Obama’s cabinet shows words are reality

Diversity this…  Diversity that…  We all know the left claims to be diverse and claims even more strongly to support diversity.  For the most part that is true and the election of the first Black president, the United States is ready to see Barack Obama’s call for diversity and for reaching across party lines become reality.  This is a monumental time for this country and social change is afoot. 

As President-elect Obama’s cabinet takes shape, it appears that Obama is welcoming those of different viewpoints into his inner circle.  It is extremely important that the President be advised by those of differingviewpoints, in order to more fully appreciate policy options.  The days of filling cabinet positions with “yes people” is hopefully a thing of the past.  The Christian Science monitor describes Obama’s appointments thusly:

It’s a sign of social progress – and of comfort with views not his own – that Mr. Obama has presented a salad-bowl cabinet in which differing political opinion and strong personal style add the flavor. His team includes a significant number of people of color and also women, but he hasn’t made a big deal of it. His choices appear to have naturally risen to the top due to their experience and expertise.

The diversity challenge for this president will be in deftly managing views and personalities – including four rivals from the primaries.

Obama’s cabinet represents myriad political ideologies, varying levels of involvement in Washington, and diversity along the political spectrum.  Despite Obama’s liberal voting record, he’s selected many moderate voices to control some of the government’s most important organs. 

Does this mean the United States has progressed into full-fledged bipartisanship?  Are we to believe that partisan politics are a thing of the past?  Does Obama’s mantra of change mean that, in Sam Cooke’s words, “A Change Is Gonna Come?”   These questions are not easily answerable.  It does appear that Obama has started off on the appropriate foot, bringing about a new direction for bipartisanship.  By reaching out to those of differing viewpoints for executive level appointments, Obama has paved the way for bipartisanship in Congress.  Hopefully we’ll see that in January.

Stereotypes are true?

I was travelling in suburban Philadelphia this past week and was amusing myself with conservative talk radio.  Everytime I listen to conservative talk radio, it convinces me more and more to not be conservative.  I’m guessing that those radio personalities would find that appaling.  I don’t remember who’s program was on so I’ll avoid misattributing the quote, but it went something like this…

“People are too sensitive.  Stereotypes are true.  People need to accept reality.  Well some stereotypes are true.  Some stereotypes are true most of the time.  Stereotypes can be good.  It’s good that Asians have children that do well in school…”

This argument is flawed for a number of reasons, but most glaringly it is wrong because if a stereotype is not true all of the time, then it’s not really a stereotype.  Then we probably need to discuss if a stereotype has to be true in some sort of Big T truth way or if it must only be true subjectively.  But even if the stereotypes is true on a subjective basis, that is the speaker and the speaker alone believes it to be true, then how is it true if the speaker admits that it is sometimes not true?  This calls into questions meanings of truth, which I’m sure I’ll talk about more than several times in upcoming posts, but I’ll leave that discussion alone for now. 

It’s not uncommon to see folks who argue for stereotypes make these sort of arguments, but they seem to rest on dubious ground.  Stereotypes are both true and not true at the same time.  Maybe if we all stopped using them, then we could get to know each other a little better and understand the many differences that make us interesting.  In difference lies majesty.  Even “good stereotypes” are a shabby cloth in which to dress difference.

Review: Soul Plane

I sat down and watched Soul Plane this weekend.  It was a horrible movie that tried too hard to criticize stereotypes.  The movie came off more as a mockery of itself than of the pervasive stereotypes directed at Black and White people.  I did not expect Snoop Dogg to be a great actor, nor did I expect Method Man to shine, but I thought the movie could have been funnier.  I ended up laughing at myself for watching the movie more that at the movie. 

Out of five stars, I would give this movie one.

Tony Yayo and the Obama Presidency

Tony Yayo of G-Unit released the mixtape Black Friday shortly after Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America.  On this mixtape he includes a number of snippets concerning Obama, including Obama talking of smoking marijuana, Obama’s victory speech, and most poignantly several people describing their fear of an Obama presidency.  You can find the track list here and download the mixtape here. 

The fears described by people exemplify the White fear of Black power.  Despite a growing Black middle class and an increasing number of Blacks on the national political stage, many White’s still harbor deep anxiety about Black power.  The psychological burden on White’s who are fearful of Black power will be tremendous.  President-elect Obama has coalesced racism that was previously directed at local mayors, state legislators, and other elected officials. 

Will Obama erase White fear?  It is not likely.  Unfortunately, White fear is permanently ingrained in society by a number of cultural factors.  Portrayals of the Black community on television, in our newspapers, and our music reinforce White fear by reifying Black stereotypes.  Obama will not erase these stereotypes even if he stands in stark contrast to them.  Stereotypes do not fade away into the night.  He will help to undermine them, but he will not erase the racism of the media that continues to perpetuate Black stereotypes.

A look back at the NYT

I was combing through information on critical race theory recently when I stumbled upon a New York Times article, “For Black Scholars Wedded to Prism of Race, New and Seperate Goals.”  This article came out over ten years ago and describes the critical race theory movement as a “growing academic movement among minority scholars.” 

Today critical race theorists are found across racial lines and as we all attempt to make sense of the intersections of politics, law, and race, critical race theory is increasingly important.  The NYT notes:

“Critical race theorists, who are on the faculty at almost every major law school and are producing an ever-growing body of scholarly work, have drawn from an idea made popular by postmodernist scholars of all races, that there is no objective reality. Instead, the critical race theorists say, there are competing racial versions of reality that may never be reconciled.”

Postmodernism and critical race theory do not necessarily go hand in hand.  Many race scholars have decried postmodernism’s lack of a focal point.  Others have argued that postmodenism is a series of thoughts supported by a White intellectual elite and therefore offers little hope for Black scholars and communities.  It seems to me that postmodernism’s decentralized approach to society affords countless opportunities for reconfiguring power structures and reassessing notions of space and place.  Here I echo bell hooks in her article, “Postmodern Blackness,” featured in the first issue of Postmodern Culture.  hooks wrote:

“Postmodern culture with its decentered subject can be the space where ties are severed or it can provide the occasion for new and varied forms of bonding. To some extent ruptures, surfaces, contextuality and a host of other happenings create gaps that make space for oppositional practices which no longer require intellectuals to be confined to narrow, separate spheres with no meaningful connection to the world of every day. Much postmodern engagement with culture emerges from the yearning to do intellectual work that connects with habits of being, forms of artistic expression and aesthetics, that inform the daily life of a mass population as well as writers and scholars. On the terrain of culture, one can participate in critical dialogue with the uneducated poor, the black underclass who are thinking about aesthetics. One can talk about what we are seeing, thinking, or listening to; a space is there for critical exchange. It’s exciting to think, write, talk about, and create art that reflects passionate engagement with popular culture, because this may very well be ‘the’ central future location of resistance struggle, a meeting place where new and radical happenings can occur. “

Race is not simply skin color, but is a category constructed by society through law and culture.  Understanding the way race is constructed, like understanding how gender is constructed, is integral to an appreciation of the law’s impact on traditionally maligned peoples.  Postmodernism attempts to debase these constructs across society where as critical race theory focuses this deconstruction on the specific issue of race.  Postmodernism affords the opportunity to re-conceptualize space so that dispossessed peoples may find room from which to advance their interests and tell their stories.  The NYT article does an excellent job of highlighting the importance of narrative to critical race theory.  Narratives and storytelling have taken on an expanded role in legal academia, surpassing their use for marginalized groups.  Now even dominate groups are utilizing narratives to better describe their experienced with the law.  I’ve argued before that we too often remove the people from the law and part of my attraction to critical race theory is that it seeks to make people players in the game.  It attempts to restore the voices of the masses and understands that everyone comes to the law in a different way. 

The article is a great read for critical race scholars and students.  If you haven’t had the opportunity to look it up or forgot about it, take a gander.