LOUISIANA JUDGE DENIES MARRIAGE LICENSE TO INTERRACIAL COUPLE

Not Good for Children?

Breaking news from AP that is unrelated to kids in flying balloons:

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

...

Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Well, that was fun seeing what Louisiana was like in the 1950's. I'd like to go back to the 21st century now.

Anybody seen my time machine?


(Thanks to Mama Shih)

--Junichi

FIND THE DIFFERENCES

Microsoft ad used in the United States



Microsoft ad used in Poland

Did you spot the differences, kids?

If not, here are the answers:

1. The Asian guy in the U.S. ad is the CEO, whereas the Asian guy in the Polish ad is an exchange student.

2. The middle man in the U.S. ad does not have health insurance.

3. The woman in the Polish ad does not actually care that Michael Vick is playing football again when so many more NFL players have been convicted for crimes that involve the death of human beings and served shorter sentences.

4. The middle man in the Polish ad is playing pocket pool.

5. The U.S. ad does not use the word "firmy."

Also, something looks a bit off about the skin color of the middle guy ...

Credit: AMERICAblog

--Junichi

A LATINA JUDGE AND A COUNTRY BUILT BASICALLY BY WHITE FOLKS

Buchanan: "This has been a country built basically by white folks"

Given Judge Sotomayor's distinguished resume and impressive performance at this week's hearings, the Senate Republicans likely to vote against her confirmation are struggling to defend their position with any level of specificity and honesty.

Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, plans to vote against Sotomayor because of her "alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice" and her "insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath."

But Pat Buchanan, in the video above, is articulating what some of the opposition is thinking, but too afraid to say out of fear of alienating potential voters.

Buchanan is voicing the backwards view that many still cling to: if a person's gender and ethnicity is considered in the selection process, she must inherently be unqualified for the position.

Again, while I find nearly everything Buchanan is saying abhorrent, it's another example of a circumstance when I prefer that bigots be overt and honest instead of covert and disingenuous.

--Junichi

WHEN OVERT RACISM IS REFRESHING

When George Wallace becomes the lifeguard

Would you rather live in:

(1) a society in which all racism is transparent, blatant, and in your face; or

(2) a society with as much racism as the one above but where the prejudice is largely veiled, subtle, and repackaged as something less insidious?

Put another way, would you rather have the KKK wearing white hoods or three-piece suits? (Note to self: we need to reference Ice Cube more often around here.)

In my head, I debate this question all the time.

On the one hand, option #2 seems like a far more pleasant place to live, as it erases the visible signs of hatred. One can claim to live in a post-racial society and believe, albeit falsely, in the hope of equal opportunity.

On the other hand, with option #1, you know where you stand with everyone and vice versa. No need to wonder if your prospective employer, father-in-law, landlord, or teacher is a bigot. If he is, he'll hurl racial epithets at you or burn crosses in order to leave no ambiguity.

This all brings me to this emerging story:

As you may have heard, the Creative Steps Day Camp paid $1950 to The Valley Swim Club, a private swim club in Northeast Philly, to use their pool. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership.

But the seemingly all-white club ejected the kids from the day camp when the club's pool became inundated with dozens of Black and Chicano children.

News segment with more info below:



Now, here's the kicker.

In explaining why the club ejecting the kids from the camp, John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club, said,

"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

Did you get that? The black and brown kids would "change the complexion" of the club.

His honesty is as refreshing as a swimming pool on a hot summer day!

So while I still can't answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post, I can say that one thing I like about option #1 is that it's a world where the discriminated will have a much easier time winning lawsuits!

--Junichi

CHATTING WITH JOHN CHO

cho gets serious

I was really happy to be able to do this; I knew John as a classmate from UC Berkeley - *15 years ago* - and I've taken a lot of pleasure in seeing his career accelerate over that time. I finally had the opportunity to interview him and at the risk of sounding immodest, I thought it was a great conversation, especially with his candor about issues of acting, media and race.

Here's Part 1 of our interview, part 2 is here.

--O.W.

BEHIND THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR

james gets jimmied
Justine Lai's "Join or Die" series (NSFW)

Artist statement:

"In Join Or Die, I paint myself having sex with the Presidents of the United States in chronological order. I am interested in humanizing and demythologizing the Presidents by addressing their public legacies and private lives. The presidency itself is a seemingly immortal and impenetrable institution; by inserting myself in its timeline, I attempt to locate something intimate and mortal. I use this intimacy to subvert authority, but it demands that I make myself vulnerable along with the Presidents. A power lies in rendering these patriarchal figures the possible object of shame, ridicule and desire, but it is a power that is constantly negotiated.

I approach the spectacle of sex and politics with a certain playfulness. It would be easy to let the images slide into territory that’s strictly pornographic—the lurid and hardcore, the predictably “controversial.” One could also imagine a series preoccupied with wearing its “Fuck the Man” symbolism on its sleeve. But I wish to move beyond these things and make something playful and tender and maybe a little ambiguous, but exuberantly so. This, I feel, is the most humanizing act I can do."

A provocative artistic series to say the least. I do wonder, however, about the assumption that the office of the Presidency is typically seen as (prepare your rimshot): "impenetrable" given the huge wave of best-selling histories of different Presidents that, in my opinion, precisely aim to offer a portrait of them in "intimate and mortal" ways. If anything, Lai's portraits (all except one, perhaps) takes the presidential power dynamic and "humanizes" them only insofar as making the phrase "getting f---ed by the President" into something more literal rather than the common figurative sense.

Of course, for that reason, I get the feeling that the fan favorite among these will likely be the Buchanan portrait where Lai gets to turn the tables by pegging him instead. Of course, there is also a certain irony that it should be Buchanan given 1) the rumors of his sexual orientation and 2) he's reviled as one of the worst Presidents in history, having done his fair share (arguably) of screwing over the nation. Is Lai's portrait some form of creative payback? (If so, one can only imagine what G.W.'s portrait will look like. And now that I've imagined it, I wish I hadn't).

There's also something amusing in realizing how many people will likely relearn their history of Presidential succession once they cease to be able to recognize the obvious ones such as Washington or Lincoln in order to ascertain, "wait, which President was getting his spank on? Was that Grant or Jackson?"

One last thought: Lai doesn't discuss race in her statement but that has to be the (blushing) elephant in the room, no? (I can only imagine the response this series will get from Angry AZN types...and no, I don't mean Phil Yu). Speaking of which...

(Link: Angry Asian Man)

--O.W.

OH, LIGHTEN UP

Ah, global irony: even in an era where tanning has become more vogue than ever in the U.S., with the light-skinned going to great lengths to become browner, elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, the trend has been to become lighter.

PRI's The World has a good radio segment about the skin whitening craze in Asia, with the stunning statistic that 50% of women in Taiwan purchase skin whitening products and elsewhere in Asia, rates of 40% are not unusual. As the piece points out in nations such as Japan, the preference for lighter skin taps into centuries-old cultural biases but that certainly doesn't also discount the impact of a global media where Whiteness has long been a beauty norm as well.

I'm curious to see what some of long-term implications of this trend may be, for example, how it might impact the prevalence of skin disease/damage in these societies with the wholesale abandonment of the protections afforded melanin.

--O.W.

READING ROOM

their cultural reign...ended?
A few stories friends of mine have contributed in recent days:

In this month's The Atlantic cover story, Hua Hsu discusses "The End of White America". Hua's talking about the end of Whiteness as a normative identity in American culture (but certainly not the end of White racial privilege). An interesting idea to ponder in the days leading up to Barack Obama's inauguration.

Speaking of which, Ta-Nehisi Coates profiles Michelle Obama, also in The Atlantic and he and Hua chop it up, blog-style.

Kai Ma reports on the (in)value of having a PhD in today's current academic market. This hits too close to home! (She did interview a few friends of mine though - and boy, are they salty!)

Ok, this one wasn't written by someone I know, but it's still interesting: Christopher Shea on how sociology is confronting the genetics of human behavior. Does this mean I should have listened to my mother and gone into medical sciences instead?

--O.W.

WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN AMERICA

a staircase built for one
Now that the glow of last week's election has ever-so faded, it's worth taking stock of exactly "what this all means." Let's first start by noting that, previous to the election, one major concern amongst progressives was that more liberal humanist types - to say nothing of the hyperbole-addicted punditry - would perhaps mistakenly construe Obama's then-possible election as a repudiation of America's shameful legacy of race.

As if on cue, the day after the election brought an avalanche of superlatives and overbaked rhetoric that made it sound as if, with a single election, America had managed to overcome the racial divisions of the last 400 years. I was especially aghast at the ways in which the election was portrayed as the validation of the Civil Rights Movement...as if the elevation of a single Black leader was what getting rid of Jim Crow was about.

I trust that at least some amongst you were skeptical of this logic from the start but it was surreal, laughable and tragic that the very next day, some genius at CNN (possibly the same one who thought holograms were a good idea) put up a viewer poll about, "Do we still need affirmative action?"

Wait...what?

Last I checked, affirmative action wasn't about trying to get a Black person elected President. It was meant to address centuries of systemic, institutionalized racial inequality. Obama's election is not proof that such institutionalized racism has been eliminated. One person rising above limitations doesn't suggest the absence of limitations. Only a complete fool would assume that Obama's victory represents something truly, paradigm-shifting about American racial inequality.

Consider two things:

1) Obama lost the white vote. Yeah - newsflash to everyone: Obama lost the white vote. Timothy Noah breaks down the numbers in today's Slate: White voters, nationally, went 43% for Obama compared to McCain's 55%. That's 50% higher than Obama's overall national lead over McCain.

Let's put it another way - if the election were in the hands of White America, McCain/Palin would planning their transition team right now, not Obama. Sober up on that for a moment, especially those liberal whites who've been patting themselves on the back.

It is true that Obama did do well amongst white voters compared to previous Democratic candidates; in the last 40 years, only Jimmy Carter did better but even he couldn't get over 50%. This raises Noah's other point: no white majority has voted for a Democratic president since Johnson in '64 (and his election was largely a product of JFK's assassination the year prior). Consistently and overwhelmingly, Democratic candidates cannot depend on majority white support and the conventional wisdom suggests this is at least due in part to the bitterness of Southern Dixiecrats forced by a Democratic administration (Johnson) to abandon Jim Crow. To put it another way, the dismantling of some forms of institutionalized racism (separate drinking fountains for example) has cost the Democratic party a majority of the national  White vote for the last 40+ years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, in the deep South, his margin of loss was as great as 6 to 1. 

I want to very carefully note that I'm not suggesting race is the only meaningful factor to weigh here. This is something else that's annoying in the current, "America isn't racist!" rhetoric - it actually assumes that race was the overwhelming issue in this election which is absurd. People vote for myriad reasons, race only being one possible factor. That's why it's naive to think that Obama's election represents some kind of mandate on social relations. After all, when whites went 60/40 for Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988, does that mean Whites were anti-Greek that year? Of course not.

Moreover, even if we were to accept that race played a major role in this election, the more accurate narrative to follow isn't about the redemption of White America over its racist past but rather, it's about the transformation of America, writ large. It's demographic change that mattered in 2008, not wholesale changes in attitudes. We are a far more diverse society than we have been in the past. Equally, if not important, is where those diverse voters ended up - states like Virginia and North Carolina especially have experienced significant demographic change over the last decade; their populations skew younger, more Latinos, better educated, etc. Those are also demographics that tend to lean Democratic.

Both nationally and in the "swing states," what we saw was the pooling of those different demographics into a voting bloc that was stronger than the white majority that went for McCain. Again: Whites didn't win it for Obama. They just weren't a big enough voting bloc to lose it for him. If Obama's victory says anything about America, it's not that we're "over" the colorline that has dominated our society. It's that our demographic changes managed to weaken the impact of that colorline last week. But as the warning goes: past results are no guarantee of future returns. One only has to compare the relative hopes of 1964 with what happened four years later.

As for my second point:

Obama's election was an incredible symbolic moment. I don't doubt this at all and I've been swept up in it too. Just the image of the Obamas as the new First Family is so incredibly profound, I still haven't taken it completely in yet.

However, Obama's victory doesn't remotely speak to the condition of poor, urban schools. It won't prevent Brown and Black bodies from disproportionately filling our prisons. It won't magically undo over half a century of preferential mortgage lending to White home buyers or empower families of color to begin building their own wealth. This is how racism is lived in America; it's not just about the dearth of non-white political leadership. It's about fundamentally different and unequal life chances based around race. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how Obama's election speaks directly to those material inequalities. Or why we'd think his Presidency would lead to improvements in those areas without specific policies designed to address them?

Obama's victory says nothing, does nothing about this fact of institutional racism in America. White privilege does not disappear simply because a Black man sits in the Oval Office. We are still the same stratified society we were last week. And last year. And last decade. And last...you get the picture.

If anything, the fear is that Obama's election actually sets the path to progress back since some liberal whites may feel it less urgent to pursue racial equality now that they can celebrate their "courage" for voting for a Black man. Only the next few years will tell what progress can be achieved. Unfortunately, iif we know anything about times of economic turmoil, it's the potential for racial scapegoats to come into play.

It wasn't easy to get Obama elected; his level of organization has been marveled over. But really, getting him elected was simple work compared to actually bringing about the social change many have portended his election represents. That hard work has always been there and will continue to be, regardless of the President's skin color.

--O.W.

THE NEW SUSAN SMITH THROWS THE LATEST McCAIN CAMPAIGN'S HAIL MARY PASS

Crazy woman or sane McCain supporter who understands McCain's desperation?

It's easy to dismiss Ashley Todd as mentally ill.

Todd is the infamous McCain campaign volunteer who fabricated a story about being sexually assaulted by a Barack Obama supporter after he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

But I don't think she needs mental health treatment at all.

On the contrary, she appears to be a sane woman who had enough marbles to mastermind a story that she knew could hand the McCain campaign the momentum it needed to win the election. Unfortunately, like her predecessor Susan Smith, she was too stupid to concoct a believable story.

For those who haven't been following the story, here's what Todd initially claimed:

Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM on Wednesday night when a 6-foot-4 black man approached her from behind, put a knife blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.

Todd, who is white, told investigators she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car. She said the man punched her in the back of the head, knocked her to the ground and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.

Police said Todd claimed the man told her that he was going to "teach her a lesson" for supporting the Republican presidential candidate, and that she was going to become a supporter of Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

After later adding allegations of sexual assault, forgetting crucial details, providing inconsistent accounts, and failing a lie detector test, Todd confessed to making the whole thing up.

What I don't understand is why anybody is wondering why a woman would do such a thing.

Isn't it obvious?

If the story were true, Ashley Todd would have provided the ultimate October Surprise that ignited enough of a race war to tilt the election. With McCain over ten points down, she decided it was her duty to throw the necessary Hail Mary pass.

While undoubtedly ignorant, Ashley Todd is sane and smart enough to understand that some white (and non-white) voters can't get past the idea that our next president will be a black man. Ashley Todd wanted to appeal to those who have no difficulty believing a story about a black man who is a violent savage that preys upon young white women near ATM machines.

Now that the story has been debunked, this story would normally deserve no more national attention.

Except that the McCain campaign in Pennsylvania pushed the more partisan and incendiary elements of the story before the media got a hold of it.

This says far more about the state of the McCain campaign than anything else.

Perhaps Fox News Executive VP John Moody said it best (before the lie was exposed):

This incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.
If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand.

Thanks, Ashley Todd, for ending Senator McCain's quest for the presidency.

--Junichi

RACE AND POLLING: DECONSTRUCTING THE "BRADLEY" EFFECT

truer colors behind closed curtains?
One of the things that has really surprised me is that talking to my university colleagues -professors trained in sociology, political science, psychology, etc. - is how many of them, despite whatever data is out there, seem to think that latent, closet racism will ultimately swing the election for McCain.

It seems that paranoia - however well-founded - trumps the empirical. And sure, race is part of this election no matter how many people (cough cough, Obama) avoid talking about it but there's abundant evidence and analysis to suggest that the assumed racial bias that will only show up on Nov. 4 is unfounded.

Today, the NY Times tackles this issue, debunking the idea that there may be an Bradley Effect waiting to spring on Obama.

Some highlights:

"Among the non-Bradley factors at the intersection of race and polling is something called the reverse Bradley (perhaps more prevalent than the Bradley), in which polls understate support for a black candidate, particularly in regions where it is socially acceptable to express distrust of blacks."

"Research shows that those who refuse to participate in surveys tend to be less likely to vote for a black candidate... Pollsters had a harder time reaching voters with lower levels of education. Less-educated whites are the kind Mr. Obama has had trouble winning over. Conversely, young people are more likely to answer surveys, and they tend to favor Mr. Obama."

"The Bradley gap seems to be disappearing. In this year’s Democratic primaries, University of Washington researchers found a Bradley effect in three states, but a reverse Bradley effect in 12 (in the other 17, polls were within a seven-point margin of error)."

"The Bradley effect, Mr. Greenwald concluded, “has conceptually mutated.” “It’s not something that’s an absolute that we should generally expect, but something that will vary with the cultural context and the desirability of expressing pro-black attitudes.”

All of which is to say: the paranoia is neither justified nor unjustified but it's nowhere near as simple as saying, "a bunch of politically correct White liberals say they're pro-Obama but won't be in November" (which is how the Bradley Effect boils down).

Instead, the point here is that how race plays out can go in many different directions, some which result in a net gain, some in a net loss. It's impossible to fully decipher polling data to know what's what since there's no way to empirically verify that individuals actually vote the way they say they're going to vote.

More important, I think one of the central things to remember is this:

My own feeling is that people are largely being honest about which way they're going to vote and I've yet to see how, by way of empirical data, to suggest otherwise. That's not to say there aren't those who are publicly saying one thing yet voting another; I'm just not remotely convinced those folks represent a sizable demographic. To put it another way: there's plenty of legitimate reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with race and I think most Americans have no qualms about being upfront with their political choices.

I mean, hell, that's a badge of honor these days, like the jackass wearing a "No-bama"" t-shirt (with the Islamic crescent moon next to the slogan, no less) at the Brentwood Farmer's Market the other day.

The other half of the article is equally interesting: trying to weigh how much Obama may be benefitting in poll numbers by people willing to be polled to begin with.

Again, we'll sort all this out in about 20 days. And then can argue over the results for the next 20 years...

--O.W.

THE SCAPEGOAT RACE IS ON!

"damn those poor people for losing our money!"
There's been a disturbing trend amongst pundits of late to try to blame the current financial debacle at the feet of poor people and people of color. It's a remarkably brazen smokescreen that smacks of the kind of racially-driven reactionary politics we've seen whenever the economy runs poorly.

Among other places, Slate.com's Daniel Gross deconstructs (read: demolishes) the argument as its currently being laid out.

Seriously, is there anything the far right won't blame poor people and people of color for? Global warming (oh wait, that's not man-made)? Missing socks? The Cubs?

I should add: I know it's the trend, especially in the media, to reduce large, complex problems to simple soundbites but this really isn't serving anyone. I think it's equally naive and problematic to assume "fat cat lenders" are solely behind this mess or that de-regulation, by itself, explains it. We are where we are because a whole clusterf*** of things happened (and continue to happen) and as desirable as it is to point a single finger, we need more hands than Kali to do the issue justice.

I'll also add: I caught myself earlier this week, reading the headlines and thinking, "hey, the market is tanking...good for Obama!" as if wanting an election outcome should come at the price of our financial system imploding (and my family's finances along with it). I'm mentally and emotionally exhausted by this race and at this point, Nov. 4th really can't come soon enough so we can stop viewing everything through the prism of the election.

--O.W.

BAILOUTS AND BAILING OUT

Somebody just read the latest polls

The last 48 hours have been some of the most fascinating of any news cycle. Let's review.

McCain has allegedly "suspended" his campaign to work on the bailout, even though the fundamentals of our economy is strong and even though Republicans and Democrats already have reached a compromise.

McCain also wants to postpone Friday's debate in order to devote time in the Senate chamber toward staging a photo opportunity building a bipartisan consensus. This is surprising, since he has been absent for more votes in the Senate than any other current senator.

His potential pullout from the debate is all the more suspicious when considering that he wants to reschedule it for the date of the Vice Presidential debate, which would be indefinitely bumped.

Meanwhile, Palin, who apparently didn't get the message that McCain suspended the campaign, went trolling for votes at Ground Zero today and was actually allowed by the non-sexists at the McCain campaign to take four questions from the press. Four! Wow!

One can understand why the GOP is nervous about her talking to any reporter outside of Fox News, given last night's train wreck of an interview with Katie Couric:

One conclusion you can reach from the interview: Katie Couric is not a witch. Because Palin was recently protected from witchcraft at her hometown church.

Her interview, however, wasn't half as bad as McCain's non-interview with David Letterman, who might have single-handedly tilted public opinion about McCain's campaign suspension and debate bailout:

McCain may not be happy with Letterman, but he's probably even less thrilled with his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who -- Newsweek just uncovered -- is still an officer with the lobbying firm that represents Freddie Mac. I see no conflicts there in the same way that I do not see my widening posterior when I look in the mirror.

As for Obama? He's finally up in the polls, which is a miracle given how many Democrats have negative views about black people.

As if that race survey was not depressing enough, somebody at George Fox University wanted to really hammer home the point that this election really might come down to whether America is ready for a black president. That's why he or she decided to hang a life-size depiction of Obama in effigy from a tree.

Just in case you were starting to get optimistic that the bailout and Clay Aiken's refreshing honesty might cure our economic woes, the Congressional Budget Office director just said the proposed bailout might worsen the current financial crisis.

Good times!

--Junichi

THE BLACK LIST

For those with HBO, try to catch one of the upcoming screenings of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders/Elvis Mitchell's The Black List, please do. It's very well-done and poignant without being ham-fisted. (Someone needs to do an Asian American equivalent, seriously).

Here's part of Chris Rock's segment. Wish the whole thing was available; Rock was predictably hilarious, brilliant and heartfelt.

--O.W.

WTF WERE THEY THINKING?

"Spain's eye catching faux pas".

And timely enough, here's the ever-great Jay Smooth schooling folks on how to deal with a situation as the above:




Also, I read this on a blog comment, had to laugh despite myself: "China will get the last laugh when the Spanish basketball team ingests the urine filled Coca-Cola."

--O.W.

THE COST OF SOUNDING BLACK

Which one is depressing these guys' wages more:
(1) the fact that they sound black or (2) the vines wrapped around their curtain rods?

When I teach Race and the Law, I devote at least a day to the topic of accent discrimination, which I consider one of the most understudied and under-reported phenomena in the United States. Thankfully, a new paper by University of Chicago Professor Jeff Grogger will help fill up my future syllabi.

Grogger researched whether different speech patterns between white and black people cause wage differences.

He concluded that black employees whose voices were distinctly identified as black by anonymous listeners earn 10% less than whites with similar skills.

In contrast, black people who were not vocally identified as black earn only 2% less than comparable whites.

As for whites, those who "sound black" earn 6% lower than those whites who don't.

These conclusions controlled for intelligence, education, work experience, and other factors that affect one's wages. (Those who are into statistics should definitely read the paper, especially if you have a fetish for regression analysis.)

Perhaps most interesting of all, Grogger's charts indicate that the negative impact of "sounding black" on wages is nearly equal to the downside of "sounding Southern." This suggests, in my opinion, that classism might play a bigger role than racism in explaining the cause of the differential.

Grogger's data on the likelihood of accurately identifying others' race and gender through voice is equally as interesting. When he asked listeners to attempt to identify the race and gender of speakers (who were all stripped of any other identifying information like their name), they correctly guessed the speaker's gender 98% of the time, the white speakers' race 84% of the time, and the black speakers' race 77% of the time.

Bummer the study didn't also include Chicano/Latinos and Asian Americans.

(Hat tip: Steven Levitt)

--Junichi

THE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL "RACE"

This isn't particularly surprising but despite Obama-mania, a recent NYT/CBS poll discovered, lo and behold, we still live in a racially divided society. One conclusion drawn here is that:

"Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations."

The upside is that progressives don't have to be so paranoid. The fear had been that an Obama presidency would be treated as "proof" that racism is over but it seems that our fair nation is pretty much in the same place it was eight years ago when it comes to divergent opinions regarding race and privilege.

Some interesting political notes: Whites are on the fence around Obama but Blacks are pretty clear: McCain gets no love (a tiny 5% favorable rating compared to 57% unfavorable). I was doing some of the math here too: Whites favor McCain over Obama 46-37% (not including "undecided") but Obama leads McCain in the same poll by 45 to 39%. The only explanation is that even Whites are less enthused about Obama compared to other groups, Obama must be earning enough support from "everyone else" to take a decent lead over McCain at this point.

--O.W.

FORGET LEBRON AND KING KONG, IT'S OBAMA'S TURN

--O.W.

RACIAL DRAFT = REAL?

ahead of the curve

The prescience of Dave Chappelle is mindboggling: "In South Africa, Chinese is the New Black"

"...A high court in South Africa ruled on Wednesday that Chinese-South Africans will be reclassified as “black."

Just to be serious, this is what these guys would call a "racial project." It's definitely not something unique to South Africa.

--O.W.

RACHEL RAY: DUNKIN' FOR TERRORISM?

What.

The.

F---.

Rachel Ray accused by Michelle Malkin of promoting terrorism.

Malkin couldn't self-parody herself any better than she is now. Somewhere, Ann Coulter is probably trying to figure out if the Neelys are secretly Muslim.

Dunkin' Donuts took a cowardly way out. Their response should have been: "Ms. Malkin - relax and have a donut!"

--O.W.

IN MEMORY OF MILDRED LOVING

another love that once dared not speak its name
I wanted to acknowledge the passing of Mildred Loving. In the late 1950s, Mildred - an African American - and her White husband - Richard - plead guilty to violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws and, as a condition of their plea bargain, agreed not to return to Virginia for 25 years. However, by 1963, Mildred decided to contest that ruling and the ACLU was able to take it up to the Supreme Court, where in 1967, Loving vs. Virginia struck down all laws prohibiting interracial marriage, thus removing one of the last major legacies of legalized segregation in America.

It's always been striking to me that within the lifetime of my parents (and really, only five years before I was born), states could actually outlaw interracial couplings. Today, such legislation seems so obviously pernicious, so a remnant of Jim Crow and America's legacy of racial hatred, that it's remarkable it took so long for it to be struck down (and not simply voted out by state legislatures).

Of course, the irony is that while some things have changed - viva Tony Parker and Eva Longoria - some things have not. The difference now isn't that gay marriage bans are less pernicious, less a remnant of hate and fear. No, the difference is that these aren't anachronistic laws left over from bygone eras but rather, the product of contemporary political mobilization. It's all the more shameful. It's also notable that Loving, we stopped giving interviews in recent years, did make a public statement last year, in support of the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

--O.W.

HOORAY! THE LAPD DOES NOT RACIALLY PROFILE!

He was doing 55 in a 54.

OMG, great news!

The Los Angeles Police Department just announced that of the 320 racial profiling complaints filed against officers last year, none of them had any merit!

That means the LAPD is now 100% racial-profiling-free!

We did it! We reached the mountaintop!

The LAPD is color blind! Hallelujah!

*

In related good news, Nike just proclaimed itself sweatshop-free, the White House just declared that it has never violated the law, and I am happy to announce that I am the sexiest man alive.

--Junichi

HAROLD AND KUMAR: UP IN SMOKE AGAIN

When Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle debuted in 2004, it was a milestone of sorts - a mainstream, gross-out, stoner comedy with two Asian American men cast as leads. Sure, the humor was juvenile and unapologetically male, there was everything from naked breasts to literal bathroom humor, and a dream sequence featuring an anthropomorphalized bag of weed. Do The Right Thing this was not.

But it did represent an achivement of sorts, symbolically to be sure, but also commercially. The movie had enough of a cult following to warrant a sequel (not to mention revitalize Neal Patrick Harris' career, a remarkable feat on its own), thus suggesting that - hey, Asian American leads won't kill your film. I hope the producers of 21 are pondering this.

The film's sequel, Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay is an achievement of a kind too, proof that Asian Americans have made it far enough into the Hollywood machine that they can make perfectly mediocre mainstream fare as much as the next folks. Woo hoo, the promised land!

In all seriousness, it's not like anyone was expecting something approaching genius. I was hoping for "adequately funny," something on the level, at best, of a 40 Year Old Virgin or even Superbad (and yeah, there's a huge difference in the quality of funny between those two flicks).

The laugh-o-meter here was somewhere closer to, oh, Walk Hard, which is to say: not that funny. John Cho and Kal Penn are fun enough to watch at times but there's little new creative soil for either to plow. The funniest single scene was probably when Cho shows up in the library stacks, goth-ed out. It lasted all of a few seconds and he didn't even speak but just the sight of him in masscara was good enough. Penn had fewer moments here than in the previous film - the giant bag of weed returned (anatomically correct no less) but that joke really only works once. And while we're keeping score on this kind of thing: too much Rob Cordury, just a touch too much Neil Patrick Harris, and not enough Chris Meloni. And oh yeah, either too much or not enough pubic shots, depending on your taste.

So, in the end, it was "meh" but the thing is...I didn't feel like, "oh crap, we blew our chance!" And maybe that says something more than the film, on its own, can say...that the fact that an Asian American-lead comedy can be mediocre seems ordinary and harmless rather than a hand-wringing disaster. Of course, it helps that the film also is already in the black after the first weekend, earning a very respectable $14M (the original only made $18M total in theaters). Even if the flick has earned middling reviews, the monetary gains won't hurt Kal Penn or John Cho's future chances and may help open that golden door for other Asian American actors and filmmakers to walk through.

Let me end by throwing this question out: the sexual politics in this film are not particularly glowing - not to anyone's surprise of course - but I wonder how many of the men, so huffy puffy at Falling From Grace are going to raise any issues with this flick? (Yeah, I just went there).

Let me also add: why does it mean when a writing and directing team of all White men can make a more commercially successful franchise lead by Asian American men than most Asian American filmmakers? I'm not asking this rhetorically - I'm seriously curious how this happens.

--O.W.

THE WAR ON LATINOS GOES TO THE STREETS...LITERALLY

enjoy 'em while they last
Forget Arizona. Right here in Los Angeles, legislators are going after...taco trucks.

$1000 fine or six months in jail for...selling tacos out of a truck? Are you serious? This is what the L.A. City Council considers valuable legislation? Isn't there, for example, low income housing they could focus on? De-congesting traffic? FIXING LAUSD?

Cotdamnit, leave my al pastor alone!

And while you're at it - leave the bacon-wrapped hot dogs be, too.

---

It's not all bad news...NPR's Morning Edition highlighted the extraordinary story of Guy Gabaldon, a Chicano from East L.A. who learned Japanese from his Issei and Nisei friends growing up and used that skill to convince 1,000 Japanese to surrender during WWII. A new documentary is coming out to tell a story that has gone under the radar for 60 years.

--O.W.

ARIZONA BLUES

hey, where's his American flag pin?
I know Arizona is like the new Mississippi when it comes to retrograde racial politics...it's hard to fathom how a state would take pride in voting down MLK Day but AZ manages somehow. Still, this new legislation passing through their state house is astonishing:

"Arizona schools whose courses "denigrate American values and the teachings of Western civilization" could lose state funding under the terms of legislation approved Wednesday by a House panel.

SB1108 also would bar teaching practices that "overtly encourage dissent" from those values, including democracy, capitalism, pluralism and religious tolerance. Schools would have to surrender teaching materials to the state superintendent of public instruction, who could withhold state aid from districts that broke the law.

Another section of the bill would bar public schools, community colleges and universities from allowing organizations to operate on campus if it is "based in whole or in part on race-based criteria," a provision Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said is aimed at MEChA, the Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, a student group."

This passed out of committee 9-6 and is now headed towards a full legislative vote. Maybe I'm naive but even for AZ, I can't see the whole house going for this, especially in an election year. Somewhere, McCain is slapping his forehead, counting all the Latino votes he's losing behind this.

By the way, given that "Hispanic" isn't technically a racial category under the U.S. Census, I'm not sure how this bill would be able to go after a group like MEChA (though I suppose, African and Asian American groups might have problems). And let's not even mention the obvious First Amendment issues.

--O.W.

THE TEST: ARE YOU RACIST?

Are you paranoid, sleeping with your finger on the trigger?

In 1999, four NYPD officers fatally shot Amadou Diallo, a black immigrant from Guinea, when they mistook his wallet for a gun. In the officers' criminal trials, they asserted that anybody could have made this mistake and that race had nothing to do with their decision.

If you had been one of the NYPD officers involved in the shooting, could you honestly say that race played no role in the fact that you pulled the trigger?

Now you can find out.

The University of Chicago has created a simple and effective online psychological test. In just a few minutes, you will be presented with a series of photos of 100 white or black men who will be holding either guns or what appear to be wallets or phones. Using your keyboard, your goal is to shoot the armed men as quickly as possible and holster your gun for the others.

Click here to take that test.

See if you, like Nicholas Kristof, are forced to declare yourself a racist.

Enter scores and reaction times in the comments.

(Credit: Mama Shih)

--Junichi

WHAT WAS VOGUE THINKING?

smoking gun?

Harry Allen - the OG Media Assassin - has been on top of this LeBron/Vogue controversy for a minute now and recently posted up what he claims is the original inspiration for that Vogue cover.

There might be some teensy wiggle room that this could be "just a coincidence" but that's a hard argument to tow and what Allen points out is especially damning is the silence coming from the magazine and photographer themselves.

Question: this is a real suspect look for Vogue and Leibovitz but when's the last time the fashion industry really made a good look when it came to race? Or gender? Or class? The idea that Vogue would do something racially inane is about as surprising as, say, gender inequality in mainstream Hollywood film. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't be outraged and pissed off and vocal but what's the realistic end game here? I get the feeling that Vogue and the Leibovitz will just ride the storm out unless this somehow gets elevated to Imusian levels (paging Oprah! Paging LeBron's political consciousness, if it even exists!).

By the way, do listen to that NPR piece by Peter Sagal, bashing Horton Hears a Hoo for being yet another example of Hollywood's rampant and oft-ignored sexism. Daughters of the world, unite!

--O.W.

DUK DUK GOOSE

beyond redemption?

NPR's All Things Considered picked Long Duk Dong to be part of their "Character Studies" series. (Listen here).

For those of you unaware (read: those of you not born in the 1980s), LDD is pretty much the gold standard in modern f---ed up portrayals of Asian men in Hollywood (Mickey Rooney in yellowface being the older gen's favorite). Everything from the gong that announces his presence, to his accent, to that hair, to, well, everything has traditionally offended Asian Americans to no small degree.

I was just a tad too young to really get into the John Hughes films of the '80s (or maybe I just held little interest in the school/love lives of suburban teens when I was already living it) so I never saw 16 Candles until much later and I have to say...even though I "got" why LDD puts such a black eye on the game, I couldn't help but think he gets a little overvillified.

Don't get me wrong - John Hughes should be thoroughly embarrassed at himself and god knows Gedde Watanabe hasn't had an easy time living down the role but all said, I guess part of me - the Asian geek with insecurity issues - kind of liked how at ease LDD was with himself, how unabashed (read: oblivious) he was in his sense of self. He was a hedonist who didn't really care about what people around him - let alone older White folks - thought of him. He was just trying to do him.

And lest we forget, for all the bemoaning about Asian male asexuality and what not...the Donger got the girl (a white girl at that).

Just putting it out there.

Ok, let's hear it now.

--O.W.

NOT QUITE A WATERSHED MOMENT: OBAMA'S SPEECH ON RACE

Overall, I thought Sen. Obama's speech on race this morning was effective. (Full transcript available here.)

It's not often you see multiple news channels broadcasting lengthy speeches by major presidential candidates on white privilege and systematic racism. And by "not often," I really mean "never."

The speech further contributes to the fascinating study of how Obama deals -- and doesn't deal -- with issues of race. As a political maneuver, Obama brilliantly crafted a text that simultaneously connects and disconnects himself with the civil rights movement and black leaders today. He carefully criticized the black community in exchange for being able to criticize the white community, all the while maintaining a positive and hopeful stance.

Of note:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

I do admit I was disappointed by the end of the speech, however. I wish Obama had more to say than to merely call for a unified America. "Not this time" makes for a great refrain, but it doesn't exactly amount to any specifics about what he would do differently as president.

Also, I do have one very specific complaint. One way in which Obama clearly does not represent change is the way in which he, like virtually all other American politicians, goes out of his way to demonstrate his undying allegiance to Israel.

In his speech today, he said the following of Rev. Wright's remarks:

They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

I have no beef with his criticism of Rev. Wright's remarks. But he is clearly doing more than distancing himself from Rev. Wright -- he is, again, using the opportunity to demonstrate his (and the Democratic Party's and the Republican Party's) unwavering allegiance to Israel.

I hate to open a can of worms here, but it seems obvious to me that the United States will never help to achieve peace in the Middle East until it is willing to acknowledge the moral and legal wrongs of both Palestinians and Israelis, the wrongs of the U.S., other western occupiers, and cultural imperialists, as well as the fundamentalist, violent nutjobs who undeniably perpetuate the endless cycle of violence.

In my book, any politician who focuses on the 1,033 Israelis who have been unconscionably killed since September 29, 2000 -- while ignoring the 4,494 Palestinians who were unconscionably killed by Israeli security forces -- is not bringing the change needed to our foreign policy. (Source for stats: Israeli Information Center for Human Rights.)

Obama's opposition to the war on Iraq only goes so far in extending a hand to the other countries and people we should be reaching out to in the hopes of becoming stalwart allies.

Given that Obama is constantly forced to deal with ignorant whispers that he is secretly Muslim, I understand his need to firmly renounce the "hateful ideologies of radical Islam" and to reach out to the Jewish community. Anti-Semitism is a real, ugly, and major problem here and abroad. But so is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry, and I wish Obama were willing to take those on, as well.

A major speech that ties together our history of racism with our current foreign policy?

That would have made for a true watershed moment.

---

Oliver adds:
I heard some jackass on CNN compared Obama to "a Black Panther," which is rather ridiculous insofar as this speech is seeking reconciliation far more than, you know, armed insurrection.

I prefer NPR's Renne Montagne's opinion: "one of the most important speeches on race a politician has ever given." Of course, considering the paucity of speeches on race these days, perhaps that's not saying much but check out what Obama has to say, nonetheless.

--Junichi

SHORT CUTS

Horton's a pro-lifer? (NPR's Morning Edition)

Cal Poly Obispo's deal to build engineering campus in Saudi Arabia allows women to be excluded? (NPR's All Things Considered)

If most of the MIT students from the real story behind 21 were Asian, how come the main leads are now White? (Reappropriate.com)

WTF? I'm speechless. (Feministing.com)

Just because I like the name of the blog. (Disgrasian)

--O.W.

THE R-WORD

the last good racist?
Former Village Voice/Time Magazine writer Ta-Nehisi Coates recently voiced something that has been bothering me for a while now. Writing in Slate about Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Obama's success is largely due to race, Coates notes how despite a plethora of unambiguously racist comments - from Don Imus to James Watson to Michael Richards - this seems insufficient to actually sustain a charge that speakers of such invectives are, in fact, racist.

In other words, one can spew racist comments with aplomb but god forbid anyone should actually be described as a racist in the process. Coates writes:

"The bar for racism has been raised so high that one need be a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party to qualify. Had John McCain said that Hillary Clinton was only competitive in the presidential race because she was a woman, there'd be no dispute over whether the comment was sexist. And yet when the equivalent is said about a black person, it's not only not racist, but any criticism of the statement is interpreted as an act of character assassination. "If anybody is going to apologize," Ferraro told MSNBC, "they should apologize to me for calling me a racist."

Coates goes on to suggest that, ironically, this has come about partially through the success of the Civil Rights Movement:

"In some measure, the narrowing of racism is an unfortunate relic of the civil rights movement, when activists got mileage out of dehumanizing racists and portraying them as ultra-violent Southern troglodytes. Whites may have been horrified by the fire hoses and police dogs turned on children, but they could rest easy knowing that neither they nor anyone they'd ever met would do such a thing."

As Coates concludes, with some sarcasm: "All of this leaves me wondering, Who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist?"

This raises a question of language and whether or not nomenclature is getting in the way of more substantive progress? On the one hand, I wholly understand where Coates is coming from. The racist apologists are a curious, thriving breed amongst talking heads - people who will insist that someone couldn't possibly be a racist because [insert boiilerplate defense of your choice] and in the process, they can actual detour the focus on hand from the content and implication of a particular racist act and instead, push all the focus onto some arbitrary litmus test for "are they a racist?"

I believe this is partially what Stanford's Richard Thompson Ford was referring to in his recent interview on KPCC's Airtalk: "How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse." The gist of the argument is that "the race card" is a distraction and that people get so caught up with slapping on or slapping away the R-label, that the actual issues around racism and its deleterious effects are going ignored.

Ford promotes this idea of "racism without racists" and I admit: there is something alluring here. As I discuss in my classes on social problems when we talk about racial inequality, one of the things that makes systemic, institutional racism so insidious - not to mention resilient - is that it doesn't require the active, conscious participation of people committed to racist action. Rather, by simply maintaining the status quo, inequalities built into our institutions and social structures are allowed to survive and perpetuate. Hence, racist outcomes can occur despite the best intentions and interracial cordiality of the people behind them. That's the essence of racism without racists.

Without intending to, I think Coates actually echoes this point when he writes: "most racism—indeed, the worst racism—is quaint and banal. There's nothing sensationalistic about redlining or job discrimination."

Indeed, the kind of racism highlights is some of the most damaging because it goes beyond individualized exchanges of racism and gets at actions which affects huge portions of the public, often times hiding their racist intent from plain view but whose impact can be measured quite easily, whether it's the disproportionate amount of people of color in poverty - especially women of color - or the over-reprsentation of young men of color in the prison system. Surely there were some outright - perhaps even self-affirmed - racists responsible but more likely, it's entire systems of social organization that create those outcomes, many of which operate quite efficiently to maintain and perpetuate racial inequality without ever needing a Grand Wizard of Oz pulling chains behind the curtain.

The thing with "racism without racists" that bothers me a little however is that though it directs attention back to systemic forms of discrimination, it also feels like some semantic hair splitting. The loan officer who regularly denies business loans to applicants from poor neighborhoods of color - maybe he's not racist in the Bull Connor sense of the term but if the action and outcome are clearly racialized, what is the rhetorical gap between saying, "your actions are racist" vs "you personally are racist"? In other words, is it so important to people that we distinguish between the racism of their actions vs. the racism of their "being"?

---

This all said...I have another rhetorical hair-split question to ask: I don't believe that race alone explains Obama's appeal; it's not as if Democratic and independent voters were waiting for the first Black man to run for office so they could throw their lot behind him.

However, isn't it rather reasonable to claim that Obama's Blackness is at least partially behind his appeal to many? Especially many people of color? Let's be absolutely clear: I'm not suggesting that the mere fact of his Blackness is the sole, deciding factor. I am suggesting that race is hardly irrelevant to his appeal however.

This isn't an attempt to address Ferraro's particular comments one way or another. Rather, I'm trying to decipher the ways in which race does or does not factor into Obama's ability to make this run for President. I think it's a definite liability with some voters but just as notably, I think it's also an asset too with other constituencies.

This said then - where exactly is that thin line between over-crediting race or not crediting it enough?

Going back to Slate, I might have to agree with what Mickey Kaus says on the topic.

--O.W.

ARE ASIAN AND LATINO VOTERS RESISTANT TO THE IDEA OF A BLACK PRESIDENT?

Is Obama's Kryptonite in Chinatown?

For the past few months, I resisted the notion that Chicano/Latino and Asian American Democrats are more likely to vote for Clinton than Obama.

At a recent Poplicks staff meeting, Dr. Wang was trying to convince me of this.

But last night's exit polls have forced me to accept that reality.

In California, Obama won both the black vote and the white vote. Exit polls indicated that 49% of white voters chose Obama, while only 43% chose Clinton. 73% of black voters chose Obama over 25% for Clinton.

And yet, according to CNN, Clinton still prevailed in the Golden State because Chicano/Latinos, who constitute about 30% of the state's registered Democrats, chose Clinton by a 2-to-1 margin: 66% for Clinton, 33% for Obama.

Also, Cali's Asian Americans voted for Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin: 75% for Clinton, 25% for Obama.

These numbers line up with national exit poll data, which similarly reveal that Clinton handily beat Obama among Asian American and Chicano/Latino voters throughout the country.

While I would like to believe these numbers merely reflect the fact that different groups have different concerns, I'd be naive to think that the candidates' race played no part.

I am exhausted by the MSM's inane and pointless discussion of whether America is ready for a black president.

Nonetheless, there seems to be an under-explored side of that story: why Asian and Chicano/Latino voters are not as infected as others by Obamania.

I hate to hyper-generalize and conclude that this reflects that other people of color feel threatened when one specific minority group succeeds. After all, race or gender played no calculation in how I voted.

Yet, with most Democrats evenly split between two candidates with few policy differences between them, a 2-to-1 (Latino) and 3-to-1 (Asian American) disparity is statistically significant. I can't think of any obvious way to explain this disparity that isn't related to race.

Is it possible that non-black people of color are the most resistant to a black president?


Oliver Adds: Speaking of which...where the hell is ANY coverage that discusses the Asian American vote in CA? Last time I checked, the API vote is roughly equal to the African American vote and as Junichi notes above, API voters played a major role in giving Clinton the win, especially in countering both the White and Black voters who leaned Obama.

Yet you scour the news and it's barely mentioned despite the fact that the 75% margin is the most disproportional swing amongst any of the major demographic categories.

I'm still a little in shock of it myself. Had it been more like the Latino vote - 60/40, I could have understood that. But 75/25?

Should we blame S.B. Woo?

--Junichi

LOUISIANA IS BRINGING BACK THE NOOSE

Disgusting

As if the Jena 6 travesty of justice wasn't enough to singlehandedly prove that Jim Crow has returned to -- or, perhaps, remained in -- Louisiana, two white teenagers affiliated with the Klan were arrested last night for driving a truck past civil rights marchers with nooses hanging out the back.

The two men were driving in a red pickup near a crowd of people that traveled to Louisiana to protest the Jena 6 incident, which, as you may recall, involved nooses hanging from trees.

The police report says officers searching the truck found Coors Light, a .22 caliber rifle, brass knuckles, and yellow extension cord made into a hangman's noose. According to the report, "While sitting in the lounge the juvenile said that he had KKK tattooed on his chest and that his parents and kin folk were involved with the KKK."

As if black people in Louisiana didn't already have FEMA, unconscionable insurance companies, redlining, horrendous environmental conditions, inadequate health care, and high crime rates to reckon with, now they can add -- no, reinstate -- the Klan and nooses on their lists of reasons why progress has yet to visit them in Louisiana.

This brings me to my main point: despite tens of thousands of good people participating in a huge civil rights march to protest the unequal treatment of the Jena 6, how is it that an event that took place in 2006 (!!!) still has yet to get on the forefront of most Americans' minds?

News coverage has picked up, but still hasn't reached the covers of any weekly magazines and rarely makes it above the fold in any major newspapers. After labeling local black citizens -- struggling to survive Hurricane Katrina -- as looters, you would think reporters in the Gulf might spotlight the Jena 6 story as a form of penitence.

It's not as if any of the injustices suffered by the Jena 6 have been rectified. 17-year-old Mychal Bell, one of the Jena 6, who is awaiting a new trial, is still behind bars because he was denied bail!

A less important question about the two red truck-driving rednecks dragging nooses through town: why do all racists drive trucks? Did I miss a national transportation draft where bigots got to pick trucks, while pedophiles and kidnappers chose vans?

*

Contribute to the Jena 6 legal defense fund by clicking here.

--Junichi

CAN'T BLAME HIP-HOP ON THIS ONE (OR CAN YOU?)

From the NY Times
April 24, 2007
CBS Radio Show Hosts Suspended After Prank Call
By JACQUES STEINBERG

CBS Radio suspended two hosts from an FM station in New York City today after an Asian-American advocacy organization complained about the broadcast of a six-minute prank phone call to a Chinese restaurant that was peppered with ethnic and sexual slurs.

The call was first played on “The Dog House With JV and Elvis,” a midmorning show on WFNY, on April 5, the day after Don Imus made his comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team on WFAN, another CBS-owned station. The call was then replayed on “The Dog House” on Thursday, a week after Mr. Imus was fired by CBS Radio.

In the skit, a series of apparently unsuspecting employees of a Chinese restaurant are berated by a caller who tells one woman he would like to “come to your restaurant” to see her naked, especially a part of her body he refers to as “hot, Asian, spicy.” The caller also attempts to order “flied lice,” brags of his prowess in kung fu and repeatedly curses at several employees.

In a statement on Sunday, the four New York-area chapters of the Organization of Chinese Americans, an advocacy group, demanded an apology from the show’s two hosts and from CBS Radio, and called for the firing of the hosts and their producer.

In an interview today before the suspensions were announced, Vicki Shu Smolin, president of the organization’s New York City chapter, said she was mystified that CBS would allow the call to be broadcast in the first place and then would permit it to be replayed in the aftermath of the Imus incident. (“The Dog House” has been waging a broad campaign in support of Mr. Imus both on the show and on its Web site.)

“I just see plain ignorance in the CBS management — of the community, of who we are, of what we’re all about,” Ms. Shu Smolin said. “If they don’t fire the D.J.’s, it will be a double standard.”

She promised to rip a page from the playbook of the Rev. Al Sharpton, who led the charge for Mr. Imus’s dismissal, by staging protests of CBS Radio and boycotting advertisers on WFNY.

“They don’t think they’re going to get any backlash from the Asian-American community,” she said. “They’re definitely wrong.”

In an e-mail message sent this afternoon, a spokeswoman for CBS Radio, Karen Mateo, said that the two hosts, Jeff Vandergrift (JV) and Dan Lay (Elvis), had been suspended “without pay until further notice.” Mr. Vandergrift, Ms. Mateo said, had apologized on today’s show. The show, which began on WFNY (92.3 FM) in January 2006, can be heard outside the New York City market only via the Internet.

Ms. Shu Smolin said she first learned of the “Dog House” broadcast on Saturday, in an article published by Ming Pao, a Chinese-language daily newspaper in New York. She said her organization had since sent e-mail messages to the general manager and program director of WFNY voicing its concerns, but had to resort to regular mail to reach Leslie Moonves, the president and chief executive of CBS.

“I can’t get any contact info on him,” she said.

It was, she acknowledged, an indication that her organization was not yet as media savvy as Mr. Sharpton’s.

--O.W.

BARACK - BE REAL BLACK FOR ME?

One of the more interesting angles of criticism that Barack Obama is enduring at this early point in his (soon to be) Presidential bid is perhaps one that most wouldn't expect: he's not Black enough for some critics.

For background, here's NPR's Mary Curtis summing up some of the key issues. You can also view this NYT article. There's also Debra Dickinson's Salon.com piece, "Colorblind" that flat out says, "Obama isn't Black."

And why isn't the junior senator from Illinois earning his certificate in Official Blackness™? Two primarily reasons: the lesser is that he has a white mother though this probably takes second chair to the bigger reason that's being cited: his father is from Kenya. Ergo, Obama does not trace - in any obvious ways - his roots back through American slavery. By that virtue, Obama is presumed NOT to have an understanding of Blackness in the same way the majority of African Americans do on account of their generational connection to the wages of race, running back 400 years.

This isn't a new issue. As I think I've written about here, tensions between African Americans and West Indian immigrants has risen considerably in many cities, especially in the East, as these two communities have eyed one another warily. To distill the basics of that tension, African Americans see the West Indians are people who didn't have to pay the price for gaining the kind of civil rights and social benefits that are accorded to Black people. West Indians wonder why their American-brethren aren't as well-educated or upwardly mobile as they are. This is glossing over a lot more complexity but it still comes back to the same core points: that for some, Blackness is earned. Merely looking Black isn't enough.

What's ironic about part of this debate though is that, on one hand, the point being made is that Blackness isn't monolithic...except that, in the way that Dickerson frames it, Blackness actually IS kind of monolithic. She writes,

"At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term."

I hear what she's saying here but does that mean that a third-generation Harlemite shares the same perspectives as every other African American (of slave-descent) in every other part of the country? Does the Blackness experienced or internalized by said Harlemite equal that of a Black person from Baldwin Hills? Or Chicago's Southside? Or Hunter's Point? The point here is that you can't have it both ways: either Blackness is a fixed identity (a philosophy that plays all too well into racist hnads) or it's broad enough to include a range of Blackness beyond just the authenticating force of slavery's legacy.

Personally, I think what this points out is that Blackness - as well as anti-Black racism - has at least two distinct dimensions: one is historical and one is experiential. The experiential basically would include anyone "who looks Black," at least, Black enough to suffer from the kinds of anti-Black racism that live within the immediate world of human, social interaction: catching a beatdown from cops, being unable to catch a cab, having people cross the street when they see you strolling, etc. For Black immigrants or children of immigrants, these experiences of racism help shape a shared sense of Blackness with others, regardless of genealogy.

However, there is also the historical element of race that arises from the legacy of slavery, of Jim Crow, of myriad laws and practices that have structured not just day-to-day discrimination, but also become embedded in any number of social institutions as well as within the collective psyche of America itself. This is, I think justifiably, a qualitatively different experience of race. After all, a racialized identity is more than the product of your skin color and hair texture. It's also the product of unique strands of history that cannot and should not be forgotten/glossed over even to forge bonds of solidarity with others who may resemble you on one level, but whose lives and experiences trace through very different times and spaces. To deny this difference is to do violence to the historical memory of America's unique brands of racism.

This all said however, I think it's incredibly shortsighted and parochial - not to mention politically moribund - to force that these distinctions be honored to the point of exclusion. I would think the point here is to use people like Obama to reflect the sprawling diversity of Blackness, as a way of suggesting and showing that there is no monolithic Black experience, that this community is built of myriad histories and peoples and that, to discuss "Black issues" means understanding that complexity rather than simply presuming that there's a single "Black agenda" or "Black point of view."

However, it's one thing to say, "Obama's Blackness is different from my Blackness." It's something else entirely to say, "he's not really Black," especially since, in the eyes of most non-Black Americans, these distinctions are completely meaningless. Call me crazy but my perception is that for the majority of non-Blacks, whether Obama's father was born in Kenya or Kansas makes very little difference.

Dickerson argues that one reason she's upset at Obama's popularity is because she thinks Obama's non-slave-roots gives Whites (liberal and otherwise) a pass on White Guilt since they view Obama as a "different" kind of Black person, one not encumbered with constantly reminding them about what their ancestors did to his ancestors[1].

That's an intriguing idea except that it, in my mind, gives "the average American" far too much credit into actually taking into account national origin when it comes to race. She only need to ask any Asian American or Latino American - whether first or fourth generation - if our experiences with other Americans is any different based on how long our families have been here. (Hint: the answer would, "hell, no.")

Some non-Blacks might see Obama differently from other African Americans but I have a hard time believing this is any more than a relative handful. If Obama were to make any kind of Presidential ticket, I doubt the majority of Blue or Red state voters would see him as the son-of-a-Kenyan-national-and-white-mother rather than, "that Black guy running for Prez/VP." It is, of course, unfortunate that Obama's Blackness will inevitably be an inescapable part of his campaign (just ask Harold Ford...or heck, Tony Dungy or Lovie Smith) but insofar as that's true, it seems highly doubtful that he'll be seen as anything BUT Black to the majority of voters deciding to cast for him or not.

In any case, I wanted to also take time to include the perspective of Joan Morgan, writing on Mark Anthony Neal's blog. Joan is Jamaican-born, South Bronx-raised and she has this to say, especially in regards to Dickerson's article:

"...it should be painfully obvious (and I'm mean painful as in post-verbal-ass-whooping painful) that when it comes to Blackness that African-Americans do not hold the monopoly. Nor do they hold the monopoly on the equally painful legacy of colonialism, slavery and imperialism that descendants of West African slaves have experienced around the globe. Same shit, different boat."

"...when are folks like me, we "Voluntary Immigrants of African Descent" considered Black? Because according to Dickerson and brother man in the barbershop it certainly isn't doesn't happen when I look in the mirror every morning and damn sure see a black face. I don't get that honorary pass every April 15th when I pay my taxes or on the daily as I raise my American born black son."

"When black people immigrate to America we are not at all exempt from the experience of being Black American and not only because we will inevitably be subjected to American racism. We learn your history. We absorb your culture. Some of us even acquire your accents. We do this as a matter of both acclimation and survival because we recognize the potential power we unleash by finding the distinct commonalities between our histories and our culture."

"Because really, the difference between rice and peas and black eye peas is hardly as great she, the barber or anyone else questioning Obama's blackness might think. It's the distance between stops on slave ship."

---

UPDATE: Just to hone in on part of what I'm skeptical about...one of the reasons that's been given for Obama's popularity - specifically amongst White folk - is that his immigrant heritage allows White, whether consciously or unconsciously, a free pass out of White Guilt over slavery. Just to be upfront, I'm already skeptical over whether White Guilt actually exists to begin with; I don't see a host of examples, especially in contemporary times, where a mass of White voters have done much in the name of resolving America's slavery past. In fact, the only people I usually see trotting out the White Guilt thesis is White Supremacists (or at least political conservatives) who argue that the only reason why policies such as Affirmative Action or the Fair Housing Act exist is because White liberals allow White Guilt to influence their actions. There's a grain of logic in there somewhere but to me, that would be called "White Responsibility" or better yet "social justice." But let me not digress.

So, if I understand the argument correctly, here's the thinking of the average Obama supporter (White): "man...that Obama sure is great! He's so articulate, so fresh, so clean. And best of all, because he's a 2nd generation immigrant, when I think of him, I'm not reminded of all the terrible things my ancestors may have done to Kunte Kinte and his people 200 years ago!"

Not being White, I can't speak from personal experience, but does that last thought actually enter into the minds of White people when they think about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or hell, Michael Jordon or Denzel Washington? Just so we're clear, I'm more than willing to believe that any number of racists thoughts may enter one's subconscious when Black and White meet but 1) White Guilt over slavery isn't high up that list and 2) I'm not at all convinced that someone like Obama wouldn't trigger White Guilt (if it exists)



[1] Given Kenya's colonial past with European powers however, who's to say?

--O.W.

RUNNING WHILE BROWN

Richardson is Running ... for the Border

Yup, that's an actual screen capture above.

When Oliver decides to run for office, I can't wait until the New York Post prints the headline:

WANG THROWS CHINAMAN'S HAT INTO THE RING

*

Just as Obama and Clinton are forced to field idiotic questions and analysis of their race and gender, respectively, Governor Richardson will inevitably weather acerebral comments about his Mexican heritage and the fact that he grew up in Mexico City.

I feel bad for Richardson ... until I remind myself that he is the one directly responsible for the racial profiling and incarceration of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee.


Source: Wonkette

--Junichi

FOLLOW-UP: ROLLING STONE SHOW, DIVERSITY IN THE UC SYSTEM

1. Following up on "The Write Stuff?": A former Rolling Stone intern breaks down what the actual reality of life there was like:

"...the contenders on this new reality show are given the kind of opportunities normally reserved for seasoned writers: traveling the world, interviewing rock stars and working on hard-hitting exposés, all while struggling to meet deadlines.

The enhanced job description makes sense, given that it was the only way for producers to make the show at all exciting. (Bonus: It gave them an excuse to incorporate loads of celebrity cameos.)"

"I'm From Rolling Stone loses credibility as soon as it introduces the cast. Given the final prize, one would expect the producers would pick some of the most talented young writers in the country. Having received more than 2,000 applications for the six spots, they certainly had the chance.

Instead, the reality-show casting formula -- abrasive personalities and model good looks -- won out."

"As RS Executive Editor Joe Levy (the show's de facto host) tells five of the six contestants that their work is just plain bad, he looks almost embarrassed to be treating them as serious contenders for a coveted gig at his magazine."

None of this should be much of a surprise but it just accentuates the point that A) the show is terrible and B) RS's falling reputation has streamlined even faster.

2. Following up on "Race Reality Check, Berkeley Daze": The LA Times had a story today profiling UC Riverside. If UC Berkeley is supposed to be "Little Asia On The Hill" (I still laugh when typing that), UCR is more like, um, Little California In the Valley insofar as it is the most diverse of all the UCs, at least in its percentage of Black and Latino students.

Interestingly, the number of Asian students is still roughly as high as Berkeley's: 43%, but Latinos constitute a quarter of the school and the percentage of Black students (7.1%), is double that of UC Berkeley and the UC system, as a whole. Riverside also boasts the lowest % of White students in the entire system: 18.7% (the highest remains UC Santa Barbara which has 43%[1].

The high diversity at UCR, at least in this article, is seen through two different lenses. On the one hand, it's good at least one UC campus has a Black student population that comes remotely close to reflecting the actual reality of California's state-wide demographics. As one professor quoted for the story points out, "Maybe [other UCs] should be looking at what UCR is doing right in attracting minorities" and elsewhere, the story notes that even students accepted at other, more arguably prestigious UCs, are likely to choose Riverside because they feel more comfortable with the larger numbers of Black and Latino students there.

However, the other side of these demographics is put forward by a sociology professor at UCLA: "It's separate, but certainly not equal," said Darnell Hunt...director of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA. "It's the resegregation of the UC system." In other words, Hunt seems to argue that Black students (and presumably Latino to a lesser extent) are pushed towards Riverside thus allowing campuses like UCLA or UC Berkeley to enroll fewer "underrepresented minorities"[2].

One wonders what UCR staff and faculty feel about such an accusation. While I understand the point Dr. Hunt is making here, it also has the effect, intended or not, of besmirching UCR's reputation as an institution of higher learning. I doubt many at UCR see their school as the university equivalent of colored bathrooms back in the Jim Crow era.

It's also important to note, as the story does that: "One advantage Riverside has in attracting underrepresented minorities is that it draws many of its applicants from the Riverside area, which has a large black and Latino population." Of course, one can also break down the economic and social forces that have factored into why the Riverside area has a higher percentage of Black and Latino residents vs, say, the areas around Berkeley or Westwood (or Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz). To that degree, the disparities/inequalities associated with UCR are likely a reflection of similar inequalities in many of California's social institutions and historical trends. That's not saying that other UCs can't do a far better job of recruitment of Black and Latino students to their campuses - as the story also notes, this has been one area where UCR has made a vigorous push, a lesson that could be well learned by some of Riverside's sister campuses.

---

[1] At no UC campus does any single ethnic group hold a majority though Asians hold a plurality at every campus save for UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz.

[2] Given that ALL students in the UC system are technically "minorities" given that there is no majority group, I wish we could find a few language to express that reality.

--O.W.