|
Getting past ‘us’ and ‘them’ By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Jan. 15, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. Back in 1995, I got into a discussion with a young 20-something liberal girl about the state of race relations in the United States. After a brief tit-for-tat exchange of points, I presented her with my opinion of the concept of defining hyphenated-Americans — particularly, African-Americans.
With a straight face, she looked at me and asked, “What are we supposed to call them, then?” What are “we” supposed to call “them”? This from a person who claims to support diversity and inclusiveness? Since I was in my younger years myself, I latched onto her rhetorical faux pas with all the tact a young, passionate person with sophomoric feelings has. Days later, after she started speaking to me again, she told me I was just taking an opportunistic cheap shot and she certainly is not a racist — because, after all, she has black friends. In the interest of having some local domestic tranquility, I let that one go. Nearly 14 years later, as we sit on the eve of nominating the first nominally hyphenated-American president, it would seem the “us” and “them” attitude hasn’t been let go. Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, we heard one story after another about how Barack Obama was the “postracial” candidate, since his mere nomination and subsequent election means the nation has moved beyond the deplorable racial issues of the past. To some degree, that is true. We no longer have Southern Democratic governors standing in front of schoolhouse doors chanting “Segregation now, segregation forever,” while denying some Americans the right to vote. In other words, the ugly, overt, institutional racism prevalent following Reconstruction and leading all the way up to the 1960s has been, thankfully, brushed aside. However, this kind of racism has relented to this awkward “us” and “them” attitude. We saw this attitude rear its ugly head in two ways during the presidential campaign. First, the establishment race industry questioned whether Obama could truly be considered an African-American — after all, his mother was white and his father wasn’t even an American, so there was no “slave blood” to be passed along. The second way was in the form of a “positive racism,” in that the American people should vote for Obama because he is black and anyone who doesn’t is quite possibly a racist. The race issue rose to such a level that many pundits were wondering if Obama would fall victim to the Bradley effect — a reference to Tom Bradley, the 1982 California gubernatorial candidate who, despite leading in the opinion polls, lost the race. Speculation on the loss centered on nervous voters who didn’t want to appear to be racist by revealing they were not going to vote for the African-American candidate. It is fitting that today, Jan. 15, is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, since one key clause of his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech is particularly poignant: “I have a dream that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” What makes this passage relevant is that if Obama had been judged by the content of his character — his lack of experience, his troubling associations, his Clinton-esque cabinet appointments — he may not have been elected, or at the very least, may have been forced to travel a more difficult road to the White House. But, at least from the way the mass media has portrayed his election, the color of his skin won out, as displayed by the headlines reading “historic,” “new era” and “first black president.” It would seem, from the media’s standpoint, that although “we” may be willing to give one of “them” the biggest toy in the sandbox — the presidency — he is still one of “them.” At least, according to the media. Government — particularly the one Obama is about to lead — has not been much better, still promoting programs for “them” in the form of racial preferences and affirmative action, since “they” can’t seem to get ahead without a little help. Shelby Steele, the author, columnist and Stanford University research fellow who describes himself as a black conservative, is a harsh critic of affirmative action, saying that the “great ingenuity of affirmative action has not been that they give Americans a way to identify with the struggle of blacks, but that they give them a way to identify with racial virtuousness quite apart from blacks.” In other words, affirmative action assuages “our” collective guilt and makes “us” feel better. As a side note, black conservatives sure seem to be judged by the content of their character, as can be seen in the treatment of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The American people, on the other hand, are growing a little weary of having to use the labels. Every day, we see Americans managing to get along without having define each other with the labels, even though many of “us” may feel a little awkward about how to refer to “them.” This brings me back to the original question posed to me all those years ago: “What are we supposed to call them?” Well, as far as Obama is concerned and despite the objections about him, after next Tuesday I will call him this: Mr. President. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
I told her I believed the phrase “African-American” and other related descriptive terms were just as divisive and just as insulting as the dreaded “N-word.” I expected that statement to be met with some amount of incredulity, but instead, the response I received was very telling.
