the main idea of the text (if there are several, pick the one that seems most central), how this reading bears on your understanding of the Obama presidency (that is: how does this text enrich your sense of the significance of this presidency?) 1 question or concern you have, explained (that is: what do you wish the author had said or not said? What else does this reading make you want to know? Say a bit about why you have this question or concern.
The book about Barack Obama, “The Audacity of Hope” might help you
and this texts was also given to me:
Colorblind
Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next
presidential race — if he were actually black.
I am confident that I have held out longer than any other pundit to weigh in on
both the phenomenon that is Barack Obama and the question of whether race will
trump gender as America looks toward election 2008.
I had irritably avoided columnizing on these crucial topics (though I have been
quoted by others) for several, somewhat unorthodox, reasons. First, because the
Clinton-Obama stand-off has been more than well-covered — and in an overly
simplistic, insubstantial, annoyingly celebritized way. (Horrors, Obama smokes!
But isn’t he hot in his swim trunks?) I was waiting for the discussion to get
serious and, at last, it has. Finally, we’re asking the tough questions; instead of
just crowing that he’s raised $20 million, we’re starting to wonder where it came
from and what will be asked for in return for that much sugar. Why is the
supposedly eco-friendly New Age senator supporting coal, however liquefied, as a
way to wean ourselves off foreign oil? Wouldn’t be his home state’s powerful coal
salon.com January 22 07:35 AM
lobby, would it? And then there’s his support for ethanol, which, strangely
enough, comes mainly from corn-rich Iowa — site of the first presidential caucus,
if I’m not mistaken. All much more important than why he doesn’t wear a tie.
I had also held off from writing about Obama because the tsunami of attention
and adulation this son of a Kenyan goat herder has had to navigate is just too
much, too soon. One would think learning to be a senator might keep a person
occupied for a while. My hopes for Obama are as high as anyone else’s, but what
person so young in public life could survive being shot from the planet’s biggest
cannon at this velocity? And what, exactly, qualifies him to be the most powerful
man in the world? Hopefully, he will mature into a truly viable leader, but I’m of
the camp that says he isn’t quite soup yet. Joining me in that camp are black
elected officials and powerful ministers and others closely allied (i.e., receiving
Democratic money and position through years of loyalty and activism); sexy
Obama might be, but officials like majority whip Jim Clyburn and others who
came up through the Democratic ranks won’t quickly allow an upstart to upset the
apple cart of allegiances won, favors traded and known quantities like Hillary
Clinton and John Edwards.
It’s good, it’s great, that Obama toiled in the state and local vineyards of Illinois
before winning a U.S. Senate seat. God spare us another narcissist millionaire
buying his way into office from nowhere but his offshore accounts. Not only did
Obama learn that his calling was true, but he also learned the tedious minutiae of
governing, legislating and wending one’s way through the thicket of interestgroup
politics on a small but crucial scale. These are important dues that any
good politician should pay. Now, he’s ready to apply those lessons learned to the
massive scale of national politics, but we’re not giving him the time to do that.
I cringed as the entreaties for him to run for the presidency became impossible to
ignore; intoxicating as it must be to see that office offered on a silver platter, what
are four or eight years to a newbie 45-year-old? A lifetime, seemingly. But in
reality, they’re all that might save him from being crushed under the wheels of a
brakeless bus abandoned by the clamoring throngs once the newness of
respecting a black guy wears off.
In part, this is why those in the civil rights machine are putting the brakes on
Obama-mania and feigning objectivity when it comes to his candidacy. Surely
they’re worried that the early jabs being aimed at superstar Obama (his admitted
past drug use, the quibbles about the possible Frey-ing of his autobiography, his
dastardly smoking, and the importance of his Muslim background) might grow in
significance; race schmace, no way they’re willing to go down with the brother if
skeletons pop out of the closet. And either way, they win; they can force
themselves on him as mentors/gatekeepers or stand aside while he goes down in
ignominy, tut-tutting speeches at the ready for a man they knew better than to
embrace simply because of his race.
Without a doubt, though, the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton’s main reason for
giving him the faux high hat is a determination to potty-train the upstart, flex
their own muscles, and ensure that there will remain a place for them at the
power broker’s table. Perhaps most important, they’re no doubt waiting for his
reverse Sister Souljah moment. Just as the Negro-friendly Bill Clinton had to
gamble on retaining that base while reassuring whites that he knew how to keep
blacks in line, so Obama has to reassure blacks he is unafraid to tell whites things
that whites decidedly do not want to hear. Never having been “black for a living”
with protest politics or any form of racial oppositionality, he’ll need to assure the
black powers that be that he won’t dis the politics of blackness (and, hence,
them), however much he might keep it on mute. He didn’t attain power through
traditional black channels (not a minister, no time at the NAACP) so, technically,
he owes the civil rights lobby nothing, but they need him in their debt. Homie has
some rings to kiss and a kente-cloth pocket square to buy. Still, the overtures he
needs to make are purely symbolic; he’s irresistible, and the black bourgeoisie
won’t be able to keep their hands off him. For all his bluster, even Jackson
recently admitted to CNN that “all of my heart leans toward Barack.” The black
embrace is Obama’s to lose.
Also, and more subtly, when the handsome Obama doesn’t look eastern (versus
western) African, he looks like his white mother; not so subliminally, that’s
partially why whites can embrace him but blacks fear that one day he’ll go Tiger
Woods on us and get all race transcendent (he might well have never been in the
running without a traditionally black spouse and kids). Notwithstanding their
silence on the subject, blacks at the top are aware (and possibly troubled?) by
Obama’s lottery winnings: “black” but not black. Not descended from West
African slaves brought to America, he steps into the benefits of black progress
(like Harvard Law School) without having borne any of the burden, and he gives
the white folks plausible deniability of their unwillingness to embrace blacks in
public life. None of Obama’s doing, of course, but nonetheless a niggling sort of
freebie for which he’ll have to do some groveling.
Which brings me to the main reason I delayed writing about Obama. For me, it
was a trick question in a game I refused to play. Since the issue was always
framed as a battle between gender and race (read: non-whiteness — the question
is moot when all the players are white), I didn’t have the heart (or the stomach) to
point out the obvious: Obama isn’t black.
“Black,” in our political and social reality, means those descended from West
African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended
from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent
with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics.
At a minimum, it can’t be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a thirdgeneration
Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won’t bother to
make the distinction. They’re both “black” as a matter of skin color and DNA, but
only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we
use the term.
We know a great deal about black people. We know next to nothing about
immigrants of African descent (woe be unto blacks when the latter groups find
their voice and start saying all kinds of things we don’t want said). That rank-andfile
black voters might not bother to make this distinction as long as Obama acts
black and does us proud makes them no less complicit in this shell game we’re
playing because everybody wins. (For all the hoopla over Obama, though, most
blacks still support Sen. Clinton, with her long relationships in the community
and the spillover from President Clinton’s wide popularity.)
Whites, on the other hand, are engaged in a paroxysm of self-congratulation; he’s
the equivalent of Stephen Colbert’s “black friend.” Swooning over nice, safe
Obama means you aren’t a racist. I honestly can’t look without feeling pity, and
indeed mercy, at whites’ need for absolution. For all our sakes, it seemed (again)
best not to point out the obvious: You’re not embracing a black man, a
descendant of slaves. You’re replacing the black man with an immigrant of recent
African descent of whom you can approve without feeling either guilty or
frightened. If he were Ronald Washington from Detroit, even with the same
résumé, he wouldn’t be getting this kind of love. Washington would have to earn
it, not just show promise of it, and even then whites would remain wary.
I’ll go so far as to say that a white woman will be the Democratic nominee for
president before a black descendant of American slaves. Even if Obama invokes
slavery and Jim Crow, he does so as one who stands outside, one who emotes but
still merely informs. One who can be respectfully tolerated because there’s a limit
to how far he can go in invoking history. He signals to whites that the racial
turmoil and stalemate of the last generation are past and that with him comes a
new day in politics when whites needn’t hold back for fear of being thought racist.
To say that Obama isn’t black is merely to say that, by virtue of his white
American mom and his Kenyan dad who abandoned both him and America, he is
an American of African immigrant extraction. It is also to point out the
continuing significance of the slave experience to the white American psyche; it’s
not we who can’t get over it. It’s you. Lumping us all together (which blacks also
do from sloppiness and ignorance, and as a way to dominate the race issue and to
force immigrants of African descent to subordinate their preferences to ours)
erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the
appearance of progress. Though actually, it is a kind of progress. And that’s why I
break my silence: Obama, with his non-black ass, is doing us all a favor.
Since he had no part in our racial history, he is free of it. And once he’s opened
the door to even an awkward embrace of candidates of color for the highest
offices, the door will stay open. A side door, but an open door. Yet until Obama
survives the scourging he’s about to receive from Hillary Clinton (God help him if
he really did lie about his Muslim background) and the electoral process, no
candidate of color will ever be taken seriously. Clinton isn’t about to leave the
stage in the name of racial progress, and the pundit class has only just begun to
take apart the senator’s record, associates and bank accounts. Still, this is
progress. A non-black on the down low about his non-blackness is about to get
what blacks have always asked for: to be judged on his merits. So let’s all just
pretend that we’ve really overcome.
Ans this one ALL about Obama presidency
Callaloo 31.4 (2008) 1033–1037 1033
OBAMA, THE INSTABILITY OF COLOR LINES, AND THE
PROMISE OF A POSTETHNIC FUTURE*
by David A. Hollinger
The focus of media depictions of Barack Obama as a “post-racial,” “post-black” or
“postethnic” candidate is usually limited to two aspects of his presidential campaign.
First is his self-presentation with minimal references to his color. Unlike Jesse Jackson or
Al Sharpton, whose presidential candidacies were more directed at the significance of the
color line, Obama has never offered himself as the candidate of a particular ethnoracial
group. Second, the press calls attention to the willingness of millions of white voters to
respond to Obama. Some of his greatest margins in primary elections and caucuses were
in heavily white states like Idaho and Montana. He even won huge numbers of white voters
in some states of the old Confederacy, and in the November election carried Florida,
Virginia and North Carolina.
But there is much more to it.
The Obama candidacy was a far-reaching challenge to identity politics, and that challenge
will only deepen now that Obama will be President. At the center of that challenge
is a gradually spreading uncertainty about the significance of color lines, especially the
significance of blackness itself. Blackness is the pivotal concept in the intellectual and administrative
apparatus used in the United States for dealing with ethnoracial distinctions.
Doubts about its basic meaning, boundaries, and social role affected ideas about whiteness,
and all other color-coded identities. These uncertainties make it easier to contemplate a
possible future in which the ethnoracial categories central to identity politics would be
more matters of choice than ascription; in which mobilization by ethnoracial groups would
be more a strategic option than a presumed destiny attendant upon mere membership
in a group; and in which economic inequalities would be confronted head-on, instead of
through the medium of ethnorace.
To denote that possible future, I prefer the term “postethnic” to “post-racial.” The former
recognizes that at issue is all identity by natal community, including as experienced
by, or ascribed to, population groups to whom the problematic term “race” is rarely applied.
The reconceptualization affects the status of Latinos and other immigrant-based
populations not generally counted as “races.” A postethnic social order would encourage
individuals to devote as much—or as little—of their energies as they wished to their
community of descent, and would discourage public and private agencies from implicitly
* The bulk of this essay appeared, in slightly different form, as “Obama, Blackness, and Postethnic
America,” Chronicle of Higher Education, February 29, 2008. For conversations that helped me develop the
ideas I emphasize in this essay, I wish to thank Mark Brilliant, Jennifer Hochschild, Kenneth Prewitt, and
Kim Williams.
1034
C A L L A L O O
telling citizens that the most important thing about them was their descent community.
Hence to be postethnic is not to be anti-ethnic, or even colorblind, but to reject the idea
that descent is destiny.
Obama’s mixed ancestry generates some of the new uncertainty about blackness. The
white part of his genetic inheritance is not socially hidden, as it often is for “light-skinned
blacks” who descend from black women sexually exploited by white slaveholders and
other white males. Rather, Obama’s white ancestry is right there in the open, visible in
the form of the white woman who, as a single mother, raised Obama after his black father
left the family to return to his native Kenya. Press accounts of Obama’s life, as well as
Obama’s own autobiographical writings, render Obama’s whiteness hard to miss. No
public figure, not even Tiger Woods, has done as much as Obama to make Americans of
every education level and social surrounding aware of color-mixing in general and that
most of the “black” population of the United States, in particular, are partially white. The
“one-drop rule” which denies that color is a two-way street is far from dead, but not since
the era of its legal and social consolidation in the early 1920s has the ordinance of this rule
been so subject to challenge.
But even more important to the new instability in the meaning of blackness in American
life is the fact that Obama’s black ancestry is immigrant rather than U.S.-born. The knowledge
that Obama’s black father came to the United States from Kenya may have done
more than anything else to make Americans in general aware of the distinction within the
black population of the United States between those who, like Obama’s wife, Michelle,
are the descendants of men and women who were enslaved in the United States and lived
through the Jim Crow era, and those like Obama himself who are the descendants of immigrants
from Africa or from the Caribbean.
To understand why the immigrant-originating blackness of Obama is so significant,
we need to view it in relation to other happenings. That well over one-third of AfricanAmericans
doubt that the black population of the United States is any longer a single people
was revealed in a November 2007 report by the Pew Research Center. Although the gap
in values between middle-class and poorer African-Americans was the focus of the study,
black immigrants and their children are especially likely to be identified as middle-class.
A study by the Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey and his collaborators
shows that black immigrants and their children are overrepresented by several hundred
percent among the black freshmen at Ivy League colleges. Such statistics are common at
many other institutions, including Queens College of the City University of New York, a
public university whose campus is located near a large population of African-Americans.
Many studies tell us that black immigrants and their children do better educationally and
economically than do the descendants of American slavery and Jim Crow.
These studies demonstrate that educational and employment opportunities can be
available to black people, even in the context of continued white racism. This reality calls
into question the credibility of blackness as our default standard for identifying the worst cases of
inequality, and for serving as the focal point of remedies. Slavery ended in the British Caribbean
three decades before it ended in the United States, and black Caribbeans experienced a
better postemancipation educational system than did most black people in the United
States. Perhaps the force keeping so many black Americans down is operative not so much
in the eye of the empowered white beholder as in that legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,
1035
C A L L A L O O
in the form of diminished socioeconomic capacity to take advantage of educational and
employment opportunities?
To proceed down the theoretical and policy roads offered by this idea is not to doubt the
power of white racism, but to locate more precisely its harmful effects. Our colleges and
universities and our remedies for employment discrimination have generally assumed that
white prejudice—a legacy, indeed, of slavery and Jim Crow—is the problem. That black
people face prejudice today is beyond doubt, and numerous studies show that darker-skinned
black people are more likely to be mistreated than those with lighter skin. But skin color
does not tell the whole story. If it did, the immigrant/non-immigrant distinction within the
black population would not have shown itself to have such striking consequences.
The African-American descendants of slavery and Jim Crow are the only population
group in the United States with a multicentury legacy of group-specific enslavement
and institutionalized debasement, including hypo-descent racialization (“one drop of
blood” makes a person black) and antimiscegenation laws (black-white marriages were
against the law in most states with large black populations until 1967), carried out under
constitutional authority. Neither Obama nor any other African-American of immigrant
background is a member of this population group. The success of Obama in becoming
the presidential nominee of one of the nation’s two major political parties is, like the success
of other black immigrants in other domains, an indication that something other than
color-prejudice in the eye of empowered white people is at the root of structural inequality
in the United States.
To be sure, many immigrants from the Caribbean have slave ancestors, too, and slavery
also has a history in Africa itself. Other groups have been mistreated in other ways, in
this country and in the countries of origin of many immigrants. But the segment of the
African Diaspora enslaved under American constitutional authority has a unique history,
the awareness of which was vital in creating the political will in the 1960s and early 1970s
to deploy federal power against racism in general, and to produce the concept of affirmative
action in particular.
The differences in history and circumstances among various descent groups were largely
ignored during the era when our conceptual and administrative apparatus for dealing
with inequality was put in place. As John D. Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of
California at San Diego, has shown—in his important 2002 book, The Minority Rights Revolution—conflating
Asian-Americans, Latinos, and American Indians with African-Americans
was a largely unconscious step driven by the unexamined assumption that those groups
were “like blacks”; that is, they were functionally indistinguishable from the Americans
who experienced slavery and Jim Crow. Such conflation was officially perpetuated as late
as 1998, when President Clinton’s Initiative on Race, One America in the 21st Century: Forging
a New Future, systematically and willfully obscured those differences. That was done
by burying statistics that disproved the all-minorities-are-alike myth, and by fashioning
more than fifty recommendations to combat racism, not a single one of which spoke to
the unique claims of black people.
If we are now going to recognize that even some black people—people like Obama—are
not “like blacks,” how can Mexican-Americans and Cambodian-Americans be “like
blacks”? Can the latter be eligible for entitlements that were assigned largely on the basis
of a “black model” that suddenly seems not to apply even to all black people? If black
1036
C A L L A L O O
people with immigrant backgrounds are less appropriate targets of affirmative-action and
“diversity” programs than other black people, a huge issue can no longer be avoided:
What claims for special treatment can be made for nonblack populations with an immigrant
base? Can the genie of the immigrant/nonimmigrant distinction be put back in the
bottle, or are we to generate new, group-specific theoretical justifications for each group?
That prospect is an intimidating one, trapping us by our habit of defining disadvantaged
groups ethnoracially.
Employers and educators are asked to treat the Latino population as an ethnoracial
group, yet the strongest claim that many of its members have for special protections and
benefits is specific to economic conditions. The history of mistreatment of Latinos by Anglos
is well documented, but the instances most comparable to antiblack racism predate
the migration of the bulk of today’s Latino population. One need not deny the reality of
prejudicial treatment of Latinos to recognize another reality as more salient: immigration
policies and practices that actively encourage the formation of a low-skilled, poorly educated
population of immigrant labor from Mexico and other Latin American nations. As the recent
debates over immigration confirm, the United States positively demands an underclass of
workers and finds it convenient to obtain most of them from nearby Mexico.
But the service institutions obliged to deal with the needs of that population are held
accountable on the basis of ethnoracial rather than economic classifications. Colleges and
universities are routinely asked to recruit more Latino students and faculty members,
and are accused of prejudice if they do not. People who are encouraged to immigrate to
this country, legally or illegally, because they are poorly educated, willing to work for
low wages and likely to avoid trade unions, do have a powerful claim on our resources,
but it is an economic, not an ethno-racial claim. In the Latino case, more than any other,
ethnorace is widely used as a proxy for dealing with economic inequality. The widelydebated
issue of whether Latinos ought to be regarded as a separate “race” would lose
much of its point if the economic circumstances of this immigration-based population
were confronted honestly rather than through an ethnoracial proxy.
The Asian-American section of our color-conscious system is even more anachronistic.
There are historical reasons for the relatively weak class position of immigrants from
Cambodia and the Philippines, but our category of Asian-American conceals the differences
between those groups and those who trace their ancestry to Korea, whose adult
immigrants to the United States are overwhelmingly college graduates. Institutions eager
to assist the poorest immigrants sometimes do so through the hyper-ethnic step of breaking
down the Asian category, enabling them to establish programs for Cambodians but
not for Japanese. For example, the undergraduate-admissions forms for the University of
California system will soon ask Asian and Pacific-Islander applicants to classify themselves
in 23 ethnic categories.
These considerations suggest that a historical approach to understanding the dynamics
of inequality in American life has much to recommend it. Obama himself pointed in this
direction in his epochal speech on race, delivered in March of 2008 in the wake of publicity
given to the inflammatory sermons of his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. “Many of
the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced
to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy
of slavery and Jim Crow,” Obama declared in a crucial turn in that speech.
1037
C A L L A L O O
Before taking that turn, Obama surprised many people by alluding sympathetically
to white workers who, damaged by economic turndowns, tended to blame affirmative
action for their problems. Even while describing his own childhood pain upon hearing
his white grandmother articulate negative stereotypes about black people, Obama turned
the spotlight for a few minutes on whites. Obama offered sympathy and legitimacy to
a variety of group-specific complaints without fostering an oppression Olympics, and
without indulging the sentimental falsehood that all pains are equal. Hence Obama at
once urged Americans to look upon inequality in historical terms, and reached out across
the black-white color line, confirming his image as a black politician who did not offer a
black-centered message.
Yet we can expect that circumstances will push Obama back and forth between images
of “more black than we thought” and “not as black as we thought.” When, prior to Wright’s
having persisted in outrageous public behavior, Obama defended Wright’s ministry, there
was some buzz that he was farther to the black side of the color spectrum than his previous
image had been. Once he renounced Wright, exited from Wright’s congregation, and
increased the frequency with which photographs of his white grandparents were displayed,
there was some buzz that he was farther on the white side of that spectrum than some
had supposed. These oscillations do not mean that Obama is lacking in authenticity; they
mean that once his blackness is destabilized, it can intensify or diminish in a variety of
contexts, including trivial ones.
Does the analysis sketched here mean that blackness is no longer relevant to the dynamics
of mistreatment in the United States, and is no longer an appropriate basis for solidarity?
Of course not. Black people have plenty of reasons to look to each other for mutual
support, and to form enclaves strategically, while refusing to have their lives confined by
color. The central postethnic principle, after all, is affiliation by revocable consent. But
attention to skin color alone will not carry the United States very far toward diminishing
the inequalities for which the extraordinary overrepresentation of black men in American
prisons is a commanding emblem. A new, more realistic way to distribute resources
and energies, calculated to diminish even those inequalities that owe much to a history
of prejudice and violence, is needed. Whether it can be created remains to be seen. The
Obama phenomenon makes a real conversation more possible than ever before.
The United States is still a long way from the cosmopolitan society that I sketched as
an ideal thirteen years ago in my book Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. I have
written this essay in response to many suggestions that I address the Obama phenomenon
in the context of my ideas about postethnicity. Today we are closer than before to engaging
inequalities that are too often understood in ethnoracial rather than economic terms.
The energies and ideas flourishing around the Obama presidency may promote a longoverdue
breakthrough. Obama’s illustration in his own person of the contrast between
immigrant and nonimmigrant black people, and of the reality of ethnoracial mixing,
presents a compelling invitation to explore the limits of blackness especially, but also of
whiteness, and of all color-coded devices for dealing with inequality in the United States.
In the long run, the fact that Obama is the son of an immigrant may prove to be almost
as important as the fact that he is the son of a black man and a white mother. Obama’s
destabilization of color lines will be hard to forget. Identity politics in the United States
will never be the same again.
Drék Davis © 2008
Good Hope 1 (Martin & Malcolm)
by Drék Davis
