Bantu.....
Now that you have hit the big time TNC I urge you to travel internationally.
OK, I hope people don't think I am excusing the US, or white Americans, for a history of bad race relations. Just trying to make the point that bad is relative.
Yeah, it probably is a bit defeatist. But as long as whites are the majority(or plurality) in this country, they just won't look at things that way.
Well, clearly some whites already do look at things that way. Justin does. I do.
I think it's important for white people to see themselves as white, for the reasons Justin laid out, and I don't think that encouraging them to do so is a non-starter.
The thing that annoyed me the most about yesterday's thread is the fact that white folk say stupid shit about minority folks on the regular and we (meaning minority folks) just have to deal with it and move along because that's just what we have to do.
Then when a lion of the covil rights movement makes a innoucuous riff on an old song there is this hue and cry coupled with 'woe is me and my hurt feelings' by some white folks. And I'm sorry I'm just not checking for that.
I understand that white folks want to "get over it" or "get past it". But you can't get past anything, without acknowledging our shared collective histories and all too often I feel like whites want to wish things away and you just can't. That certainly doesn't mean you dwell on it to the point where it's an impediment, either.
But I wake up everyday knowing I represent for not just myself and my family, but to some extent my race because of all the sterotypes that are out there about blacks. And it's self imposed to some degree but I don't stop repping. Ever.
God, my spelling is getting as bad as TNC's...LOL!!! I have to stop typing in between meetings!
(I'm just messing with you, TNC!)
We just inaugurated a black president, for heaven's sake -- where else in the world has that happened, in a country where blacks are only 12% of the population? Nowhere. That wasn't enough for Lowery? What does "white" need to do to make it "right" for him? At what point can we finally move on?
Angus,
Of course I look at myself as white. I AM white. But I'll never look at my whiteness as being an important part of my personal identity. Its not. You can't convince someone to make it so. You identify with a random white person in another part of the country because of his skin color? Regardless of his beliefs or cultural background? Good for you. Although I don't believe you.
Although at this point, I think we are talking about two different things.
As someone who is white, I cnanot figure out what's so threatening about being challenged to "embrace right." Whoever has a problem with that concept, should refelect a little bit.
Just as someone who has lived the life of a responsible citizen--to myself, others, the world--I don't feel particularly defensive about my past in that light either.
However, I do agree with TN here--first of all, none of these acts are anything more than what I consider basic humanity, for which I would be embarrased to claim any praise, and embracing right, responsible citizenship, willingness to tackle difficulty, being a decent parent--these all have satisfactions that make them intrinsically rewarding.
To clarify, I'm not saying whites deserve credit for not being racist -- as TNC refers to Chris Rock, that's what we're supposed to do. But how about an ounce of credit for electing a black guy to the highest office in the land?
You're welcome.
Tiffany, the traffic goes both ways when it comes to negative or racist comments. Black people have called and still do call whites honkies or worse you know. As for the assumption that it's always white people who are racist, I'd say that there are plenty of Asians who are more virulently racist than you would ever want to know. Also, on collective histories, both sides should want to get past it, and while we may not be there yet, it isn't going to happen while both sides rub each other raw about it - as happens on both sides. I would question Lowery's remark at the end because it was a) inaccurate, b) gratuitous, c) questionably Christian, and d) offensive to many white people who are not racist, but felt lumped in by this rather sanctimonious bit of phrasing. Whether Lowery is or is not a lion of the civil rights movement is not relevant on this point. What matters is the thing said, not the speaker.
TNC, I have to question your easy assumption about how its inevitably in one's interest not to be racist. One might argue that society is better off in a non-racist state, but at the individual level, historically it often made sense to join the power-holding racist club. That's not pleasant to contemplate - but history is about dealing with the unpleasant facts, rather than making blanket statements,no?
KCN,
I can't speak for Ta, black people or even be the white spokesman (someone else has the job), but I would think that the treatment of Africans in France is not that much of a concern to African Americans who suffer from the inequality of the day or the inequality of the past that effects today. The fact that assholes in Europe throw bananas at black soccer players doesn't make the Detroit Public School system any better.
I think knowing that people overseas act this way is important because I think that people tend to be insulated and may assume at times that their problems are unique, but equality is supposed to be a right and not graded on a curve.
I few years ago, I had a black girlfriend and we were watching a movie called "Amistad" together. It is about the slave-trade and its main protagonist is a young lawver who represents the slaves in court and evolves personally and morally in the process. Anyway, as I was watching the movie, I realized that I was subconciously identifying myself with that young lawyer. Later, it occurred to me how enormously crazy that was. I was fraternizing with a 19th century slave-attorney, when all I ever did was being with the girl I loved. I had never thought much about racism and racists before that, for me, it was just something that I was not and bad people were. Only when I realized that I took subconciously credit for not being a racist, it occurred to me that I had the root of it in me as well.
Stacy,
I guess the way I understand the "family" concept is a little different. I don't see it as embracing all white people as my family in the sense of embracing them with love but in the sense of seeing us as socially related and thus feeling the freedom to speak out. If my republican uncle rambles on blaming "the illegals" for all of the country's ills, I call him on it. If I am in a different social setting with another guy rambling on about "the illegals," I should call him on it too - he is in the larger scheme no different than my uncle - some guy spouting nonsense.
It can be hard to do that, because it can be really awkward or we are unprepared for the situation. I try to do it, but there have been times when I was so slackjawed by what someone said that I couldn't even collect myself enough to speak. I was in Georgia, and a white women was talking to me about her dogs Tarbaby and Buckwheat. She was going on and on saying how she wouldn't mindit if people named their dog Cracker. I was born, raised, and live in Chicago. Now, there are racist people in Chicago, but this woman's racial outlook was unlike anything I had experienced. It left me speechless. I failed in this situation in part because I was stunned and in part because I was so uncomfortable. We have to work and almost train ourselves to be able to respond in these situations. Not everyone wants to or will do this, but if those of us who are willing so this it might make things a tiny bit better.
I'm not sure why people don't see this for what it is, namely laziness on the part of people that like to get upset at stuff, just for the sake of being "upset."
Sid,
Please.
One man's good fortune is not equivalent to equality for an entire people. But you knew that, didn't you?
It's interesting, because there seem to be two ways of approaching America's "grade on racism" here: one that looks at how the USA measures up to other nations of the world, and another that looks at how the USA measures up to "the way things ought to be." But even if you give the USA an "A" relative to the rest of the world, it's not a homogeneous country. Sure, maybe a black man living in certain parts of the country has just as many chances as a white man (although I somewhat doubt it), but there are still large swaths of the country where that is far from being true. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
Hhmmn.
AS I read this thread I kept remembering bits of a college level Washington state history class I took a while back.
It was a history of extraordinary violence by one group toward an other. Mostly the motivation was economic advantage along with fear of the Other. Sometimes the targets where defined by race, but not always: Catholics were the target at one point and labor union members at another. In any case, clearly illegal and immoral actions were carried out to eliminate groups of inconvenient people who were in the way of someone else who stood to gain by the elimination.
All of this is mostly forgotten.
The targeted groups (Japanese, Chinese, Catholics, Native Americans, union members) are still here.
So what is my point? I'm not sure actually. I don't want history to be forgotten. I don't think that people should live in a permanent state of anger over it, either. I don't think that our history should be judged by the progress along one axis when there are so many others. I don't think that people now are to blame for or deserve credit for what others did; however, I do think that we should be aware of the bad behavior of which the human animal is capable and watch for it in ourselves and our in current events. I don't think that telling the stories from the past drag us back or push us forward; it depends on the context put around the story, what lesson is taught.
I wasn't offended by Rev. Lowery, perhaps because I assumed that he was using shorthand, which necessarily lacks nuance, to reference our evolution as a nation toward peaceful and healthy cultural and ethnic diversity. Each of his references could be torn apart and critisized (yellow needs to be mellow?), but what's the point? He used a broad brush. He wasn't writing a book!
Anyhoo, I think it would clarify things if we focused on discussing what we would like the future of human relations in this country to be. It is surprising how little agreement there is in that and I don't mean because of racists!
That assumes a kind of permanence in regards to race and ethnicity. Compare how the Irish and Italians of New York see each other today, compared to 100 years ago. It was never supposed to stay this way.
-----------------------------------------------
Coates-
No bluster, you're way more versed in sociology and the history of man vis-a-vis race than me. But a couple points.
1. I have to push back on your last statment that 'it was never supposed to stay this way' Says who? Since the beginning of time man has succeeded time and again in physically and mentally subordinating his fellow man. A Christian would agree with you in principle, but their argument would quickly become null and void based on their history. But a Darwinist may say that the way it supposed to be is that the strong (however described) rule the not so strong.
2. I like the Irish/Italian metaphor as it forces me to get creative about what a 2109 America(?) looks like. But is there really equivalence b/t blacks and whites circa 1909 and what could be considered two subgroups of whites. I guess what I'm saying is I don't think we can conflate race and ethnicity for the purpose of my argument.
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
subordinating his fellow man for his benefit.
Mricha1 mostly nailed my family thoughts. It's already been mentioned in the comments that white people don't like to be assumed to be racist. Seems like there are two options to fix that: complain about being unfairly lumped into an essentialised group, or fix the parts of the group that give it a bad name. The latter seems more productive (and it has some pretty interesting ties to Black Nationalist ideology, too).
Andrew Fly, amen!
Wonkie, I don't think focusing on the past is about fueling anger; rather, it's a way to understand how our ancestors' actions shape our world today and to recognize that, even including Obama's election, a significant deficit still exists in political, social, and economic power for blacks in America. It's only by understanding the historical foundation of this deficit that we can figure out how to repair it.
That bit of Lowry's speech was just plain silly, and perhaps a bit tacky given the nature of the event. But I find the outrage equally as silly, and the debate equally as tacky. I feel like a lot of commenters are "intellectualizing" what really amounts to a bad joke. I mean seriously, are some of the comments in these two threads what people really thought as they sat on their sofas listening to Lowry? I highly doubt it. My guess is, for most people it was an "Ohh, Grandpa" moment, with outrage limited to a giant eyeroll.
Sid, that's exactly what TNC was referring to in this post. We're *supposed* to elect the best person for the job. I guess you could say we get credit for not being sufficiently racist to reject the best candidate for the job because he's African-American, but that's just not that much credit, y'know? "Congratulations, America, you didn't have your head so far up your ass that you would elect a guy who would further destroy the economy, human rights, and America's standing in the world just because he's white!" I wouldn't seek that kind of credit, because it's *embarrassing* to do so.
I'm a white America, and I agree with CitizenE. I didn't find Joseph Lowery's remarks threatening at all. I want us to embrace what's right.
KCN, I don't know-- in my school anything below, I think, 60% was an F. So Rwanda could easily get a 0 and we could get a 50% and both fail. Not sure if we should take things that literally, of course....
I didn't mean that stories from the past necessarily fuel anger in the present. I guess I was unclear. Actually I think that there are times when stories from the past need to be told precisely because anger in the present is needed. My point was the that the value of stories from the past is the lesson needed for the future. For me the value of the stories about race ( and religion, and sexual orientation and women)is that the failure to be empathetic to others based on some label which can be imposed on the other is a human failing. I honestly think that it is genetic: we are the descendent of territorial pack hunters, after all. Obviously the exact perameters of a particular prejudice has to be taught, but I also think that many humans are hardwired to "go there", to divide us into us vs them, which makes the teaching of prejudice, particularly, to the group that gets the advantge of it, relatively easy.
Yeah I know little kids who haven't been taught to be racists are startled by the idea. But the same child could be very simpleminded, callous,and fearful in their attitude toward Muslims or gays or nonChristians or Koreans or people who aren't Americans, whoever is the Other to the parents.
After reading the condemnations of white people on this blog "who just want to get past the past."...
I'm a white person who just wants to get past the past. I'm 25 years old. I don't "rep" for white people. I see truth, and I see falsehood, and I can't stomach anti-intellectualism no matter whose mouth it's coming out of, whether it's Sarah Palin or Bobby Rush.
I'd be a lot happier of more people, including both whites and people of color, took this attitude instead of first deciding whether the truth is in the interest of "their tribe."
I can't wait until 100 years from now when everyone's light brown and we can just forget all this stupid bullshit.
I wasn't offended by Lowery at all; I thought it was actually really funny to trot out this old rhyme with these racial references on a day when it was so clear how meaningless they are. In a way I think he was celebrating that in this day and age, in many social environments, using that kind of language is not acceptable anymore. We have made huge progress.
But the fact is there is still an enormous amount of white privilege in this country. Change is happening, but the "right" we're supposed to do is to keep working at true equality. Equality in the law has been the foundation, but equality in our social world is a long way off.
There isn't actually anything more to be said here on this topic, is there? Let's talk about football.
Sime, that was a lovely post and a very sophisticated realization on your part.
Alright, I need to start studying for the Bar exam, but...
I want to address TNC's point first (while pretty much echoing mricha1's position), because I was thinking about this last night. I'm white, but I have black friends, black co-workers, I had black classmates when I was in school, and black teammates on my sports teams. I grew up watching Fat Albert, the Cosby Show, In Living Color, and BET's Comic View (Malcolm and Eddie - you guys can keep). I grew up rooting for Rickey Henderson, Ronnie Lott, and Tim Hardaway (during his Run TMC years). I have even worked for black people before. I am also dating a Mexican, I lived in China for 6 months (my ex-girlfriend is Chinese), I live in a neighborhood that is predominantly Black, Mexican, Middle Eastern, East Indian, and hippie. I have friends and co-workers of all races, religions, sexual orientations, ethnicities, and political views.
Now, this is the first time I ever wrote this. Why? Because I don't make friends with people to get a medal saying "world's least racist honkey." I don't have a checklist that says, "I need to have at least 5 black friends to be cool." I don't make friends with people of different groups so I can pat myself on the back and say, "you know, I was a good liberal today." I don't go around saying, "See, I have a gay friend, look how 21st Century I am." I don't say, "Hey, I voted for Obama, we're square, right?" I make friends with people because I like people, and people, in all their differences, are wonderful. I am nice to people because being nice to people is the right thing to do. And I voted for President Obama because I felt he was the best and most presidential candidate.
Now, you're probably thinking, "FW, see, you just don't get it. You just gave us a list of all your friends so you can get sympathy, or you can show how much better you are then everyone else, etc." Well, if that's how you feel, you obviously don't know me and there is not much I can do for you.
But the reason that I bring this up is because I was a bit uncomfortable with the Rev. Lowrey remark. I wasn't "offended" as, say Glenn Beck or Fox News. I didn't get the torch and pitchfork and call Rev. Lowrey and President Obama racists. I was a little uncomfortable at that moment, then I moved on. It was just one line out of two hours worth of speeches, and I just got caught in this great moment of American History. I understand where Rev. Lowrey is coming from and I know the history, but it just seemed like the wrong time, place, and manner for that. That's just my personal opinion. We can talk about racism any time. Hell, we are discussing it now. But I just don't think the comment was right for the inauguration.
Now having said that, the reason I probably felt uncomfortable was because I am tired of people who think I am racist just because I am white. I have argued with people who think all white people are racist. Those people are out there. And, when I heard the remark, I probably took it a little more personally than maybe I should have.
The instances of hard racism in America are now rare and random. In the main, what we're dealing with are the its residues. This is an important distinction to make, for both whites and blacks.
@Jen R
"I'm a white America, and I agree with CitizenE. I didn't find Joseph Lowery's remarks threatening at all. I want us to embrace what's right."
I'm in the same boat, pigmently-speaking, and like you I don't find his comments threatening. Completely ill-thought-out, inappropriate, divisive, sure...but not threatening.
The thing that gets my dander up, as a white kid that grew up in the vast minority in southern Chicago, is a double-standard or, in this case, a pointless deliniation of people for no reason.
On my way into the student center back in college, I was confronted with a survey-taker armed with one of those scantron (fill in the bubbles) sheets. I stopped and took the survey.
I remember this very clearly because it dovetails with what we're talking about here.
Question 2 asked my ethnicity/racial group. The choices were
A) Native American
B) African-American
C) Latin-American/Hispanic
D) Asian
E) White
I mean...WTF??? Four obvious geographic regions and one hopelessly inaccurate skin color. I was so pissed off at the obvious double-standard that I set about tracking down the company that designed the survey. Turned out to the be the college I was attending, put together by the Sociology department. Educated people. Completely oblivious.
Does it threaten me? Nope. Does it piss me off? You betcha. Why? Because for most of my life others have been ramming down my throat how I'm supposed to act and the words I'm supposed to use when dealing with people of different groups (all of which I completely discarded and just treat each person I encounter on their own merits).
For the record, I'm European-American. Not that they cared to find that out.
Not to belabor the issue, but...
I'm white but I'm sorry, I just don't get the "offended/uncomfortable/annoyed" crowd.
I wasn't familiar with the rhyme, but although I was nodding with approval as he did his black/brown lines, I was surprised when he trotted out the yellow/red ones, half for the seeming silliness of the rhymes and half for the usage of the terms yellow and red at all. By the time he got back to "white will embrace what is right" I was nodding again, happy that he finished with something serious and noble.
I'm not going to try to analyze any of the commenters in either of these posts, but I just don't see how someone fully convinced in their own mind that they have "embraced what is right" can be offended by that line. It's like if a teacher tells her class, "Spend some time revising your papers," and I smile and say, "I have and will."
But how much more is there to really say about this? Either you were offended or weren't. I don't think it's rational to be offended by his prayer, but people do irrational things then attempt to justify them rationally all the time.
But let's get past the past, right? Obama is moving quickly to shutdown the blight on the American justice system that is Guantanamo Bay. Hurrah!
Scott,
Funny, I look at those choices and the first thing bothersome that occurs to me is the lack of hyphen in "Native American" and the lack of the adjective "American" after "Asian" at all.
What, you're bothered they didn't break it down into Italian/Irish/German/British/Russian/Jewish/etc.?
I strongly question the assumption that people, white or black or any other group don't deserve credit for not being racist. Consider the accumulated plethora of images and stereotypes than have been thrown at us over the years by media people, politicians, movie makers and so on. On the contrary, people who manage to get past all the incitements to racism that we had while growing up deserve some credit. How many times have white people had the stereotype of the black mugger thrown at them? How many times have blacks seen stereotypes about treacherous Asians? How many times have we all been pushed to distrust and fear each other. No, overcoming it isn;t easy, and the people who manage to do so are deserving of credit. It may not make them saints, but they have come a ways against some considerable challenges.
And talk of other hominids doesn't make much sense. It's not like different species within the hominid group don't prey on each other and kill each other. Of course they do - but there's no evidence that they think of each other in speciesist or racist terms. They just don't have any sort of conceptual apparatus or historical motivation that would push them to do so.
As a white guy, I gotta say that any white person that got upset about Lowery's benediction did so because of a guilty conscience.
It's a kind of Rorschach test. Because you would never take offense to that unless you were the ones who need to make right.
But whatever. White resentment is a real thing, fortunately our President understands that. But just because white resentment is real, doesn't mean it's justified.
Frankly, most of the white resentment out there is just straight racism, nativism, and zenophobia, and calling it "white resentment" is just a euphemism for some ugly shit.
Lowery to me was beautiful, and righteous, and made Rick Warren look like a joke.
All I've learned from these two threads is that this blog is post-racial as long as we're not talking about race.
@Andrew
Not at all. Reread it and see if that's the takeaway you get. If so, I've failed miserably as a writer and commenter.
Andrew:
There's no hyphen after Native because Native American isn't hybrid or blended category: "native" is just working as a good old-fashioned adjective.
Sometimes, the term "Asian-American" is used, but more often, the expression is "Korean-American," "Chinese-American," "Japanese-American," etc. Plain-old "Asian" is a (crude, reductionist) racial category, not an ethnic one, although like all racial categories, it becomes constituted as an ethnic one when in minority.
I agree with TNC's point completely. However, I also extend that to the annoying "I'm not racist!" theater that I see in many threads, including the self-deprecating displays of historical guilt. (I actually don't think liberal/white guilt runs very deep: I think it's mostly theater.)
@The Foulness,
I tried to imply that rather than spell it out. Be ready for people to scream at you. It's "xenophobia," but yes, yes, yes.
As a white guy, I gotta say that any white person that got upset about Lowery's benediction did so because of a guilty conscience.
Posted by The Foulness | January 22, 2009 1:22 PM
No, they might feel annoyed because Lowery said something that was uncalled for and unhelpful. That's not the same as feeling guilty. Do you react with irritation if an acquaintance is abusive to you - because you feel guilty? I doubt it.
@Scott,
I realize you said you identified as "European-American."
The point I was trying to make (admittedly by hyperbole) was that surveyors have a pragmatic issue to deal with when providing such options to you. Would it be better if they provided a box that people could fill in however they wanted? Yeah, but that means it's harder to process the surveys.
I guess I didn't get the memo informing me that "White" was now inappropriate or offensive.
""Then when a lion of the covil rights movement makes a innoucuous riff on an old song"
Tiffany, if you don't see the obvious hypocrisy in that, there's not much hope for you. But the outrage is silly, as Tessa says. The whole issue is silly. People with hurt feelings need to take a Midol and come back when they can talk like adults. People who see concrete harm coming from bigoted remarks, as so often happens, have a point. This is not one of those times.
I'm white and Rev. Lowery's remarks didn't offend me, but then again, after a generation of Pat Robertsons and Rick Warrens and Jimmy Swaggerts and Ted Haggards, I don't pay the slightest attention to anything a Protestant minister says about anything, and even less to any moral preachments one might make.
" But is there really equivalence b/t blacks and whites circa 1909 and what could be considered two subgroups of whites."
k1, his point is exactly that in 1909 Irish and Italians absolutely were not considered white and hardly functioned as any kind of sub group of white. Newspaper editorials hammered on that point pretty consistently.
Concepts of "race" change and evolve over time. Even within communities. Some of the stupid arguments about whether Obama is "black enough" or the skin tone hierarchy that exists among many groups are examples.
I suggest a title called "How the Irish Became White" to give one example of how that can happen.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/64123/review_how_the_irish_became_white_by.html
There's a great scene in "Blazing Saddles" where the townspeople say "Ok, we'll take the niggers and the chinks, but we won't take the Irish". Crowd starts mumbling and then "Oh prairie shit, we'll take the Irish too".
Now I not only want credit for voting for Obama, but also for not killing anyone today. It's early yet so if I don't get some positive reinforcement I may just go out and put a few caps in some butts. Being open minded and believing in the glory that is America I will choose my victims randomly and not based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual identity, or baseball team preference.
As the spokesperson for white America, now that I'm considered white, I think you should all start thanking me for not going on a rampage because if you don't I will go on a rampage.
By "rampage" I likely mean heading over to the grocery and buying up all the Hostess Cupcakes and keeping them for myself.
People with hurt feelings need to take a Midol and come back when they can talk like adults.
Posted by Jim | January 22, 2009 1:39 PM
Jim, Midol is generally used in treating menstrual cramps. I doubt many men will take it, and I think it's frankly offensive to use the time of the month as an explanation for why people might be indignant about Lowery's remarks.
On the idea of innocuous riffs on old songs, I wonder how many Irish people would react well to riffs on Croppies Lie Down, for example. Old song - yes. Hardly a good one to riff on though.
1. Stacey, as a white person form Arkansas, I'd like you to keep your assumptions about who's a racist and who isn't to yourself, thankyouverymuch. Racism is a southern problem. Racism is a Northern Problem. Racism is an American problem. Racism is a world problem. As long as you keep conveniently assigning it to one section of the country, i guess you can spare yourself the trouble of looking at the rest of the world. Sectional prejudice is the only form of bigotry that's still widely tolerated in public discourse, even by folks who otherwise get the value of PC thinking. I'm not trying to minimize the history of racism in the south, I'm just annoyed by the knee jerk "bigot from Arkansas" construction.
2. As someone said upthread, I just don't get so many of my fellow whitefolks are bitching aobut the suggestion that they "embrace what's right." Actually, It seemed to me that Lowerey was suggesting that whitefolks had begun to embrace what was right, were doing so at that moment. And if he was calling us out a little for...the list is too long really to go into, but trust me fellow white people, we haven't taken nearly enough shit to start bitching about being called out (as a people, not as individuals) for a history that we, however innocently, benefited from in material ways, even as it degraded our own humanity too.
3. white privilege is a hard thing to understand for many of us. We feel our own frustrations, disappointments, miseries, our denials based on class and status so deeply that being told that we're priveliged in comparison to someone else seems to deligitimate our ouwn miseries and triumphs. What alot of white folks I think don't get is that color privilege isn't personal, just like structural racism isn't personal.
4. The want to fix structural racism by simply not being color prejudiced, followed by the hurt when someone points out that this just doesn't do the job, is rooted in the "afterschool special" version of racism, where it's just individual ideas that can be fixed having a black friend save your life, or your science project, or whatever.
5. So yeah, I understand the "i didn't do anything" feeling, and I don't like being called a racist just because I'm white, just like I don't like being called a racist by white liberals for being a southerner. I don't like the assumptions about my personal character. But: in the first case, I have, whether I like it or not, benefited materially form being white, and the same isn't true Re being a southerner.
Do you react with irritation if an acquaintance is abusive to you - because you feel guilty? I doubt it.
"Abusive" is a pretty strong word for a gentle riff on an old song, isn't it?
As a white guy, I gotta say that any white person that got upset about Lowery's benediction did so because of a guilty conscience.
"If you don't like X, it's because you're a racist" isn't a particularly productive stance, TF.
I've been thinking about how Stacy said she didn't feel like whites were family, and thinking about the various "why can't we get past it"/"i thought we were past it"/"we're obviously not past it" comments that have been made in these two threads, and it seems to me that they, and TF's comment, all point in the same direction.
For too many whites, whiteness is something they never think about except with shame. They only connect with whiteness in a negative way, only think of themselves as white when they're grappling with racism. And I just don't think that makes any sense.
I consider myself an anti-racist, and my anti-racism is inextricably bound up with my whiteness. (I've written about that here before, in this thread -- search for "Brooklynite" after you click through.)
I am a white anti-racist, and as a white anti-racist, I'm with Lowery -- I am looking forward to, and working for, the day when "white will embrace what is right." That's the anti-racist project, in a nutshell -- or at least the piece of the anti-racist project that white folks can contribute the most to.
Honestly, how could you be an anti-racist white person and not be working for that day?
"or baseball team preference."
As a Cardinals fan, I appreciate that. I'm assuming you're a Cubs fan. Do we have to be tolerant of other people's sports teams? I think discriminating against other teams' fans is a healthy way to hang onto the hate.
Sime: "Anyway, as I was watching the movie, I realized that I was subconciously identifying myself with that young lawyer. Later, it occurred to me how enormously crazy that was. I was fraternizing with a 19th century slave-attorney, when all I ever did was..."
I had a similar experience.
I subconsciously identified with Bruce Willis while watching Die Hard, which is equally crazy. I'm identifying with a cop who single-handedly kills off a crack team of terrorists, when all I ever did was not stage any terrorist attacks myself.
Only when I realized that I took subconscious credit for not being a terrorist, it occurred to me that I had the root of it in me as well.
"Stacey, as a white person form Arkansas, I'd like you to keep your assumptions about who's a racist and who isn't to yourself, thankyouverymuch."
I made no assumptions, sir. I said 'bigot from Arkansas.' Nothing about that statement says anything about white people in Arkansas. I'm from a slave state. Don't cry about it.
Sorry, "white bigot from Arkansas." That says nothing about white people from Arkansas.
Andrew,
I'll bite. I don't mean to be snarky, but you just hit a pet peeve of mine.
Yes, if a teacher says, "Spend some time revising your papers," I might be offended. Although, it depends on the context of how this teacher said it. But, at first glace, it seems that the teacher implies that I never actually revised the paper.
If I have been working my ass off on a paper, and have revised it ten times, and the teacher/professor says something that implies that I was not working hard, I'll get upset. I will still revise the paper (again), I'll still get an A, but I'll be pissed off doing it. But again, it depends on how the teacher/professor said it, if they gave helpful suggestions, etc.
Do you react with irritation if an acquaintance is abusive to you - because you feel guilty? I doubt it.
"Abusive" is a pretty strong word for a gentle riff on an old song, isn't it?
Posted by Persia | January 22, 2009 1:52 PM
I think that the point was that not every instance of annoyance or irritation indicates guilt, Persia, not that Lowery was abusive.
Sorry, probably shouldn't have said, "don't cry about it." I'm sure you probably do get that shit a lot being a white person from Arkansas. I make no assumptions about you.
I thought Rev. Lowery was charming and delightful, and appreciated his riff followed by the Amens. He more than made up for the embarassment that was Rick Warren.
It didn't occur to me there was anything to take offense to until I had a surprisingly nerve-wracking encounter with someone at work who made a comment about "all the beating up on whites" by one of the preachers. Um, what? He couldn't cite anything specific, and the only reference to race I could remember was the bit at the end, so I was able to bust out the Big Bill Broonzy info gained here previously.
@Jim: Like I said up thread, the white folk who were troubled by Rev. Lowery's statements have the right to be troubled. I happen to have the right to think that's bogus. We all have the right to think independently and keep on living.
And evidently you, Jim, have the right to tell me I'm hopeless. I happen to have the right to not pay you much attention.
URK, I feel you. Thanks for your comments.
If at JFK's inauguration someone had made a joke about "croppies lie down" or "not getting your Irish Up" I likely would have found it amusing. Then again my sense of humor is rather twisted. My dad died of throat cancer after a lifetime of smoking and drinking excessively. After the funeral I competed with my brother to see who could do the better imitation of the dearly departed as an "angel with a voicebox". "My wings are bigger than yours.........aaaaaaaaaaagh"
Sometimes we take ourselves way too seriously.
As for my baseball comment I'm not a sports fan. I live nearish Wrigley Field and can hear the roar of the crowd when the Cubs score, but the older I get the more taking sports seriously seems absurd. As a kid I played a few sports, mostly badly, and followed the local teams.
Now I am a Chicago fan and always enjoy the excitement and cash infusion a sports championship would mean to the city. The violence that sometimes accompanies a sports championship race annoys the cupcakes outta me.
Last year there was speculation that the Cubs and White Sox might both make the World Series. I dreaded the thought. The corrupt leprechaun we call "Da Mare" loved the idea. After a few beatings, deaths, and general mayhem he might have changed his mind. Not that the Cubs or Sox even got past the first round of the playoffs.
Cubs or Sox in the series.........fine. Both......mayhem. "Dogs and cats living together.......general end of the world stuff."
Which brings me to Bill Murray and a Cubs World Series. Just having his family here in Chicago would boast our local economy. Those damn bog Irish can drink.
@Fighting Words
Pretty much agree with you. It all comes down to style and context, and I guess I just don't see Lowery's comments as implying that every individual white person hasn't embraced what is right.
If the teacher told the entire class to revise, even in a very negative/upset way, and I knew (and she knew) that 55% of the class hadn't done any revision, but that I had, I don't think I'd be offended in any way.
If someone is offended by Lowery's comments, it seems to me that they have personalized those comments to an unwarranted extent.
I wanna go out on a limb and submit that Lowery's altered quotation was neither the relic of a kindly and honorable old civil right's leader's old-fashioned concern or an aspersion cast on white people. I think his opening with Lift Every Voice and Sing and closing with the riff on the Big Bill Broonzy song had a purpose that was both literary and political.
I think this was an attempt to close the double-consciousness gap. To directly situate the moment as an African American moment of triumph and an American moment of overcoming simultaneously -- calling on the up-til-now distinct and isolated African American folk knowledge and integrate it into a singular all-American moment. Lowery chose to do this not by effacing or putting away the black cultural lexicon as to acrimonious or hard for white people to listen to, but instead by exposing and sharing it -- by making it (not only plain), but common.
Dr. Lowery used the opening and closing allusions to open and close his benediction, precisely because those words have always before been the somewhat obscure and singular purview of African American folkways. Folkways which are, of course, as old and distinctly american as white American folkways, but rarely as visible and never considered mainstream. This is not only because the majority ultimately decides what is mainstream, but also because black people have self-censured.
I do think the offense and defensiveness which this passage provoked in some folks is a very interesting study in how easy it is to misunderstand the cultural commonplaces of another people (even when those "other people" are not really "other" at all).
Lowery is not just a cute and dottering old good guy, he is a scholar and a powerfully motivated progressive with very contemporary sensibilities who believes that working for justice must always be a current project or we will fall behind. It's not something you do and then brush your hands off.
You win battles and celebrate! And then get right back down in the trenches for the next struggle -- the one you couldn't concentrate on while trying to slay the last dragon.
Being originally from Atl., having attended the Rev. church occasionally as a kid, and having had the distinct pleasure of talking with him while escorting him around my university campus for a speaking engagement last week, I can tell you, there was no way he was going to get up there an congratulate America for not being as racist as black people had thought.
It's not his ideological or theological style. His eyes are, as they say, on the prize. And for him, grand as inauguration day was, it is not the mountain top his friend Martin talked about. That's an almost fictive place. Not because we can't make progress (we can and we do and we did!), but because equality for all people regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, class, region, country of origin, gender, caste, etc. is an order so tall that we will be working on it for a long, long, long time.
Or at least we should be. Which was his point.
The same point he made in a sermon that he gave on Dr. King's birthday at the University of Chicago before flying off to D.C.
So this is an interesting discussion and it coralates directly into my interest into how interpetations of history change over time as our moral sensibilities change. I've been rather busy and I havent had time to read the Previous thread but I would like to ask a question.
To what degree is the "I deserve credit for not being a racist" theme bound up with the idea that "I am a better person than my father/grandfather because I don't have the same prejudices?"
As TNC says we don't get credit for being decent people, and deceny requires that we not be racist. At the same, I would argue that at some level we should be proud of the fact that we do not have the same prejudices as earlier generations.
However I think it is important to recognize that prejudice only changes form. As a nation I would say that we need to be aware that while we are collectively less racist than we were 50 years ago that does not mean we are any less prejudiced.
@Andrew
I'm still not quite sure why the term double-standard didn't sink in. That's what the angst is about. The European-American quip was just that. I do not think of myself, in as much as I ever do, as European American. My family is solidyly Irish-Scottish, but there's plenty of German, Jewish, and Cherokee mixed in there. I'm also a carbon-based life form. I suppose that makes me a Carbo-American.
Glibness aside, no, I don't think they should have added a box for everything including Klingon (can you hear how stupid you are San Fran?). Those sheets are designed to be tallied by computer for computers.
Don't you remember the old Electric Company (or was it Sesame Street?) song, "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others?"
deva, good points all. And Sid, please explain why white people deserve a pat on the back for NOT shooting themselves in the foot by voting against the clearly incredibly qualified black guy just because he's black.
This whole thread reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon, with a couple arguing, and the caption is:
"why do you always get defensive when I attack you?"
I see some of you saying "I have feelings about this"- and others answering "well you should get over it, crybaby". Think about that. Think back over your life. Can you think of a moment when someone told you to just get over it, already, and THAT prompted you to take the larger view, gain perspective, and move on? I can't, but maybe that's just my warped psychology.
Of course, maybe some of the posters here "should" get over some of their feelings. But hurt feelings go away best when met with some understanding. You can sympathize with a feeling that, in the big picture, is completely warped- we all have feelings like that- and finding some comprehension out in the world helps us get over them.
And now for MY feelings: I'm white, I grew up taught to be anti-racist in a nearly all-white, poor rural ghetto. I went to college, met people of many races, confronted some internal out-of-whack stuff, and learned a lot. And now, 10 years after graduation, almost everyone I know is white and I find prejudice creeping into my head, I think just due to lack of personal exposure to non-whites. The thing is, it feels weird to me to seek out non-whites to spend time with just to improve my own self. In college once, in a mixed-race group, we were talking about how people self-segregate in the cafeteria, and a black woman voiced my own thoughts: Well, if you (white person), came over to sit with us (black people), that would be weird. We're friends. You're not my friend. Why would you do that? Anyhow, I want to be less racist, but pointedly seeking out non-whites to help me do that feels, in and of itself, racist.
(Disclaimer: this is a mild personal problem of mine and cannot and should not be compared to the suffering of many throughout history due to racism. I'm pondering a conundrum, not complaining)
White guy here.
I'm a little taken aback by the assertion that not being personally racist bumps me up to a grudging C in race relations.
Apparently I'm expected to go around crusading, calling out white strangers on racism because I have approximately the same amount of melanin in my skin as they do.
Maybe Tiffany reps for other black people every day, but I don't rep for other white people, and have never felt that I do. Nobody is going to convince me otherwise. White is just the color my skin happens to be. Other white people being racist doesn't make me somehow deficient or primitive.
To anticipate a possible counter-argument, I realize that my skin color may grant me certain privileges (which I did not ask for), though I have yet to see an obvious example of this in my life. Then again, the same can be said for my gender, and I don't feel responsible for sexist men who I don't know, either.
Should I?
I think it's debatable. It's impossible to struggle for everything simultaneously. Should I start with racism or sexism? How many hours a week am I expected to devote? Maybe I just have other areas of interest and other ideas about how I can make the world a better place.
This is not to say that I don't consider racism a huge problem, or sexism for that matter. I'll call out both when I see them. But no racist, whether he be red, yellow, black, or white, speaks for me.
@Scott
You're saying that it's a double standard to describe four people groups in geographic terms and the other with a color term, right?
I suppose that's why people starting using the phrase Caucasian.
I see what you're saying, I see the difference in the terms, but I don't understand the frustration. I say leave it to a given people group to dictate how they want to be referred to. You prefer Native American to Indian, sure! You prefer African-American to Black, okay! You prefer Latin-American to Hispanic, whatever makes you happy. What's there to get upset about?
As far as I know, there isn't any great outcry among white people about the term "White." But if there was, I'd be happy to humor my fellow white people.
"This country has generally gotten an F minus in race relations."
question, TNC: has there ever been a nation, principality, or empire at any time in human history that hasn't gotten an F- in race relations? i say this not as any sort of defense or in any attempt to minimize the history of the US here, but it seems to me that pretty much all people have been racist (that is, *tribal*) all of the time all the way up until now.
what large nation with the measure of diversity the US possesses has EVER done better re: race relations? i cannot think of a single one. maybe i am wrong. but i think we all underestimate how unusual (historically speaking) and difficult it is to try and define nationality on something other than ethnic, religious, or cultural markers. because i am white i recognize that i do not and can never really have your perspective on such issues.
so, who's gotten better than an F- in your estimation?
A small bird flew before me. He was careful
To put a tree between us when he lighted
* * *
He thought that I was after him for a feather-
The white one in his tail; like one who takes
Everything said as personal to himself.
One flight out sideways would have undeceived him.
Robert Frost, "The Wood-Pile"
Debra Dickerson has a new article up on Mojo. Link below. I think it touches on some of the discussions here.
She basically says everyones gonna have to cede some gorund in this new not-quite-postracial America.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/class-is-the-new-black.html
Nolo,
I'll answer your question to Sid. I don't think that I deserve a pat on the back for voting for the clearly more qualified African-American candidate for president. But if I think that it will be counterproductive to say "of course you should vote for him" then I will.
Why? Because I think it is far more important to bring people along to my way of thinking than to not acknowledge their sense of pride in doing something or to offend them.
If we are doing this to simply place moral judgments on people, then fine, people should say "of course you should vote for Obama you idiot!" which I think generally shuts down conversation and drives the other person away and costs us a chance at getting them to understand the greater issues of race in our country.
But if we are doing this to continue a conversation and bring people along to what is (at least in my mind) a better way of thinking, then maybe we want to acknowledge that someone has done a moral good and explain how to build on that (ie. supporting more black candidates, recognizing the continuing pervasive harm of racism, etc.)
@Ilya et al: Let me explain a little bit about my comment about 'repping' for other black people.
The beauty of your whiteness is that your whiteness is the standard, the model that everything else is judged by. And if you're reasonable intelligent you probably already know that.
My race is judged by the least of us, all the time. Constantly. So there is so external and internal presure to represent the best of my race, whether it's conscious or subconscious. My hope is that by showing the outside, mainstream (read WHITE) world the best of what being a black person is all about that some white folks will go from having a high school diploma in black folks to maybe having some college credits under their belts.
After all, I'm just about done with my MBA in white folks. :)
@Stacy
Most Whites may not identify with an "American" whiteness but a lot of them identify with an ethnic whiteness as part of their core. I.E. Russian, Irish, etc. And most Whites in this country certainly identify as "American" & the American norm is White. That's why we always here about the "heartland" where "real" Americans live, ain't a lot of Black folks there. Most people, including Whites, live in cities on the coasts.
Also when someone says that it's about the fact that you have your Whiteness in common. It binds you together in macro ways. Whether or not you're a bigot is not the point. It's whether or not structurally you gain from your whiteness & you both do.
I'm jumping into this thread fairly late in the game, but I wanted to echo a point yazzel made, and challenge TNC's closing lines:
With half of that, I agree. I don't feel I deserve anyone's thanks when I walk past a bank without holding it up. I'm just behaving the way I ought to behave. And if Willie Sutton walked on past that bank, I still wouldn't approve of the man. Why not leave it at that?
The problem with TNC's argument is that people rarely vote their self interest. They cast ballots out of fear, ignorance and hate - and out of hope, faith, and idealism. And, on the whole, that's a good thing. I would hate to live in a society in which each individual pursued his or her own conception of self-interest. So I'm not quite as quick as he to dismiss those who overcame their prejudices and voted for Obama. Or, for example, those in the top tax brackets who cast their ballot for the man. Those decisions came not without a measure of integrity.
The word 'deserve' always derails arguments. Does a bigot who recants, and supports a black candidate, deserve praise? No, of course not. He shouldn't have been a bigot; he's simply reverting to what he ought to have done all along.
But what if we ask it differently: if we wish to create a society devoid of bigotry, how ought we to react to a bigot who cast a ballot for Obama? With, I should think, effusive praise. Encouragement. Perhaps even support his self-congratulation. He has modified his views and his behavior, and we wish to reinforce that. Or, if we can't quite muster the will to congratulate him, at the very least I should think we would refrain from criticizing his past conduct. It's the wrong moment for recriminations.
I happened to love Lowery's talk - I thought it delivered just the right mix of piety, poetry, and humor. And the last line rolled right off my back. But I do think it was unnecessary. Not wrong, mind you, just not particularly useful to the cause Lowery has spent his life advancing.
@Tiffany:
I certainly understand and appreciate your desire to represent your race in the best possible light by your own good words and actions. I did not mean to suggest that I saw anything wrong with this.
I simply think that it is silly to expect white people to feel the same way about their whiteness, and insulting to suggest that white people are deficient when they don't feel tribal about their skin color.
To take it a bit further, I think this happens in every majority/minority dynamic. As a Russian Jew, I feel acutely Jewish in everything I do when I am in Russia, being a minority there. When I'm in Boston, and surrounded by Jews on all sides, I feel more Russian. It's human nature.
"It's whether or not structurally you gain from your whiteness & you both do."
That has zero to do with what I was talking about. I'm just stating that I don't feel responsible for random white people's bigotry.
I don't like bigotry in any form. I'm also capable of conceding white privilege. It allows me to wake up every day and not even think about my skin color. However, that doesn't mean that I'm supposed to feel a kinship to other, random whites.
Observation: many in this thread/country/world extend their enlightened worldview only as far as friends and loved ones. Double standards of what constitutes "racism" or even "race" are all over this thread, from "white" (a meaningless term) and non-"white" (equally meaningless) people alike.
I've noticed all discussions on the subject in TNC's blog have turned completely circular, each perceived "side" retreating into the trench warfare of who deserves to have their hurty-feelings validated and who doesn't. But people's reactions - nor, really, their skin color - are not the point here; they are not what will change. Hurty-feelings are as real and undeniable as skin color, and whether they are "justified" or not we all need to respect people's reactions.
The people here who think that paleskins inherently hold more antipathy toward anyone two shades darker than "eggshell" need to perceive the log in their eyes. That's a discriminatory prejudgment against someone else based on skin color. But let us crackers be honest as well: what white people see as "normal treatment" truly is often (not always) privileged by comparison, and we as a skin-color group ought to admit it and confront the history of why it exists.
But the real question is: what is the relationship of these arbitrary social constructions of "difference" to the ideology of dominant groups in society that put them into power? As TNC said the other day, if the balance of power and the tide of time had been reversed, we could just as easily be discussing an innate "black privilege."
But it's not just history we're talking - it's also bound up in our expectations of the future! It's unfair to try having it both ways, saying that "we" collectively as a country have made progress on combating racism while refusing to allow certain (white) people to ever take any credit. Just as you can't say racism no longer exists, you also can't change the paradigm and subsequently refuse to give anyone who doesn't look like you credit for going along with the change and evolving. That would mean you're still operating under the old paradigm, just now assuming that you're on top of it. I think you're all talking around the (uneasy and still-unclarified in this country) distinction between what is viewed as "uncivilized" and "civilized" behavior. Our concept of civility itself is rooted in ever-changing idealized aspirations for what a society "should" be, what would make it work best. Clearly, the majority of this country now knows that racism is an impediment to civil life and society - where clearly America used to view it as essential to both. And on balance I think Obama's election obviously signals America being at least one step closer to the (again still unclear and wrought with inconsistency) model of society inherited from our ancestors.
I f*ing adore Lowery - and wish I'd ever met a clergyman with as incisive a sense of humor. But from this discussion and the reaction to that single joke of his, I think he has made clear that much of the real DISCUSSION of our "racial discussion" has long slept dormant under the rug of expediency, PC doublespeak, and bureaucratic sledghammering. Our brains are rusty in this matter, especially among the most liberal white folks I know. This is not something we are going to legislate or elect our way out of, nor is it something that will NOT require concessions on behalf of EVERY person of EVERY color.
Also something we will need to reevaluate is the interaction of individual and collective identity. I notice even in myself the propensity to think of other groups of folks as unshaking monoliths of thought/actions, even while simultaneously demanding I only be treated as a special and unique snowflake. I think a little appreciation for nuance could really kickstart our collective discussion, because I also think that Americans are finally ready to have big discussions without doublespeak. Like I said, though, I think we all have some inconsistencies and "benefits of doubts" that must be put aside in the meantime. And avoiding them will help avoid the circular firing squad of boo-hoos that fills these threads.
Jordan, thanks for responding -- but you're talking about something else. Here's what Sid said:
To clarify, I'm not saying whites deserve credit for not being racist -- as TNC refers to Chris Rock, that's what we're supposed to do. But how about an ounce of credit for electing a black guy to the highest office in the land?
You're welcome.
I don't know how else to interpret that except as wanting some kind of credit for electing a black guy. After all, it's exactly what he asked for. Or do you have a different interpretation for the phrase "how about an ounce of credit for electing a black guy"?
Well, but nolo, why not? Doesn't everyone who voted for Obama deserve credit? I mean, mathematically they do, because those votes elected him.
Does one person's support of Obama not matter as much as someone else's?
Again, I actually kinda disagree with Chris Rock's assessment of things we're "supposed" to do. We're supposed to do them because they're America's social expectations for people. None of these things are things we're programmed to do by human nature. These social expectations and ideals are goalposts, and they have shifted, and more people now are playing according to the new rules. Changing the goalposts to make certain players alter/reconsider their game, then refusing to ever give them credit for doing so kinda nullifies the point of all the gameplaying. And under that model, the victims of the original unsportsmanlike players would always be the victims, and the unsportsmanlike players would always be viewed as unsportsmanlike players. It perpetuates the bad relationship because each member in the relationship is wearing the same pair of blinders.
Nolo,
Guess I was responding more to your question:
"And Sid, please explain why white people deserve a pat on the back for NOT shooting themselves in the foot by voting against the clearly incredibly qualified black guy just because he's black."
And I guess my response is the same. I certainly don't want any credit, because I thought it was the right thing to do regardless of race.
But if there are other white people who want credit, fine, I think it keeps them in the conversations we are having about how to move this world to a more just place and I would rather have them in that conversation rather than outside it, if only for the fact that I think having them in the conversation makes it easier to challenge them on other attitudes or opinions they may have.
I guess my response isn't so much about a solid moral reason why we should make Sid feel good about his vote, but rather a tactical justification for doing so.
Thanks, TNC. I was going to post the exact same caution to my fellow white people last night, but decided to leave the fray since it was pretty crowded. Just like some cultures need to stop congratulating themselves for graduating from high school (or 8th grade!) some white people need to make sure they are not waiting for congrats on doing the right thing, racially speaking.
To Stacey on not feeling a connection to other white people ... I wonder how many places you have been where you are the only white person? I've been to quite a few places and homes where I was either the only or one of only a few white people, and when I suddenly see another white person in the crowd, I acknowledge them and feel a connection to them like I never would otherwise. The first time this happened to me was an "aha" moment. It gave me a whole new perspective.
That said, I read these comments with a sense of sadness at how far we still have to go, but also hopefulness, because I have a 15 year old and I can see for myself every day that the next generation is not going to have conversations like this ... or a lot less of them, in my opinion. All the blood, sweat and tears of the previous generations is coming to light in today's kids, who are much more comfortable with each other and don't even think twice about these things we are so heated about.
Jordan, Seth -- I hear what you're saying. It is definitely a step forward that a whole lot of white people got out there and voted for the black guy, and we definitely want to keep those people in the conversation. But I also agree with TNC (and if I'm misrepresenting his position, it's me, not him) that if we're giving white folks "credit" for voting for the black guy (and remember, Seth, we're not talking about giving them credit for voting for Obama, but for voting for the black guy, which ain't necessarily the same), the credit's gotta be a C, not an A. It doesn't mean I'm going to be all up in their faces about it, but I'm not giving them gold stars for meeting the basic requirements either.
"I wonder how many places you have been where you are the only white person?"
Oh, I've certainly been in situations where I've been fully aware of my whiteness, no doubt about it. I studied abroad in Korea for a semester. I certainly understand what you are getting at. But that kind of speaks to my point. Living as a white person in America, I don't look at my skin as a major component of my identity. I'm glad that I don't have to.
Reverend Lowery didn't recite this verse, but he could have:
Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chastening rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears have been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,
Till now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast.
My fellow white commenters, can you read those words out loud and argue that our petty discomfort is worth mentioning?
I felt that flicker or unease myself, but I say, let it go. In the small context of a fine benediction, let it go. In the important context of a great day, let it go. In the giant context of what has been and what still is, let it go.
Sporcupine,
I don't think anyone will disagree with you. I think everyone let it go yesterday. KevDog's original post made it sound like he let it go right after it happened.
Living as a white person in America, I don't look at my skin as a major component of my identity. I'm glad that I don't have to.
I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight here, but why? Do you think that people of color are regret that they "have" to think of themselves as people of color?
Jennifer: I think these are conversations the species will face as long as it survives, because it hits upon two basic traits that mark the way humans perceive and define reality - conflict and comparison. We define ourselves (and our "selves") by relativity. This has big implications and small implications, but it permeates everything and the absence of conflict over one segmental difference would invariably spark conflict elsewhere. We also require conflict, struggle, as a species, because the nature of nature requires it of us to survive. And that defines how we approach socialization and society.
But I think the "mountaintop," in a way, can be viewed as the utter transcendence of our conflict-based and relative natures. Perfect society is really just a belief that human beings can overwrite their lesser programming. Humans are altruistic in many circumstances, so it's not a given that we are always only selfish. But on the other hand I think that's why what we're talking about is a potentially insurmountable mountaintop, because as long as there are limited resources, conflicts will persist in all their chimeral forms and arenas. This struggle of race is just a more social, more overt veil that we wear - but we all put on veils, and it is incumbent upon all of us to learn to remove them and fashion new ones.
nolo: Your correction on the nuance (between voting for Obama and voting for "the black guy") would have more impact on the discussion if there were another black guy running. "The black guy" and "Obama" happen to be on the same ticket, and only one of those appellations was printed on that ticket (except in some small town of swill-suckers in Mississippi, probably). Although I appreciate the distinction, I'm not sure it makes a different here - nor do I think it could ever be proven in a case study kind of way.
You also referred to the vote for Obama in a "basic requirement" way. But, to respond to both your points, give the electoral process (and Obama's victory) a little more credit than that! It was, despite all spinning to the contrary, still a CHOICE. And I'm sure a certain subset of white people fit into the "hold my nose and pull the lever" mold of Obama voter. But speaking personally, a tiny sliver of my vote for Obama WAS a vote for Obama as a black man. In a sense, part of my vote was my love for just how much he boggles white folks' minds. Successful, smart 21st century worldliness that refuses to be elitist or exclusionary is a very new concept to most people, especially Americans, especially white Americans. In my few years on this planet, what I've feared most about Bush and his ilk is that they wanted to make it hip and American to be insular, deaf, and dumb - and we have seen several generations now of these "Quiet Americans."
Obama's campaign-as-kritik (as in debate, where you pick apart the topic at hand rather than simply opposing your competitor) has already broadened the political conversation in this country, just as Bush's disastrous neglect did. That so many white (Republican) folks (and Hillary) did not realize Obama's style was both more direct AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ripping apart their case is testament to why they lost. Perhaps by being himself, in this way, Obama has the potential to greatly nuance the views of many white folks who harbor lingering prejudice. If you think I'm engaged in magical thinking: whether or not I'm being overly idealistic about "fixing" racists, the other thing you should love about Obama's style is that it reveals the stupidity of his opponents for what it is. This, even more than proposals he makes, is what makes his opponents desperate and ever punchier.
Put another way, nolo: if anything NO ONE deserves gold stars for electing Obama yet, other than Barack H. Obama himself. I think you're right and TNC is right, but to me this wasn't as much a repayment of one group's debt to another as it is a potential down payment on building a new house that all of us can fit in. If one bigoted person who took the hesitant leap of faith to vote for Obama comes to reject previous doubts, and goes from loving no black people to loving one (leader of the free world, no less) because of who he is - that's one more mind that will never fully close again. Not all minds can be opened with crowbars, and not all of ours will be lifted all the way. But I think the nuance of his existence has already put the lie to the bludgeon of identity politics, and it could put a little grace into a lot of hearts as this goes on.
Unless, you know, he fails. Then it's totally time to play "everybody blame the black guy." (j/k)
I wanna say this word again: grace. Not just because I love hearing myself type, but because that, I think, is what Obama sees in this country (and consciously or not, what his supporters see in him). And grace is what I hear pouring out of Rev. Lowery's mouth every time I hear him speak. And it can make you laugh (and certainly does to me) but not from awkwardness or embarrassment, not in mockery or self-satisfaction.
Grace is humble, but also proud when it achieves. Grace is accomplishment, but it also cheers the accomplishment of others. Grace stares down shame, instead of perpetuating it. Positive feedback loops. That leads to community, but obviously not all communities are graceful. Maybe part of the response pathway in humans that leads so many to religion and churches is the desire for communal grace, that we can take things that were poisonous and apply goodness until they are better. But while that mode of interaction isn't at all bound up in spiritual faith, I think it does require a bit of a leap of faith in all folks involved, which is why I ultimately let the Rick Warren invocation pass (lame as it ended up being).
Like I said, we all have to learn to take our veils off and get new ones. Walk AND chew gum! Nuance. Perhaps, ideally, someday our veil will simply be that we are one specie with one planet and a limited amount of time. We have a loooooong way to go to get to that, but I think aiming for grace rather than settling for petty "points" and "scores" (which I still see even here) will inch that mountain just a bit closer.
"I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight here, but why? Do you think that people of color are regret that they "have" to think of themselves as people of color?"
Yes, you honestly are.
I don't know if they 'regret' having to think of themselves as people of color. But based on conversations I've had, and comments on these here message boards, I think they resent being reminded that they are the minority. Wouldn't you? But your question is missing the point. To be a black person in a white majority country, it seems as though you are constantly reminded that your skin color is not the norm. That doesn't sound pleasant. As a white person, my skin color never enters my mind. I like that. But that's not the same as 'regretting being black,' which seems to be the type of trap you are trying to catch me in. Or something.
Honestly, I never would have thought you were being an asshole if you didn't start your last post that way.
TNC's comments sections are going downhill. Fast. But I guess that's to be expected as he gains popularity.
"As a white person, my skin color never enters my mind."
That's an exaggeration, obviously, as I've already conceded...
Nolo,
Agreed and agreed. I am not looking for an objective award so much as I am looking for a level of interest in keeping folks talking.
what large nation with the measure of diversity the US possesses has EVER done better re: race relations?
My thoughts exactly. Can anyone name another country in the history of the world with better race relations than found in the US today? We may only be getting 75% on our tests, but we are setting the curve for the class.
Stacey, if you're still around, sorry for being thin skinned.
and, I actually think you hit the nail on the head above: being white means that your own skin color rarely _has to_ enter your mind. Whether it does or not is more an intellectual exercise than a survival strategy. And, for some folks, when they are reminded that they're white, they get all kinds of unecessarily pissed off.
And, Ilya, maybe the key to getting above that C- is realizing that you not being personally racist doesn't actually solve very many problems. doesn't mean you gotta crusade, or call people out, but being humble enough about not being personally racist that we don't take every invocation of America's racist past and racist structures personally, that we can understand why that shit's gotta come into the public sphere and be dealt with, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
No worries. Like I said, shouldn't have come back at you like I did.
These past couple of threads have everyone on edge, it seems. I'm not sure why, but that original Lowery thread really got people worked up. I'm obviously guilty of it as well. I suppose I just feel like 95% of the people on here argue in good faith. So when people try to pigeon hole others because of a relatively innocent comment, it really bothers me. There's been a lot of "gotcha" going on here lately. But like I said, I'm as guilty as anyone I suppose...
Stopping to pat your back is a recipe for failure (e.g. tortoise and the hare).
Cliche much? Can you really be serious after Tuesday's gigantic step forward? I got one for you, those who don't know where they stand are lost.
"My thoughts exactly. Can anyone name another country in the history of the world with better race relations than found in the US today? We may only be getting 75% on our tests, but we are setting the curve for the class."
Ahh, and out rings the Quiet American's Grand Whine to beat the best of them. All of our time as a country has been spent engaging in outright discrimination against minorities of one form or another. We ghettoize, gerrymander, and push away until the only thing uniting us is isolation. Note, if only hypothetically: there may be a difference between "tolerance" and "respect." There may be a chasm between segregated (self-imposed or otherwise) detente and national community. If the United States were truly a paragon of race RELATIONS, electing a black President would've occurred long ago.
No, I rather think we Americans have been incubated for decades in a fog of cultural ignorance - where we use politically correct terminology to dull our language, and affirmative action and Disney movies to kiss our own asses about how well we "relate" to each other. But we don't relate, and we don't see the rest of the world as inherently affecting us (or vice versa). Merely tolerating one another's existence and culture is different from learning about it and engaging common ground/principles. Simply, "race relations" require RELATING. Is a white supremacist choosing not to shoot a black guy in the head an example of "race relations?"
You would not say that we have a healthy relationship with Cuba, would you? Yet our existing policy toward Cuba is much like, in my experience at least, the relationship of many adjoining white and non-white sections of towns, cafeterias, or workplaces. Our "melting pot" has really acted more like a shaken-up salad dressing suspension in recent decades. The import of the moment at hand is that we have a chance to rediscover the ties that truly bind. That is what I mean by grace. Stopping the world, and melting (even with you!).
In short: the way you're using it, "race relations" is neither race-like nor relations. Doublespeak fail.
I wasn't trying to put you in a trap, Stacy. I was trying to have a conversation. But never mind.
Man, I'm sick and tired of all the petty grievances everybody has over every damn thing anybody says.
First the ridiculous faux outrage over Rick Warren, who gave a lame if perfectly innocuous prayer, and now the baloney about Lowery, who gave a much cooler yet equally innocuous prayer.
Please people, get a life!
Seriously, I take not a one of your complainers seriously and think you are all pathetic crybabies who have nothing better to do than prattle on in hysterics about stuff that is absolutely meaningless to your lives.
People are losing their jobs out there everyday!
The economy is in the crapper!
We are involved in two wars!
What the fuck folks!!!
You really are never going to be adults until you can learn to get past the little bullshit and focus on the big picture...
And to all the white folk out there complaining - Shut the fuck up! This is from one white person to another, so please, take as you would a punch in the face from your brother, which means this STFU is said with nothing but love. But SHUT. UP. You are embarrassing us as a people.
It all just goes to show that while we live in the same country most white folk don't know shit about how black people live and feel. And I include myself here, I'm pretty clueless. But at least I get where guys like Lowery are coming from. And anybody who took Civics in high school should too. This is a man who was shit on by this country, and he makes an innocuous joke and you all go batshit???
I am embarrassed for my white people everywhere. Please, get a clue...
No, Angus, I don't think you were. If you want to have a conversation, let's have one. It sure seems to me like you are looking at others' comments as though they're all nefarious in some way.
"Do you think that people of color are regret that they "have" to think of themselves as people of color?"
Regardless of whether or not this is a trap, it sure is a bullshit question.
Just Karl: I kinda feel like my last comment predicted your most recent one (about knowing where one stands). I think part of the reason people are rightfully sick of the tit-for-tat "Respect my pain!" approach to the cultural discourse is that it quickly gives everyone a distorted view of where each of us stands. And I think, to reiterate, that the greater lesson of the tone/reaction to Lowery's sermon is that we need to look to something greater than simply how many black folks work at a place versus how many white folks work there.
Where we stand as a nation is NOT in a place of extensive and engaged cultural relation. We have been in that place before, and we will be there again, but we are certainly not right now. And I think that is what feeds so many folks' sense either that the situation is actually better than it is, or that every individual deserves credit for simply tolerating others. This I think is the negative feedback loop in which the race discussion in America has broken down.
"and he makes an innocuous joke and you all go batshit???"
Who the fuck are you talking to? I haven't seen anybody on these threads go batshit. If you are talking about people like Glenn Beck, than clarify yourself. If not, you need to shut the fuck up. Take this as a french kiss from your sister. Asshole.
If you want to have a conversation, let's have one.
No thanks. You've already called me a liar, an asshole, and an example of how this blog has gone to hell. I think I'll quit while I'm behind.
Oh, Whitey. I wish I could be as angry at my fellow crackers as you.
No, but seriously, take a breath man. Telling people who are feeling genuine disappointment or outrage (even if their reasons, in many words, are bullshit) to shut the fuck up is not going to make them go away. It also won't open a mind - it's likely to slam it shut. Acrimony never proved the point of racists and haters. Don't think it'll suddenly change course and work for you.
At least make the effort of engaging someone at the elevated level of expecting them to process rational thoughts and arguments. They'll either meet you at that level, or stay at their own stooped level and shadowbox until they pass out.
Or better yet, Whitey, go talk to a group of people who are actually behaving in the way you describe.
I know I'm late to this (damn corporate web filters!) but regarding Lowery, I wasn't offended but more just disappointed. Not so much as in his actual remarks, but the occassion where chose to say them. There are few civic rituals in American public life with the solemnity of a Presidential inauguration (compare to congressional inaugurals, which frequently look like some GED graduation ceremony). They're especially poignant when the outgoing President is of a different party than the new guy. This is one of our greatest gifts to the world - we showed that this could be done peacefully - that this self-government thing can work.
To take that platform, on which he enjoyed more of the world's attention than he ever had before, and make a back-handed insult to 70% of his countrymen was not disgraceful, but more than a little tacky. That he may have been riffing on some obscure cultural idiom is irrelevant. Had he done it at some prayer breakfast or in front of his own congregation, I wouldn't care, but it was just the wrong venue.
Stacy,
Come on man.
Mr. Turkey (or is it Mr. Jive?):
With all due respect, let me make an if-then point: if Mr. Lowery's statement was the grossest example you can point to of what you would call insult to your race, then on balance any cry of "discrimination" inherently rings false. If that is the shocking bell-tolling that reminded you that you're a white person... eh, maybe we don't have it so bad. Right?
This isn't to discount your disappointment. I'm simply saying that the vast majority of people (the vast majority of even white people, frankly) won't mirror it. And I'm not really sure (like with the "voting for Obama" and "voting for the black guy" analogy up above) that you can make the distinction between Lowery's "actual remarks" and "where he chose to say them."
Plus, as we've all exhaustively covered, his actual remarks were a cultural reference. And cultural-understanding-seeker that you are, you are surely less disappointed after learning about the context than you were before, yes?
"That he may have been riffing on some obscure cultural idiom is irrelevant."
Oh. In that case, I'll humbly suggest that it doesn't seem you would be any less "disappointed" about this if he had said it at your local church. Because Lowery specifically didn't single out white people, your choice to irrationally interpret and react to it in that way is something that no one can address but yourself.
It's a shame that so much of the thread has been taken up with yelling on all sides, assumptions on all sides, and failure to ask what drives TNC's assumptions, which seem pretty dubious to me.
A question: if people who resist the lure of racism (which society definitely has offered and still in places offers) don't get credit for doing what is allegedly expected of them because it's in their interest, presumably black people fighting for civil rights don't get credit either, since it was very much in their interest? Does anyone really want to advocate that idea? Remember that just because something is in your interest doesn't make it easy or simple. People paid a high price for their civil rights, and that deserves respect, So does the person who fights to overcome the racism to which we are all prone.
An alternative thesis: human beings are imperfect, and so making progress for them, especially against easy or long-established habits, takes work. We should recognize that there is a racist in all of us - yes, in TNC, in me, in black people, white people, everybody - and we should have the humility to acknowledge our own faults, and yes, to give others credit when they overcome those faults, even if imperfectly. The alternative is to create such unnaturally high, perfectionist standards, that no-one can pass the test, at which point people give up, since there is no path to perfection. That never works out well, and so I suggest that giving some credit for progress is a more effective, honest and human way to proceed, rather than saying in a sanctimonious way that certain things are just expected and so no credit to you for doing them.
If the United States were truly a paragon of race RELATIONS, electing a black President would've occurred long ago.
Seth, since you failed to name any country in the history of the world with better "race relations", can you at least name a country outside of Africa that has ever elected a black leader?
All of our time as a country has been spent engaging in outright discrimination against minorities of one form or another.
Really Seth? ALL of our time. When did we ever find the time to, like, go to the moon and stuff? This country has never been about trying to make everyone agree about everything. The best that any country can do is create an environment of equal respect and equal opportunity for everyone. And I believe that we are closer to that goal now than any peoples have ever been. It's been 144 years since Lincoln was shot. In only 2 lifetimes we have moved from slavery to electing a black president. That's not to say that we have no more work to do, but it's absolutely unprecedented.
Where we stand as a nation is NOT in a place of extensive and engaged cultural relation. We have been in that place before
When was that? This thought contradicts your previous statement.
nick t: props for simplifying what I've been trying to say. Grace and civility isn't simply something that should be expected of one group of people, nor is it something that only certain people lack. And creating the environment that leads to the positive feedback loop of improving our greater 'humanity' requires that we respect and credit those who are working toward it.
Lowery is God. And funny as hell. And so are whiners who whine about whiners etc etc etc...
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, wrote an op-ed regarding President Barack Obama’s inauguration and what it means to her (and animals of course):
Wow - Ingrid goes after reds too. Whites, especially the middlings like most of us, have benefited from the liberation of slaves as a group and it was in their own self-interest they eventually realized. But there've always been individuals along the way who did not always benefit - the early abolitionists and the late slave owners.
Also Stacy, if you really think the quality of the comments section is going down, then I'd like to get an e-mail about it. Tell me what's bothering you, and let's see what can be done about it. For the record, I was more popular in October. But everyone was then...
One last thought.
Is it possible that at the same time we are a less racist country than we were 2 decades ago we are also a more petty country?
I think so. During the week in which we inaugurate the first African American President in the history of this country, we the people of the blogosphere, are focused on one single line in a benediction that was well delivered and well intentioned at the time in which it was given. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot people? I think that we all need to take a step back, Breathe Deeply, and stop trying to examine every little thing that happens just to make ourselves feel better.
Obama is a great guy. Nothing else really matters. Today the executive order was signed to close Gitmo. The Karl Rove/Bush-Cheney Nightmare is over. I feel like celebrating, and I think that we could be using our energy in discussing more important matters. I think that its time for the petty to stop being so sweaty.
TNC, I think Obama might be an exception to the idea that everyone was more popular in October. *s*
Posted with all due irony and respect.
White Riot, lyrics by The Clash
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
Black man gotta lot a problems
But they don't mind throwing a brick
White people go to school
Where they teach you how to be thick
An' everybody's doing
Just what they're told to
An' nobody wants
To go to jail!
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
All the power's in the hands
Of people rich enough to buy it
While we walk the street
Too chicken to even try it
Everybody's doing
Just what they're told to
Nobody wants
To go to jail!
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
Are you taking over
or are you taking orders?
Are you going backwards
Or are you going forwards?
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
Hugo, do you quote domestic terrorists often? :)
Just Karl, I should've said (and if you'd read for context, you would've understood that I meant) that racism has endured throughout America's history. I did not mean that we don't even wipe our asses because we're so busy being racist.
"Seth, since you failed to name any country in the history of the world with better "race relations", can you at least name a country outside of Africa that has ever elected a black leader?"
Again, your entire question revolves around trivia - as though your Jeopardy knowledge is a gross indicator of national perceptions and attitudes. You're telling me I'm not answering your question, but you've already assumed the larger point you were trying to make (USA! USA!) is correct. And I've already handily dismissed your larger point, because it is intellectually shallow and entirely beside the topic of discussion. Again, the singular decision of a percentage of a percentage of the country goes only so far in revealing the philosophical makeup of the entire country, or how healthily its communities are relating and functioning. I will agree it is a sign of progress of a certain kind. But jumping to the head of the line doesn't mean you're first in the class.
Sorn: I agree with your pettiness argument. Like the Internet at large, the discussion around race in this country has become rife with trivia, devoid of context and reason.
I don't think Stacy overreacted in her response to a vulgar and disrespectful intrusion into what was otherwise largely a civil and productive discussion.
Seth, bless you for being so far advanced regarding the issue of race that you apparently are incapable of grasping it. Have a good night.
Yeah, I'm also going to back Stacy on this one (although I won't use the same language ;op).
The impression that I got from from most people on this thread who didn't like the line from the Lowery speech was, "You know, that line made me a little uncomfortable. I understand where he came from and what he has been through. I understand that he is keeping his eyes on the prize and he understands that we have a lot more to do to improve racial relations in this country. But I was just uncomfortable with that one line in an otherwise beautiful sermon."
Now, there are two ways to respond to this:
First, we can say, "Let's talk about this. Now, you know how we feel when we get lumped together with the boy in the sagging pants'" Or, you can explain the references, what Rev. Lowery meant, etc.
The other response is, "All you people who are offended, Shut the Fuck Up. You have no right to criticize him. I didn't feel that way, and you have no right to feel that way. You're a closet racist and have something to hide."
And I will say that the second response is the least helpful way to bridge the gap and get other people to your side. In fact, some posters have probably alienated people and entrenched their political beliefs. Rev. Lowery's comment didn't bother me as much as some of the responses on these threads - especially to people's legitimate feelings. I think that most people come to Ta-Nahesis's blog in good faith. We really want to learn about the other side. And we really want to discuss these issues. And, I think this includes most of the people who posted in these last few days about being uncomfortable with the line.
So I didn't mean to offend anyone with the pettiness comment if I did I apologize. I don't understand why the line "when white will embrace what is right" made some people even mildly uncomfortable. We should all try to do what is right regardless of our skin tone. These are words to live by.
Seth,
Unfortunately my shallow intellect is incapable of deciphering the context of your completely unreasoned and contradictory assertions. Knowing how you love to hear yourself type, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind predicting more of my trivial and beside the point comments for me. Please be sure to include completely incoherent ravings about response pathways and communal grace to make me sound deeper than I am. A healthy dose of unjustified arrogance might also help fool people into thinking I'm smart.
Thanks,
JK
Fighting Words,
Actually, there is a third way to respond:
"On one of the most historic days in the HISTORY of this country and possibly the world, and a day that generations of Black (and White) folk NEVER thought would occur in their or their children's or their children's childrens lifetime, how much 'discussion' is really needed and how much energy should be expended to address ONE LINE that made you just ttle uncomfortable'?"
In that context, is there any wonder why people perceive the need to have that 'discomfort' (which was again admittedly, fleeting) mollified/addressed to be an exercise in self-centeredness?
Should read :
"....ONE LINE that made you just a 'little uncomfortable'?"
"how much energy should be expended to address ONE LINE that made you just ttle uncomfortable'?""
Trust me, the most 'energy' was expended by the people who either a)wanted to tell people to get over themselves, or b)wante to tell everyone just how un-offended they were. And frankly, I think a lot of people had some energy to spare, so maybe its all okay.
XOXO,
Stacy
Nolo: I'm not sure if you were insulting me, but of course I "grasp" race. I'm a minority (a little bit Asian, a little Cherokee, a lot pale and gay) so I can relate in one or two significant ways, and totally can't relate in many other significant ways. Differences: of course I've grappled with racism in my own life. Everyone has and none of us are perfect except in our intentions. And I've been the beneficiary of my skin color. But I choose to treat people the way I'd like to be treated. I'm agreeing with you and TNC when I say I don't deserve credit for decent values, because in a civic-minded society we would expect those of everyone (and also values are only as good as how you apply them). Plus I recognize my values are entirely the doing of my parents, teachers, and any people who thought me an asshole but cared enough to explain why. I wish I could say my parents had more influence on me than my race, but I can never know that.
It's impossible to imagine exactly what it would be like to be of a different race, so I find it unproductive to feel guilty for being what I am. And I will never know exactly what structural racism feels like unless demographics change in a big way and people don't do a bit of evolving along the way - but again, I will always try to comprehend and oppose discrimination in at least an existential way. All our little islands do happen to be floating in the same ocean. By my tally, nothing I've seen or read has convinced me that the world's general good-person-to-douche ratio changes based on skin color.
JustKarl, I apologize for my tone earlier. I'll try to explain my argument a different way using what I just said above. You may not think you're being racist and still be doing/saying something bigoted. Nolo's distinction really applies in a profound way here (and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer that I agreed, Nolo) in that one can have voted for Barack Obama and still be a bleeding racist bastard. JustKarl, I don't think we've redeemed ourselves as the world's moral exemplar just by electing Obama. We could depending on people's reaction to Obama's term in office and his policies, but of course some people will judge him based on his race - even some people who voted for him, and even some African-Americans. In short: one election isn't enough to rewrite history (even if we got there first), but it's hopefully a start.
And to Stacy my final question of the night: if we ever got over ourselves, where would blogs go? :)
In terms of the Lowery controversy: My 79-YO white mom and my 88-YO white aunt (both originally Hillary supporters) thought his benediction was great (but not nearly as awesome as Alexander's poem; they have demanded that I find copies of same for them ASAP).
In terms of the Lowery thread: I read it, and the vast majority of self-identified white posters basically said they thought it was terrific and warm and humorous, and although it might have made some white people feel uncomfortable or awkward, they certainly had no issue with it. They were told that white people who felt awkward or uncomfortable needed to get the fuck over it.
So white posters expressed their opinions on Lowery, and black posters responded to them based on other white people's opinions of Lowery.
Now, one thing I have learned is that the negative aspect of white behavior as a group is always emphasized. The positive aspects of white behavior as individuals, not so much. There ain't no Yad Vashem for Righteous Honkies, yo. There never will be, and I don't expect it or want it, for that matter. But the idea that black folks are individuals, not stereotypes, and should be treated as such -- whereas white folks aren't individuals but a monolithic dominant culture of Whiteness that a person can get a Ph.D. in, needs to end.
Here's another example: The white person saying, "I voted for Obama." We know that it's just our awkward way of saying "Um, I'm not one of those whackjobs on NOLA.com, I know you're going to assume I am, but I'm telling you I'm a fan of Obama to give a signal that there's some common ground here and maybe we could talk to each other. You know, if you wanted to or something." But there are black folks out there who've worked long and hard on their Ph.D. in Whiteness, and they KNOW the thoughts behind our every utterance (the one above means we want a pat on the back).
Again, the Lowery incident: What was the controversy? The black folks on the thread thought he was great, as far as I could tell 95% of the white folks did too. Yet the thread still degenerated into yammering. That's the discussion we should be having. A thread that consists of agreement on principle disintegrating into he said/she said racial arguments is the dog that didn't bark.
TNC, I believe that White Americans who today are not racist, do in fact, deserve credit. After more than three hundred years of "we could, so we should" subjugation of Black people and the accompanying cultural, legal, social and political anti-Black racism that supported this nation, any White American that has really managed to escape what has pretty much become almost their "birthright" in this country is pretty much all right with me. Millions of "new bubbas" voted for a Black man named Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States despite centuries of "evidence" that this would be a really bad idea. What a country!
Seth, I'd like to apologize for my tone as well. It was late, I was reading too fast, and I was letting myself get irritated without fully digesting everything you've posted on this thread. Bad me, and I do apologize, and I also thank you for demonstrating a maturity in your response to me that I probably didn't deserve.
Nolo, it's arguably none of my business, but that last post by you is one of the most gracious acknowledgments of error that I have even seen on the blogosphere. Well played, sir or madam! Would that some of the other commenters on this thread could learn something from it. Let civil speech reign!
On the topic of when to praise people - I think people should be praised when they change in a direction I desire.
Most people I won't thank for failing to rob a bank. But ex-bank robbers who really reform (as opposed to getting better at not getting caught) I think deserve some credit for finding better ways of earning a living. I've never smoked and I don't think I deserve any particular credit for not smoking, but I understand that giving up smoking is tough, so I'm willing to praise an ex-smoker. Changing past habits, or rejecting the beliefs you were brought up with is hard for most of us. Doing so I think deserves some appreciation.
And I do think that praising people for moving in the right direction creates a nicer atmosphere overall. I praise my husband for doing the dishes, and I ask him to praise me for doing them too, which he does, when reminded. So instead of nagging or fighting we praise each other, my feminist pride is consoled, and the dishes get done. It would be nice to have a husband who did his share of the housework without me having to think about it. But when I look in the mirror, I can't honestly say that I'm perfect either. So I tell him that he's wonderful for doing the dishes, and he tells me that he really appreciates that I got the limescale out of that corner of the shower, and he's starting to say that without prompting.