What is race in the Obama age?
January 20, 2009 11:16 AM Subscribe
What is race in the Obama age? Some blacks say there are two black races, one poor and one rich. Does that mean Obama is from the rich black race? Some wonder if he's black enough or too black. Or do we have to choose among four options: "a) black or b) white or c) half-black and half-white or d) an American and who-gives-a-damn about his ethnicity"? Or is he multiracial? All I know for sure is he's the president.
He's not white, and he's now the President. Does it warrant further dissection. It's a huge moment in our history. And we just got to watch it happen. Now, hopefully, we get to watch him just be a great goddamn President.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:26 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:26 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
He is the president and that is enough. Let's just calm down and get ready for 'blood, toil, tears and sweat'. Jesus has not yet returned.
posted by dawson at 11:27 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by dawson at 11:27 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, race is the moral zeitgeist of our times. How deeply fascinating. I derive all my life morals and meaning from the fact that a) there are black people and b) there are white people. That's so deep, if you think about it properly, i.e. with a cosmopolitan analytic and an air of noble gravitas.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 11:31 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by norabarnacl3 at 11:31 AM on January 20, 2009
The Obama age??? He hasn't even been the president for an entire day yet. I'm sure it has not been long enough to be an "age".
posted by SheMulp AKA Plus 1 at 11:31 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by SheMulp AKA Plus 1 at 11:31 AM on January 20, 2009
Am I wrong for wincing at the phrase, "Some blacks"?
posted by Hypnotic Chick at 11:35 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by Hypnotic Chick at 11:35 AM on January 20, 2009
I'm sure it has not been long enough to be an "age".
I dunno; at the third FPP I'm starting to feel it.
posted by Abiezer at 11:35 AM on January 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
I dunno; at the third FPP I'm starting to feel it.
posted by Abiezer at 11:35 AM on January 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
Given the box, and a space to write it in; I always write "American". I'm sick of this whole race business. Don't call me white. Call me an American.
posted by buzzman at 11:37 AM on January 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by buzzman at 11:37 AM on January 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
best of the web?
posted by lunit at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by lunit at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
He's president because Wikipedia says so? Not for long .. Dun dun DUNNNNN!
posted by filthy light thief at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by filthy light thief at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2009
There is no black middle-class? Huh.
posted by dawson at 11:40 AM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by dawson at 11:40 AM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Given the box, and a space to write it in; I always write "American". I'm sick of this whole race business. Don't call me white. Call me an American.
I prefer "Other" my self
posted by SheMulp AKA Plus 1 at 11:40 AM on January 20, 2009
I prefer "Other" my self
posted by SheMulp AKA Plus 1 at 11:40 AM on January 20, 2009
DU, I've been curious about his class background. His grandparents on his mother's side seem to have been middleclass or upper-middleclass: he worked for a large furniture company, and she was a vice-president at a bank.
posted by shetterly at 11:40 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by shetterly at 11:40 AM on January 20, 2009
He's black enough.
He's black enough that a black kindergartener today will grow up seeing President who looks like him or her, looks like his or her dad. And that's a tremendous thing, because a black American five-year-old will see a government that includes people like him or her.
That won't cure the ills of poverty, or the negative cultural institutions established by slavery and Jim Crow, but its a great start. Black Americans born in the 21st century will because of this, be very different from any previous generation of American blacks, because no longer will their base assumption be that they have no place at the civic table.
Their outlook will be inherently different than the world-view of their patents and grandparents. I saw a bunch of black American traveling to the inaugural yesterday, and already the children had a different look in their eyes. Less guarded, more proud, than their parents. With Obama President, fewer of them will have that hope beaten out of the, ground down by the implicit racism inherent in there having never been a black President.
But other than that, I don't really give a damn about discussing the shade of Obama's skin or the mix of his genes. For me, it's enough he's not that arrogant fool Bush.
posted by orthogonality at 11:41 AM on January 20, 2009 [8 favorites]
He's black enough that a black kindergartener today will grow up seeing President who looks like him or her, looks like his or her dad. And that's a tremendous thing, because a black American five-year-old will see a government that includes people like him or her.
That won't cure the ills of poverty, or the negative cultural institutions established by slavery and Jim Crow, but its a great start. Black Americans born in the 21st century will because of this, be very different from any previous generation of American blacks, because no longer will their base assumption be that they have no place at the civic table.
Their outlook will be inherently different than the world-view of their patents and grandparents. I saw a bunch of black American traveling to the inaugural yesterday, and already the children had a different look in their eyes. Less guarded, more proud, than their parents. With Obama President, fewer of them will have that hope beaten out of the, ground down by the implicit racism inherent in there having never been a black President.
But other than that, I don't really give a damn about discussing the shade of Obama's skin or the mix of his genes. For me, it's enough he's not that arrogant fool Bush.
posted by orthogonality at 11:41 AM on January 20, 2009 [8 favorites]
And black/white/multi-racial is nothing. Elect an omni-racial (erm, omni-racial?) president, and then I'll talk.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:43 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by filthy light thief at 11:43 AM on January 20, 2009
Paladin/Ranger.
posted by Artw at 11:44 AM on January 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:44 AM on January 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
here are two black races, one poor and one rich
I'd say it's split between citizens and thug culture. It's really killing the black community, as well as everyone else that comes in contact with it. Of course there is thug/poor overlap, but there are lots of dishwashers and McDonald's cashiers that aren't out killing.
posted by plexi at 11:45 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd say it's split between citizens and thug culture. It's really killing the black community, as well as everyone else that comes in contact with it. Of course there is thug/poor overlap, but there are lots of dishwashers and McDonald's cashiers that aren't out killing.
posted by plexi at 11:45 AM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hypnotic Chick, I dunno. Some blacks say there aren't two black races. Some people identify themselves simply as human, and others identify them as white, black, etc. If there's a choice that no one has taken on the race issue, I'd love to know it.
Dawson, I think for blacks who see two races, the black middle-class is like the petit-bourgeousie, aligned with the rich.
buzzman, I've gone for "human" when asked about race. Some folks say I can do that because of white privilege, but I think it's the privilege of filling out the box myself.
posted by shetterly at 11:46 AM on January 20, 2009
Dawson, I think for blacks who see two races, the black middle-class is like the petit-bourgeousie, aligned with the rich.
buzzman, I've gone for "human" when asked about race. Some folks say I can do that because of white privilege, but I think it's the privilege of filling out the box myself.
posted by shetterly at 11:46 AM on January 20, 2009
When I'm filling out forms and I am asked my race, I always put in "50 YARD DASH".
posted by Ron Thanagar at 11:56 AM on January 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Ron Thanagar at 11:56 AM on January 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
Shrug. Even in the third link, it's pretty clear that the people asking if he's black enough, his heritage, and whether he was descended from slave owners, etc. were primarily not black people, but white pundits. The legacies of slavery and complexities in that system are only new to the people who never thought about it.
I mean, what, did they expect black folks to pull out the paper bag test on him?
Oh wait, they don't even know what that is.
posted by yeloson at 11:57 AM on January 20, 2009
I mean, what, did they expect black folks to pull out the paper bag test on him?
Oh wait, they don't even know what that is.
posted by yeloson at 11:57 AM on January 20, 2009
...and yet Palin was talking about Caroline Kennedy's wealthy background that gave her a different and special treatment...these things should not matter. They do.
posted by Postroad at 11:58 AM on January 20, 2009
posted by Postroad at 11:58 AM on January 20, 2009
So is Obama one of the ‘good one’s?
Or is this a new spin on the ‘there are blacks (or African-Americans) and there are niggers’ thing?
Or is this more of the ‘blacks can’t gripe about how they’re less privileged because a black guy is President now’ schtick?
‘Race’ is pretty damned arbitrary in the first place. Maybe some anthropologists here want to argue that point with me. But I’m not thinking of how it’s layed down in academic circles by folks concerned with genotype and whatnot.
How it rolls in practice is completely arbitrary, schools, jobs, etc.
F’ing ‘race.’ Worse than the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ monikers.
Howzabout we predicate ‘failure’ on something other than superficial ethnic features like skin color and focus on socio-economic conditions, poverty, environment, infrastructure, education and community support?
Or what, is ‘failure’ inherent in the ‘race’?
Seems to me plenty of ‘white’ folks are failing as well - howzcome we’re not considering separate ‘white’ races based on class? Or do we already do that with ‘white trash?’
Ah, I better stop asking questions. Wouldn’t want anyone to think I was uppity.
But y’know, let’s not ask how they can succeed, the answer’s going to involve embracing folks in poverty and enabling them to succeed and be upwardly mobile and not having a disposable element of society - whether predicated on difference in skin color or not.
I mean, it would really suck if we had to think what the maid had to go home to at night wouldn’t it?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:00 PM on January 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
Or is this a new spin on the ‘there are blacks (or African-Americans) and there are niggers’ thing?
Or is this more of the ‘blacks can’t gripe about how they’re less privileged because a black guy is President now’ schtick?
‘Race’ is pretty damned arbitrary in the first place. Maybe some anthropologists here want to argue that point with me. But I’m not thinking of how it’s layed down in academic circles by folks concerned with genotype and whatnot.
How it rolls in practice is completely arbitrary, schools, jobs, etc.
F’ing ‘race.’ Worse than the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ monikers.
Howzabout we predicate ‘failure’ on something other than superficial ethnic features like skin color and focus on socio-economic conditions, poverty, environment, infrastructure, education and community support?
Or what, is ‘failure’ inherent in the ‘race’?
Seems to me plenty of ‘white’ folks are failing as well - howzcome we’re not considering separate ‘white’ races based on class? Or do we already do that with ‘white trash?’
Ah, I better stop asking questions. Wouldn’t want anyone to think I was uppity.
But y’know, let’s not ask how they can succeed, the answer’s going to involve embracing folks in poverty and enabling them to succeed and be upwardly mobile and not having a disposable element of society - whether predicated on difference in skin color or not.
I mean, it would really suck if we had to think what the maid had to go home to at night wouldn’t it?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:00 PM on January 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
Not to dignify this thread, but Obama wasn't wealthy growing up. His grandfather's business had a lot of ups and downs and mostly didn't make that much money. He was a peripatetic guy and no business genius. His grandmother went to work at the bank to support the family because of the vicissitudes of the grandfather's income. She wasn't VP while he was growing up; IIRC, she started as a teller and worked her way up. He went to school on a scholarship for townies.
posted by Miko at 12:10 PM on January 20, 2009
posted by Miko at 12:10 PM on January 20, 2009
All I really know about race in America: I never hear Obama referred to as "white" or "half-white."
And yet...
posted by rokusan at 12:20 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
And yet...
posted by rokusan at 12:20 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Of course there is thug/poor overlap, but there are lots of dishwashers and McDonald's cashiers that aren't out killing." plexi
yo plexi, lighten up. if i was baudrillard i'd say that no one is out there killing; sure our murder rate is higher than some peaceful spots/principalities, but it doesn't mean that we divide along the line of killer/non-killer. hell, i know plenty of drug dealers, crack heads and black cops who have never killed anybody. murder is a pretty rare act no matter how you slice it; please don't condemn every kid you think is a thug as a potential killer.
hell, next thing you know you'll be locking your car doors when you see my rough ass crossing in front of your car. you do have a car right?
posted by artof.mulata at 12:22 PM on January 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
yo plexi, lighten up. if i was baudrillard i'd say that no one is out there killing; sure our murder rate is higher than some peaceful spots/principalities, but it doesn't mean that we divide along the line of killer/non-killer. hell, i know plenty of drug dealers, crack heads and black cops who have never killed anybody. murder is a pretty rare act no matter how you slice it; please don't condemn every kid you think is a thug as a potential killer.
hell, next thing you know you'll be locking your car doors when you see my rough ass crossing in front of your car. you do have a car right?
posted by artof.mulata at 12:22 PM on January 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Am I wrong for wincing at the phrase, "Some blacks"?
I winced at the whole damned post.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'd say it's split between citizens and thug culture. It's really killing the black community, as well as everyone else that comes in contact with it.
Killing? What a bunch of nonsense. "Ghetto culture" is no worse then "trailer park culture" but no one says that "redneck culture is killing White America". Just because people dress or talk a certain way doesn't make them "thugs" And conditions for blacks increased under Clinton and stayed flat along with all middle class people under bush.
You ought to be at least honest about it and say something like "There is a middle class black culture and a Thug culture which has been dissipating gradually over the past few decades". Are there gang bangers out there? Of course but acting like they comprise a significant chunk of African Americans is a bunch of fear-mongering bullshit.
posted by delmoi at 12:31 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Killing? What a bunch of nonsense. "Ghetto culture" is no worse then "trailer park culture" but no one says that "redneck culture is killing White America". Just because people dress or talk a certain way doesn't make them "thugs" And conditions for blacks increased under Clinton and stayed flat along with all middle class people under bush.
You ought to be at least honest about it and say something like "There is a middle class black culture and a Thug culture which has been dissipating gradually over the past few decades". Are there gang bangers out there? Of course but acting like they comprise a significant chunk of African Americans is a bunch of fear-mongering bullshit.
posted by delmoi at 12:31 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'll say this for Obama: As far as I know he's never posted a link to some crappy bingo card off of LiveJournal.
posted by Artw at 12:34 PM on January 20, 2009
posted by Artw at 12:34 PM on January 20, 2009
I was unclear. What I meant was "Some blacks..." versus "Some black people...". Does anyone have any linguistic understanding as to why these two phrases sound different?
posted by Hypnotic Chick at 12:49 PM on January 20, 2009
posted by Hypnotic Chick at 12:49 PM on January 20, 2009
All I really know about race in America: I never hear Obama referred to as "white" or "half-white."
Really? I certainly have. It gets pointed out all the time.
posted by Miko at 1:02 PM on January 20, 2009
Really? I certainly have. It gets pointed out all the time.
posted by Miko at 1:02 PM on January 20, 2009
I think it's the contrast. You have "some black people" as a contrast to "all black people."
On the other hand, "some blacks" doesn't really contrast with "All Blacks" in the same way.
posted by explosion at 1:02 PM on January 20, 2009
On the other hand, "some blacks" doesn't really contrast with "All Blacks" in the same way.
posted by explosion at 1:02 PM on January 20, 2009
I think it's the contrast. You have "some black people" as a contrast to "all black people."
If you turn the contrast way, way down, everything ends up kinda the same.
posted by rokusan at 1:15 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you turn the contrast way, way down, everything ends up kinda the same.
posted by rokusan at 1:15 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
? Of course but acting like they comprise a significant chunk of African Americans is a bunch of fear-mongering bullshit.
posted by delmoi at 2:31 PM on January 20
Even disregarding the readily available FBI crime statistics (14% of the population commits over 50% of all murder) - I have to bring up that you live in white bread Iowa. Walk around Oakland, or Crown Heights, or Central City in New Orleans. I realize anecdotal experience is not evidence, but you can't close your eyes and deny that thug culture is alive, and prevalent. And it is killing a generation if youth.
posted by plexi at 1:31 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by delmoi at 2:31 PM on January 20
Even disregarding the readily available FBI crime statistics (14% of the population commits over 50% of all murder) - I have to bring up that you live in white bread Iowa. Walk around Oakland, or Crown Heights, or Central City in New Orleans. I realize anecdotal experience is not evidence, but you can't close your eyes and deny that thug culture is alive, and prevalent. And it is killing a generation if youth.
posted by plexi at 1:31 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
rokusan, try Half-white is an insult for one side and Here's The Real Reason
I Can't Stand Obama for another.
Hypnotic Chick, I think you should call people what they want to be called. It's just polite. But when you don't know and you're talking about race, blacks and whites is simplest--though something like Afro-Americans and Euro-Americans is more precise. If "black" and "white" is being frowned on now, please share a link.
posted by shetterly at 1:47 PM on January 20, 2009
I Can't Stand Obama for another.
Hypnotic Chick, I think you should call people what they want to be called. It's just polite. But when you don't know and you're talking about race, blacks and whites is simplest--though something like Afro-Americans and Euro-Americans is more precise. If "black" and "white" is being frowned on now, please share a link.
posted by shetterly at 1:47 PM on January 20, 2009
I always prefer "black people" and "white people" over "blacks" and "whites," especially at first reference. That's because the emphasis remains on the common (and largest) class, "people," rather than on the subset, "black" or "white." When using just the name of the subset, you are subsituting the name of a lesser category for the name of a greater category, and describing people only by their membership in that class rather than as a subset of the larger class.
But people do use "blacks" and "whites" as shorthand all the time and without malice. I don't see it as something to get het up about and don't know many people who do.
posted by Miko at 1:57 PM on January 20, 2009
But people do use "blacks" and "whites" as shorthand all the time and without malice. I don't see it as something to get het up about and don't know many people who do.
posted by Miko at 1:57 PM on January 20, 2009
Miko, gotcha. I just looked at the Reuters and LA Times articles, and they both use "black Americans" initially and "blacks" after that. I was trying to be terse for metafilter, but I maybe should've cut something else.
posted by shetterly at 2:03 PM on January 20, 2009
posted by shetterly at 2:03 PM on January 20, 2009
Genetically, the differences between one person and any other are greater than the similarities endowed by racial characteristics, so I could have more genes in common with someone from the other side of the world than I share with someone who grew up next door. Once you start talking about race and blood and half-breeds and so on you're venturing into prejudice. These are social status issues, not things that have any meaning genetically.
While I can understand that a black person has a lower status in certain societies, it's not as a result of the person's race. It's a result of perceptions of social status implied by skin colour and presumed ancestry. Which has no significant bearing on the person's behaviour or capabilities, but may be detrimental in a society that values lighter-coloured skin over darker. Defining a person as black or white is objectifying them and stressing the importance of the status implied by their skin tone over any other characteristic.
So, you know, 'black person' or 'white person' (or 'gay person' or 'straight person') is always preferable to the abbreviated terms, and these factors probably needn't be mentioned at all unless their skin colour or sexual behaviour have some direct bearing on the matter at hand. Talking about 'blacks' and 'whites' or 'Muslims' or 'gays' is divisive and prejudicial in any context. I realise it may seem clunky to always stick 'man' or 'woman' on the end, but it's always preferable because it's the most important bit.
Personally, I think that issues of race are better understood in terms of or as part of a class system. It's hard to imagine racial equality of any kind while class boundaries remain.
posted by chrisgregory at 2:39 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
While I can understand that a black person has a lower status in certain societies, it's not as a result of the person's race. It's a result of perceptions of social status implied by skin colour and presumed ancestry. Which has no significant bearing on the person's behaviour or capabilities, but may be detrimental in a society that values lighter-coloured skin over darker. Defining a person as black or white is objectifying them and stressing the importance of the status implied by their skin tone over any other characteristic.
So, you know, 'black person' or 'white person' (or 'gay person' or 'straight person') is always preferable to the abbreviated terms, and these factors probably needn't be mentioned at all unless their skin colour or sexual behaviour have some direct bearing on the matter at hand. Talking about 'blacks' and 'whites' or 'Muslims' or 'gays' is divisive and prejudicial in any context. I realise it may seem clunky to always stick 'man' or 'woman' on the end, but it's always preferable because it's the most important bit.
Personally, I think that issues of race are better understood in terms of or as part of a class system. It's hard to imagine racial equality of any kind while class boundaries remain.
posted by chrisgregory at 2:39 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I love that I can read MetaFilter and have no idea who is black or white or gay or straight unless they say so, and if they do, I usually soon forget. I wish this were true in the "real" world.
posted by desjardins at 4:48 PM on January 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 4:48 PM on January 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
I've always said that blacks & whites in the same socio-economic class have a lot more in common than upper & lower class people of the same race.
posted by mike3k at 7:57 PM on January 20, 2009
posted by mike3k at 7:57 PM on January 20, 2009
Even disregarding the readily available FBI crime statistics (14% of the population commits over 50% of all murder)
Yes, and if you slice it down to just "murderers" Then 100% of all murders were committed by 0.0059% of the population! (assuming about 1 murder per homicide or non-negligent manslaughter)
The point is, there are very few murders in the U.S. So to cast aspersions on an arbitrarily selected 14 of the population is bullshit. There were only 15,0000 some murders in 2007. That means assuming your 50% figure isn't crap, only 7,000 "murderers" out of 40 million people
Let me try to make this a little simpler. You criticize a group of people just because a tiny slice of them are out doing something. The question isn't "what percentage of murders are committed by black people" but "what percentage of black people are 'out murdering'" as you put it. And the answer is hardly any. Even though earlier.
I have to bring up that you live in white bread Iowa
We're not retards.
Walk around Oakland, or Crown Heights, or Central City in New Orleans.
What, you think I would get murdered or see one take place? How exactly would I learn anything by "walking around"? You think if I see a bunch of black people walking around in loose jeans and backwards baseball caps I'd freak out or something? Please.
Actually intelligent people learn about the world by reading and understanding statistics, not by judging people by stereotypes about the way they dress.
Anyway look, let me explain this since you seem to be innumerate. If there are 7,000 or so murders in the black community, and about 40 million people, that means there are 39,993,000 black people who aren't "out murdering", regardless of how they dress or talk.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, and if you slice it down to just "murderers" Then 100% of all murders were committed by 0.0059% of the population! (assuming about 1 murder per homicide or non-negligent manslaughter)
The point is, there are very few murders in the U.S. So to cast aspersions on an arbitrarily selected 14 of the population is bullshit. There were only 15,0000 some murders in 2007. That means assuming your 50% figure isn't crap, only 7,000 "murderers" out of 40 million people
Let me try to make this a little simpler. You criticize a group of people just because a tiny slice of them are out doing something. The question isn't "what percentage of murders are committed by black people" but "what percentage of black people are 'out murdering'" as you put it. And the answer is hardly any. Even though earlier.
I have to bring up that you live in white bread Iowa
We're not retards.
Walk around Oakland, or Crown Heights, or Central City in New Orleans.
What, you think I would get murdered or see one take place? How exactly would I learn anything by "walking around"? You think if I see a bunch of black people walking around in loose jeans and backwards baseball caps I'd freak out or something? Please.
Actually intelligent people learn about the world by reading and understanding statistics, not by judging people by stereotypes about the way they dress.
Anyway look, let me explain this since you seem to be innumerate. If there are 7,000 or so murders in the black community, and about 40 million people, that means there are 39,993,000 black people who aren't "out murdering", regardless of how they dress or talk.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Even in the third link, it's pretty clear that the people asking if he's black enough, his heritage, and whether he was descended from slave owners, etc. were primarily not black people, but white pundits.
This is not true, as shown by a quick look at the first two people Time magazine quotes: Stanley Crouch and Debra Dickerson. Dickerson's January 2007 article in Salon, Colorblind, was the main article online when I started wondering about this whole issue a few months ago. (Its subtitle: "Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race — if he were actually black.")
Dickerson makes the claim that Obama can't be considered 'black' because he's "Not descended from West African slaves brought to America." Which seems ridiculous to me, but then American ideas about race often have been ridiculous. (See the "One-Drop Theory.")
All I really know about race in America: I never hear Obama referred to as "white" or "half-white.".... Really? I certainly have. It gets pointed out all the time.
Not from what I've seen. [Google search results for "first half-white president" (1,400) — "first black president" (876,000)] People seem obsessed with insisting that we now have a 'black' president, as opposed to one obviously of mixed race: the 'non-whites' for obvious reasons and the 'whites', perhaps because they're desperate for proof that they and their country are indeed 'liberal,' not 'racist' at all.
Half-white Hawaiian millionaire? Born to a white woman and raised by white grandparents? Black organizer in inner city Chicago? Educated in Southeast Asia by Muslims? Son of a Kenyan goat herder? Obama, to his benefit, has become a politician like Chance the Gardener, a blank screen everybody projects their fantasies on.
Our new president (who certainly doesn't look 'black' when compared to his African relatives) also has been called "the dream not deferred," an allusion to a poem by Langston Hughes. In his 1940 autobiography The Big Sea, Hughes wrote: "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word "Negro" is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown. My father was a darker brown. My mother an olive-yellow."
posted by LeLiLo at 10:21 PM on January 20, 2009
This is not true, as shown by a quick look at the first two people Time magazine quotes: Stanley Crouch and Debra Dickerson. Dickerson's January 2007 article in Salon, Colorblind, was the main article online when I started wondering about this whole issue a few months ago. (Its subtitle: "Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race — if he were actually black.")
Dickerson makes the claim that Obama can't be considered 'black' because he's "Not descended from West African slaves brought to America." Which seems ridiculous to me, but then American ideas about race often have been ridiculous. (See the "One-Drop Theory.")
All I really know about race in America: I never hear Obama referred to as "white" or "half-white.".... Really? I certainly have. It gets pointed out all the time.
Not from what I've seen. [Google search results for "first half-white president" (1,400) — "first black president" (876,000)] People seem obsessed with insisting that we now have a 'black' president, as opposed to one obviously of mixed race: the 'non-whites' for obvious reasons and the 'whites', perhaps because they're desperate for proof that they and their country are indeed 'liberal,' not 'racist' at all.
Half-white Hawaiian millionaire? Born to a white woman and raised by white grandparents? Black organizer in inner city Chicago? Educated in Southeast Asia by Muslims? Son of a Kenyan goat herder? Obama, to his benefit, has become a politician like Chance the Gardener, a blank screen everybody projects their fantasies on.
Our new president (who certainly doesn't look 'black' when compared to his African relatives) also has been called "the dream not deferred," an allusion to a poem by Langston Hughes. In his 1940 autobiography The Big Sea, Hughes wrote: "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word "Negro" is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown. My father was a darker brown. My mother an olive-yellow."
posted by LeLiLo at 10:21 PM on January 20, 2009
I wonder if we'll have a woman for a president before we have a thug (or redneck, if you'd prefer) for a president? It'd be interesting to see the White House flying some colors.
"While I can understand that a black person has a lower status in certain societies, it's not as a result of the person's race. It's a result of perceptions of social status implied by skin colour and presumed ancestry. Which has no significant bearing on the person's behaviour or capabilities, but may be detrimental in a society that values lighter-coloured skin over darker."
The thing is that "perceptions of social status" do end up having significant effects on people's behavior and capabilities. I get irritated at this argument that race is somehow imaginary-- an argument that only exists because skin color is a poor predictor of most outcomes, as compared to ancestry.
We do identify and discriminate by race, and it affects the way that people act. I mean, we identify and discriminate by music preference, and that's not meaningless either. Indie rock kids cleave to different political beliefs than new country kids do. (Yes, yes, I'm speaking in generalities.)
Besides, would it really be a better world if black people and white people shared the same culture? Isn't diversity a good thing?
posted by nathan v at 12:41 AM on January 21, 2009
"While I can understand that a black person has a lower status in certain societies, it's not as a result of the person's race. It's a result of perceptions of social status implied by skin colour and presumed ancestry. Which has no significant bearing on the person's behaviour or capabilities, but may be detrimental in a society that values lighter-coloured skin over darker."
The thing is that "perceptions of social status" do end up having significant effects on people's behavior and capabilities. I get irritated at this argument that race is somehow imaginary-- an argument that only exists because skin color is a poor predictor of most outcomes, as compared to ancestry.
We do identify and discriminate by race, and it affects the way that people act. I mean, we identify and discriminate by music preference, and that's not meaningless either. Indie rock kids cleave to different political beliefs than new country kids do. (Yes, yes, I'm speaking in generalities.)
Besides, would it really be a better world if black people and white people shared the same culture? Isn't diversity a good thing?
posted by nathan v at 12:41 AM on January 21, 2009
Diversity doesn't have to be based on skin color. And isn't. I'm still sorry the Republicans didn't run Condi Rice.
Uh, apologies if that's too much editorializing. Are people who make posts on MeFi expected to only contribute if they're answering questions?
posted by shetterly at 12:51 AM on January 21, 2009
Uh, apologies if that's too much editorializing. Are people who make posts on MeFi expected to only contribute if they're answering questions?
posted by shetterly at 12:51 AM on January 21, 2009
Dickerson makes the claim that Obama can't be considered 'black' because he's "Not descended from West African slaves brought to America."
If Obama is not really black, then are Sasha and Malia black? I mean, how much blackness does it take to be black? Are they half-black because Michelle was descended from slaves, but Barack was not? Dear god this is utterly ridiculous.
posted by desjardins at 9:15 AM on January 21, 2009
If Obama is not really black, then are Sasha and Malia black? I mean, how much blackness does it take to be black? Are they half-black because Michelle was descended from slaves, but Barack was not? Dear god this is utterly ridiculous.
posted by desjardins at 9:15 AM on January 21, 2009
Not from what I've seen. [Google search results for "first half-white president" (1,400) — "first black president" (876,000)] People seem obsessed with insisting that we now have a 'black' president, as opposed to one obviously of mixed race: the 'non-whites' for obvious reasons and the 'whites', perhaps because they're desperate for proof that they and their country are indeed 'liberal,' not 'racist' at all.
The comment I was responding to said "I never hear Obama referred to as white or half white." And what I said was true: In the time I've known about Obama, there are innumerable times his mixed-race background has been pointed out. It is mentioned constantly that he is half-white; we all know it. Anyone who follows current events even casually knows it. So it's not possible that the commenter "never heard" it, and I specifically want to call bullshit on that.
I hear Obama's mixed-race parentage brought up all the time, in both biographical sketches and profiles, and of course, whenever people talk about his race or speak of him as a racial 'first.' I think the specificity of the search terms lelilo is using sets up an inaccurate dichotomy, in that people can be both "half white" and also "black." Since these categories are socially defined, as noted above, they aren't mutually exclusive. Membership in the class of "black people" is by no means barred to people who have white ancestry - even to people who have mostly white ancestry. If that were true, we would have almost no "black" people in the United States. Socially and historically in America, whether or not you were considered "black" had absolutely no requirement that both your parents be black, or all your grandparents be black. It has always been a social category, not an empirically definable category.
Meanwhile, the category of "white" has seen consistent attempts to restrict its membership, again both socially and legally, to people for whom both parents were white. During the age of segregation, one white parent was assuredly not sufficient to admit a person into the category of "whites" - America has developed no widespread designation such as South Africa's "colored," or the old Spanish fractional designations ("quadroon," "octoroon,") for people who were seen as somewhere in-between. The obsession in white culture has been with white "purity," and an extremely restrictive (though gradually widening) definition of whiteness has been the norm - as recently as the turn of the twentieth century and often beyond, debates took place as to whether Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jewish, Hispanic, and Irish people could be considered white. The intensification of racial categories in the Jim Crow era polarized whiteness and blackness in such a way as to extend "whiteness" to many previously excluded groups, but whiteness has always been the more exclusive category, with anyone whose whiteness was suspected not to be sufficient relegated to another category (often "black," if their skin was dark) and for that reason people who had black ancestry typically have not been included in the class of "white people." Because this is our cultural history, in no way would it make sense for Americans to call Obama a "white President" or even "half white President." In our culture, "half white" necessarily means "half non-white," which means "not included in the class of "white people."
Also, I think using those search terms as a proof resulted in a misleading understanding of whether Obama's racial background is "never" mentioned. The construction of "first half white president" wouldn't be very common for the reasons I gave above, but also for newsworthiness. There's absolutely nothing unusual about a half white president and he isn't the first half white president. He's just the first who's also half non-white, so the newsworthy element of his holding the office is that he is a black person as well as being half white. Note that we don't call George Washington our "first white President," (only 736 Google returns!) even though he clearly was, to the best of our knowledge. Nor do we call Washington our "first Protestant President," though he was, and though we called Kennedy the "first Catholic President."
The cultural dominance of white Americans, especially when it comes to formal communications, has made "white," to some (diminishing) extent, a default category that is rarely called out in specific language unless required for clarity's sake - whereas "black" is usually noted somewhere in the news if it's relevant (and often if it isn't, though that's been more successfully challenged recently and is fading) and if a reader couldn't be expected to assume that. In a president, white parentage has not been at all unusual, while black parentage is. In a president, femaleness is unusual, maleness is not. If we had elected Clinton, I would similarly expect to see far more references to "first woman President Hillary Clinton" than see her referred to as "white President Hillary Clinton." What is called out is more newsworthy. Think also: we don't call Obama "male President Barack Obama." Male presidents are the default, so the maleness of a President is relatively unworthy of much notice.
My search for "Obama + "half white" " resulted in 154,000 Google returns, so that should be enough to put paid to the claim that he's never referred to as "half white" or that his white parentage is not known to people. "Obama + "white mother," 135,000. "Obama +"mixed race" ", 269,000.
Finally, one idea discussed both with and within the black community is that you can't always choose blackness - it often chooses you. The dilemma of "how black/white/Asian/whatever am I?" is something most mixed-race kids contend with when they're growing up and people routinely ask "So what ARE you, anyway?" Many mixed-race people make the choice to identify as black, while others strongly refer to themselves, and ask to be referred to, as 'mixed-race' or 'biracial' and actively promote awareness of that option as a racial category. However, those categories are not reliably noticed or honored by the dominant culture. You may consider yourself mixed-race, but if you're 'black' to a bank teller, a police officer, a club bouncer, a racist teenage hood, an employer, a person on the street, the membership director of the country club, a taxi driver - then you're black whether or not you chose to identify that way, and a set of expectations kicks in over which you have no control. You don't have the invisible backpack on, in other words.
For this reason, even someone who considers himself or is considered by many 'mixed race' will find that he or she has experiences which end up grouping them into the "black" category despite their wishes. Similarly, some "black" people have skin, hair, and eye color which doesn't look stereotypically black, and those people, throughout history, have found that they can "pass," or pass as "white." In other words, they could be treated as a white person and experience the benefits of being "white." In many cases, they did identify as white, and their descendants today are being pretty surprised when they get their new little DNA swab and find out they have a 98% match with African-American genetic markers.
So racial categories are only partly a question of identification - they are, in part, but they are also a cultural question, about how an individual's physical appearance and behavior is viewed in the dominant culture. And culturally, Obama is black, both by his own identification and by the independent decisions made by the millions observing him in the rest of the culture. And he's also half white, and he's also mixed race. All of this is true, all at once. And no one can "prove" the blackness or whiteness of anyone - since any scientific approach shows that the categories are meaningless. All we're left to do the determining with is culture, and in our culture, our half-white President is black.
And even if you don't think he's black, he's undeniably African-American ;)
posted by Miko at 12:26 PM on January 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
The comment I was responding to said "I never hear Obama referred to as white or half white." And what I said was true: In the time I've known about Obama, there are innumerable times his mixed-race background has been pointed out. It is mentioned constantly that he is half-white; we all know it. Anyone who follows current events even casually knows it. So it's not possible that the commenter "never heard" it, and I specifically want to call bullshit on that.
I hear Obama's mixed-race parentage brought up all the time, in both biographical sketches and profiles, and of course, whenever people talk about his race or speak of him as a racial 'first.' I think the specificity of the search terms lelilo is using sets up an inaccurate dichotomy, in that people can be both "half white" and also "black." Since these categories are socially defined, as noted above, they aren't mutually exclusive. Membership in the class of "black people" is by no means barred to people who have white ancestry - even to people who have mostly white ancestry. If that were true, we would have almost no "black" people in the United States. Socially and historically in America, whether or not you were considered "black" had absolutely no requirement that both your parents be black, or all your grandparents be black. It has always been a social category, not an empirically definable category.
Meanwhile, the category of "white" has seen consistent attempts to restrict its membership, again both socially and legally, to people for whom both parents were white. During the age of segregation, one white parent was assuredly not sufficient to admit a person into the category of "whites" - America has developed no widespread designation such as South Africa's "colored," or the old Spanish fractional designations ("quadroon," "octoroon,") for people who were seen as somewhere in-between. The obsession in white culture has been with white "purity," and an extremely restrictive (though gradually widening) definition of whiteness has been the norm - as recently as the turn of the twentieth century and often beyond, debates took place as to whether Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jewish, Hispanic, and Irish people could be considered white. The intensification of racial categories in the Jim Crow era polarized whiteness and blackness in such a way as to extend "whiteness" to many previously excluded groups, but whiteness has always been the more exclusive category, with anyone whose whiteness was suspected not to be sufficient relegated to another category (often "black," if their skin was dark) and for that reason people who had black ancestry typically have not been included in the class of "white people." Because this is our cultural history, in no way would it make sense for Americans to call Obama a "white President" or even "half white President." In our culture, "half white" necessarily means "half non-white," which means "not included in the class of "white people."
Also, I think using those search terms as a proof resulted in a misleading understanding of whether Obama's racial background is "never" mentioned. The construction of "first half white president" wouldn't be very common for the reasons I gave above, but also for newsworthiness. There's absolutely nothing unusual about a half white president and he isn't the first half white president. He's just the first who's also half non-white, so the newsworthy element of his holding the office is that he is a black person as well as being half white. Note that we don't call George Washington our "first white President," (only 736 Google returns!) even though he clearly was, to the best of our knowledge. Nor do we call Washington our "first Protestant President," though he was, and though we called Kennedy the "first Catholic President."
The cultural dominance of white Americans, especially when it comes to formal communications, has made "white," to some (diminishing) extent, a default category that is rarely called out in specific language unless required for clarity's sake - whereas "black" is usually noted somewhere in the news if it's relevant (and often if it isn't, though that's been more successfully challenged recently and is fading) and if a reader couldn't be expected to assume that. In a president, white parentage has not been at all unusual, while black parentage is. In a president, femaleness is unusual, maleness is not. If we had elected Clinton, I would similarly expect to see far more references to "first woman President Hillary Clinton" than see her referred to as "white President Hillary Clinton." What is called out is more newsworthy. Think also: we don't call Obama "male President Barack Obama." Male presidents are the default, so the maleness of a President is relatively unworthy of much notice.
My search for "Obama + "half white" " resulted in 154,000 Google returns, so that should be enough to put paid to the claim that he's never referred to as "half white" or that his white parentage is not known to people. "Obama + "white mother," 135,000. "Obama +"mixed race" ", 269,000.
Finally, one idea discussed both with and within the black community is that you can't always choose blackness - it often chooses you. The dilemma of "how black/white/Asian/whatever am I?" is something most mixed-race kids contend with when they're growing up and people routinely ask "So what ARE you, anyway?" Many mixed-race people make the choice to identify as black, while others strongly refer to themselves, and ask to be referred to, as 'mixed-race' or 'biracial' and actively promote awareness of that option as a racial category. However, those categories are not reliably noticed or honored by the dominant culture. You may consider yourself mixed-race, but if you're 'black' to a bank teller, a police officer, a club bouncer, a racist teenage hood, an employer, a person on the street, the membership director of the country club, a taxi driver - then you're black whether or not you chose to identify that way, and a set of expectations kicks in over which you have no control. You don't have the invisible backpack on, in other words.
For this reason, even someone who considers himself or is considered by many 'mixed race' will find that he or she has experiences which end up grouping them into the "black" category despite their wishes. Similarly, some "black" people have skin, hair, and eye color which doesn't look stereotypically black, and those people, throughout history, have found that they can "pass," or pass as "white." In other words, they could be treated as a white person and experience the benefits of being "white." In many cases, they did identify as white, and their descendants today are being pretty surprised when they get their new little DNA swab and find out they have a 98% match with African-American genetic markers.
So racial categories are only partly a question of identification - they are, in part, but they are also a cultural question, about how an individual's physical appearance and behavior is viewed in the dominant culture. And culturally, Obama is black, both by his own identification and by the independent decisions made by the millions observing him in the rest of the culture. And he's also half white, and he's also mixed race. All of this is true, all at once. And no one can "prove" the blackness or whiteness of anyone - since any scientific approach shows that the categories are meaningless. All we're left to do the determining with is culture, and in our culture, our half-white President is black.
And even if you don't think he's black, he's undeniably African-American ;)
posted by Miko at 12:26 PM on January 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
« Older The City Where the Sirens Never Sleep. | A nation of nonbelievers Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(Also, didn't Obama grow up poor or at least not-rich?)
posted by DU at 11:22 AM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]