Commentating: BET Barack Obama Special
In the week following Barack Obama’s election, I appeared as a talking head on the 1 hour BET News special called “Our Next President”
In this exciting special, myself and a variety of other politicians, commentators, comedians and high profile personalities talk about Barack, his influence, his family, him and Michelle, what his election means to us, black masculinity…
Commentating: BBC News
On November 6th, I appeared live from New York on BBC News talking about Obama’s win. Other topics in the discussion included Obama’s influence on black people as a role model and whether or not the UK will have a black Prime Minister anytime soon.
Sarah Palin’s Speech…
What to make of Sarah Palin’s speech?
Well, you know, it wasn’t badly delivered… but it doesn’t take a genius to read from an auto-cue. Ok, so she attacked Obama, talked about McCain being a POW (a lot) and then attacked Obama again. Oh, and she talked about her family.
She was combative, sarcastic, snarling (I didn’t like that face) and direct - typical Republican really. She followed on nicely from Giuliani’s similar nasty speech. (Did anyone notice that Giuliani, a man who lives in a million dollar townhouse in NY, was still trying to paint Obama as an elitist?!)
So what didn’t Palin say? Well, everything really. Apart from talking about energy, I didn’t hear a mention of a policy. I didn’t hear about her stance on any of the major issues currently facing America (oh, ok she talked a a little about oil and gas) - you know, the messed up economy, the impending recession, foreclosures, Iraq…There was no substance whatsoever. None. What exactly will Palin and McCain do if they are to be in power?? Does anyone actually know?!
I did hear that going to PTA meetings somehow qualifies her to do the job of a VP. If I’d known that was such an important part of qualifying for the position, I would have encouraged my mum to go for a VP position a long time ago. By the way, my mum owns her own business (executive experience) and has a very high approval rating.
Palin lied - yes lied - about the Bridge to Nowhere. And her claims about bringing down unnecessary spending seemed at odds with the reports that she currently has $31million of federal funds earmarked for Alaska (population of around 7,000)…
And somehow she managed to very conveniently forget that the governing party of the past 8 years, the party that has mismanaged the country, has been…um… the Republican party.
All I’ve learned is that the Republicans are serious about electioneering, but not serious about the good of the country.
And - can someone please, please tell me what John McCain done anything else except be a Prisoner of War? Neither him nor his people seem to know…
What is the “race card”?
John McCain’s camp accused Barack Obama of “playing the race card”. Now, bloggers, journalists and ordinary folk are asking if Obama has indeed played the race card.
My first question is what the hell is the race card? What does it actually mean? What is the true definition of that phrase?
According to Wikipedia “Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase referring to an allegation raised against a person who has brought the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage.”
According to the BBC it is a “political tactic to appeal to racist motives in the electorate. Alternatively; political tactic to appeal to non-racist motives in the electorate by accusing an opponent of appealing to racist motives. ”
Ok, now that I’ve answered that question, I have some more questions. How, and by whose criteria, is ‘playing the race card’ defined? Who gets to decide whether or not I’m playing said card? If I accuse someone of being racist or discriminatory, how would anyone else - apart from me since only I know my own motives - know whether or not I was ‘playing the race card’? If I talk about being black, does that mean that I’m playing the race card? If I talk about differences associated with being black, does that mean I’m playing the race card? If I talk about race at all, does that mean I’m playing the race card?
Once I went to the cinema and a group of black kids came in half way during the film, making a lot of noise and generally being disruptive. When the police came in after them, I heard one of the girls in the group say “see, they only target the black kids”. Of course, considering their appalling behaviour, that was an ignorant - and wholly inaccurate - accusation. Their race had nothing to do with being targets for the police. I guess that could be described as playing the race card.
Now if I say ‘hey, I’m black, that makes me more likely to be pulled over by the police’, does that mean I’m playing the race card? Am I not just stating a fact?
If I as a black person talk about race, I can be accused of playing the race card, as if my race was not already a factor before I mentioned it… Barack Obama may have called attention to the fact that the Republicans may use his difference as a weapon against him, but it was not as if nobody was aware of that difference before he mentioned it. He just drew attention to it. So how exactly is that ‘playing the race card’? Surely, playing the race card means inserting a particular meaning where none previously existed?
Another time, at university, I was in the kitchen and it was hot. I complained about the heat and a white friend of mine said ‘you should be used to it - you’re from Africa’. Now, although my parents are African, I had not until that point visited or lived in Africa. I was actually quite offended by his comments. He thought what he said was pretty legitimate though. Now, if I had said to him ‘I found what you said ignorant and offensive’ would I have been playing the race card, being that he thought he was just making an observation and hadn’t said anything untoward? I.e. does the other person’s intention actually matter in whether or not something can be described in that way?
The ‘playing the race card’ comment is a tough one to combat because it tends to shut down any subsequent debate. How exactly do you prove that you are not playing it, if someone accuses you of doing so? And isn’t it just a very convenient way of dismissing one’s comments and lumping them into a box of nothingness, basically saying that the comments are not to be taken seriously or given any meaning?
It’s all a bit confusing to be honest. One of those areas where race becomes a very tricky and complex matter. What do you think?
Race: White Privilege, Black Disadvantage
In a recent article - “Saying Sorry For Slavery Isn’t Enough” - that I wrote for the Guardian about the US House of Representatives’ apology for slavery, one of the readers made a comment to the effect that he/she is white and is sick of hearing about race.
This type of comment is one that particularly gets my goat, for whoever makes such a comment completely misunderstands the role that race plays in Western society. People think that it is only by black people talking about race that race has become - or is - an issue. The underlying - and incorrect notion - is that race would go away if black people stopped talking about it. Of course, that’s not what would happen.
The reason why many black people talk about race is because they have tended to be at the brunt of its most negative usage. Most white people in the world, however, have experienced the positive aspects associated with being white. However, because their racially-orientated privilege is such an inherent part of society, they fail to realize that it matters or plays any role in their lives at all.
One of the issues with discussions about race is that they tend to only focus on racism and oppression. There is little said about those - generally white people - who are affected by race from the basis of privilege.
In ‘White People: Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack’ which is now one considered an anti-racist classic, Peggy McIntosh, the white author, writes: “Thinking through unacknowledged male privilege as a phenomenon, I realized that, since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there was most likely a phenomenon of while privilege that was similarly denied and protected. As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage… I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks.”
Western society has always operated a normative notion that posits whiteness as inherently superior and of a higher status. In an academic study entitled “Politicizing Whiteness: Recognition of Race Privilege and Prejudice among Rural, Southern Whites”, the author notes that “Whiteness is a particular material, cultural, and subjective location that “signals the production and reproduction of dominance rather than subordination, normativity rather than marginality, and privilege rather than disadvantage” (Frankenberg 1993: 236-237). White studies acknowledge that for the most part, “whiteness” has been invisible since it has gone unmarked, assumed, and considered normative”.
That is, the inherent privileges associated with being white are so ingrained within society as to be almost unnoticeable by those who benefit from it. White people on the whole have become more race conscious because black people or other minorities have complained about or become aware of their racial disadvantage. It seems to them, as a result, that it is black people who make race an issue.
In a simplistic way this can be seen when it comes to the issue of black magazines and black media. I have had a large number of white friends ask me what the purpose of black-orientated media is. They assume that by focussing on ‘black’ such media is exclusive and ‘racist’. What they fail to see is that most media is already exclusive and racially-orientated - towards white people.
When I open a women’s magazine that talks about skin turning red in the summer, self-tanners, or shows a certain hue of foundation and pale pink blushers, I immediately know that they are not talking to me as a black woman. White people, however, so used to being the dominant culture and so used to have the world targetted toward them do not see that.
Another example is affirmative action. Many white people do not like the practise. They think it injects race into the workplace or education system and is therefore discriminatory. Again, what they fail to understand is that race already operates in those enviroments. Indeed, the unspoken affirmative action policies that have been in operation for years in those environments just happens to be one that benefits white people. A great book to read on this is “When Affirmative Action Was White” by Ira Katznelson.
Race is a complex issue, made all the more troubling by those who insist that black people should shut up about it in order for it to go away. Race is not simply black disadvantage. There are many people who have benefited and continue to benefit from the privileges their race affords them every single day. If only they would realize it!
Vogue Italia Black Issue - Attention Seeking or Change Leading?
There’s been a whole heap of noise about Vogue Italy’s Black issue, which features all black models. It is apparently the publication’s highest selling issue.
Was it simply a publicity stunt, an effort for Vogue Italy to exploit the issues around the use of black models in fashion for their own gain or was it a genuine effort on their part to draw attention to a real problem within the fashion industry?
According to the editor they were just trying to come up with something new and unconventional, so it was probably a bit of both. Hey - that’s what you call good marketing!
What I’m more interested in whether or not the following few editions of Vogue Italy - or any other international Vogue edition - will feature more black models. If it doesn’t - and I doubt it will - this could easily be written off as a tokenistic effort that has little to do with highlighting the issues surrounding black models in fashion and more to do with just creating an edition that would sell well. Of course, there is nothing actually wrong with that. Vogue is a business and its aim is to make money.
Secondly, how much of an impact will this have on the fashion industry’s attitudes towards black models? Realistically, it’s doubtful that the the fashion industry will do an about-turn based solely on this one edition of Vogue Italy with black models. It is not as if they have never heard of this issue before. Naomi Campbell and top designer Vivienne Westwood have spoken out publicly about racism in fashion.
At the end of the day, this all comes down to economics and one edition does proves little. If Vogue Italy included more black models in their publication for a year or two and saw a positive effect on their advertising revenues and sales, over the long term, that might make the fashion industry sit up and take notice. Whilst this one edition has sold, it must be asked who bought it, and for what reason? Are these the same people who usually buy the magazine?
The bottom line is that one issue changes nothing. Although I am happy that Vogue Italy ran the issue, it does not mark a watershed in the fashion industry. What will mark a fashion breakthrough is when black models are accepted and used on catwalks and in magazines at the levels they should be. What will make a fashion breakthrough is when advertisers believe that using black models in mainstream publications is good for their brands and their image, and that white female readers are not averse to seeing black women as beauty icons.
What I’d like to see from now is a concerted effort from the mainstream fashion industry to have fair representation of black models. What I’d also like to see is black people with an interest in fashion taking matters into their own hands and opening up magazines or online publications that feature black models. One of the most disheartening things I found when reading the coverage of this Vogue Italy issue was that there was a lot of complaining - particularly amongst black readers - and very little solution-providing. At the end of the day, if a major publication isn’t going to do it, who is?
I applaud Vogue Italy for the Black issue, but honestly I fail to see what difference it’s going to make in solving the real issue of the underepresentation of black models in fashion as whole. Hopefully, however, the conversation sparked by the issue is one that is being taken seriously in fashion circles…For now, though, I will probably stick to reading Essence.
Obama & The Rest Of The World
If the rest of the world could vote in the American elections, Barack Obama would certainly win. The adulation that he was greeted with on his tour of Europe, the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan show as much. Obama symbolizes a great deal to a world fed up with President Bush.
Americans, however, seem not to care much what the world thinks. This is hardly surprising - America is known internationally for its inward-looking nature. Obama’s quasi-presidential trip has done little for him in the polls here at home. According to the latest Wall Street Journal poll, he is up on McCain by 6 points, but this is the same as last month. Other polls - such as Fox New’s one last week which showed little ‘bounce’ after his overseas trip - put Obama between 1 and 3 points ahead. Basically, there is still a good chance that McCain could win.
So why is this? Why isn’t Obama much further ahead than McCain? Well, first of all, America is dealing with its own domestic struggles - gas prices, a declining economy, foreclosures and so on. Those matter more to the average American than what is going on in the rest of the world. Secondly, McCain’s image is still strong and he is still a well-respected candidate. Some Americans, it seems, are still struggling to fully connect with Obama.
Maybe the effect of the overseas tour on polls has been overblown? Even Obama himself did not expect it to cause any significant changes in the polls and - to be honest - polls are not necessarily an accurate indication of voter behaviour on election day.
Obama, or McCain? We all know who would win internationally. But, here in the US, it still remains to be seen.
WE ARE MOVING
Please note that from now onwards, all blog postings can be found at www.lolacreative.com/blog
I will no longer be posting to this blog site…
Please make sure to check my new area for blog updates.
Satire or Stupidity?
The New Yorker magazine has come under intense fire for publishing this cartoon of a turban-wearing Barack and a militant, afro-toting Michelle.
On first view, I can see why. Without understanding its context, it is easy to see this as a cartoon that seeks only to confirm all of the worst rumours about Barack Obama and his wife.
But let’s find some context here, for without context there is no meaning. The New Yorker is a liberal, progressive publication. Anyone who reads it, or knows anything about it, is aware of that.
As editor-in-chief David Remnick said: “The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls. What we set out to do was to throw all these images together, which are all over the top and to shine a kind of harsh light on them, to satirize them…”
Despite the explanation, people are still angry. It seems that the real fear is that those who don’t know what the publication stands for may see the cover and think that it is an endorsement of the rumours.
However, the cover also carries the headline ‘The Politics of Fear’ which gives some idea that it is meant not to be taken on face value. Some have suggested that the publication should have added a caption. I’m with Paul Lewis at the UK’s Guardian who asks “A caption? What would it have said?”
To be honest, if the media had not made much of it, the cover may have slipped by unnoticed anyway. The New Yorker is not read by a huge amount of people. It could also be argued that the New Yorker knew exactly what it was doing when it printed this. At the end of the day, their job is to sell more publications and what better way to do so than by creating a storm?
The controversy over the cover may also have gone some way towards bringing to light some of the rumours about Obama and his wife and showing just how ridiculous they are. After all, isn’t that what the New Yorker intended to do?
Do we also really believe that people are so stupid that they are unable to read between the lines? Or is it, as one commentor wrote on a blog the case that “Context is lost over time…in months to come, this image will still be around, the editor of New Yorker’s ‘explanation’ won’t be.”
Is it simply that Obama supporters - as I suggest in a recent Guardian article - are so protective of him that they have simply lost their sense of humour?
Transcending Race - Don’t Talk Nonsense!
[Taken from a blog post written in February 2008]
The notions of ‘transcending race’ and ‘post-racial politics’ are not only nonsensical but rather troubling. Although people use the terms as though they are a cause for celebration, when you read between the lines you find that they actually carry with them inherently racist ideas.
Here’s why…
1) The dictionary definition of the word ‘transcend’ is ‘to rise above or go beyond; exceed; to outdo in excellence’.
2) The idea that one should ’transcend race’ suggests that race (in this particular case, being black) is a hindrance that needs to be overcome before success can be achieved.
3) The inference, therefore, is that ordinarily Obama’s race would be a problem. However, apparently he has been elevated by his education, intelligence, articulate manner and charm - all of which according to this question shouldn’t really be associated with being black - where his race is no longer seen as a challenge.
4) The question ‘has Obama transcended race?’ suggests that it is because Obama has overcome the limitations of being black that people (white people) like him.
5) This question carries with it an inherent notion that being black is in itself problematic and, dare I say, an obstacle to success. If that was not the case, why would Obama be seen to have ‘transcended race’ just because he is a black man who is well liked?
There is nothing for Obama to ‘transcend’. He’s a black man who is also educated, intelligent, articulate and charming. Simple.