Senator Harry Reid’s bad press is perfectly timed for the American Anthropological Association’s “New National Dialogue on Race: A Symposium,” scheduled for tomorrow and Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
Complete with honorary co-chairs from the Congressional Black Caucus, this two-day event seeks to use the election of Barack Obama and the discipline’s powerful traveling exhibit (RACE: Are We So Different?) as backdrops for a series of discussions focused on “why ideas about race and the problem of eliminating racism are so intractable.”
Of course, detractors will say that events like this one are the exact cause of racism’s intractability. That once we stop talking about race/racism, racial discrimination will vanish. Indeed, they might maintain that it already has, save for these re-hashed “conversations on race.” My book, Racial Paranoia, attempts to rebut that claim.
The AAA event brings together scholars, journalists, activists and elected officials to discuss the state of racial politics in American society today.
Given the current controversy swirling around Reid’s comments about Obama’s light skin and non-”Negro dialect,” this may be a particularly opportune time for the anthropologists to descend on the Capitol.
By the way, my own take on the entire Reid affair is quite simple. I’m most shocked by his antiquated use of the word Negro. Who says Negro anymore? That’s probably the only offensive part of the entire thing (as far as I’m concerned): his strange deployment of that term. Indeed, he should probably know that few self-respecting so-called Negroes under the age of 65 or 70 use such terminology today without it being a very self-conscious attempt at invoking America’s racist history. The Negro was New in the 1920s! She’s a Post-Negro African American (or at last a Black American) in the early 21st century.
But do Reid’s quoted comments really merit his resignation from office? Michaele Steele and others are calling for his political head, claiming that anything else is a double-standard. But Reid’s case is different from, say, Trent Lott’s by leaps and bounds. (Critics often bring Lott up as the Republican counter-example.)
Reid is stating a claim that is fairly uncontroversial (even commonsensical) when uttered beyond the bright lights of Fox News. Lott was waxing nostalgic about the political career of an explicit segregationist and about the other America his policies could have created.
Reid’s comments are the apples of self-evident racial/cultural politics laid bare (ugly warts and all) in America’s public sphere. Lott’s public adulation for Thurmond read much more like the oranges (or sour grapes) of race-based resentment. There is a vast difference between racial and racist that, hopefully, will come up at this week’s AAA symposium.
12 Responses to Talking Race/Racism on Capitol Hill
mbelvadi - January 12, 2010 at 8:04 am
Has anyone asked Sen. Reid why he used the word “Negro” at all? I agree that taken as a whole, his statement is not comparable to Lott’s. But Reid’s use of “Negro” suggests to many liberals that he is deeply racist at his core, as only unrepentant racists use that word casually, at least if they’re white old men like him. At least, that’s what liberals of the post-civil-rights generations have been taught, that in that context from that kind of speaker (sociodemographically speaking), the use of that word is a clear marker of deep-seated racism within the speaker. Maybe that’s not actually true, but it might account for some of the controversy.
jairrels - January 12, 2010 at 8:27 am
I was not offended by his statement. Dr. Jackson, don’t forget that the NCNW (National Council of Negro Women)obviously still uses the word. I’m sure you know of Dr. Dorothy Height and her association with that organization.
marktropolis - January 12, 2010 at 10:33 am
Heard a piece on the radio yesterday that talked at length about the comparison between Reid and Lott. There might in fact be some “deep-seated racism” (mbelvadi) within Reid. No surprise given his age and race. That said, if the civil rights leadership is willing to give him a pass, that’s the end of it. Comparing him to Lott, there is clearly a difference of motivation between the two. Reid said something somewhat ignorant; Lott said something that was clearly an indicator to his racist supporters of his continuing racist beliefs. As for Micheal Steele. He needs to go crawl back under whatever rock they found him. As a living, breathing, Uncle Tom, he’s in no position whatsover to pass judgement on others in relation to what is or isn’t racist. He’s getting paid to help the GOP appear to be less racist. And the only network that lets him spew his nonsense unchallenged is Fox. For obvious reasons.
11122741 - January 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm
John, John, John: when are you and so many others liberals going to finally realize and get it that there just so many of us now, and particularly over 60, who are just feed up with and done with “living our life as a color,” or gender, or religion, or ethnic group and so on and that all of you throw backs anacronisms need to focus on being American; you just so need to get over it as my students say and it is all getting to be boring beyond believe.FYI, I was on the buses in the 60′s: time to grow and move on dude and strong being a Johnny One-Note
rosmerta - January 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm
marktropolis, you call Michael Steele an ugly name like Uncle Tom, and then no doubt pride yourself on your fairmindedness? So the only reason a black person could possibly hold conservative views is because they’re some kind of race traitor? Shame on you. Read Thomas Sowell. Listen to Lt. Col. Allen West. Read blogger baldilocks. There are many African Americans who embrace conservatism because they think for themselves, not because they’re brainlessly touting some party line as I suspect so many liberals (of every color) do.
rosmerta - January 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Regarding Mr. Reid, my guess is that he used the word “Negro” merely because of his age and generation; this term was in vogue during a large part of his career and it’s possible he just hasn’t completely abandoned it. I actually didn’t know it was considered offensive; I thought it was merely outdated. This is one thing that makes the neverending “conversation on race” so difficult – the terms of the conversation keep changing, but no one bothers to update us.
minnesotan - January 12, 2010 at 2:06 pm
The word “negro” is pretty tame. Some folks need to grow up and stop taking offense at every minor slight they can manufacture.
marktropolis - January 12, 2010 at 2:46 pm
11122741: It would be easier to “get over it” if this country wouldn’t continue to ignore, allow, and in some cases encourage racism. I guess the whole idea behind Trett Lott’s idea of going back to the good old days doesn’t mean anything to you? What exactly were you on those buses for?rosmerta: I’m well aware that there are black conservatives out there. Just because they exist doesn’t mean that I have to (a) agree with them, (b) like them, or (c) refuse to critique what comes out of their mouths. I have read Sowell. Perhaps too much. Never heard of baldilocks, but just took a quick gander. Sowell is the intellectual giant of black conservatism. I used to actually like his writing (back in the early 80s before he decided to let the right-wing pay him full-time). I don’t actually pride myself on “fairmindedness.” I do pride myself on having spent the better part of 40 years trying to get a handle on this issue called race (and doing it across at least four continents). And yes, Uncle Tom is a pretty ugly word. I think what Steele is doing is pretty ugly. He’s entitled to make whatever choices he wants in his life. I’m entitled to disagree with his choices. I put him in the same category as I put Phyllis Schlafly (and others of her ilk). She’s spent her professional career (emphasis on career) working to ensure that women can’t have careers – that women should stay home and make babies. And yet her’s Schlafly running a national organization and probably pulling in a good 6 figures. Proving that women can have careers and families. Of course she’s probably kicking herself now that she did such a great job that one of her sons is gay. But I digress.Steele uses inflammatory rhetoric when it suits him. And plays the race card similarly. But he can’t stand it when someone does the same. He’s in a position of influence due in large part to the color of his skin (if not entirely). Kind of like Clarence Thomas. Steele’s claim to fame is that he rode the coattails of a second rate republican governor, and then lost a senate race (in part by losing a significant chunk of the Black vote in Maryland). Courtesy of Wikepedia: “Uncle Tom is a pejorative term for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to white authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.”I know gay folks who are Republicans. I actually have a good friend (gay) who at the time told me his favorite author was Laura Ingraham. Granted, he’s still a friend. We just don’t talk politics. Ever. But politically speaking, I feel the same way about him. I can’t get my head wrapped around someone who will publically support an entity that would prefer that you didn’t exist. Trent Lott was reminiscing about those good old days of Jim Crow and miscegenation being against the law. Let’s keep those darkies where they belong. Michael Steele has inherited Lott’s mantle. If that’s not worthy of an Uncle Tom, I don’t know what is. Pejorative? Yes. Incorrect? Prove it.
chuckkle - January 12, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Reid is 70, born in 1939, in Nevada, a state which has not had much of an African American population until recent years.From Salon.com today: Mike MaddenSo as the GOP works itself up into ever-higher dudgeon about Reid’s remarks, Democrats are pushing back, aggressively, against his critics. “One thing he’s not going to do is allow Republicans like John Cornyn and Jon Kyl to beat him up over this,” said one source close to Reid’s camp. “You take John Cornyn and Jon Kyl’s NAACP ratings, add them together, spot ‘em 20 points and it still wouldn’t come close to Reid’s.”Which is true. In 2007-08, the group gave Reid a 90 percent rating, while Cornyn got a 28 and Kyl only a 3. Never, until Reid’s quotes landed in their laps, did the GOP leadership appear to be particularly concerned with scolding politicians who might have offended black voters. Chuck Kleinhans
ledzep - January 12, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Marktropolis:You just pretty clearly implied that the Republican party would prefer that black Americans didn’t exist. The party, as an entity, would prefer that they didn’t exist. And then you concluded your post, “Incorrect? Prove it.” Perhaps it’s news to you that the rest of us are under no obligation to disprove every paranoid fantasy that finds its way onto the Internet. You can make a better argument the other way, actually! Democrats think the pre-Roe abortion laws were unjust – now take a look at abortion rates for Black Americans since Roe, then project them backwards. Should we conclude that the Democratic Party, as an entity, would prefer that around a third of the African-Americans living today were not around?! Enough of this nonsense.
marktropolis - January 13, 2010 at 9:57 am
ledzep: How is my accusation that Steele is an Uncle Tom a paranoid fantasy? Please explain.Perhaps I engaged is a little hyperbole. But the fact is that the GOP (ever since they were joined by the Dixiecrats) has consistently landed on the other side of debates when it comes to issues of importance to the majority of African Americans: affirmative action, civil rights, voting rights, public education, etc. I intended to use the phrase to indicate that the GOP would prefer not to have to deal with all those issues at all. Just like they’d rather not have to deal with immigration (although it’s been a useful wedge issue over the years, you’re never going to get the kind of immigration agenda the right-wing of the party endorses as long as GOP members of congress keep going to restaurants in DC, need cheap child care, or want their lawns mowed). The GOP engages the Black community when it’s convenient – when they want votes. And the only time they engage on the issues of importance to the majority of African Americans (and not those conservative blacks rosmerta wants me to pay attention to), is to attempt to create a wedge to split the Black (or Hispanic) vote. That and most refuse to consider the notion that racism does indeed still exist. Racism as comedy: Have a look at this editorial from the Jan 12 Washington Times that actually attempts to use a “Negro dialect” to respond to Reid’s comments. Titled “Harry Reid and Tim Kaine at the Cracker Barrel.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/12/harry-reid-and-tim-kaine-at-the-cracker-barrel//print/Back to the point about existence. David Neiwert (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/) has written extensively on what he calls the “eliminationist” rhetoric of the right. That’s the stuff spewing forth from the mouths of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. There’s a rhetorical lineage there that goes back to John Birchers, the states-rights folks of the 1950s (and before, just trying to keep it in the last 50 years or so – long enough to include Harry Reid’s generation), and in the current time it’s a mantle held by the birthers (who continue to insist that Obama can’t be president, since he can’t be an American), the anti-immigrationists like Lou Dobbs, the GOP candidates (mostly at the state level) who spoke of open season on Obama (coon hunting, anyone?), the list goes on.I’m not going to digress further into your trajectory around abortion, as it’s entirely off topic, and would take the conversation in an entirely (although not unrelated) direction. That said, I’d be happy to sit here and critique what the Dems have or haven’t done around race in the last 50 years. But I think that’s also an entirely different issue. At least the Dems are trying (irrespective of how ignorant they may be about the issues – to whit Reid’s comment), as noted by chuckkle (#9).
csiame - January 19, 2010 at 7:20 pm
I agree with the author. Racism is not over in America by a long stretch, but not everything that is racial is racist. We all can’t express ourselves in just the right language over the race issue. His were the words of a middle-aged man not au courant with the reigning vocabulary of race and its sensitivities. But I am wondering, why is no one talking about the alleged Clinton remark made to the late Senator Ted Kennedy? Now, that speaks to a pernicious apartheid. It has practical implications for how African Americans and other racial minorities are treated in this country. Maybe he was misquoted.Thorn