Whiteness Theory & Post-Racialism...

This post is probably worthy of a PhD thesis, and perhaps I will write it one day (a PhD thesis is something that is definitely on my bucket list). I might have to decide whether I write it from an education perspective or a legal / justice perspective (then again, I might just combine both and be much less focused).

I have always been interested in these ideas, but strangely enough had not really named them and related them back to theories in the field. In that regard, I have a recently completed subject on diversity for setting readings that 'forced' me to read in more detail about these ideas. The reason I had been thinking about these ideas previously related to both Australian and Indonesian contexts.

In the Australian context it really related to criminal justice and the over-representation of my indigenous brothers and sisters in the court and jail systems (and whether education had a role to play in redressing this sad imbalance).

In the Indonesian context it was really about whiteness theory co-opted into an idea of Indonesian-ness theory. Simply, the idea of honorary Indonesian-ness or Indonesian-ness being the norm to some degree. This one is a much more complex one than whiteness theory because of the way that Indonesian-ness is constructed in the first place. Indonesian is a melting pot of diversity and this is recognised in the notion of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika or Unity in Diversity (although it might be argued that the concept might be better understood from a literal reading of the Javanese that it comes from as being unity from diversity). To be honest, I had also been thinking about the idea of Indonesia-ness with respect to Barack Obama, the US President, and the reverence ordinary Indonesians have for the man and expectations of him from three or so years of living in Indonesia as a child.

This is intended to be a short post. But, hopefully it might inspire a few comments instead of just the usual page views that my posts get.

So, here is the basic idea. Whiteness Theory really is about "whiteness" being the norm. The kicker is that you do not have to be white, but merely accepted as being white. Hence, whiteness is not about race, it is about cultural values and the perceived power and opportunities that being 'white' brings. Yet, it is arguable whether whiteness is an overt or covert theory. The idea that it is covert rests in the manner in which race is talked about, this is in spite of the idea that whiteness theory is not about race, because more often than not it is race which premises the discussion.

I guess what I have been thinking about is the convergence, or lack thereof, between whiteness theory and this idea of post-racialism. This came more to the fore with the election of Obama to the White House, as people started falling over themselves, like Oprah Winfrey for example, in order to claim that this was the start of something big; a post-racial America. Personally, I would need to do a lot more research, but first impressions are that these people are kidding themselves in a reality sense. I understand conceptually what post-racialism entails but I wonder whether the election of a person of mixed race to the presidency of the US is in fact a sign that post-racial America has arrived.

If whiteness theory is about power and privilege then could it be argued that Obama's rise to the presidency fits within the parameters of whiteness theory where arguments of power and privilege prevail?

I do wonder whether the election of an Indonesian of Chinese or Indian or Arab descent would signify a post-racial Indonesia? But, I think before I can wonder that, I tend to wonder whether Indonesia can reach a place of tolerance of, and for, minorities, and really live up to the idea of unity in diversity.

As you can see, there is real potential for me to add to the abundant literature already out there on this topic. Oh, and no apologies for the disjointedness of this rambling post, it remains an unedited ramble of ideas, thoughts, and concepts that are bouncing round in my head.

Ho hum...one more university assessment task to go.

"Negro", "Black", or "African-American"?

This blog of mine generally focuses on issues relating to Australia and Indonesia. However, the whole point was that the blog was to be a place that I could write about anything that piqued my interest or that I wanted, or felt the need, to pass comment on.

Politically correctness and racism are issues that pique my interest. They do so because I sometimes feel that the drive towards politically correctness is a hindrance to full, frank, and open debate about issues. In this case, the issue is race. Race is an issue that is highly emotionally charged, and is one where there are quite divergent opinions amongst those who are subject to the terms that politically correctness generates for us.

This brings me to the substance of this post. I read an interesting article today over at Slate today. The article was discussing when the word "Negro" became taboo. The taboo came soon after the book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation was published in 1968 (cover of the 1992 version is above).

The purpose of the Slate article seemed to be exploring the drive to political correctness in making the term "Black" taboo in preference to the use of the term African-American. I would encourage those with an interest in this sort of subject matter to read the article.

The parts of the story that I found most interesting related to how organizations deal with the changing dynamics, and the drive, to replace certain words with new words while simultaneously stigmatizing the previous term. Also interesting to me was that the move towards the term "African-American" does not have universal support as a majority of people are seemingly non-plused one way or the other with respect to African-American or Black.

With regards to organizations, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has not changed its name but uses the word 'colored' in very limited contexts. The United Negro College Fund tends to go by the initials, UNCF, rather than the full name. Seemingly, this is an exercise in re-branding a familiar and ongoing concern that helps a lot of young people achieve their goals. Indeed, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Bringing this back home for me got me to thinking about how we refer to Aboriginal Australians. There was a time where the were referred to as Blacks. There was also a time where the preferred term was Aboriginal, and seemingly of late there has been a move towards the term "Indigenous Australians". I am sure organizations in the Australian context would encounter similar considerations in relation to names. For example, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) before it was dissolved.

I do not know about anyone else, but I find this sort of 'stuff' interesting.

A President With A Sense of Humour...

There has been much made of whether race is a factor in politics no matter where you live in the world. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America was historic, perhaps for many reasons, but none more so than the fact he is a black man. The USA's first African-American president.

The current health care debate has had some commentators foaming at the mouth about whether or not the race card is being played in the sense that some people are anti-health bill for no other reason than the president is black. Obama has addressed these concerns in two ways, one a little more serious than the other.

The more serious version has Obama talking about the fact that the election showed that lots of folks voted for him irrespective of the colour of his skin, these folks were not only African-Americans, but Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians, and a whole lot of others as well. He acknowledges that maybe some people voted for him because he is black and some others voted for the other fella, John McCain, because Obama is black.

The less serious version popped up on the David Letterman Late Show where Obama said, "First of all, I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election."

However, it is worth noting that Obama himself has rejected the racism claims as they relate to health care reform and the passage of a health care bill. It is interesting that race is now re-appearing and raising its ugly head after so much talk and discussion of the USA entering into a post-racial phase. Post-racial being used to indicate a period where issues no longer had to be defined on race as there was a common or shared challenge in facing the future. To many this was the hope that the "Yes, we can!" campaign envisaged.

Health care reform is not about race, but rather it is about selling public policy and selling reforms. Simply, it is not going to ultimately matter what the colour of your skin is if you do not have health insurance.

In any event, the irreverent humor displayed by a sitting president appearing on a late night comedy show says much about the man.

The Moment of Truth for a Post-Racial Candidate

Is there such a thing as a "post-racial" candidate (photo)? Well, the moment of truth is upon our US brothers and sisters in this most crucial of elections.

I know some of my readers do not giver the proverbial rat's about what happens and who wins. As a student of politics and law, I am interested. To think that the US might finally elect a black man, an African-American if you prefer, is a momentous step, at least in my mind.

Maybe by this time tomorrow we will know who the next president of the US will be. Then again some polls are reporting a tightening race that seems like it might be heading down to the wire.

I like elections!

Palin, A Stripped Moose, African-Americans, and Jews

If you fail to see the connection then you should feel comfortable with the fact that you are probably not the only one.

But here it is and straight from the mouth of Rep. Alcee Hastings (the Rep. standing for Representative and meaning he is a Congressman in the US) who is a Democrat and former Hillary Clinton supporter and now vocal Barack Obama supporter.

This is what was said:

“anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

This was a comment made to a group of African-American and Jewish Democrats and by all reports brought hoots of laughter and applause from all in attendance.

The idea that being able to shoot and strip a moose in any way reflects how one views race and religion relationships is about the same as Republicans claiming that Barack Obama's middle name says something about how he will deal with Muslims and Non-Muslims. Or that Obama's middle name in some way brings into question his Christian beliefs. It is bizarre and it is stupid!

Anyone who thinks that race and religion are not going to be important factors in this US Presidential race need to think again. Even with the US economy on the brink of free-fall into a recession (some might say the abyss of depression), the idea that race and religion keep coming to the fore says something about this historic moment for the US.

I am not an American. But, if I was I think there are more important things at stake in this presidential election other than whether Sarah Palin can strip a moose or the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussain.

Then again that's just me!

This Day in Legal History

On 6 August 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, guaranteeing voting rights for black citizens.

A point worth considering seeing this election year sees the first black citizen of the United States garnering the nomination of a major political party in the US for President.