Obama’s Victory and the Future of Race in the United States
David Roediger has been wrirting about “whiteness” for some time now. His book The Wages of Whiteness is canonical for anyone who is making a serious study of anti-racism, imo. This short but thoughtful piece from Counterpunch reminds us of the contradictions of race in the US.
by David Roediger
In the afterglow of Barack Obama’s election the temptation to make hasty generalizations regarding the present and the future of race in the U.S. has proven irresistible. The film director Michael Moore, for example, found the election signaled the utter transformation of a nation “founded in genocide and built on the backs of slaves.” The Obama vote showed to Moore and to many that the “flame of hate,” already now reduced to a minority position, was sure to “fizzle in our lifetime.”
However much they smarted from Republican defeats, conservatives likewise celebrated that Obama’s victory put paid the charges that the U.S. was a racially discriminatory society. Indeed from Obama’s first primary successes the Wall Street Journal editorially heralded his victories as a triumph for the nation, even while opposing his election. From the left or the right, such triumphalism postpones asking good questions about just what changed, and what did not.
Indeed in stark contrast to pleasant narratives of progress, white family wealth in the U.S. is nine times that of African American family wealth and black young men are seven times as likely as whites to be incarcerated. The diseases of the poor in the U.S. are the diseases of poor people of color. 75 percent of all active tuberculosis cases afflict them. In Obama’s home state of Illinois, a majority of HIV-AIDS cases occur among African Americans. Three in ten black and Latino children live in poverty, triple the white child poverty rate.
To think more precisely about the coexistence in the U.S. of such stark and deadly racial inequalities with the historic triumph of an African American presidential candidate requires that…
doviende:
fyi stan, you missed a quote mark in the first counterpunch link, and it nuked the rest of the post.
thanks for the info though, looks interesting. after doing a “view source”, i pulled out the link here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roediger11102008.html
STAN: Yikes! Thanks.
11 November 2008, 6:27 amStan Moore:
Race, victimhood, responsibility, etc. are highly complex issues and they are, indeed, personal.
I seem to recall Barack Obama chastising black men and urging them to be more responsible. Michelle implied publicly that she has not always felt good to be an American.
I recall Bill Cosby poking fun at some aspects of popular black culture and urging young black people to set higher aspirations for themselves in language and in education, career achievement, etc.
But there is not one truth on which to judge. And the intersection of race and class is a huge one that plays a vital role in the experiences and the perspective of many.
I think it is safe to say that as long as there are races of people in this world (including all races and nationalities) there will always be some level of racism. People of all backgrounds cling to the familiar and resist the unfamiliar.
At the same time, the increase of racial familiarity between persons over time creates bonds that easily overcome those feelings of separation. I think it is pretty common for people who are suspicious of persons who they do not know personally to become fast friends when they do get acquainted, no matter what the race.
Some embrace victimhood, including ancestral victimhood and find it hard to move beyond it. Others doggedly determine to not let the past stand in the way of the future.
There is no one reality, but a spiral of interplaying histories and present cirumstances. I think almost anyone can deflect that spiral in ways that reduce its energy, especially with some training. And the think the societal spiral is weakening the worst of the grip of racism, but far from eliminating it altogether.
————————————————————-
Spoken by a lily white male who enjoyed the new movie “Soul Men” with Bernie Mac and Samuel L. Jackson, though I did not give a damn for all the friggin’ profanity. Some of the songs were really great, and especially the finale of the movie.
Stan Moore
11 November 2008, 11:15 amPetaluma, CA
Bo:
Stan Moore’s post (God bless you Stan Moore for your heartfelt feedback. It is appreciated to hear honest speech from others). But, I have to point out that your comment reveals the precise problem that true anti-racists are going to need to address under an Obama presidency. The way you have charactarized Bill Cosby’s vicious scapegoating of the poor and mean-spirited denial of institutional racism is very disturbing. We will never put to rest the psuedo-scientific concept of race and its attendant form of nonsensical oppression, racism, if we don’t deal with the historical reality of US racism. By ascribing to the utterly ignorant Bill Cosby such benign effects and motives, one is not helping with this process.
13 November 2008, 4:03 amStan:
I hate to be the skunk in church… again. But racism is anything but nonsensical, and the psuedo-science of race is a blanket thrown over the demonstrable realities from colonialism to modern gentrification. White supremacy works; or white culture could not continue to cling to it (overtly or unconscously). It works materially; and it works ideologically. We do have to deal with it historically… you got that right. We also have to uncover unacknowledged privilige operating among those who can claim “whiteness.” The reluctant liberal acceptance of the war was largely a function of unacknowledged ideolgogical white supremacy. What will happen if we leave now? (subtext: Those irrrational Arabs will slaughter each other in an orgy of primitive violence.) The reason race remains so stubborn is twofold, imo: We try to make material-political race disappear ideologically (”there is no such thing as race”), and we fail to grasp the meanings of whiteness (neutrality, non-ethnicity, normativity). Even the term “ethnic” has come to mean other-than-white. And pomo anti-essentialism strips victims of the system of their lived political identity as the basis for solidarity. White folks will say, “there is no such thing as race… science has proven it”; but I know very few African Americans who are willing to remove this supposedly oppressive category from themselves. The oppression and the identity of solidarity are dialectical twins; and the latter can never disappear until the former is identified and washed away. The irony here is that before that can happen, we have to figure out what it means to be “white.” Without describing the putative norm (and its power), we certainly can’t get to be bottom of the implied deviance from the norm. Obama walked a tightrope on this one; and in the process, he had to kick Jeremiah Wright off the rope. And so long as real structural subordination continues to define the condition of a racialized community, these epiphenomenal ideas will continue to grow on that structure like moss grows on a wet stump.
13 November 2008, 6:24 amStan Moore:
Reply to Bo :
I don’t quite understand your feelings about Bill Cosby. They seem parallel to me of accusations against Noam Chomsky that he is a “self-loathing Jew”.
My take on Cosby is that he abhors racism, but feels at the same time that it is counterproductive for victims of historic racism to use that fact as a justification for self-imposed and self-accepted harm.
Surely there is a large variation in the psychological effects of maltreatment; some slaves learned to read and write and some ex-slaves forged careers in industry and academia and others wallowed in righteous indignation and understandable self-pity.
To me, what is interesting about Barack Obama is that he was raised by his white mother and loved unconditionally by his white grandparents. He must have received some hostile treatment from racists due to his skin color, but he does not have the personal blood connections to institutional racism in America. He never heard oral histories from within his own family of how his great grandparents struggled in America, etc. Yet, African Americans readily accepted him as if he is someone who can empathize.
By the way, yesterday I was listening to a Pacifica Radio program on book reviews, and an interview with Daniel Cassady, an Irish-American author and professor and musician.
Cassady talked about the Irish people, especially Irish immigrants to America who intermingled with other nationalities, including African Americans. He related a fascinating fact that jazz musician Dizzy Gillespie, came from a Gaelic-speaking black family in New York, a product of this intermingling. Cassady said that Irish immigrants never considered themselves to be “white”, but to be Irish. And he talked about the “crossroads” where Irish culture met and mingled with other cultures and I find it particularly fascinating that he mentioned Robert Johnson, the African-American blues musician who wrote the song “Crossroads” that was later adapted by Eric Clapton and sung by the famous band Cream. Even further, Cassady sang a song with an Irish perspective with a very definite connection to the travails of Mexican and other Latin-American immigrants to the U.S. who had to find a way to live and thrive in that “crossroads” of immigrant culture and circumstance.
Relevance? I dunno, but it all seemed profound and told me among other things that no matter what our race, we all have deep connections, including victimhood of one sort or another.
And it is my opinion that African Ameicans have been severely victimized in important ways, but perhaps some have learned that victimization creates its own victims and that perhaps some of their strengths come at the expense of their victimizers. And I think of the sadistic American torturers and interrogators and prison guards at Abu Graib and elsewhere who victimized Iraqis and others, but who simultaneously victimized themselves and their souls in so doing.
I am in no way condoning victimization, but simply putting out the idea that sometimes victims of racism, nationalism, sexism, etc can find relief in knowing that their survival made them stronger and weakened their adversaries.
Stan Moore
13 November 2008, 10:17 amcharles:
White folks will say, “there is no such thing as race… science has proven it ”
^^^
Good point , Stan. “Science”, biology specifically, has proven that the old European pseudo-biological concept of race is an invalid biological category. “Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. ” as in the encyclopedia of the 1960’s are invalid biological categories. One formula is: There is more physical trait variation within socallled races than between them. The 18th Century European pseudo scientists and all since have failed to demonstrate correlations of physical,intelligence,moral, character characteristics with skin color, hair texture and facial features.
However, we must remind as you do, that social science/history demonstrates that race is a valid hitorical, political , social and economic category. It was effected by imperialism, colonialism, slavery and segregation. As Coleman Young once said, “Racism do exist.”
13 November 2008, 12:22 pm(Boer) Tom:
The emotional reaction to suggestions of privilege is very strong - are there any large scale cases where the privilege of one (ethnic or national) group over another ended short of intermarriage and adoption of the dominant culture?
Do you think it useful to reinterpret (to fellow whites) whiteness as an ethnicity or nationality? As a privileged nationality or ethnicity? If we want morally interested whites to structurally undermine whiteness (or its power), what are we asking them to do? Psychologically accept their ethnicity, e.g. “As a white, I think you’re lazy, stupid, incompetent,” as a general first step?
Ultimately, what do we want from whites? To lose their privilege? Perhaps that’s why they tend to be less than enthusiastic about the left
Frankly though, “I deserve what I got” carries a great deal of emotional weight, and the perceived emptiness of “I got things I shouldn’t have” is initially scary - “am I going to be reduced to poverty? Have I no moral standing?” - and negativity toward non-whites, e.g. white-supremacism, is merely a lubricant for blocking the discomfort of the existing realization of the injustice on which (white) one depends.
I suspect that the patriotism-babble in North America serves a similar purpose: You know that your existence (in its current form) is dependent on injustice - banish the discomfort - “Don’t you love this country?” being the hint and “I love this country!” being the emotional suppression - it is enthusiastic - it distracts from the discomfort, rather than being an actual thought (e.g. critical nationalists, who are a small minority in every country).
Again, Ilan Shalif’s technique, if it can be taught in another context (e.g. solving personal emotional/psychosomatic problems etc), seems to hold much more promise - my own solution to how to deal with the (apartheid) privilege I’ve received (thanks, Ilan) is that I’m quite aware of it, grateful for having received it, and I spread the skills I aquired from that privilege to people who were denied it (hence weakening the basis of the relative privilege.
13 November 2008, 3:48 pmMichael Anderson:
“(subtext: Those irrrational Arabs will slaughter each other in an orgy of primitive violence.)”
I think the powers-that-be would LOVE to see those irrational Arabs destroy each other. It would certainly make it a lot easier to walk in and take the loot.
Another subtext: Those supposedly irrational Arabs have a system of commerce and banking, that on some levels, works better than the white European-based “owners rule” model that has persisted since the signing of the Magna Carta. Remember they gave us the number zero and double-entry bookkeeping. I notice a lot of Arabic-sounding names in the commentary sections of MSM…I think the condition here is those folks have accepted our system and embraced it. They’re our token “Arabs” in Capitalism.
Another subtext: Islam does not put a face on “God”. Seems like a lot of Christians want to endow the idea of God with very fallible human characteristics….mostly male, again. Merchandising?
13 November 2008, 3:51 pm(Boer) Tom:
I should add to the above: What I want from whites is that they abandon relative benefit (privilege), not absolute benefit (if it is at present privilege, at the expense of others etc) per se…
Loss of privilege need not be loss of past benefits in all cases; should the advantages in skills etc gained be destroyed, or made available more generally?
13 November 2008, 7:26 pmStan Moore:
I located the radio program interview with Irish-American author Daniel Cassidy and offer the link to anyone who might want to listen. I highly recommend it for several reasons and the link to the website offering the electronic file is:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=29373
In the early part of the interview, the discussion of Irish people considering themselves to be “Irish” and not “white” includes a little discussion of the word “radical” and comments about why white middle-class culture is a dead end for radicalism. I thought Professor Cassidy had a very interesting, colorful comment that “pretty soon middle class white radicals would have no one to talk to but themselves”.
Professor Cassidy sings a couple of old songs accompanying himself on guitar and carries out a running commentary while picking his guitar on history of the Irish and the relationships between the immigrant Irish with other nationalities and groups, including African Americans, Mexicans, etc. He mentions the mixed neighborhood in New York where Irish and African Americans mixed and where some black people “learned spoken Irish language at the breast of their Irish mothers”. This includes musician Dizzy Gillespie who came from a black Gaelic speaking family in South Carolina. Cassidy even sings a verse of the old folk song “Get Along Little Doggie” and relates it to its Irish origins and extends the verses to include Jesus and Mary and then to Mexican immigrants Jesus’ and Maria, which I thought was very interesting. He ties in all these cultures into the common “crossroads” of Irish experience.
And he discusses why prominent African American musicians hate the word “jazz” used to describe their music. That word “jazz” comes from the Irish language and carries a connotation that was distasteful to African American musicians, as Cassidy explains in the interview.
On a personal note, I recall over the years being asked many times what my ethnic origins are, and I would say either “Texan” (state of my birth and rearing) or I would say “I don’t know if I am Scottish or Irish, but think I am Squeamish”.
The Cassidy interview/music brought tears to my eyes in parts and I think some others might enjoy it…
Stan Moore
13 November 2008, 11:10 pmPetaluma, CA
Stan:
STAN: My toes are okay. I’ll just say that when contemplating ultimate concerns, we enter into recognition of the incomprehensible. So all people everywhere and at all times — in this particular contemplation — when they determine for themselves that the object of that concern is a subject, are obliged to name that subject (in earlier cultures where animism and polytheism prevailed, several subjects. Assigning characteristics is inevitable, or we have nothing to place-mark the incomprehensible (the infinite), and so we bridge that incomprehensibility with something familiar… as a subject. So we use ourselves. The question of fallibility has shifted as cultural norms have shifted, so Im’ suspicious of retrojected judgements on this account. Christianity is actualy quite clear on this; even when self-serving agendas torture soemthing else out of the traditions and text. “Image of God” is not to say that God has, for example, lungs and fingernails. (When people are dying, they will commonly paraphrase Jesus saying, “Into your hands, Lord, I commend my soul.” “Hands” is not literal. The appelation “Father” is a translated rendering of the more general term “Provider,” with the obvious lenses of cultural patriarchy, wherein the role of provision was in the male division of labor within families. Christianity (which is Jewish, by the way, though not Pharisaic [priestly]… it is rabbinic [teacherly]) is predicated on the idea that God is love (agape), and that this love was made visible (”incarnate,” in the flesh) as the example leading to the cross. We cannot see God directly. We would be blown apart by that, like a person emerging from a capsule in deep space. Our condition is that we see God’s “image” in our fellow human beings… in the aspect of God that manifests itself in good human fellowship (charitas, mercy, forgiveness, delight). The way of the cross is a rejection of domination. That’s how the story goes… Jesus lives in a time of military occupation and armed popular insurrection. He has three opportunities to seize power (entry into Jerusalem, disruption of the market on the temple steps, and in the garden of Gesthemane, where instead of many swords to defend his cohort he asks for (an ineffectual) one — just enough to ensure his arrest), and at each juncture he has to make the decision whether to follow up and take power or not. But he does not. The power of the Powers is based in the fear of death they use to dominate the people; and so the inauguration of a New Way requires the (ironically stated) “conquest of death.” The crown is seized in humility (humiliation even); and the example given for the embrace of death out of love for one’s fellow human beings (in whom we can see the face of God among “the least of us”)… without the fear of death, the Powers are stripped. Think Rachel Corrie.
14 November 2008, 6:29 amRev. José M. Tirado:
If I may offer another, different perspective on this idea of “image” from the Buddhist tradition.
We are taught that there are “two Truths”: conventional, and Absolute.
Each of us live on the level of conventional Truth, regardless, for example, of what physics says about the space between atoms, I may still satisfactorily and confidently utilize this chair I am sitting on to fact this computer.
However, on the Absolute Truth level, we can only imagine what “laws” pertain to such a “realm” and use the quantum physics metaphor (for they too remain only metaphors at this point). There is no chair as such.
While carefully dissecting that “empty” nature of all phenomena, suggesting that any imputation upon objects remain subjective interpolations unrelated to actualilty, we still are enjoined to live lives full of compassionate concern for all sentient beings. On that Absolute level, I do not know if what I do makes a difference or has any significance, but on this level, I can be assured it does; I can alleviate suffering, create a community of warmth, and live in what the Buddha called “the realms of the gods”, that is, love, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.
On an Absolute level I can be sure race is meaningless. Unfortunately, at teh conventional level, it has meaning and significance and if I can successfully inform my life with Absolute principles (within this Buddhist context) I can overcome any and all obstacles, like race, that stand between me and others. For each of us have within the very same Buddha-nature that allowed Siddhartha to come to his understanding.
Sorry if I belabored the point, I just saw an opening to share a little something.
14 November 2008, 3:22 pmBest,
José
rootlesscosmo:
Daniel Cassidyu may be a charming man but he’s peddling nonsense. John Birks “Dizzy” Gillespie was born in Cheraw South Carolina and raised in an Afrcan-American family none of whose membersspoke Gaelic. Cassidy’s ideas about word origins are completely at odds with standard models of how languages evolve historically, according to discernible patterns; it’s enough for him to find a morpohological similatity to assert etymological lineage. Of course this flatters an audience of Irish-Americans eager for a connection to their supposed roots, but as a serious claim about language it’s the bunk, as many linguists (such as those at Language Log)
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005098.html
have pointed out.
15 November 2008, 12:33 amxenia:
i promised to myself not to post on stan’s blog any more (sorry, stan, i just don’t think my comments, or my “personal style” make much sense in this environment — the cultural gap is too wide), but i will make an exception here: i have no doubt that cassidy is too enthusiastic at times, but i have not yet seen a competent analysis of where he went wrong. to note, i minored in historical linguistics and have a bunch of languages under my belt, as the saying goes. i know a little classical irish too.
most of the criticism seems to repeat that he has no firm textual evidence for his claim (aka where are the footnotes?), and it comes from people whose primary background is in english (and not much else. i’m wary of linguists who don’t speak a few languages fluently). in contrast, i’d be interested in reading studies by people familiar with sociolinguistics and, most of all, irish dialectology. it gets a little absurd when people without a solid grounding in irish accuse cassidy of not knowing the language.
until then, my hunch is that cassidy’s dictionary may be horribly wrong on some words (folk-etymology), but that the basic idea is correct. a good analogy is the wonderful “many-headed hydra” by p. linebaugh, which at times can be hagiographic, but succeeds in writing a history of laboring classes of the atlantic.
aside from historical linguistics, which i’m quite passionate about, i think that cassidy’s statements about the middle class, radicalism and ethnicity are very profound. the program made me think of latin american creolization processes and how north american processes are an inverted mirror image. but i’ll stop here. good luck, you all.
15 November 2008, 8:01 amxenia:
ps if i were more of a natural scientist, i’d say that the project in the us where i first lived was a great laboratory for observing relations between immigrants and black folks. there was no uniform pattern. some of the people became viciously racist (as if there could be any other kind),others stayed in the neighborhood, and some kids (with blondish hair no less) learned “black English” first, and are still most comfortable in that environment.
the dichotomy black-white has made us ignore many other dynamics and possibilities in the history of the americas. let me emphasize that although the notion of hybridity is so popular among liberal-academic circles (and obama is part of it), it is usually not applied to working class folks born to american indian-black marriages etc.
most crucially: if the irish were able to “become white” after the american civil war, is it also possible to “unbecome white”? cassidy’s work, as flawed as its linguistic details may be, points in this direction and must be pondered upon.
15 November 2008, 8:13 amStan Moore:
In his interview, Caniel Cassidy, admitted that his analysis is lambasted and totally rejected by the professional community of linguistics researchers. I will leave it to others to decide the validity of science of his arguments, but the logic of his arguments seem very strong to me.
I don’t know anything about linguistics, but I am very interested in the unrelated science of taxonomics and systematics of life, and it is amazing to me that at this late date in time, the classification of living organisms continue to be revised, often due to genetics studies either confirming or conflicting with other scientific methods. One of the great ecologists, Aldo Leopold, once defined science itself as the art of “finding patterns in nature” and it is entirely possible that (the recently departed) Daniel Cassidy had a scientific genius that could identify patterns missed by ohers, perhaps sheer to his own history and hunger for information about his Irish roots.
The fact that modern linguistics does not necessarily prove the connection of Irish slang and Irish language to American vernacular English language does not disprove it. And many words in English are of undetermined origin. I think that Daniel Cassidy looked at the patterns and drew his own conclusions and to my knowledge, his work has been derided, but not disproved.
I have not bothered to look up the issue of Dizzy Gillespie and his relationship to Gaelic-speaking people, but I don’t think that Cassidy would have made that up out of the blue. He has done a lot of research into the melding of Irish with other populations in America, and his family lived some of that history. I did hear Dizzy Gillespie play music years ago at a Houston Blues Festival, and I could not detect any Gaelic tones emanaiting from his bullhorn. But I was not listening for such, either
Lastly, one of the great things about Daniel Cassidy that I thought would be of value here in the context of the politics of race is his deep acceptance of the melding of races of people (using the term very loosely). Cassidy was a living antidote to racism and celebrated that melding of languages, cultures, lifestyles, families that used to be called “the American melting pot”. To me, among the benefits of this melting would be mutual compassion and understanding that in various ways, all of us are victims of our circumstances in life and we do best when we work together to sort out our differences, share our suffering, take comfort from one another, and learn to live, play, breed, work, and (maybe) drink Irish whiskey together.
Stan Moore
15 November 2008, 12:37 pmStan Moore:
Check out this reference on Gaelic-speaking slaves in the Carolinas:
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=3580
If one does a Google search using the words Dizzy Gillespie and “Gaelic”, one gains access to various news articles documenting a connection between slaves brought to America and Gaelic culture brought by Scottish immigrants to America.
Apparently, Dizzy Gillespie recalled some of his memories and family lore to fellow Jazz artist Willie Ruff, and Willie Ruff actually traveled to Scotland and “was blown away” to see some of the musical connections that emananted from the melding of cultures. Willie Ruff actually organized concerts of white singers from Scotland singing in concert with African American singers who both practiced remnants of the same culture, unbeknownst to each other.
I wonder if the musicologists would have derided Willie Ruff for suggesting that African American gospel music derived from Scottish gaelic music before his research was perfected? Perhaps they do anyways, I don’t now, but I do accept the fact that Dizzy Gillespie came from a background of Gaelic speaking slaves based on the second hand testimony of his friend and jazz collaborator Willie Ruff.
Stan Moore
15 November 2008, 1:00 pmStan Moore:
fascinating reference:
http://greenespace.blogspot.com/2005/11/afro-celts-and-other-cultural-cross.html
This reference is from a footnote by Daniel Cassidy. Among other things, it validates what Willie Ruff recalls hearing Dizzy Gillespie talk about with regard to Gaelic speaking African-Americans in the Carolinas. Newton has a PhD from Edinburgh University and is an expert in Scots Culture and a fluent Gaelic speaker. His research also confirms Daniel Cassidy’s view of the “crossroads” where various immigrant cultures met, mingled and melded in America. Newton’s research reveals that Scottish peoples were displaced from their homeland by British forces that took their land, and the Scots came to America, where some of them became slaveowners, yet were lowranking in the dominant white culture along with the Irish.
And no doubt the races interbred. Descendants of these people have to deal to this day with the confusion of their melded ancestries and cross-cultural connections.
All this leads me to believe the maybe Earl Woods was on to something when he predicted that his son, Tiger Woods, would save the world, or something like that. Or maybe Barack Obama will lead us into a post-racial world as a self-professed “mutt”.
One thing seems certain to me, the boundaries that people have used to divide and oppress and dominate one another through the centuries are not nearly as certain as most people think. If these boundaries are artificial and unsupportable, then the ability to enforce them must give way to equality and fraternity and justice, and the sooner the better.
Stan Moore
16 November 2008, 2:12 am(Boer) Tom:
To Mr Moore:
I’m skeptical of the power of intermarriage to bring about a “post-racial” world.
My earlier comment regarding ethnic oppression ending upon intermarriage should be clarified - the less powerful ethnic group destroys its separate existence (or makes it less threatening) via intermarriage - Dutch/Frisian, Arab/”Berber” etc.
Perhaps an example closer to home: I’m from South Africa (Afrikaner) - our (European) ancestors variously settled in abandoned enclaves (post-Mfecane) and among other (southern African) ethnic groups - occasionally living in peace, but often attacking, and even destroying said African groups (the s.c. San-related groups in particular in certain areas). There was at the same time, much intermarriage, both between Europeans and Africans, and between Europeans and their South and South-East Asian slaves (in particular Malays, Malagasys and Javanese, and Indians) - the evidence is in our DNA and MDNA (mitochondrial DNA), as well as in the existence of the s.c. ‘Coloureds’ (SA definition - Euro-Africans with notable African features, as well as any non-black, non-Indian muslims, in particular, Malay and Indonesian descendant). One recent survey found 6% of whites in Cape Town had San-related mDNA - quite often one finds whites with notably Indian, and occasionally even (Southern) African features - my one grandmother’s facial build looks very Oriya (NE India), and many of my white classmates in primary school had a greyish-brownish skin-tone (their immediate relatives could pass as whites in North America, though they could probably pass as Eastern Europeans).
The only effect of the above on apartheid in South Africa was to allow certainly light-skinned ‘coloureds’ to have themselves reclassified as whites (e.g. my one grandfather). It did not in the least modulate racism (although other factors did, e.g. in the ‘Orange Free State’ many Afrikaners learn Sotho at home from the (black) nanny and their parents, and Afrikaans in school, and they tend not to hate blacks in the fashion one may find in certain other parts of the country - I understand that similar processes worked in the southern US regarding kikongo - you call peanuts goobers?)
The fall of official apartheid did far more to weaken white-on-black,etc violence than all that intermarriage. (Of course, white privilege changes its form: better schools are usually formerly exclusively white, and still largely white; pointing out to whites that they enjoy racial privilege leads to “but whites are now also living in shanty towns” etc…)
17 November 2008, 8:41 pmMichael Anderson:
You could probably file this as a “feel good” piece, but I think it’s pretty cool for this kid to speak up….in Wasilla, of all places. Hope they do a follow up on her, and see how she fares….as someone who spoke up, and as a female in a male rural setting…who spoke up.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/11/17/opinion/columnists/doc491d0c71aa9b4424387056.txt
18 November 2008, 7:10 pmKevin:
Obama is not the “first black president”; Thomas Jefferson was. If you consider George Washington to be the first president, there have been up to six previous presidents of the US that may have had interracial ancestory hidden from the public and have since been swept under the rug. However, if you consider John Hanson to be the first president of the US (under the articles of confederation) then he may be the first black president. He was a moor; a european with african descent.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/nov/05/esu_prof_says_obama/
STAN: Kevin, white and Black are political and cultural catagories as welll as phenotypes… and Jefferson was white.
26 November 2008, 7:04 pmcharles:
We ( Black people) will claim Jefferson, Lincoln, and Ike ( he was Supreme Allied (Western) Commander in the great anti-fascist war), but the others are on their own (smile)
2 December 2008, 5:02 pm