Is America Really Post-racial?
A Definition and Assessment of Post-racialism in the US
Mar 14, 2008 Adrienne Christina Miles
In recent months, the media has repeatedly thrown around the term post-racial. The context is usually in describing Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama's success thus far in the race. His race is argued to be a "non-issue" in this election and is being used to signify America's progressive post-racial stance. What exactly does the term "post-racial" mean? More specifically, is Obama's race really as unimportant as we're being lead to believe by the media?
Defining the Term
A true definition is undoubtedly hard to come by, as the term and connotations of the term are dubious. The idea of a post-racial society, in its most basic form, is a society in which race is no longer significant or important.
During The Humanities Conference of 2006, Dr. Sandra Lopez-Rocha argued that "if we consider that racial differences are becoming less important we are arguing for a post-racial stand . . ."
This implies that race is still important, but less so than in previous eras. By this definition, we are not yet oblivious to race.
Daniel Scherr, an NPR Senior News Analyst, agreed with this assertion on the January 28, 2008 episode All Things Considered. He believes that Obama's "transcends race" and is "race free."
Evaluating Post-racialism in the 2008 Democratic Primaries
An oddly promising article by Michael Crowley, published on March 12, 2008 in The New Republic, titled "Post-racial" cites an interview he had with "the infamous ex-Klansman" David Duke which led him to the conclusion that "even white Supremacists don't hate Obama." He notes that this doesn't mean that white Suprecmicists are exactly pulling for him either. Crowley states that Duke "seems almost nonchalant about" Obama. He goes on to say that white nationalists like himself "don't see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton--or, for that matter, John McCain."
This interesting development is more post-racial than what some dub as the reason behind Obama's success amongst liberal, progressive whites. A Feb. 28, 2008 article on the American Renaissance website titled "Obama Victory Will Prolong US Racial Divice, Says British Equality Chief" focuses on the views of Trevor Phillps, a Britsh chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who attributes Obama's rise to "white liberals in search of an idyllic post-racist society" and he goes on to say that the "reality is that white America has more invested in this candidate than does black America."
Some argue that Obama's optimism, honesty and charisma boldly "outshine" his race. Thus, his race becomes "secondary" to his ability to run the country. By this, we are implying that his race does have some say in his ability to be our next President, which goes against the Utopian ideal of a "post-racial society." While this hope isn't racist, it is definitely racial and directly contradicts the notion of the post-racial vision that many white liberals have.
Ironically, the media, which is the institution claiming post-racialism, is the very institution promoting a racial divide. When analyzing the votes, the press looks at the racial demographic break down of the votes and highlights it on the front page of major newspapers. If we are to truly think we're beyond the focus of race, it shouldn't be the main focus.
This evidence suggests that we, as Americans, have a long way to go before we are truly post-racial, but we've also come an awfully long way when a white Supremacist sees past race.
Obama speaking in New Hampshire
|
What do you think about this article?
Comments
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles