June 2, 2008
Race in America
Senator Obama calls himself a black American or African American. He is seen as a black American or African American by most of the black/African-American community and probably also by the white community and the other racial/ethnic communities in the USA. By self-identifying as a black American, Senator Obama, who has a black Kenyan father and a white American mother, denies or diminishes the 50 percent of his parental heritage that is white.
Self-identification is, of course, a matter of personal preference and choice. But if I were to self-identify as a black female, a few eyebrows would be raised. When a self-identifying choice makes little sense because of its lack of congruence with easily observable facts, it is open to question, even to criticism.
Language matters. By any reasonable use of the English language, Senator Obama is not a black American or an African American. By the twisted usage that prevails in the USA (and to a growing extent also in the UK) where the politics and language of race are concerned, he is a black American or an African American.
Senator Obama is clearly an American, because he was born in the USA. But he is neither only black nor only white. He is of mixed race or multi-racial. He is also not the descendant of slaves forcibly taken, sold and shipped to America. This era of chattel slavery is the defining historical trauma that has shaped and distorted the American discourse about race. African-European American would be a better description if the geographical location of recent ancestors determines the adjectives that precede ‘American’.
Because his father was born in Africa, Senator Obama can fairly claim African as a self-identifying adjective to go with American. For most of the African-American community in the USA, however, the most recent ancestor to have been born in Africa is many generations in the past. What determines how many generations you live in a country but still identify with a country or continent of origin of some distant ancestor? If we go back far enough, because of the African genesis of humanity, every human being should put ‘African’ before their continental and racial identification.
Humans have through the ages classified and sorted themselves according to many criteria and observable characteristics, including gender, race, sexual orientation, age, hair colour, eye colour, social status, religion, nationality, tribe, class, height, weight and health status. The term ‘race’ is vague and fuzzy. Many scientists argue that it is not a particularly useful criterion for classifying people. Typically, the term race is used to divide people into populations or groups according to visible traits, especially skin colour, cranial or facial features and hair texture. Some of the taxonomies based on racial categories are completely crackpot. Some are motivated by evil intent. The other way (rather circular, in my view) the concept of race is used to divide people is based on self-identification.
Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another race. Racism is a universal phenomenon: it appears to occur in every time and place. In every country and age, however, there also appear to be many individuals who have not succumbed to this virus. I have seen manifestations of racism everywhere I have lived or visited: in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in the UK, in the USA, in China, in India, in Japan, in Vietnam, in Russia, in Peru, Argentina and Brazil, in South Africa, Ethiopia and Morocco, in Australia, in Israel, in the UAE and in Egypt.
The American attitude towards race, especially towards those who, during my lifetime have been designated as negroes, blacks, African-Americans and people of color (a category also often defined more broadly to include all non-whites) remains baffling, divisive and destructive of a true sense of nationhood. First, everyone must be put into some racial box. Second, everyone who has even just a single great-grand parent who hailed from Africa and had black skin colour is identified as African-American/black and is expected to self-identify the same way. What happened to the remaining 87.5 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent or whatever lower percentage of a person’s ancestors who came from other parts of the world and may have had very different skin colours or hair textures?
I am not saying that this selective denial of part or even most of a person’s ancestry is hard to explain historically. But even if we grant that the American obsession with the country’s failure to fully integrate into the national mainstream a significant proportion of its black/African-American population can be explained and understood fully through the unique historical experience of the USA, where the majority of the African-American population are the descendants of slaves brought to the country from Africa in chains - what of it? That does not alter the fact that for both the black and the white communities, it is an unhealthy and destructive obsession - one that is in urgent need of change if the long shadow cast by slavery is not to destroy a large segment of yet another generation of black American males.
If change is indeed needed, I believe that there is good news on the racial front. Things are changing, even in America. The identification of Senator Obama by most of the US electorate as a black American or African American, and Senator Obama’s matching self-identification reflect a mindset and a model of racial identification and self-identification that have not yet cast off the historical chains of slavery in the USA. It reflects a culture of which the Rev. Wright is an extreme example from an earlier generation, a culture that makes those who embrace it the prisoners of a vile past - a past that has become a dead-end street.
The future belongs to people who emulate Tiger Woods’ attitude towards race, or take it a stage further by denying the intrinsic or fundamental significance of race altogether. After being fêted as a great black golfer, Tiger Woods stated that he was not black but Cablinasian (as in Caucasian-Black-Indian-Asian). If I have done my research correctly (I am not 100% sure of the details), Woods’ father is half black, one quarter American Indian and one quarter white. His mother is half Thai and half Chinese. Why can’t he just be an American, without any racial epithet - even Cablinasian?
The process driving the less history-burdened, and less-exclusionist form of racial identification and self-identification exemplified by Tiger Woods is the rapid growth in the number of people with mixed-race or multi-racial ancestries. It is one of the great blessings of globalisation. I am a beneficiary of this process myself, through my children.
My son was adopted from Peru, my daughter from Bolivia. They both have brown skin and pitch black (son)/dark (daughter) hair. Both my children are multi-racial - of mixed race. My daughter’s most likely ancestry is part Aymara Indian and part white European, probably Swiss. My son is also part Indian (probably one of the nations subjugated by the Incas) and part white European. His features are more oriental, however, than those of even full Peruvian Indians. So there could be a Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese or Korean ancestor somewhere down the line. When he was a baby, the locals in Lima used to call him ‘Chinito’ or ‘little Chinese’. In most of South America, any man from East Asia or of East Asian origin is called ‘Chino’ - this befell even the former President of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, who was of Japanese origin. What does all this make my children, in the racial pigeonholing stakes? The correct answer is: whatever. Who cares?
We moved from the US to the UK in 1994. My son went to his first party in the UK, at the age of four, in the then racially very homogeneously white village of Great Gransden, 14 miles west of Cambridge. I hung around to make sure he would be OK in this unfamiliar setting. He came to see me after a while with a rather confused look on his face. “Daddy, that boy there called me a blackie”. “Oh”, I replied, not very articulately, “so what did you reply?” “I told him I wasn’t a blackie, because I am a brownie”. And so of course he was. And is. And will be.
I told my son he was quite right; that the other boy was either ignorant, because he did not know the difference between black and brown, or that the other boy was trying to insult him, because there were people who considered skin colour to be important and also considered some skin colours to be better than others. That was wrong, it was bad, but it did happen. The boy probably had just been parroting his parents. My son should never accept this kind of nonsense or put up with it. But he should also never respond by retaliating in kind.
Since 1997, we have lived in London, first in the Isle of Dogs, now in South East London. One of the great pluses of London is its incredible variety of people - all races (and all combinations of races), all cultures, all religions, all ethnic backgrounds mix and mingle - most of the time peacefully but at times, unfortunately, violently. The pupils at the primary school on the Isle of Dogs attended by my kids for a few years, were over 70% of Bengali background. The rest were mainly from Vietnamese, Chinese, and a variety of African backgrounds. The only white kids were those of the teachers and a few children representing the remnants of the old white working class - a group that had been decimated when the docks died. The school was a haven of tolerance, respect, good manners and learning. It can be done.
My children consider the multi-racial, multi-cultural society of London to be the norm. In early September 2006, my wife and I were teaching a course in Kiel, northern Germany. The children were with us, and a good time was had driving around Schleswig-Holstein and southern Denmark. My daughter, then just 13, turns to me as we walk along the harbour in Kiel and says: “Daddy, what’s wrong with this place? Everyone is white”. I hadn’t noticed, but she was quite right. The contrast with London’s melting pot or racial and ethnic cauldron was stark. We had a long talk about race and racism that evening over dinner.
I tried to explain to them that race matters if and only if enough people believe that it matters.(It is an example of what economists call a ‘bubble’ - something not explained by objective fundamentals but by self-validating, arbitrary beliefs (that’s not how I put it to them!)). If people everywhere believed race was irrelevant, it would be irrelevant. It would be like hair colour or eye colour among white people. All people are made in God’s image and are equal in God’s eyes. Recognise that race matters in the world and that racism continues to be rife, but remember that God is colour blind, or rather, that She likes all colours equally. Know with your head that race matters and how it matters in the world, but always deny its relevance in your heart and soul. Etc. etc.
Even though race is a fundamentally irrelevant category, when it is deemed relevant by a sufficient number of people, injustice and violence can be perpetrated in the name of racial superiority. That injustice and violence then becomes part of history, part of the individual and collective memories of people and nations. It can become embedded in a culture. It takes time, courage, determination and imagination to overcome such legacies. If Obama’s election could help bring us closer to a USA in which race was no more important than hair colour or eye colour, I would vote for him. I am, however, afraid that he is still too much a prisoner of the mindset of the past to make much of a difference here.
I believe that within a few generations, globalisation will have killed off not just racism but race as a relevant category for self-identification and social pigeonholing. That is not, unfortunately, the world we live in now. My children are likely to encounter prejudice and discrimination at some points in their lives. In the US, where they are classified by the social security system as ‘hispanic’ (probably the dumbest category ever invented by ethnic/racial taxonomists), they could even encounter some positive discrimination, under what remains of the affirmative action laws.
I hope I have taught them to stand up for themselves - for their universal rights as free human beings. They should fight discrimination directed at themselves or at others; they should reject positive discrimination for themselves. They should always contest the relevance of ‘race’ as an explanation for any action or measure, private or public.
My father, on his first visit to the USA in 1954 or 1955, got into trouble when on his immigration service entry-form he wrote ‘human’ in the space left open for ‘race’. In the end, the immigration official simply crossed out what my father had written, replaced it with ‘caucasian’ or ‘white’ and let him through. My parents brought us up race-blind, but not blind to the reality of racism and racial prejudice. They had lived through World War II. More than 80 percent of Dutch Jewry was murdered by the Nazis because of some half-baked theory of racial purity and superiority. The reality and destructive power of racism, especially when allied with the institutions of the state, was very well understood by them.
I have followed the example set by my father by steadfastly refusing to enter information on race whenever this was requested in a census form. Both the US census and the UK census demand that information. Even the LSE Human Resources departments wants to know which race I am. As a social scientist, I regret the loss of a data point. As a human being I refuse to answer a question that it is morally wrong to ask.
There are other reasons for not providing information on race (or ethnicity or disability) in the census. That is the legitimate fear that this information will be abused either by the state or by some other party that gains access to this information. There is no such thing as confidential information. Guarantees to that effect aren’t worth spit. So anyone who loves liberty should leave those entries in the census blank.
With a bit of luck, globalisation will continue to mix and re-mix the human gene pool. A world in which a growing proportion of humanity is, according to the old racial metrics, of mixed race or multi-racial, ought to be a world where the concept of race itself ceases to be relevant for self-identification, as well as socially, culturally and politically.
Race: human. That’s the bottom line.
Dr. Buiter spent a lot of words to complcate the issue even more. Why did he NOT stop before he wrote the first letter? I am mystified.
Charles
Posted by: charles McGee | June 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 am | Report this commentProfessor Buiter is right to point out that our common humanity is more important than superficial racial differences. But since this a point that so many people all over the world find difficult to accept, the least we can do is to try to achieve a multi-racial society in which differences in appearance, ancestry, language and culture are recognized, but accepted.
America is moving toward such a society, and I agree that Denator Obama’s candidacy is a sign of this. However, even though I am an Obama supporter, I would never argue that being black,
or even 50 per cent black, entitles him to high office for that reason alone, any more than being black has made Clarence Thomas into anything more than an ultra-reactionary Supreme Court Justice or Condoleezza Rice into anything more than a diehard Bush apologist. If I did not believe that Barack Obama has outstanding personal qualities that would make him one of America’s greatest presidents irrespective of his color, I would never support him. I believe that most Americans of every race and color feel the same way.
Hopefully, America will continue to move in the direction of being a tolerant, multi-racial society. However, the venom of the right wing smear attacks on Senator Obama’s patriotism, as well as the vicious hate campaign being waged against Latino, Middle Eastern, Caribbean, African and Asian immigrants, both show that America still has a long way to go in order to achieve full racial justice and equality.
With all due respect to Professor Buiter and admiration for his family’s racial diversity, I do not believe that attempting to downplay our various differences in appearance, background and ancestry is the best way to eliminate racism. To the contrary, we should revel in these differences and appreciate the wonderful diversity of the human race, without forgetting that, as Professor Buiter points out, our common humanity is the most essential point of all.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | June 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 am | Report this commentI apologize for yet another typo: I meant, of course, “Senator Obama”, not “Denator Obama”.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | June 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 am | Report this commentAre you not compromising the privacy of your children? When they grow up they can engage for themselves in attention grabbing public exposure.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | June 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 am | Report this commentI agree with Roger that we should rejoice in diversity, not strive for some bland monochrome future. The strive for homogeneity is a depressing motif featuring in much of Prof Buiter’s writing, whether on race, immigration or monetary union.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | June 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 am | Report this commentIsn’t it interesting how there were many more comments on this article yesterday? Shurely shome mishtake!!!
Posted by: David M | June 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 am | Report this comment[…] Buiter’s blog post on the arbitrariness of racial classifications are spot on. I wonder if he is too decent to realise that the whole point of the concept of race is […]
Posted by: Race is arbitrary | June 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am | Report this commentTwo points,
I see this as generational issue, the older you are the more likely you will be to view candidates in traditional categories (ethnicity, gender etc), the younger you are you are more likely to see them as just people.
Wrt Obama, I can understand for the African American community and perhaps other identifiable minorities, his heritage is a massive factor but personally as a WASP it matters about as much to me as if he were left-handed or right-handed. Where does he stand on the issues, can he lead, will he make the right decisions under pressure and when the possibilities are confusing? This is what matters to me.
Posted by: John Campbell | June 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentIf America remains largely segregated, then it is entirely by choice. And London is hardly a multi-ethnic paradise: rather, it is a jigsaw of mutually-exclusive communities, where everyone ignores their neighbour’s plight because they have nothing in common.
Posted by: Shevvers | June 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentWillem Buiter’s father may have been unlucky with the US Immigration Service. They accept my self-description as “human”; perhaps because the alternative I offer to them and census takers is “ordinary English mongrel”.
I first encountered United States ideas of “race” at the age of seven. I failed to understand them then, and have never succeeded since. Admittedly the “hispanic” category is surreal - I have the impression that it probably excludes most Spaniards - but the ones that seem to me most unreal are ones which Willem Buiter employs above “white” and “black”. Those are the colours of newsprint; nothing in the subtle and sometimes beautiful range of human skin tones gets close to either of them.
The genetic differntiation of mankind is changing because we are moving about and chosing our mates differently from our ancestors. Whatever genetic base common ideas of “race” may have will not hold in future. Instead, our descendents will be varied in new ways. I reget that I am very unlikely to be around to be happily surprised by the results.
Posted by: David Heigham | June 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentFar from complicating the issue, Prof. Buiter’s posting expresses in a clear (and heartfelt) way the arbitrary and ridiculous nature of racial classification. His main arguments are obvious and – to my mind – true, yet such rational argument is so rare in print that I am moved to reply.
If I must quibble, it would only be on two issues:
Firstly, Senator Obama cannot possibly run as a “race-less” candidate, even if he wanted to (which he might). Such a stance would be provocative for so many US blacks and whites (for different reasons) that his candidacy would become more about race, rather than less. I believe that his election as President would indeed be part of the necessary healing process of the deepest divide in US society.
Concerning the provision of information on race, we do need data and tools that show how those (self-)designated as particular races are faring in society. Unless we know the facts, it will be difficult to act appropriately, as we should.
Posted by: Errol Levy | June 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentI have to admit that I may be a bit biased in favor of the multiracial background Professor Buiter describes in reference to his own family, since I happen to be of mixed ethnicity myself. On one side, I am descended from Eastern European, or Ashkenazi, Jews. On the other side, my ancestry is Sephardic, or Spanish/Mediterranean - Jewish.
My two daughters are even more diverse, as their mother is of German-Jewish descent. How multiracial can one family get? Well, even a bit more, I suppose, as my second wife is Japanese.
Posted by: algasema | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Report this commentHow sad it is to be totally right and not have it matter a fig.
Posted by: David Seaton | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm | Report this commentBuiter’s article negates the main issues of inherent privilege and history. Yes, it is quite circular to self-identify with any race as it has the possibility–but only the possibility– of continuing hatred and discrimation. However, if one were not to identify with a race, for example black, it would deny the distinctive dicrimation (for example, red lining in after the creation of the FHA) of the said race. Buiter is able to metion how his father could describe himself only as a “human” and not as “white” or “Caucasian” only because of the privilege of his race as a believed inherent owner of language and racial politics.
Furthermore, Buiter seems to casually forget the fact that the racial landscape has changed over the years, even day to day. Japanese were considered “honorary-whites” prior to WWII, as they were believed to be relatively equal. As they entered WWII, however, they quickly became “Jap monkeys.” Once again they are considered “honorary whites” as they are the “model minority” but still once again just IMMITATORS of white-ness.
Posted by: Salim | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm | Report this commentBuiter needs to recognize his own place in this game of race before he casts off its necessity. The real problem is that race is a catch-22, and the real importance of race (or history rather) is not accurately weighted.
Hi Mr. Buiter, I am sad about your comment, I think in my hear that you were discussing tolerance but, you are to me really stating that we should just let go of hundred of years of oppression as if it was no longer happen. M.r Buiter you stated that you would pick Sen. Obama if he was more enlighten, and not still a part of the old mind set. which of the other canditates would better handle the issue of race. Do you think a women white would understand and be able to talk in to changes in the way society handle black issue or a white male who is able to talk the same old talk to get elected. I submit that as long as man is able to use tools to make them feel superior to someone else there will always be an issue of race.
Posted by: Posted by: Sad | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this commentI enjoyed your paper but do not agree with your take on race.
This is one of the more absurd European commentaries on race in America I have read - and trust me as a brown-skinned American living in Europe I come across quite a few of those.
“The world may be changing, even America”? “American attitude towards race remains baffling, divisive and destructive”? Compared to what, the UK - where immigrant communities are permanent expats with a limited sense of Britishness or loyalty to the country they were born in…if they don’t blow up your public transport?
What ignorant claptrap! First of all, America is not made up of only “white” and “black” - America is a nation made up of individuals whose ancestors have originated from every corner of the planet. Get on a plane and see for yourself. Second of all, the fact that Obama is most likely the frontrunner to be sitting in the White House next year is more than enough to exonerate the US of these ridiculous charges of being somehow more racist than Europe or other parts of the world. This in addition to an America which has already recently seen two black Secretarys of State, a Chinese Secretary of Labor, a Japanese Secretary of Transport, an Indian Governor of Louisiana, a Black Governor of New York State, an Arab Secretary of Energy, an Indian CEO of its largest bank (Citigroup), a black CEO of its largest brokerage (Merrill Lyncy) and countless other examples on prominence of minorities in both public and especially corporate sectors.
When the UK or another European country even approach America’s record of inclusion or of inspiring genuine loyalty and affection from its non-white immigrant stock…or when a Kenyan immigrant’s son can be the head of state in Britain or Holland or Germany, then we can hear you Europeans whine about race in America.
Until then, please kindly shut up and sort out your own race issues and ghettos in Bradford, Rotterdam, Paris and Berlin. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Posted by: H Juneja | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Report this commentAn American of Indian origins based in London
We all are God’s children. race is a social construct. America and England are sick societies, wanting to preserve race purity that is impossible because its not scientific and human.
Posted by: Jose | June 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Report this commentThe issue of racial profiling when applying for a job/enrolling children in school/registering with a GP(they dont tell you that do they) is a deeply disturbing development.
One of the reasons the Nazis were able so effectively to identify so many Jewish people so quickly was because the data was there waiting for them.
Eichmann was a technocrat.
Recently much to my reluctance and later regret at school enrolment I was almost forced into entering my 5 year old daughters “racial” data as “mixed”..I was then asked by the school administrator to be more specific-when I asked how far back into the genetic pool she wished me to go(I can identify at least 8 different origins running through the last 100 years) she simply put down a 50/50 mix of what she thought was the best simplified “mix”.
Oh yes and the next time you visit your GP ask them if they have recorded your “ethnic status” yet-the government asked them to do this a few years ago-they get extra points for having the data which is not used for any medical purpose whatsoever-it is data gathering only.
Who is dreamming this stuff up and why?..it sounds like a throwback to eugenics of the the early twentieth century and what possible relevance does it have other than to reinforce racial “profiling” and stereotyping.Its counter-productive and ties in with the self enforced “ghetto of the mind” politically correct brigade.The apologists would say its to check for equal opportunities and it probably is at the moment(though whats that got to do with your GP?)but it is potentially dangerous information to have out there.This is not paranoia and is not as fanciful as it seems in democratic modern Europe today.
There is a central European country in the EU, shortly to adopt the Euro, which has a coalition government of two parties one of which is an extreme far right nationalist party whose leader is on record as supporting the forcible sterilisation of the Roma population,stopping all non white immigration(they get about ten applications a year!)to prevent the country from being “overrun with brown babies”.They’ve kept him quiet recently till they get through the Euro hurdles no doubt.
I am born in Scotland therefore I am Scottish.
This is not a statement of race but of nationhood.Two very different concepts which appear to have been grasped nore successfully in the last 30 years in Australia,New Zealand,Canada and the USA than in Europe but of course these are countries where both immigrant status is possibly less stigmatised and inclusive nationality is encouraged and celebrated.
Race is a dangerous fallacy as everyone should now know(and the genetic science conclusively proves this) and we should absolutely avoid defining people in this way.Of course the racists of all backgrounds will continue in their attempts to pigeonhole us all but we should not allow ourselves to be fed this idiocy any longer nor allow it to be inflicted on our children.
Posted by: P Alvi | June 4th, 2008 at 1:02 am | Report this commentAfter having slogged through this (I know not why) it is clear you are sneeringly dismissive of others’ ideas on race if they don’t conform exactly to yours.
This is precisely the attitude which gets people into trouble with race in the first place. Go back to the drawing board.
Posted by: Dave the American | June 4th, 2008 at 3:23 am | Report this commentAs someone who has lived and worked in a number of countries with high proportion of population of different skin colour genetic characteristics, I recognise much of what Prof Buiter talks about.
Race and ethnic typing is still very much alive. How one designates oneself seems to me to be these days very much a case of personal choice. For instance, my daughter is secod generation British (by birth) and does not have a single drop of any British blood in her. My husband is first generation British and considers himself thoroughly English, he does not speak his parents mother tongues. My daughter, by contrast, feels more at home in various parts of Europe (where some of her ancestors came from) and has learnt and speaks fluently 4 main European languages and in addition uses two Slav languages.
Things are changing. If one walks through the hallowed fields of Harvard University in Cambridge, MA and looks at the student population, it is impossible not to notice a vast diversity. Number of Asian undergraduate students of various ethnic origin is significant. Best of all, graduate studies are ‘needs blind’ so in my daughter’s year of twenty young people there is literally a whole world represented. Yet, I can not remember that I have seen among them any African-American’s.
On the other hand, on a recent trip in Ecuador it was very clear that ethnic origin was still very important, both socialy and in terms of opportunities afforded. However, both language and the self-perceptions of people are changing. Local population calls themselves ‘indigenous’ and they are proud of it. They are making sure that while they get better education and develop economic strength, they also maintain knowledge of uses of a great many plants as medicines, keep eating and growing lots of different vegetables and varieties of same plants (some of which we do not even have names in English though they were delicious) and most of all desire to make themselves self-sustaining and support their community in peace and harmony.
Posted by: Rebel | June 4th, 2008 at 4:06 am | Report this commentGreat article! As a naturalized American citizen, who also served three years in the US Army, I steadfastly refuse to hyphenate my nationality; I am an American, period. On the 2000 census form I refused to mark down my race, writing simply “who knows?” even though the form threatened that a federal officer could come to my house to make the determination. None ever showed up. The United States is, after all, the most successful multiracial society on earth. Not that we’re perfect in the area of race relations and colorblindness, but we’ve worked on this for a long time and are now lightyears ahead of every other nation on the planet.
Posted by: Dan the American | June 4th, 2008 at 5:20 am | Report this comment“H Juneja | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm | ”
Very well said, thank you.
As a long term Brit ex-pat in the US I am amazed that the UK sees fit to lecture America on race relations in today’s world. No, we’re not perfect here but as you say, a steady progress has been made in the last thirty years especially.
There will be a non-white US president long before there will be a non-white UK PM.
P.S. It won’t be Obama, he’s far too liberal for one thing.
Posted by: Stan(expat in US) | June 4th, 2008 at 6:37 am | Report this commentWell, the commentary was interesting to read, and so were all the comments. As a Zambian (note that I do not say African) living in Europe, I feel that all this mumbo jumbo about race is a bit irrelevant. Having lived in Africa, the U.S., and Europe, I have found that it is more important to find a place where you feel more comfortable (however you see yourself), and also to understand the racial definitions at hand. It is more important to ask yourself when it is empowering/disempowering to define yourself as one thing or another. I think it is very much like anything in life: ‘Don’t hate the player, hate the game.’
Posted by: Chip | June 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am | Report this commentI read this article and could not help shake my head. There you have a white man, who has been able to enjoy all the privileges due to his background, complain about a person of colour’s self-identification. As a black man working in financial services in London, I wish the world was colour-blind. However it is not and unlike Mr. Buiter,it is something that I am reminded of every day whether I like it or not.
Posted by: Paul Obsidian | June 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am | Report this comment“There will be a non-white US president long before there will be a non-white UK PM.” We’ve had three mixed race PMs already - Lord Liverpool and the two Pitts. Wakey, wakey.
Posted by: dearieme | June 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am | Report this commentWell said professor, but I think there is more to it than that. As a black man working in Investment Management in Munich, Germany, this is like a sharp knife through a wound.
i think most of these guys are just scared of the competition and they only way to live fit for the next battle is to call names which unfortunately means less to a person like me.
As Oscar wilde said “Morality like Art means drawing a line someplace”. Think about it!!
PS: Do not forget what happened at the Eurovision Song Contest.
It does also pay to actually analyze the choice of words in the article.
Posted by: Harold Markin | June 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm | Report this commentThis really is wonderful rubbish. If race were merely a matter of skin colour, hair texture and other physical characteristics then our tranzi friend would be correct to say: whatever.
The problem is that race is also about culture. The culture of a impovrished Somali Muslim from a tribal background is not the same as, say, British culture. In one culture female circumcision might be de rigeur, in another it might be considered abhorrent barbarism.
I do not believe that God would regard all cultures as equal, even as he loves the individuals hailing from those cultures. Nor will I accept that we, as citizens of nation states with strong indigenous cultures (however evolved) should accept other cultures as of equal validity when they are demonstrably inferior by the standards we hold to be important. This is why I am not a multiculturist. Does this make me a racist too?
Posted by: tired and emotional | June 4th, 2008 at 12:18 pm | Report this commentTo pretend that particular differences do not actually exist is as deluded as to focus on differences irrelevant to some given situation.
Cultural differences (which genetics usually couples with physical traits) exist between groups of people. Sometimes these differences are important. Other times they are not. Still other times some people think that they are important while others think not. It may be more pleasant to avoid acknowledging this complexity, but it is intellectually dishonest.
It does however give me much hope to see how the issue is developing (much as it does Prof. Buiter), however I also believe that he continues to be wrong in identifying the development. I do not see the focus on particular traits disappearing in the upcoming generation. That was a mindset of 60’s and 70’s reformers. It is the fear (and therefore hatred) of difference that is disappearing, not the acknowledgement of the difference.
Posted by: Andrei Timoshenko | June 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm | Report this commentThank you for such a heart felt effort to comment on such an emotionally charged subject. Thank you for looking beyond “I am my genes” and adopting children that in the minds of many people would be deemed from a different culture. Thank you for being open enough on your blog to reveal personal details about your life and your family. And thank you for the vision of setting a goal in a globalize world where skin color and ethnic origin are not part of self identification.
Posted by: DMG555 | June 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentRacial Utopia already! Wil’s gotta be rich to believe in that. Like lots of other stupid stuff, people believe in race because they think it’s in their interests to do so. Unfortunately it often is.
Posted by: Johnstone | June 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentI’m afraid that it does, “tired and emotional” at least in my book. Here in the US, “culture” is widely used as a euphemism for race, especially when referring to brown-skinned Latin American immigrants.
Posted by: algasema | June 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentI am so pleased to learn that there are others who are aware that there are multiracial individuals out there. I find it strange that Barak Obama does not insist on being called multiracial as he rightly is. But I suppose it is for political expedience and perhaps his understanding that most Americans would not get it if he did try to be what he actually is a man whose mother is white and father black. Americans live in a surreal, somewhat peverse world, about race distinctions which have been made up for political and economic reasons.
Posted by: Alexandra | June 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentAlgasema, the point stands though surely, regardless of the euphemisms others may or may not use. Either you accept that some cultural values are inferior to others or you do not. If you are prepared to come and defend female circumcision as deserving of a place in US or UK culture then do so. Otherwise aren’t you a racist by the terms of your own argument?
Posted by: tired and emotional | June 6th, 2008 at 12:05 pm | Report this commenttired and emotional, I would accept your point if most Americans were really talking about culture when they say “culture”. They are not. They are talking about skin color, just as they were talking about racial segregation fifty years ago when they referred to the “Southern Way of Life”. These are known as “buzzwords”. Two more examples:
1) ca. 1954: “Impeach Earl Warren!” (Translation: “Keep black children out of the public schools”)
2) ca. 2007: “No Amnesty for Illegals!” (Translation: “Keep all brown -skinned immigrants out of the US”)
I would say “Welcome to the real world of America”, but, unfortunately, that term also was used with a racist connotation, in the 2006 Virginia Senatorial election, by Republican Senator George Allen (who lost because he used it while calling one of his opponent’s Indian-American supporters a “Macaca”, i.e. a monkey).
Posted by: algasema | June 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pm | Report this comment