The Racial Comeback

Most possess enough common sense to assume we've not reached any sort of "post-racial" utopia -- by any stretch of the imagination. Even if we've made strides in accomplishing a decent level of social comfort and affability, we have some ways to go before truly claiming a complete, unconditional truce on the subject of race. Suspicions are constantly roused, resentments still deep, prejudices run rampant -- yet, we all do a fantastic job of shrouding it in a veil of general etiquette. Racial manners. Not saying there's anything right or wrong with it since we each must be the individual judge of whatever "rational" behavior we engage in. But, we all play the game either within the presence of one another or not.

However, one could argue or point to signs of a thick tension on the horizon, a resumption of racial jitters linked to any number of things. That's not all surprising for those who refused tickets on the hope train of post-racial reconciliation. In fact, some will assert that it's another reflection of hard times, the strain of economic uncertainty and doom wearing on social patience. Scarce jobs, resources and necessities not only make us miserable: it makes us competitive, bigoted and phobic. It's not like we haven't seen this before. The difference is that, back then, it was a lot less congenial and much more violent.

This past week was a bleak reminder of society's tenuous "35th Parallel" of race, an abrupt series of narrations on what continues to bug us racially. Jury is still out on whether it was all by media design (an uncouth stumble into Black History Month highlights) or, for the less paranoid in us, a clumsy clash of random occurrences woven into a very typical American theme. The "monkey"-business surrounding the NY Post cartoon appeared as somewhat of a flash point for it all. No need in getting too deep into it, because that would just sell more papers for the Post -- which is a big part of the problem. A common point made the past several days: "that's classic NY Post." They've done it before. And as long as a sizable chunk of their revenue contributing audience is African American (while large competitors like the NY Times are less cheap and accessible in areas such as the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens boroughs of New York City), the problem will continue. And, it's not just the Post - it's the veritable hostility of any news room, acting stupid at the moment of clarity or disclosure. Any other time, most journalists radiate a certain edge of intellectual superiority over those they cover - yet, they are quick to claim sheepish ignorance when caught fingering around the racial cookie jar.

What may have been different this time is that the Post went hard with it. The notion of violence mixed with the suggested dehumanization of an American President. If, hearing the Post tell it, there wasn't anything "insensitive" meant by it, there was certainly a heavy hint of desensitization. A subtle drop of accepting the what if.

It may have been that most of us actually got Attorney General Eric Holder's point with respect to race, but his choice of words mixed up the message. Maybe he's butting his head up against a wall in the wake of unneeded controversy -- the Justice Department has quite a bit of work on its plate struggling to reverse years of ideological zeal and incompetence. Or maybe that's exactly what he meant: since he's AG, perhaps one figures allowed verbal flexibility on sensitive social matters. Maybe there's an embedded message in his "nation of cowards" statement, a signal of renewed energy on civil rights issues. If that's the case, then we're not so post-racial after all.

That intriguing race-economy link is highlighted by House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-SC) statements on Southern "black belt" Republican Governors refusing federal stimulus money. Whether there are anti-Black motives behind four GOP Governors running states with large African-American populations remains an unresolved question. But, Clyburn's point on the lingering impact of disproportionate Black poverty in places like South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi is as strong as the political convictions of these four Governors, not one ruling out a 2012 Presidential bid.

Whether it's the adverse byproduct of economic uncertainty or simply the result of an ugly national preoccupation, the focus on race will permeate American conversation in ways we wish it won't given the new complexion of the White House. It's just more clever and subtle, like Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby's (R) reigniting a curiously dogmatic conversation on the president's birthplace. The context of that comment is linked to Republican opposition to White House action on the economy. But, the substance speaks to the stubborn, boxed-in regionalization of the GOP, which can't help but pander, satisfy and energize its base with narrow-minded insinuations.

Comments

[greeneink]

Come on...Get real:

*watermelons on the white house lawn?
*referring to the White House as "government housing"
*gunned down chimpanzees who write stimulus bills
*black-face cookies
*Obama in an Aunt Jemima headrag on a pancake box
*"Kill him!" shouts at a rally where no one got arrested?
*Folk who holler black history month ought to be stopped when it hasn't even gotten started yet? (check the school systems in the south, they still don't teach it -- correctly, that is)
*"Hit and run racism," then shallow superficial apologies and pointing at Al Sharpton every time THEY do something wrong (like he told them to do it)?
*Calling Jeremiah Wright a racist for addressing racism?
*Calling Dr. King a racial agitator for fighting against it?
and on and on and on and on ad nauseum?

---Who are they trying to fool?

A nation of cowards, indeed. Trashy jealous cowards at that.
Bout time somebody said it.

[Charles D. Ellison - Huffpost Blogger]

Sure: "get real" as you say. But let's question what we get real about or what we get real on.

Holder makes a cogent point - but, it's curious when either major elected officials or Cabinet members make plain statements like that. We should read between the lines, give it a third-eye look rather than take it for face value. The question we should ask Holder (rather than deciding whether to support or denounce): what does that mean in terms of how he will shape policy or how he is being directed to shape policy?

You outline some fairly good examples of the "celebrity" racism. Tell us what we don't know. What about the racism we don't see - what's embedded and institutionalized. From predatory lending to economic profiling. From gentrification to displacement of poor and working class folks into suburban enclaves. From the destructive unemployment of Black men, to the very systematic racism in the workplace - the racism we know is there, but is tougher to prove or prosecute.

While most get riled up over the surface stuff, there are serious decisions being made out of collective view. What determines our condition. It's great that we now have an African American President, but we should also pause on that - this is also an opportunity for a certain persuasion of folks to feel comfortable enough to re-impose their will, to say: "You've got your President, go ahead and celebrate - but, don't forget who remains in charge."