Goodbye and Thank You

This is our final offering of THIS WEEK IN RACE. After more than three years and 165 offerings, we say farewell for now and urge our readers to continue to be meaningfully engaged in issues that reside at the intersection of race, politics and language.

Others Have Stepped Up

Partly because we have never taken advertising in this space and partly because of our interest in collaboration and solidarity with those who share a vision of a more racially just nation and world, we have never been interested in "competing" with any of the other bloggers. To the contrary, we try to promote others in as many ways as we can. Many of of our colleagues write daily or several times a day, and almost all of them have significantly more readers than we do. We have always told ourselves (and each other) that if only one person was positively affected by the work that we did here each week, it was worth it. We still feel that way, but there are so many other places where folks can learn about the complexities of these issues that we do not feel as if we are letting our readers down by bowing out now.

Filling Gaps

Scholarship is all about filling "gaps." Researchers and theorists build off one another's work to push forward the state of knowledge. Accordingly, we started this blog to fill a gap. Those of you who have been with us from the beginning will recall that we used to strive to incorporate the major stories that happened each week so that our readers were aware of what was going on with respect to issues of race and politics. That is something that we feel as if we still do well, but our Facebook Page and Twitter feed serve that purpose today. When Barack Obama emerged as a contender for the presidency in 2007, there was a noticeable spike in online content about race and politics. It is more important than ever to have that compiled in one location so folks know where to turn. In this way, the RaceProject is still unique and valuable, but shifts in the way folks get information have led us to fill this gap in other ways.

The other major purpose of TWIR was to apply scholarship in academic areas as diverse as communication, sociology, anthropology, political science and psychology to current events. While there may not be a precise substitution for that, there are a number of scholars who are making research relevant to folks who are interested in issues of racial justice. We will keep the Resources page of our website up-to-date, and we will continue to update the blogroll on the right-hand column of this space. It is worth noting that when we began writing here in September of 2006 -- five years after the founding of the RaceProject -- there were very few scholars who had blogs, very few blogs about race relations, and almost no Internet writing that featured a combination of both -- certainly not on a regular basis. As we approach 2010, the landscape has changed significantly. There are thoughtful folks -- many of them academics -- who are able to offer thoughtful, informed analysis in a timely fashion. By the time the end of the week rolls around, we are finding that there is not much more that we could add without sacrificing quality (which we are not willing to do). In short, there is not really a need for what we do here on a weekly basis.

We will continue to do what others do not. For instance, we will continue to provide guides to some of the major academic conferences so folks interested in these issues can navigate those meetings. When appropriate, we will write about what others do not, cannot or will not. We will publish here and/or in our space at Op-Ed News, and Charlton will continue to write for theGrio.

Time Crunch

Finally, the reality is that for well over a year, writing this entry each week has been a bit of a burden for us. We enjoy sharing our thoughts, and each note we get from appreciative teachers, students and folks from all sorts of places have helped to propel us along. For that reason, we are a bit sad about saying goodbye. But we spent a good bit of time together in Chicago this weekend thinking and talking about this, and we decided that, even if it does not seem that way now, our contribution to the broader conversation is better served with this decision.

We have our hands full with our traditional scholarly responsibilities, and while we are both tenured, we have professional obligations that must be (and should be) addressed with our full attention. We have a co-edited textbook to finish in the next few months, and we are putting the finishing touches on Race Appeal, the first book from the RaceProject, which will be published next year by Temple University Press. We are both teaching full time, of course, and the Facebook page and Twitter feed have created additional demands for our attention. We very much want (and expect) to finish the compilation of our congressional election database -- the most comprehensive of its kind to be made publicly available -- by 2011 (the 10th anniversary of the RaceProject), and we expect that the requests for us to speak at colleges and universities across the country will increase in the next twelve months with the 2010 election season and the emergence of Race Appeal.

With only 24 hours in the day, we are very concerned about making sure that we are attentive to our families, too -- a concern that increases with each new element of the RaceProject.

This Ain't a Retirement!

We will continue to keep this blog active so that the archives are available and that there is a place for us to write on occasion when we feel that there is a gap that needs to be filled. We will change the name to THIS SPACE FOR RACE, and we will continue to host This GUEST on Race.

We encourage you to stay connected with us by becoming a fan on Facebook and/or following us on Twitter. If you do not use either of those, you can subscribe to the content that goes out on Facebook and Twitter by clicking here and adding us to your favorite RSS reader. Please follow our Twitter friends, fan the Facebook pages that we have "favorited," and visit to the blogs that we list here and on our website. Look for our books next year, and please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like us to come to speak at your high school, college or university.

We are not disappearing; to the contrary, we may be more visible than ever. It is just that the evolution of online communities and the proliferation of thoughtful discussion about these issues have rendered this space a less valuable place for us to appear regularly.

Thank You

Thank you all so very much for the loving support, which includes your honest and challenging criticism, over the years. Thanks for sharing this blog with your friends, colleagues and family. Thanks for leaving thoughtful comments. Thank you for the re-tweets and for re-posting to your Facebook wall. Thank you for the "attaboy" emails and for the tough questions that forced us to work harder. We wish you all the best and hope to see you soon in these other spaces.

NCA Preview: New Research Related to Race and Political Communication

THIS WEEK, the National Communication Association will meet in Chicago, Illinois for its annual conference. As we did prior to the American Political Science Association meeting in September, we scoured the program and put together a schedule of the panels that will most likely be of interest to our readers.

If you are attending the meeting, we very much encourage you to search through the online program to see what panels most interest you (we're good, but not perfect!). If you are not planning to attend (or if you are going to "attend" but will spend more time at the South Loop Club than at conference sessions), we hope you will find this list interesting, as it represents some of the most cutting edge research relating to race and political communication.

Thursday November, 12
8:00am to 9:15am
	I Felt This Thrill Running Up My Leg: An Examination of Barack Obama’s Campaign Oratory
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4L While many applaud Obama on his oratory during the campaign, with the campaign over, rhetoric scholars can now reflect, analyze, and examine what made Obama’s oratory so special. This is what this panel attempts to do. How does Obama’s oratory draw from other sources and models? How does Obama articulate stories (anecdotes) throughout the campaign? How does Obama define the “moment” of his campaign as the right time for his presidency? What role did faith play in Obama’s oratory? By drawing upon a diversity of rhetorical approaches, we attempt to answer these and other questions that emerge from our research.
	Post-Racial Rhetoric in Contemporary U.S. Public Culture
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 5 Presenters on this panel worry about the discourses that claim America is post-racial. Hence our discussion interrogates a host of visual and verbal post-racial rhetorics, from the recent Inaugural benediction to a cover of Vogue magazine, from Obama’s Presidential campaign materials to popular blogs. Using critical race theory, Derridean deconstruction, and Lacan psychoanalysis, panelists not only question the legitimacy of claiming “we” are now “beyond race,” they also explore its social, political, and cultural entailments.
9:30am to 10:45am
	Whose News Is It Any Way? Reporting and Race in a Mediated World
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 2 Using varied methodologies, this panel interrogates the ways in which media frame political and social events. Analyses also advance the understanding of how cultural frameworks from diverse theoretical perspectives are integral part of this communicative process.
12:30pm to 1:45pm
	Listening to the Beats that Bind and the Messages that Result in Change: Exploring and Questioning the Beats, Culture, and Politics of Hip Hop
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4D This panel explores and questions the dialogue between hip hop beats, culture and politics as a means to provide a stable site for social critique and expression of our voices. The beat making performance of Wanderlust and paper presentations probe how the issues of creating or performing beats and identities, one’s race and or gender, sociopolitical consciousness, reality and politics intersect, engage and inform one another.
	Pedagogies of Whiteness
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I On the most fundamental level, this paper panel comprises a variety of approaches of how whiteness research has found a home in our university classes. From introductory courses in communication to doctoral seminars, this panel offers reflections and analysis of how whiteness studies has been taught and engaged in communication classes. Participants span the academic ranks from an MA graduate student and teaching assistant to a Full Professor.
2:00pm to 3:15pm
	The More Things Change…: Economic Disparity, Power, and the Changing Electoral Landscape in the African American Community
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 7 This panel will provide a critical, contemporary examination of the interconnections and changing dynamics of power, economic equality, and culture as it relates to African Americans’ identity as citizens of this nation.

Friday November, 13
8:00am to 9:15am
	The Content and Effect of Television News
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: International Ballroom South [No abstract available]
	What is this 'post' in post-racial/feminist/…(fill in the blank)?
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 3 The events of the 2008 election continue to spark prognostications that we live in a post-racial/feminist, etc. world. How should communication scholars respond? Scholars from a wide range of NCA's divisions will discuss how to approach questions of identity and communication over the next five years. Participants will suggest ways to be critical of assertions of "post-" and elaborate ways to encounter new dimensions of identification in an era of immense socio-political challenges.
9:30am to 10:45am
	Complex Rights: Latinas/os, Citizenship, and Law
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4L [No abstract available]
12:30pm to 1:45pm
	Whiteness beyond Classroom Walls
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: International Ballroom South A growing area of research within intercultural communication centers around both stable and changing discourses of power in relation to race and Whiteness. Much of this research has critiqued classroom discourses. In this round-table discussion, panelists will engage in dialogue about the possibilities for research using innovative methods, in unusual settings, and/or involving atypical participants. The hope is that cultivating research and theories in non-academic spaces will extend and amplify the value of Whiteness studies.
	Race, Whiteness and Culture
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 5G [No abstract available]
3:30pm to 4:45pm
	Performing Race in a 'Post Racial World': Discourses of Stability and Change
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4J This panel explores diverse critical perspectives concerning performances of race in what some term a ‘post racial’ America. The scholarship featured on this panel explores various critical treatments of the question of 'post-racialism' and/or race neutrality in ways that interrogate, explore, and/or problematize discourses of stability vs. change in relation to race in America. The contexts and various intersections that produce particular kinds of performances of race will also be explored.
5:00pm to 6:15pm
	'A Change Is Gonna Come': Reflecting on the Voices and Strategies of Change Agents from the Civil Rights Movement
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4F The presenters on this competitive paper panel will provide a contemporary examination of the rhetorical choices utilized by a few of the well-known voices of the Civil Rights Movement. Presenters will analyze the effectiveness, commonality, and differences of the communication messages that helped to shape various aspects and ideologies associated with the Civil Rights Movement.

Saturday November, 14
12:30pm to 1:45pm
	How Sound Bites BITE! A Critical Analysis of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Political Hegemony in the Mass Media
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Grand Ballroom The use of sound bites in television media and the Internet gained unprecedented attention during the 2008 Presidential election. With the use of new media in the 21st century, individuals around the world were able to upload sound bites which impacted philosophical, political and cultural views. The panel will focus on public interest groups and their use of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversial sound bites as a strategy to maintain political hegemony.
	Regarding Health, Representation, and Discourse in Asian/Pacific American Communication Studies
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4A [No abstract available]

Sunday November, 15
8:00am to 9:15am
	In Defense and in Remembrance: Asian Americans Reframe their Collective Identity
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Boulevard Room B Historically in the United States, Asian Americans have had little control of their collective identity beyond their own geographical and cultural communities. This panel explores situations in which Asian Americans -- with others who identify with them, such as spouses of other ethnicities -- have reframed their collective identity through public mediums ranging from World War II internment memorials in community spaces to an English-language newspaper for a readership beyond Japantown.
	Political Advertising: Content and Effects
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4B [No abstract available]
	Meet the Authors: Race and News (A Critical Perspective)
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I This panel explores the core dimensions of how issues related to race and racism are represented in contemporary news coverage in the United States. Reflecting on a variety of research approaches that will be used to qualify the discussion in the forthcoming book Race and News, the panel will address the coverage of specific contemporary news topics and examine how that coverage either directly or indirectly addresses race and cultural diversity in this country.
9:30am to 10:45am
	Change is Gonna Come/Change is Here: Scholarly Perspectives and Everyday Politics in the Communication of Black Masculinity
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I A change is gonna come. Sam Cooke's (1964) timeless anthem continues to exemplify internal and external transformation for people of the African Diaspora, and Black men in particular. Presumably, the inauguration of President Barack Obama suggests that change is already here. Indeed, a new day demands a new exploration of the ways Black men live, think, and perform race and gender in the 21st century. This panel works to engage the social, cultural and political landscape of black masculinity in the Obama era. Our objective is met primarily through three theoretical approaches. First, we foreground changing interpretations of black manhood, black love and black family. Second, we emphasize ways in which Black men's voices constitute change within Black communities and U.S. society. Third, we illustrate change in the body politics of Black manhood. Concurrently, the panel presents original arguments concerning why, when, where and how the communication of Black masculinity remains relevant, within our discipline and beyond.
	Unchartered Waters: Discourses of Stability and Change in the Rhetoric of Michelle Obama
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 6 This panel will analyze the rhetoric of Michelle Obama, and discuss the identity of African women of the Diaspora in U S public life. Panelists seek to expose a counter narrative to dominant notions of otherizing and marginalization projected onto African American women. Whether perceived as mammies, mistresses, tragic mulattoes, whores, tokens, elitists or phenomenal role models, African American female narratives challenge the intersectionality of race, gender, sexuality, and class.
	Attitudes, Attitude Change, and Resistance to Attitude Change
		Building: Palmer House Hilton, Room: Salon 4 [No abstract available]
11:00am to 12:15pm
	Chameleons Are at a Premium: Examining the Sociopolitical Implications of Racial Transcendence
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I The papers on this competitive paper panel contribute to our scholarly understanding of President Barack Obama’s presence and his skillful oratory. In addition, this panel highlights the constant challenges of and realities associated with the negotiation of our tedious and racially-charged terrain.

Note: You can follow NCA on Twitter (@NatComm)

The Limits of Racial Optimism

It is no surprise that the nation's first president of color has been a lightning rod for discussion of race and racism in America. For those who struggle for racial justice, this inevitability has had positive and negative components. For a nation that often wishes to ignore the deep racial problems that permeate society, Barack Obama's election has forced us to confront, on a regular basis, the ugly truth that Martin Luther King's dream has not been realized. On the other hand, President Obama has had unrealistic expectations placed on him with respect to his ability to mend the country's racial wounds. We argued back in March that he would have a difficult time dealing with racism while in office, an analysis we felt compelled to offer as a result of what we saw as a dangerously and unrealistically optimistic frame employed in the mainstream media and, to a lesser extent, adopted by racially progressive thinkers, writers and activists. There was considerable evidence that the mass public also felt quite hopeful in this regard.

USA Today released results of a poll they conducted jointly with Gallup THIS WEEK that was similarly framed in terms of American optimism with respect to improvements in race relations. While President Obama's approval ratings hover at around 50%, the pol reveals that six in ten Americans say that race relations will improve under his presidency; just 13% think race relations will get worse. Further, 40% of Americans believe things are already better in this regard; 22% think things have gotten worse.

Of course, examining differences in these attitudes with respect to the race of the respondents is important. According to Susan Page's story reporting on the poll:

Blacks are much more likely than whites to say that racism against blacks persists -- 72% of blacks say it is widespread, compared with 49% of whites -- but they are also more optimistic that Obama's election will improve that.

A 53% majority of African Americans say race relations already have gotten better as a result.

In other words, while Whites are more likely than Blacks to think there is not persistent racism against African Americans, they are less likely than Blacks to think that Obama's election (and presidency) has improved race relations already or will improve it in the future.

Compared with attitudes nearly a year ago (right after the election), there has been an understandable (and perhaps predictable) tempering of optimism, though the percentage of Americans who believe that race relations would one day no longer be an issue in America is still slightly higher than before Obama secured the Democratic nomination.

In many ways, the framing of these data in terms of "optimism" is quite curious. For instance, consider this statement:

Over the past year, the percentage who say blacks have as good a chance as whites in their community to get a job for which they are qualified has risen by 8 percentage points. That's the biggest one-year jump since Gallup began regularly asking the question 20 years ago.

That's your cue to ask, "So what?" Without a breakdown by race for this question, and knowing that the poll is (appropriately, since it is a random national sample) dominated by Whites (there is no Black oversample or weighting of Black responses reported), this simply appears to reaffirm our understanding that Whites are more likely than ever to believe that we are in a post-racial society. If these attitudes are, indeed, an accurate reflection of reality (that is, if Blacks in their communities actually DO have as good a chance as Whites to get a job for which they are qualified), then that certainly is a reason for optimism. If it is just what folks think, then this is actually a reason to be quite pessimistic because such attitudes mask the true state of racial injustice and render more difficult the struggle to move toward equality.

An interesting finding that is not discussed in the story (but is presented in the graphs that accompany the story) involves respondents' degree of satisfaction with "the way things are going in the United States": 47% of Blacks and 22% of Whites report satisfaction. Even with the larger margin of error among African Americans in the sample (due to the smaller number of Blacks in the sample), this finding is remarkable and, perhaps, speaks to the important symbolic power -- at least, we suppose, if these numbers are correct, for African Americans -- of having a person of color in the White House.

Question and response option wording and the order in which questions are presented to respondents is important to know. We are not able to ascertain much of that information because the USA Today article does not provide it, and there is no link to the survey instrument. Specifically, we are concerned about the conflation of "race relations" and "racism against African Americans." These terms might prime very different underlying constructs among respondents, but they are somewhat carelessly used interchangeably (or at least alternately) in the article. One might imagine, for instance, someone believing that racism as a systemic force is still persistent against Blacks but that our collective ability to address it ("race relations") has improved. Or, one could imagine the exact opposite (e.g., someone who does not think racism is a problem anyway and sees more racial animosity reflected in the media since Obama's election). Further, we could learn much more if we could statistically control for other important factors that are known to be related to racial attitudes such as self-identified partisanship and ideology, geography, age, and gender. Perhaps most helpful would be measures designed to tap attitudes toward racism, such as Henry and Sears's "symbolic racism" scale for Whites and either the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity by Sellers or questions designed to tap Dawson's concept of "linked fate" for Blacks.

In other words, we can learn very little from this poll to help us meaningfully understand people's real attitudes about race relations and racism in America today. Add to that the fact the our conscious attitudes about race may not be as predictive of our behavior as our subconscious beliefs, and the poll (and corresponding story) is darn near useless in its current form. Certainly the headline -- "Poll: Hopes Buoyed on Race Relations" -- is not warranted and serves only to reinforce the wishful (and under-informed and misguided and blissful) notion that Obama's election either signaled or has ushered in a post-racial era in America.

White Friends, Black Friends: The Personal Nature of Racial Politics

We have been working together for over eight years now. We come from different backgrounds (personally and professionally), but we share a common vision for advancing racial justice by learning (and sharing) through employing the most contemporary social science research theories and methods to the study of race, politics and communication. As regular TWIR readers know, we try to provide a unified perspective on current events in this space each week. That is, except in very rare circumstances, we put forth analysis here that is a representation of our collective thoughts and application of social science research. Occasionally, however, we write separately, either because we disagree with one another (see here and here, for instance) or because the topic is primarily relevant from one of our perspectives (see here or here).

THIS WEEK, Charlton provides his unique perspective on interracial friendships in this era of heightened awareness of race and racism. It's not that Stephen has nothing to offer to this discussion (after all, he has interracial friendships – Charlton being the most valued – as well), but as you will discover, what Charlton has to say represents a perspective that we decided is best presented from his voice alone. As always, we look forward to your thoughtful comments.

***

Race. Politics. Race politics. The politics of race. Identity politics.

Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill is perhaps most famous for popularizing the phrase, “all politics is local.” Those of us who venture into that tangled web where race and politics intersect are especially reminded that all politics is also, personal. In fact, no politics are more personal than racial politics (and the politics of gender and sexual orientation are equally so).

Today’s electoral politics are – in the words of Thomas Hobbes – nasty, brutish and short. But at the end of the day, there is a winner and a loser. Life goes on as the thrill of victory eventually ebbs for the former as the sting of defeat does for the latter. Members of Congress do legislative battle with competing bills, ingenious maneuvers, pointed hearings where they skewer opposing colleagues and roast them with fiery floor speeches meant to paint their adversaries as the worst among us – from heartless baby killers to Machiavellian demagogues and all else in between. Still, they emerge able to shake each other’s hands, extol the virtues of bipartisanship, and then share slippery oysters and a sip of whiskey at Old Ebbitt’s.

Those of us who willfully surround ourselves with the critical minutiae that race bring to everyday life sometimes like to think we are playing the same game.

From the verbal beat-downs we apply to modern racial rabble-rousers like Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck (I specify “verbal,” lest any of these folks mistake me for just some Black thug like Barack Obama who inspires Black violence against White people), to the daily debates we engage in over controversial race-based social policies like affirmative action, school desegregation or health care. From our heated discussions on national television designed to convince the public of the folly and fallacies of post-racialism, colorblind ideology and the like to our attempts to get youthful undergraduates to understand the subtleties of modern racism, persistent discrimination, and notions of White privilege, we (more a personal projection than a factual generalization) often like to think that we can immerse ourselves in these murky waters and emerge unsullied and unaffected. We sometimes fool ourselves into believing that our engagement with the stuff of racial politics is a wholly intellectual enterprise – participation in a kind of rational discourse from which we can simply redirect our attention when we wish not to talk about it anymore. We sometimes like to think that what we do and what we talk about exists primarily in that mystical abstract world of ideas.

Then sometimes, we are reminded that the political is the personal when it comes to talking about race. Sometimes we are reminded that despite the hordes of protesters hurling racial insults while the whole world watches, despite all of the “liberal media’s” talk of racism replete in today’s conservative rhetoric, despite our penchant to talk about the broad, statistical realities of racial inequality, skyrocketing incidences of racial violence, increased accusations of workplace discrimination and the like – our discussion about race often comes down to those most basic features of everyday conversation: two people, face-to-face (or what passes for it in our electronic age), talking about something that matters to them – personally.

* * *

Thanks to Facebook, I have recently been back in touch with people from what seems like a different life – particularly, folks from the conservative, Baptist, predominantly White college I attended and from which I graduated nearly twenty years ago. In that much time, some things – some people – change, and some things and people remain the same.

For me, college was a continuation of high school, where learning and learning to be liked alternated and competed for top billing on my life’s marquee of personal goals. (I completed college with a 2.7 GPA, so it is clear which one prevailed.) Where I grew up – on military bases in a city with a large minority population – racial diversity was as ubiquitous as MTV . My schools ranged from being 98% Mexican-origin to highly diverse, though slightly majority-White. So when I showed up for college in the middle of Oklahoma, on a campus where I could count the number of people who looked like me on two – okay, maybe three or four hands – I was a bit taken aback.

But I knew one thing: you do not make friends talking about race, racism, racial discrimination and the like. So I did not (talk about it, much), and I did (make friends). When a few of the women from the campus’s small Black Student Union asked me to join them at one of their meetings, I smiled, said okay, and quickly forgot about the fact that I never intended to go. Who wants to be part of the militant crowd when there are parties to go to, fun to be had, women to meet?

The reality, of course, was that I was not always able to avoid difficult discussion about race. But those are different stories for a different time. For the most part, I became a model for all our colorblind dreams. I even had one of those red, yellow, green “Love Sees No Color” t-shirts that were popular in the early nineties and wore it with pride, hoping forever to avoid those uncomfortable moments having to confront the issue of race.

Fast forward almost two decades. Facebook. Becoming new friends with old ones, eager to see how everyone turned out, these friends and acquaintances – many of whom I hadn’t seen or heard from since we walked across the graduation stage.

In the heat of the moment – post 2008 election, the beginning of the nastiness of the health care debate, amidst the discussion surrounding Henry Louis Gates’s run in with Cambridge cops, surrounded by birthers, hordes of “I want my country back,” protesters, yelling "communist, communist, communist" in the streets about everyone from Barack Obama on down to almost every Black person in or nominated for cabinet posts – I just could not help turning my personal Facebook page (not to be confused with the RaceProject Facebook page) into a site for political warfare. I posted articles of interest about race. I posted my own published or on-air commentary. I responded to comments made by my some of my new and old friends.

At some point, I looked over at my running count of friends. 666. Hmmmm. I could have sworn I was up close to the 850 mark. Seems that some of my friends were steadily peeling away, and I began to notice how I – like everyone else – had begun to take this race talk very personally.

"With the possibility of a recited "I pledge myself to President Obama" being in there, you're damn right I'm concerned. Bush never asked that. Clinton never asked that. Regan never asked that. There are three acceptable entities to which one may pledge oneself: God, Country, Family. To ease the confusion, Obama is NOT country."

An old friend – a college friend and post-college roommate actually – threw this my way when I explained my utter disbelief that anyone would question the President of the United States talking to children in a televised address. I brushed it off without delving further into the matter. The following came a few days later, when I questioned Conservative attacks against Van Jones and his eventual resignation, saying that I thought it was shame when good people are victims of such witch-hunt-style political rhetoric.

"It's a shame when good, intelligent people are willfully blind to or willfully ignorant of what's right in front of them."

I jumped further into the conversation on this one. The rest of the conversation went something like this:

Me: Willfully blind or ignorant. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about some other group of unknown and unspecified folks, not me.

Him: Sorry, my friend. I may not be able to debate the topics well, but I've never shied away from anything. I've watched Mr. Jones on CSPAN a few times (reruns, you know) and didn't have much issue with him other than all the green stuff. Nice as he seems to be, after his history coming to light, you have to be willfully *something* to think he's good for the country.

Me: Oh, well then. Please do let me know the next time this ignorant fool can be the beneficiary of your infallible wisdom! I'd hate to think I can actually think a reasonable thought and come up with a reasonable conclusion on my own!

Him: Don't play the passive aggressive game. It doesn't suit you. If you think a guy who signs things without reading them, who is an admitted communist and who really thinks green jobs are a viable way to save our nation... if you truely [sic] believe he's good for our nation, then do your best to educate me. Otherwise, the race card is an easy and obvious dismissal of the thoughts and opinions of people who disagree with you. I love reasonable thoughts and I love a good discussion. Bring it on. Make me do some work.

Me: I'm big, I'm Black and I'm overeducated. Many in your camp would say that aggression suits me just fine! Whether it does or doesn't won't get me to back down from the mote in the eye of folks like you who will cry that folks like me played the race card when you folks seem to always refuse to admit that race is ever a factor, that race may possibly . . . be a factor in any kind of political action, decision, personal preference or the like. That you can dismiss anything like me says anytime we venture to point out the possibility - however glaringly explicit or implicit it may be. So then, why don't you tell me which of the following you would consider to be an example of me NOT playing the race card?

What followed was a list of about 20 things that I challenged him to tell me whether I was – as I am and we are so often accused of – seeing race and racism in everything. He rose to the challenge. I have yet to respond. But the point of it all is simply that with all my talk of “conservatives this, and conservatives, that,” my friend was hearing all of my accusations and claims of conservative insolence as a personal affront. My talk of conservative racism was heard as, “you, my friend, are a racist, a bigot, etc.” and much of our conversation didn’t get beyond that. (Stephen and I wrote more about this a few weeks ago in this space when we talked of the idea of “racism fatigue.”)

I say all of this to remind us – myself really – that all conversation comes down to two people addressing each other. Good conversation is risky, sometimes difficult, sometimes painful, but often productive. On the one hand I WISH I could be like another old college friend of mine who regularly says things to me like, “I look at the values of the people and truly could care less about,” or, “I am sick of race being used...isn't this a Post Racial president...I talk about [race] more now than I ever have in my entire life!" or who sends me articles by Black people with titles such as “American Thinker: Why I am no longer an African American.”

While I am frustrated (both personally and professionally) by what I have been observing on the landscape of racial discourse in America today, I am also saddened because I cannot help but think that these White friends from years past were able to enjoy my company because we spent our time talking about football or music; I was not "acting so Black" back then. My ideas about race and racism have not changed, though, and my guess is that theirs have not either. The suggestion that I am somehow "different now" is predicated on a willingness on all of our parts to ignore the obvious, which was an arrangement that served all of our interests then. In that way, these friendships serve as a metaphor for America's collective relationship with racism. While I have no doubt that their friendship was genuine, I have to wonder whether, at least on a subconscious level, these folks were able to soothe themselves about their own deep-seated racial predispositions (which we all have) through my friendship. In other words, my presence in their lives enabled them to say, "I have a Black friend," which, for many, is as powerful evidence of not being racist as one needs (right alongside avoidance of the "n-word"). Did I (ironically) function as a racial quota, and am I less valuable now that I am active in pointing out that racism is more complicated that individual-level bigotry? Does their White privilege allow them to believe that since I think this way that they are correct and I am "wrong" (overly-sensitive, radical, out-of-touch with "real" America)?

I, too, sometimes wish that race was not such a necessary part of American social and political life. But people of color do not have the luxury of willing it to be so. On the other hand, I am reminded almost daily of the reality that when one talks about race with some folks, they will always hear – no matter how impersonal one tries to pitch the conversation – themselves being labeled and denigrated for being "a racist." Feelings are hurt, misunderstandings occur, time has to be spent easing bruised feelings. It is difficult, it is messy, it is – very personal.

APSA Preview: New Research on Race and Political Communication

We are currently assembling our team of volunteer research assistants for the fall. If you are interested in helping with the Race Project (or if you know someone who might be), please scroll to the bottom of this entry to see the formal notice.

The mission of The Project on Race in Political Communication is to "contribute to the state of knowledge in the field of political communication and [to] share that information with the mass public in an accessible way." This blog is one part of our effort to do that, as is the RaceProject.org "resources" page and our public lectures. Our Facebook Page, which we launched two months ago, is yet another (more than 800 "fans" now -- thanks to all for the great postings and discussion!), and THIS WEEK, we expanded our online presence to Twitter. If you tweet, follow us @PRPC for information and commentary related to race and political communication.

Also consistent with our mission, we are offering a preview of the research on race, politics and language that is scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA) in Toronto, September 3-6.

Academic conferences are opportunities for researchers in the various subfields of a discipline to get together, share their most recent work (and receive comments and criticism), meet with publishers and potential publishers, and network with colleagues and friends from around the world. As you know, we work in a research area (political communication) that spans (at least) three disciplines: political science, communication and psychology, and our specific work involves the interdisciplinary area of race and ethnicity/culture studies. Attending professional conferences in these fields affords us the opportunity to get critical feedback from other researchers and keep abreast of the most current work in which others are engaged.

Furthermore, because we live 800 miles apart, these meetings provide a chance to have some quality face time with one another to get re-centered with our work.

The research that we are presenting at this conference is a draft of a chapter from our book Race Appeal, which will be published next year. The paper is called "Racial Discourse in Political Advertisements: An Historical View," and it will be presented on a panel titled "Communicating and Framing Political Identities" at 8:00 a.m. Saturday, September 5. (You can download a copy of the paper here, or, like all of our papers, at the RaceProject.org "Studies & Data" page.) The panel is chaired by Hyun Jung Yun (Texas State University); Daniel C. Hallin (University of California, San Diego) will serve as the respondent. The other presenters on the panel are as follows:

Racial Framing in Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Election

Kimberly A. Gross, George Washington University

Johanna Harvey, George Washington University

Claire Low, George Washington University

The Impact of Political Campaigns on the Nascent Partisanship of Mexican Immigrants in the United States: Evidence from Two Mobilization Experiments

James A. McCann, Purdue University

Katsuo A. Nishikawa, Trinity University

Stacey L. Connaughton, Purdue University

Like Parents, Like Citizens: Mexican Children’s Political Socialization

Juan Enrique Huerta, ITESM

Young Voters in the U.S. and Turkey: The Changing Landscape of Political Attitudes, Media Use and Individual Traits.

M. Selcan Kaynak, Bogazici University

We have selected about three dozen additional papers (in no particular order) that caught our attention. (You can view the list of panels and papers for all of the organized sections, including political psychology, political communication and race, ethnicity and politics on the conference online program website.) To date, we are only privy to the title and authors, but you should be able to download and read any of these papers at some point during the week (or shortly thereafter) by searching Google Scholar or by navigating to the Social Science Research Network's APSA 2009 page. In any case, just reading through the titles will give an idea about what top researchers and young scholars in the field are working on, which we hope you will enjoy.

Polemics, Political Racism, and Misrecognition: Naming and Analyzing Prejudice Against Arab-Americans

Emily Wills, New School University

Racial Bias by Another Name: Anti-Muslim Attitudes and Voting Against Barack Obama

David P. Redlawsk, University of Iowa

Will Barack Obama be Black in 2012? Stereotypes, Strategies, and Changing Views of a President

Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan

The Effect of Social Networks on the Quality of Thinking about Policies

Elif Erisen, Cal Poly State University

Cengiz Erisen, SUNY, Stony Brook

A Group-Based Approach to Understanding Deliberation: The Deliberative Justice Experiment

Christopher F. Karpowitz, Brigham Young University

Tali Mendelberg, Princeton University

Truth, Relevance and Motivated Processing in Perceptions of Political Advertising

Daniel Stevens, University of Exeter

Barbara Allen, Carleton College

John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota-Minneapolis

Thinking about Immigration: A Multi-Method Study of Individual Differences in Political Cognition

Shawn W. Rosenberg, University of California, Irvine

Leah A. Hemze, University of California, Irvine

Why Do We Use Race and Gender When Policy Information Is Available?

Nathan A. Collins, Santa Fe Institute

Does Affective Contagion Promote Coherent Political Thinking?

Cengiz Erisen, SUNY, Stony Brook

Milton Lodge, SUNY, Stony Brook

Charles S. Taber, SUNY, Stony Brook

Public Responses to Global Threats: A Racial Divide?

Ted Brader, University of Michigan

Nicholas A. Valentino, University of Michigan

Black Elite Rhetoric and System Justification Ideology

Byron D'Andra Orey, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Hyung Lae Park, Jackson State University

Lester Kenyatta Spence, Johns Hopkins University

Where Race Matters: The Effects of Space and Neighborhood on Voting Behavior

Thomas K. Ogorzalek, Columbia University

Black and White Americans and Latino Immigrants: A Preliminary Look at Attitudes in Three Southern Cities

Paula D. McClain, Duke University, et al.

Multicultural Multiracialism, Multiracial Multiculturalism: Race, Mixed-Race and Diversity in the United States, Great Britain and Canada

Debra Thompson, University of Toronto

The Obama and the Clinton Factors: How Race and Gender Factor into Blacks’, Whites’, and Latinos’ Trust in the Representation of Group Interests

Shayla C. Nunnally, University of Connecticut

Shifting the Gender Gaze: The Intersection of Race and Gender in the Obama Candidacy

Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, University of Rochester

Food Politics: Race, Gender, and the Politics of Food Access

Melissa V. Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University

The Rise of Indirect Affirmative Action: New Strategies for Promoting "Diversity" in Selective Institutions of Higher Education in the United States and France

Daniel Sabbagh, Centre d`Etudes et de Recherches Internationales

A History of Black Presidential Candidates: 1872-2008

Christina M. Greer, Smith College

Race, Class and Education Policy: Second-Generation Discrimination in the 21st Century

Kenneth J. Meier, Texas A&M University

Meredith Brooke Loudd Walker, Texas A&M University

Sadé Walker, Texas A&M University

Nationalism, Race and the Obama Victory

Joseph Bafumi, Dartmouth College

Michael C. Herron, Dartmouth College

An Experimental Exploration of Political Knowledge Acquisition from The Daily Show Versus CNN Student News

Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, University of Delaware

Lindsay Hoffman, University of Delaware

Do Preconceptions Drive Voter Perception of Campaign Negativity?

Stephen C. Brooks, University of Akron

Rick D. Farmer, Oklahoma House of Representatives

The Role of Race and Age in 2008: A Series of List Experiments

Simon D. Jackman, Stanford University

Lynn Vavreck, University of California

Geo-Ethnic Political Dialogue: Multi-Color Skins with Blue, Red, and Purple Mindsets

Hyun Jung Yun, Texas State University

Lynda Lee Kaid, University of Florida

‘Whites Oppose, Blacks Support, Latinos Divided’: Making Sense of the Racialized Discourse Surrounding California’s Proposition 8

Victoria Wilson, University of California, Irvine

The Exceptional Electoral Style of Barack Obama

Roderick P. Hart, University of Texas, Austin

What is the Best Way to Measure the Bradley Effect? Lessons from the 2008 Election

Reuben Kline, University of California, Irvine

The Impact of Racism on Votes in the 2008 Presidential Election: Results from the Associated Press/Yahoo News!/Stanford Survey, the Standford MRI Survey, and the American National Election Studies

Jon A. Krosnick, Stanford University, et al.

Absence of Prejudice or Political Correctness? Comparing Survey-Based Indicators of Racial Bias with the Implicit Association Test

Shanto Iyengar, Stanford University

Kyu S. Hahn, University of California, Los Angeles and Yonsei University

Advancing Beyond the Local and Congressional Level: Under Which Conditions are Blacks Nominated for High Profile State-Wide Office

Christopher Stout, University of California, Irvine

Elections in Black and White: Race, Perceptions, and Voting Behavior in the U.S. House Elections

Matthew L. Jacobsmeier, University of New Orleans

The Effect of African-American Proximity on Latino Choice in the 2008 Presidential Primary

Ryan Donald Enos, University of California, Los Angeles

Turn Out or Burn Out? How Negative Ads Affect Latino and non-Latino Voting

Jennifer L. Merolla, Claremont Graduate University, et al.

Do Majority-Minority Districts and Reserved Seats for Minorities Undermine the Election of Women?

Robert G. Moser, University of Texas, Austin

Stephanie S. Holmsten, University of Texas, Austin

How Do We Get Along? Linked Fate, Political Allies, and Issue Coalitions

Dianne M. Pinderhughes, University of Notre Dame, et al.

Equality, Inferiority and Electoral Competition: Black-Brown Partnerships in Newark, New Jersey

Andra N. Gillespie, Emory University

Fall Research Opportunities

The Project on Race in Political Communication has volunteer research opportunities for anyone who would like to be involved. While students (all levels) are a natural constituency in this regard, anyone is welcome to help. We are in the midst of the most labor-intensive phase of a very exciting element of the Project that will have implications far more widespread than the study of race and political communication.

We are compiling data and constructing a database that will be made available to researchers (in the form of a spreadsheet appropriate for quantitative analysis) and the public (in the form of a Web-interfaced search engine) that contains information about candidates for federal office (U.S. House and U.S. Senate) since 1970, including the candidate's race, gender, party affiliation, number of votes received, amount of money raised and spent, and other variables of interest. Research assistants are responsible for collecting information from a variety of sources (most of which are online) to compete the dataset. This is an important contribution that has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of elections, as this information is not currently available in one place.

The work requires no prior research experience and can be done from any location and at any time of the day (we can work around work schedules). For students, working as a Race Project research assistant affords the opportunity to gain experience with social science research for the purposes of CV building, instigating an original research project, and/or working toward a better understanding of racial inequality and injustice.

If you are interested, please Facebook message or email Senior Research Assistant Sidra Hamidi (sidra.hamidi@RaceProject.org). If you know someone who might be interested (or if you are a faculty member who has students who might be interested), please do not hesitate to pass this information along.

Thanks to Our Vets and Current Military Service Members

Memorial Day is, of course, the unofficial start of summer, a day off work for many (but certainly not all), and a chance to bust out that grill, and it is an opportunity to reflect on the women and men who have served in the American military. At a time when Americans are in harm's way in a number of places, we may not need a holiday as much as we do during peaceful times, but it gives us an excuse to discuss the contributions of persons of color -- persons who have a unique perspective on what it means to be American.

In 2007, there were 2.4 million single-race Black military service members in the United States. That year, the Boston Globe reported that while the number of Black enlistees had dropped some 58% since 2000, "the percentage of blacks in the military still slightly exceeds that of the general population: 14.5 percent in the military, as of 2005, versus 12.8 percent in the U.S. population." Hispanics are underrepresented in the military, but their participation is increasing; they comprised 13.5 percent of the military in 2007 (as compared to 15% in the U.S. population). There were more than a quarter of a million Asian Americans serving in 2005, and there are approximately 185,000 Native American veterans in the U.S. (For a detailed analysis of race/ethnicity and military service, download this 2004 [.pdf] document from the Population Reference Bureau.) There are organizations dedicated to African American Veterans, Hispanic Veterans, Asian American Veterans and Native American veterans.

It has been said that in military service, there is no Black, White or Brown -- there is only Red, White and Blue. We agree with that sentiment, but, as always, it is a bit more complicated than that.

First, it is no secret that our voluntary military disproportionately attracts young men and women with few other options (though see this report from the Heritage Foundation, which argues against a draft to rectify this imbalance). In 2005, UPI reported that "[n]early two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. . . . According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits [in 2004] had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average." Young high school graduates who are not qualified to attend college or cannot afford to do so find few jobs available that provide opportunities for sustenance. Black and Latino families face rates of poverty in America that are disproportionate to those of Whites.

Second, while service to country is admirable under any circumstances and putting oneself in harm's way for a cause beyond one's own self interest is laudable irrespective of race or ethnicity, it is particularly admirable for persons to voluntarily serve a country that has been historically hostile at worst and indifferent at best to groups with which they identify (LGBT Americans are similarly situated in this regard).

I got a letter from the government
The other day
I opened and read it
It said they were suckers
They wanted me for their army or whatever
Picture me given a damn - I said "never"
Here is a land that never gave a damn
About a brother like me and myself
Because they never did
I wasn't with it, but just that very minute
It occurred to me
The suckers had authority
[...]
They could not understand that I'm a black man
And I could never be a veteran
-- Public Enemy, "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos" (1988)

So while you are firing up that grill, taking that first swim in the public pool, or otherwise participating in Memorial Day festivities, we join those who urge us to remember why we are asked to pause and reflect. It is not about some blind obedience to a flag (or even what it represents) or the unwavering support for our elected leaders (even when they are making bad choices); it is about the individual and collective lives of those who choose to serve. The most conservative among us understands that if the government has any role at all, it is in national defense. The most progressive among us understands that the military is an indispensable element of a modern democratic society that is often instrumental in helping people around the globe. The men and women who put on (and have put on) a U.S. military uniform each day, many of whom sacrifice their lives on a regular basis, come from all ethnic and racial backgrounds, but share a fundamental commitment to the only identification that should come before country: humanity.

See this page for an archive of African American military service since the Revolutionary War and this page for historical information compiled by the U.S. Army. The Army has also developed this page for information about the history of Hispanic service, this page for information about Asian Americans' service, and this page for information about Native Americans' service.