My ethics class has long featured a section on racial equality and yesterday gave me the opportunity to discuss the subject in a new light. Not surprisingly, my students were quit pleased with Obama’s victory and they felt quite optimistic. However, they were also realistic about what his election means.
To focus the discussion, I used Dr. King’s “I have a Dream” speech. In his speech, three of the problems he mentions are segregation, discrimination and poverty. As the class discussion revealed, while segregation and discrimination are now illegal, they still remain serious problems. After all, it is possible to segregate and discriminate in ways that do not break the law. For example, while African-Americans make up a disproportionately large percentage of the the prison population in America, they make up a disproportionately small percentage of those in leadership positions (political, academic, and business). Poverty is, of course, still a concern and wealth still seems to follow racial lines in the United States. These problems and other factors clearly indicate that America is not post racial.
Not surprisingly, racism and concerns about race cross racial lines. Despite the fact that I have been a professor at Florida A&M University since 1993 and have written extensively about race, some people made it clear on November 5th that they assumed I had racist tendencies simply because I am white. I was (once again) informed of the racism of white America and how it was thought that white America would not permit a black man to be President.
My responses were the obvious. First, it seems racist to assume that a person is racist simply because s/he is white. This is similar to assuming a black person uses crack simply because he is black. Second, to talk about “white America” and making assumptions about how all whites think is to group people into a stereotypical class based solely on race. This certainly seems to be racist. Just as blacks are individuals with their own views, whites are also individuals with their own views. Third, obviously “white America” was, in general, just fine with electing a black man President.
Initially I was slightly surprised that people would make such remarks about whites and “white America.” After all, Obama had just been elected President and had spoken about the need to get beyond race. Of course, a moment’s reflection revealed the obvious: his election has been a major milestone, but people do not change quickly. Many people, regardless of their color, are still very much concerned about race. As such, while we are heading towards a future in which race will matter less and less, we are still here in the now. And now race still matters.
We’re asked to speak for our race all the time, whatever race we are. While we can’t literally speak for our race, we can give a member of that race’s perspective on things, which I think is helpful sometimes. But harmful when we take it to be the mouthpiece of a race.
I’m sure race will matter less and less in the future, and you’re right that race matters now, but I think we need to go through this stage. We need to be aware of race, and people’s sensitivities towards it. As an individual thats easy to do. As a culture, thats much more difficult.
I think of this as the awkward moment where we meet someone we have preconceived notions about like a deaf person or a gay person and want to ask questions but not sure how to ask without offending them. Our culture is past the obvious prejudices (not to say that prejudices don’t exist still), and we’re awkwardly trying to make conversation about it without hurting others.
Mike,
I seem to be on your case again. I’m an old man and have to take a nap but had to respond to:
“obviously ‘white America’ was, in general, just fine with electing a black man President.”
“White America” had very little to do with Obama’s win; It voted overwhelmingly for McCain
Ralph said: “White America” had very little to do with Obama’s win; It voted overwhelmingly for McCain
I heard the opposite, that there was a reverse Tom Bradley effect. People embarrassed to say they were voting for Obama, but secretly doing so, confounding the polls. Obama, last I heard, got the white vote. But that news may have changed, as news is prone to do.
I stand corrected. Thanks rtk.
All you have to do is look at the electoral college map. Predominantly white states stayed red, as did most of the southern states (they will rise again, I’m sure of it). The blue states were primarily the same states that were always blue, with the exceptions of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
I’ve already commented on how most of Ohio remained red despite the electoral votes.
“Secretly” voting for someone because he’s black. How pathetic.
A good article, but an important point to emphiseze is that the succes of people is also about how they view themselves. Jewish people have been the victims of racial discrimination too, but despite being so relatively few in number they have still managed to win one in every four nobel prize ever handed out. Hopefully with the election of Obama we can slowly get beond racism but also get beond some of the selfinflicted victimization that is one of the driving forces behind some minorities not being succesfull and ending up in prison. The times have changed and everyone has a fighting chance these days.
I would have to disagree with your comparing large black prison populations and small numbers of black individuals in leadership positions to non-illegal segregation and discrimination. The disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison is most likely due to social factors within the minority population itself, not because of racist discriminations. Additionally, the lack of African-American leadership is probably due to the small number of African-Americans attempting to assume those leadership roles.
Among those social factors are the white juries. Also, money trumps color as well illustrated by O.J. about 9 years ago.
In Europe, Jews were denied land and shoved into jobs scorned by Christians, such as (gasp) money-lending. No one imagined that would produce the likes of the Rothchilds. Without fields to hoe and harvest to gather, the student can do a lot more homework. Who would have guessed a future Einstein or Freud. Yes, social factors count.
Finally, the civil war has been won. I expect huge social changes with the Obama family setting the standard. He has raised the bar. No, WE have raised the bar by electing him. I congratulate us.
Very misleading. All states in the US are predominantly white. Furthermore, Obama won in lots of the whitest states. Think Maine, Wisconsin, Vermont, Indiana….
Not so. Obama picked up Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. All went for Bush in 2004.
But the shift toward blue was even more pervasive. About 95% of counties in the US voted more democratic this time, compared to 2004.
Also, every demographic shifted blue. For more on the blue shift, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html
I am an 18 year old female and I finally got the chance to vote…Yes, I am happy that Obama won but I would have been a bit more happy if he won because of what he was capable of doing and how much knowledge he had of making life decisions rather than people just voting for him because he is black…. I mean I first decided to vote for McCain because I thought he had more experience and dedication but as people found out that I was voting for him became ridiculed for being a sell out…Why is that?
Obama picked up Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. All went for Bush in 2004.
But the shift toward blue was even more pervasive. About 95% of counties in the US voted more democratic this time, compared to 2004.
Thanks for the link, Jean. I guess I was thinking of states like Wyoming, Montana and a few others that stayed red. It’s safe to say the two mentioned are predominantly white. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that about all states, especially in comparison to these. Obama did pick up Indiana and Ohio but as I pointed out before, he just barely made it in the popular vote and Ohio’s map stays predominantly red.
As for Vermont, they may be predominantly white but it’s Vermont…they have a socialist congressperson.
Yes, a lot of people shifted to the democratic party, this was happening for at least a year before the election.
My concern is there will be a twisting of the facts to serve Obama supporters’ own puposes. There is still quite a bit of red on the electoral map, despite Obama’s major electoral college win.
Does anyone think that the us will become more racist and prejduice because Obama’s the new & first BLACK president????
To Tree: I’ve read that you have a “My concern is there will be a twisting of the facts to serve Obama supporters’ own puposes” why is that?
Oh, I see. People just voted form him because he was black, not because he’s smart and capable. Just curious. How do you know? What study did you read?
I ask, because everything I read actually says quite the opposite. People voted for him because they were impressed with him. Based on what I read, you couldn’t even say blacks voted for him ‘because he was black.” Think about it. Blacks always vote for democrats by huge margins. They came out in larger numbers this time, but that doesn’t mean they ignored the man’s strengths, and voted for him just because of his color. It doesn’t mean they would have voted for just any black man.
Sorry, but I think this whole line of thought is simply stupid. Consider this analogy. Women were thrilled to bits to support a woman for president during the primaries–at least those who voted for Clinton. Does this mean they “just voted for her because of her gender”? We know the answer to that, because by a huge margin they didn’t support Sarah Palin.
We can celebrate our first black president without getting into this nonsense that he was elected “because he was black.” Here’s what makes the jubilation so intense. (a) He’s our first black president. (b) He’s the most impressive candidate of any color we’ve seen in many years. (a) + (b) = dancing in the street.
Come on Jean, admit that the discussion so far - foreshortened for some reason - has been an example of American racism! Tree and Quetta18, really, what are you but racists? I am appalled, speaking from your northern neighbour, that someone could say, in 2008, that they will rise again! What, the Confederacy? Whites? What’s the matter with you Quetta18, all 18 years of you, that you can be so deeply racist at your heart? The head ot this thread asks whether America has entered its post-racialist future. Not yet, my friends, not yet! And, after that breathtaking event at Grant Park, where President-Elect Obama mentioned race not at all, what a come down! What a desperate sense of: where were you when the world changed?!
lol
Eric, I was most certainly joking when I wrote that comment about the south will rise again.
Hey, Tree, I’m too literal. It didn’t sound like a joke. I’m glad it was.
What the hell does lol mean? I know, I’m geriatric, but still….
Eric, lol means laughing out loud. A silly way to communicate but sometimes effective in the online world.
By the way, (or btw) rofl means rolling on the floor laughing. This amuses me to no end because I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen anyone roll on the floor and laugh but “rofl” is very popular nonetheless.
I’ve traveled and written extensively about the U.S. Black Americans as a group have come a long way. In fact, most of the poverty, especially in the South, is amongst poor Whites. As for racism, the most over looked issue there is Black racism. People like Obama’s former pastor epitomize one of the greatest problems in some black communities: the perpetuation of racial hatred. You cannot get past and overcome problems if you’re constantly preaching a form of hate to your children. There certainly are white racists. Some of them out-right despicable. But you are not going to change these people. And like wise you can’t have healing and reconciliation if you preach hatred of white America, as Rev. Wright was doing. But you can, as millions of Americans did, show that most people are simply wrong about American Whites. Over 90% of them are not racist or bigots. There is simply no way Obama could have won without millions of White voters coming out to support him. And they did.
I’m confused - what is racism but the tendency to lump people into distinct groups based on an irrelevant characteristic (i.e., skin colour) AND attribute negative characteristics to members of the groups, simply because they are members of the group (willingly or otherwise).
On this basis, to accuse ‘American Blacks’ or ‘American Whites’ of being racist is surely racist itself.
On the other hand, a reasonable way to group people is to group them according to whether they think skin colour is relevant to judging someone’s character (i.e., racist or non-racist).
The appealing thing about Obama is that he did not stand for Black Americans, he stood for non-racist Americans.
But, Obama also said forcefully that he did not stand for Democratic Americans, he stood for all Americans. That doesn’t make him no longer a member of the Democratic party. I agree with your first paragraph, but not the third. Each of us is part of a bunch of groups with some individuality thrown in. No judgment is needed. No need to hate all males or all females although expectations may vary to some degree.
Sure, but I wasn’t suggesting that grouping people according to their views on the moral relevance of one’s skin colour is a) an all-encompassing way of understanding people or b) that it follows that one is bad and the other is good.
However I do suspect a racist viewpoint is suggestive of at least some problems in a person’s moral reasoning, and to that extent the classification is a useful one.
No nation is post-racial, ever.
We all like being what we are, which includes language, values, customs, heritage (including race) and national identity.
This topic, however, is taboo — and we should ask why, seeing how large corporations, hippies, anarchists, media overlords and oligarchs all agree it should be taboo.
Cui bono?
[...] Talking Philosophy [...]