Logo

Dream on

Monday, April 13, 2009
Dream on
ShareThis
The election of an African American president has stirred excitement, but a leading black theologian says visions of a “postracial” America are premature and misguided.

At the root of her theology, says M. Shawn Copeland, is the pursuit of the question: What is the best, the most worthwhile way to live? While Christians understand that the reign of God is not an achievable result of human endeavors, we are called to make the world around us “our best hope this side of the reign of God.”

For Copeland that charge includes working for political transformation in service to the common good. She told last year’s Convention for the Common Good in Philadelphia, “It is only through the gift of grace realized in human lives and hearts that we can meet the effects of sin with healing and creative solidarity. We here are a little yeast.”

One way in which she works to increase the growth of this “little yeast” is through the teaching of an innovative service learning course at Boston College that combines social service or advocacy work with the study of philosophy and theology.

Copeland is one of today’s leading black theologians and in her most recent research has focused on the exploitation of black women and the lessons from their experiences for discipleship today.

She challenges Christians to let openness to and acceptance of the power of the Spirit lead us to become “more daring in our love of neighbor.”

Since Barack Obama’s election, there has been talk about a new “postracial” era. Some have quoted his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention: “There’s no black America. There’s no white America. There’s only the United States of America.” Is America becoming postracial?

That is wishful thinking. Certainly, given the history of the United States, Obama’s election has been a tremendously important step forward. But if you are asking me, is this “The end of white America?”—as a recent cover story in the Atlantic Monthly put it—the answer is no. I don’t think this is the end of white America, and I don’t think this is the resurgence of black America, whatever those categories might mean.

The enormous disparities around race and poverty in this country not only persist, they’ve hardened.

I don’t think there’s virtue in working toward a postracial anything. We keep thinking if only we could get beyond race, everything would be fine. My best take on this is that we need to acknowledge our differences, but we should not absolutize them. That’s kind of tricky in this country. We want people to be individuals, but we consign those in certain social cultural groups to all the negative stereotypes about that group.

To a certain degree we need to talk about ourselves in terms of our racial identities. But can we simply acknowledge that and then get on to the next thing? Skin pigmentation is one of the least important things about anyone, but in this country we’ve made it the most important thing.

How is race still important today?

Just think about how we’re all congratulating ourselves that we elected somebody black as president. Did we all congratulate ourselves when we elected white men? No, we just took that for granted. But suddenly the election of a black man means, “Oh, aren’t we wonderful? We have solved our race problems.”

The writer James Baldwin said many years ago that if there ever were a black president, that person would still be crippled by the existing structures and relations of power, which determine the way we carry on both our government and our lives together. That’s the challenge for any real change.

So what impact can Obama have on race relations? If nothing else, his presidency should help us to confront our continuing racial stereotypes about people.

But is he going to be held up now as the exception to the rule, with the underlying message, “If only all of you could be like him?.?.?.”? Part of what’s blurring the question is not just his upbringing by a white mother and white grandparents but also the fact that his father was Kenyan, an international student here.

Obama’s story bears features of an immigrant story, it’s not the story of African slaves and their descendants. As an immigrant story, it is more compatible with the typical mainstream American story. But if taken as the norm, the immigrant story, even the one we celebrate within our Catholic story, is truncated because it forgets about all sorts of other people who are not immigrants or descendants of immigrants.

We need to get away from homogenizing what it means to be American. It just perpetuates the notion that the dominant white culture is the standard that others need to blend into.

Americans don’t know enough about our history to develop a more complex alternative story. We remain ignorant of the contributions that different groups have made to our way of life. And because we don’t know other stories, we dismiss them as unimportant and instead focus on just “getting along” with each other.

Race is still being used to manipulate poor white people, so they won’t realize that they have more in common with poor black people than they have with wealthy whites. And to say that black money isn’t green is to say that even affluent black people wind up finding that race remains an obstacle for them despite all their achievements.

The president himself has written how people tossed him their car keys at a restaurant because they thought he was the valet. So there are whole sets of assumptions that we’ve all been operating under for a very long time, and it’s going to take a very long time to undo them.

What’s the greatest danger of pretending we live in a postracial world?

We may want to believe that the ugliest kind of racism is history now, but it’s not, and it’s not going to go away any time soon.

The very night of the election four young men in New York set out to beat up and kill African Americans in retaliation for a black man being elected president. They assaulted at least two black people and one Hispanic man with a metal pipe and then ran their car over another man in a hooded sweatshirt, who they thought was black but who turned out to be white. He ended up in a coma for several days.

The vicious way in which we have dealt with race in this country has not yet been completely redirected. Nobody is born a racist. Nobody is born with these negative ideas and images. But we’ve been bombarded with them everywhere, and so we need to figure out how to unlearn them.

Does lingering racism then serve some kind of a positive role in exposing the continuing existence of hard edges in society?

I can’t really see anything positive in racism, but if we were to think seriously about how we wanted to live together, we would come to some different decisions.

We would begin by asking ourselves why we make the choices that we make educationally, why we make the choices that we make in our personal relations, why we make the choices of where and how we live. Why is it that we have resegregated our schools?

And we would need to reflect on the continuing parallel order of privilege and power and injustice that runs right alongside race.

Having a black president is not going to change any of that. We have to change that.

This article appeared in the May issue (Vol. 74, No. 5, Page 18) of U.S. Catholic.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dominant White Culture

What is exactly is "white" about “the dominant white culture” in America?

People like Ms. Copeland be so invested the being victocrats that they conjure up trivial victimization stories of successful blacks and whine rather that celebrate the achievements of blacks and our country which is unparalleled in offering an opportunity of success for the most divergent group of people in all of history. Lack of gratitude is a deep moral sickness. While we should work for improvements, anyone who is not grateful for living in America has no perspective of the world and world history or is morally sick.

In her twisted hatred of America, Ms. Copeland charges that “in this country we’ve made (skin pigmentation) the most important thing (about anyone).” The most powerful force in making skin pigmentation important is her central religion of modern liberalism. Modern liberals in the bubble like Ms. Copeland make baseless charges that “race is still being used to manipulate poor white people.” Who exactly is guilty of this and why? What is their secret society? How are they doing this?

In the minds of modern liberals, the forces of wealth promote false concepts of liberty and responsibility which is code speech to blame blacks.  This engenders a racist grudge, so ignorant, poor whites won’t want to form the utopian socialist state which will uplift all the oppressed.   This is completely consistent with Barack Obama's statement at a private San Francisco fundraiser regarding the rural poor rejecting expanded government by being fooled into clinging to guns, religion and antipathy toward people not like them, based upon his Marxist foundation that "religion is the opiate of the masses."

My wife is black – white biracial, and it makes no difference in our lives. I accept there are a handful of sickos who could perhaps commit a violent act against us, but it’s not a pervasive problem.  In the deep south of Louisiana, whites voted in Republican Govenor Bobby Jindal with darker pigmentation than Barack Obama.

President Obama and America

It is interesting that race would be the subject of America after Obama when in fact, the issue is that of Christianity and democracy. America embraced a articulate, handsome black man - so much for race in the old mold of America's race problem. What is extraordinary is how anti- traditional values the new president is. It seems every person he has nominated to his admin are tax cheats, abortionists and gay rights activists - his every move is in the face of pro-life Americans. In addition he has moved toward a secular socialist position, running up national debt and ignoring the constitution, bent on destroying what we know as a democratic republic based on a Judeo-Christian philosophy. If he keeps going in this direction, it is not "first black" but the one who destroyed America that he will be known for.

Potential Domestic Terrorist

Perhaps the Obama administration will want to track you as a potential domestic terrorist for your anti-abortion views.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/

Obama

Maybe you're right- maybe many of Obama's appointees have been very corrupt. No surprise there- typical politicians and government leaders.

But how can such even be talked of in the aftermath of Bush/Cheney... an administration that was probably the most evil, corrupt, and vile in the whole history of this country???

Please take a good hard look at some of the evil men who call themselves "pro-life" and who claim to uphold "traditional values"...

P.S. It gets tiring of hearing from the right wing that Obama- a committed capitalist and centrist- is a "socialist." [Would that Obama would move more to the LEFT!] In any event, right-wing conservatives said the same things about Franklin D Roosevelt- they unfairly called him a communist "comrade"!!!

Bryan Cones's picture

Obama to the left

Wow, David, you get props for fighting the good fight on this one. I have to agree on the comparison of "values." I thought many in the Bush administration qualified as absolutely heartless in their gallant attitude toward war, torture, and holding "enemy combatants" without charges.

I have to agree that I wish Obama would tack left a little on health care and financial regulation especially. The last eight years have been such a free-for-all in which a very few have gotten astonishingly rich while everyone else treads water or starts to sink.

The problem is that the previous administration went so far right that reasonable, centrist limits on capitalism are now branded as "socialism" by many people who wouldn't know socialism if it hit them over the head with Das Kapital!

Didn't want you to feel abandoned out here... 

Bryan Cones

"Enemy Combatant"

Would you still not clearly identity this guy released from Guantamo as an enemy combatant?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_al_q...

I know... It is America's fault. He never would be doing anything wrong if America did not unjustly pick him up in Afghanistan. The script of the movie "The Killing Fields" included the left's delusion that the Communist murder and torture of millions didn't prove Conservatives were right about the evils of Communism, it was the understandable result of American bombing in the war and America's fault.

May there have been innocents in Guantanamo? Yes. But you can't fight a war under the guidelines of the ACLU.

You and your allies have the same responsibility for the blood spilled by this man as advocates of capital punishment have for executions of the wrongly convicted.

Bush on the Right; Obama on the Left

Perhaps our continued focus on the sins and failures of the Bush administration will somehow make Obama's pro-abortion policies and administration appear less murderous. No. I don't think so.

Jim Reilly

Bush went so far right?

Where did Bush go so far right from any historical precedent?  Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson rightwing nut jobs since they did not advocate having a federal income tax of 33%  as we had under Bush?

Bush expanded government including a new Medicare perscription program and billions of dollars of foreign aid for Africa.  Bush's lowering of regulation of reserve requirements for certain banks, which I oppose, made these reserve requirments in line with the more socialist countries of Europe.  He appointed pro-life policies if you have a problem with that being far to the right.  Was Bush a far right winger for essentially eliminating federal income taxes for a family of four making about $50,000?

In regards to the military.  Bush invaded Iraq (liberals appear to favor Afghanistan so that is off the table).  He, with the review of a congressional panel, allowed the waterboarding of three senior terrorists.  He didn't want to try enemy combatants in court which followed the establish policy of FDR.

Clinton bombed Serbia into oblivion.  He bombed Sudan. He bombed Iraq and Afghanistan.  He declared Iraq had WMD's.  He presided over an official policy of removal of Saddam Hussein.  Bush made Clinton's policy happen. 

You are so vested in you leftism that you  put enemy combatants in quotes when many of the those released from Guantanamo have returned to terrorism and the field of battle. 

Bush to the right reply

It is true that in *some* respects, the Bush administration did not go to the extreme right social/economic policies that the "Limbaugh/Ann Coulter crowd" would have liked. Particularly during his second term, when it became obvious that his administration was a complete disaster, even Bush moved a little to the left. Of course, the hardcore fascists want someone like Sarah Palin in power. If she had ever ascended to the Presidency, I would seriously have moved to Canada. But Bush definitely had all the marks of Fascism. The Patriot Act, executive privilege, executive signing statements galore, the list goes on and on. (For more info, please read "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf.)

You are also correct to point out a consistency from Clinton to Bush. One of the greatest tricks ever played upon the population was for us to be led to believe Clinton was a progressive. There definitely is a continuity of Reagan/Bush Sr./Clinton/Bush Jr. which has brought this country to ruin. Time and again, with few exceptions, the Clinton administration pushed for things I'd consider wrong, disasters such as NAFTA, free trade, privatization, Operation Gatekeeper, etc etc. Clinton was as well a part of the disaster of Reaganomics.

It is also true that the US government has policies of Military Industrial Complex and torture that pre-date Bush.

However, let us make no mistake: Bush/Cheney stand out, *far apart*, from *any* previous administration. Never has such corruption and disaster been known to us previously. The prime example is: Bush invaded Iraq, using a false link to 9/11 as an excuse, and now as many as one million people are dead ! Does Downing Street Memo(s) ring a bell, or Yellowcake Uranium forgery? Scandal after scandal, lie after lie, failure after failure. Neither Clinton, nor FDR, nor Ronald Reagan caused a million people to die from a war based on lies. "Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL"

None of this is meant as a personal judgment against the man himself, George W Bush. Rather it is meant to say, our country is in very bad shape, but conservatives remain blind to what caused this ruin.

Thanks for the backup Bryan!

I appreciate your comments and agree with them totally.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.