Political Physics: The Post-Racial Hypothesis
.
A blogumn by Monique King-Viehland
A Post Racial America – Myth or Reality?
Over the weekend I was surfing the Internet trying to decide what I would write about this week on Fierce & Nerdy. I came across two things that got my attention. The first was an article in our local newspaper the Trenton Times about a recent book signing by Cornel West in Princeton.
At the signing, for his latest book, “Hope on a Tightrope,” a collection of his quotations, speech excerpts, letters, philosophy and photographs, Dr. West scolded the media for their “truncated imagination: in coming up with the category “post-racial.” He argued that “Black folk have been voting for white candidates based on qualification rather than pigmentation for decades. When white brothers and sisters do it, you need a new category. It’s not post-racial, it’s just less racist. That’s a beautiful thing, but you don’t need a new category.” The second was an editorial in the Washington Post by Krissah Williams Thompson entitled, “I’m Not Post-Racial,” in which she tries to pick apart the notion of post-racialism, contemplates its existence and wonders if it is a good thing.
After reading both articles, I couldn’t stop thinking about this notion of “port-racial” or “post-racialism.” There is no hard and fast definition for post-racial. One could argue that presumably a post-racial America would be one in which no one thinks about race any more, an America in which we all just see each other as individuals. If you did not want to go that far, you could take the position that Dr. Sandra Lopez-Rocha took during a speech at the Humanities Conference of 2006. Dr. Lopez-Rocha said that “if we consider that racial differences are becoming less important we are arguing for a post-racial stand…” This implies that race is still important, but not that it is non-existent. Even before the election, NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr questioned whether the ascendance of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate meant that the U.S. was entering a new, “post-racial” political era.
So I guess the natural question is, does the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States mean that we are now in a “post-racial” America? What do you think? Is “post-racialism” a myth? What does an Obama presidency mean for race in America? I’d love to hear your thoughts, insights, etc.
Next week I plan to share my thoughts on “post-racialism” and I’d love to incorporate your comments. Tell me what you think, I’d really appreciate it.
.
i think there's been a perception that politicians of color represent solely the interests of people of color. and beyond that, only their own race. so a black candidate can only represent the interests of black people, a latino candidate can only represent latino people, etc. i think this applies to women of all races, as well.
it's this idea that only white men are universal and the rest of us are specific.
obama represents a departure from this idea, and i think was very careful in his campaigning to present himself as someone who wants to govern *all* americans. and it's like this idea that a black candidate could do that is mind-boggling to some folk.
i find the term post-racial to be inaccurate and unhelpful when thinking about how we frame race and politics. it's a bunch of hooey.
i think there's been a perception that politicians of color represent solely the interests of people of color. and beyond that, only their own race. so a black candidate can only represent the interests of black people, a latino candidate can only represent latino people, etc. i think this applies to women of all races, as well.
it's this idea that only white men are universal and the rest of us are specific.
obama represents a departure from this idea, and i think was very careful in his campaigning to present himself as someone who wants to govern *all* americans. and it's like this idea that a black candidate could do that is mind-boggling to some folk.
i find the term post-racial to be inaccurate and unhelpful when thinking about how we frame race and politics. it's a bunch of hooey.
Though I love the word "hooey" — the fact is that a person from Obama's background probably couldn't have gotten elected 8 years ago. So I do think that we are living in different times.
But I'm not sure what post-racial is even supposed to mean. Are we to believe that all racism has been erased across the board? Obviously the MSM is not this naive.
But are things as bad as they were when I was growing up or when my parents were? Absolutely not.
I think that we're trying to make a gray issue black and white. It's like we're trying to force ourselves to say either that we now live in a Utopia of progressive thought or that the same old problems 100% persist — when neither is the case.
Can't we agree that yes, Obama's election reflects that a lot of progress has been made on the part of Americans, but no, that doesn't mean that we don't need to keep working towards a social ideal? I say let's pat ourselves on the back and keep going.
Though I love the word "hooey" — the fact is that a person from Obama's background probably couldn't have gotten elected 8 years ago. So I do think that we are living in different times.
But I'm not sure what post-racial is even supposed to mean. Are we to believe that all racism has been erased across the board? Obviously the MSM is not this naive.
But are things as bad as they were when I was growing up or when my parents were? Absolutely not.
I think that we're trying to make a gray issue black and white. It's like we're trying to force ourselves to say either that we now live in a Utopia of progressive thought or that the same old problems 100% persist — when neither is the case.
Can't we agree that yes, Obama's election reflects that a lot of progress has been made on the part of Americans, but no, that doesn't mean that we don't need to keep working towards a social ideal? I say let's pat ourselves on the back and keep going.
things have absolutely changed, no question. we're on the same page there, e.
for me the issue is whether or not using the term post-racial is useful in describing the progression of racial politics in the u.s. answers are informed by how we ask the question. if the question is: "is the u.s. post-racial?" what kind of answer do we get? when no one, as you point out, ernessa, really even knows what that term means.
it's not a useful question. a more useful question might be "does obama's election indicate a shift in the way that the american electorate views candidates of color — if so, what is that shift — and will that change affect the lives of people of color throughout the country?"
but this use of post-racial just blurs the whole thing and doesn't really answer anything concrete or specific.
things have absolutely changed, no question. we're on the same page there, e.
for me the issue is whether or not using the term post-racial is useful in describing the progression of racial politics in the u.s. answers are informed by how we ask the question. if the question is: "is the u.s. post-racial?" what kind of answer do we get? when no one, as you point out, ernessa, really even knows what that term means.
it's not a useful question. a more useful question might be "does obama's election indicate a shift in the way that the american electorate views candidates of color — if so, what is that shift — and will that change affect the lives of people of color throughout the country?"
but this use of post-racial just blurs the whole thing and doesn't really answer anything concrete or specific.
post-racial is just a word made up by the news media. If you think that just because Obama was elected that race no longer maters in the U.S. Just go down south for a while.
post-racial is just a word made up by the news media. If you think that just because Obama was elected that race no longer maters in the U.S. Just go down south for a while.
The word I've adopted is not post-racial America but brown america.
For me, it sort of crystallized in a piece of science fiction (of course): Michael Winterbottom's Code 46. The cast was this beautiful mix of races & spoke a sort of polyglot language, culled together from street English, Spanish, French & Arabic. Watching it, i thought to myself, this is what the world is going to look like in 40, 50 years.
A writer I'm intrigued to read is Richard Rodriguez from San Francisco, who wrote this book that seems very much on topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Discovery-America-Ric…
The word I've adopted is not post-racial America but brown america.
For me, it sort of crystallized in a piece of science fiction (of course): Michael Winterbottom's Code 46. The cast was this beautiful mix of races & spoke a sort of polyglot language, culled together from street English, Spanish, French & Arabic. Watching it, i thought to myself, this is what the world is going to look like in 40, 50 years.
A writer I'm intrigued to read is Richard Rodriguez from San Francisco, who wrote this book that seems very much on topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Discovery-America-Ric…
Thanks so much for all of your comments. I am finding this discussion so interesting and I cannot wait to comment on it next week. I hope you guys keep discussing and encourage others to chime in. Thanks.
Thanks so much for all of your comments. I am finding this discussion so interesting and I cannot wait to comment on it next week. I hope you guys keep discussing and encourage others to chime in. Thanks.
katrina, i am with you 100% on embracing difference and equality. we don't have to pretend we're all the same in order for everyone to have the same rights and be treated equally.
that whole "i don't see color" thing is bullwharkey, imo.
katrina, i am with you 100% on embracing difference and equality. we don't have to pretend we're all the same in order for everyone to have the same rights and be treated equally.
that whole "i don't see color" thing is bullwharkey, imo.
I agree with most of you that the term post-racial is not useful and messy. As Monique points out noone knows exactly what it means, yet so many people keep throwing it around. I would take things a bit further and argue that the term is politically dangerous. Many folks assume that post-racial means we are beyond race and many have taken the elections of certain black leaders (Obama, Patrick, Booker) as an indication that the US is in a new era of post-racism. Yet, electing a black person in no way means race or racism is no longer relevant in America. In fact, the election of black candidates does not necessarily translate into substantive gains or benefits for most black Americans.
It is also find it problematic because many folks use the term post-race in the same way many neo-conservatives use the term color-blindness–that is making an argument that we should see each other as all the same. I have issue with this for two reasons. First, just because one says they don't see color does not mean that systematic differences and marginalization does not still happen along racial lines. It just means we are pretending not to see what is actually there. Second, historically and culturally we are not all the same and I, personally, wouldn't want to live in place where people think we are all the same. Even if we get to a point where race is no longer a barrier that does not mean we should pretend that the history of race and all of its implications never existed.
Should we all have the same rights and access to opportunities–ABSOLUTELY YES. But I think too many people assume that means we have to ignore difference to get there– I say embrace BOTH difference and equality.
I agree with most of you that the term post-racial is not useful and messy. As Monique points out noone knows exactly what it means, yet so many people keep throwing it around. I would take things a bit further and argue that the term is politically dangerous. Many folks assume that post-racial means we are beyond race and many have taken the elections of certain black leaders (Obama, Patrick, Booker) as an indication that the US is in a new era of post-racism. Yet, electing a black person in no way means race or racism is no longer relevant in America. In fact, the election of black candidates does not necessarily translate into substantive gains or benefits for most black Americans.
It is also find it problematic because many folks use the term post-race in the same way many neo-conservatives use the term color-blindness–that is making an argument that we should see each other as all the same. I have issue with this for two reasons. First, just because one says they don't see color does not mean that systematic differences and marginalization does not still happen along racial lines. It just means we are pretending not to see what is actually there. Second, historically and culturally we are not all the same and I, personally, wouldn't want to live in place where people think we are all the same. Even if we get to a point where race is no longer a barrier that does not mean we should pretend that the history of race and all of its implications never existed.
Should we all have the same rights and access to opportunities–ABSOLUTELY YES. But I think too many people assume that means we have to ignore difference to get there– I say embrace BOTH difference and equality.