History
Today, Tuesday 4 November 2008, could be historic. It could be. America could vote in its first ever black president. It could do the opposite. I will be at the British Library, in the Humanities Reading Room. But in a way, we are all in Humanity's reading room today, in hushed silence, waiting. It could go either way. Perhaps Lewis Hamilton's apparently spectacular Grand Prix win is a sign. There's a letter in the new Sight & Sound praising a recent feature on the filmmaker Steve McQueen for not calling him a "black director", nor referring to what he does as "black cinema". (Having seen McQueen's Hunger, perhaps the best film of the year, I'd say it's closer to "Irish cinema" anyway.) The letter writer's point is that he feels such black-and-white labels are now irrelevant, even perhaps demeaning in the sheer broadness of the label. Why should a filmmaker who happens to be black be labelled as such. I can see where he's coming from (it's a stark reminder of those unenlightened days in the 80s when criminals who were black would be described as such in the media when white offenders would carry no colour code), and maybe after tonight's count, we can all stop saying "black".Unless the old white man wins.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 9:14 AM
30 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
30 Comments:
As Jeremy Hardy said earlier this year "The question is not - 'Is America ready for its first black president?' - the question is - 'Is America ready for the first black president's assassination?'-"
If the old white man wins, then will we ever know if that's political or racial?
If Obama wins, then it is safe to say that the American electorate are sufficiently unprejudiced to vote for someone based on their suitability rather than their colour, but if McCain wins, it doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, although that will be what is noted in history.
I can't for the life of me see how it's demeaning. And I'm not being contrarian, I promise.
It's a very liberal, white critic concept, the one you posit - that it might be somehow demeaning. Every black person I know is proud of their heritage.
Please don't misunderstand me, Swines - the letter writer in Sight & Sound, who may or may not have been black (his point exactly), didn't actually say it was a "demeaning" label, simply that to be categorised by skin colour is unhelpful and out of date and if anything too broad to be descriptive, especially in terms of art. Clearly I don't think it's demeaning to be called black, and indeed, if I were black, I'd be black and proud, and I'd certainly prefer it to "person of colour" as per the anal Americanism.
Obama is, and always will be, the first ever black US presidential candidate and as such, it seems entirely relevant to describe him as such, although his "blackness" does not dictate his policies. Indeed, from what I read, those who are dead set against him in the Republican heartlands are as fearful of his "socialism" as they are his race.
To go back to the S&S letter writer - and I must quote his letter in full (apologies for not doing so, I'm in a library) - his praise for the magazine was based on not describing Steve McQueen as a "black director". Which, to them, was progress indeed.
I am such a white liberal I'm ashamed of my colour. But you knew that already. I'm ashamed of my nationality and my gender too. You too can have my life! Ask me how!
I may change the word "demeaning" in the above blog entry, as the spectre of being misread has really its ugly, Swineshead-shaped head. (Not saying you're ugly, Swineshead. But me being misunderstood is ugly.)
"But in a way, we are all in Humanity's reading room today"
Man, talk about a stretched metaphor! :)
I am horrifically ugly - and proud of my malformed heritage.
I disagree with the letter-writer, AC, not you - I didn't mean to make it seem I misunderstood you.
I think it's helpful to have every detail about an interviewee. I do think it's of interest that Steve McQueen is black. We can ask why a black, non-Irish guy might be interested in this story - it might help us see an allegory, or many allegories beyond the tale itself.
It helps to know that Shane Meadows was once a skinhead and it helps to know that you're from Northampton.
And it helps to know that I am horrifically deformed.
I can see the distinction between a label and biographical detail - but we shouldn't kick out biographical detail just in case an idiot mistakes it for a label.
The black man will win.
Great picture on the front of the Metro today, where their candidates skin tones have been swapped. It actually makes a very good about about Colour Not Being An Issue.
I agree Andrew. It's ironic, but in order to be non-racist it's essential that American's vote for the black guy.
five-centres - it may just have been me, but the white Obama pic looked like a skinnier Schwarzenegger.
If that IS the case, should we be concerned?
NM, But doesn't that then make them racist? Voting FOR someone BECAUSE they're black? Why is ESSENTIAL?
I don't think that all Americans who vote for John McCain are racist, Nicholas. There were a hell of a lot of Democrats who would have preferred Hillary, and voted for her, but they're not racist either. There is racism at the heart of America, as there is as the heart of any former colony where indigenous populations were kicked out - and especially where the white population shipped in black people as slaves - but this does not make, say, everybody in Texas a racist, or everybody south of the Mason-Dixon Line a racist. Times change.
It's historic that Obama is black, but as I said, his policies aren't necessarily black. If his blackness represents anything, it's a more equal world. Martin Luther King's 81-year-old sister Christine was on Channel 4 news last and she said that her brother's dream was precisely this. Whether he wins or not, Obama already carries the weight of history on his shoulders.
It was noticeably that no one mentioned Lewis Hamiltons race when he won (on the programme that is) I think it was worth mentioning because Grand Prix has been a very white sport for all sorts of reasons so Lewis is breaking ground. The Maclaren team seem to be laudably colour blind in their attitude but it is a breakthrough. Black people can do well at "sitting down sports" as well as all the others.
As for Obama still can't recall a single thing he's said so far.
It's not just race that's the issue. I heard a sound bite where someone said they wouldn't vote for Obama because they "...don't believe he's a Christian." It's a scary world when the most powerful man on the planet is voted for on grounds of skin tone or religious views rather then his abilities and leadership. A significant proportion of Middle America would no doubt be happier to have an inept Christian in charge rather than a superior leader with different (or no) beliefs. I'm not suggesting that this is the case in this election of course, but it's not inconceivable.
I would love it if Andrew and Richard have a semi serious and generally giddy discussion about Obama winning the election (hopefully I haven't jinxed him) on their podcast this week. I liked the bit about the ross/brand debacle last week and more of the same would be cool. I accidentally said that I hate the hand wringing liberalism on the survey when in fact my hands are constantly being wrung liberally. I have a genuine feeling that the world needs Obama right now, and that his presidency could make the world a better place.
America needs to vote for Obama if only to acknowledge that Bushism must end and not because he's black. McCain is not a sufficient step away from Bush and allowed himself to be blown offstage by his support act (watch for that whole circus unravelling minutes after an Obama victory).
My fingers are crossed for Obama, but as Nick Robinson at the BBC is saying on his blog we mustn't forget Neil Kinnock and Labour in 1992.
Having said all of that, like BLTP I couldn't tell you a single thing of substance that Obama has said. To my great discredit.
I just hope Obama wins to help improve America's image globally. I think the setback that a McCain win would bring to America on the international stage is not worth thinking about.
Having an American wife and in-laws, the sneering insulting comments we often hear in the UK rankle sometimes.
If the old white guy wins, it's historic too, since he choose a young (ish) white woman as his running mate...don't forget us women just cus we is white...
BJ
It's a scary world when the most powerful man on the planet is voted for on grounds of skin tone or religious views rather then his abilities and leadership.
I think that shows some naivety to be honest, I have many american 'Christian' friends who could not vote for a Homosexual president because of their beliefs. That is their choice, who are you 'Porck Chops' to say that is scary? They don't want a leader who contradicts their own belief system, I wouldn't want a leader who went against my own ethical principles either.
You think people voted in Tony Blair because of his Policies? or do you think perhaps they voted him in (a second time) because they didn't want the 'other lot' in? or maybe they simply voted Labour because they have always voted labour?
Which is more 'scary' someone voting for a leader based on their own ethics and morals or voting for someone because their dad/mum/friends have always voted that way?
people vote for many reasons, some more banal than others, but please don't make a judgement on them just because YOU don't happen to follow their beliefs (religious or otherwise).
BJ, you're absolutely right, of course - the first female VP would be history too. Let's hope it doesn't happen though. I think even some Republicans are scared stiff of Sarah Palin.
(Hey, we've had a female Prime Minister. That worked out well.)
Adam, I don't think Pork Chops was being naive. Idealistic, maybe. We all live in hope that surface might not sway an electorate, but we know that the opposite is often the case. Tony Blair was slick and relatively young and I fell for it, along with many others. What we who voted him in failed to spot was that by removing a pesky clause to make Labour electable, he had also disfigured the party irreparably, and we gave him a mandate to do so. So, you're right Adam that people vote for all sorts of reasons, but since we all do it, then that is scary. The world is scary.
Adam, I do not judge people based on their beliefs, sexuality, race or any other attribute that has no influence on their capability to perform their job. As Andrew rightly pointed out, I am being idealistic, not naïve and have every right to believe that the election of the “leader of the free world” potentially being decided by bigotry is scary. I’m perfectly capable of being ethical and moral without being told how to do so by an organized religion or political party.
Rather than blame Blair (it was never anyone else, was it? Busy chap), for changing Labour enough to make it popular enough to be electable, the apologists/revisionists (and you may be one/other/both AC, not sure?) should perhaps look again at the scenario that the Labour Party had been suffering from self inflicted wounds all through the 80s and most of the 90s?.
I think the damage to Labour was done to the Party by the ideologists in the 70s & 80s, as opposed to against the ideoligists in the 90s.
Electing the party to power was surely the whole point of the exercise, otherwise why bother? One of the reasons Kinnock managed to snatch defeat in 1992 was his backing off from 'modernisation' clauses therefore eroding the popular vote.
It's the easiest thing in the world to have a perfect political party and ethos, in your head, or in opposition.
To be elected takes compromise in order to garner a broad enough appeal - if you're having elections that is.
I hope Obama wins tonight and I hope he wins BIG. I can't bring to mind much of what he has said either, and his running mate has been invisible - BUT he doesn't seem half mad with repressed anger like the Republican candidates, and that's good enough for me. Can't have excitable people with their finger on the button.
I think any political choice that is based on religion gives most of us the heebee jeebees. Thats why the entire country shifted uncomfortably when Tony Blair's faith became more evident.
According to yet another excellent piece on the subject in the New Yorker, Joe Biden - a Senator since 1973 - was chosen by Obama as his running mate precisely because he was the kind of person he'd want by his side in office, not as someone who'd help him get elected. Sarah Palin was clearly chosen, in a hurry, to harvest votes. Very different tactic.
Office Pest, you're clearly not an idealist like me and Pork Chops. I am, and it spells disappointment at almost every turn. I live in a state of near-permanent disappointment. I should lower my standards. I believed Kinnock was going to get in, and was crestfallen when he didn't, in 1992. That's how idealistic I am.
Office Pest hits on a key theme (forgive me if I've misrepresented you OP) - that in politics as in sport, you're only as good as your latest match. Knowing now what became of Blair and how he dealt with potential and actual conflicts tends to cloud the memory of just what a remarkable job his team did to make Labour electable.
However, as the old Rush (sorry!) song goes "but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity". There just came a point when the giving of ground disenfranchised those who'd needed the visionary input - the emperor was naked after all.
Anyway, as Peter Mandelson might say "must go pee pee".
"Change? Look what happened to Germany when they wanted change..they got Hitler"
That was from a Republican at one of their rallies.
Amazing really
Re: Biden - different tactic, sure, but I'd still like to have known a little more about the president in waiting, should Obama succumb to some misfortune. The Republicans gave us too much of the succession scenario though!
Re: Kinnock - I was disappointed too and especially so given the alternative reality we were given, but Kinnock's people miscalculated on a fine cut. Blair's people went further to make absolutely sure that wouldn't happen again.
Ideology is in my heart, but my head says 'get elected', because having the opportunity to put 85% of what you want into practice is better than 0% in glorious isolation.
It's selfish and somewhat immature of a party to deny their voters some possibility of progress - as Labour did for many years by remaining stubbornly enelectable - even with Thatcher and Co. in power. Unbelievable really.
Politics is sometimes a dirty business but (hopefully) democracy is the reality that tempers idealism, and on the one hand stops it from becoming fanaticism (as undesirable as any other 'religious' unchallengable belief system) and on the other converts it into something practical and visible.
(Sorry to go on and on about this Andrew).
I live in the States. I just voted at a church (!) for Ralph Nader. Many Americans like me would love to see Obama win, but in a certifiably red state such as Kansas our votes are almost meaningless. McCain will take the 2 electoral points Kansas is worth, and my vote will do nothing. That's the electoral college for you, and if we'd have done away with it Gore would have won in 2000 and we could have saved the planet a good deal of strife. It’s a democracy where the most popular candidate can easily lose, and some votes count more than others.
A lot of us are dissatisfied with both of the leading parties dominating the media, and would love to see a third party exert more influence on politics. I grew up in the UK, and recall the lib-dems having much more influence than our Green Party or Libertarians. So while I'd have loved to have voted Obama, if my vote wasn't going to help him Nader could have it and rest assured there's a few of us out here that would like to have some more choice.
Fortunately, barring some scandal (ha!), it’s looking like Barack has it in the bag. Check this out:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/todays-polls-113-pm-edition.html
While we all get caught up in the frisson of waiting for the election to unfold; the thing we should be giving due consideration to is the potentially grisly aftermath following whatever the result may be. Middle-America does not appear to be ready for a black leader — could we bare witness to a dramatic deeply unpleasant mirroring of Kennedy? Conversely, McCain is probably even more cretinous and potentially more dangerous than Bush (how could that possibly be?) It seems that America — and we — could be fucked either way. The grim and stark reality is that only time will tell.
Like all I sincerely hope that Obama does win; if not as a step in the right direction — a chance to realise one of the final steps in equality that Dr. King and his ilk fought for. (And the fact that it has taken this long is desperately saddening.) If not that, then for the sanity of the western world on the whole, should everything work out well.
Sure, some of us may struggle to recall any of the addresses he has made. (Is that because essentially they are unremarkable in the sense of actually having some fairly cohesive logical thread to them? If so, that surly cannot be a bad thing given American politics' colourful history? Or is it that they are generally forgettable, almost throwaway? Can't decide which.)
Nonetheless, Obama is charismatic and seems to have his finger on the pulse of what the US needs with a set of seemingly idealistic, yet sober policies. As opposed to a fatuous, doddery old fool who's pulse could fade at a moments notice (possibly due to an encounter with Sarah Palin and a confined space — foresight people — watch this space.) Hopefully the "special relationship" will continue; but not like the previous incarnation as that was too unsettling, horrifying even. And in turn Obama will have a positive effect on ol' Gordy.
Why do we not have this same debate when Russia has elections? or China? or even India?
Everyone keeps banging on about how America affects the world, but somehow the voting of the president of the largest country, the most populated or largest democracy in the world rarely gets debated.
We have no control over the outcome of the USA elections so why does it matter so?
F*ck palin and McCain...Putin was and still is far more scary than any of those idiots.
As for obama? To me it doesn't seem as much as voting someone in as voting the other lot out...I don't believe Obama being president of the USA will change much in terms of how we live our lives or even how the world order is played out.
I still have a mortgage to pay, cost of living is still going up and I'm nervous about my jobsecurity..what the hell has the USA elections got anything to do with it?
This is just idle pointless speculation.
If it's just about 'iraq' which lets be honest, it really is isn;t it? After all no domestic policy in the USA is going to matter to us one jot...you think that Obama is going to be any different to the current administration? I don't see it. Oil is Oil is Oil.
Okay which is scarier....
"We have some good news president-elect Mcain"
or
"We have some very bad news from Arizona president-elect Palin"
Post a Comment
<< Home