Michael Lind ponders America’s official, and rather peculiar, racial categories.
I am a non-Hispanic white, according to the federal government. My niece, who has a black parent and a white parent, is black, according to the federal government. It is not clear what my godchildren, who are of European and Asian ancestry, are. They could be Asian and Pacific Islander, or non-Hispanic white, for all I know. Or maybe they are “multiracial”. The 2000 Census allowed Americans to identify themselves as such. But this should be recognised as what it is – a cop-out, a cynical attempt to shore up the crumbling, unpopular racial-classification system by creating a new, equally dubious “race” with an assigned place at the identity-politics table. Every human being is a unity. Ancestors from different ethnic groups do not make an individual “multi-ethnic” any more than ancestors of different religions make one “multi-religious” or ancestors from different regions make one “multi-territorial”.
And,
The way to combat racism… is to stop telling Americans that their most important characteristic, in the eyes of the US government, is their race.
This is published in, good lord, the Guardian. Gary Younge and Joseph Harker will, no doubt, be thrilled.
As I wrote a while ago,
Identity politics… can actually exacerbate suspicion and resentment. If some notional “communities” are being treated differently and being encouraged to cultivate difference for social or political leverage, then getting past a person’s skin colour or place or origin seems more difficult, not less. One is continually being reminded of how different a person is, or thinks he ought to be. A cynic might point out that the racial grievance industry – and the various commentators and lobbyists who benefit from it – depends on people being preoccupied by the colour of a person’s skin. And therefore, one might suppose, there’s an incentive to make sure lots of people are.
Years ago I was trying to hustle some financial support while in graduate school. A friend suggested I should take a look at Ford Foundation scholarships for minority students. He thought I might qualify, as a Latino/Hispanic, whatever.
The application had a long list of various flavors of Latino, from Argentine to Uruguayan. Conspicuous by its absence was the flavor I was looking for, Cuban. A friendly professor explained to me that Cubans were the wrong sort of Latino, being too prone to anti-communist and pro-American sentiments.
I think of myself as American, not Cuban-American nor Cuban, though I was born in Cuba of Cuban parents. At that particular moment, however, I was very proud to be Cuban. I didn’t get the money, but I got something better.
As for the whole race thing, I typically write in “human”.
Pwyll,
One Guardian reader offers the following:
“The purpose of affirmative action and other colour-conscious policies is to bring about colour-blindness.”
But every advocate of PC discrimination I’ve encountered seems more preoccupied by pigmentation, not less, and seems likely to remain so. As regular readers will know, the Guardian’s Harker and Younge have pretty much defined their politics and status with grievance and racial fixation, often of a ludicrous and patronising kind. They, as much as those they criticise, are peddlers in prejudice and cartoonish identity. That’s what they’re paid to do. That’s what they’ve chosen to do. And that, I suppose, is what they’ll continue doing.
I have never understood how one can bring about color blindness by obsessing to the nth degree over color, and imposing quotas on the basis of color. I must be missing something.
Suggest that as white people under-use public transport, affirmative action should be used to allow “whites” to travel in the front of the bus.
“I have never understood how one can bring about color blindness by obsessing to the nth degree over color”
because you’re not up to date with modern definitions of racism. It is not longer desirable to be “color blind”.
Lind’s neice, with one black parent and one white parent, is considered black. Suppose she marries a white man and has a child. Is that child, who is, for lack of a better term, 1/4 black, also considered black? By the government’s reckoning, he or she would have to be. Which only points up the silliness of racial categorization.
Wolf,
Nothing new about that. It’s the “one drop” rule, as established by the Jim Crow laws put into place by Democratic administrations since 1870. They just have a new set of blather to justify it.
Regards,
Ric
The way I see it, it’s coming down to a two-way choice in November’s Presidential election: either support your American Republic, or support your “neo-tribe.” My bet is the Republic wins in 2008.
Still, in order to manipulate people to vote in tribal blocks the Democrat(ic)s need to compel blocks of voters to de-value their personal interests in favor of abstracted “group-interests.”
This, of course, will appeal to unactualized Americans who seek succor and anonymity in crowds, and will annoy the individualistic, self-actualized ones.
Which is the plan: corral the unactualized based on their lack of “sense of accomplishment” (which relies on redefining achievement in inclusive, subjective “group” terms, like “feeling respected”)) and then lock this herd in the “group” corral by threatening apostates with labels reserved for the “others,” like “Uncle Tom,” or “Rascist.”
The way this is setting up currently in America is, the actualized, empowered citizens who wear watches and pay their bills on time are labeled “White” (as in “Whiteness Studies”) and the chronically self-defeating (who profess on record to being unable to vote on a punch-card ballot) and adolescent, 18-22 year-old voters of all skin-hues are assigned the supposedly complimentary “Black” label.
So, I’m steeling myself – an indivualistic, Irish-German tax-paying American – for the inevitable “Rascist” labels, as are most true Ameficans as the election grows nearer.
So, what’s it gonna be folks, the Republic or your abstracted tribes? That’s the question you’re faced with this year. Decide.
In the 2000 Census, I listed myself and my family as “Other: Human”. I was hoping I would be challenged on it so I could dare them to prove me wrong.
Guys,
I’m becoming convinced that “Race” is a the Global Left’s proxy stand-in for “Class.” The Left has learned that it cannot play the Class-Warfare card in America, so they have constructed a proxy to serve in its stead. This abstracted proxy is “Race.”
They also know they cannot gain popular support for their redistributionist policies in America (the centrist, DLC’s candidate’s wins in ’92 and ’96 proved that), so they need to universalize the election by making it a global referendum on “Whiteness.” And knowing that the majority of Earth’s population has a dark skin tone, tribalized societies and a yen for America’s wealth, the Left is counting on their Race-proxy to rally global “Blackness” to what is a purely classist cause.
So, it is becoming obvious why the Left works so hard to “colorize” our electorate. The Dem’s hope to dehumanize the “other,” comparatively-functional people by labeling them with one uniform color; and they need to elevate by suggestion the inept, unresourceful and chronically lethargic with the opposite uniform-color. Hence the “audacity” of Hope.
The Dem’s hoped-for result is two, diabolically-opposed, uniformed teams vying for Americans’ votes – not a United States of America.
And if the wrong guy wins in November, the Dem’s Chicago machine will bum-rush the umpire again like they did in 2000. Only, instead of accusing the GOP of “stealing” the election, they’ll blame them for “Indemic Racism,” and, of course, for any post hoc civil unrest that occurs as a result – from Lehore, Pakistan to Dearborn, MI.
When the bomb goes off in London, it’ll all be just Whitey’s “Chickens Coming Home to Roost, becausec of the “Racism.”
(Boy, reminds me of the paint-by-numbers kits I used to get for my birthday as a kid. Only, the Left wants us to paint in black and white.)
Cheers!
“Identity Politics”
… can actually exacerbate suspicion and resentment. If some notional “communities” are being treated differently and being encouraged to cultivate difference for social or political leverage, then getting past a person’s skin colour or place or origi…