Our readings for Monday’s class and again for class tomorrow have focused largely on race, the way we conceptualize groups, and understand literature and, ultimately, humanity. In light of the historic presidential election results announced earlier tonight and our readings and discussions, what role do you think race, or, more accurately, our conceptualization of race, played in the election? I heard one of the reporters commenting that voters had acted as though they were “colorblind.” Is this accurate or even possible given the ways our brains organize? What further connections, if any, can you draw between the readings for Wednesday and ethnic identity in this election in particular and America in general?
Personally, I thought Gilroy’s early concepts of an ever-blending black culture and identity were relevant to the way Americans understood Barack Obama. Early in his campaign, members of the media and opponents sought to narrowly classify him as African or American or African-American; white, black or biracial; Muslim or Christian; a capitalist or a socialist; etc. While some of these claims aren’t grounded in fact, at least in terms of ethnicity and origin, Obama seems to be “both inside and outside the West” (972) as a result of his diverse background. For me, that very synthesis of cultural perspectives is at least some part of his appeal. (Of course, many of Gilroy’s other conclusions are based upon African-Americans reacting against the expectations of slavery (eg, focusing on creativity rather than labor), which one may argue don’t apply to Obama as he was not descended from slaves.)
What do you guys think about the perspectives of race we have read in relation to what we’ve witnessed in the past, what this election might imply, and where we hope to go in American racial/ethnic understanding?
3 responses so far ↓
mercurylanes // 4 November 2008 at 11.57 pm
Gilroy alludes to the “doubleness” of identity, and I think Obama’s campaign (and now presidency! woo!) is a great example of this.
One one hand, Obama was campaigning for a “post-racial” America, one in which racial and ethnic divisions were no longer important when compared to everyone’s fundamental, shared Americanness. Yet an undeniable part of Obama’s appeal is his “otherness,” his very distinct personal difference from the status quo. Yet the otherness isn’t other because it’s foreign to us, but rather because it reflects the sort of otherness we feel within ourselves. It appeals to us because we sympathize. Which leads me to believe that maybe the most fundamentally shared American thing, at the heart of our national identity, is the sense of difference. Is America a nation of outsiders?
campusm79 // 5 November 2008 at 4.35 am
I don’t know if this actually addresses anything in the post, but I was wondering if anyone could clarify what the antecedent is in this sentence: “It creates a medium in which demands for goals like non-racialized justice and rational organization of the productive processes can be expressed†(Gilroy 973). I think “it†refers to “musical cultureâ€, but I’m not certain. Anyway, I realize this is a really small detail in the essay, but having a goal of “non-racialized justice†really stuck out for me. Personally, I think the idea of color blindness is so disconcerting. Although I wish that we could say that issues of race truly do not exist and that we could move toward a “post-racial†America, this is not the reality of the state in which we live in. And to think that we can live in a “post-racial†country is rather dangerous. When I read the sentence about “non-racialized justice†I immediately thought of Patricia Williams and how race plays a big part in the American legal system. I think color consciousness should definitely be a part of how one view’s the country. That people can be “both inside and outside the West†(972), I think, demands that people be color conscious. For although there are certain aspects of identity that might be collective and uniting, there are still differences that need to be acknowledged. Such differences need to be acknowledged because they affect how people interact with each other, whether or not they are conscious of it.
spotofbother // 5 November 2008 at 11.23 am
I agree with mercurylanes that part of Obama’s campaign is in his doubleness.
I’m interested in the idea of “double narration” that Gates creates through esu and the monkey. He looks for this double narration when he reads afro-american texts.
I think this double-voiced discource is the essence of jazz, and it’s partly why I’m drawn to the music. Jazz musicians, no matter how modern, learn much of the material they play from earlier artists. I think the idea of intertextuality applies to this music in that often, even though the setting is improvisational, very little one plays comes directly from oneself. Rather, it is an interpretation of what came before. This is one way in which every jazz musician has many voices—he uses both his own voice and those before him.
In addition, there are relatively few jazz musicians who rely on their own voice alone. Many play instruments that somehow transform their voice, or make that voice double. I think this double-voice idea is especially apparent in piano, guitar, and bass players who sing their solos as they are playing them. Jazz is usually driven by multiple voices; it is rare for one musician to perform without others. There seems to be an inherent need for many, many voices in jazz.
You must log in to post a comment.