The Black Caucus's Black Eye?: Criticizing the Critics

The Congressional Black Caucus is “On Notice,” proclaims Jill Tubbman of Jack & Jill Politics. The warning – echoed by others – represents the latest boon of virtual venom spewed into the blogosphere as well as the mainstream media landscape by people criticizing William Clay Sr.’s edict back in August, mandating that the Congressional Black Caucus remain an all-black organization. Clay’s proclamation – made either in advance or in spite of white, Democratic, so-called racial rabble-rousers David Yassky from Brooklyn and Tennessee congressional hopeful Steve Cohen – lit another log on the already stoked fire of race politics in this year’s election.

Whether or not the CBC really represents the interests of African Americans is not the question we’re all that interested in at the moment. See Jack and Jill – they are. Nor are we most interested at present in whether certain CBC members have fallen prey to corporate interests. See The Republic of T – he is. So is Captain Ed. Not that these issues aren’t important, they’ve just been taken up by so many others – none of who seem to acknowledge or understand the kind of rose-colored-glasses-meets-denial kind of criticism popularly lodged against the “we’d prefer no whites” policy of the CBC.

The kind of criticism of which we speak continues despite the fact that threatened potential member Yassky lost his primary to a black woman, Yvette Clarke, after protest by retiring seat-holder Major Owens and other black community leaders in New York City. Not to mention – Steve Cohen, the frontrunner in Tennessee’s 9th District hasn’t himself actually claimed that he would seek entrance into the CBC. But not since the summer has anyone seemed to grasp the hypocrisy of what some call the hypocrisy of race politcs faced by those such as Yassky and Cohen who had hoped (and hope) to be white representatives of majority-black districts.

So here it is – a June piece in the New York Press (The Washington Times strikes a similar chord), where John Desio asked his readers to envision a situation where the roles were reversed: where whites were trying to keep a black candidate from representing a majority-white district because he was incapable of adequately addressing the interests of white people. He argues that in the then-current case, “what would have seemed racist has become legitimate political discourse.”

The legitimacy of such discourse is anything but absurd, though. Inference of reciprocity in such scenarios is inappropriate, and the arguments are stale. We have heard countless times that if colleges preferred white students in affirmative action programs, no one would stand for it. But they did (and they do) and lots of folks have and continue to stand for it. We have heard that White Student Unions on campus would be racist, so it should be considered equally racist to have Black Student Unions.

This reasoning is faulty and ignores the historic legacy of racial discrimination. African Americans are still disproportionately denied access to power. Their lack of proportional representation in America’s power structure is neither a function of genetics nor lack of hard work. There continues to be a need for people of color and women to organize, and while reasonable arguments can be made that alliances with those in power (of whatever color or gender) might be better made by allowing inclusion into those formal groups (a tactic used by groups such as the National Organization for Women, for instance), it is not appropriate to characterize the exclusion of whites from historically-black groups as “racism.”

Desio claims in his piece for the New York Press that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “argued for a color blind society” and that “he probably be sick with embarrassment” if he heard the calls for a white candidate to be kept off a ballot because of his race. We disagree. King envisioned a society where people were not judged by the color of their skin, but it’s doubtful that he would have agreed with ignoring the reality of racial power differences thirty-three years after he gave that famous speech in Washington, D.C. He certainly would not be embarrassed by the work of Major Owen and other members of the CBC. Whether he’d vote to let a white man in, however, is another question.

Read past related stories in:

The Queens Tribune
New York Metro
The Washington Post
The Tennesseean

Steele Racing Back to Black

Some would say Gubernatorial nominees Lynn Swann (PA) and Ken Blackwell (OH), and Senate nominee Michael Steele (MD) ran away from their blackness long ago – at least as far back as when they first registered Republican. It seems at least one of them – Steele – agrees. That is, he appears to be racing back to Maryland blacks as if he’s got a long way to go. Case in point: a recently unveiled television spot where Steele invokes what we call an “appeal to African American Authenticity,” specifically an appeal questioning the idea of political party authenticity.

Because the Democratic Party has enjoyed a disproportionate share of the black vote since the 1960s, black politicians who align themselves with the Republican Party face the potential for not being considered “black enough.” J.C. Watts, Gary Franks, Alan Keyes and even Colin Powell (who did not run for elected office) are among several who have faced such criticism. The suggestion is that a “real” African American would not be associated with a party that most African Americans believe has done so much harm to – or at least has shown such little regard for – “the" community.

Accordingly, black Republicans have an interesting dynamic to consider. They will tend to do better among white voters because their perceived conservatism mitigates their blackness. That is, a conservative white voter may subconsciously or consciously say to herself, “he looks black, but he’s a Republican: so he’s not that black.” On the other hand, though, black voters may be considering the exact same sentiments. In order to reach out to black voters (who comprise about a third of Maryland's population), a black Republican may be led to proclaim such an appeal to authenticity. Obviously, Steele has been, as is seen in his latest exemplar.

“For too long,” Steele says, “one party worried more about prices in the stock market more than prices in the corner market.” That party, one would presume, is his own. But by having the first sentence of the ad amount to a criticism of his own party, he reaches out to folks who are skeptical of any Republican candidate. “And,” he continues, “too many in the other party preached reconciliation at the same time they practiced division.” Assuming that he’s referring to Democrats, he’s skillfully acknowledging that the promises made to the black community have not been fulfilled. This suggests that black voters should not blindly support Democrats anymore than the Democratic Party should take black voters for granted. Both statements open the door for him to be embraced by his community in spite of his party affiliation, not because of it. That is, he appeals to authenticity to offset his status as a member of a party that is widely considered to be non-authentic to black interests.

The overwhelming majority of the people in the ad, including all of those who speak, are African American. In fact, he scores the mother of all street cred in hip-hop legend and mogul, Russell Simmons, who appears in the ad and helps provide the impression that supporting Steele is synonymous with keeping it real. One supporter notes, with a huge smile, that Steele is “going to Washington to represent all people.” Yet another happily proclaims that she’s “crossing party lines for Michael Steele.” This sends an important signal to black voters: “It’s okay, you can vote for a Republican and still be black.”

Mixed with the appeals to authenticity is a populist message that has been helpful to Republicans in gaining moderate supporters. “The gap between Washington and our families is real,” Steele says of the city that is run by his Republican compatriots, further distancing himself from the (black) public perception of the (white) Party brass.

Steele’s last remarks in the spot (apart from the approval tag) addresses his vision for that gap: “The need for a new bridge is real. . . and as Maryland’s next senator, I will build that bridge.” The visuals and subtext suggest that the bridge is between more than Washington and Maryland’s families, but also between African Americans and the Republican Party. We’ll be talking more in the coming weeks about others of the aforementioned black Republicans who are interested in helping to build – or at least cross – that bridge, as well.

Segregating Survivor

There is no doubt: dividing tribes by race in tonight's Survivor season premier will draw viewers – the curious as well as the abhorred. But let’s be honest, the decision amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt meant to drum up attention for a show with declining ratings. Discussion in the press and blogosphere has centered on the motivations of, or perceived inherent bigotry by, the show’s creators and producers. But this is not where the real problem lies. As we see it, the potential effects such a stunt might have on viewer’s attitudes about race in America is what so desperately needs to be addressed – much less so than motivations, about which we can only speculate, at best.

Survivor’s mere segregation by race, several critics have suggested, will call attention to racial differences in America. Such a contention, however, only reveals one of the most defective, dangerous and detrimentally persistent myths about race in America: that race does not really exist.

Science has long dismissed the validity of race, but try telling that to hordes of Katrina victims, Mexican immigrants, and Asian “model minorities” that perceived racial differences are not an American reality. Ignoring racial differences and the policies that collectively define America’s racist past only serves to keep racism on the back burner of our collective consciousness.

It’s customary in American linguistic parlance to confuse racism (which is systemic) with bigotry (which is individual) so that we never (or never have to) confront the former honestly. Racism requires access to power, something people of color have been purposefully and repeatedly denied. Bigotry is the hatred of another because of race (or gender or sexual orientation, etc.). People of color can certainly be bigoted, but they can’t be racist. Failing to recognize this difference by conflating, and thereby confusing, these constructs leaves us without the tools we need to do real work in this area.

When Kanye West spoke out against racism (not bigotry – he didn’t say that George W. Bush didn’t like black people, but rather that he didn’t care about them), he was called a “racist” and accused of making racism worse. People heard him call Bush a racist, but that’s not at all what he said. He simply pointed out that because of racism, white people in power fail to regularly consider the lived experiences of people of color in America. Calling attention to a reality does not make it worse; ignoring it and pretending it’s not there so that it continues to be ingrained in the dominant social order is much more damaging.

We do not praise Survivor for bringing perceived racial differences to light with their latest gimmick. On the contrary, we believe that profiting off the centuries of suffering of people of color is unconscionable. If there is any good to come out of the stunt, it will be to force America to confront issues of race (apparently Hurricane Katrina wasn’t enough) so that such attitudes are no longer latent.

We fear, however, that the editing and production will result in a product that fits the American myth of race by reducing it to individual-level attitudes. Contestant A will make a “racist” statement about someone in another tribe; Contestant D will make an assumption about a race that is intended to be a compliment and complain aloud that it should be about intent or “what’s in my heart”; Contestants F and R will make an alliance even though they’re from different races because the former’s cousin is married to a woman from Puerto Rico, demonstrating Contestant F’s lack of racism, thereby giving him the ability criticize others. And so the folly will go.

Such oversimplification in messaging will leave viewers with their comfortable thoughts that so long as they don’t use the “n” word, they’re not racist (the kind of statements Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and many other prominent leaders have been so adamant about), they’re not racist, and therefore, racism is someone else’s problem. Such shirking of responsibility leaves America’s racial problems in the hands of two groups: people of color, who are disproportionately denied access to the power structure because of racism; and overt bigots, who have no incentive to make changes.

The rest of America will continue to refuse to deal with the systemic racism that has plagued America for 400 years, and this season of Survivor will allow us to stay comfortable doing so.