Are American Politcs “Post-Racial”?
Filed under: Lead Story — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on July 8, 2008 @ 11:15 am CEST
Are American politics ‘post-racial.’ PoliGazette’s Michael says no.
Dorothy Rabinowitz says no, definitely not. One of the examples she uses to back up her view is the following (it’s grandly absurd) which happened at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI): ‘The story began prosaically enough. Keith Sampson, a student employee on the janitorial staff earning his way toward a degree, was in the habit of reading during work breaks. Last October he was immersed in “Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan.”‘
Mr. Sampson was in short order visited by his union representative, who informed him he must not bring this book to the break room, and that he could be fired. Taking the book to the campus, Mr. Sampson says he was told, was “like bringing pornography to work.” That it was a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s in no way impressed the union rep.
The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. “The Klan still rules Indiana,” Marguerite Watkins told him – didn’t he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.
To show just how retarded this university is:
Mr. Sampson stood accused of “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers.” The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this “inflammatory topic.” “We conclude,” the letter informed him, “that your conduct constitutes racial harassment. . . .” A very serious matter, with serious consequences, it went on to point out.
That was in November. Months later, in February of this year, Mr. Sampson received – from the same source – a letter with an astonishingly transformed version of his offense. And there could be no mystery as to the cause of this change.
Why did it change? Bad press. The press and the ACLU defended Mr. Sampson, and started going after the university aggressively. Suddenly, the university changed course.
And so the new letter to Mr. Sampson by affirmative action officer Charleston brought word that she wished to clarify her previous letter, and to say it was “permissible for him to read scholarly books or other materials on break time.” About the essential and only theme of the first letter – the “racially abhorrent” subject of the book – or the warnings that any “future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could mean serious disciplinary action” – there was not a word. She had meant in that first letter, she said, only to address “conduct” that caused concern among his co-workers.
What that conduct was, the affirmative action officer did not reveal – but she had delivered the message rewriting the history of the case. Absolutely and for certain there had been no problem about any book he had been reading.
But if the press and ACLU would not have defended Mr. Sampson, he would be in trouble. What’s more, it’s likely that the university will continue to go after those who read books these enlightened individuals consider ‘insulting’ to, well, to whomever. Seemingly it’s wrong according to the advocates of political correctness to read certain scholarly books. Note that this man wasn’t reading some rag, he was reading a scholarly work.
One can give the same examples about elections, if one wants to prove that America(’s politics) is (are) not “post-racial.” Not all even. Obama frequently plays the racism card; that means he does so because it works. Some of his opponents play the black card, albeit mostly in an indirect manner (Muslim, foreign, etc.). Additionally, African-Americans are voting for Obama in unprecedented numbers. If they were post-racial, they would not even take race into consideration and, thus, they would not vote for Obama in the numbers they do.
Newspapers and journalists often say that Obama’s success is ‘historic’ and that it’s historic (and great!) that he may become America’s first black president. That too is a sign that American politics are not post-racial. In a post-racial world, such things are considered to be irrelevant; in such a world, history is written by someone’s deeds, not by someone’s skin color.
1 Michael Merritt
July 8, 2008 @ 2:43 pm CESTHmm.
All this anger for someone reading a clearly anti-KKK book by someone who claims the KKK runs Indiana?
If I were the administration, I might be looking a little more deeply into that person’s background. Personally, the way it was said (and perhaps it was taken out of context) is rather disturbing to me. As if a threat rather than information.
2 [Análise/opinião] 8 Julho « A Vila de Potemkin
July 8, 2008 @ 4:06 pm CEST[…] de Potemkin « [Reuters] Dia 5 [Análise/opinião] 8 Julho Julho 8, 2008 Are American Politcs “Post-Racial”? Michael van der Galien, […]
3 Claudia, Assistant Editor
July 8, 2008 @ 4:06 pm CESTAs usual you overplay what Obama does (he "frequently plays the race card") and underplay the same for opponents, but that really isn’t the main point of the post so I will move on.
The subject itself is a bit of a red herring I think. I seriously doubt there is anyone in America who REALLY believes America is "post-racial". That a country is in the position to possibly elect the first black president does NOT make it "post-racial" it merely means it’s not as bad as it used to be (it used to be unbelievably bad).
Blacks will vote for Obama in huge numbers, because he’s the ultimate combination, democrat and black (if you think they only pay attention to color, consider what would happen if Condi ran, anyone who thinks the black vote would go to her is smoking). Plenty of Appalachia voters won’t because he’s black also. Race is and will be used both to play the victim and to victimize in this election and others.
The main point though is that we, and all media, are discussing a controversy that does’t really exist. Pretty much anyone awake knows that America is anything but "post-racial". At the most we can hope it’s getting better. But until "let’s talk about race" is met with confusion and the question "why talk about race?" we won’t be past the subject.
4 Chris
July 8, 2008 @ 10:56 pm CEST“it merely means it’s not as bad as it used to be (it used to be unbelievably bad).”
Claudia;
I’ve got to pursue this comment a bit. It reminds me of so many statements that follow looking back on racist incidents in the past and “how we’ve changed”. Usually the last statement is “we still have a long way to go.” On its surface, I don’t have a quarrel with the statement or your’s. (And maybe this is a “glass half full/ half empty” argument.)
But I can sure remember a time when it was unheard of to have a Black in the administration; when a nationally elected Black official was exceedingly rare and never from the south. I can remember when the idea of a black head coach was outrageous. I can recall when black folk had to “act respectfully” to be taken seriously. I can go on.
We have come A LONG WAY. And I can’t say that our “further way to go” is much different than any other nation’s. I see ethnic conflict not only in “3rd world countries” but in many “1st world countries”. I see race played in “the opposite direction” in some countries (i.e. Zimbabwe). I see whites killing whites for ethnic reasons (Bosnia) and I see blacks killing blacks for ethnic reasons (Rwanda). Ethnic hatred, or more explicitly, the desire of men to feel better of themselves by distinguishing themselves from the “others” seems an inherent “sin” in all men.
Having said that, I think we’ve come a very long way in America. Are there some who will vote in this election based on skin color, yes (unfortunately both black and white). I deeply believe that is a distinct minority of the voters in the US. Forty years ago I could not say that.
5 Chris
July 8, 2008 @ 10:57 pm CESTAnd PS: I would most decidely agree that we are not “pst racial”
I don’t even know that that means.
6 Chris
July 8, 2008 @ 11:06 pm CESTThat should read:
And PS: I would most decidely agree that we are not “post racial”
I don’t even know what that means.