I attended a symposium put on by the New Racial Studies Project last week at UC Santa Barbara. The final event of the symposium was a roundtable discussion featuring some of our nation's most respected thinkers on race and ethnic relations in the United States, people like Kimberle' Williams Crenshaw, Howard Winant, Kaia Stern, and Tony Coleman. These scholars -- all charismatic and effective public speakers -- should be household names. Instead, the personalities leading the national discussion on race are people like Tony Snow, John Gibson, and Ward Connerly.
Part of the reason the national discussion is dominated by talking heads who have little understanding of race stems from how progressives go about their discussions amongst themselves. Events like the New Racial Studies symposium at UCSB often become trapped in lofty and ultimately largely irrelevant academic disputes.
So, I was pleasantly surprised when, early on in the roundtable discussion, the topic turned from heady academic debates to a very straightforward and highly relevant question: How can the voice of progress regain its position in the national debate on race?
To see how far to the right the dialogue on race has fallen, one need look no farther than the newly appointed White House spokesperson: Tony Snow. At his first live, televised press briefing, Mr. Snow used a racially charged term to describe an undesirable situation: "tar baby." Later in that same press conference, an adroit reporter pressed Snow on whether he wanted to add "hug the tar baby" into the English language. Snow defended his choice of words by appealing to history: "We could trace that back to American lore," he said, as though "American lore" were free of racism.
Then, FOX News commentator John Gibson urged his (presumably white) audience to "do your duty. Make more babies." Expressing horror at projections which show that in 25 years most Americans will be of Latin descent, Gibson reasoned that eugenic race breeding was our only hope. Gibson's comments represent the lowest ebb in the current national discussion about immigration and citizenship, a debate which is clearly riddled with racism.
In California, one of the most recent explicit debates around race came in response to former UC regent Ward Connerly's 2004 ballot initiative which would have forced California to keep almost no records about race or ethnicity at any level of state government. The ideology behind this proposal holds that we live in a "color blind" society. This "color blind" ideology would sweep under the rug any hope of gaining a full understanding of race's still-too-powerful role in the organization of our society. Thankfully, Californians recognized that glossing over the racial divide with "color blindness" would only make things worse.
But now, after California voters turned him down, Connerly has taken his battle for "color blindness" to my home state: Michigan. The "Civil Rights Initiative" would end affirmative action programs in Michigan and would be a major victory for Connerly, Gibson, and their ilk. Once again, the remarkable framing and branding ability of the right wing is on display: "Civil Rights Initiative" sounds like something I'd like to get behind, but it belongs in the same file as "Clear Skies Initiative."
The bottom line is that Connorly's "color blind" ideology and other regressive ideas are steadily gaining influence because of the powerful spokespeople behind them. As the race scholars at UCSB pointed out at that symposium last week, there is an glaring lack of progressive voices on race in the national debate. There remains a pressing need to recognize and appreciate difference, to build antiracist coalitions, to fight for policies that identify and end structural and institutional racism, and to provide diverse educational spaces which fight interpersonal racism and discrimination. Much of this work starts with getting the progressive voice back on the national scene.
(Cross-posted at Courage Campaign)
UPDATE: May 23, 2:00pm -- There's a remarkable debate on this post over at Daily Kos.
Just passing through, and I'd like to point out that the term "tar baby" is taken from African culture initially, found its way into African-American culture, and is usually used between blacks as a derisive term for very dark-skinned people. I don't know that I've ever, in my lifetime, heard a white person refer to a black person as a tar baby.
Second, to refer to a situation as a "tar baby" is the proper and acceptable use of the term. This reminds me of the use of the word "niggardly" except the tar baby term does have some racial connotations... again primarily among African Americans and still dependent upon how it's used.
Remember, the entire Uncle Remus series was taken from word of mouth African and African-American folklore. It's not some term invented by whites to be used as derogatory, and Snow didn't use it in such a fashion. If anything, his use of the term shows that he's accepting and embracing black storytelling tradition, and I'm impressed.
Just because a word or term evokes negative images for some people does not mean that it has no appropriate uses. Some people are just so sensitive.
Thanks for this, Ian.
I'd encourage you to head over to the debate on this at Daily Kos.
Just quickly, I don't think this is a case where people are reacting with too much sensitivity.
We can disagree over the intensity of Snow's remark, or his intent when he made the remark, but regardless "hug the tar baby" has no business at a White House press briefing. It's questionable language at best, and Snow should set a better example as the mouthpiece of the top of the American government. America should lead the world on racial issues -- Snow's comment does nothing to accomplish that mission.
Furthermore, Snow is just the first example of the pervasively racialized commentary in the national discussion. We need to stand up and push back.
ian, your argument doesn't pass a basic litmus test. go out on the street and ask 10 people whether or not the term in question is racist. my guess is that more than half will say it is. now go out and ask 10 black people whether or not the term is racist. my educated guess is that they will say it is racist.
etymology is interesting, but to claim that it makes something not racist is a poor argument. the term "slope" refers to the fact that asians eyes look differently from non-asian eyes...mostly true, but racist nonetheless.
the idea that tony snow is embracing black storytelling tradition is a reach in every way. sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one. this guy works for an administration that has done little to nothing for people of color. his ignorance is both inexcusable and should be expected.
"this guy works for an administration that has done little to nothing for people of color. his ignorance is both inexcusable and should be expected."
Besides put more minorities in positions of power than any other president ever? In addition to his appointment of Alberto Gonzales, the following ethnic minorities are all members or former members of Bush's cabinet.
Elaine Chao
Alphonso Jackson
Condi Rice
Carlos Gutierrez
Colin Powell
And that's without counting Gail Norton and Margaret Spellings who are both women.
The problem is that the litmus test itself is screwed. The same black people who would say that "tar baby" is automatically racist likely include the group who would say "niggardly" is racist because it "sounds like nigger." We're not being sensitive toward races anymore. We're being sensitive to idiots.
You can find race at the heart of anything if you look hard enough.
that's nice that he's put people of color in place, but i don't think it is doing much for the 9th ward.
sure i think race is at the heart of everything. luckily for me, that is something that is unfalsifiable.
still the point remains, people really shouldn't throw the term, "tar baby" around and not expect people to react.
Really, bravo Ian.
Yours was an entirely interesting post. I think I shall now use the word "niggardly" on a regular basis.
-Laslos