While I finish up grading my 1000 papers (I’m exaggerating a little), I figured I’d open up the discussion about the election. We have two big primaries today in Indiana and North Carolina. What are your thoughts? Any pressing issues you want to bring up. Anybody in Indiana or North Carolina, feel free to let us know what’s going on in you’re voting district.

I don’t really know what people mean when they say “playing the race card.”  To me, 9 times out of 10 it’s really means “stop talking about race because I’m uncomfortable” or it means “don’t accuse me of racism.”  But you have to laugh at some of our white American politicians like Bill “My Office is in Harlem” Clinton.

Clinton is at it again complaining that the Obama camp “played the race card” on him.  It all started with an interview with a Philadelphia radio station where Clinton made the race card comment.  The next day when asked about the comment Clinton denied it. Check out the video and the text summary on this New York Time blog (Clinton has his finger up in the air, which is usually a sign that he’s lying or angry.).  Here is the text of the exchange where Clinton tells his lie:

Mr. Memoli: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

Mr. Clinton: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

Mr. Memoli: “On WHYY radio yesterday.”

Mr. Clinton: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”

Mr. Memoli: “Respectfully sir, though, you did say …”

Mr. Clinton: “Have a nice day. I said what I said, you can go and look at the interview. And if you’ll be real honest, you’ll also report what the question was and what the answer was.”

Then in a subsequent interview he followed up with this gem of a comment:

In the same interview, he offered a full-throated defense of his record with African-Americans, adding: “You gotta really go some to play the race card with me. My office is in Harlem, and Harlem voted for Hillary by the way.”

Nice variation of the some of my best friends are black line isn’t it?  I guess we should also note that there were several irregularities in the voting in NYC, so some have questioned Clinton’s “lock” on Harlem.  In spite of past black support for Clinton, Clinton has never been the pro-black politician people make him out to be.  His policies were not particularly helpful to African Americans, and he was more than willing to play on white fears of blacks when he went out of his way to attack a rapper in one of his campaigns. 

I get a chuckle out of people like Clinton and Ferraro making racist comments, and then attempting to use the condemn the condemners strategy to make themselves look like victims.  I think I need to file this under “whiny white people.” What I’d say to Clinton is–if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. 

While I think Barack Obama has done a good job walking the tightrope of racial politics in America, I get the feeling that he is heavily constrained by racism and racial stereotypes. This was one of my reactions to the now famous speech–it is always important to think about what is, and is NOT being said. For the record, I think the speech was good as a political speech, but as a speech about race in American it was so heavily constrained by the politics of racism that there were some important points that Obama omitted. Furthermore, the reactions to the speech steer discussion in some unfortunate directions, which is where most of my critique lies. Now before anybody gets upset at me for saying this, I don’t blame Obama for the subsequent discussion of his speech.  My critiques are not about the man as an individual, they are about racism and racial politics in America.

Let me start with some things I agreed with and liked about the speech. Obama (and the speech writers because I’m sure there were some) asserted that we don’t talk openly and honestly about race in America.  I think that is true–people either tend to deny the realities of racism and or they exaggerate, stereotype, or misrepresent when it comes to our differences.

I also agree that history has created a great deal of racial baggage that we carry around with us as people.  Moreover, there is an acknowledgement in the “speech on race” that these effects linger in the form of institutional racism.  Check out these few paragraphs (I referenced the text from Daily Kos.):

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point.  As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried.  In fact, it isn’t even past.”  We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.  But we do need to remind ourselves that so 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.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.  That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.  And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.  They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.  What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.  That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future.  Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways.  For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.  That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends.  But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table.  At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

With the exception of the comment about welfare policy, which echoes Ronald Regan, I think these are pretty bold statements for a politician to make.  Of course, they are not quite as bold when they are framed as products of past discrimination rather than products of both past and present discrimination, but given the conservative nature of political discourse, I can live with it.

A Few Critiques of the Speech and Reactions to It 

The comment about Obama’s white grandmother has been pulled apart and parsed by pundits, most of whom don’t have a clue about the dynamics of interracial families.  Later, in discussing this speech Obama described his grandmother as the “typical white person” and the same pundits went crazy. These pundits expect people to be racially consistent and they cringe at the idea of whiteness being discussed in any way that is not exceptional¹.  In the pundits’ minds, people can’t change their racial views over time, and they can’t hold contradictory views.  In reality, that’s exactly how people are when it comes to race.  I highly suspect that Obama’s grandmother is typical of most whites in her generation–they grew up with racial segregation both legalized and informal segregation as the norm and didn’t much question it.  Furthermore, intermarriage was illegal in many states during the much of his grandmother’s lifetime.  Although Obama has never spoken about his white grandparents reaction to his parents marriage and his birth, we know from surveys that during the early 1970s the vast majority of whites opposed interracial marriage and this opposition was still very strong even into the 1990s, when whites were asked about a family member intermarrying.  So it would be the least bit surprising if she had negative views of interracial relationships and black people.  It’s pretty clear that, like many white relatives of interracial couples and biracial people, Obama’s grandmother loved him and cared for him, and she held stereotypical views of black men.  That should not be hard to believe because it is the norm in many mixed race families, and in many people in general.

What bothered me about this part of the speech and the subsequent discussion of the racial dynamics of Obama’s family life is that I got the distinct impression that the underlying message Obama and some of his supporters were trying to convey was, “Hey, don’t forget; I’m/he’s white too” or “I’m/he’s not as black as you think I am/he is.”  To me that was a really sad revelation about the current state of racial politics in this country.

What made this worse was when it devolved into a common stereotype of mixed race people that I have discussed in the past (here and in papers I have presented at conferences).  The myth involves the belief that mixed race people are 1) signs of progress and 2) potential saviors who will somehow liberate us from racism because they understand “both worlds.”  On numerous occasions, people have treated Obama in this way.  They have viewed his mixed race heritage as something that bestows him with supernatural abilities, specifically the ability to transcend race and heal old racial wounds.  Having a mixed race family doesn’t not necessarily give an individual a special understanding of race, and being monoracial doesn’t preclude someone from being able to united diverse groups and develop an understanding of what it is like to be from “another race.”

I don’t totally blame Obama for reminding people that his mother is white–that is politics.  Obviously, his campaign thinks it will help him, and they are probably right about that.  I just don’t like the handful of narratives that we have developed about interracial families and mixed race people.  While the old narratives about tragic mulattos, the one drop rule, and sexually adventurous interracial couples are misguided, some of our new narratives–”the best of both worlds” and “the supernatural biracial uniter” are also misguided.

In the next post on the Obama speech, I’ll address two other problems I had with the speech and the reactions to it.  The 2 critiques/points are related to the following points 1) Are white “resentments” and black “anger” really equivalents?  Does the two way street anaology really work?  2) Why does “Working Class” mean white in our political discourse?  And what does it say that we single out white working class resentment (racism)?

1. Do you think they would have been mad if he described her as the “exceptional white person” rather than the “typical white person”? (back)

A few weeks ago I walked into my local supermarket to see that a 10 oz. bar of cheese was “on sale” for $5.39. I did a double take–maybe they meant two bars of cheese for $5.39. Generally, the sale on that brand of cheese is 2 for $4.00 or 2 for $5.00, but sure enough this was somehow supposed to be a sale. I’ve been complaining about this since last year–the cost of food is soaring. Last year, I could generally get out of the supermarket paying around $65-85.00 for two people, now I’m paying $90.00 or more. The higher prices seem to apply across the board–fresh produce, canned foods, flour/rice, and most dramatically dairy. Of course, I’m fortunate to be able to suck it up and pay the higher prices, but many lower income folks in this country and other wealthy countries are struggling, and in poorer countries, people are taking to the streets in protest because they are unable to feed their families.

A quick search of Google news indicates that we really are in a world wide food crisis. I’m not so sure that there is an actually shortage of food, but the crisis appears to be the cost. Some of the countries where people are struggling with soaring food prices, include–Afghanistan, Haiti, South Africa, Namibia, New Zealand, Ivory Coast, and numerous others. The situation is getting so serious that the United Nations (and the World Bank) weighed in last week :

The head of the UN World Food Programme has warned that the rise in basic food costs could continue until 2010.

Josette Sheeran blamed soaring energy and grain prices, the effects of climate change and demand for biofuels.

Ms Sheeran has already warned that the WFP is considering plans to ration food aid due to a shortage of funds.

Some food prices rose 40% last year, and the WFP fears the world’s poorest will buy less food, less nutritious food or be forced to rely on aid.

Speaking after briefing the European Parliament, Ms Sheeran said the agency needed an extra $375m (244m euros; £187m) for food projects this year and $125m (81m euros; £93m) to transport it.

She said she saw no quick solution to high food and fuel costs.

“The assessment is that we are facing high food prices at least for the next couple of years,” she said.

Ms Sheeran said global food reserves were at their lowest level in 30 years - with enough to cover the need for emergency deliveries for 53 days, compared with 169 days in 2007.

Several factors have been cited as causes for the food price crisis including: rising fuel cost, the shift towards biofuels (e.g. ethanol), population growth, the growth of capitalist economies, and weather patterns. The greatest criticism in the range of articles I read has been reserved for government subsidies for bio-fuels, specifically ethanol. Many feel that the shift to ethanol and bio-fuels is environmentally harmful, but now we can add soaring food prices and hunger to the list of arguments against bio-fuels1.

1. If you want more information of about the food crisis, these graphs from the BBC website have useful information about the food price crisis. The only additional point I would add is that (see the chart of trade balances) while some countries like the US will benefit in the area of trade, I don’t think that the average American is benefiting from this. A few corporate farmers may be getting rich, but the vast majority of people are hurting. We’re not hurting anywhere near as much as poor people in poor countries. (back)

I’m going to get back to regular posting soon. I’ve been really tired and busy over the past couple weeks, so I’ve neglected posting. Between nesting, midterm grading, sleeping, and trying to catch my breath, I’ve been a little preoccupied. I definitely want to respond to the Obama race speech…just to tease everyone a little I think there were many problems with the speech, and I want to address some of them in a post.

In the mean time, let me know what I’ve missed in the blog world.

If you have been reading this blog for a while, you probably already know that I was raised in southern Ohio, and my friends and relatives are spread between northwestern and southeastern Ohio. I don’t know what happened after I moved away, but all the sudden Ohio is a political hotbed (LOL! I saw this article on Yahoo! right after I posted: Why is Ohio such a strong barometer of the country’s pulse?). One of the infamous purple, swing states. Since I have a family full of Ohio swing voters and most of them are those coveted blue collar folks, they are every politician’s “friend” these days. My mom says that she and my Dad get called constantly this time of year, and Bill Clinton even came to my hometown last week. In the meanwhile I’ve been living in New York and Connecticut, which are about as Democratic as you can get, so I don’t get to see the crazy political ads or rallies that they get.

So…can somebody who’s actually on the ground in Ohio or Texas (or Rhode Island or Vermont for that matter) tell me what’s going on? Are the polls busy? Is the weather causing problems? My Mom and Dad went to vote at 7AM this morning, and my Mom said it was surprisingly empty. I’m curious what are other folks seeing? I know y’all Ohio and Texas people are out there; what’s going on?

Vivian Stringer is the head coach of the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, so many of you may have heard her name in the wake of Don Imus’s racist and sexist comments.  However, her story and her influence as a pioneering woman extends well beyond the Imus controversy.  She has an amazing biography, and she is undoubtably a pioneering African American woman.  Her influence as a role model extends well beyond her coaching background, as revealed in the press surrounding the book:

 A gifted athlete, she had to fight for a place on an all-white cheerleading squad in the sixties. In 1981, just as her coaching career was taking off, her fourteen-month-old daughter, Nina, was stricken with spinal meningitis. Nina would never walk or talk again. Still grieving, Stringer brought a small, poor, historically black college to the national championships—a triumph hailed as “Hoosiers with an all-female cast.” In 1991, her husband, Bill—her staunchest supporter, the father of her children, and the love of her life—fell dead of a sudden heartattack, but that same year, she led yet another young team to the Final Four. Through these dark times and others—including her bout with cancer, shared here for the first time—Stringer has carried her burdens with grace. Given her history, it was no surprise that she led her team to respond to Don Imus’s slurs with dignity and courage.

Standing Tall is a story of quiet strength in the face of punishing odds. Above all, it is an extraordinary love story—love for the game, for the players she has coached, for her close-knit family, and for the husband she lost far too soon. It will resonate long after the last page.

Stringer releases her autobiography today and I encourage everyone to check it out.  It’s often that I put up stories about the mistreatment of black women in the US, so it is nice to have an occasion to celebrate some one who helps challenge those images of black women.

Update: Here is an interview I heard with her today.

I found this site via a listserve that I am part of. Many of the articles are reposts of newspaper articles, but there is some original commentary if you scan through the archives.

Here’s the contact information via Media Matters:

Bill O’Reilly
oreilly@foxnews.com

Fox News Radio
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Email: foxnewsradio@foxnews.com

The Radio Factor
Westwood One
Bart Tessler
Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming
202.457.7998

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

I guess after teaching about lynching nearly every semester for the past 6 years I shouldn’t be surprised to know how ill informed people are about the practice of lynching. Ever since Clarence Thomas and his defenders claimed he was the victim of a “high tech lynching,” the term lynching has been misappropriated by politicians and other public figures. Thomas’s misappropriation of the term was a tremendous insult to the real victims of lynchings, who were tortured, beaten, castrated, burned, hung, and terrorized by huge mobs of whites. These mobs included white men, women, and children. Lynching was murder and torture as a public spectacle.

So when are people like Bill O’Reilly going to get this through their thick heads? On his radio show O’Reilly responded to a caller who alleged that Michelle Obama was a very angry and militant woman. Here’s the extended quote from Media Matters:

O’REILLY: You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they’re thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don’t agree on a lot of things, and I think I’ve made that clear over the years, but he’s trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there’s another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they’re rooting for Obama.

That’s wrong. And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.

In the beginning it sounds like O’Reilly is defending both Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama, but why did he have to add the lynching comment at the end? Either O’Reilly is a sick disgusting murderous bigot or he doesn’t have a clue what lynching is. I’d like to believe the latter. I’d like to believe that he hasn’t seen the pictures in the Without Sanctuary exhibit, and like most of my students he’s ill informed about what lynching is. Because if he isn’t ill informed, it would mean that he would want to be part of a group that tortures, kills, and mutilates, Michelle Obama, assuming he found “evidence” or “hard facts” that she was angry or militant.

It’s time to have a moratorium on people using the term lynching for anything short of killing and torturing people, whether or not it’s Clarence Thomas, Bill O’Reilly, or Golf Channel anchors. The misuse of the term lynching, whether intentional or unintentional, is a gross distortion of American history. Furthermore, the misuse and abuse of the term is an insult to the victims of lynching, as it understates how brutal, inhumane, depraved, and offensive this act is/was. Next time O’Reilly (and others) should educate himself (themselves), so he can find a less brutal and less racially loaded term.

For the past couple weeks, I’ve been in an out of federal court for jury duty.  I went in last week, and told them I could serve because of two doctor’s appointments, so they told me to come back this week.  I spent two days in court, and after sitting in the jury box for two days, I got dismissed on a pre-emptory challenge, which basically means the lawyers for the state or for the defense were able to dismiss me without giving a reason.  Below is a little background on pre-emptory challenges; they are not without controversy, especially with regard to race and gender.  I found a nice description from this website.  Here is an excerpt:

During the selection of a jury, both parties to the proceeding may challenge prospective jurors for a lack of impartiality, known as a challenge for cause. A party may challenge an unlimited number of prospective jurors for cause. Parties also may exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason for the removal.

Peremptory challenges provide a more impartial and better qualified jury. Peremptory challenges allow an attorney to reject a potential juror for real or imagined partiality that would be difficult to demonstrate under the challenge for cause category. These challenges, however, have become more difficult to exercise because the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden peremptory strikes based on race or gender.

Parties do not have a federal constitutional right to exercise peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are granted by statute or by case law. The number of challenges is usually determined by statute, but some jurisdictions allow the trial court to grant additional peremptory challenges. In federal court each side is entitled to three peremptory challenges. If more than two parties are involved in the proceeding, the court may either grant additional challenges or restrict the parties to the minimum number of challenges.

Peremptory challenges came under legal attack in the 1980s. Critics claimed that white prosecutors used their peremptory challenges to remove African Americans from the jury when the criminal defendant was also African American because the prosecutors thought that the potential jurors would be sympathetic to a member of their own race. This constituted racial discrimination and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), prohibited prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race. Under the Batson test, a defendant may object to a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. The prosecutor then must “come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.” If the prosecutor cannot offer a neutral explanation, the court will not excuse the juror.

The Court extended this holding in criminal proceedings in two later cases. In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S. Ct. 1364, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991), the Court broadened the Batson rule by stating that a defendant need not be of the same race as the excluded juror in order to successfully challenge the juror’s exclusion. In Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S. Ct. 2348, 120 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1992), the Court held that the defense’s exercise of peremptory challenges to strike African American jurors on the basis of their race was equally forbidden. Previously, the court had ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S. Ct. 2077, 114 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1991), that in civil trials a private party could not exclude prospective jurors on account of their race by using peremptory challenges. This series of decisions makes any racial exclusion in jury selection constitutionally suspect.

The Supreme Court has also forbidden peremptory challenges based on gender. In J. E. B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994), the Court ruled that striking jurors on the basis of gender serves to perpetuate stereotypes that are prejudicial and based on historical discrimination. No overriding State Interest justified peremptory challenges on the basis of gender. Permitting gender-based strikes could also have undermined the Batson holding, because gender might be used as an excuse for racial discrimination.

In an extension of Batson, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that the Equal Protection Clause barred the prosecutor from striking prospective jurors based on their religious affiliation. The court, in State v. Hodge, 726 A.2d 531 (Conn.1999), distinguished religious beliefs and religious affiliations. It held that litigants could strike prospective jurors whose religious beliefs would prevent them from performing their duties as jurors.

If you missed last night’s Super Bowl, you missed a great game. I’ve gotten out of the habit of following sports since I moved to the east coast and could no longer follow my (original) home teams, but a few weeks ago, I decided to watch the NFL Conference championship between the Green Bay Packers and the New York Giants. What attracted me to that game was the weather. It was held outdoors in below zero degree temperatures, and I wanted to see how they were going to play in those inclement conditions. That game was great, and of course, I was rooting for the underdog New York Giants, not because I live in New York, but because I enjoy a comeback story.

Given the excitement of the Conference Championship game, I was looking forward to the Super Bowl. Again, I was routing for the underdog Giants. I used to like the Patriots, but there is something very unsettling about the win at any cost attitude that has driven the Patriots success over the past few years. The Patriots are cheaters (or at the very least, folks who are willing to bend the rules). They spied on other teams practices to steal signals, and the NFL punished them with the loss of a draft pick, a team fine of $250,000, and a fine of a half million dollars for the coach. The Patriots were also undefeated and favored to win by almost two touchdowns.

The game didn’t disappoint. It was exciting and culminated with a game winning, touchdown drive by the Giants in the remaining two and a half minutes. The Giants were known for coming from behind and winning on the road, and they appeared to revel in the underdog position. They also emphasized team play over star power, and the often ignored defense was the primary difference in the game. To me this win was a victory for sportsmanship.

Since I was hyped-up from the game and couldn’t sleep, my mind started wondering to of all thing–politics. I realized that the parallels between politics and sports are numerous. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, which is the Conference Championship of Presidential politics. On the eve of the contest, I figured a I’d share a few of my thoughts about Presidential politics and sports, focusing on the contradictory values that influence the ways Americans views sports and politics.

Religion

One of the more hilarious and dangerous commonalities with politicians and athletes is that they seem to think God is on their side. They pray before the contest, and thank God and Jesus after it. How many times have you heard people say, “Without God, this would not be possible?” I have a really hard time believing the God has a favorite sports team or politician. Do people lose because God is against them?

Underdog’s

The underdog is big in sports, and while I think it’s a little less popular in politics, it is still there. There is the old saying “throw the bums out,” but at the same time, most of us love the bums we elect. For example, right now the favorable rating for Congress is very low, but when you ask people about their own Congressperson, they are much more favorable. We are also willing to tolerate much more inappropriate behavior from our own bums than from other folks bums. Nevertheless, there are times, when we do want the underdog to get ahead. If the underdog makes us feel good about ourselves, if the underdog symbolizes change, if the underdog beats incredible odds to make it to the top, or if the underdog reaffirms our belief in the inherent fairness of the system, then the underdog can become a fan favorite. The problem with this is that every side has a few skeletons in their closets, and we often overestimate the extent to which the individual politician or team is really going to change the system.

Cheating and Dirty Tricks

Some people want to win at any cost. They smear their opponents; they lie, cheat; and steal. I’m not cynical enough to believe that everybody does this, but I am realistic enough to know that it is common place. My concern is that when we become too cynical we are all to willing to accept lying, cheating, and stealing as an acceptable part of competition.

Experience vs. New Blood

As a culture, Americans love both experience and new blood. During the Super Bowl, the announcers informed us every time a rookie made a great play. We also got to hear about the deserving veterans, who finally got their shot at victory. In politics, we have a love hate relationship with veterans. The career politician is loathed, and re-elected over and over because of name recognition and the power of incumbency. New blood politicians are treated a little better than rookies in the sporting arena. Many people associate new blood with lack of corruption, which is probably naive given the nature of campaigning and fund raising.

The Comeback Story

Rather than giving the comeback story too much time–I’ll refer to the discussions about Experience vs. New Blood and Underdogs. It seems that comeback stories combine both of these two sets of values.

Social Inequality

I think most people want to believe that just about everyone has a fair shot to make it sports and politics, and our level of denial about the realities of social inequalities (in particular those of race, class, gender, religion, disability, and sexuality) is almost humorous. This gets particularly absurd with race. In sports and politics, we can’t even talk about racism without somebody trying to shut down the discussion. You didn’t have to follow the Super Bowl closely to notice that both the quarterbacks were the classic white guy quarterbacks, both the coaches were classic white guy coaches, the defensive backs for both teams were all black, the offensive lines were nearly all white, and the defensive lines were nearly all black. I’m sure somebody is going to be mad at me for pointing this out. The person, who I anger, is going to note the exceptions to these patterns, and tell me to lighten up. The same is true for politics. We’re supposed to believe that two people Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prove that we are somehow above racism and sexism. Rather than clinging to the reality of politics where white, heterosexual, Christian, guys with money run the show, we are supposed to focus on the exceptions. What’s also funny is that if you really want to add nuance to the discussion by pointing out both Obama and Clinton are only disadvantaged on one of these forms of social inequality, many folks play dumb and can’t get it. Instead, we’re supposed to deny, deny, deny–”the system is fair and if we worked hard enough we all have the same chance. Don’t rain on our parade by telling us other wise.”

Bringing It All Together

The irony of these values is that they often conflict with each other, and many folks are content with this, partly because they are wearing blinders and partly because many of our social norms require us to hold contradictory beliefs. I’m sure my own glee over the Giants wins is full of contradictions. Now, that the underdogs are on top, and I’m going to have to find another team that makes me feel that sports are fair.

Like most people I want to believe in meritocracy, even though I know it takes a lot more than merit to make it to the top. Even though I know that competition can bring out the worst in people, I want to believe that the “good guys” win in the end. Even the division of people into “good guys” and “bad guys” reflects an unrealistic dichotomy, but one that most of us use as a lens to view society. Nothing should remind people more of this sports and politics.

No one outlines the contours of contemporary racism better than Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. In his book Racism Without Racists, he discusses in depth the key elements of contemporary racism. However, he goes well beyond beliefs to discuss the rhetorical practices of contemporary colorblind racism. One of the rhetorical styles of contemporary racism he identifies is “rhetorical incoherence.”

Because the new racial in America forbids the open expression of racially based feelings, views, and positions, when whites discuss issues that make them feel uncomfortable, they become almost incomprehensible.

In the interviews used in his study, many people who were otherwise articulate people, had difficulties discussing racial issues. In particular, Bonilla-Silva notes that questions about personal relationships with blacks, intermarriage, and self segregation.

I was reminded of rhetorical incoherence and inarticulateness, this weekend as I listened to reporters discuss the Presidential election. I watched a discussion between 3 white reporters on MSNBC–two white women and one white man. Since this is 24 hour cable news, and they had to provide instantaneous commentary on the South Carolina Democratic primary, I expected them to have a few little stumbles. However, the two women reporters were very inarticulate, especially when the subject turned to whether or not race should/did matter in contest between Clinton and Obama. One reporter kept tripping over her words, and seemed very unsure of herself. She ended several comments with “you know what I mean,” and the other woman reporter would jump in with a yes. Any person familiar with TV and radio commentary knows that a reporter shouldn’t end her commentary with, “you know what I mean?” If a person has to say this repeatedly, then maybe that person isn’t making sense, and of course, one of the rules of being a reporter is “if you make a mistake just go on. ” In all honesty, I didn’t know what this reporter meant. She was vacillated back and forth between the “race doesn’t matter perspective” and the “black voters are turning to Obama perspective,” which is clearly a contradiction. What was clear to me was that this inarticulate reporter, with the help of her colleague, was going on self edit mode. She was trying to please two groups of people-those who say race doesn’t matter and those who say race does matter.

I’ve noticed this phenomenon all over the TV–many otherwise articulate people cannot talk about race in an intelligent manner. Some of it is the general ignorance people have about race. Most people, especially whites, also don’t seem to have clear parameters for discussing race in a true interracial context. Like nearly every reporter I have observed discussing race over the past few weeks, it was clear that the reporter above did not know the distinction between racial identity and racial ideology/issues. Moreover, like most people I hear discuss race, she was unable to make a distinction between “should racial issues/identities matter” and “do racial issues/identities matter.” This is, of course, one of the central problems with colorblindess. Maybe in an ideal world where race was never invented race wouldn’t matter, but we don’t live in that world. If I’m being totally honest, I prefer a forthright, articulate racism over inarticulate, double speak racism. It is often refreshing to know exactly where someone stands on race rather than having to watch an individual’s behaviors to see if words match deeds. I felt this way while watching this reporter. In fact, I was actually happy when she moved on to the next subject and her verbal skills improved. I was tired of trying to figure out what she was saying, and I was tired of watching her embarrass herself.

I don’t want to be too harsh on this lone reporter because I guarantee that, if you are paying close attention, you will see rhetorical incoherence from many people. You’ll notice it in classrooms, in interpersonal discussions, on blogs, and in many different areas where discuss of race occurs. Be prepared to see it often in this Presidential race.

In case you haven’t noticed, my blogging has been lighter than usual since October. Well the main reason for that has been because I’m pregnant. I told my co-bloggers, so they wouldn’t think I was abandoning the site..

Now that I’m in just out of month 4, I’m finally happy to report that my life doesn’t revolve around the fear of throwing up on strangers. :) For a while, from months 2-4, I was battling morning sickness, and the usual first trimester sleepiness. I’m still concerned about a few things like the fact that at almost 19 weeks I weigh the same as I did when I got pregnant. In fact, one of the most fascinating things about pregnancy is the way it has altered my eating habits and my metabolism. When I was in the throws of morning sickness, for some unknown reason the more unhealthy the food the more likely it was to stay down. I’ve never eaten so many McDonald’s Big Mac’s in my life. What’s even funnier is the fact that I ate that kind of food and lost 6 pounds. I felt like I couldn’t possibly eat enough food to maintain my weight, and I was even more shocked when I read that I was supposed to eat 2600 calories a day (300 extra calories per fetus). I’ve always been a person who loves eating and food, and by medical standards I’m in the overweight category, but suddenly, I didn’t want to eat, and these two little fetuses were performing liposuction on my thighs and butt. My husband kept joking about the fact that I had the incredible shrinking booty, which he thought was bad and my mother and brother thought was great. (Now, there’s a cultural difference if there ever was one–West African ideas about booty beauty and White American ideas about booty beauty.) Fortunately, I’ve gained my 6 pounds back, but I seem to be stuck right at the same weight. I promise I’ll write more about this since it really seems to be the one issue that is bothering me the most–I keep wondering how I’m going to gain 30 lbs in 20 weeks.¹

Of course, I’m going to write about the pregnancy because there are so many juicy issues. The gender issues are obvious, but other issues like body image (which I alluded to above), medicalization, racism, and the rampant classism/materialism that surrounds birth and children. I already have some good stories to tell already, so be prepared. Plus, when the little ones are born, I’ll even have some baby blogging to do.

1. For those who don’t know the weight gain recommendation for twins is higher, but doctors also seem to be all over the place in terms of what they suggest. My OBGYN suggested a 44lb weight gain for a woman of my height who is of average weight. Since I’m overweight, she suggested 30-35 lbs. (back)

Yesterday, South Carolina representative Jim Clyburn, who is the house majority whip, told CNN Bill Clinton has got to chill. Apparently, Bill Clinton has been getting a little too feisty with Obama and has made some criticisms that Clyburn thinks are innappropriate.

While I’m sure others were focusing on the substance of Clinton’s attacks, my first reaction was geeze Hip Hop has become really mainstream. When the House Majority Whip invokes EMPD, you know Hip Hop is an integral component of contemporary American culture.

For those who don’t know, here’s the EMPD video for the song, “You Gotz to Chill.” I’m dedicating it here to my homeboy (not) Bill Clinton.

This has got to be one of my favorite Hip Hop songs of all time. Where are Eric and Parrish these days?

In the comments section of this post on marriages between whites and Latin@s, there is a newly revived discussion about Latin@s and race. It reminds me of a real conversation I overheard just yesterday. I was sitting in a restaurant, which was almost empty. My waitress was Latina, most likely of Mexican or Central American descent. Since I was sitting in the back, I was near the kitchen area. The young white woman, who appeared to be the manager, sat at the table behind me. The Latina waitress came up to the white woman manager and started discussing her (the Latina’s) children. I suppose this was a continuation of a previous conversation, but here’s what I heard.

The waitress: My children are white. LOL!

The manager: Yes, they are very light.

The waitress: Well, my husband is very light.

The manager: Yes, he’s very white looking.

The waitress: I want my kids to be white.

The manager: Well, they are light, and you are pretty light too. Look you’re just a shade darker than me, and I’m Irish.

The waitress: Well, I want to be white, too.

Oh how I wanted to interject myself in the conversation, and I know that they knew I heard all of this. I sat there and debated about whether or not to keep my mouth shut, and I decided that I wouldn’t say anything. But the tone of the conversation was very interesting and depressing. It was as if the Latina waitress was trying to fit in by asserting the whiteness of her children, and the white manager was trying to give affirmation that she and her children could be white. They both were placing whiteness as something that was superior and something that you strive for. I’m not the least bit surprised that these two women felt that way, but I am a little surprised that they were so open about that conversation. I guess they felt that I was white, so I must approve of it. Of course, since I didn’t say anything, I gave my tacit approval to the whole discussion.

I don’t know about the children, but the woman who was my waitress, much to her chagrin, would have had a difficult time passing for white.

I should have said something like, “Well, there’s nothing special about being white.” What’s even more ironic is that I was deeply concentrating on my African American sociology syllabus and I had several books sitting on the table that reflected this. Their discussion helped me to lose that concentration, and soon after, I left.

This is one of those times when I am reminded of a strange aspect of white privilege–this conversation would have never occurred if these two women did not presume that I was white. This is why I cringe and laugh everytime I hear whites proclaim that they don’t hear people make racist comments. Most of the whites (and those who aspire to whiteness) I know prefer to make their racist comments in front of other whites.

As the Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama heats up, race and gender have come to the forefront of the discussion. I have heard many people suggest that we stop talking about race and gender and “get back to the real issues.” While I agree that most race and gender based personal attacks do not address real political issues, we should not forget that racial and gender issues are real issues. We should not forget that racism and sexism are still fundamental problems in the US.

Let’s think about it…

The race and gender gaps in earnings are real issues.

The mass incarceration of black men is a real issue.

Violence against women is a real issue.

Racially motivated hate crimes are a real issue.

Gender and race based job discrimination are real issues.

Race and gender disparities in health care delivery are real issues.

Affirmative action is a real issue.

Stereotyping is a real issue.

The list could go on and on.

I know many Americans are uncomfortable openly discussing how race and gender influence our political system, but this doesn’t mean that these issues are not “real.” Denial won’t erase social inequality. It’s a shame that many people would rather purge discussion of racism and sexism from the public discourse than actually work to give people an equal shot.

In 2006, inspired by Racialicous, I put up a post of the top trends in race and racism for 2006. Given the popularity of that post, and the general enjoyment I get from discussing folks’ perceptions of trends, I figured I would make a list again this year. Here is the list in no particular order:

1. Return of the Noose and Lynching Metaphors–Nooses were everywhere this year. Some think the Jena 6 Case brought the noose as a hate symbol back to the forefront. In reality, it’s hard to know if there actually were more hate crimes this involving the brandishing of nooses, since there are not concrete statistics kept on this. Diversity Inc., which attempted to keep track of noose incidents across the US, notes 67 noose incidents across the US¹. Whether or not the rates of noose related hate crimes were up, discussions of the noose and it’s connection to lynching were everywhere even CNN had a special called “The Noose An American Nightmare.

2. Rise of Black Bloggers as a Political Force– While I have noticed a big increase in the number of African American blogs since I started blogging in 2005, this was the first year black bloggers seemed to coalesce as a social force. Group blogs like the Afro Spear and What About Our Daughters helped focus debate on cases such as the Jena 6 and Dunbar Village. Now to be fair these were just two groups of bloggers, several more independent bloggers² also helped shed light on stories that were generally ignored in the mainstream media. In some cases like Jena 6, blogs were created specifically for the issue at hand, and those blogs helped organize thousands of people to write, march, and speak out. Thanks to the organizing power of black bloggers thousands of protesters turned out in Jena, LA and this was just the most widely known social movement fueled by black blogs.

3. Anti-Chinese Rhetoric–You’d think there was a vast Chinese conspiracy to poison American children and pets if you watched one media outlet after another report on product recalls. The problem with most of these stories is what they didn’t tell you. For example, most toys sold in the US are from China, so it should come as no surprise that most of they toys being recalled are from China. For a good comparison, checkout recalled food products, since most foods eaten in the US are grown in the US, you will see a list with many US based growers and companies. Does this mean we should not eat food made in the US? What reporters also didn’t tell us is that most toys were recalled for design problems not manufacturing problems, and guess what? The toys weren’t designed in China. Furthermore, only a tiny portion of Chinese made toys were actually recalled. The vast majority of Chinese made toys were safe! I think the popularity of Chinese toy phobia, is related to some of our general stereotypes of Chinese people in particular and Asians in general. It reminds me a little of the 1980s when similar comments were made about Japanese products. It seems that every time an Asian country starts to become a strong economic competitor these stories emerge. I’m not disputing that there are problems in China’s labor and safety standards, and I think the plethora of stories on rampant pollution in China are accurate, but the primary people harmed by these social problems are the Chinese people. Furthermore, the American news media’s rhetoric greatly exaggerated the extent and significance of these problems. I can help thinking that the smear campaign is also related to the upcoming Olympics being help in China, but that remains to be seen.

4. Xenophobia and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment– Immigrant haters were out in full force this year. In fact, the xenophobes have single-handedly attempted to turn the word illegal in a noun. Bigots like Lou Dobbs banged the anti-immigrant drum the loudest. They encouraged Americans to believe that illegal immigrants were destroying America. They opposed laws that would allow undocumented children, who were brought to the US by their parents, to get college financial aid; they separated breastfeeding mothers from their infants; they blamed undocumented immigrants for crime even though studies have shown immigrants have a lower rate of crime than native born folks; and some even suggested the US get rid of birthright citizenship. What is incredibly fascinating about most of the debate on immigration is that most Americans don’t have a clue about immigration trends and laws. Today’s immigrants are wealthier and more educated than ever, but this doesn’t seep into the debate.

5. Asian Male TV Characters– Late in 2006, Racialicious had a series of posts on the 5 (Part 1; Part 2) most fascinating Asian Male TV characters. There was a time not long ago when there weren’t even 5 recurring Asian male characters on network television. While there is still a long way to go, I think this was a relatively good year for Asian men on TV. I even noticed more commercials with Asian men in them, and as atlasien noted in a recent comment, several reality TV shows had Asian cast members prominently featured. Some may wonder why I said Asian men and not Asian women. Although I don’t have any numbers in front of me, the representation for men seem to increase much more rapidly.

6. “Model Minority” Black Immigrants–This was one of my predictions for 2007, and I was right about this one. There were several stories about African and Caribbean immigrants, focusing on the grand achievements. While some people think comparing African American blacks with foreign born blacks provides evidence that African Americans could really do better if they just “worked harder” and stopped “using the race card,” they miss how immigration law shapes the social status of foreign born blacks, especially African born blacks. Given the current structure of immigration policy, most of the African born blacks who are able to come to the US come as professional and students. The number of refugees and poor immigrants is fairly small, but the number of diplomats, professors, and students is fairly high. My partner and his relatives are good examples of this–He and his sister were the first to arrive in the US. His sister has a PhD, speaks 5 languages, and is a translator for the United Nations, and my partner was a excellent sprinter who was able to convince three Division I American Universities to give him track scholarships based on his race times in Nigeria. For both of them, it was the demand in the US for their talents, combined with a great deal of determination, that brought them to the US, but they hardly represent the typical Nigerian.

7. College Racism–Oh how I wish I didn’t have to put this on the list again, but a quick look at Vox Ex Machina,, which maintains the definitive list, reveals numerous incidents of racism on college campuses. From nooses to racially themed parties to rogue newspapers and all kinds of other incidents, students were busy this year. Often, the racist students posted their racist handy work on facebook and other social networking sites. I’m not really sure if today’s college students are any more racist than the college students were back when I was in college (mid-1990s). Social scientists could use survey data to track racial attitudes of college students, but the colorblind ideology is so prevalent that students know how to give the “right” answers even if their behavior belies such sentiments.

8. Celebrity International (Transracial) Adoption–I’m not sure if this trend fits better into 2006 or 2007, but nonetheless, it seems like every celebrity wanted to adopt a child from outside the US. Following the lead of Madonna and Angelina Jolie, numerous celebrities were rumored to be looking to adopt. I don’t think many of these celebrities will actually follow through and adopt, but there is something unsettling about transracial, international adoption being hip and cool. We are talking about the well being of children, but when adoption seems to be a media fad, I can see many unprepared and otherwise ignorant people adopting for the wrong reason and not respecting the rule of law like this French charity in Chad.

9. Begging to Apologize to Blacks via Al Sharpton–Apparently, racist whites have anointed Al Sharpton the “King of Black America” because every two bit loser who made a racist comment this year went begging to apologize to black folks via Sharpton (and sometimes Jesse Jackson, who must be second in line to the thrown). Don Imus, Michael Richards, Dog the Bounty Hunter, and I’m sure others who I have forgotten, all either went on Sharpton’s show or begged to meet with him. Do I really need to say anything else?

10. Using Racist Comments By Whites To Talk About How Blacks Need to Change–This may be number 10 on the list, but it was by far the most annoying trend of the year. It seems like every time a well known white person made racist comments the discussion ended up being refocused on how blacks need to fix themselves. I dedicated a full post to this topic in Oct. because I just couldn’t take it anymore. In fact, many of these discussions remind me of of children’s excuses for bad behavior. For example, let’s say I find little Timmy’s hand in the cookie jar. What’s the first thing little Timmy says, “Well Sarah did it, too?” Now, any good parent is not going to be fooled into turning Timmy’s cookie theft into a reason to punish Sarah. Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, many in white America act just like little Timmy, so racist comments from Don Imus and other whites turn into discussions of the pathologies of Blacks.

So there you have it, my list of the top trends in race and ethnicity.  I realize that this list is very US biased, so I’m curious to see what some of the readers outside of the US noticed in their countries this past year.

What do you think? Did I miss anything? Do you agree that these were popular trends?

1. Unfortunately, they do not specify a time frame for the 67 incidents. (back)
2. Sorry I don’t have the space to promote everyone’s site here, but a quick scroll through the blogroll on the left will reveal some great blogs that are often overlooked. (back)

In February last year, I put forth my predictions for the top racial/ethnic trends in 2007. I want to revisit this before I post my top trends of 2007 and my predictions for the top trends of 2008.

So where was I right and wrong? The original post is up here. You can go there and read the details of the predictions, but for the purposes of this post I’m just going to list the subject headings for each prediction, and after the heading I’ll list whether or not I think my prediction was right or wrong.

1. Asia/Asians are Hip and Cool

Well, this was a little true, but I overstated it a little.

2. End of Voluntary Desegregation Plans

This was true to some extent, since the supreme court rule against the desegregation plans in Louisville and Seattle, but it is going to take a long time for these plans to be completely dismantled. The Supreme Court is in dire need of another moderate or liberal judge.  If a Democrat wins, this may happen.

3. Biological Notions of Race

Does this ever really go out a style? :)

4. Latinos Becoming White

I was wrong; just flat out wrong here.

5. Non-African American Blacks are Popular

I think this was by far my best prediction. There were numerous articles describing non-African American Blacks as model minorities.

6. Anti-Racism/Pro-Racial Equality Blogs Blow Up

I’m not really sure about this one. There definitely were more of these sites than in 2006, but I don’t know if they “blew up.” They did grow.

So what do you think about my 6 predictions?

I saw this posted over at Mirror on America, and I have to agree. We should not be so naive as to think that people in the Clinton campaign are not directing their surrogates to play on racist and Islamophobic stereotypes of Barack Obama.

First, we have one of Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign leaders (now ex-campaign leaders) insinuating that Barack Obama is, was, or would be a drug dealer. Fortunately, Rikyrah is not afraid to call out the racial double standard:

Now, numerous previous candidates have admitted to drug use. George W. Bush spent the better part of TWENTY YEARS under some sort of influence, be it booze or drugs, and nobody EVER ASKED HIM THIS QUESTION.

But, THE BLACK MAN, who has TWO Ivy League Degrees, is ASKED IF HE’S A DRUG DEALER?

But, if Sheehan was ‘acting solo’/ ‘going rogue’, then what the hell was Mark Penn doing on Hardball with the same slime, not an hour AFTER the debate was over.

Thanks to our friend, sagereader, over at Think On These Things, breaks it down in this post: Evidence That Clinton Camp’s Attack On Obama’s Drug Use Was Deliberate (Make sure to check out this link, which sites evidence, suggesting the Clinton camp planted the drug dealer line.)

I‘d go further than Rikyrah. George Bush is certainly a great example, but we also shouldn’t forget President Bill “I Didn’t Inhale” Clinton. I don’t remember anyone suggesting that he was going to slang pot and try to turn the white house into the dope house. This playing off some of the most sinister stereotypes of black men, and it is a below the belt tactic. (Reminds me of John McCain’s black child.) And it seems like the media coverage I‘ve seen of these comments routinely ignores the drug dealer line, instead they just say Sheehan questioned Obama’s past drug abuse. ((The post also goes into a discussion of Hillary Clinton’s views on drug sentencing and how they may affect African Americans, which is worth the read.)

The other issue that keeps coming up is the accusation that (Gasp!) Obama is Muslim, and that seems to be coming from everywhere including from Clinton associates. Obama is not Muslim, but folks just can’t seem to accept that.