Bush Salutes Black Airmen and Does. . . Okay.

This week, President Bush and some prominent members of Congress welcomed African American airmen and their families and friends – the Tuskegee Airmen – to Washington, DC, praised them for their service some sixty years after they fought in World War II, and awarded them the Congressional Gold Medal. The segregated units did not enjoy the same triumphant return from Europe as did their white counterparts; they came back to a deeply bigoted and legally segregated nation that, even after their accomplishments, continued to doubt their intelligence, bravery and abilities.

The President’s speech surprisingly went slightly beyond safe, politically-correct rhetoric about inequality and veered ever-so-gently into recognition of the power of systemic racism:

“I have a strong interest in World War II airmen. I was raised by one. He flew with a group of brave young men who endured difficult times in the defense of our country. Yet for all they sacrificed and all they lost, in a way, they were very fortunate, because they never had the burden of having their every mission, their every success, their every failure viewed through the color of their skin. Nobody told them they were a credit to their race. Nobody refused to return their salutes. Nobody expected them to bear the daily humiliations while wearing the uniform of their country. It was different for the men in this room. When America entered World War II, it might have been easy for them to do little for our country. After all, the country didn't do much for them.”

The transposition of Bush’s father with the men standing before him was unpredictable, but even more interesting is the observation about failures being viewed as a result of skin color, and praise being celebrated in spite of it. While we cannot rush to credit the president personally with having such recognition (he may, but the speech doesn’t prove that), it is still curiously pleasing to have such language emanate from any mainstream public podium, let alone one from an administration that does not have a reputation for being on the cutting edge of civil rights advances.

Near the end of the speech, President Bush said, “The Tuskegee Airmen helped win a war, and you helped change our nation for the better.” Such a claim is accurate on its face, but misleading to a public who believes that racism is over. The nation has changed in a progressive direction on issues of race since World War II. That’s undeniable, and the statement clearly conveys that truth. But there is also a potential (and probability given Americans’ overall lack of racial consciousness) that the statement can be interpreted as meaning that the nation has changed, and therefore is done changing. No more work to be done. All finished with that messy “racism thang.” Thank heavens we’re past all of that.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "Though Hitler was defeated, prejudice was not. ... Today we are trying to right that wrong." Uh. . . yeah. Well, it’ll probably take a bit more than this, but it is a nice gesture. They are “moving forward in righting a wrong,” “taking steps toward righting a wrong,” “moving in a direction that signals a commitment to righting a wrong,” etc., but one ceremony a half-century late is not enough “trying.” Keep at it, Madam Speaker. Keep at it. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Far from nitpicking on this issue, we would have hoped that the President and the Speaker would have been more clear about the work that still needs to be done. Still, the president’s speech represents a somewhat courageous step, as he dipped his toe into the pool of understanding white privilege. Now, if someone could just grab that toe and pull him in, we’d be in business.


AND NOW SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...

RHYTHM, RACE & KARL ROVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5RD9BhcCo

Polygamy at the Intersection of “Otherness”: Religion, Race, Gender, Class, Sexuality and Immigration (Whew!)

The New York Times reports today that there are a surprising number of polygamous (more specifically, polygnyous – one husband and two or more wives) families in the city. Immigrants from West African nations have brought the tradition to the United States, largely under the radar of authorities and watch groups. This challenges our traditional notions of “otherness,” particularly as the discourse is rooted in the ineffective American ideological binary; thinking about this issue in terms of the liberal-conservative continuum is fruitless. As we consider the elements of otherness that come into play, it becomes obvious that the space within which we examine this phenomenon is unclear and fraught with traps of cognitive dissonance.

Religion: Polygamy is most often conceptualized as a Mormon tradition in the United States, though some Americans may be aware that there are Orthodox Jews who believe in polygamy under certain circumstances. But the practice is also rooted in the Islamic tradition (though many Muslims renounce the practice), which is the basis for the issue making the news this week in New York. Even though the cultural norm in America is Judeo-Christian, Jews and Christians who have advocated or practiced polygamy have been marginalized legally and socially. Until very recently, there has been little attention paid to the number of American Muslims who have adopted (or refused to abandon) the practice.

Race: The racial component is tied closely with religion. Most Jews and Mormons are white; most Muslims are not. Since “white” is the hegemonic center of American racial discourse, law and socio-political arrangement, we would expect that those groups would be privileged over non-white polygamists. But since the practice itself is marginalized, the social order is inherently challenged, thus complicating our ability to structure critical discourse as we have become accustomed.

Gender: It seems clear to most Americans (liberal and conservative alike) that the polygamous arrangement is disadvantageous to women. Certainly the stories reported in today’s piece in the Times suggest that many women married to West African immigrants have been deceived into these arrangements. But other women enter into polygamous marriages voluntarily. Perhaps they are suffering from false consciousness, particularly those who have been raised in polygamous settings. But is it wise to appropriate all women in polygamous marriages to the status of victim? Is that condescending or paternalistic on its face? We wander easily from here into even more issues of cultural relativism and misogyny.

Class: Because polygamous marriages are most often conceptualized in a fundamentalist religious tradition, patriarchal gender arrangements are common. We think of many wives, each with many children, and a single husband who financially provides for the family/ies. Even in rural areas of Utah where the cost of living is relatively low, such an arrangement would be most easily maintained with a higher-than-average income. This clearly would not work in Manhattan. So women in polygamous marriages in urban centers are in the workforce and living in apartments with their shared husband, not in adjacent houses such as those portrayed in the HBO hit drama Big Love. But income and class are not synonymous, of course, and the middle-class norm in America is a nuclear heterosexual family with one man and one woman.

Sexuality: Polygamy does not involve challenges to America’s heterosexist cultural norm, but it does challenge the espoused norm of monogamy. As divorce rates have plateaued at around fifty per cent and reports of extra-marital affairs has become commonplace in our public and private spheres, polygamous arrangements may appear to be little more than formal codifications of increasingly common practices. If monogamy is unrealistic anyway, is it not more stable for children and less hurtful to partners to expect and arrange for it at the outset? Or is the attempt (or guise) of monogamy an important stabilizing force that should be encouraged?

Immigration: While most of our immigration discussions in America today revolve around keeping out terrorists and Mexicans (in fact, the two have curiously become correlated in public discourse), this issue reminds us of timeless questions about immigration. To what extent are those who come to America expected to assimilate to our norms? Must they obey legal doctrine that conflicts with their cultural practices? Legality aside, must we mandate that mainstream cultural norms be adopted? If so, how do we do that? Does such forced assimilation violate the principles of our history of offering freedom and opportunity to those who are oppressed or who otherwise seek it?

While polygamy is not a salient public issue (don’t look for any of the presidential hopefuls to be putting this ahead of the war, the economy or health care on his or her agenda) and is what political scientists refer to as a “vector issue” (there is overwhelming agreement on its unacceptability), it provides an opportunity for us to wrestle with our notion of “otherness” in a way that can be quite uncomfortable (and thus, we would argue, exciting). Far from being able to be placed in the traditional American dichotomous ideological schema, this issue forces us to confront some dissonance that we’d much rather avoid, but for the sake of intellectual growth, should not.

This Just In: Bill Richardson Is Hispanic!

If you pay close attention to the way the press covers New Mexico governor Bill Richardson’s run for the Democratic nomination for president, you will see evidence of the way race still matters in our culture.

Richardson is half-Mexican, and he is quite proud of his Hispanic roots. There is no question that he will emphasize this during the campaign, but he doesn’t want it to define him. Back in December, he said, “I am Hispanic, which I believe is an asset. But I'm not running as an Hispanic; I am running as an American who is proud to be Hispanic.” But he has little choice in the matter. Even if he does not wish to make his ethnicity a centerpiece of his candidacy, the media certainly will. While it is not necessary for journalists to continually point out Barack Obama’s race (since it is clearly visible), Richardson’s name and appearance do not immediately identify him as an ethnic minority. Accordingly, those writing about him will be certain to highlight it – we expect in every story about him.

In January, Washington Post political guru Chris Cillizza wrote a story about Richardson’s announcement in which he mentioned the governor’s ethnicity in the first sentence:

“New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson began a run for the Democratic presidential nomination yesterday, betting that his long résumé and Hispanic heritage will boost his chances in a field already stocked with better-known candidates.”

Last month, the bloggers joined in. Here’s the third sentence from Libertarian blogger John Murney’s entry on Richardson:

“In America, Hispanic voters, especially Cuban-Americans, vote overwhelmingly Republican. With Richardson as the Presidential candidate, the Democrats would have an opportunity to build inroads with Hispanic voters.”

To be fair, Richardson is playing up his heritage. It’s difficult to know to what extent, though. Way back in November of 2005, Newsweek ran a story with this headline: “The Right Candidate? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says America is ready for a Hispanic or woman president—as long as the person is mainstream.” In the story, Richardson discusses foreign policy toward Latin America, and, as promised, the potential presidential candidacy of minorities. But we have to remember that the media not only set the agenda (direct us toward what we should be thinking about), but also provide context for a story.

For instance, it is possible that the conversation Richardson had with Newsweek included much more than these issues, but the editors chose to center the story on ethnicity. Whether they leave out other substantive issues, or simply move Richardson’s comments about his ethnicity to the beginning of the story, the focus (and headline) is not up to Richardson.

In a study we conducted during the 2004 elections, we found that newspapers were likely to make a reference to race and to frame the story around race when one of the candidates in the contest was non-white. That work was conducted on U.S. House and Senate contests, though, and the salience of a presidential election makes extrapolation unwise. Nonetheless, we expect that Bill Richardson will continue to be “the Hispanic candidate” in the race, and given Americans’ latent (or not-so-latent) racism and xenophobia, this characterization will likely not work to his advantage in the long run.

Obama's Stock: Financial Misdealings a Persistent Criticism of African American Candidates

This week, we sent out an electronic press release addressing the racial undercurrents of the questions that have been surfacing around Barack Obama’s financial dealings. We wanted to use this space to share our thoughts on that with you, as well as to elaborate on them.

This past Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Obama purchased stock in companies that stood to benefit from Obama’s policy advocacy in the U.S. Senate. While such financial dealings should certainly be scrutinized, we cannot ignore that such allegations have been prominent among criticisms of black candidates for other offices in the past. And we know why.

Part of the negative racial stereotype of black Americans is that they are untrustworthy, shady, and predisposed to poverty as a result of their laziness. This is rooted in the “American dream” myth that those who succeed in this country are those who work the hardest. Since blacks are expected to fulfill that role in society, those who have money are assumed to have come by it in ways that are less-than-legitimate. If you see a young black man driving a Mercedes and question how he could afford it (but wouldn’t question why a white man of the same age could), you know what we mean.

But admission of such unequal thinking is very uncomfortable because it violates our consciously held and articulated values of egalitarianism. So we relieve the dissonance by denying that we have such racial prejudices, explaining them away by other means (including “confirmation bias,” where we register that which confirms our assumptions and dismiss contrary information as anomalous), or confront and adjust our expectations and deal with them. Social scientists Lang and Lang (1984), in explaining “pluralistic ignorance,” which is the misperceptions citizens have about what others believe, give this as an example: “Typical of pluralistic ignorance has been the unwillingness of many whites to acknowledge their own antiblack prejudice, which they believe to contradict an accepted cultural ideal” (216). That is, we believe that any negative predispositions we have are unique to us, and therefore try to burry them deep within ourselves rather than confront them. So we can allow ourselves to believe that questioning Obama’s character as a result of these allegations is completely race-neutral; we’d be concerned if any candidate had engaged in such practices.

But we are not color blind; we know that Obama is black, and we have been socialized to accept stereotypes about blacks that are confirmed by this new information. Such denial is deeply-rooted in our (humans’) beliefs of self-control and self-determination. We refuse to feel powerless and admit that we can be driven by that which we cannot readily identify (let alone control).

Stephen A. Mitchell (2002) nicely summarizes how Freud explained the resistance to his discoveries about the unconscious mind:

“Sigmund Freud once attempted to account for the widespread resistance to his prodigious contributions to Western culture by positioning his discovery of the unconscious as the third of three powerful blows to human narcissism. The first, the cosmological blow, was the Copernican revolution. If the earth orbits around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth, we are faced with the hard truth that human beings are not located at the physical center of the universe, not at its core, not at its navel. Rather, we ourselves revolve in orbit around another center. The second, the biological blow, was the Darwinian revolution. If we humans have evolved from other animal species, we are faced with the hard truth that human beings were not uniquely created. We were not instantaneously designed, of a piece, by divine inspiration, but rather emerged slowly, over vast periods of time, in fits and starts, as life responded to changing circumstances.

“His discovery of the unconscious, Freud reasoned, was the third and most devastating assault, a psychological blow, to our estimation of our own importance. Prior to Freud’s revelations, we humans . . . could at least claim self-governance. But, Freud demonstrated, the human being is not even “master in his [or her] own house”: we do not even run our own minds. . . . Our conscious experience is merely the tip of an immense iceberg of unconscious mental processes that really shape, unbeknownst to us, silently, impenetrably, and inexorably, our motives, our values, our actions (21-22).

We have, previously in this space, made reference to Tali Mendelberg’s (2001) notion of the “norm of racial equality.” Consciously, we know how we should feel about racial equality. Most often, we convince ourselves that we do feel that way to resolve our cognitive dissonance. That does not, however, change the reality of what lies beneth our consciousness. This is confirmed through observations of poll results overestimating support for black candidates. Besides what might be considered “the ultimate question” (electoral support), though, we have to consider what other attitudes about black candidates are affected by stereotypes that reside outside of our consciousness – attitudes that lead to, among other things, electoral support (or lack thereof).

We have analyzed hundreds of political advertisements by candidates running against African Americans over the past two decades, and have found that insinuations of financial misdealings appear more than any other form of attack or criticism.

Allegations of financial misdealings can be characterized on a scale ranging from “oversights” to “criminal,” but because of the long-standing stereotypes about African Americans, black candidates are more likely to be assumed to be on the latter side of that continuum. Here are a few examples of accusations that have been made against African American candidates by their opponents:

* Congressman William Jefferson in his 2006 re-election campaign – accused of taking bribes;

* Former Congressman J.C. Watts during each of his congressional campaigns in 1994, 1996, and 1998 – accused of bouncing checks, taking bribes and receiving payment from work not done;

* Former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, during her failed 1998 re-election campaign – accused of illegally using campaign funds to pay for a lavish lifestyle;

* Congresswoman Corrine Brown, during her 1992 campaign – accused of hiring relatives who benefited financially from the government dole;

* Former Congressman Alan Wheat, during his bid for the U.S. Senate in 1994 – accused of bouncing checks; and

* Harvey Gantt, during his 1996 bid for the U.S. Senate – accused of benefiting from his minority status in the quick resale of a television station he purchased.

We are not taking issue with the accuracy of these claims, but rather the assumptions that inherently drive our evaluation of black candidates who are accuses as opposed to white candidates. Further, the frequency with which these types of allegations are lodged against black candidates illustrate a pattern of prejudice that dates back to far before black candidates were seeking the presidency. With an election at this level of salience, though, we are not surprised to see such an attack – even this early on.

No More "Nigger" in New York City

The New York City Council approved a symbolic resolution this week to place a moratorium on the “n-word.” This comes on the heels of a number of high-profile incidents of the use of the word and subsequent urgings by many black leaders to abolish it in black discourse [see our post about Michael Richards]. While most coverage of this issue is centering on the notion of freedom of speech, we wish to use our space today to address the complexities involved in the way this word has come to be used. For a very thoughtful and comprehensive analysis, please consult Randall Kennedy’s Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word.

For its part, the Council resolution is also quite thoughtful, rooted in the historical transition of the word and focusing on the current cultural context:

“While some African Americans started using the “N” word to refer to themselves in the 1970's cultural era known as Black Exploitation, the term was also adopted during the beginning of 1990’s cultural era known as Hip Hop. . .”

With that in mind, the sponsors craftily address the negative connotation of the word, irrespective of its spelling:

“Hip Hop culture removed the “er” from the end of the word and added the letter “a,” creating the term "Nigga," although the term remained pejorative in the Black community and, depending on social circles, at some times denoted class differences. . . .[N]o matter how it is spelled, the word carries throughout the centuries these connotations of hate; [. . .]

"The “N” word connotes a lazy person with no self respect or regard for family, a person who is ignorant, stupid, slow moving, does not speak proper English and has childlike qualities, and such definition was cemented in American culture by early 1900’s caricatures of Black people, such as the film “Birth Of A Nation;””

And finally, before calling for the moratorium, they acknowledge that there is not a unified position on this, even amongst the black community:

“Today’s African American community remains divided in its use of the “N” word: some neo-revisionists attempt to redefine and lay claim to the word while others refuse to use the word in their vocabulary at all.”

For the past six years, the two of us have had an ongoing disagreement about this issue, as well. We are both fans of hip-hop music, much of which contains liberal use of the word. We are both proponents of freedom of speech; neither of us would condone making the word illegal. We both acknowledge that language is powerful beyond the intent of the user (which is why we study communication from a social science, effect-based, perspective). We both agree that when used by whites with a clear attempt to offend, the word is inappropriate. We both agree that there is a logical reason for black folks to reclaim the word to take power away from an oppressive majority who for years used it to propagate hate and violence against black Americans. And neither of us is swayed by the argument about changing the word’s spelling to differentiate its meaning from its historical roots. That’s a lot of agreement, but it leaves us with a notable gap in our perspectives on this. We clearly come from different racial and cultural (not to mention academic) backgrounds, and that has shaped how we approach this issue. Below is a brief dialogue between us about whether the n-word should be used by whites in discussions of its importance and power.

Stephen: I don’t ever use this word, and I don’t think it is appropriate for anyone who is not black to ever use it. There is something immensely symbolic about someone like me, who studies race and who is clearly normatively anti-racist (and would likely never be accused of being a bigot by using the word in an academic context) refusing to use it. It signals to my audience that the word has such power that I am willing to go out of my way to not utter it, even in an otherwise-appropriate context. Further, it eliminates any second-guessing that would have to take place about intent and context when a white person does use the word. There’s no reason to do so; it can be discussed intelligently by referring to the “n-word,” and everyone will know what word I mean. My experience is that white folks are forever frustrated by what they perceive as a double standard that black folks can use the word and white folks aren’t supposed to. Indeed. It has never been used by black folks to oppress each other, but it has been used by whites to oppress blacks. That history cannot be ignored, even by changing the spelling. I am sensitive to the “intent” issue: young, hip, and racially sensitive whites often use the word with black friends to indicate that they are beyond racism and so that they can fit into the culture they wish to emulate. But as we have noted countless times in this space, no one is beyond racism in our culture, and white folks would do well to recognize that by avoiding the word altogether.

Charlton: Yeah. I’m not begging for you to call me "nigger" (or anyone else for that matter). But, what I’m saying is for the person who would use the term judiciously, in context, in full view of a group of people who are free to respond to you, question your motives, etc., there should be some limited space to call a time-out, to say that we’re big enough to discuss something that by implication necessitates that I use the term called into question.

Unless the discussion is about euphemisms, that is. I guess. But even if that’s the case, do you really not know what you’re saying when you say “the N-word?” Do I not know what you’re saying? Does anyone else? Are you going to go up to someone and say, “Get out of my way, N-Word?” No, because it would sound silly. And, no, because you wouldn’t do it anyway. So, what I’m trying to say is that when your intentions and motives are clear, is it not useful – as an educator – to be able to use the term that is at the center of your discussion that is certainly aimed at understanding its history, its affects, its violence?

That is not to say there is no risk taken here. Even in the loftiest of educational settings, a black student may very well get frustrated, angry, and/or upset when you, a white professor, or me, a black professor, in earshot of white students, says "let’s talk about the term 'nigger.'" But I think the best learning comes with risk, even if that risk is the risk of possibly offending.

I just finished having the same discussion we’re having here with my fiancée, Raechel, a white, employment attorney who sues companies whose employees (for instance) say "nigger" to another employee without repercussion by a supervisor. It’s Randall Kennedy’s “Nigger in Court.” If “nigger” is at issue, then “nigger” must be said – in her briefs, in her conversation with clients, in her statements to jurors, in her debates with opposing counsel, and with the judge. When she wins the case (actually whether she does or not) and I invite her to come to my Rhetoric, Law & Public Policy class to discuss her work, will she say “nigger?” No. Just like you won’t. Should she? That’s a question only she can answer. Should she be able to? Absolutely. Do I think my students – black, white and otherwise – will be better off for it? Absolutely.

Stephen: Charlton, you ignorant slut. (If you, dear reader, are too young to get that joke, please accept my apologies). Your fiancée is clearly a bigot, and you should question your matrimonial plans.

In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure we're not talking apples and oranges. (Though as Chuck Klosterman has said, this is a silly phrase; they're both fruit, so is it really such an outrageous comparison?) The question is not whether I CAN say it. I'm perfectly able to make my mouth utter the word. And, I would never call for a formal (legal) ban on ANY word on its face. The question at hand is whether I SHOULD say it as a white teacher, scholar and anti-racist proponent. And as insightful as your comments above are, I still say "no." Not because I'm afraid of taking a risk, of being accused of being a bigot, or even of normalizing the word. All those concerns are valid, but they're not the reasons for my refusal to utter the word, even during what you must admit is a dead-on karaoke performance of Snoop Dogg in "Nuthin' But a G-Thang." I refuse to say the word to send a signal that racism is so powerful and so relevant still today that a six-letter word still should not be spoken by someone of a cultural heritage other than that which it has been used to oppress.

I don't make a big show of it. No need to. Just like I don't chastise my colleagues who continue use the archaic term "freshman." I simply choose to use "first-year student" to signal my recognition of the gendered nature of the former term, and that's powerful enough. But I am concerned that any use of the n-word by whites in academia sends a signal to young whites that since white progressives use it, and their black friends use it with one another, and their musical heroes use it, the term lacks the historical power that it once had. That's simply not true, and I refuse to take part in perpetuating that myth.

Charlton: Apples and oranges, fruit and freshman aside, an implicit refusal to utter the word in any context is, in effect, the same as legislating a ban. It has a chilling effect on those whose use of the word may be limited to purposes I think we both agree have some positive consequences. Yes, you might take the risk of engaging a discussion about the “N-Word,” but do you think any of your white students are going to ask without being prompted, “professor, why is it that the N-word is bad?” You think they will ask their black friend, “Hey, what do you think about people using the N-Word?” or, “I heard you using the N-word with your other black friends, why is it different when I say it?” I maintain that someone should be able to ask such questions, if indeed they are looking for ways out of their ignorance.

The bottom line - and the final word - which I get this time - is that refusal to utter the word in any context guarantees that the word will retain, if not gain even more power.