Although Obama spoke to fathers “black or white, rich or poor, from the South Side or the wealthiest suburb,” he specifically addressed members of the African-American community at the beginning of his speech.
This was a very powerful speech, and I think the biggest factor in its strength was the relationship between the speaker and the audience (which was predominantly black). By using the word “we,” Obama showed that he identified himself as a member of the African American community. Imagine instead if this same speech had been given by the late Viola Liuzzo. Despite her role as prominent, white, civil rights activist during the 1960s, if she had said “you and I know how true this is in the African American community,” her plea would not carry the same clout as it would if the speech were given by someone whom the audience saw as a fellow member of the group.“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us towards it. But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”
The idea of race both divides and unites. In one way, it calls attention to differences, but the concept of race can also be a compelling force in achieving solidarity. Do you think racial solidarity is a necessary step toward integration and equality, or is it detrimental?
Skin color, language, continent – whatever basis used to define a race – we know that these categories do not serve as steadfast indicators of the individual’s moral or intellectual capacity. However, as Walter wrote in his post below, “the idea of racism, the act of racism, has been carried out, throughout history, on the basis of physical characteristics.” Although scholars have disproven the scientific validity of racial categories, we cannot ignore that racism has stemmed from such pseudoscientific arguments in the past and continues to do so today. Even though the reasoning is false, its effects are quite real.
Perhaps one reason why these pseudoscientific ideas of race still permeate our beliefs is because our generation in particular was taught at an early age to ignore color and to avoid talking about race, a topic which was practically taboo in elementary school. And it’s clear from our recent class discussions that talking openly about race or offering examples of racial stereotypes is uncomfortable for many of us. Maybe I’m just speaking for myself, though. We don’t want to admit that we know of the labels, and we fear that by verbalizing them, others may assume we are expressing our personal beliefs. When we were younger, we quickly realized that it was impossible to be racially color-blind. We noticed things like gaps in academic achievement and started to draw our own conclusions. There is a fine line between pointing out a correlation and making a value judgment, and I think that ignoring the historical context of race makes it easier to inadvertently draw an erroneous causal relationship between a group of people and a statistic such as the probability of incarceration.
I've been thinking about this in a similar sort of way recently. Mostly, I've been mulling over distinguishing between preference and prejudice, which does seem like the proper distinction to make when differentiating between claims like "I'm not going to date so-and-so because he's bound to be lazy, wild, and a cheater, since he's black" and "I'm not going to date so and so because our personalities don't mesh and we don't really connect." The most troublesome thing with this notion is getting a good sense of where to draw the line between the two--which doesn't inherently mean that this notion is flawed only that prejudice v. preference may be problematic in practice.
ReplyDeleteOne question you raised particularly struck me: "Do you think racial solidarity is a necessary step toward integration and equality, or is it detrimental?"
I don't want to overgeneralize, as the degree that racial solidarity is necessary for equality probably is in direct relation with the levels of inequality existing at a given point in time. As I'm writing this, I'm mulling over racial solidarity and exactly what that means or whether or not it can actually encompass an whole group of people. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, MLK, Ella Baker, A. Philip Randolph, were all historical US civil rights figures who utilized and depended on this idea, but exactly how they cash it out varies a fair bit. Even though nearly all of them would have agreed on one thing: that segregation should end.
Anyway, in application to the US, I do think notions of racial solidarity are necessary to bring about equality. Are there detriments? Yes, but I'd say a cost-benefit analysis ultimately shows that "agitating", direct action is worth its price. For whatever reason, as new narratives emerge about what it means to be an American, I think we lose a real sense to empathize with past peoples and understand the realities that they navigated on a regular basis. For instance, by the mid 60s a majority of Americans shared the opinion that MLK and his marches (e.g. Selma, Birmingham) were doing more harm than good for race relations.
I think you're Obama point and the example were strong points. One thing I've noticed is there is this general sense that its only socially acceptable for certain groups of people to talk about and discuss volatile racial issues (sometimes, even race at all.
For Rhodes, in particular, I've noticed and I've heard many minority students mention the same thing that for whatever reason whenever the issue of race comes up in a classroom setting all the non-minority students subconsciously quiet down and look their way, as though they expect that the minority students are the ones who have to say something.