us election
30 Oct 2008
Just What Kind of Card is Race?
Certain black figures become bridges across the racial divide that many whites want to cross, writes Mark Connelly. Barack Obama is such a figure
Every white child in the United States comes to know that their path in life will be easier than that of black children, just as white Australian children come to know the same with respect to Aboriginal children. They discover this just as they discover which streets not to walk down or when not to knock on their parents' door. Like some other things children learn, they also learn not to talk about it.On 18 March this year, Senator Barack Obama delivered a considered and revelatory speech on race relations in the United States. That speech held the prospect for a continuing discussion on the complexities of race, one which has been set back by the presidential horserace. Race has become simply another factor, like the muddiness of the track, to be squabbled over by self-proclaimed experts.
The latest grist for punditry is the Bradley effect, a convenient, pseudo-scientific term. It explains how Obama could still lose the race, despite being ahead in national and key state polls, due to the contradictory presence of lingering racism and bashfulness over confessing it to anonymous pollsters. I will not belabour a discussion of the Bradley effect here — it has been described and disputed in an op-ed by Blair Levin, who worked on the Bradley campaign, as well as a recent column by Frank Rich, in the New York Times — save to note that white racism, the Bradley effect and other oversimplifications do not begin to describe the persistent and subtle influence of race in America.
Looking at race with some depth and nuance, it is possible to see how Obama's race may be more of an electoral asset than a liability — because he has made it so.
White guilt is a phrase trotted out to explain the support of some whites for affirmative action policies that advantage or assist blacks. It is a complex, historically embedded concept that is used too bluntly, and with little understanding. It is not the guilt of culpability, which comes from personally wronging another.
White guilt is the straw-man strung up by John Howard to deny an apology to Aboriginal people. Howard rejected reconciliation "of the apologetic, shame-laden, guilt-ridden type," because he did not believe the present generation should bear the guilt for the policies of past generations.
Guilt, however, can take different forms. I may feel guilty because I inherit money from my father that he stole from another man. Despite my lack of culpability, my wrongful gain at another's expense is a burden inherited by my conscience. In the United States, the stain of slavery is passed down through generations by race. As noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, "servitude is most fatally combined with the physical and permanent fact of difference in race ... and race perpetuates memories of slavery." More recently, Obama, not himself a descendent of slaves, said of his wife, Michelle: "I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave-owners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters."
The inhumanity of slavery and other injustices heaped on the black community live on in the colour of their skin, inerasable to both blacks and whites. It is a living memory that reflects a continuing legacy of unequal education, unequal opportunity, and unequal rates of infant mortality, life expectancy and imprisonment.
The only way a group of people with a Christian morality could justify the enslavement of another group of people was to deny their humanity. As slavery came to an end and the souls of black Americans could no longer be denied, the weight of guilt and sin fell heavily on the white community. It would drive fear and hatred of Black Americans for generations.
In his novel, Native Son, Richard Wright articulated how the cycle of white guilt, fear and hate manifested itself in 1930s Chicago: "of all things, men do not like to feel that they are guilty of wrong ... and seeing no immediate solution … without too much cost to their lives and property, they will kill that which evoked in them the condemning sense of guilt."
Distance and violence have been the two responses to that guilt. If the former was not secured by physical separation or social constructs, the latter would follow. Blacks were confined to slums and ghettos, and separated from whites by legal and social structures so that whites could deny their guilt. When whites were confronted, fear and hatred led to intimidation, brutality and murder.
Martin Luther King Jr understood that breaking the cycle of guilt, fear and hatred required a strategy of openness, non-violence and forgiveness. Openness brought racial injustice to light. Non-violence quelled white fear of retribution. Forgiveness disarmed the persistent trigger of white guilt. In Dr King's words: "forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the cancelling of a debt... Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again."
As the condition of the black community improved, the nature of white racial consciousness evolved. Overt racism still exists, but it is confined to the margins. Violence is as exceptional as it is unacceptable, although distancing is still too prevalent. What we have now in America is two types of white racial consciousness: resentful and redemptive.
In Obama's March speech, he deftly explained white resentment: "when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job ... because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time." Paradoxically — although these surface concerns are real — beneath them lies the unacknowledged awareness of black disadvantage that stokes the fire of resentment as guilt once fuelled fear and hatred.
There is also a redemptive racial consciousness in the United States. There are whites who recognise and acknowledge the present day inequities stemming from past wrongs. That knowledge is a burden to them. They may seek to alleviate it through symbolic gestures such as voting for a Black presidential candidate. Obama, however, has taken his campaign beyond that easy appeal by reaching out to resentful white Americans as well.
Certain black figures become bridges across the racial divide that many whites want to cross. Barack Obama is such a figure. He understands that the way to overcome white resentment is to accept it, and not to add shame and scorn, which only fuels that resentment. As he says, "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognising they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding."
Because Obama made the message of his campaign one of unity, he has become a path to unity, whereby white Americans can sooth their conscience or at least let go of their resentment. Yet the election of Obama is no panacea for race relations in the United States. It is one thing to vote for Obama, and another to welcome a black son-in-law or accept the loss of a job to a black competitor.
What does this mean for the presidential contest? At the end of the day, the green(back) will outweigh black or white in this election, as the economy dominates the voter's concerns. Once the horserace of the election is over, hopefully the country can return to a more mature discussion of racial divisions in America, as part of an overall drive for unity. Vested in Obama is the hope and potential to be a President for all Americans.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I hope you’re right, Mark, and that the number of white Americans hoping to heal their guilt is greater than the number of white Americans who fear that they might lose their advantage over their black countrymen. As bad as things may be in the white ghettos, poor, unemployed, uneducated whites know that there’s always someone worse off than themselves. Are they prepared to face a change in that situation? I know Obama’s not going to suddenly send poor blacks somersaulting over poor whites but do poor whites know that? Can they be sure that the few pathetic advantages they see themselves as having won’t be torn away? No matter how bad things are at least they’re not black, with all that being black in America has always entailed. A black president has the potential to alter the mindset, to change the way blacks are regarded. No doubt many Americans see that as a good thing. But how many don’t? How many will fear it? I’m frightened that the answer will be: too many.
Mark,
I really enjoyed your article. You write so eloquently on the subject. My only comment is to suggest that many, if not most, white Americans, share both attributes that you have set up as a dichotomy. Which makes the process a bit more complex, doesn’t it?
Regards,
Walter
Walter,
That is a very good insight. I intended to include a line or two on that, because I believe it’s very true, but could not get into that level of complexity for an article of this length. It does complicate things, but Obama is addressing the resentment aspect, as well as the redemptive. So, for any given individual he will hopefully appeal to their redemptive desires, while quelling their resentment and, in total, bring the person across. Of course, it will depend on the individual and the relative degree of their resentment or redemptive aspects (after all, there are still some out-and-out racists).
Peter, I am confident of victory for Obama—but we only have to wait a few more days now to know for sure.
Many thanks for your comments.
Mark
Mark, I find it impossible to think about questions of race without looking through the prism of 1930s Europe. But being Anglo, it’s also impossible to put myself in the shoes of someone who has been victimised for being black or Jew.
So, rational objective hat on, I’m asking about the relevance to African-Americans of two historical facts about the attempt to exterminate Europe’s Jews (and others). A speaker (Franz Wimmer-Lamquet ) in an SBS documentary on the SS described Heydrich as being another kind of being, because of his cold-blooded enthusiasm for industrial means of killing masses of people. History is very clear that mass murder becomes possible when the tools are put into the hands of a charismatic leader who is cultured (as was Reinhard Heydrich) and utterly ruthless. What I mean is that there will always be potential victims, but we must continually reflect on the likelihood of people coming forward with ‘final solutions’. Most importantly we must recognise the slightest racial prejudices and "innocent" comments, especially our own, as being on the same axis of evil.
The other question to consider is what would be the situation of dispersed Jews without Israel? I mean, this one example holds out hope for all oppressed minorities, and not least because national Israel has proven to be a formidable defender of its borders, even to the extent of having thermonuclear weapons.
There is a thought going round that, should Obama win this election, GWB may launch military action against Iran. Should that happen, I guess my conclusion must be that President Obama would have more reason than all of his predecessors to do all in his power to protect Israel, but at the same time keeping his distance from nutty evangelical beliefs. Whatever Obama has in mind for repairing inter-racial divisions within the US, the global arena will give him the best cards to play.
Trevor Kerr