It appears that racial issues are finally getting a little more attention in some parts of the mainstream media. José called my attention to these two recent and interesting New York Times articles. The first is a short book review by Brent Staples, a journalist who notes that
As Randall Kennedy reminds us in his provocative and richly insightful new book, “The Persistence of the Color Line” . . . the Obama forces disseminated several messages intended to soothe the racially freighted fears of the white electorate. On one channel, they reassured voters that he was not an alien, but a normal American patriot. They also made clear that he was a “safe,” conciliatory black man who would never raise his voice in anger . . . .
Then he ads that candidate Obama himself sent out certain messages:
On yet another wavelength, the candidate proffered his bona fides as a black man to African-Americans who were initially wary of his unusual upbringing . . . .
It is a bit odd that Staples does not even note other, probably much more critical, books on race, racism, and the Obama campaigns–such as the one that Adia Harvey Wingfield and I did not long ago. Had he done so, Staples could perhaps have made even more sense out of the data on the white-racialized dimensions of both the Obama campaigns and Obama’s presidency.
There is also another interesting article in the Times by Desmond King, American government professor at Oxford University and Rogers Smith, a political science professor at Penn, that discusses the failure of both political parties to openly discuss racial matters seriously, such as the extreme unemployment rates for African Americans:
The economic crisis in the United States is also a racial crisis. White Americans are hurting, but nonwhite Americans are hurting even more. Yet leaders in both political parties — for different reasons — continue to act as though race were anachronistic and irrelevant in a country where an African-American is the president.
They are quite correct on this point, and their brief data on racial inequalities is highly germane to their general argument, but I kept waiting for them to discuss why there is such systemic racial inequality and who the key white decisionmakers mostly are in this regard. Not only are whites (or the dominant white racial frame) not called out as agents of discrimination, but even more seriously the elite white men whose racial and class frames and actions have mostly created the party and societal neglect (and much actual reality) of racism at issue are not specifically called out or critically discussed as elite white male agents (more than just “leaders”) shaping these structures.
As in the Staples review (and perhaps in Randall Kennedy’s book?), this white male elite remains unnoted and unmarked as such, once again. Is it still too dangerous now in this society to call them out and analyze their critical and continuing role in racial discrimination and their dominant white racial framing that shapes both our politics and our society more generally?
It absolutely is too dangerous to speak truth to white power. Minorities who do so are angry or oversensitive or reverse-racist themselves. Some, like Rev. Wright, are regarded as mentally ill, or the good old uncle everybody loves but nobody pays attention to. I myself have been advised by commenters here not to live my life with such hate. Whites who call out the white male elite are accused of self-hate. White women are labeled as angry “feminists.” So yes, it’s too dangerous.
Which, from where I sit, is what makes it all the more necessary. And because I don’t feel I have anything to lose, fun.
This is unfortunately true. These are defense mechanisms that whites create so that they do not have to deal with the fact that racism is a reality. When white power or institutional racism are brought up, whites tend to reject or water down the significance of it because it puts them in a position where they could be exposed as being racist or benefiting from racism. And to a white person in modern day America to be labeled as racist is atrocious. What’s interesting to me is how times have changed. Sixty years ago being labeled a ‘nigger lover’ was the worst thing a white person could have been called.
Yes, indeed. In this supposedly “free country,” most of us are afraid to speak the truth, and thus research, about key features of our society, most especially its deep patterns of racial, class, and gender oppression. I just had an Asian student who planned to study with me on patterns of US racism, after we had arranged it, blocked by his government from coming to study US racism because that study might be a “threat to [their] national security.” And that country does not claim to be a democracy.
Can I point out that the title here suggests that you are deferring to white elites and allow them to make/frame racial analysis as opposed what the article actually discusses which is making them accountable for the role in perpetuating racism?
The title doesn’t match the article’s content, so for example, the comment that I was prepared to make doesn’t make sense here.
That being said, yes of course, let’s point out that LIBERAL white people are let off the hook or give THEMSELVES a pass when it comes to racism all of the time. Let’s see, they will throw the liberal card out to deflect the idea that they are racist, they will make statements blaming all white racism of conservatives and Southerners (and don’t get me wrong, to quote Bill Maher, not all Republicans are racist, but if you are a racist you are probably a Republican) but a lot of “limousine” liberals are quite racist too, and being a vegan and being green doesn’t change that-I get treated way worse by whites in those areas than in my own native Southern state, they will point out interracial relationships as proof of their non-racism(although they usually have races they will not touch openly), and they will play oppression Olympics/race bingo with you. So non-minority women will cry that being a woman is so much harder, even when in the racial hierarchy/kyriarchy, the only thing that trumps being a non-minority female is being a non-minority male, and non-minority males will cry that they no longer control everything/get every job/get every spot in university and grad school (b/c getting 90% is not nearly enough).
Oh, but back to my point, both minorities and non-minorites let whites off the hook by painting only one hyperbolic view of racism…pointed hoods, burning crosses, lynching, and ignore subtle, systematic racism-hiring people who look like you, sponsoring/mentoring people who look like you, talking about equality but doing your best to hoard economic and academic resources and privilege for yourself (the whole process of magnet and other special public schools, refusal to participate or allow reverse busing, prosecuting poor people who attempt to send their kids out of district even when wealthy white regularly “borrow” addresses for that very purpose).
At any rate, the list is pretty long, and I’d say, yes, we let people off the hook and give them credit as if this was a game of Monopoly.
@Joe. As an ESL tutor, approximately 50% of my students are Asian. Why would studying US racism be a threat to Asia’s national security? I discuss racism frequently with my Asian students when we discuss US history {uh-oh!} This is intriguing to me because I can’t connect the dots here. Please explain this further if you have the time. Thank you.
@Nicthommi, I meant with that title and question mark to suggest that the Times editors are deferring to the white elite by publishing articles that ignore the specific role of that elite white, mostly male group in suppressing discussions of racism (and in both parties) and in systemic racism generally. That white male elite is never named as such or focused on specifically, a point I am making in a forthcoming book on US politics and racism.
@Cordoba blue, I really do not want to name the country as that might make more trouble for the student, but his explanation did not go into any detail. Perhaps the country’s authorities are afraid that he and others like him might come back home after studying US racism and raise issues of racial oppression there in that Asian country. That is only a guess, but seems a reasonable one.
//but I kept waiting for them to discuss why there is such systemic racial inequality and who the key white decisionmakers mostly are in this regard. Not only are whites (or the dominant white racial frame) not called out as agents of discrimination, but even more seriously the elite white men whose racial and class frames and actions have mostly created the party and societal neglect (and much actual reality) of racism at issue are not specifically called out or critically discussed as elite white male agents (more than just “leaders”) shaping these structures.
As in the Staples review (and perhaps in Randall Kennedy’s book?), this white male elite remains unnoted and unmarked as such, once again. Is it still too dangerous now in this society to call them out and analyze their critical and continuing role in racial discrimination and their dominant white racial framing that shapes both our politics and our society more generally?//
No, it’s not too dangerous to call them out. The truth is the truth.
If the people who know the truth and have a hard time being heard speaking the truth hear someone with a louder voice speaking the truth to power, then they will back those speaking truth to power.
On another end, I’m not sure I get who are you talking about calling out. Who needs to be called out? I’m not sure I know who these white male elites are? Corporate head? Are you talking about white people generally? Or the richest/wealthiest whites? The Founding Fathers?
Glad you like the site. Please help us spread the word about it. On the white male elites, I have in mind all the white male elites (as you note) since the founders, but especially today. They almost never get analyzed as the dominant white male decisionmakers who shape this society the most, and daily–by specific naming and analysis of who and where they are, and how they make decisions, etc. There is, to my knowledge, only one research book on the racial views of the white male elite, that has ever been done in US — our White Men on Race (Beacon press). There is a tendency even in scholarly research to talk like “society has long created patterns of discrimination,” using vague abstractions instead of calling out the leading creators of racially discriminatory patterns past and present, the white male elite and their acolytes, the general white population.
HA! Now I see things a little more like Blaque Swan. I’ve talked this way among my colleagues (many are liberals) and have gotten strange looks and not much feedback (especially when I start verbally pondering racism’s relation to office politics and whether minority employees can play them and what should you sacrifice as minority to get ahead; as a black man I can’t do the same things in office politics that my white counterparts can).
You are very right on about people not recognizing the deep roots of race in America from the founders to the general white population today. It’s just taxing and a lot of work to think along those lines. People want something quick and easy to digest. A nice soundbite. I think it’s easier for most because no one is getting beat up or lynched etc.
As a non-scholar on this topic, I find your discussions very thought provoking. Hopefully, the more I talk about these things in my daily life won’t cost me more buddies at work.