The Invisible Man

by hilzoy

Of all the things people have said recently on the subject of Barack Obama's negritude, the stupidest comes from a predictable source: CNN's Beck, on his radio show:

"BECK: Yeah, I -- you know, I was driving in today, and I was seeing -- because I saw this piece with him on 60 Minutes -- and I thought to myself, he is -- he's very white in many ways.

GIORDANO: Uh-huh.

BECK: And I thought to myself: Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, "What does he mean, 'He's very white?' " He is. He's very white."

[Ed.: No, Beck, you can't say that. The problem is not that the PC thought police disapprove; it's that it's just plain stupid. Also, we know what 'white' means in this context. It means 'articulate.' Just don't go there.]

Beck goes on, now talking to his baffled producer:

"BECK: He is -- he's very -- he is -- he's colorless. He is colorless.

STU: So he's clear?

BECK: When he says -- yes. When he said, you don't notice his color, as a white guy -- and I don't know if African-Americans feel the same way -- but for whites, I think he's colorless. You don't notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean? You see him -- listen to me, listen to me.

STU: I'm trying.

BECK: You see him colorless --

STU: Yeah.

BECK: -- OK, until he starts talking about race issues and he says things, like on this 60 Minutes piece last night, he said, "When I hail a cab." And I thought, "What?" And then all of a sudden, I noticed his color."

Ah. Colorless. Back in the day, a friend of mine and I used to refer to ourselves as pigmentationally challenged, but apparently we've got nothing on Barack Obama: he literally has no color at all. That explains why he always wears a hat and dark glasses, and has those bandages on his face:

The wonderful thing about Obama's having no color is that it prevents people like Beck from being able to tell that he's black -- until he mentions hailing a cab, at which point his actual features briefly become visible, before fading away again.

This explains a lot.

Beck continues:

"BECK: But, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So when I say -- I mean, he's colorless -- or, for whites, he might as well be white, he's white. And yet, I guarantee you, there will be blogs today that will have me being a racist because I say that."

Ya think? OK, I'll bite: saying that people whose race is salient to Beck are black (or whatever other non-white race the person in question is), while people whose race is not salient to Beck are white -- that white is the color we all turn when Beck stops noticing our actual ethnic identity -- is racist. Moreover, it's stupid.

"However, if somebody in the African-American community say, "He's not black," well, then, they're not racists. I am. But they're not."

Actually, I think it is different when someone who's black wonders about whether someone else is "really black" than when someone who's white does. Moreover, I think that what's racist about what Beck said is less the idea that being really black requires that you act a certain way than the assumption that being white is the default state, and therefore that if Obama isn't what Beck thinks of as "black", he must therefore be "white." And the pieces I've read by black authors (e.g., Debra Dickerson) who have said that Obama isn't really black have not gone on to say that he must therefore be white.

That said, I think that saying that someone who is, and identifies himself as, black is not "really black" is pernicious and wrong. (Similarly for 'not really Asian', 'not really a woman', and so forth.) I have had friends who have been through this, including one (a descendant of slaves! no mere immigrant!) who was "whitelisted" by the students at his historically black college for the crime of writing about a white philosopher. This is hurtful and stupid.

It also has the very unfortunate effect of fixing what counts as being "really black" in amber. In reality, you'd expect each generation to define their own take on what it means to be black (female, Asian, Jewish...) for themselves. But when people get slammed for not being sufficiently black (female, Asian, Jewish...), the effect is to define the culture, behavior and mores that are thought to be characteristic of some group of blacks at a given time as "real blackness", and to add to the already difficult task of working one's identity out for oneself the pain of being told that you are a traitor to your heritage.

That said, I do think there's something that leads people to say this, even though I think they're expressing it in a pernicious way; that it's not just what Brent Staples called 'the race police', or (Gwen Ifill) "some folks who haven’t been invited to the party." (Not that I think either couldn't be out there. Hilzoy's Law of Large Numbers suggests that they are.)

To see why I think there's something else going on, consider an article about blacks' response to Obama that appeared in the NYT a couple of days after the Biden flap (it's behind the firewall now.) In it, several people described Obama as not being from this country:

"When you think of a president, you think of an American," said Mr. Lanier, a 58-year-old barber who is still considering whether to support Mr. Obama. "We've been taught that a president should come from right here, born, raised, bred, fed in America. To go outside and bring somebody in from another nationality, now that doesn't feel right to some people."

OK: maybe Mr. Lanier doesn't follow politics all that closely, and is confused by Obama's name. But what to make of this?

"He's going to have to win over some African-Americans," said Mr. Walters, who is black and heads the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland. "They have a right to be somewhat suspicious of people who come into the country and don't share their experience."

I would have thought that the head of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland would know something about African-American leaders as part of his job, and that his thinking that Obama had "come into the country", rather than being born here, is as odd as it would have been had Mr. Lanier confused his razor with a curling iron. What's even odder, neither the reporter nor any blog I read remarked on this at the time.

I assume that when several people make an otherwise inexplicable mistake, there's probably something they don't know how to express that lies behind it. I am obviously not the best person to say what it is. So I'll just append two statements people have made about Obama as guesses. First:

"Obama's appeal to white voters also has left some black activists questioning the depth of his links to the black community, said Conrad Worrill, director of inner-city studies at Northeastern Illinois University.

"When white folks begin to put their arms around a black person, there's always suspicion," he said. "The question is: Will this generation of new, college-trained beneficiaries of the black political power movement in America fight for black political interests?""

I imagine there are two versions of this. The first is a simple question, which might be answered by citing Obama's work as a community organizer working in black communities and as a civil rights lawyer. The second would be a kind of bone-deep suspicion and fear of disappointment, which would probably not be nearly as easy to put to rest.

Second:

"Whites, on the other hand, are engaged in a paroxysm of self-congratulation; he's the equivalent of Stephen Colbert's "black friend." Swooning over nice, safe Obama means you aren't a racist. I honestly can't look without feeling pity, and indeed mercy, at whites' need for absolution. For all our sakes, it seemed (again) best not to point out the obvious: You're not embracing a black man, a descendant of slaves. You're replacing the black man with an immigrant of recent African descent of whom you can approve without feeling either guilty or frightened. If he were Ronald Washington from Detroit, even with the same résumé, he wouldn't be getting this kind of love."

To me, that's an unbearably sad statement, not just because I think it's true, but because I hate to think of people believing in their bones that many of their fellow citizens will never fully embrace someone like them.

Comments

[Ara]

My God, Obama just makes people's head explode.

It's not so much that people oppose him as that they are just befuddled by him. Every day I'm liking Obama's chances more and more, and I'm starting to think that this really is his best shot at running, considering his star power. Better to run now than wait four or eight years for the buzz around him to diminish.

The whole clip is really worth listening to, for Beck's fumbling idiocy.

[wonkie (lily)]

Pretty funny to watch the rightwing groping for a way to attack him. This attack came just a day or two after Obama was attacked for referencing his youthful respect for malcolm X and Tucker's claim that Obama was a seperatist.

A colorless, possibly white, Malcolm X-loving seperatist.

[Jackmormon]

Don't forget that because his message is so inspiring, he just might be the Antichrist.

(If you have a couple of hours, read through the thread: it's the first hit on most permutations of obama+antichrist, and it's attracted every sort of loon.)

[hilzoy]

They have a problem with his liking Malcolm X when he was young? Sheesh. I read the Autobiography when I was 12, and decided I wanted to be a Black Muslim. It took a few days to realize that that wasn't really an option. It's a really good book.

[liberal japonicus]

I have to admit, I feel really bad following the talk from the black community about Obama's blackness though. Not that I blame them, but I feel like if I enthusiastically support Obama, I am overcompensating. I don't think I am, but the only proof I can muster is saying I know me and that's not what I'm doing. While the last quote is well targeted, the inverse seems like a lot of relationships I've found myself in, where you get told that if you really loved someone, you'd embrace their faults as well as their good points.

[KCinDC]

A colorless, possibly white, Malcolm X-loving seperatist.

Reminds me of Ned Lamont, the wild-eyed far leftist closet Republican who used to vote for Lieberman.

[hilzoy]

lj: the only remedy I've ever found for that is to work as hard as you can to root out any residual racism, direct any available overcompensation there, and then let yourself trust your own judgment. I think second-guessing your judgment, as opposed to working hard in the background to make sure it's good judgment, just leads in circles. Imho.

Jackmormon: you have made my evening. If anyone but me hadn't seen the original thread that Kriston linked to, it's here, and it's hysterical.

(1m n ur electorl system, eating ur soulz!!!)

[Jonas Cord Jr.]

Ara said, "My God, Obama just makes people's head explode," which is true, and also true of race in general if you think about it for too long.

Debra Dickerson is suffering from this head-explosion-syndrome, pretty clearly:

"Whites, on the other hand, are engaged in a paroxysm of self-congratulation; he's the equivalent of Stephen Colbert's "black friend." Swooning over nice, safe Obama means you aren't a racist. I honestly can't look without feeling pity, and indeed mercy, at whites' need for absolution.

I know what she is talking about here, but she's ignoring the flip side of this phenomenon. There are plenty of white people who support (or claim to) radical Black activists for exactly the same reason, i.e. to definitively prove that they aren't racist and diminish their guilt. It's silly and superficial in both cases.

What's more, defining blackness in contradistinction to "nice" and "safe" would be considered, you know, racist under rational circumstances. She should be thankful that conversations about race are almost never rational discourse!

For all our sakes, it seemed (again) best not to point out the obvious: You're not embracing a black man, a descendant of slaves. You're replacing the black man with an immigrant of recent African descent of whom you can approve without feeling either guilty or frightened. If he were Ronald Washington from Detroit, even with the same résumé, he wouldn't be getting this kind of love."

It's as if she doesn't believe in the existence of descendants of slaves in America who are moderate and appeal across ethnic lines. She's really trying to conflate every aspect of her personal ideologies and agendas with "blackness," which is an understandable impulse (ethnicity sometimes seems to be nothing more than an invitation to do just that) but its not a claim that could survive intellectual scrutiny.

And frankly, the idea that people should be excited about a national campaign by any mayor of Detroit from the past thirty years, black or white, is absurd on its face.

[Anarch]

There was an interesting interview on Colbert with a black journalist whose name escapes me right now, where the latter argued that Obama wasn't black because "black" includes a specifically American social background that Obama doesn't possess. I think the social point is a valid one, though the linguistic one is crap.

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, Obama's reactivating the worst on both sides. It'd be a pass-the-popcorn moment, if it weren't so frigging tragic.

Not white enough. Not black enough. Not black at all, because not descended of slaves in the US.

Screw that. Screw all of it. I don't embrace Obama because he's black, or because he's black-but-not-really, or because he's colorless; I take him for what he is and says and does. Novel concept, I know.

The worst of the tragedy is Obama's a black man, actually committed to furthering the cause of black people, subjected to racism by blacks. It's almost as if Jesse Jackson might be preferable.

I could take Obama or leave him, politically, but I'd be inclined to take him in part because he seems more inclined to want to do something positive than to indulge in political brickbattery.

[hilzoy]

Jonas: if you read Dickerson's article, she doesn't deny the existence of moderate blacks at all. And by 'nice, safe Obama' I think she pretty clearly means: he feels nice and safe to whites, because he doesn't remind us of slavery. Likewise, I thought that the point of saying that Obama, unlike the descendants of slaves, is someone 'of whom you can approve without feeling either guilty or frightened', the point wasn't that the descendants of slaves are all genuinely scary people (let alone not moderate -- where did that come from?), but that they don't make whites feel guilty and frightened, because, again, they don't remind us of slavery.

In other words: she's not saying anything about what blacks who are descended from slaves are actually like; just about how they are perceived by people with troubled consciences.

[gwangung]

Some comments remind me of the Authenticity Police; he's not a REAL African American because his background isn't the traditional one.

I DESPISE arguments like that. I had my fill of them when I was growing up, when my "authenticity" was challenged because I grew up as the only Asian in a 99.99% white school and region. That was bullshit, pure and simple; I am what I am--and it was the same experience that a major portion of the Asian American population grew up with.

While it goes back to taking back control of the experience and of the culture, it obscures the fact that the folks who operate as the Authenticity Police have now become the opressors they were struggling with.

[Slartibartfast]

In other words: she's not saying anything about what blacks who are descended from slaves are actually like; just about how they are perceived by people with troubled consciences.

It honestly never occurred to me to consider whether Obama was descended from slaves, and now that I have considered it, I find that it makes no. difference. at. all.

Of course, there's the assumption that since Obama is descended from black Africans, that he's not descended from slaves, which I don't think automatically applies. But again: makes no difference to me.

[Slartibartfast]

it obscures the fact that the folks who operate as the Authenticity Police have now become the opressors they were struggling with.

I just wanted that to be said twice.

[carpeicthus]

He's blatantly ripping off Colbert's "I don't see color" shtick. There can only be so many spoofs.

[hilzoy]

For the record: I was trying to say what I thought Dickerson meant, not endorsing it.

I don't like the Authenticity Police. I really don't. I have watched them beat up on too many good people. (And I have to add: I really, really don't like their white counterparts -- the ones who will blithely pronounce about who is and who is not a "real" X, for various values of X. But, as I said, I took the NYT article to indicate that there might be more than that going on -- precisely because it was not an argument that got repeated, but a slip. And such an odd one.

[carpeicthus]

I'm doubly racist, because two of my favorite politicians right now are Barack Obama and Cory Booker -- Booker a bit more than Obama, but he's not in national politics now, and may be too committed to his mission to ever be. I have TWO black friends. (Shit, three … I chill with Rangel sometimes.)

[Jonas Cord Jr.]

Anarch,

... where the latter argued that Obama wasn't black because "black" includes a specifically American social background that Obama doesn't possess. I think the social point is a valid one, though the linguistic one is crap.

I think there actually is a linguistic issue here. We're having to resort to the label of "descendants of slaves" to identify the ethnicity we're talking about, because both Black & African American don't apply exclusively to the group in question. I don't think anyone is up for new labels, and neither am I, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Hilzoy,

And by 'nice, safe Obama' I think she pretty clearly means: he feels nice and safe to whites, because he doesn't remind us of slavery.

I'm sorry I didn't read the article, as it's sufficiently late that I didn't have the strength to jump through Salon's hoops for the upteenth time.

Anyways, if Dickerson's point is as you describe it, she's got it wrong. Among whites who are reasonably racially progressive, it seems to me, the issue is not being merely reminded of slavery. The rhetorical purpose this particular reminder serves is usually where divisions begin to emerge.

The mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, has been through a lot of analogous situations that are similar to what are happening to Obama, which is one anecdote among many that make me think this has nothing to do with his immigrant status. Cory Booker is the descendant of slaves, the son of Civil Rights activists, but was subject to similiar criticisms from around the Black community.

[Jonas Cord Jr.]

Of course, there's the assumption that since Obama is descended from black Africans, that he's not descended from slaves, which I don't think automatically applies. But again: makes no difference to me.

Oh man, the only thing that could make everyones reactions to him more hilarious and head-exploding is if he was descended from African slaves in Africa...

[skippy]

so being w/o color equals being white, in beck's world view. so white is w/o color.

that's ludicrous whether you are talking about color on a racial, light frequency or paint hue level.

beck is such a parody of himself he almost makes tucker carlson sound reasonable.

[Katherine]

Far be it from me to pretend to have any insights into racial politics. But I think "raised by his white mother and grandparents" and "went to Harvard Law School and often sounds it" may have a hell of a lot more to do with Obama seeming 'not really black' in some people's eyes than whether he's a "descendant of slaves." The idea that he's not African-American because he's "African" was what really annoyed me about Dickerson's piece. He was born in the United States. The Indonesia thing is atypical, but he was born in the US, lived most of his life here, and first went to Africa in his twenties. He's not an immigrant. And the idea that black immigrants are immune from racism is nuts. Look at Amadou Diallo; look at our policies towards people fleeing Haiti.

[KCinDC]

I also find it hard to believe that whites' reaction to Obama has much to do with whether he's a descendant of slaves. How many of them are even aware of that?

I can definitely believe that they may react to him differently because of what he says or the way he talks or how he looks, and I think there are other black politicians who are not immigrants but are similarly thought of as different from other blacks. There may have been a bit of that with Adrian Fenty here in DC (though since the majority of the electorate is black, especially in the Democratic primary that's the real election, the situation is very different).

[Ahab]

Growing up in Guam and only moving back to the States in my 20's (too long ago), I'm still not used to the way that race relations operate in this country. When the two voices are guilt and fear, it's hard to see how a dialog is supposed to get started (or what comes of it when they do start talking).

Historically you have two waves that crashed together around 40 years ago. Until then, the goal was to become 'white' (the Irish, Italians, etc). Since then, the goal has been to avoid becoming 'white'. No one is clear from either side what 'white' meant or means, but everyone knew whether it was either good or bad.

But then, due to race-based spoils programs, issues of identity became explicitly demarcated and those demarcations (not the underlying conditions) became tied directly to issues of economics, politics, and community. This was particularly true for the African-American community on whom most of these programs were focused. The politics that came out of this empowered the worst on both sides of the issue.

A situation was created where power derived from self-identification as other (but protected other). Due to this, a particular form of that self-identification (as deserving of special treatment due to inequality) became reinforced.

What we see from people like Beck is just idiocy. What we see coming from the African-American community is the internal contradictions of a generation under a situation where achievement was seen as weakening the community. The political incentives set up under guilt-based programs made this true.

The whole split on descendant of recent African immigrants versus descendant of slaves is not some vague issue. It's a question of political power and economics. Recent immigrants have far higher performance rates. This calls into question the basic claims upon which some of our 'leadership' has built their power. It calls into question claims about the effect of racism (which is still very real and utterly pernicious but not as much of a burden as it's made out to be). It calls into question the effectiveness of the policies and politics of the last 40 years. It calls into question the motives of those who have clung to power exploiting guilt and fear.

And now, if you haven't noticed, we've drifted away from the African-American community and are talking more broadly about those who play racial politics in America from all sides. Because when we talk about Obama threatening people, it's more that he threatens this tired form of racial dialog. Politicians on both sides have made careers on this. Political coalitions are built on it. Getting past it throws a great many things into question, but it's absolutely essential that we get past it if we're to add some other voices to guilt and fear in our dialog on race in this country.

[John Thullen]

Those of you who remember "Putney Swope" might find it funny to imagine every Beck observation regarding Obama being answered by the reply "no sh-t!"

[rilkefan]

"The problem is not that the PC thought police disapprove; it's that it's just plain stupid."

You can't wish people's perceptions away. I've little doubt that many many Americans of diverse backgrounds are getting to know Obama and having the same reaction as Beck. If that helps Obama's chances and chips away at the country's racism, then it's even a good thing.

The Editors think otherwise.

[Debra Mervant]

This depressing post reminds me of an experience at an international conference outside of the U.S. in 2000 where I (WASP woman) tried to talk tactics and politics to an American black militant, only to discover after a short while, that unfortunately no dialogue was possible between us, due to what are, for me, the inevitable scars of living through the Philladelphia race riots as a child, and his ever present suspicion of any white person's motivations. At least I can say that this gulf does not poison my relationships with the differently pigmented people that I deal with in my daily life in France... All this is very sad, nonetheless.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but that they don't make whites feel guilty and frightened, because, again, they don't remind us of slavery."

Reality check:

1. Most whites don't feel the slightest bit guilty about slavery. Chiefly because they know THEY don't have anything to feel guilty about, and they're right.

2. If blacks make some whites frightened, again, it's got nothing to do with slavery. Maybe with relative crime rates.

I mean, when Jesse Jackson admitted that when he hears somebody walking behind him on a lonely street, he looks back, and feels a surge of relief if they're not black, is it because he feels guilty about slavery?

[liberal japonicus]

Brett,
First of all, I don't think moral culpability is appropriately based on opinion polls.

Second, and more problematic, Hilzoy's point was not about everyday relations, it was about Obama as a presidential candidate. If the race between Clinton and Dole could elicit any number of articles about the changing of the guard from the WWII generation to the baby boomers, one can only imagine how much worse things will be if Obama wins the nomination.

[cleek]

with every new asinine attack on Obama, i like him more and more. so please, frenzied, shrieking right, keep it up!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't think culpability is based on skin color, which is about the only basis for pinning guilt concerning slavery on a decendent of non slave owners, who immigrated from nations where slavery was illegal, to a country where it was illegal when they arrived.

Heck, given the history of slavery in Africa, Obama probably has more recent slave owning ancestors than your average white American...

Further, I think that race based guilt is a terrifyingly dangerous concept, which given the realities of current crime demographics, blacks should be the absolute last people to want the public to embrace.

Anyway, my point was simply that the idea that the average white American is reacting to Obama on the basis of guilt over slavery is absurd. Maybe a bit of projection on the part of somebody with an inappropriately tortured conscience.

At any rate, the guy seems a bit more reasonable than the last few candidates the Democratic party puked up; If Guliani or McCain get the Republican nomination, he might even get my vote.

[Dantheman]

On behalf of the entire Delaware Valley, I would like to apologize for our contributions to political and cultural talk radio -- Glenn Beck, Michael Smerconish, the up-and-coming Dom Giordano, I'd even throw Terri Gross in there. I'll admit that Marty Moss-Coane isn't too bad (and shamefully obscure), but it's a long way down from her.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm not someone who obsesses over this, but I don't think it is over the top to wonder about how much our way of life is built on the unwilling contributions of others. The move of calling is guilt immediately places it in the question of moral culpability, which then demands a judgement of who is right and who is wrong. If you think of it as less a demand for judging and more a wide ranging consideration of why we have certain things that other people don't have, I think you might find it to be a lot more prevalent than if white people feel "guilty". And one region of the US in particular has to deal with it on a regular basis, which is why every author from that area ends up having it be a major, if not foundational element it their work.

While race based guilt may be terrifying, examining why you have what you have and why others may not (or vice versa), seems to be an essential part of being a decent human being, which extends to trying to understand one one particular race is in an advantageous position and another is not. If the average person is defined as people who are getting by, who really don't have a lot of leisure time to think about these questions, then the fact that the 'average' American doesn't shouldn't be taken as indicative of whether we should or not. I dare say that the average american doesn't think about torture very often, but that doesn't mean that it is therefore the projection of tortured souls to be upset about it.

So, when confronted with a candidate like Obama who has a genuine chance of being elected, we have to try and understand why he is the first. That some of this revolves around a discussion of slavery in the United States should not be such a surprising nor disgusting notion, imho.

[Phil]

Well, I don't think culpability is based on skin color, which is about the only basis for pinning guilt concerning slavery on a decendent of non slave owners, who immigrated from nations where slavery was illegal, to a country where it was illegal when they arrived.

As is so often true with things of this nature, the Rev. Lovejoy quote strikes again: Short answer, "Yes," with an "if"; long answer, "no," with a "but." While it is in many ways pointless to quibble about who owned whom, in what country, and when, there's one fact that there's no arguing about whatsoever and that is:

In America, in 2007, it is still -- generally speaking -- an absolute cultural and social advantage to have lighter skin than to have darker skin. Hilzoy's recent post highlighting the fact that employers prefer to hire white felons over black nonfelons is one data point. The fact that light-skinned BA holders appear to be preferred over dark-skinned MBAs is another. The fact that lighter-skinned immigrants have better earnings potential than darker-skinned immigrants -- even when they are from the same country -- is yet another.

That this is true 218 years after the Constitution was ratified, 142 years after the Civil War ended, and 42 years after the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act is distressing. The idea that it's completely divorced from the effects of 300 years of slavery is ludicrous. The issue isn't about whether white people whose families came here in 1950 are responsible for slavery. It's about whether white people whose families came here in 1950 have clear cultural, social and economic advantages over black people whose families were brought here in 1750, advantages which accrue primarily because of the difference in skin color. And, more importantly, what still needs to be done about it.

Anyway, my point was simply that the idea that the average white American is reacting to Obama on the basis of guilt over slavery is absurd. Maybe a bit of projection on the part of somebody with an inappropriately tortured conscience.

Eh, not so much "guilt over slavery," but the idea that people react to Obama differently than they react to, say, 50 Cent - or to choose a less drastic example, Marion Barry - and whether that reaction stems from cultural circumstances going back several hundred years, is hardly silly and is worth examining. I don't have an inappropriately tortured conscience, but I also don't write myself a Get Out Of Cultural Advantage Free pass just because my mom's side fought for the Union and my dad's side came over after 1900.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The idea that it's completely divorced from the effects of 300 years of slavery is ludicrous."

As it the idea that people today are any more responsible for "300 years of slavery" than they are for the War of the Roses, or any other historical event they took no part in. Guilt is inextricably linked to choices, you know; You can't be guilty of something no choice of your's was responsible for.

"but I also don't write myself a Get Out Of Cultural Advantage Free pass just because my mom's side fought for the Union and my dad's side came over after 1900."

Too bad, maybe you should see a shrink about this compulsion to feel guilty about things other people did. You are, of course, free to wallow in inappropriate guilt. Just don't expect most people to join you in the wallow.

[OCSteve]

I’m actually very interested to see how the primaries play out. Here we have the first woman presidential candidate with a serious chance of winning, and the first black presidential candidate with a serious chance of winning. (I know that she is not the first woman and he is not the first black candidate – I qualified with “a serious chance of winning”.)

And it is Democrats who have to take one or the other or both of them out. I think that the entertainment level will be high. Racism and gender-bias can’t help but come out – or rather, there will be plenty of remarks to be spun that way, and Republicans will sit back and spin it all as Democrats being hypocritical on the issues of race and gender.

Plenty of opportunities for pols to stick their foot right down their throat:

Two key black political leaders in South Carolina who backed John Edwards in 2004 said Tuesday they are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told The Associated Press they believe Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency. Both said they had been courted by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record); Ford said Obama winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party.

"It's a slim possibility for him to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed," Ford said. "Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose — because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."

"I'm a gambling man. I love Obama," Ford said. "But I'm not going to kill myself."

A black politician (D) slamming Obama, saying he would drag the whole party down because he is black and dinging Edwards in the process. And things are just getting warmed up.

I don’t get this kind of entertainment from my side because it is a foregone conclusion that our candidate will be a stuffy middle-old age white guy.

[cleek]

State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told The Associated Press they believe Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency.

that's a sentiment i'd bet all Clinton supporters share.

[Jonas Cord Jr.]

Phil,

but the idea that people react to Obama differently than they react to, say, 50 Cent - or to choose a less drastic example, Marion Barry - and whether that reaction stems from cultural circumstances going back several hundred years, is hardly silly and is worth examining.

The idea that there aren't volumes upon volumes of completely legitimate reasons why any person would find Obama more appealing than 50 Cent or Marion Barry, or that they don't dwarf any racial issues, I think is silly. If anything, if you're looking for the rather foundational racism and effects of historical circumstances in our society, you're better off looking at the more mainstream minority public figures. There's usually no good reason for someone to severly dislike them, so if someone does they're likely to reveal themselves as hypocritcally racist. It's kind of a controlled experiment.

[hilzoy]

Brett: Dickerson's original statement was: "You're replacing the black man with an immigrant of recent African descent of whom you can approve without feeling either guilty or frightened."

She's not saying that present-day whites are in fact morally responsible for slavery. She is saying that being confronted with a descendant of slaves makes them feel guilty. That can be true whether they're right to feel guilty or not, and that's a position on which she does not, as far as I can tell, say anything. Nor have I.

[Phil]

Wow, that's amazing, Brent. I wrote,

"not so much 'guilt over slavery'" and "I don't have an inappropriately tortured conscience,"

and you respond with "

Too bad, maybe you should see a shrink about this compulsion to feel guilty about things other people did. You are, of course, free to wallow in inappropriate guilt. Just don't expect most people to join you in the wallow.

. Why, the fact that you responded as if I said the precise opposite of what I said could indicate that you are a) mentally retarded, b) trying and failing to be deliberately provocative, or c) a jerkoff. Your pick?

You may want to actually read what I wrote instead of what you wish I wrote. And if you don't see a problem with the idea that employers prefer white criminals to black noncriminals, then I'm going with "c," above.

[gwangung]

"The idea that it's completely divorced from the effects of 300 years of slavery is ludicrous."

As it the idea that people today are any more responsible for "300 years of slavery" than they are for the War of the Roses, or any other historical event they took no part in. Guilt is inextricably linked to choices, you know; You can't be guilty of something no choice of your's was responsible for.

I think such a simple, binary reading of this statement isn't useful. It shears off the nuances and totally misreads what was originally meant.

[Slartibartfast]

Too bad, maybe you should see a shrink about this compulsion to feel guilty about things other people did. You are, of course, free to wallow in inappropriate guilt. Just don't expect most people to join you in the wallow.

Rare moment of agreement with Phil, here. Phil's not, as I read him, saying that he's wallowing in guilt over something he had nothing to do with. Phil is instead saying that as dumb as that sort of wallowing is, it's close to equally dumb to pretend that there's a level playing field. And I agree with that.

Probably what there is to do about the situation, if anything, is where Phil and I part ways on this issue, but that's another conversation. What there is to this point is: it makes no sense to ignore reality just because you've mislabeled it as something else.

[Phil]

Well, I think it says a lot more about Brent than it does about me that he can only quantify "wanting other people to have the same opportunities as I do whatever their skin tone" as "feeling guilty about slavery."

[hilzoy]

Phil: "he can only quantify "wanting other people to have the same opportunities as I do whatever their skin tone" as "feeling guilty about slavery.""

It has all sorts of fun implications, though, like: MLK's 'I Have A Dream' speech was one long paroxysm of guilt.

[Slartibartfast]

I wasn't being critical of you, Phil. Quite the contrary, in fact.

To expand on what I did say, though: the world did, in fact, exist prior to your birth, Brett, and hence what exists now is a sort of integral of everything that has gone before. To pretend that pre-Civil War slavery (plus everything that came after) has no bearing at all on the lives of everyone in this country is to ignore all of history, not just the slavery era. The very way that you have of perceiving things is almost completely shaped by What Has Gone Before; the wish that it ought not to be that way has absolutely no bearing on the way that it actually is.

I don't have to feel guilty about slavery to pronounce it evil. I don't feel guilty about the Holocaust, and I certainly don't have any qualms of naming that for what it is. Not equating one to the other; I could have as easily pointed to the Armenian genocide, or some other historical catastrophe.

And I can think all of that without, for instance, imagining that I have to hand my job over to a complete stranger out of guilt. Or if you don't like that, substitute your own set of implied consequences for seeing things as they are.

[Brett Bellmore]

"a) mentally retarded, b) trying and failing to be deliberately provocative, or c) a jerkoff. Your pick?"

d) Shouldn't post when I'm too rushed. But if you want to pick a-c, feel free, I've got a thick skin.

I think I will return to this when I actually have some time, which might be tomorrow morning.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"In America, in 2007, it is still -- generally speaking -- an absolute cultural and social advantage to have lighter skin than to have darker skin."

"The idea that it's completely divorced from the effects of 300 years of slavery is ludicrous."

Actually it isn't. Or at least not slavery in the sense you are using it. Light skin is (for reasons not understood by me) favored in all sorts of cultures that don't have that history. Nearly China, India, and nearly all of Latin America operate under the same principle.

[hilzoy]

Phil: I missed it earlier, but: posting rules.

[Gromit]

Sebastian Holsclaw: Actually it isn't. Or at least not slavery in the sense you are using it. Light skin is (for reasons not understood by me) favored in all sorts of cultures that don't have that history. Nearly China, India, and nearly all of Latin America operate under the same principle.

That may be so, but there's a lot more at work here in the U.S. than just skin color. Consider the study from a couple of years ago in which equally-credentialed resume's were sent out with names cataloged from the birth certificates of white people on the one hand, and names from the birth certificates of black people on the other hand. "Tamika" and "Rasheed" got significantly fewer call-backs than "Greg" and "Natalie".

Beyond this, Phil and LJ have both summed up my thoughts on this, and then some.

[byrningman]

In other news, countless kilobytes were devoted today to the unpredicted quandary of Mrs. Clinton's gender.

Coming up - the weather. Movie at 10.

[Phil]

Actually it isn't. Or at least not slavery in the sense you are using it. Light skin is (for reasons not understood by me) favored in all sorts of cultures that don't have that history.

And we don't live in any of them, do we? We live in this one, so let's talk about ours instead.

[rilkefan]

"The idea that it's completely divorced from the effects of 300 years of slavery is ludicrous."

SH: 'Actually it isn't. Or at least not slavery in the sense you are using it.'

Note "completely" above - surely you'd recognize _some_ effect.

[Ahab]

Acknowledging that the past affects the present doesn't mean that there is an imperative to remedy those inequalities. While occasionally it is necessary, personal and political efforts to do so tend to make the situation worse.

You subvert the will to power by making power a result of weakness.

[Gary Farber]

"To see why I think there's something else going on, consider an article about blacks' response to Obama that appeared in the NYT a couple of days after the Biden flap (it's behind the firewall now.)"

Yes, but this is why one should never, ever, link directly to The New York Times if the piece is available through the Link Generator -- which is on the right sidebar of this blog, under "Reference."

People can read the whole article right here.