When Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President it felt like a prescription for the foreign policy of the Bush administration. Although I was leaning towards voting for John Edwards I thought then-nominee Obama provided the best counter to terrorists and extremists around the world: a man with an appearance, a name and a family history that could immediately alter perceptions about America under the Bush regime. And the news reports of his Cairo speech yesterday seem to be proving this correct. I think what more and more people have to recognize is that there is an incredibly high value to Obama’s appearance and racial background, no matter how many conservative politicians and jurists want to move quickly (and conveniently) to a race-blind society. Since the Warren Court, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court and many pockets of the country have been in an all out sprint to become race neutral (because once you have a 400+ year head start, there is really no threat of actual equality for the injured party without some substantial assistance). Hopefully that trend will slow or stop.
And although the 43rd presidnet provides the greatest contrast to the 44th, this is not merely a Bush vs. Obama issue. If Bill Clinton gave a speech equivalent to that of Obama’s, it could not have the same effect because he would still be white, which would prevent the instinctive affinity and pride people of color around the world feel towards Obama. However, because of Obama, when we have our next white president (I am pretty sure in Presidential politics “once we go black, we’ll probably go white again at some point” is the axiom) America will be looked at differently because we will be a country where people of different races succeed to the highest level in reality and not just in a series of truisms. But make no mistake, our bombs and guns cannot have the same long term effect in changing the hearts and minds of the Muslim world (and marginalizing its radical and violent subset) that having a leader more representative of the world does. And this is not just an international effect – this is an important lesson for every community in America.
At the Eagle Academy, a school of predominantly inner city African-American and Latino males, in the South Bronx, where I am a mentor, they began the mentoring program with the idea that young men will become what they see. So the school made an intense effort to draw mentors from various professional communities. Perhaps the young men will see drug dealers and gang members during their day, but they will also see lawyers and doctors during their day. And yes, most of the mentors are men of color as well, because that emphasizes the most important lesson, which is not that other people (i.e. white) can have success via traditional paths (college, grad school, etc.) , but that they can have that same success too.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has come under fire for some of her comments indicating that her background will help her appreciate different viewpoints, especially those of women and people of color. People are less charged up over her female point of view because sexism has never gained the stigma that racism has (even on the Supreme Court gender discrimination has never attained the “strict scrutiny” standard that racial discrimination cases have attained, despite the efforts of Justice Ginsburg.). People do not mind as much when a “women’s perspective” is cited because it does not evoke the horrible sensations of guilt and horror that the legacy of race relations in this country does. But different perspectives, especially racial, are important. Do I agree with Judge Sotomayor’s opinion on the firefighter tests in New Haven, CT? No – but do I think her perspective as a Latina is important in deciding legal issues concerning race? Absolutely. As she put it in 1998: “We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race-and color-blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud.” Appreciating and understanding our differences can only come from inclusion and interaction.
The most tragic example of this is the fatal shooting of Officer Omar Edwards, an African-American police officer in Brooklyn by a fellow officer, Andrew Dunton, who is white. Many people think that this tragedy could have been averted by more training techniques, but training alone cannot undo the subtle prejudices that lead to these rare, but not rare enough, incidents.
And this is not to say that this incident could have been avoided if Officer Dunton had not been white. But perhaps if in a couple of decades a white officer’s first instinct (the way it may have been for an African-American officer because of his life experiences) will be to think, maybe that black guy is a cop I’ll hold off another second or two until I am certain one way or the other. And many officers would rightly say those two seconds could cost a police officer his life. And right now, they may be right. But perhaps as we continue to evolve in our race relations other factors will become more salient beyond race in identifying a police officer form a perpetrator.
From all the newspaper articles I’ve read on it, Officer Dunton is not some cliche, bigoted cop, which makes the situation all the more dire. The overt and malicious racist is easy to spot and punish or avoid, but subtle and somewhat benign prejudices, if there are such things, are more dangerous because they are harder to guard against, both for the victim and the perpetrator. The only way things like this will disappear is for major cultural changes to take effect. And those changes will take decades to occur. But the key to that change is interaction and diversity (the fact that Latino, African-American and Asian members the NYPD now comprise a majority bodes well I think).
Blog