President Obama: Symbol of a Post-Racial Society?

In the latter weeks of the Presidential election, I had already started to become disenchanted with Mr. Obama.  For the same reasons as most progressives – his steady accommodating shifts towards the right, as he positioned himself as a rank and file Democrat.  Don’t get me wrong.  I voted for him, and I can even say I like the guy, but so far he has not been a President who has lived up to all the “hope”.

In thinking about what his presidency means, with regards to him being the first African-American to take the office, there was much to consider.  So much talk about its historicity, and its symbolism, and the introduction of the term “post-racial” to the common parlance.

It’s mostly nonsense.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Barack Obama been anything other than African-American – even Hispanic or Asian or any other non-white minority – that he would not have won the primary, let alone the overall election.  I do not mean to take anything away from Mr. Obama – he is brilliant, eloquent, right-minded, and every bit qualified to occupy the office of President of the United States.  I mean to say that his ethnicity shone like a beacon to draw attention to his many other merits, whereas he may have been obscured by other Democrats more established around the time that he made his first mark on the public back in 2002.

Let’s not harbor any illusions here.  Mr. Obama’s ethnicity secured him much of the non-white vote – especially amongst African-Americans and Latino-Americans, which make up a sizeable portion of the electorate.  Again I am not saying that the groups voted for him simply because of his ethnicity, but because his ethnicity gained him their attention.  In terms of adequately representing the needs and interests of the non-white demographic, Obama was hardly the best candidate.  That honor goes to Representative Dennis Kucinich, who even had the political chutzpah – no, the balls – to say that he would have a discussion around the issue of reparations.  But Obama was the better politician – he knew how to navigate the waters between left and right so as not to out himself as too much of a liberal like Kucinich, accusations of being a socialist notwithstanding.

And so he won.

But what does his victory mean, really, to people of color?  To me?  Not as much as all the “historicity” and “symbolism” suggests.  In some ways, I feel that his victory may even have set us back, as a nation still struggling with its identity and attempting to reconcile the differences between its disparate ethnic groups.  The idea of a “post-racial” society is nothing short of regressive, because what it does is promote the idea that we are somehow beyond racism simply because we elected an African-American President.  Given the progress that we have made in this country’s 234 year history – full of small hard-fought victories – how could a two-year campaign and election possibly have served to completely eradicate racism?  It’s a ridiculous – and delusional – proposition.

Mr. Obama, throughout his candidacy, worked hard to isolate himself from his identity as an African-American, in that he attempted to remove race from the campaign altogether.  He was astute enough to deliver an excellent speech on race, but it was mostly to resonate with the post-racial idealism of white liberals and to placate white dissent that came in response to the Jeremiah Wright controversy and Obama’s own comments about the “typical white person” during a radio interview.  He made sure to emphasize his blended heritage, to make himself relatable to white Americans, many of whom in their “post-racial” thinking were quick to argue during discussions of race how Obama wasn’t just black, but half-white.

I am not amongst those who have ever criticized Mr. Obama for not being “black enough”.  As a person growing up in this country with his skin color, his features, his name, I have no doubts that he had the full “black experience”, and that he came through it for the better.  It would have, however, been more historic had the first African-American president been a descendant of the enslaved Africans who formed the very backbone of this country.  It would’ve served as a more direct metaphor for “how far we’ve come”.  Still, I will never begrudge Mr. Obama his heritage.

As for symbolism, what exactly does Mr. Obama represent?  He gave white Americans the opportunity to prove – to themselves, at least – that they were not racist, because they voted a “black” President.  But here’s the problem.  In the ways that Obama divorced himself from race during his campaign – such as his clever universalizing of the reparations question – and in how his policies do not reflect any particular concern for people of color, he is the United States’ first African-American President in image only, not in representation.  I do not in any way mean to say that Mr. Obama, or any other person of color, is obligated to act on or even to have such concerns, but if we are talking about how symbolic his presidency is, then he is not an adequate representative of people of color.

Even spectators in other countries have honed in on this:

But it is now time that he lives up to his reputation. Being the first black president does not mean he will automatically champion black issues, or other minority appeals.

His skin colour is slowly blurring into the background of the White House. He is being measured not on his place in history, but on how his reign will affect history.

[...]

Having Obama as a black head of state in the most powerful country in the world will not solve the crises affecting minority populations in the nation.

He is simply the face for a white establishment, who happened to support him to the top because they saw a possibility for a win.

He is, first and foremost, an American President.

— Amy McQuire, National Indigenous Times, Australia

In other words, Obama was “black enough” to be the first African-American president, to allow white people to convince themselves of a post-racial society, but not black enough to rock the boat.  To clarify, this is not a criticism of Mr. Obama himself, but of a society that could elect an African-American president so long as he didn’t call too much attention to his blackness.  Had Mr. Obama even dared to use the word “reparations” during his campaign, he would’ve crashed and burned that instant.  During that reparations question on the CNN panel, only John Edwards had the personal integrity to plainly admit that he would not even address the issue.  Only Dennis Kucinich had the courage to acknowledge that it was an issue worth discussing.  Obama – in what was undoubtedly the right move, politically – danced around it brilliantly.

I am honing in on the reparations issue not because I think it is a pressing issue, but because it is one that highlights the ideological divide between white Americans and Americans of color – regardless of their political orientation.  The candidate willing to address such an issue directly, in a country where white Americans are the majority and still ill at ease discussing race issues, risks political suicide.  It was okay for Dennis Kucinich, who has already found his niche as a hardcore progressive.  But it is for that niche, also, that Kucinich may never be a viable Presidential candidate.

What does it say about a post-racial society that a candidate who wants to discuss the most sensitive issues around race and racism, and our country’s divided legacy, is automatically removed from any chance of being our President?  It suggests a real definition for post-racial:

post-ra⋅cial

–adjective.
beyond discussions of race & racism
Origin: 2008–10, Americanism

Word Origin & History

A term used to describe a society or time period in which discussions around race and racism have been deemed no longer relevant to current social dynamics. Popularized after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America in 2009.

There is no question that people of color hoped that Barack Obama might better represent their interests – interests that have been mostly ignored by long succession of white male Presidents.  They certainly did not need a President whose election suggested that their issues were no longer issues at all, that we as a nation had somehow grown beyond those issues – which, in effect, undermines any attempt at discussing them.

The election of a female president would not suddenly resolve gender inequalities or render all feminists movements obsolete.  The election of a gay president would not suddenly mean that the entire county has accepted homosexuality.  The election of a disabled president would not suggest that we do not still have a long way to go with regards to accommodating and fairly treating our disabled citizens.  So why in the world should the election of an African-American man to the Presidency symbolize this country having overcome its deeply rooted history of racism?

You wanna talk symbolism?  It would’ve been symbolic for a white American President to issue a public apology on behalf of the United States for slavery – much like Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Aboriginal Australians.  The mere idea of this apology nearly saw Bill Clinton crucified when he considered it.  In the end, he very cleverly “acknowledged the evils of slavery”, but without issuing any formal apology.  For white Americans, who love to address the issue of slavery and its legacy with the fact that they, personally, had nothing to do with it – they view such an apology as an admission of personal guilt.  They do not seem to understand it as a symbolic gesture.  And it seems to be a matter of national pride – of “patriotism” – to never acknowledge the grievous mistakes your country has made and continues to make.

The apology has been a long time coming, and it will be a longer time still before we ever – if we ever – see it.  Barack Obama cannot and should not be the President to make it, and for his political savvy I am certain he will not.  It would, after all, change what should be a symbolic gesture into an ironic one.

Personally I would have taken another white male President with the courage to have the necessary dialogues around race and racism.  A President who rather than bringing together a professor and a cop for a beer, dared to bring together an entire nation to discuss the issues that continue to divide them.  I would’ve been willing to put off the election of the first African-American for another 20 years in exchange for that kind of President.

While we wait for that President, Mr. Obama can continue to serve as a placebo solution to the problem of race and racism in the United States.  I can only hope that while the country is so busy convincing itself that we have suddenly become “post-racial”, that we do not lose the opportunity to bring about real change in our social dynamics, under the false pretext that such a change has already taken place.

The default impression of the “American” is unquestionably an American of European descent, but due to cultural hegemony and obscurity and the institution of race, this Euro-American becomes simply “white”. Say what you will about American diversity, but the majority of people in this country are still “white”, a disproportionate number of seats of power in public office and industry are held by Euro-Americans, and the most popular media icons are mostly – you guessed it – white.

So what about White History Month? Well, if such a thing were created, it’d only be as a blatant affront to Black History Month, because as I mentioned, the history of America has mostly been told with respect to and with a focus on the actions of Euro-Americans. The only reason there is a need for Black History Month – which I personally wish wasn’t the case – is that history is often been written at the exclusion of the non-white population in any situation, and not only have so-called “black people” been a minority in this country for its entire history, but a marginalized one at that. Text books give lip service to slavery, but often merely as a backdrop to the American Civil War, glossing over 400 years of atrocity to eventually pay high tribute to white military generals and Abraham Lincoln – who, mind you, was more keen on shipping all African-Americans back to Africa than dealing with the difficulties of Reconstruction.

It is not mentioned how the institution of slavery formed the very financial backbone of this country, nor how the wealth of many of the top 1% of individuals and the richest corporations were accumulated on top of a slavery money foundation. After slavery, history books do not pay much attention – if they mention it at all – to the atrocities that continued to take place against African-Americans, such as beatings and lynchings that went unpunished because of the mentality that while no longer slaves, they were still less than human and therefore entitled to less than human rights. Perhaps it is thought that impressionable little minds cannot digest the scope of the crimes committed against African-Americans, but in my opinion, that is the exact impression that they need of this country – i.e. an accurate one.

Anyway, without going much further into the exclusion of particularly “black” issues from mainstream written American history – and literature, and art, and invention, and more – the point is that American History is all too often “white history”. I should mention that the issues of “non-black” minorities get even less attention. Perhaps because their roles were on the whole less significant given their numbers, but mostly for the same reason that black history is relegated to a single month of coverage rather than interspersed throughout the continuum of American history as it should be, and as would eliminate the need for such a month. My focus on black history here is due mostly to the fact that the exclusion of other minorities from the American stage of history has left me with little to no knowledge about their roles. I blame the standardized American education system for this exclusion.

I will say, though, that the American Indians, in spite – or because of their reduced numbers and a need to preserve their history and culture – need as much as any non-white group to be adequately represented in American history. The true story of Columbus should be told. The Thanksgiving myth needs to be deconstructed, if not completely abolished. The plights that American Indians have faced and continue to face in the aftermath of their near physical and cultural annihilation and marginalization needs to be recognized and discussed with as much fervor as anything else.

But as for “white history month”, perhaps there should be such a thing. Not to pay even more attention to those figures who already dominate American history, but to observe a history of this phenomenon called “whiteness”. There are several progressive academic intiatives, all at the college level, to examine this – indeed “whiteness studies” – which I applaud and wish would gain some mainstream attention.

So enough about history. What about White Entertainment Television? I have to ask any person who argues this point what television they are watching. The main characters and the majority of cast members on every American sitcom, drama, and news show are Euro-Americans. WET, as it were, is every television station – except for the ones that obviously, you know, aren’t – and they are few. How much media coverage has Paris Hilton received, and for what? The woman has no talents to speak of, at least none that she advertises, unless we consider her sexual prowess. But I don’t know anything about that; I didn’t see the tape. She goes to jail – sort of – for an everyday crime, perhaps as much because of her illicit celebrity status as the crime itself and the country can’t stop talking about it for weeks. And in the aftermath, all eyes were on Paris as she declared that she was a changed woman, and the media outlets wait with bated breath to report on her next escapades.

Lindsay Lohan’s transition from a kid-friendly actress to a wanton drunk makes headlines. Anna Nicole Smith stayed in the spotlight even before she died – and for what – manipulating old men into including her in their wills? Brad and Angelina’s relationship joys and woes are given far greater attention than their humanitarian efforts in Africa. And which of the Olsen twins will die first from anorexia or drug addiction would seem to be quite newsworthy.

Also worth noting is that while the depravities of these white women seem to bring them greater attention and popularity, instances where non-white celebrities fall from grace are met with such venomous responses. Barry Bonds took steroids, which has become a bigger deal as he approaches the home run record of squeaky clean Hank Aaron. This is ironic since Hank himself received extreme scorn and even death threats as he approached Babe Ruth’s record. Michael Vick – who was overrated to begin with – is getting even more media attention than he deserves, but this time all negative. Paris Hilton goes to jail and she could make a few million “writing” a book about the experience. Meanwhile, Michael Vick allegedly has some dogs fighting one another – something that is disgraceful and rightfully condemned – but not something that should make him public enemy number one.

Now this is a strange phenomenon, because it almost seems as though these African-American celebrities are held to a higher standard than their white counterparts – strange because these standards are certainly not reflective of how minorities are often perceived in the public consciousness. One would think that where a “black man” lives up to society’s expectations that he be a criminal or a degenerate, he would be met with justified nods.  But in truth, it is not that Michael Vick and Barry Bonds are held to some higher standard than Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, it is that their celebrity was resented from the start – at least by some – and their indiscretions have finally given justification to tear them down. Perhaps hesitant to exalt African-American role models as it would conflict with their perceptions of African-Americans in general, these incidents have given racist parents an excuse to recommend wholesome white gentlemen like Peyton Manning or Steve Nash as their children’s new heroes. This, of course, is not to say that these two men aren’t well-deserving of admiration all else notwithstanding.

Going back to television – Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Dr. Meredith Grey, Tony Soprano, Gil Grissom – the leads of some of the most popular television shows – although it is never said, nor does it need to be said – are “white”. And the media starlets (although a word that rhymes with starlets may be more appropriate) are no different. In fact, it registers in the mind like a beacon whenever this is not the case, and it most often is not, unless it is a show with an all or mostly non-white cast.

I should give special mention to Tony Soprano, as he showcases something important – that where an Italian-American television family isn’t simply “white”, they are most likely in the mafia. And it is that element, and not any Italian heritage or culture that gives them such ample popularity on mainstream (i.e. “white”) television. That is to say, stereotypes appear to be good business.

White dominance of media attention is not mentioned because of what I said before about the default status of Americans and American interests being white as well. So, in light of all of this, what else would an explicitly “white television” station be, other than a racist thumb-at-the-nose at every channel that dares to show anything else? And for those of you who argue for “WET”, I again ask you what television you’ve been watching all this time, but also if it is really necessary to begrudge minorities one or two stations and a handful of programs?

Finally, moving into socioeconomics, the argument of non-white exclusivity as a form of racism is most vehement when it comes to Affirmative Action. It should be mentioned right from the start that as many “white” women have benefited from the program as minorities, but even glossing over that point, why is Affirmative Action not a form of reverse discrimination? Why is it okay to give someone a job at least in part because they are a minority, but apparently not justifiable to hire someone or grant certain privileges to someone because they are “white”? It is hard to even take these questions seriously, but let me address them first with a question of my own: What country do you people live in? In the United States of America, history (as I’ve discussed), politics, economics, indeed everything, favors “white people” – a term I continuously put into quotes due to its spurious status as a term of classification.

No white person ever need fear being pulled over by police simply for being white, or of police adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality as they reach for their wallets. No white person has ever needed to be concerned about being denied a loan or housing in a certain neighborhood on the basis of their perceived race. White people – in all the places and situations that matter – are evaluated as all people should be – exclusively on the basis of their merits. This is one aspect of what is called “white privilege” or the “wages of whiteness”, but there is much more to be observed that unfortunately goes beyond the scope of this essay.

On the other hand, minorities face this kind of exclusion on a regular basis, and on a scale that is hardly balanced out by a few half-baked diversification initiatives or corporate hiring quotas. Employment applications and contracts often have an “at will employment” clause, which state that employment can be terminated at will by the employer for any reason. Now, for fear of a lawsuit, no company would explicitly state that they are firing someone on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. But nor do they have to. It is as simple as saying “it wasn’t a good fit” or “we decided to go in a different direction”, and there is absolutely nothing that an employee can do about it, even on a strong suspicion of racist motives.

And a company can give practically any reason they choose for not hiring someone in the first place, just as a lender can be vague in their reasons for denying someone a loan, and a realtor can simply sell or rent the property to another tenant. Perhaps racism is involved in the majority of cases where minorites aren’t given jobs or loans or housing. Perhaps it is involved in very few. But that it is even possible is why programs like Affirmative Action must exist. In an ideal world it would not be necessary, but this world – and this country less so – is hardly ideal. So, again, why can’t we or don’t we give privileges to people on the basis of their whiteness as we do to minorities? News flash: we do – by default – with no need for any laws or special programs.

So by now it should be clear why there is a need in certain rare cases for non-white exclusivity in society – as an attempt to balance things in American life, which regardless of how it is represented in the media and in the public consciousness, is not synonymous with “white life”. White exclusivity would be the default position of virtually every institution where it is not already, were there not systems in place to prevent it.

If this is not clear, because you think that I am making this up, or because you have made up your mind to reject it from the outset, I encourage you to do genuine research on all the things I have discussed for yourself. By no means should you take me at my word, and I am certain that you could find ample material by which to argue against me. But it is because such material exists – in defiance of truth and to further fundamentally racist agendas – that this essay was written in the first place.

It should be understood from the start that I am writing as an American and I am talking exclusively about the experience of the African Diaspora in the United States. How the terms mentioned apply globally to various other groups of people is beyond the scope of this essay.

Blackness does not exist in a vacuum. It exists only as a reflection of whiteness. It represents both how peoples of the African Diaspora have been regarded and treated by white people – racism, discrimination, subjugation, and annihilation, both physical and cultural. It also represents how the Diaspora has responded to these conditions – submission, acceptance, and resistance.

Blackness also further validates whiteness, existing as a point of reference. White people can claim “We are not that” – that being the exotic or inhuman “other”.

At some point, American society determined that the word “nigger” was inappropriate in the public sphere. That which was a commonly accepted term to describe so-called “black people” – here defined as enslaved Africans and their descendants – became unacceptable only because of its direct association with slavery, or the slave-holding south. That it became taboo has nothing to do with any sudden revelation on the part of white people that slavery, subjugation, or inequality was wrong, and thereby the terms that imply those processes should be abolished.

It became taboo as white society scrambled to erase the stains of the past from its consciousness – a feat that has been mostly achieved in contemporary society. The word “nigger” is one of those beacons that penetrate the veil of delusion, that remind “black people” as well as “white people” that the legacy is not dead, that it has merely transformed. Those who use the word in a racist context are considerably more genuine than their apologetic brethren, as they do not suffer under any pretenses of equality. They acknowledge and celebrate it – abhorrent for certain – but that at least makes them conscious of it.

The etymology of the word “nigger” has to do with a mispronunciation or warping of “negro” or similar words which in the European languages of the slave-holding Europeans meant “black”. It is not that the word “nigger” itself, as some unique linguistic phenomenon, confers lesser inhuman status upon darker people. It is that in meaning “black”, an exaggeration of darker skin tones, it also came to mean “inferior” due to its association with those darker skinned people. In other words, the less-than-human status was conferred first, and then all things associated with them as such, came to refer to inferiority. In this way, “black” – is just as fundamentally racist as “nigger”. This becomes even clearer when you hear people use the term “blacks” instead of “black people” – again a removal of the human element. Of course those same people also probably say “whites”, but there is no dehumanizing dimension to whiteness, and therefore it does not carry the same connotation.

Categorization is an everyday practice in every human society. We facilitate our understanding of a multitude of phenomena by trying to group them by their common traits. This is true of everything – objects, animals, ideas, and people. “Black” is used to categorize people who are perceived to have common traits. However, these traits are numerous. They are not exclusively biological, as there are as many differences within that group as there are similarities, just as there are between “black” people and any other perceived group. The biological differences between human beings are fluid in how they pervade the entire species, and do not create such distinct separations. The traits are not merely visual, as the spectrum of so-called “black people” incorporates incomparable diversity.

This is not to say that there are not identifiable biological differences between human groups, or that all systems of group classification are invalid. However, those differences do not at all correspond to how those groups are identified in America – our conception of race. Furthermore, genetic differences are really only relevant within the context of medicine, and even doctors are careful not to attribute the prevalence of disorders within perceived groups to biology alone. They realize that those disorders may have as much to do with bad practices transmitted through culture, such as diet.

Within the medical context, to whatever extent racial classifications are helpful in identifying high risk conditions, and in fostering a culture of illness prevention, then they should be examined further. But there is little need for these classifications to be transmitted into American culture, as they have proven only to be divisive.

The differences between people aren’t merely social either, as “black people” also exist at nearly all levels of the socioeconomic spectrum, albeit with a clearly uneven distribution. They are not intellectual or emotional, because no one can claim to know the minds of an entire group of people, what they think or how they feel.

Then on what grounds do we even classify certain people as “black”? So-called black people themselves, here in America, may see the term as synonymous with “African-American”, and claim that a certain group of people share in the experience and history of subjugation, discrimination, hatred, and oppression. Indeed there is a group of people with this shared experience, but even the degree to which they experience it exists along a spectrum, with some able to blissfully ignore it, while others feel that they suffer under its influences on a daily basis.

It is not merely that generalizations are made about “black people”. Blackness itself is the generalization. Blackness purports that all people of visible African descent have the same experience without exception, and denies any claims to individuality.

If black, then, is defined as a group of people with this shared experience, then it reaffirms my earlier claim that it exists only in response to whiteness. The aforementioned experience was created and is maintained by so-called white people, who continue to need some justification for the sense that they exist in opposition to, or at least distinct from, a darker skinned “other”. Many so-called black people themselves cling to this identity for the same reason, accepting their place as a minority “other”, although now in some way resisting the experience rather than succumbing to it. But they still only exist as a response, rather than due to anything inherent to their being or character. Of course, for all my pedantics here, I realize that most people use “black” to describe themselves simply out of tradition. “It’s not that deep”, someone might say. Until it is. And, really, it has been since the beginning, but it’s been so co-opted into “black identity” that it’s been taken for granted.

The cultural phenomenon known as “black pride” is a paradox. On the one hand proponents acknowledge their perceived differences from others – while somehow ignoring the reasons for those perceptions and their basis in demonization – while espousing a pride within that identity. How can an individual take pride in the characteristics ascribed to a entire spectrum of people?  How can one be proud to be considered inferior? Now of course no so-called black person would consider themselves inferior, but in accepting the term “black”, they are validating that exact perception of their being.

The so-called “black experience” is a fact of many people’s lives. Its effects cannot be underestimated or ignored, and certainly should never be forgotten. However, this does not mean that it must be used as a basis for people’s identity. Our lives are certainly affected by many natural and cultural phenomena, such as thunderstorms and earthquakes, the loss of a job or the loss of a loved one. We do not then become Thunderstormians or Unemployedians. There is clearly a sense of identity that exists before and supersedes those events. In the same way, so-called black people possess a fundamental character and identity that exists apart from, albeit influenced by, the “black experience”.

This identity is dichotomous, because on the one hand each person has a uniqueness that prevents them from being totally submerged within any system of classification. Yet on the other hand they have so much in common with every other one of their fellow human beings as to under certain circumstances ignore their differences altogether. As a hypothetical scenario, were a hostile alien race to suddenly set upon the earth, they would become the exotic and reviled “other” and the whole of humanity most likely would unite against them.

A distinction must be made here, between the “black experience” and identity as “African-American” – a term I begrudgingly tolerate. It is not merely a matter of word choice. If the word black is understood as fundamentally racist, then the “black experience” is only the shared experience of being subjugated and defeated by racism. On the other hand, there are many things – cultural phenomena – which have been transmitted through generations of people from Africa. Art, religion, music, food, kinship systems – in fact, practically all aspects of African-American culture have been influenced in shades by an African heritage.

The problem is that Africa is a giant continent, not some small country, and a continent with such immense diversity that even the demarcation of nations there does not represent the distribution of biological and cultural variation. This is to say that there is no homogeneous “African” culture, and therefore no single culture to which American members of the Diaspora can trace their identity or customs. There is also the fact that many so-called African-Americans do not even know from which region in Africa their ancestors came. Therefore, more than any of the cultural practices that stem from the African continent, the central current of African-American identity is also the “black experience”, that is, the shared legacy of slavery.

The United States is one of the only places in the world with such strong cultural distinctions between its members. A place like Indonesia may have 2,000 ethnic groups and 500 languages (those numbers are arbitrary – the point is to say that there are a lot) but the differences between them probably exist along a spectrum rather than in a large number of discrete and seemingly irreconcilable groups as exist here. This being the case, even the “American” identity is subject to question. If there is anything distinctly American, it is that the American cannot be defined as any one thing.

At least that is the reality of the situation, but in practice, those things which have been deemed “American” are those ideologies and practices of “white people”. Everything and everyone else is so distinctly un-American that they require an additional prefix. There are Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and of course African-Americans, but those who subscribe to the white identity are simply “American”. These include Spanish, Italians, Dutch, Irish, Polish – and in some cases Jewish people – except where these groups retain their cultural differences and identify as whatever particular kind of American. And this is what has to change. We who consider ourselves American need to stake our claim upon that identity and see it become more adequately representative of our diversity.

After all, if American-ness is something that can only be fully claimed by “white people” and African-ness is diluted, unidentifiable, then where does that leave so-called African-Americans in identifying themselves? With the “black experience”. Again we have a situation where a group of people are almost forced to identify themselves through the atrocities and grievous injustices once committed (and still being committed) against them. Again their identification is based on the actions and perceptions of another group of people – a group of people who have chosen to regard them as less than human.

If your rosy picture of reality leads you to think that this is not still the case, that there is no legacy to slavery, that “black people need to get over it”, or that we live in anything sort of “color-blind” society, then you are delusional. It was only eleven years ago that American “scholarship” produced a book that presented “scientific evidence” that so-called black people – something they even had trouble defining – were on the whole less intelligent than so-called white people. The ease with which the views of that book and similar “scholarship” were accepted into the mainstream, and continue to color people’s perceptions of group differences only reminds us of the strength of slavery’s legacy.

The perception of certain people as inferior on the basis of their “blackness” – buried as it may be beneath pretenses of tolerance and misguided “diversification” initiatives – is still an undercurrent to American society. Why should anyone be complicit in this demonization by routinely accepting the label of inferiority? Blackness has nothing to do with African-ness, except by chance. Had the colonialist Europeans decided to take most of their slaves from China, then the Chinese would be “black” – in terms of status, as obviously a different term would’ve emerged. Instead, blackness has everything to do with whiteness. If whiteness itself is a fallacy, and black identity only exists as a reflection of it, then it is equally inauthentic, and equally representative of the most ill-conceived stratification of humanity to ever exist in all of history.

Blackness, as I’ve said, is not a characteristic of anyone. It is something that was and continues to be inflicted upon a perceived group of people. In other words, no one is born black, but rather they are “blackened” by society. Just as different peoples of European descent “bleached” themselves in taking on a white identity in order to benefit from the corollary status advantages.

Now the word “inflicted” carries a negative connotation, and indeed blackness is a negative attribution. For proof of this, all anyone needs to do is consider in what context they use the term. “Black people”…what? Invariably what follows is something negative, either a racist generalization on one end or a claim to victimization on the other. Either way, blackness refers not to the people in question but to the status conferred upon them.

Identity is a fluid concept. It is constantly changing and must be highly adaptable to changes in the surrounding environment. For this reason, and because of its foundation, and because of its self-renewing and detrimental effects, the so-called “black” identity needs to be eliminated. This does not mean forgetting the legacy of slavery, subjugation, and oppression. That can never happen. This does not mean being oblivious to the ways in which people classify others, and how those perceptions shape our culture. That would be blissful ignorance. The acknowledgement of the institution of race is as much a necessity as dressing properly for bad weather. This does not mean that we have to let it define us as human beings, or define the relationships we share with other human beings.

To be a “black person” is to play right into the hands of those who seek to retain you as so necessarily different and so unacceptably “other”. So-called “black people” need to get on with the business of being human again – humans with a unique history and plight for certain – but still humans who need not be defined by it.

So for all of this, what am I really saying here? That self-identifying “black people” need to start identifying themselves in a way that is truly representative of the great diversity and uniqueness that makes up the rich spectrum of humanity within that perceived group, rather than falling into this self-limiting stigma of “blackness”. I would say one ideal would be – as I mentioned earlier – to fully claim American-ness, to wrest it from white exclusivity. This means claiming it through our language, through our self-estimation, through our actions, such as being more active in the socio-political process. This is especially important when we consider the nation’s diminishing reputation throughout the world, and how this reflects upon us as people. So-called “Black people” and “African-Americans”, their history notwithstanding, need to play a more significant role in defining what it means to just be American.

This is also a call to all progressive-minded people to make a change in their language to remove the persisting blight of racism. If you find yourself struggling with how to categorize someone, ask yourself if they even need be categorized within the context of your dialogue. Is he a “black doctor” or just a doctor? In these situations, also have the courage to recognize what your language says about your perceptions of others.