It's Time

Stephen will be blogging for the next four weeks from Princeton University, where he is teaching Campaigns and Elections for the Junior State of America summer school program.

Six attempts. There were six previous attempts to post this blog. The number of relevant stories as the week continued to unfold made it impossible to feel satisfied that we’d addressed what we needed to. At the bottom of this entry are links to a number of other stories that deserve our time and attention. There’s simply too much to cover.

Sunday’s Washington Post, however, provided the material that forced us to stop and think about what a truly unique time in our nation’s history we find ourselves. The time to have the most meaningful discussion of race relations in America is not only opportune, but is, we argue below, imperative. At the risk of sounding alarmist, we are at a juncture at which continual navel-gazing, avoidance, and shifting the burden will result in dire consequences for our democratic system. Here’s why.

There were two prominent stories in yesterday’s Post. The first reported the results of a new poll that shows three in ten Americans admit feelings of racial prejudice. There are always many ways to look at numbers, but this finding is nothing short of shocking. It is not shocking that 30% of Americans have racial bias – far more than that do. The number is alarming for two reasons.

First, it surprising that three in ten Americans recognize that they have racial prejudice. We certainly do not see numbers anywhere close to that in informal polling of our own students. Do three of every ten folks you talk to admit to racial prejudice? Given the culture of acceptance and tolerance that has characterized American conscious political culture over the past four decades, it is quite surprising that this many respondents were aware of their own biases.

Secondly, it is surprising that even if folks realize their own biases that they are willing to admit it to survey administrators, even anonymously. It has been very difficult to gain an accurate measure of “racism” (defined numerous ways), and social scientists have consistently assumed that the numbers generated by surveys were low. It is similar to the difficulty of ascertaining the persistence of sexually transmitted diseases without access to medical records. Folks just are reluctant to admit to that which they understand to be socially unacceptable.

The situation becomes dire as we examine the gap in perceptions of race relations between whites and blacks:

Overall, 51 percent call the current state of race relations "excellent" or "good," about the same as said so five years ago. That is a relative thaw from more negative ratings in the 1990s, but the gap between whites and blacks on the issue is now the widest it has been in polls dating to early 1992.

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

John Edwards has been often criticized for being divisive by noting that there are “two Americas,” but the more we acknowledge that perceptions of common circumstances between men and women, middle-class and poor, black and white, etc., the more we must admit that we are not living in one common America, no matter how much we wish to be.

What is not surprising are the results of a Post poll last month that found that nine in ten whites would be comfortable with the idea of a black president. (We should be surprised that one in ten admitted discomfort.) Yesterday’s Post story goes on to report, however, that more than half of whites called Obama a “risky” choice for president, while 2/3 saw McCain as a safe pick. While it would be foolish to dismiss the public’s familiarity with McCain, particularly when compared to Obama, it is also hard to imagine that there is not some “substitution” going on. That is, folks tend to evaluate consciously on criteria that are ostensibly unrelated to race, even though historically such characteristics are very much connected to racial stereotypes. A similar scenario exists with gender bias: women are not promoted as often as men to top corporate jobs because they lack characteristics of strong leadership – characteristics that are often associated with males. In other words: Obama is risky because he’s shifty and hates America, not because he’s black, but we “know” that blacks are untrustworthy and are angry at America because they haven’t “made it” at the same rate as whites.

Adding yet another twist to our concern is a corollary article that appeared in Sunday’s Post. Eli Saslow reports on the increased interest and membership in white supremacist groups in recent weeks (since Obama secured the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination).

"I haven't seen this much anger in a long, long time," said Billy Roper, a 36-year-old who runs a group called White Revolution in Russellville, Ark. "Nothing has awakened normally complacent white Americans more than the prospect of America having an overtly nonwhite president."

Another supremacist activist said,

"I get nonstop e-mails and private message from new people who are mad as hell about the possibility of Obama being elected," said [Don] Black, a white power activist since the 1970s. "White people, for a long time, have thought of our government as being for us, and Obama is the best possible evidence that we've lost that. This is scaring a lot of people who maybe never considered themselves racists, and it's bringing them over to our side."

And yet another admitted the following:

"Our side does better when the public is being pressured, when gas prices are high, when housing is bad, when a black man might be president," said Ron Doggett, who runs a white power group called EURO in Richmond. "People start looking for solutions and changes, and we offer radical changes to what's going on."

And what good is an article on white supremacy and politics without a quote from David Duke?

"One person put it this way: Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president," said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. "This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it's a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that's going to make them turn to people like me. We're the next logical step."

So here is how we see it:

• Americans who consciously subscribe to racial equality have long ignored their subconscious racial bias because they are overtly egalitarian (e.g., have black friends, don’t use the n-word, etc.).

• Barack Obama’s candidacy has capitalized on this “norm of racial equality” (see Tali Mendelberg’s work) to form a coalition of progressive whites and African Americans at a time when most Americans are ready for “change.”

• Obama’s nomination will signal to whites who have resisted arguments about continuing systemic oppression against blacks that they were right all along. If black folks just worked harder, such folks will reason, they could achieve anything whites could achieve; and Obama’s nomination is proof of it. (They tried to point this out in the 1980s when the Huxtables from Bill Cosby’s popular television show had “made it!” And Colin Powell? Condoleeza Rice? Clarence Thomas? Hello?! Pay attention, people!!).

• This realization of achieved racial equality will serve to attract more whites to the idea that racial minorities are unfairly advantaged in America by a government that ignores the needs of whites. Under such circumstances (i.e., perceived equal political footing amongst whites and blacks), more whites will feel justified in fighting for “their” rights like black leaders have been doing.

At the end of last week, Barack Obama predicted in a speech that Republicans would use his race against him in the campaign:

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me: 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"'

Several news organizations questioned whether he had “crossed the line” by mentioning this (CNN’s Anderson Cooper, for instance). In truth, it has already been shown that Obama’s opponents (of both parties) are willing to draw upon racial prejudices to try to defeat him. His attempt to inoculate against it was predicted by our research findings of congressional communication involving black candidates. (See Obama’s latest ad where he emphasizes being raised on values such as self-reliance and making no excuses, as well as other values that white Americans tend to not associate with African Americans.) He wants to head it off and call attention to it because doing so has been shown to minimize (or reverse) the effects of implicitly racist messages.

As scholars dedicated to educating about power inequalities and the way our use of language can contribute to or challenge those differences, we see a moment in time that we cannot let pass. We are at a very crucial crossroads – not the first and probably not the last, but crucial nonetheless.

In addition to our scholarly work together, we are each embarking on more accessible projects separately to seize this moment and engage as many people as possible in honest and meaningful dialogue about race. We will be available throughout the fall to speak at colleges and universities (as we have for several years), civic group meetings and wherever else we are invited. We will continue to contribute to the broader discussion in this space, and we will continue to make ourselves available to media to facilitate discussions as events unfold.

If you agree (and we recognize that all of our readers do not – we are grateful for your attention, as well), we encourage you to share this blog and others that address similar topics, read as much as you can by the folks who comprise our scholarly base (Dyson, West, hooks, Patricia Williams, etc.), and talk to as many folks as you can.

This is not about electing Barack Obama. That’s a political decision that revolves around more than race. Our immediate concern is to take advantage of this crucial time in our national discourse to be clear about what we are really dealing with in America. When we launched The Project on Race in Political Communication in the summer of 2001, we did not expect to be faced with such a scenario so quickly. Win or lose, Obama’s run has provided us with this opportunity. The time is right to do our part.



Here are the other stories that deserve our attention. We are sorry that we are unavailable to discuss them all, but we encourage you to post your comments about any of them below.

Obama volunteers ban Muslim women from behind-the-podium position

In a testament to the reality that Obama’s campaign has to deal with in terms of people either believing he is a Muslim publicly or secretly, staffers engaged in the inexcusable last week in Detroit, keeping two women wearing the traditional hijab head scarf from sitting behind the podium, since folks in those positions often appear in media clips of the candidate’s speech. This is certainly not behavior befitting of a campaign that expects to be representative of all Americans, including minority groups.

In a related story, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg told a Jewish group in Florida to disregard rumors that Obama is Muslim.

New York Mets baseball team manager Willie Randolph fired in the middle of the night

Besides the fact that Randolph is black, this firing wouldn’t warrant attention in our blog. However, last month, Randolph gave an interview where he wondered aloud whether he was being treated differently by the Mets organization because he is black. See interesting discussion on this issue by William Rhoden, JonGee and “The East Coast Bias.”

Obama eschews public financing

Most Americans probably didn’t even realize that general election campaigns for president have been fully funded by tax money since the 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance reform laws were enacted. Obama will be the first major party candidate to elect to raise his own money (and therefore not be subject to spending limits for the period between the Democratic National Convention and the general election in November). Those who have pushed for more equality in elections have long advocated public funding as a remedy to the interest-group-soaked fundraising that takes place in other campaigns and in presidential nominating contests. For them, Obama’s decision will be of great disappointment. For his part, Obama claimed that the public financing system put him at a disadvantage because Republicans were better poised to take advantage of loopholes in the existing law (that John McCain famously co-wrote and pushed through Congress).

Sock Obama monkey doll gets sacked

Stephen’s colleague, psychologist Heather Coon, alerted us to a short-lived controversy by a Utah-based company that planned to manufacture sock monkey dolls in support of Obama’s candidacy. After a day or so of vociferous complaints, the company scrapped the plans and offered a curious apology, claiming that they were too naïve to know that there was any history of linking Africans and African Americans to monkeys as a source of dehumanization. Though the original page is down, you can read Andrew Sullivan’s pre-apology blog on the subject (which includes a picture of the doll), as well as an interesting article by Kyle E. Moore on racial iconography generally.

A Bunch of “Shitheads” Who Don’t Get Satire?: What We Can Learn from Them and Ourselves

Charlton has never laughed so hard as he did a year or so ago when his 13-year-old cousin was telling him about the ridiculously absurd names of some of his classmates. There was [AB Seh Duh], spelled "ABCDE," "Alizay" (The name of an alcohol popularized by rappers like Tupac), and our personal, fall-of-our-chairs favorite: "Shithead" (pronounced [shuh HEED] – seriously, see below). After he had his laugh, he thought the show was over. “Nice joke,” he told his cousin. But the cousin wasn't joking.

Unlike earlier TWIR column targets that attempt satirical considerations of race, this article from the (ostensibly and hopefully African American) folks at The Peoples News clearly states at the end (in italics!): "Note: This article is satire, brought to you by the creative minds at The Peoples News. It's not real, but we hope it made you think." Of course, the best satire necessarily feeds on truisms and authentic experiences. Nevertheless, the comment section is full of remarks – both critical and supportive – of a "federal judge's" ruling that poor black women may not have independent naming rights because of the "ridiculous names" they have been giving their children.

As we noted when we reviewed “Black People Love Us,” there is a danger of using satire because it relies on the reader agreeing with the absurdity of the content for the intended message (opposite of that expressed) to be conveyed. But we can often learn more about the thrust of the intended message by examining those who actually do not get it.

In this case, as if the concept of a federal judge dictating naming rights was not absurd enough (many who are concerned about undue governmental interference may not find this very much of a stretch), there are passages that are blatantly Eurocentric (“’Hopefully we can see a lot more black children with sensible names like Jake and Connor,’ Cabrera said.”), racist (“Beginning in one week, at least three white people must agree with the name before a black mother can name her child.”), and seemingly impossible (“Her children are named Daryl, Q’Antity, Uhlleejsha, Cray-Ig, Fellisittee, Tay’Sh’awn and Day’Shawndra”). Still, dozens of commenters believed that the article was factual and responded accordingly. Here are a few of our favorites (no edits have been made):

Ronald Jackson // March 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm

While I agree that the name issue warrants review and has gotten out of control, I do not aggree with the Judges ruling that a parent particularly a black mother does not have the right to name her child simply because others find it chalenging to pronounce the name. I think it is even more apauling for the Judge to make the assumption that three wite people will be able to pick a name foe the child or even agree on the same name. Lastly, I think it is even more rediculus for the Judge to make make black men exempt from the ruling because he has made erroneous conclusion that most black men are not involved in their children’s lives.

donna whitehead // March 11, 2008 at 2:12 am

Ithink someone should, first, verify that Cabrera really did graduate from law school. If he didn’t then obviously get him out right away. If he did graduate from law school, someone needs to request a refund and send him back. This man needs some real work to do.

Minnie E Miller // March 14, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Does U.S. Federal Judge Ryan Cabrera have a law degree? He is amazingly frightening. While the names are outragious, mothers have a right to name their children anything they want (God help us). I am insulted that he feels white people can better handle the naming or Black folks children! The man is stuck slavery. Masters often changed the names of their slaves to blout out their memory of their homeland. My goodness some of us are stuck in the 18th century. He needs help!

mrs.whiteside // March 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm

IT IS AN HONOR TO NAME A CHILD. AND WHAT EVER THAT MAY BE SHOULD BE CHERISHED , ONE MANS TRASH IS ANOTHER MANS TREASURE, no one seem to complain about Beyonce,condelisa,they are all unique… now DICK, BOB,BILL, MARY-KATE ,MILLIE SUE, AND many others as stupitas it may seem they all have a certian meaning naming a child is one of the last rights a mother has dont take that away too,
she already has to raise a child with out disipline, rules and structure all because of the government and now they want to take away the right to name a child too?
WAKE UP PEOPLE

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT !!!

A MOTHERS RIGHT !!!!!

Ken L. D // April 28, 2008 at 10:41 am

I agree this name thang is outrageous and It realy needs to tone down a notch. Some names (Sha’Queata)you can get away with, but others(Uhlleejsha) are just ridiculas. Most of these kids that have these names are not proud of them; they are embarrased by them. They just grow into them, because they don’t realy have a choice. How do they cope with them? They make nicknames, different names, or tell people just call them by a first letter. If you haven’t had to have to name a child, yet, you might want to think about these statements. Your child is already pretty much born with a strike against him, why give them another one to make it even harder in this world we are living in?

Avis // April 28, 2008 at 5:34 pm

People should be able to name their children what ever they want, whether the whites are able to understand or pronounce it or not. Let the parents give the pronounciation and the system can follow that pronounciation.

Some folks got it right away:

geepee // May 2, 2008 at 9:47 pm

isn’t this article meant to be a JOKE?? Its not real…this was not a real ruling by a judge. We are all aware that there are some people (both Black and non-Black) giving their children some jacked up names and its time we made fun of that.

Juelz // May 8, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Most of you are way too funny! It didn’t even occur to me that someone would think this article was real until one of my girlfriends emailed me back outraged. LOL! Even if common sense didn’t kick in, it does have a disclaimer at the bottom that says, “Note: This article is satire, brought to you by the creative minds at The Peoples News. It’s not real, but we hope it made you think.” Maybe we shouldn’t be allowed to name our kids.

But many folks did not read the entire article (likely because they were so angered by the middle of it), and others did not take the time to read any other comments (which would have alerted them to the fact that it was a joke). There is some interesting ways to look at this. Limiting our analysis to self-proclaimed black commenters, we need to contextualize their reading of the satirical piece. Clearly, for many of them, it is not nearly as outrageous to think that a white judge would make such a ruling. After living through generations of racist policies and attitudes, it is only a short step to such absurdity.

Kwame Brown // March 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm

This sounds a like the days of slavery when masa named us. Yes the names have gone to far, but three white people approving our chikdrens names.

Lets have a conversation about this.

Tina // March 13, 2008 at 11:38 am

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS WORLD COMING TO? You can’t name your child whatever you want? I am sick of the WHITE DEVIL trying to tell us Black folk want to do. AND, then the Judge rules out Black Men because he feels that Black men are not involved in their childrens lives???? And the rule applies to BLACK WOMEN but the judge singles out IMPRVERISHED MOTHERS. I’m SPEACHLESS!!! I have to get up from my desk and go scream!!!

Furthermore, many of the folks who took it to be true and supported it did so for valid reasons. We have addressed the issue of “what’s in a name” in this space. There is both anecdotal and scholarly evidence that Anglo-sounding names are more likely to receive positive attention from prospective employers. A number of commenters addressed this unfortunate reality:

Kanitria (Ka-nee-tree-a) // April 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I hate my name. It lets everyone know that I am black even before they give me a chance. I am a very proud black women who wants employers to see me, not my name. With a name like Kanitria, they first make assumptions of who they think I am or what type of person I am before they get to know me. They assume that I am from the ghetto and uneducated because of the name my parents chose for me, which is not true.
When I had my son, I wanted to give him a somewhat simple but unique name… Khalin (Kay-lyn). I gave it a unique spelling, but it is becoming a more common name for boys and girls of all ethic backgrounds.
I do agree with a the early comment of Ishine, “ANYONE WITH THESE NAMES WILL NOT GET HIRED 99% OF THE TIME BY ANY REPUTABLE COMPANY!!!!” I believe we should do as he or she says and “Give yourself a chance and your kids a chance….let these companies take a look at your resume fair and square and see the accomplishments before they look at the name and put the resume in the trash.”

K. Walls // March 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Thank the lord for the judge because Black Women are getting or have gotten riduculous in naming there children and it is sad that it is predominatly poor black women. Why yolu would name your child something that will haunt them especially when they are young and trying to adjust to peer pressure. Mercedes,Alize and or Shequanna are names that automatically say black person. Come on Black people it is bad enough you show up for a job interview and the whiteman can already tell you are black by your name. most of the time you will not get the interview because of your name. WAKE UP BLACK PEOPLE!!!

It’s certainly easy to point the finger and laugh at folks who took the article seriously. But there is a substantive difference between whites who took it seriously and non-whites (particularly African Americans) who took it seriously. While we do not know the race of each commenter, it is important to consider that from the perspective of someone who is not used to seeing satire and has lived through racism and racial bigotry that has little restraint, we might at least consider how some might have been easily persuaded of this “next step.”

After all, it’s the fact that our society has seen and tolerated so much institutional racism that this piece was written, that it is funny (to those who “got it”), and that it was able to spark such heated exchanges. It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize those who need to be more attuned to the context (and veracity) of an article, but we must simultaneously examine why so many were vulnerable to the gag. That tells us more about who we are collectively.

And, just to further show that Charlton’s cousin wasn’t joking, consider this comment from someone who recognized the article as satire:

Umm.. Get A Grip People... // March 17, 2008 at 10:56 am

If you don’t know that this is a joke they you really should do some more reading.

One name that should be outlawed is $_H_I_T_H_E_A_D (pronounced shy-thed)! That is a horrible name for a little child. Her parents should be kicked in the butt for naming her that.