The deeper racial significance of Obama might be that we can finally come to terms with the fact that the proverbial pot has and will mix races as well as ethnicities.
Al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, made a lame attempt to
invalidate the idea that Barack Obama's victory is a symbol of American racial
progress. It's not a surprise really. The United States' enemies long have
used racial inequality as the stick with which to beat us. And unfortunately,
it's a stick that we've handed them over and over again. Domestic
discrimination has been at odds with our national mission of democratizing the
world.
But Zawahiri's message suggests the ascendance of a black man to the presidency
has flummoxed and confused Al Qaeda's strategists. For their purposes, they
need the U.S.
to be perceived as a racist nation, and one way to turn Obama's victory upside
down is to call him a "house Negro," a term Malcolm X used to
criticize successful African Americans whom he accused of doing the bidding of
white folks, of not really being black.
For more than a century, the U.S.
has sought to prove the superiority of its system by highlighting its fair
treatment of its minorities. In 1906, when President Theodore Roosevelt made
Oscar Straus the first Jew ever to serve in a Cabinet, he told his new
secretary of Labor and Commerce that he wanted "to show Russia and some
other countries what we think of Jews in this country."
During World War II, many Americans came to believe that racism was at odds
with the principles of our democracy. The struggle against Nazism inspired the
belief that prejudice was un-American. For African Americans, the war effort
gave them hope for a "double V," a victory abroad against fascism and
stateside against racism.
During the Cold War, the U.S.
government became increasingly sensitive to foreign press coverage about
domestic discrimination. After all, freedom was our trump card over the
communists. In 1946, then-Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote that
"the existence of discrimination against minority groups in this country
has an adverse effect upon our relations with other counties. We are reminded
over and over by some foreign newspapers and spokesmen that our treatment of
various minorities leaves much to be desired. ... Frequently we find it next to
impossible to formulate a satisfactory answer to our critics."
A decade later, the Justice Department's amicus brief in the case of Brown vs.
Board of Education stated clearly that "the United States is trying to prove to
the people of the world, of every nationality, race and color, that a free
democracy is the most civilized and most secure form of government yet devised
by man."
Of course, despite its international public relations efforts, for the longest
time the U.S.
actually was practicing and exporting notions of white supremacy, racial purity
and segregation. As the country stretched itself into an empire, it took its
racial prejudice and Jim Crow practices with it. Anthropologist Virginia
Dominguez has written that before Americans arrived in Hawaii, the indigenous population simply did
not view race and racial distinctions in the way the American government would
later insist they should.
Our foreign-affairs gurus' theories were right, of course, even if we didn't
fulfill them. The election of a black man to the presidency does tell the world
that the U.S.
is closer to fulfilling the ideals it so zealously champions around the globe.
The better we are at creating equality at home, the more likely we are to
confound our enemies. But the racial symbolism of Obama might take us even
further than gloating about "treating our minorities better than you treat
yours." That's because the man who ran as a black candidate may govern as
a racially mixed president. On his first day as president-elect, Obama
playfully referred to himself as a "mutt" (he was talking about
choosing a dog for his daughters), which is a nicer way to say "mongrel."
If the new president keeps on in that vein, if he chooses to highlight his
mixed background, he could truly vanquish our old ideas of racial purity and
segregation.
For more than a hundred years, Americans have often pointed to the
"melting pot" as the ideal method of making this diverse society
cohere. The differences among us disappear, in other words. But we've long
known that widespread denial of race mixing, along with racism, prejudice and
anti-miscegenation laws, meant that "melting" was really reserved only
for ethnic whites. The deeper racial significance of Obama might be that we can
finally come to terms with the fact that the proverbial pot has and will mix
races as well as ethnicities. Out of many, one. Really.
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.
Your tax-deductible gift will help bring promising new voices and ideas into our nation's discourse, and help shape the future of vital public policies.
Join the Conversation
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.