I have to admit that I am already tired of the presidential campaign. I used to wonder how folks could tune out of such an important event...now I totally understand. First, it seems like this election has been going on forever. I think that front-loaded calendar is a big mistake....what are we going to do until November...listen to the same ol' same ol' stuff. There have been a zillion debates, all of which have netted little in useful information for voters. The formats are horrible--confining candidates to nothing but soundbites. Charlie Rose has given candidates a full hour to flesh out their opinions and programs. We need to give serious time to the issues that affect our nation and 60 second answers will not cut it.
I am also tired of the Clinton soap opera. I will say it again...Hillary wants to be president yet every time we turn around here is Bill. The 1990s are over---what can she do for American in the 2000s? Can we trust that if she were in the White House he would not be pulling up a chair to weigh in on which course she should take? Also problematic is that Bill seems to be scared of Obama and he is going off half cocked on a regular basis...he got all red-faced on Charlie Rose when the topic of Obama came up...in another interview he's talked about Obama's message, etc. as being a "fairy tale," he was on Tom Joyner doing damage control for Hillary's civil rights comment and now in Nevada he's blowing up at another reporter, who is suggesting that a lawsuit related to the caucus locations is politically motivated. While the NYT's Maureen Dowd and some other pundits have suggested that Bill, unwilling to share the spotlight, is unconsciously sabotaging Hillary. She however has the ability to sideline him anytime she felt like it. Hillary probably believes that Bill is her ticket to the White House, but he may land her back in the Senate.
Lest I forget...why in the devil did the Clintons trot out Bob Johnson? Although he is a wealthy businessman he has little credibility among Black Americans..and certainly is no spokesman. Could it be that folks like Magic Johnson did not want to play the role of hatchet man while Bob Johnson---would for a future favor? Many folks believe that BET is a public nuisance and its content has exacerbated problems within poorer Black communities. Although that charge is debatable, what is clear is that Bob Johnson has done nothing, in relation to Black folks, that will not pad his bottom line...now he stands in judgment of Obama..PLEASSSE. At least Obama was candidate about his youthful indiscretions rather than giving some b.s. answer about not inhaling. Kick Johnson to the curb...or at least to NC.
People tune out of these elections because the candidates and their surrogates are not telling them how we are going to stave off a recession, educate our youth, create growth jobs in this country, get out of Iraq (in our lifetimes) or make sure that the sick can get health care.
I am off to Jamaica with my husband to celebrate our wedding anniversary. I'll try to get motivated when I get back. Maybe in the interim a miracle will occur and these candidates will actually be talking about something useful, rather than slinging mud and accusations to all of our detriments.
Peace
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A Win is a Win...But
Hillary Clinton won the New Hamphire primary....but not by much. If I were in the Clinton camp I would not be high-fiving. I suspect that they are still concerned that Hilllary has not been able to become the "people's candidate." Maybe misting up made her more "human" and less wonkish for some voters...but is that going to be enough to win the nomination? Barack Obama is still a threat and the Clinton machine knows it.
As we move into South Carolina it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Race, gender and religion on some key factors that will sway the race. Blacks make up approximately 47 percent of the voters. If Clinton goes to hard on Obama (or uses surrogates), it may strike some as having a tinge of racism and backfire...however if she goes soft, she may get trampled.
It's an interesting quandary for Hillary. But more relevant is that she still needs to shed this sense of entitlement. If she has been actively working to improve the country since her college days...that is commendable. However there are many millions of people who have also been out there fighting, so she has no rights to the job.
In a head to head with John McCain, Hillary will probably lose. Folks opposed to the war will balk, but Hillary is not for doing a Ron Paul and bringing the troops home immediately. He is also for a path to citizenship just like the Democrats. Also unlike Hillary, McCain has a long and distinguished military and Senate record to refer to. He's always been a maverick Republican, while Hillary has just jumped on the anti-establishment bandwagon.
I expect that Obama has that Zen calm that's going to make this a hard road for Hillary to conquer. Also, let's see how America's alleged Black president handles a possible real Black President. Right now he is not acting like kinfolk.
As we move into South Carolina it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Race, gender and religion on some key factors that will sway the race. Blacks make up approximately 47 percent of the voters. If Clinton goes to hard on Obama (or uses surrogates), it may strike some as having a tinge of racism and backfire...however if she goes soft, she may get trampled.
It's an interesting quandary for Hillary. But more relevant is that she still needs to shed this sense of entitlement. If she has been actively working to improve the country since her college days...that is commendable. However there are many millions of people who have also been out there fighting, so she has no rights to the job.
In a head to head with John McCain, Hillary will probably lose. Folks opposed to the war will balk, but Hillary is not for doing a Ron Paul and bringing the troops home immediately. He is also for a path to citizenship just like the Democrats. Also unlike Hillary, McCain has a long and distinguished military and Senate record to refer to. He's always been a maverick Republican, while Hillary has just jumped on the anti-establishment bandwagon.
I expect that Obama has that Zen calm that's going to make this a hard road for Hillary to conquer. Also, let's see how America's alleged Black president handles a possible real Black President. Right now he is not acting like kinfolk.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Obama and Black Doubt
Duke Professor, Mark Anthony Neal, wrote an interesting blog recently about Senator Barack Obama. In essence he ponders whether or not the masses of Blacks are reluctant to vote/support for Obama because they don't believe that he represents their interests. Rather since he is a politician will he give minority issues, minority status? What I do know for sure is that politicians are more apt to be concerned about the ones who helped to get them elected, as opposed to those who didn't.
I usually agree with Neal, but on this one I think that there is a larger problem. First, I don't think that a President Obama, even if he is inclined, could in 4 or 8 years substantially fix all of the social and economic problems that severely impact "Black America." At best he could use the bully pulpit to rouse attention to issues, sign some executive orders, push through some legislation or veto some legislation. However, history continues to show us is that a top-down approach to governing rarely works---just because something is targeted to happen doesn't mean that it will.
Politicians respond to pressure. Thus the system will change, giving perhaps a President Obama the tools and incentive to do something different when people are ready to step forward with their feet, wallets and ballots demanding change. Right now too many folks are still hung-over from the Clinton days...thinking everything is okay and that the problems that exist are the other guy's problems. Honestly, Black Americans, in my opinion, should look for agents of change in their own backyards, not in Washington.
It is not to say that who the president is does not matter, but for the day to day lives of citizens, it probably matters more who is on their city council or who occupies the offices of mayor and governor. It is the decisions at these levels that directly affect the services that people receive, the majority of taxes that they pay and to some extent, what goods they can receive. For instance, I cannot get wine shipped to Maryland (I know it's not a great hardship, but it still proves my point).
We also need to be real---Blacks do indeed have an outdated litmus test. Obama has an exotic background and two Ivy League degrees, so despite his years of organizing in Chicago and time on the state legislature, some folks think that he is not Black enough. For some reason, older Blacks especially believe that Bill Clinton is more Black culturally than Obama. That assessment maybe true if we are framing Blackness as only about the descendants of Americans slaves, but Blackness really encompasses a wider group of folks. Not only are all Black people not poor, they all don't have roots in the South. We need a definition of Blackness that does not marginalize folks who come from the African diaspora, don't have inner-city credentials and who maybe don't like collard greens.
A Black person should not support Obama simply because he is Black, he should represent the voter's values and convictions. However some Black people never determine whether a candidate is good or bad, they get stopped because the candidate's background does not seem to jive with them being down for the people. Ironically, Blacks don't seem to use that same standard for White candidates--if so, Hillary would not have so much Black support.
Obama is a politician and at the end of the day he does have to be pragmatic. He can't win a presidential election shouting about Black Power or reparations, but politicians and activists at the local levels can discuss issues in ways that best respond to their constituents. In turn they and their followers have the ability to force Obama or whoever wins the White House to actually change course---not talk about it.
Here is Professor Neal's blog---
A Sunday Kind of Love: Romancing Barack
by Mark Anthony Neal
http://blogs.vibe.com/man/2008/01/a-sunday-kind-of-love-romancing-barack/
"I want a Sunday kind of love, a love to last past Saturday night.."—Sunday Kind of Love (as performed by Etta James)
When the legendary Etta James bought the music and lyrics of "Sunday Kind of Love" to life, she could have been singing to the fragile state of African-American psyches at the time. "Sunday Kind of Love" was recorded by James in 1961, at a moment that was increasingly defined by the demands for social and racial justice that were emanating from the American South. Indeed the song, which is credited Barbara Belle and Louis Prima (among others), is little more than an innocuous love song about desiring a love, that transcends a one night (or one primary) stand. For some African-Americans, such songs could mean so much more, often framing the critical issues in their live in a language that was easily understood. At the root of Etta James's performance of "Sunday Kind of Love" were fears of rejection and betrayal, that resonated throughout black communities even as the most visible tenets of legal discrimination began to buckle. Was this an America that could offer African-Americans and others a "Sunday Kind of Love"? I thought about that question last Thursday night as Senator Barack Obama addressed supporters--and the nation--after his historic win in the Democratic Caucus in Iowa.
Indeed Obama's warm tone and fluttery diction fit as comfortably as a warm blanket last Thursday night--America seems to be in love with the man. Ironically though, the love is not as profound in the very communities that should naturally call Obama their favorite son. The failure of established African-American leadership (broadly defined) to close ranks around Obama has been widely documented and the ocean of non-black faces that engulfed Obama in the aftermath of his victory in Iowa, easily adds to the notion that Obama's candidacy is not reflective of the concerns of everyday black folk.
But I suspect that underneath the strident calls that Obama be subjected to some sort of "black conscious" litmus test (largely by those gatekeepers who stand to lose the most by a successful Obama candidacy) lies more complex realities related to issues of betrayal, mistrust and abandonment. If we give our love unconditionally to this man, in this context, and at this moment, will our hearts be broken once again? Will our continued investment in "black faces in high places" (an admittedly old-school notion) lead us to follow a man who will sell out our dreams--and our souls? Will our unwillingness to ride the "Obama Wave" leave us out in the cold, in the event he does win?
There are no illusions here. Barack Obama is a politician--one with the capacity to inspire the masses--but nevertheless, a politician, just as the vaunted Jack Kennedy, his brother Bobby, and even Harold Washington were essentially politicians. In other words, when pressed to assure his political survival--in spite of his idealism--I expect Barack Obama to be the pragmatist that the best politicians are. That pragmatism will likely, at times, be in opposition to black expectations. There are also no illusions about our current environment with regards to racial and social justice; Whatever hope some of us can conjure in support of Obama's candidacy is regularly met by the realities of police brutality, a criminally faulty criminal justice system, the benign and conscious neglect of urban and rural public schools, and a range of other issues that rarely get any play during the candidates' debates. Given the realities of race, class and gender, as it is lived on the ground, is this actually a country that could realistically elect a black man--no matter how comfortable he makes a white majority feel about him--as its president?
Many of these questions will be answered soon enough, but until then, I'll hold off in putting on Etta James's "At Last".
I usually agree with Neal, but on this one I think that there is a larger problem. First, I don't think that a President Obama, even if he is inclined, could in 4 or 8 years substantially fix all of the social and economic problems that severely impact "Black America." At best he could use the bully pulpit to rouse attention to issues, sign some executive orders, push through some legislation or veto some legislation. However, history continues to show us is that a top-down approach to governing rarely works---just because something is targeted to happen doesn't mean that it will.
Politicians respond to pressure. Thus the system will change, giving perhaps a President Obama the tools and incentive to do something different when people are ready to step forward with their feet, wallets and ballots demanding change. Right now too many folks are still hung-over from the Clinton days...thinking everything is okay and that the problems that exist are the other guy's problems. Honestly, Black Americans, in my opinion, should look for agents of change in their own backyards, not in Washington.
It is not to say that who the president is does not matter, but for the day to day lives of citizens, it probably matters more who is on their city council or who occupies the offices of mayor and governor. It is the decisions at these levels that directly affect the services that people receive, the majority of taxes that they pay and to some extent, what goods they can receive. For instance, I cannot get wine shipped to Maryland (I know it's not a great hardship, but it still proves my point).
We also need to be real---Blacks do indeed have an outdated litmus test. Obama has an exotic background and two Ivy League degrees, so despite his years of organizing in Chicago and time on the state legislature, some folks think that he is not Black enough. For some reason, older Blacks especially believe that Bill Clinton is more Black culturally than Obama. That assessment maybe true if we are framing Blackness as only about the descendants of Americans slaves, but Blackness really encompasses a wider group of folks. Not only are all Black people not poor, they all don't have roots in the South. We need a definition of Blackness that does not marginalize folks who come from the African diaspora, don't have inner-city credentials and who maybe don't like collard greens.
A Black person should not support Obama simply because he is Black, he should represent the voter's values and convictions. However some Black people never determine whether a candidate is good or bad, they get stopped because the candidate's background does not seem to jive with them being down for the people. Ironically, Blacks don't seem to use that same standard for White candidates--if so, Hillary would not have so much Black support.
Obama is a politician and at the end of the day he does have to be pragmatic. He can't win a presidential election shouting about Black Power or reparations, but politicians and activists at the local levels can discuss issues in ways that best respond to their constituents. In turn they and their followers have the ability to force Obama or whoever wins the White House to actually change course---not talk about it.
Here is Professor Neal's blog---
A Sunday Kind of Love: Romancing Barack
by Mark Anthony Neal
http://blogs.vibe.com/man/2008/01/a-sunday-kind-of-love-romancing-barack/
"I want a Sunday kind of love, a love to last past Saturday night.."—Sunday Kind of Love (as performed by Etta James)
When the legendary Etta James bought the music and lyrics of "Sunday Kind of Love" to life, she could have been singing to the fragile state of African-American psyches at the time. "Sunday Kind of Love" was recorded by James in 1961, at a moment that was increasingly defined by the demands for social and racial justice that were emanating from the American South. Indeed the song, which is credited Barbara Belle and Louis Prima (among others), is little more than an innocuous love song about desiring a love, that transcends a one night (or one primary) stand. For some African-Americans, such songs could mean so much more, often framing the critical issues in their live in a language that was easily understood. At the root of Etta James's performance of "Sunday Kind of Love" were fears of rejection and betrayal, that resonated throughout black communities even as the most visible tenets of legal discrimination began to buckle. Was this an America that could offer African-Americans and others a "Sunday Kind of Love"? I thought about that question last Thursday night as Senator Barack Obama addressed supporters--and the nation--after his historic win in the Democratic Caucus in Iowa.
Indeed Obama's warm tone and fluttery diction fit as comfortably as a warm blanket last Thursday night--America seems to be in love with the man. Ironically though, the love is not as profound in the very communities that should naturally call Obama their favorite son. The failure of established African-American leadership (broadly defined) to close ranks around Obama has been widely documented and the ocean of non-black faces that engulfed Obama in the aftermath of his victory in Iowa, easily adds to the notion that Obama's candidacy is not reflective of the concerns of everyday black folk.
But I suspect that underneath the strident calls that Obama be subjected to some sort of "black conscious" litmus test (largely by those gatekeepers who stand to lose the most by a successful Obama candidacy) lies more complex realities related to issues of betrayal, mistrust and abandonment. If we give our love unconditionally to this man, in this context, and at this moment, will our hearts be broken once again? Will our continued investment in "black faces in high places" (an admittedly old-school notion) lead us to follow a man who will sell out our dreams--and our souls? Will our unwillingness to ride the "Obama Wave" leave us out in the cold, in the event he does win?
There are no illusions here. Barack Obama is a politician--one with the capacity to inspire the masses--but nevertheless, a politician, just as the vaunted Jack Kennedy, his brother Bobby, and even Harold Washington were essentially politicians. In other words, when pressed to assure his political survival--in spite of his idealism--I expect Barack Obama to be the pragmatist that the best politicians are. That pragmatism will likely, at times, be in opposition to black expectations. There are also no illusions about our current environment with regards to racial and social justice; Whatever hope some of us can conjure in support of Obama's candidacy is regularly met by the realities of police brutality, a criminally faulty criminal justice system, the benign and conscious neglect of urban and rural public schools, and a range of other issues that rarely get any play during the candidates' debates. Given the realities of race, class and gender, as it is lived on the ground, is this actually a country that could realistically elect a black man--no matter how comfortable he makes a white majority feel about him--as its president?
Many of these questions will be answered soon enough, but until then, I'll hold off in putting on Etta James's "At Last".
Friday, January 4, 2008
Obama Wins in Iowa
I must say that I was shocked! Like everyone else I expected that the race would be tight maybe even a three wayish tie. I also thought that however it shook out, Clinton would have won. What I did not anticipate was that Obama would have win by 38% and that Clinton would end up in third place.
Okay, if I am honest I was skeptical that a state that is 96% White would go with Obama. When he made his speech last night it was surreal--- Barack, Michelle and their two daughters being cheered by a sea of White folks. Race aside, if that is possible, the family was young and fresh...there was an air of optimism that engulfed them. For that brief moment in time, the United States could forget that our reputation is mud around the world, we are bogged down in a war in Iraq and at home folks are scared about their financial future e.g. job security, high energy costs and lack of affordable healthcare ---we could actually see someone who could help us to turn the page toward a better tomorrow.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not sure that Obama's candidacy has to legs to win the nomination, it would be premature and foolish to count the Clintons out. The Clintons have money, an infrastructure and the willingness to play hardball with supporters (and possible defectors). What Obama's win does say is that people desperately want change and that may prove lethal for Hillary. I am not of the school that I have got to like a politican, I don't want to have coffee with him or her, I want the person to be a good and thoughtful leader. For me this means that I have got to be able to buy-in to his/her vision. So I am not concerned that Hillary is not a rousing speaker and is a little stiff. What bothers me is that it's simply unclear to me (and seemingly many others) what Hillary's vision for the country is. Moreover, she not allowed the press near her (her campaign would not even provide the press with buses in IA), so there has been little room to receive direct and un-spun information. When she does say something, it is a lot of doubletalk. For instance her tortured answer regarding NY Governor Spritzer's derailed plan to give illegal alien drivers licenses was painful to listen to.
Essentially Hillary has been riding on Bill's coattails yet she expects voters to feel confident about her abilities to run the country independent of Bill. Throughout her campaign I have been struck by the duality of her message, which has undercut her credibiity. Hillary touts the phantom experience that she gained as First Lady---not as a cabinent member or even a business leader. As comedian Chris Rock said recently at Madison Square Garden, he's been married for 10 years, but if his wife got on stage, she would not be funny. Experience is not transferrable nor does it come through osmosis. When Clinton ran for office folks were leery about a co-Presidency and that wariness has not dissipated. If Hillary is really about change and straight talk---you should probably stop Bill from campaigning for her.
Well it's on to New Hamphire....it's about to get hot up in here.
Okay, if I am honest I was skeptical that a state that is 96% White would go with Obama. When he made his speech last night it was surreal--- Barack, Michelle and their two daughters being cheered by a sea of White folks. Race aside, if that is possible, the family was young and fresh...there was an air of optimism that engulfed them. For that brief moment in time, the United States could forget that our reputation is mud around the world, we are bogged down in a war in Iraq and at home folks are scared about their financial future e.g. job security, high energy costs and lack of affordable healthcare ---we could actually see someone who could help us to turn the page toward a better tomorrow.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not sure that Obama's candidacy has to legs to win the nomination, it would be premature and foolish to count the Clintons out. The Clintons have money, an infrastructure and the willingness to play hardball with supporters (and possible defectors). What Obama's win does say is that people desperately want change and that may prove lethal for Hillary. I am not of the school that I have got to like a politican, I don't want to have coffee with him or her, I want the person to be a good and thoughtful leader. For me this means that I have got to be able to buy-in to his/her vision. So I am not concerned that Hillary is not a rousing speaker and is a little stiff. What bothers me is that it's simply unclear to me (and seemingly many others) what Hillary's vision for the country is. Moreover, she not allowed the press near her (her campaign would not even provide the press with buses in IA), so there has been little room to receive direct and un-spun information. When she does say something, it is a lot of doubletalk. For instance her tortured answer regarding NY Governor Spritzer's derailed plan to give illegal alien drivers licenses was painful to listen to.
Essentially Hillary has been riding on Bill's coattails yet she expects voters to feel confident about her abilities to run the country independent of Bill. Throughout her campaign I have been struck by the duality of her message, which has undercut her credibiity. Hillary touts the phantom experience that she gained as First Lady---not as a cabinent member or even a business leader. As comedian Chris Rock said recently at Madison Square Garden, he's been married for 10 years, but if his wife got on stage, she would not be funny. Experience is not transferrable nor does it come through osmosis. When Clinton ran for office folks were leery about a co-Presidency and that wariness has not dissipated. If Hillary is really about change and straight talk---you should probably stop Bill from campaigning for her.
Well it's on to New Hamphire....it's about to get hot up in here.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Chaka Khan Speaks
Singer Chaka Khan is about to take over role of Sophie in the Broadway production of "A Color Purple." The former lead singer of Rufus is known not only for her singing chops, but also for her attitude. Fans however tend to excuse diva-esque qualities in people who can actually deliver the goods. Chaka Khan does---her first studio album in 10 years, "Funk This Up" has been nominated for two Grammy Awards.
In an interview in the New York Times, Chaka Khan, who also worked for the Black Panthers talks about racism, saying, "Racism is still very much alive, but it has become intellectual. It's practiced in a very high-minded way. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's not blatant outright whupping and lynching like in the past. It's more psychological, and spiritual."
Chaka Khan's "I'm Every Wonder," was fundamental to my development. I hesitate to say that it helped me to become a, "Strong, Black, Woman," that's such a played out and problematic label---let's say, the song helped me to look within for power, to choose my own path, to be supportive in relationship, but most important---be myself.
Here's a Flashback: Rufus and Chaka Khan, "Do You Love What You Feel (1979)
In an interview in the New York Times, Chaka Khan, who also worked for the Black Panthers talks about racism, saying, "Racism is still very much alive, but it has become intellectual. It's practiced in a very high-minded way. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's not blatant outright whupping and lynching like in the past. It's more psychological, and spiritual."
Chaka Khan's "I'm Every Wonder," was fundamental to my development. I hesitate to say that it helped me to become a, "Strong, Black, Woman," that's such a played out and problematic label---let's say, the song helped me to look within for power, to choose my own path, to be supportive in relationship, but most important---be myself.
Here's a Flashback: Rufus and Chaka Khan, "Do You Love What You Feel (1979)
Friday, December 28, 2007
Reading More in 2008
Every year I do my New Year's resolutions. I sort of look at it as my outline for the coming year. I am proud to say that most years I did the majority of things on my list---that was until motherhood struck more than 3 years ago. It suffices to say that plans often go awry and things that were meant to be done, remain undone. It took a lot of adjustment---but I have no complaints. The little man in my life is healthy, happy and loved...that's priceless. Until there are more hours in the day, I will have to prioritize my time. That means everything ain't going to get done, or it can only get done after my family and my work are straight.
I am a committing to at least one thing this year...I need to read more. People who know me well are howling at this statement. Yes, I read alot, but not always the things that I want to read. I do research, I read countless newspapers, magazines, books, blogs and web site...and while they are all interesting, it's not the same as that vacation reading. I am not talking about Harold Robbins or Judith Kranz---that's not my style, but I am the reading that you do simply for pleasure.
So I am going to Jamaica for MLK, Jr. weekend and will definitely get in some pleasure reading. For the New Year I am also committed to reading more books from the African diaspora. I get to travel and listening to different music has helped to amplify and explain what I think that I have come to know about other countries. I just think that it's time to step that up a notch. There so much more out there than just Colin Channer or Zadie Smith---although they will stay in the rotation.
One domestic book that is on my reading list is One Drop by Bliss Broyard. Broyard's father was a successful cultural critic at the New York Times. After living a comfortably WASP existence in Connecticut, as an adult she learns that her father was not "White," at least under the "one drop" of Black blood rule. As the story goes, the elder Broyard decided to "pass" as White---perhaps like other members of his family. The author finds out that there are "Black" Broyards and "White" Broyards. Part of my interest has to do with how the author's identity has changed, if at all, after this revelation.
I am interested in the story because it makes us have to examine our thoughts about race. Is race biological, cultural, a malleable social construct or what? It seems like a really dumb question until you go to other countries...or you look at someone in the US whom you presume to be "White" who says she is Black. Or meet a darker skinned person who recites his familial lineage---including slavemasters and undercover lovers, so that you are clear that he are not "Black." Americans have a very fixed notion of race, but that is not the case else where in the world. I am not the lightest light, but abroad there have been times when I was not considered "Black." In these instances the presumption was that one of my parents was White. People will say, "Black people are much darker." It's an odd space, since I never think of myself as anything but Black. My own experiences have made me wonder how a person's world view changes if he has the capacity to inhabit another identity. I wonder whether the burden of "passing" was the secrecy, rather than joining another race. It seem that the paradox about race may that one can be more flexible to define oneselves, the lighter one's skin is.
I am a committing to at least one thing this year...I need to read more. People who know me well are howling at this statement. Yes, I read alot, but not always the things that I want to read. I do research, I read countless newspapers, magazines, books, blogs and web site...and while they are all interesting, it's not the same as that vacation reading. I am not talking about Harold Robbins or Judith Kranz---that's not my style, but I am the reading that you do simply for pleasure.
So I am going to Jamaica for MLK, Jr. weekend and will definitely get in some pleasure reading. For the New Year I am also committed to reading more books from the African diaspora. I get to travel and listening to different music has helped to amplify and explain what I think that I have come to know about other countries. I just think that it's time to step that up a notch. There so much more out there than just Colin Channer or Zadie Smith---although they will stay in the rotation.
One domestic book that is on my reading list is One Drop by Bliss Broyard. Broyard's father was a successful cultural critic at the New York Times. After living a comfortably WASP existence in Connecticut, as an adult she learns that her father was not "White," at least under the "one drop" of Black blood rule. As the story goes, the elder Broyard decided to "pass" as White---perhaps like other members of his family. The author finds out that there are "Black" Broyards and "White" Broyards. Part of my interest has to do with how the author's identity has changed, if at all, after this revelation.
I am interested in the story because it makes us have to examine our thoughts about race. Is race biological, cultural, a malleable social construct or what? It seems like a really dumb question until you go to other countries...or you look at someone in the US whom you presume to be "White" who says she is Black. Or meet a darker skinned person who recites his familial lineage---including slavemasters and undercover lovers, so that you are clear that he are not "Black." Americans have a very fixed notion of race, but that is not the case else where in the world. I am not the lightest light, but abroad there have been times when I was not considered "Black." In these instances the presumption was that one of my parents was White. People will say, "Black people are much darker." It's an odd space, since I never think of myself as anything but Black. My own experiences have made me wonder how a person's world view changes if he has the capacity to inhabit another identity. I wonder whether the burden of "passing" was the secrecy, rather than joining another race. It seem that the paradox about race may that one can be more flexible to define oneselves, the lighter one's skin is.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
What Would James Baldwin Think?
I came across a short essay by Kai Wright in Colorlines that discussed how little has changed since James Baldwin published his first collection, Notes of Native Son in 1955. While Wright is correct that there is little substantive interest in changing conditions in the ghettos of America, I believe that today Black Americans have far more opportunities than James Baldwin could have imagined when he died in 1987.
Whether or not one agrees with the politics of Barack Obama, Colin Powell or Condi Rice----everyone knows that in 1955 they could have never achieved their respective levels of power and influence. Moreover, I know that in 1955 I would not have been able to make the same choices about my life that I have. At that time race rather than ability or finances dictated everything from where someone lived and went to school to who one associated with. I am not suggesting that my life has not been touched by racism, it just has not been the type that curtailed my ambitions or interests. Perhaps that is the rub. Whether or not things for Black Americans has changed depends largely on how much education you have and your economic status.
I would daresay that for families who have not been able to break the cycle of poverty through education or employment, life may look just like 1955. For folks in poor communities dead-end jobs, inadequate housing, failing schools and negative encounters with societal institutions still shapes their daily existence. However for Black Americans who have always been middle class or were able to rise to the ranks of the middle class through school and/or advancement-track jobs, they are now reaping the benefits of expanded opportunities. Race matters---but how much may be determined on how much social capital you have---meaning your ability to navigate the waters of the "mainstream," vis a vis advanced education, money or professional skills/talents.
Wright is correct in saying that it is not enough to tell folks in the 'hood to pull up their pants and get their lives right, particularly if we as a society are not going to instill these communities with hope--- in the form of education, job training, sustainable employment and safe affordable housing. By the same token suggesting that nothing has changed is a slap in the face to the millions of Black Americans who have worked hard, often in hostile environments, to get and keep their deserved piece of the American pie.
Here's Wright's essay:
Twenty Years Later: James Baldwin's America Has Not Changed
[Author and Essayist died twenty years ago on Dec. 1]
Baldwin’s biographer and close friend, David Leeming, called his essays “prophetic,” as they articulated an eerily clear-eyed view of America’s peril at the hands of what, in Baldwin’s day, was politely called the “race problem.”
Perhaps Leeming has it right and Baldwin was a soothsayer. But a more plausible explanation is that Baldwin’s work remains contemporary because America’s racial caste system changed so little over the generations that his writing spans.
Baldwin considered race America’s poison pill. And he deftly portrayed Americans of all colors struggling to concoct their own individual antidotes—solutions that are temporary at best and always crazy-making because, at root, the problem is structural not individual.
Today, we still have not reached Baldwin’s understanding of race and racism. It remains a collective problem that we insist upon dealing with on an individual basis. As a result, even our greatest triumphs—the end of legal segregation, broadened opportunity for the slim black middle class—are undermined by broader forces.
In his first essay collection, 1955’s Notes of a Native Son, Baldwin describes an urban ghetto that since has changed only in aesthetic. “All over Harlem now,” he wrote, “there is felt the same bitter expectancy with which, in my childhood, we awaited winter: it is coming and it will be hard; there is nothing anyone can do about it.”
Then and now, reform efforts have failed to alter that bleak reality because they’ve made no fundamental changes. As Baldwin wrote, “Steps are taken to right the wrong, without, however, expanding or demolishing the ghetto. The idea is to make it less of a social liability, a process about as helpful as make-up to a leper.”
So today Baldwin’s Harlem still lingers atop the list of New York neighborhoods with problems ranging from dilapidated housing stock to communicable disease to food establishments that simply fail to pass health inspection. The same is true for other racially defined ghettos around the country.
What is different today is that few discuss race in Baldwin’s structural terms. Instead, we busy ourselves with word games.
We play gotcha with celebrities who use slurs, rather than noticing the morbid conditions African Americans are disproportionately asked to live within. We eagerly embrace commentators like Bill Cosby when they decry the way individuals have adapted to generations of ghetto life. But we nickel and dime any policy effort to change those conditions. We ban the N-word, and we leave the ghetto intact.
This neglect has the same impact today that it had when Baldwin dissected it in 1955. “All over Harlem, Negro boys and girls are growing into stunted maturity, trying desperately to find a place to stand,” he wrote, “and the wonder is not that so many are ruined but that so many survive.”
Kai Wright, a writer and editor living in Brooklyn, New York. His new book, Drifting Towards Love: Black, Brown, Gay, and Coming Out on the Streets of New York, will be published in January by Beacon Press. He is also publications editor for the Black AIDS Institute and author of two previous books on African American history.
Whether or not one agrees with the politics of Barack Obama, Colin Powell or Condi Rice----everyone knows that in 1955 they could have never achieved their respective levels of power and influence. Moreover, I know that in 1955 I would not have been able to make the same choices about my life that I have. At that time race rather than ability or finances dictated everything from where someone lived and went to school to who one associated with. I am not suggesting that my life has not been touched by racism, it just has not been the type that curtailed my ambitions or interests. Perhaps that is the rub. Whether or not things for Black Americans has changed depends largely on how much education you have and your economic status.
I would daresay that for families who have not been able to break the cycle of poverty through education or employment, life may look just like 1955. For folks in poor communities dead-end jobs, inadequate housing, failing schools and negative encounters with societal institutions still shapes their daily existence. However for Black Americans who have always been middle class or were able to rise to the ranks of the middle class through school and/or advancement-track jobs, they are now reaping the benefits of expanded opportunities. Race matters---but how much may be determined on how much social capital you have---meaning your ability to navigate the waters of the "mainstream," vis a vis advanced education, money or professional skills/talents.
Wright is correct in saying that it is not enough to tell folks in the 'hood to pull up their pants and get their lives right, particularly if we as a society are not going to instill these communities with hope--- in the form of education, job training, sustainable employment and safe affordable housing. By the same token suggesting that nothing has changed is a slap in the face to the millions of Black Americans who have worked hard, often in hostile environments, to get and keep their deserved piece of the American pie.
Here's Wright's essay:
Twenty Years Later: James Baldwin's America Has Not Changed
[Author and Essayist died twenty years ago on Dec. 1]
Baldwin’s biographer and close friend, David Leeming, called his essays “prophetic,” as they articulated an eerily clear-eyed view of America’s peril at the hands of what, in Baldwin’s day, was politely called the “race problem.”
Perhaps Leeming has it right and Baldwin was a soothsayer. But a more plausible explanation is that Baldwin’s work remains contemporary because America’s racial caste system changed so little over the generations that his writing spans.
Baldwin considered race America’s poison pill. And he deftly portrayed Americans of all colors struggling to concoct their own individual antidotes—solutions that are temporary at best and always crazy-making because, at root, the problem is structural not individual.
Today, we still have not reached Baldwin’s understanding of race and racism. It remains a collective problem that we insist upon dealing with on an individual basis. As a result, even our greatest triumphs—the end of legal segregation, broadened opportunity for the slim black middle class—are undermined by broader forces.
In his first essay collection, 1955’s Notes of a Native Son, Baldwin describes an urban ghetto that since has changed only in aesthetic. “All over Harlem now,” he wrote, “there is felt the same bitter expectancy with which, in my childhood, we awaited winter: it is coming and it will be hard; there is nothing anyone can do about it.”
Then and now, reform efforts have failed to alter that bleak reality because they’ve made no fundamental changes. As Baldwin wrote, “Steps are taken to right the wrong, without, however, expanding or demolishing the ghetto. The idea is to make it less of a social liability, a process about as helpful as make-up to a leper.”
So today Baldwin’s Harlem still lingers atop the list of New York neighborhoods with problems ranging from dilapidated housing stock to communicable disease to food establishments that simply fail to pass health inspection. The same is true for other racially defined ghettos around the country.
What is different today is that few discuss race in Baldwin’s structural terms. Instead, we busy ourselves with word games.
We play gotcha with celebrities who use slurs, rather than noticing the morbid conditions African Americans are disproportionately asked to live within. We eagerly embrace commentators like Bill Cosby when they decry the way individuals have adapted to generations of ghetto life. But we nickel and dime any policy effort to change those conditions. We ban the N-word, and we leave the ghetto intact.
This neglect has the same impact today that it had when Baldwin dissected it in 1955. “All over Harlem, Negro boys and girls are growing into stunted maturity, trying desperately to find a place to stand,” he wrote, “and the wonder is not that so many are ruined but that so many survive.”
Kai Wright, a writer and editor living in Brooklyn, New York. His new book, Drifting Towards Love: Black, Brown, Gay, and Coming Out on the Streets of New York, will be published in January by Beacon Press. He is also publications editor for the Black AIDS Institute and author of two previous books on African American history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
