Obama, and the Birth of the (Above-)Racist

By Guest Contributor Catherine, originally posted at Hyphen Blog

obama
The New York Times commemorated President Obama’s 100th day in office last week with some optimistic reportage of race relations in the United States. Citing a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, the article asserted that Obama is positively influencing public perception of race relations, stating that

Two-thirds of Americans now say race relations are generally good, and the percentage of blacks who say so has doubled since last July….

If only the public’s perception of “progress” were motivated by actual progress. Even a cursory examination of the state of race relations in the US will reveal that we are still a very racially divided nation, in some ways even more so than before Obama’s election. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, just released a report which found that the number of hate groups in the US has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, and by 5 percent since last year. SPLC attributes the increase, in part, to growing anti-immigrant sentiment — a key point to remember, as Obama’s rise seems to have us thinking about race relations exclusively in black and white.

It wasn’t so very long ago that we were all too aware of the racism-infused anti-immigration sentiment that surrounded last year’s elections and talks of immigration reform. Back in those days, the Pew Hispanic Center found that half of Latinos believed their situations were worse than they had been a year before — and this year, the situation only seems to have worsened. Polls commissioned by New American Media now find that 82 percent of Latinas report that discrimination is a major problem for their families. And let’s not forget Committee of 100’s recent national survey, which found that Asian Americans still experience considerable discrimination.

And, contrary to apparent popular opinion and the cheery anecdotes featured by the New York Times, the situations of blacks haven’t improved markedly either, as Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress points out in his own analysis of the New York Times / CBS news poll results:

I’m surprised that as many as forty-four percent of blacks say that both races have equal opportunity. I think the evidence is unambiguously clear that they do not. African-American children have parents with lower levels of income and education. Their families, even when they have above-average incomes, tend to have less wealth than white families. And even controlling for parental income and educational attainment, black kids do worse in schools than white kids. Then beyond all that, there’s clear evidence of discrimination against job applicants with “black” names that tends to suggest a broader pattern of employment discrimination. There are inequities in the criminal justice system both in terms of more punishment being meted out to black offenders, and the police and the courts doing less to protect black victims.

Evidently, race relations haven’t improved quite as much as people want to believe. Clearly, in some situations, race relations have even deteriorated further. So what gives? Perhaps the (apparently unfounded) optimism uncovered by the poll has less to do with respondents’ personal observations of progress than it does with the overwhelming significance they placed on Obama’s election. Certainly the election of the first black/bi-racial US president is groundbreaking — and many, I’m sure, hoped that the very possibility of his election signified a momentous shift in the way Americans think about race. But the misguided belief that everything is automatically better now has unfortunate repercussions.

What begins as a benign belief that things have changed for the better can quickly turn into the obstinate conviction that racism is behind us and need not be addressed any longer. I can’t count how many times, since Obama’s election, I’ve been advised to take my race relations commentary down a notch because, in post-race America, we are too “above race” to necessitate continued critical discourse on the matter. My own sister called me a racist recently for addressing race issues on the Hyphen blog because, according to her, doing so is an affront to everything that Obama has built for us. Such sentiments are shockingly pervasive, I’ve found — so much so, that I’ve taken to calling people who harbor them “(above-)racists” — people who think that race is so far beneath them that they can’t help but actually be racist. They are best known for their belief that Obama’s election means either 1) racism no longer exists or 2) white racism no longer exists and/or 3) pointing out racial differences (whether casually or critically) is, itself racist. Not exactly what Obama had in mind, I think, when he said this:

…the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed, not just with words, but with deeds…

Clearly even Obama doesn’t think racism is behind us, and the rest of us would do well to get that straight too. We need to recognize that one man’s rise — however monumental — doesn’t in and of itself change the structural inequalities that have long defined and limited the experiences of people of color. Believing otherwise reduces Obama to a token — a misleading indicator of illusory social change — rather than correctly recognizing him as an important step forward on a (still) long journey towards racial equality.

Image by flickr user tsevis, used under the Creative Commons License.

Hyphen is an Asian American magazine that covers arts, culture and politics with substance, style and sass.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Obama, and the Birth of the (Above-)Racist « Femmalia on 13 Jul 2009 at 12:53 am

    [...] obama on May 8, 2009 at 5:23 pm Originally published at Hyphen on May 8, 2009, and cross-posted at Racialicious on May 18, [...]

Comments

  1. Tracey wrote:

    Not surprising, but judging by the comments of Obama and Holders, at least they seem to be getting it right. The people who take a “If you ignore race and race relations, it’ll go away and you are actually the racist for bringing up” are as annoying as ever . What really worries me is that more people may begin to buy into the “up by the bootstraps” rhetoric and be less willing to listen too and act on rhetoric about structual inequality. And when you bring structual inequalities up, well, you’re just a self-victimizing, self-pitying, whiner who keeps POC dependent. Either that, or : yes structual inequalities exist but they can be solved through deregulation and destruction of the social safety net.
    The fourty-four prcent of A.A. believing in equality of oppurtunity is not too, too surprising as I know of a book called Ain’t No Making It, in which teens in a public housing unit were studied and the POC tended to believe more so in oppurtunity for those with work ethic than the white ones. What does surprise me is that people can see and acknowledge inequality, but still hold this belief.

  2. chris chambers wrote:

    Thank you for the words. UTTERLY necessary reality check. And again–here I guess I’m being racist–it’s white people who need to read them.

    n.b.–in this age of opinion-driven journalism, Twitter-level study and no one reading books, great or otherwise, it’s a wonder that ANYONE generally understand what that word “racist” means anymore? Of course white people generally do NOT want to accept it, though words like “bigot” and “prejudice” can just as readily be aimed at us. They’ve twisted the word “hate” to the point that unless they actually don a musty old Klan robe and firebomb a black church, there’s no way any of them can be racist. Racism as we al know is an amalgam of history and power and yes, violence, hate–mixed in with bigotry and prejudice. Even the power aspect is complex…and see how they respond with such derangement, far beyond the usual disdain and vitriol for the garden variety Democrat in the White House.

  3. Sobia wrote:

    It boggles my mind to think that people could actually believe that race relations got better over one night. The whole election process was disgustingly racist and xenophobic so its not like there was a prolonged time period in which race relations could have gotten better. In fact, I think that whole process made it worse. Ridicule of community organizing, the use of Muslim as a slur, etc. And so I’m assuming people are thinking that literally, overnight, things got better. Centuries of hate and oppression cannot be ended in a 24 hour period.

  4. Chris Diaz wrote:

    The entire notion is ludicrous. Further, racism has gone up. I guarantee the conservatives polled ranked race relations way better than liberals/progressives because, basically, it is in their self-interests with their social Darwinistic attitudes.

    I feel very angry at the pollsters taking advantage of the African-American community. I think for most of them that responded positively about race relations, there were simply trying to show optimism and a spirit of cooperation. In the meantime, conservatives will try to use this sort of data to work directly against the interests of African-Americans and other people of color.

    If anyone here wants to quickly slap down the ridiculous notion that voting for an African-American for president actually makes a significant impact, consider another poll.

    In 1969, 66% of Americans polled said that, if their party nominated a qualified African-American (they used “Negro” back then) candidate for president, they would vote for him.

    So, unless someoe wants to be so stupid as to say race relations were great in 1969, that should end that debate.

    That Gallup data I offered is accurate and verified from the Gallup Brain database.

  5. JC wrote:

    Race relations in this country is so distant from being even acceptable that it’s not even funny. Blacks and White still live in different worlds, and any other color is treated more like foreigners (Latinos and Asians) and past history (Native Americans). Despite the election of Obama, this nation is still essentially, a White nation. As long as we have disproportion numbers of White Males holding positions of power in politics, commerce, and even pop culture, everyone else will just be token players begging for “change” to rain upon them from White Males in Power. Obama may turn out to be an anomaly rather than wave of the future.

  6. Paz wrote:

    I’m not sure whether you can really measure whether racism has increased or decreased…but certainly it has become more evident with the rise in hate groups, anti-immigrant sentiment and rise in gun sales.
    People didn’t become hardcore racists overnight. I think some held beliefs in the back of their minds, and they’ve now found a release for them.

  7. elle the elephant wrote:

    I’ve been hearing alot about this lately on other blogs too

    http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-voted-for-obama-effect.html

    Personally, this isn’t surprising, white people are always looking for the easiest and quickest way out when it comes to race relations, this is no different from the “I have Black friends” defense or “I vote Democrat”.

    On Black people thinking race relations getting better, alot of Black people,especially middle and upper crust Black folks, realize it can really hurt their career to speak about institutional racism. How long would a Black CEO last if he actually spoke the truth about racial inequality? Thus they agree with their white boss to get that promotion, not letting them know their real opinion. And there appears to be an entire list of professional Black writers that blame Black folks for our problems and ignore institutional racism: Clarence Thomas,Julian Bond,Juan Williams, any Black correspondent on Fox News and the list goes on, because selling out pays.

  8. RCHOUDH wrote:

    It would indeed be naive of people in general to believe that racism has vanished with Obama’s election. The hateful comments left after news articles detailing the economic crisis are evidence of the lingering effects of racism. The crisis has unleashed a vast amount of racist hatred towards anyone not white, whether they be indebted Black and Latino homeowners, Mexican immigrants, Indian H1-B visa holders, Chinese businesses, etc. It’s like criticism about these groups always involves blaming said groups for whatever part of the economic crisis they “contributed” to. So no I wouldn’t say racism has disappeared at all; I feel it’s gotten worse since the crisis has begun. I fear that the longer the crisis lingers the more the hatred will manifest itself into violent incidents.

  9. Paz wrote:

    How long would a Black CEO last if he actually spoke the truth about racial inequality?

    Reminds me of when Chris Matthews interviewed a black figure (I dont remember who, unfortunately) and asked him whether he was surprised that he didn’t bring up anything about blacks during the debate, he responded, “Barack Obama has to be the least grieved black man in America.”
    Too true. Major props to Eric Holder for his “nation of cowards” comment when he was sworn in.

  10. Paz wrote:

    Sorry, that meant to read “whether he was surprised that Obama…”

  11. Jess wrote:

    Am I the only person here who thinks:

    a) the election of Obama doesn’t, in and of itself, mean a whole heck of a lot — it can’t

    b) that race relations, however defined, aren’t going to change overnight — using Obama’s election as some kind of marker is just plain silly, I might as well pick the day the Willie Horton Ad ran to come to just the opposite conclusion that relations are better

    c) that there is such a thing as differential progress. In a cultural sense, I’d say that if you look at the differences as to what’s acceptable now and what was in say, 1965, the difference is vast. Economically, not so much. But hey, life is messy. You pick up and work on the things that need working on, end of story.

  12. Jess wrote:

    Sorry, a big chunk of the last comment got cut off. What I was trying to get across was that I see all these articles with people talking abut “post racial” America. And honestly, I have never met these folks. Where the hell does the Times find them? I have never, ever heard any white people I know use the term “post racial” or claim that racism is over. Maybe I live in a weird place.

  13. NancyP wrote:

    Apropos of nothing, the graphic of Pres. Obama is interesting. What are the tiny subimages?

    Cultural, as opposed to legal, change occurs incrementally, often generation to generation. Ever was it thus, for all sorts of social movements. It seems silly to expect people to go to bed on the first Monday of Nov. racist and to arise two days later non-racist after a day of election hooplah. On the other hand, after a while, if the Pres. gets reasonable things done, some people uncomfortable with his race might notice that the sky hasn’t fallen. Younger kids of racists might wonder why their folks were carrying on. The loudmouth racists may get a few more looks of (nasty s.o.b.) and fewer looks of (crude, but they have a point). I suspect that the loudmouth racists may increase for a while and then dwindle.

  14. Manju wrote:

    the doubling of the Af-Am numbers saying race relations are good is the most interesting tidbit…touching and honest IMO. After all, I’m sure we could dig up polls prior to Iowa demonstrating a good chunk of Af-Ams believing there’s no way in hell America would put a black man in the white house. It seems like a lifetime ago, but Hillary was first pick among blacks back then.

    When proven wrong honest people re-evaluate their assumptions. Ideologues don’t. Their too married, intellectually and often emotionally, to their theories…like rush Limbaugh unwilling to acknowledge a failure of capitalism, or paul krugamn unable to admit the clintons played the race card.

    The recalibration of the extent of American racism in the face of Obama rise, is wholly appropriate.

  15. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Speaking of Obama, I found this article that explains what Obama’s relationship with his constituency should really be:

    http://www.alternet.org/democracy/140035

  16. Nate wrote:

    Slightly off topic but related – has there been followup of the turnaround on military tribunals (and photos of POW abuse/warcrimes and continuing rendition s)?
    A viewpoint of the feedback in europe seems to be that – yeah, Obama was elected, said some nice things, but American foreign policy (and domestic actuality) is reverting to type.

    Vis-avis walmart vs whole food market. Kinder marketing and image but still the same methods, core dogma and effects. From an oustide of the states perpective, a similar thing looms to be happening on the perception of racial equality. And also seemed to be one of the deliberate subtexts of the obama campagn – Assugation of mainstream guilt without actually having to do anything subtantive (or suffer any pain) about it. Ala Tony Blair.

    As particpants in a genenrally pretty pro obama forum (which was also the mod/host/owning corporation’s position) during the election how do contributors feel about it?

  17. keith wrote:

    I think a post racial society is an illusion that they create to basically get away with racial acts and discrimination.
    I think they are using Obama as a tool to justify they’re ideology of equality and dismiss the act of being racist or institutional racism.
    We know they will never be able to get away with using the post racial perception with a Mcain or Clinton as president.
    I Hope that most people will be able to see through this smoke cloud.