Roadless Traveler

Dr. Cathy Cohen - Day Two Keynote Address

2010-07-19T08:08:00.000-04:00

Sewell Done Gone Global

2010-03-08T06:28:00.004-05:00

Mannheim, Germany

My first view as I leave my apartment building in the morning for a run

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, you read it. Sewell done gone global! Haha...I just had to say it -- it rhymes in a funny way. Well, folks I am out here in Mannheim, Germany. "Mannheim, Germany!" You say, "What's there?!" Me! And Ivan, my colleague from IU. And the University of Mannheim, where I am teaching a graduate-level seminar in quantitative methods to assess the social construction of race, the social causes of racial inequality, and the societal consequences of racial diversity.

So, that's the boring stuff. The interesting stuff is that body is in such haywire that I have taken to napping in the middle of the day, usually early evening but sometimes late afternoon. I am getting up from one of those naps right now, so I will be up for a bit more before I settle into a work rhythm. Now, those who know me are raising an eyebrow here because Abigail never naps in the day. Crap, Abigail rarely sleeps. Well, Mannheim is changing all that. My sleep patterns have been arrested by the traveling gods, and I feel like a 15 year old again. Haha!

Tomorrow, at 8am, will mark my first month in Mannheim, so I wanted to put some words out there in cyberspace that would commemorate this moment. For this first month, I will throw out the words, "make it simple". Yes, a professor-friend of mine is infamous for saying this to me. But Abigail, stuck in her esoteric mind, just never fully got it.

Well, now, my entire life is making it simple. From teaching to an international audience that has a very non-American framework for processing issues of race. To figuring out how to carry 24 Liters of mineral water (without bubbles) and apfelschorle (apple juice with bubbles) home in a bookbag designed to carry a notebook computer and some leaflets. To talking slow, inserting exaggerated pauses in my speech, and refraining from slang, humor, and mumbling (which are all classic Abigail linguistic styles) because the Germans were taught British English, not American English. And lastly, to saying the phrase, "Sprechen Sie Englisch?" [Do you speak English?] a lot, so that I do not get a migraine at the end of the day from trying to share my broken German to the world.

So, this month has been a lot about just making my life simple. I now have:

*** a simple way of waking up in the morning (i.e., drawing the curtains from all my windows, so that the bright sun (or gray clouds) greets me cheeringly in the morning; no more alarm clocks);

*** a simple routine in the morning (i.e., eat a banana, exercise, shower, sift through some work, rush to lunch before a hunger headache sets in);

*** a simple way of gauging how many layers to put on (i.e., stick head out the window; no more news, can barely understand it anyways, not because of the language, but because converting Celsius to Fahrenheit doesn't come naturally for me yet)

*** and a simple way to meet new people (i.e., "Hallo, Ich komme aus Bloomington. Wie heiss du?" = Hello, I come from Bloomington. What's your name? = well, this only works with the university folks. for the rest of the Mannheimers, I just tell them I am an American. that tends to get things rolling)

So, basically my life has become a lot more simple and a lot more complicated all at the same moment. So is living!

For those of you who are interested, please follow my blogging about my travels at Sewell Done Gone Global (http:\\sewelldonegoneglobal.blogspot.com). So as not to bombard people, I will not be uploading those automatically to facebook or any other social networking site. You've just got to be there to experience. Bookmark me!

Until next time!

another look at the bio professor-killer

2010-02-15T11:05:00.003-05:00

I just found it ironic that of the six persons that were shot in the recent Huntsville killings, four of them were biologists of color. Check out this blog by Doctor Cleveland at dagblog.com that raises a question the media seems to think is unimportant (or too sensitive). Doctor Clevaland states,

On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough.

I think the question -- that is, whether the shooting was motivated by race
-- is a fair one.

Non-whites comprise about a third of the U.S. population. However, their representation in the field of biology field is far from this. According to the National Science Foundation, of the 46,280 faculty with doctorate degrees in biology, agriculture, or life sciences who work in educational facilities as of 2003,only 5,510 (11.9%) are Asian, 1,550 (3.4%) are Hispanic, and 1,230 (2.7%) are Black (NSF rounds the numbers in tens for privacy purposes).

I may be wrong, but the Huntsville Biological Sciences department seems to be a typical microcosm of a Research I biology department. In all, there are 14 non-retired professors, 4 emeriti professors, 3 adjunct professors, and 1 retired professor. Mathematically, we would expect 2.7 Asians, 0.7 Hispanics, and 0.6 Blacks. With 2 Asians, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Blacks, the Huntsville department would be considered diverse.

Now, considering that Dr. Bishop managed to kill all of the black professors, kill half of the Asian professors, and injure the only Hispanic professor, I would say that the issue of race has to be raised. If not in the question of motive, in the question of effect. Further, considering that only only one of the 8 remaining white professors were brutalized, I would then start to ask some questions about who was targetted. For instance, critical questions might be: Were all faculty members present at the meeting? Or not? Was the meeting closed to Dr. Bishop? Or was she invited in? How often did the faculty members that were killed/maimed meet together? Was it on a weekly basis? Monthly basis? Or rarely?

The answers to these questions would give the reader more information to ascertain the circumstances around the event. Right now, we have to write her off as "crazy", "mental", or "stressed". But if I were a betting man, I'd say that those people were targeted. If not because of race itself, because of some role that they played in the department. Possibly the fact that she was being denied tenure for the second time may reveal some more of the story. Maybe one or more of the victims had established a rapport with her, (positive, neutral, or negative) so they became blameful in her twisted mind.

In any case, this stressed-out tenure story is weak on all fronts. Since I have been in graduate school, I've seen many a professor go through the tenure process, some who didn't make it. None of them have become homicidal. And the stress of tenure process shouldn't be accepted as an excuse to lose respect for humanity. Further, as the details of her troubling past are revealed, maybe we will see that she was given the benefit of the doubt too many times. I've never heard of someone accidentally shooting someone. Even people who kill people in a car accident get sentenced criminally. Some family had enough money, wealth, or prestige to get this woman off. Now innocent people must pay the consequence.

Sorry, no sympathy here.

the beginning of the end of 2009: three promises for 2010

2009-12-25T08:15:00.001-05:00

it's been over 3 weeks and 3 days since i first presented the ideas for plan c of my dissertation...in 2010, i promise to stick to plan c -- and plan c only -- and push hard to finish the analysis for my dissertation.

it's been over 7 months and 10 days since i last blogged...in 2010, i promise to blog even when i think that what is on my mind is not blog-worthy.

it's been over 3 years and 9 months since i broke up with my last girlfriend...in 2010, i promise to work through the hard times of the relationship in which i am currently and let her hold me when i am down.

i could provide a laundry list of things i "promise" to do as is usual with many new year commitment lists. yet, for the sake of brevity and my sanity, i will just focus on these three. i choose these three because...

first, i would like to move past this economically-impoverished-but-supposedly-high-status phase of my life. i love the fact that being in graduate school allows me to soak up all the knowledge i can carry at time, BUT graduate school is only for a season. and the season is nigh passed. it is time to stick to an idea and see it through to the end. my goal is to write the shortest dissertation possible, and even then, it will probably be too long. lol.

second, while i am trying to usher this economically-impoverished-but-supposedly-high-status season out, i need to maintain my connection to the outside world. the past six months or so, i have been a(n almost) complete hermit. i spent three months in the bay area, passed my qualifying exams, and formalized my relationship with a long-term dating partner of mine, and yet few people actually know these things. i will say that i am a private person, but in this instance, i have let the ball drop for too long. my bad! as i step into the next phase of my life, i will make sure to reach out more in the way i best know how to -- writing.

third, my relationship life is finally stable, and i like that. my connection here provides me a place to be authentic, raw, and uncovered without fear. many a graduate student may have told you about all the criticism and rejection they face. it's simply a fact of our life. yet, humans were designed to be nourished and thrive in places where they are accepted. so, my bruised ego needs somewhere to go when journal-reviewers and professor-mentors give me the stiff arm and cold shoulder. i may be stoic, but in the end i am only human. i am grateful to have someone who is willing to suffer my eccentricities and at the same time push me to better than i currently am.

with that, i sign off this christmas day. a merry day to you and yours!

Pam's House Blend - Decomposing Difference: Biology and Identity...

2009-05-14T04:48:00.000-04:00

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10967/decomposing-difference-biology-and-identity-in-the-transgender-debates-over-authenticity

Decomposing Difference: Sex vs. Gender in the Transgendered Debates

2009-05-14T03:21:00.004-04:00

Ran across a blog by bLaKtivist titled The Little Transmasculine Identity, THAT COULD today. Glad I am reading this page; glad that critical voices regarding female masculinities are being circulated.

I remember reading Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg for the first time when I was 18. It completely shaped my idea of a masculine woman, as I had no other representation of such persons in my life. The stone butch identity is the one I tried to personify for a while until I came to Bloomington and was able to break away from the butch/femme dichotomies of the South and the expectations I had built up of myself in others. I must admit though, I could never pass as a stone butch; my facial features are too soft. The best butch I ever became was a "soft" one. haha.

In my younger years (I'm really not as old as I sound), I hung with a number of masculine-identified women -- all of them expressing female masculinities in their own distinct ways. Although I found it difficult to be ambiguously gendered (e.g., people would refer to me as "sir" until they looked at my credit card) and had no special affection for the female-me, I found it difficult to actually transcend gender (e.g., by assuming male pronouns consciously) as my hair grew longer. Certain of my friends are aware that this has been a disturbing matter for me, as it provoked my self to question whether I truly was indeed a masculine woman. This point brings me to the focus of this blog: addressing the sex vs. gender distinction in debates about the authenticity of the gendered sex of transgendered persons, particularly FTMs.

The sex/gender distinction is parallel to the biology/identity distinction. For me, the search for truth has always been along the identity dimension, not the biology dimension, and thus raises the issue of how I gender identify rather than whether I wanted to become male or not.

I believe when people say that "butch" is a dying breed they are lamenting the death of the butch gender identity, not the death of females who embody physiologically male traits (e.g., aggression, muscular physiques, angular facial features, hairiness, deep voices). This is an important point to delineate, as the term "butch" is a sociohistorical construction while females who embody physiologically male traits have existed since the beginnings of time. According to Judith Halberstam, "masculinity" is taken to be "a naturalized relation between maleness and power." As such, butchness is just another social form of masculinity, one that identifies women who may embody natural male traits and assert power in certain relations.

So, should the death of the butch be lamented? Might the term "butch" be a socio-historical construction that captured the realities of masculine-identified women who were openly gay in the 50s/60s/70s (and maybe even 80s)? Might, with the success of the gay identity/gay rights movement (despite the struggles still ahead of us), this reality have changed, such that highly-visible masculine-identified women need not take on a hard, stone mentality to survive the aggression/oppressions of a heteronormative, sexually-repressed Western society?

I think not (to the first question), and I think so (to the second and third questions). Society has changed, due to strategic action on the part of gays and their allies, to allow the open expression of a wider continuum of masculine identities. Thus, the factors that connote the degree of maleness we embody biologically are molded during our lifetime under a particular set of social arrangements regarding sexuality (think the 70s sexual revolution condoning the free expression of sexuality).

To the extent that the "butch" identity was available to persons born in the 70s/80s/90s as a model for enacting maleness and power, this gender identity has been expanded because of both the more relaxed social environment we now live in and the unique interpretation of masculinity comprised by men and women of the 70s/80s/90s cohorts. The resultant identity set is what bLaKtivist refers to as "transmasculinities".

The problem arises not in the relative authenticity of the identities within the transmasculine identity set (which includes "butch"), but rather in the Western world's obsession with (presumed) biological binaries. Frankly, the tomboi, AG, dom, etc. has always existed (although without an articulated identity) as has the continuum upon which persons embody male and female traits.

If the biological differentiation of male and female at birth is taken as fact, then even transgendered men (FTM) are still female, even post-op. Thus, any effort to exclude them from participation in female-centered circles is betraying the very set of assumptions upon which the exclusionary decision was built.

On the other hand, if we embrace the idea that identities, particularly gendered ones, exist upon a multi-dimensional continuum, then the MTF and FTM can be welcomed into sex- or gendered-centered spaces without problem. For instance, the masculine-identified lesbian and FTM can occupy the same space as representatives of a particular point within the sex continuum, although along different gendered dimensions of sex.

I am not a gender/sexuality scholar, but it would seem to me that recognizing sex/gender as both CONTINUUMS (not binaries) and DIMENSIONS of a larger social system of domination built upon genitalia differentiations and gendered roles would go a long way into building a community of non-normative sexualized bodies and gendered identities that we all so badly need.

Sigh: Sociologists Dealing with Attributions of Racism

2009-03-09T09:25:00.000-04:00

A response to how sociologists "deal" with race launched a heated exchange on Scatterplot at the end of February regarding attributions of racism. I was disappointed at the defensiveness present in the Scatterplot response to the “trauma” post and at the dismissiveness present in their response to the NY Post picture overall (not to say that all bloggers were defensive or dismissive, respectively, at one or all issues presented). In response to a healthy discussion already in place at Scatterplot, Skinny Malinky's original "trauma" post states:

I mean to pause and remember the force of the accumulated and collective traumas of racism, and to think about what sort of failure it is for sociology to refuse a consideration of that force, and to what new traumas that failure contributes.

As a POC who grew up in the Deep South (not to say this identity is definitively linked to the subsequent clause, but to provide sociological context to me saying that: Upon seeing the cartoon, I felt that I was the monkey the police were shooting , and my stomach turned as a result), I was keenly upset the day the picture was posted. I wrote up a long email rant and was prepared to send it out to EVERYONE I knew. Then, I checked myself, sent out only the picture to people in my inner circle, and let folks deal with it emotionally in their own ways. Still, I wanted everyone to be upset and to finally make the racial connections with the watermelon imagery, the death threats, and other racist imagery that have been employed against Obama throughout his campaign.

Still, the world we live in today with regards to things “racial” is one where no one wants to feel responsible for racial inequality. For this reason I empathize with the words of Attorney General Eric Holder: We are a “nation of cowards.” It is time we stop running from this truth.

Also, the world we live in today is one where no one wants to be called a “racist” explicitly or implicitly, especially people who feel they themselves are well-intentioned, objective, or un-invested in a particular set of actions. I believe this to be the position the Scatterplot poster felt the Sociology blog had been put in by the interpretations represented in the original “trauma” post.

Nonetheless, if we are to move beyond our cowardly/colorblind/faultless society, a new understanding of racism must gain currency in contemporary America: Racism is not about intentions. In fact, the most virulent forms of racism occur invisibly, as an inert structural force.

This inert structural force embodies both cultural symbols of whole peoples (e.g., blacks as monkeys (see Joseph Grave’s The Emperor’s New Clothing), Jews are rats (see Maus), or Muslims as terrorists) and the context of lived realities (e.g., racial residential segregation, racial differences in the quality of educational opportunities, racial profiling). The consequences brought about by this inert structural force is the "trauma" Skinny Malinky referred to in his/her post. As Grace Cho states [quoted by Skinny Malinky]:

an unspeakable trauma does not die out with the person who first experienced it. Rather, it takes on a life of its own, emerging from the spaces where secrets are concealed. [emphasis added]

While some racism is rooted in intention, narrowing the definition of racism as such dismisses the trans-institutional (Waitzkin's Second Sickness) and multi-dimensional (Blank, Dabady, and Citro's Measuring Discrimination) nature and consequence of racial hierarchy and the distribution of resources according to racial identity. Even in the Jim Crow era (and before then), this kind of institutional discrimination/structural racism was at work. See DuBois in The Philadelphia Negro and Omi and Winant in Racial Formation in the United States for earlier articulations of this perspective.

I apologize as a sociologist who studies race/ethnicity for my silence on this matter. I needed time to not speak from a gut-reaction sadness and anger. Moving forward, I have only a few words for sociologists "dealing" with attributions of racism.

First, expect to be offended and leave with hurt feelings when discussing issues of race in America. Use these moments to reflect critically on how you (and others) got to that point.

Second, we, across all positions of the racial hierarchy, contribute to the inert structural force of racism. This is "our" problem; not "theirs": If one of our body parts is wounded, the whole body fails to function optimally.

Third, the only way to move forward is to talk, write, and argue about it. It is when one voice (collectively or individually) defines what race/racism is that we have an insurmountable problem.

End sigh.

U People Documentary (15 Min. Trailer): Race and Sexuality in Today's America

2009-02-25T00:37:00.006-05:00

Today, I ran across a pleasant delight while taking a "break" from work - U People. U People is a multi-faceted conscious-raising project that bridges art and activism and provides a critical assessment of race and sexuality in America. "U People" -- a documentary that is an outgrowth of the broader project premiered on Logo February 7th and won the Jury Award at the IMAGE-NATION LGBT Film Festival in Canada.

I was able to catch parts of the documentary online at the Logo site but was unsuccessful in seeing the entire film (although they say the Full Documentary is present). By digging a bit further, I found this 15 minute trailer that provides a closer look at why YOU should be buying-watching-talking about this film. The U People website states that:

the mission of the documentary is to dismantle the blanket categorization and ignorance inherent in the phrase "you people" by displaying unique individuals in possession of personal power and self-determination. It upholds the vision that camaraderie and sisterhood is vibrant and sustaining, though not always easy, among straight and gay women and gender non-conformists in the African diaspora.

For those of you interested in uncommon (read: non-media-driven) insight into the race and the same-sex marriage debate, I highly recommend the portion of the video from minute 9:09 on to the end.

U People Documentaruy: 15 Min. Trailer
Video sent by upeoplethemovie

The following is a 15minute trailer and excerpt for the U People Documentary. It tells the story of what happened behind the scenes of a not so typical music video shoot one spring weekend in Brooklyn. Where women across sexualities got together to create something that had never been seen before. This trailer is an overview of the film and highlights one scene that focuses on civil and marriage rights.

Music: Hanifah Walidah - Happy
Honey Larochelle - "Hold You Down

What do FDR's New Deal and Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan have in common?

2009-02-18T08:15:00.003-05:00

Unfortunately, a lot.

A recent report by the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University projects that the relief purposed to come from the Economic Stimulus Plan will not benefit all groups to the same degree. Because of the racial stratification of occupations and employment opportunities, the jobs created in the stimulus package are designed for industries where blacks, in particular, are underrepresented (e.g., the construction industry).

In parallel fashion, the handouts of the New Deal disproportionately fell in the hands of white middle class America, as it funded the seeds of suburbanization and the post-World War II White Flight phenomenon through the National Housing Act of 1934 implemented by the Federal Housing Administration. These government handouts are largely responsible for the large black-white gap in wealth we still see today.

Fortunately, unlike the 20s, we currently have laws that criminalize racial discrimination in hiring and wage allotment. However, sociological studies show that the racial wage gap is largest in the private sector, particularly in occupations where earnings are decided by the capital of one's client-base. In a society, where both interracial friendships and interracial employment contracts are rare, it is not difficult to see where inequalities in earnings can be built into a client-driven pay scale.

What we essentially have is a prime example of institutional discrimination--the range of policies and practices of an institution that lead to the systematic disadvantage of members of certain racial groups (disparate impact). Not coincidentally, the mechanisms of structural racism operates among us invisibly and create an inertive force once activated.

We are only now seeing one of the many unintended consequences of the disproportionate subsidy of white suburbanization -- twenty-first century black foreclosure.

Analysts have noted that since 2004 black homeownership gains have been reversed and that even before this time rates of foreclosure were on a steady rise in areas with large minority populations. While the media likes to place the onus on blacks -- citing poor investment practices and bad credit, they forget that, unlike their white counterparts, black homeowners financed much of their American Dream through their own means. They also did not catch on to urban flight until the 80s and 90s, once housing prices in urban areas were prohibitively expensive and the rise in housing values (and therefore, escrow capital) had already begun to stagnate. Furthermore, predatory lending practices, redlining, and urban decline have largely eroded the capital out of their most valuable asset.

Thus, in times where the median black family income is dropping for the first time since World War II, there is little to bail people of color out of the depression they have entered into with the current economic crisis. According to United for a Fair Economy, black unemployment is equal to or exceeds that of the Great Depression of 1929 and has been indicative of an economic recession for the past five years.

Could the new millennium Economic Stimulus Plan be the 1930s New Deal all over again? In "Silent Depression: The State of the Dream 2009," United for a Fair Economy draws more parallels between these two periods than one would like. Lax lending standards, a housing and construction boom, and later foreclosure were all features of the 20s and 30s, much as they are features of our current economic situation.

How do we stop this cycle of structural racism? If the Economic Stimulus Plan goes into effect without oversight into how and to whom jobs are distributed, it seems unlikely that we will be able to do so. The time to be assertive, deliberate, and informed is now. Time is repeating itself: this time there are no excuses.

"Leavin' the Hood": The Health Paradox of Integrated Neighborhoods

2009-02-16T07:48:00.016-05:00

A fairly-recent article of Matthew O. Hunt highlights a rarely-recognized aspect of American racism: perceptions of racial discrimination are more likely in integrated settings. Below, I have included the reference and abstract of the study published in Social Psychology Quarterly.

Hunt and colleagues highlight three types of neighborhoods -- relatively homogeneous without non-whites , "integrated" (i.e., approx. 50-50 split), and relatively homogeneous and dominated by non-whites. Perceptions of discrimination is highest in neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous without non-whites and lowest in neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous with non-whites. "Leavin' the hood" may not be so psychologically pleasing after all, hmmph.

This finding echoes Thomas A. LaVeist's thesis from the early 90s with regards to infant mortality rates. LaVeist found that, within highly segregated metropolitan contexts, IMR rates for blacks were lower, but only if blacks were politically empowered (i.e., representation in local government) relative to their representation in the metropolitan area. On the other hand, black political empowerment had no effect on white IMR rates. For once, this isn't a win-lose situation.

Still, the critical questions remain:

Do blacks in ethnically-dense neighborhoods just not recognize an event as discriminatory? Studies of low-income blacks would support this claim.
Or do blacks in ethnically-dense neighborhoods not experience discrimination as much as their counterparts in integrated neighborhoods?
Or is it really about the quality of contact? According to Hunt and colleagues, more evenly-mixed neighborhoods elicit less perceptions of discrimination than those that more skewed towards whites. Might a different kind of interracial interaction be happening in these neighborhoods?

In any case, all this leaves us with a complex public policy situation. Integration is often perceived as the savior to non-whites social and economic problems--whether it be residential, cultural, or social integration (assimilation). Yet, the dynamics of integration force both sides of the color divide to see the problem and, in doing so, raise tensions that are often only elephants in the room when we are all trying to "just get along."

Given that poor mental and physical health follow both perceptions of discrimination and residence within the structures that manifest discrimination (i.e., highly segregated neighborhoods, economic disadvantage), we need to literally change the quality of interracial contact within contemporary America for this lose-lose situation to become a win-win.

One way to change the quality of interracial contact within neighborhoods and other social spaces is to encourage a diverse groups of acquaintances. Social science research notes that contact alone is not sufficient to break down the negative stereotypes of non-whites that is ingrained in American culture. For instance, Jackman and Crane (1986) that simply having black friends and acquaintances does little to influence whites' policy attitudes towards blacks. Instead, she suggests that a diversity of contacts aides in the deconstruction of cultural stereotypes by providing multiple images of the "other". With a diversity of contacts, it is more likely that individuals who are separated by race but otherwise quite similar may come together.

Also, these images directly challenge stereotypes and provide a context to understand the social etiology of our cultural toolbox. In either case, during the process of interaction, a new bridge is constructed for otherwise estranged neighbors, colleagues, and peers to meet on equal grounds and build more stable relationships on top the class, gender, political, and civic platforms they both stand.

With each passing year, the cultural and social space for interracial contact expands wider. Yet, poor mental and physical health follow the footsteps of both past and future social structures. On the one hand, residence within the highly-segregated and economically-disadvantaged neighborhood structures manifested by historical and continued discrimination is detrimental to one's health. On the other hand, perceptions of discrimination generated by increasing levels of interracial contact is also detrimental to one's health. Clearly, we must literally change the quality of interracial contact within contemporary America for this lose-lose situation to become a win-win.

Reference

Hunt, Matthew O., Lauren A. Wise, Marie-Claude Jipguep, Yzette C. Cozier, Lynn Rosenberg. 2007. "Neighborhood Racial Composition and Perceptions of Racial Discrimination: Evidence from the Black Women's Health Study." Social Psychology Quarterly 70(3):272-289.

Little is known about the effects of social context or "place" factors (e.g., characteristics of local populations) on African Americans' perceptions and experiences of racism. Using data from 42,445 U.S. black women collected during the 1997 follow-up wave of the Black Women's Health Study, we investigated the association between neighborhood racial composition ("percent black" at the block-group level in 2000 Census data) and perceptions of racial discrimination. Perceived racial discrimination was measured using self-reports of the frequency of discrimination in "everyday" settings (e.g., being treated as if you are dishonest) and "lifetime" occurrences of discrimination on the job, in housing, and by the police. There was a linear inverse relationship between neighborhood percent black and perceived discrimination, i.e., higher percent black was associated with lower levels of discrimination. Our results support the conclusions that, relative to contexts in which blacks are a small minority, more evenly-mixed (i.e., integrated) contexts result in lower levels of discrimination (contact hypothesis), and mostly black contexts evidence the lowest levels of discrimination (ethnic density hypothesis).

NPR on Post-Racial America

2009-02-14T23:47:00.003-05:00

NPR on Post-Racial America

Some of the themes touched on include, but are not limited to:

the social construction of race and racial disparities
race, power, and institutions
the racialization of opportunity structures in the stimulus packages of the 1930s and the new millenium
colorblind ideology
language that bridges the color divide

Here is a more detailed description of the 20 minute segment:

Description

President Barack Obama is the country's first African-American president. For some, his victory has ushered in a post racial era in which there is less need for Americans to talk about race. But not everyone agrees. Professor and commentator Boyce Watkins, author Shelby Steele and John Powell, of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, discuss whether a post-racial America really exists.

Some Notable Quotes (chosen at my discretion)

Shelby Steele: "what it means to me, a post-racial society, is a society where race is no longer connected to power..." (03:40)

Boyce Watkins: "...racism is not about good people or bad people. it's about the fact that our ancestors have created a mess that was created through deliberate action and must be cleaned up and corrected through equally deliberate action." (05:23)

Boyce Watkins: "the other element of our straitjacket reality in America is that...we are the only ones in the world, for the most part, who do not see the two-tiered society in which we live..." (15:50)

John Powell: "you create what's called empathetic space. you create space where every voice can be heard...people are much [more] willing to look at structures if you take off the table that you're...calling them a racist..." (18:08)

Listen with pleasure!

Moving Beyond Race: Sizing Up Post-Racial Ideologies

2008-12-17T07:48:00.000-05:00

Note: On December 10, 2008, The Herald Times published a guest column written by me titled, "Despite transformative moments, racism still common in America." This is a shortened version of the blog I posted online in November under the title of "Transformative Moments: Election 2008 and The Continued Saliency of Race." If you have a subscription to HeraldTimesOnline.com, you can follow the online commentary about the editorial (see link above). I have reproduced the original column at the end of this blog.

Over the past week, I have received noticed that bloggers were concerned that I omitted the fact that 95% of blacks voted for Obama when highlighting the following:

...Today, the symbolic meaning of race is changing again: some whites look
beyond race (44 percent of whites voted for Obama), some blacks garner...

Bloggers felt that the 95% figure was relevant to my discussion of transformative moments and racism. The discussion that ensued has allowed me to hone in on a point (hopefully) made in the original column that deserves more detailed consideration: The assumptions of post-racial ideologies--the set of beliefs noting that race is now irrelevant to America--are inherently faulty.

A quick reply to this multi-layered concern: The 44% figure was used to highlight the faults of post-racial ideologies. The phrase “move beyond race” is an explicitly post-racial concept to refer to the idea that race is no longer an organizing factor of the social realities and relationships of Americans. This phrase is not a reflection of perceived or real endorsements for or against racial inequality. For a more detailed answer, read below.

The post-racial ideologies endorsed by conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, and young and old before, after, and during this election have stated explicitly that voting for a black man as President proves that America has moved beyond race. In the post-60s Civil Rights Movement era, the accomplishment of figures such as Oprah and Colin Powell have been interpreted by those endorsing post-racial ideologies as evidence that race no longer differentiates Americans. An increase in levels of support for the extension of civil rights to previously-disenfranchised racial groups, optimistic attitudes towards racial dynamics, and other measures of “hope” have also been taken as signs that America is beyond race.

We must, however, keep in mind that a vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is not only a vote for a non-white President, but also a vote for a political party that is associated with issues concerning non-whites as a collective. During the mid-60s, issues affecting the life circumstances of blacks realigned and polarized the partisanship of white Southerners to be directly in conflict with the partisanship of black Southerners. Since the election of Johnson in 1964, the majority of whites have not voted for a Democratic presidential nominee (blacks’ shift away from Republicans occurred in the election of 1936). Charles Franklin's assessment of state-based variations in whites’ collective support for Democratic presidential nominees at Pollster.com supports the idea that Southern whites still “see” race in this manner.

Regardless of whether looking beyond race implies looking beyond the race of the candidate or the racialized issues that the Democratic Party purportedly supports, a closer examination of post-racial ideologies reveals the flaws in post-racial assumptions. If those who endorse post-racial ideologies are right, then even by their measures the dominant racial group in our society as a collective still has not moved beyond race. Blacks (and Latinos), while visible in elite institutions, are still not proportionally represented in positions of esteem. The philosophy of hope, while noble, does not wipe away inequality and is not hand-in-hand with support for policies that will redress inequalities.

With all this said, I take heart with a deeper issue: the idea currently circulating through the media and behind closed doors that we as a society could, with a series of elections (State Primaries, General Election), move beyond a system of domination that was built into our foundation before the Constitution was even written and has been etched even further into our economic, educational, residential, and political systems by policies and public tolerances that debase the humanity of a whole portion of its members.

Even by the criteria of post-racial ideologies, we as a society have a long road ahead to bridge the racial divide. As I mentioned in the article, the statistics that show black and white inequalities in social and economic living conditions do not lie—whether we in our individual lives "move beyond" race or do not.

Sewell, Abigail A. 2008. "Despite transformative moment, racism still common in America." The Herald Times December 10, 2008: A9.

This guest column was written by Abigail A. Sewell, a doctoral candidate in the Indiana University Department of Sociology. Her areas of expertise are medical sociology, social psychology and race. In 2005, she was selected to be a National Science Foundation Fellow, a Ford Foundation Fellow and a Ronald E. McNair Scholar.

The willingness to believe in the possibilities of America is the social ideology underlying an Obama win. This is my generation’s transformative moment, just as MLK and JFK assassinations were transformative for the generation of the ’60s, the Harlem Renaissance and the Great Depression for the generation of the ’20s, and the Civil War and the end of slavery for the generation of the 1860s. I take this moment to pay homage to my elders who uprooted their families from various parts of the Caribbean under the banner of this hope, to my father who since becoming an American citizen stood in a line for the first time to cast his vote in 2008, and to the generations of Americans — black, white and in between — who have given their lives to the possibility my generation would see this moment. My deepest gratitude is owed to you.

Undoubtedly, America has taken a definitive step towards racial equality in politics. We stand at the brink of a new history — one whose name is more contested, whose identity is more ambiguous and whose future has hardly been conceived. The symbolic implications of race are transforming with this election, just as the symbolic implications of race were transformed with the civil rights movement. Nonetheless, while the post-civil rights era witnessed black as beautiful, black styles as cool and profitable, and black upward mobility as possible, seeds of both dreams and destruction were planted. Hip hop and crack cocaine hit the streets, affirmative action programs and the prison industrial complex blossomed, the size of the black middle class and the black “underclass” grew.

Today, the symbolic meaning of race is changing again: some whites look beyond race (44 percent of whites voted for Obama), some blacks with human and cultural capital garner legitimacy (e.g., Thurgood Marshall, Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell) and some Americans find hope in the new era. This transformative moment seems to be the embodiment of the much-heralded and often-scolded American Dream.

Possibly, 40 or so years from now, a new generation of hopefuls will usher in the post-racial America many claim is here.

However, even now at the height of our hope, the statistics do not lie. Blacks have higher levels of mortality than other racial/ethnic groups, send their children to less endowed schools and confront lower re-employment rates at the end of recessions.

Black men disproportionately trade paying income taxes for sitting behind the walls of jails on petty drug charges; black women bear the brunt of the spread of HIV/AIDS to previously uninfected populations. Black children face foreclosure, neighborhood decline and segregated spaces at higher rates than other children.

Instead of outright violence, the subtle subtexts of inferiority are etched into attitudes regarding the disloyalty of blacks, the motivational roots of inequality and the hypersensitivity of those who perceive discrimination. The micro and macro processes of racism remain deeply rooted in the American social system.

As a land of immigrants, the “browning” of America has always been deeply American; thus, this “new” America is indeed the authentic perfect union.

As much as Barack is a sign of change, he is the living and breathing embodiment of tokenism. We are still heirs to a society where civil liberties, opportunity structures and social distresses are racialized.

We must remember that a deepening economic crisis, wholesale disdain for anything Bush-related and a near-perfectly organized political campaign has facilitated this moment.
I challenge this new generation to find ways to organize for racial justice — not just by one act at one transformative moment, but by acknowledging the very essence of race in our everyday lives.

Push by Sapphire to Video...SOON

2008-12-15T18:54:00.006-05:00

Anyone who has read the best-selling book, Push, by Sapphire, about a young African American woman who has more than her share of problems and navigates life with a grit and determination that defies the hopelessness that surrounds her, will be super excited that Lee Daniels (the guy who cast Halle Berry in Monster's Ball) is bringing this book to film. I've left my description purposefully vague for those of you who have not read the book. If it isn't already a classic literary production, it will go down as one before soon. Go get it...today!

Supposedly, the film version of Push will have its world premiere at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival January 15 through 25th, 2009. Paula Patton plays the teacher that helps Claireece "Precious" Jones (the main character) break through life; Mariah Carey plays the social worker responsible for Precious; Lenny Kravitz debuts as a nurse, and Mo'Nique plays Claireece's mother. See here, here, here, and here for more interesting details.

The (very brief) review from Sundance is promising for those of us concerned with whether a film could do justice to the emotions evoked by turning the pages of this classic. If anyone knows how to get a hold of the film, share the knowledge. Since it is independently-produced, I have little confidence that it will hit the big screen of my dear old small town, USA. :o(

Go Sapphire! Go Precious!

Bidil, Blackbird, and Black Niche Marketing: Race vs Racism

2008-12-12T15:01:00.010-05:00

A browser for blacks, a heart drug for blacks. Where do we draw the line between the salience of race to social life and racism?

The creation of the Blackbird technology smells of the racial controversy around the marketing of Bidil--a heart medication--as a black drug. Admittedly, the issues surrounding Bidil are a bit more complex. Steven Epstein states:

Having failed to demonstrate the drug’s efficacy in the overall population, BiDil’s manufacturers reinvented it as an “ethnic drug” and tested it only on African Americans.

Nonetheless, both of these instances clearly capture the capitalistic economic aspects of niche marketing and the implicit (and explicit) acceptance of attitudes that blacks are a monolithic group--whether it be the presumption that all blacks have the same physiological makeup or that all blacks seek the same kinds of information.

But to what extent are they evidence of racism? Before I go any further, I must define how I use the term racism. According to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, racism as measured by racial discrimination is:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. [emphasis added]

Under this definition, the distinctions made by 40A and NitroMed are not evidence of racism, since they do not nullify or impair the "recognition, emjoyment, or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms..." If someone can think of ways they do, please let me know.

Still, the distinctions made by 40A and NitroMed do reflect race as a "fundamental organizing principle of social relationships" (Omi and Winant 1984/1989). In so doing, Blackbird and Bidil fit squarely within Omi and Winant's theory of racial formation. Ironically, these products extend the concept of racialization--"the extension of racial meaning to a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice or group"--to non-human objects.

Transformative Moments: Election 2008 and the Continued Saliency of Race

2008-11-20T00:14:00.002-05:00

The willingness to believe in the possibilities of America is the social ideology underlying an Obama win. This is my generation's transformative moment—just as MLK and JFK assassinations were transformative for the generation of the 60s, the Harlem Renaissance and the Great Depression for the generation of the 20s, and the Civil War and the end of slavery for the generation of the 1860s. I take this moment to pay homage to my elders who uprooted their families from various parts of the Caribbean under the banner of this hope, to my father who since becoming an American citizen stood in a line for the first time to cast his vote in 2008, and to the generations of Americans—black, white, and in between—who have given their lives to the possibility my generation would see this moment. My deepest gratitude is owed to you.

America has taken a definitive step towards racial equality in politics. The symbolic implications of race are transforming with this election, just as the symbolic implications of race were transformed with the Civil Rights movement. In prior centuries, blacks were "freedmen," "coloured," "Negroes;" a sense of pride was captured only in those closed spaces coveted by blacks; and the oftentimes brutal reality of race forced them to close rank and fight back for their dignity, legacy, and humanity.

Despite all the heroics of the Civil Rights movement, legal concessions by whites in power seemed to all but completely regress over the last three decades of the 20thcentury. However, in the post-Civil-Rights era black was beautiful; black styles were cool and profitable; black upward mobility was possible. In these times the seeds of both dreams and destruction were planted: hip hop and crack cocaine hit the streets; affirmative action programs and the prison industrial complex blossomed. Early in this new millennium, America has witnessed the transformative possibilities behind the doors the Civil Rights movement opened.

We stand at the brink of a new history--one whose name is more contested, whose identity is more ambiguous, and whose future has hardly been conceived. The social scientists did not predict this a year ago; the political pundits now claim the grievances of racial politics are over; the skeptics stare into the next four years with fear and bewilderment. Again, the symbolic meaning of race is changing: some whites look beyond race (44% of whites voted for Obama), some blacks with human and cultural capital garner legitimacy, and some Americans find hope in the new era. This transformative moment is the embodiment of the much-heralded and often-scolded American Dream.

Forty or so years from now, a new generation of hopefuls will usher in the post-racial America many claim is here. However, now at the height of our hope, the statistics do not lie. Blacks have higher levels of mortality than other racial/ethnic groups, send their children to less endowed schools, and confront lower reemployment rates at the end of recessions. Black men disproportionately trade paying income taxes for sitting behind the walls of jails on petty drug charges. Black families face foreclosure, neighborhood decline, and segregated spaces at higher rates than other families. Instead of outright violence, the subtle subtexts of inferiority are etched into attitudes regarding the disloyalty of blacks, the motivational roots of inequality, and the hypersensitivity of those who perceive discrimination. Sociologists suggest that the sources of these inequalities are the micro and macro processes of racism structured into the American social system.

This "new" America is the authentic perfect union; and, as a land of immigrants, the "browning" of America has always been deeply American. Yet, we are still heirs to a society where civil liberties, opportunity structures, and social distresses are racialized. It still took an economic crisis, disdain for anything Bush-related, and a near-perfect campaign for (contested) blackness to reach the White House. I challenge this new generation to find ways to organize for racial justice—not just by one act at one transformative moment, but by acknowledging the very essence of race in our everyday lives.

Acts of Omission et al: Prop 8, Racism, etc

2008-11-14T20:03:00.002-05:00

Acts of Omission
I am typically not one to speak of anything political publicly. However, in the back rooms, I have been privy to a conversation that sympathizes with the highly-publicized fight for gay marriage but finds itself unable to overlook the acts of omission that have come with it. As a person who has lived the predominant part of her adulthood in rural areas as a triple minority, I find several things lacking in the modern gay rights movement that if addressed would assert a more inclusive and progressive agenda. First, I would like someone to take more seriously the prosecution of hate crime statutes that already exist, statutes that have been unable to cease the physical brutality enacted against gay bodies, particularly racialized ones. Second, it would also be nice if someone attended to the spread of AIDS to previously-uninfected communities, an epidemic spread that is exacerbated by the inadequate screening practices of prisons, the patronizing attitudes of scientists to minority communities, and a shameful lack of funding from previously-active community organizations. Last, before we get to the issue of marriage, how about someone interrogate the civility of employment discrimination institutionalized most brazenly by the army's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, a type of discrimination that adds to the already-deep-seated instability of the lives of gay young adults, particularly gay young adults of color.

Marriage, in any community, will only be able to be taken advantage of by individuals of the middle class who have economic stability, occupational status, and "nice" homes in "nice" neighborhoods. However, the possibility to reach your group's life expectancy, to survive without morbidity, and to gain a living wage is absent in the lives of many who live at the intersections of multiple sites of inequality. Until these taken-for-granted protections are established, the right to marry remains an act that is for the privileged, and not for me.

Un-excusable Race-Baiting and Racist Scapegoating
Still, I do understand the the gay rights movement for marriage equality. Nonetheless, bitterness and anger does not excuse racist scapegoating. Google the terms: black, prop 8; and you will find a host of recent media blips concerning the myriad reasons white gays are blaming blacks for the passing of Prop 8-- a California proposition that bans same sex marriage. I spent the night of November 5th reading some really hateful blogs on DailyKos.com about this, primarily the perspective of white middle class gay folks. A few days later news of blacks being called the n-word at a LDS protest (the Mormons and other organizations of the Religious Right are the ones that got Prop 8 on the ballot in the first time). I can't tell you how much fear this incited in me.

In the past few days, I ran across several op-eds and blogs that have provided more sensible reactions to the passage of CA Prop 8. These are encouraging to me, for I thought at one moment that there literally was no community in which I could safely reside. Nonetheless, as a budding research, I did my own analysis. Upon going through the available data (as of November 8, 2008) from the CNN Exit Poll, it strikes me that that are many more non-black, non-Latino groups that could more reasonably be "blamed" for the passage of Prop 8. I will present to you my short analysis below. Keep in mind that CNN Pollsters have even come out saying that the data is far from reliable in extrapolating upon the voting tendencies of small subgroups (blacks were 10% of the 2000+ individuals sampled upon leaving the Election Polls of CA on November 4th). For instance, the Poll estimates that blacks were 10% of the electoral votes; however, several bloggers have noted that even given incredibly high turn out (near 90%), blacks don't make up more than 7% of the voting age population. Furthermore, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com has already done assessment of the myth that the upsurge of voters who came out in support of Obama is the reason the proposition pass. Instead, Obama and new voters were the most "progressive" of all voters; instead, it was older and more experienced voters that were heavily pro-Prop 8. Nonetheless, the results I present assume that the data can indeed be taken as face value (an assumption that without given serious threats to validity is often taken among researchers analyzing small subpopulations).

My conclusions I will lead you to is that, mathematically, I cannot see how black people can be blamed for the passage of Prop 8.

The Numbers
According to the latest number (11/8/08), the spread was 52% (Yes: 5,682,924 votes) to 48% (No: 5,193,672 votes). [The updated numbers (11/14/08) raise the raw values for each voting response, but the findings shown here remain the same.] Thus, there was in total, 10,876,596 votes cast for or against Prop 8. According to the CNN Exit Poll, blacks make up 10% of the electorate, which means they had 1,087,660 votes to cast. Basic math shows that there was a difference of 489,252 votes that comprise the 4% spread that allowed Prop 8 to pass (Just Subtract # who voted "No" from # who voted "Yes"). If blacks voted the way the CNN Exit Poll stated, 761,362 blacks would have voted "Yes" to Prop 8 and 326,298 blacks would have voted "No" to Prop 8.

Several simple mathematical conclusions can be drawn from these set of statistics:

1. If Blacks had not voted (i.e., We were in 1963 with a 2008 social attitude), Prop 8 still would have been passed. Taking out all black votes, leaves 4,921,562 Californians who voted for Prop 8, which is a sum total larger than the 4,867,374 Californians who voted against Prop 8. Reason #1 to not blame blacks: The majority of non-black Californians voted against Prop 8.

2. If instead of voting 2 to 1, blacks had voted 1 to 1 (i.e., 50% vote "Yes" on Prop 8 and 50% vote "No" on Prop 8), Prop 8 still would have been passed. Splitting the 1.08 million votes that blacks had right down the middle leaves 5,465,392 Californians who would have voted for Prop 8, which is a sum total larger than the 5,411,204 Californians who would have voted against Prop 8. Reason #2 to not blame blacks: The black vote--even had it been sharply divided--was inconsequential to the passage of Prop 8.

3. If blacks had voted as progressively as the most progressive racial groups (i.e., Whites/Asians, of whom 49% voted "Yes" on Prop 8 and 51% voted "No" on Prop 8), Prop 8 still would have been passed. Splitting the 1.08 million votes that blacks had according to the progressive social ideologies of Whites and Asians (neither of whom have received blame for the passage of Prop 8) leaves 5,454,515 Californians voting "Yes" to Prop 8 and 5,422,081 Californians voting "No" to Prop 8. Reason #3 to not blame blacks: Even if blacks had been "progressive," the size of the black electorate was not substantial enough to curb the tide of the majority of non-black Californians.

4. More so, according to my calculations, in order for Prop 8 to have been rejected, without changing the voting tendencies of any other racial/ethnic group, 46.5% of blacks would have had to vote "Yes" on Prop 8 while 53.5% of blacks would have had to vote "No" on Prop 8. [Using updated numbers, 11/14/08, the percentage of blacks needing to vote "No" decreased to 52.8%, a number still higher than any other racial/ethnic group reported] Given that no other racial/ethnic group's rejection of Prop 8 even came close to these figures, I find that it is not plausible to blame blacks for the passage of Prop 8 by statistics alone. Reason #4 to not blame blacks: Assuming black liberalism is naive, particularly since "liberalism" has been contested within the black community since the Reconstruction era (i.e., Booker T. Washington vs. W.E.B. DuBois).

Instead, here are a number of other groups that had they been more "progressive" actually had the electorate bloc to alter the passage of Prop 8. At least 60% of all these groups voted for the passage of Prop 8 and these groups made up at least 15% of the electorate (i.e., these groups had enough statistical power to sway the outcome of the Prop 8 ballot initiative had they been more liberal).

The elderly (65+) -- 61% voted Yes, group made up 15% of the electorate
Republicans -- 82% voted Yes, group made up 29% of the electorate
Conservatives -- 85% voted Yes, group made up 30% of the electorate
Protestants -- 65% voted Yes, group made up 43% of the electorate bloc
Catholics -- 64% voted Yes, group made up 30% of the electorate bloc
White Protestants -- 65% voted Yes, group made up 29% of the electorate bloc
Those who attend church weekly -- 82% voted Yes, group made up 22% of the electorate bloc
Married people -- 60% voted Yes, group made up 62% of the electorate bloc
People with children under 18 -- 64% voted Yes, group made up 40% of the electorate bloc
Gun owners -- 62% voted Yes, group made up 31% of the electorate bloc
Bush voters -- 80% voted Yes, group made up 38% of the electorate bloc
Offshore drilling supporters -- 66% voted Yes, group made up 31% of the electorate bloc
People who are afraid of a terrorist attack -- 65% voted Yes, group made up 24% of the electorate bloc
People who thought their family finances were better now than 4 years ago -- 61% voted Yes, group made up 24% of the electorate bloc
Supporters of the war against Iraq -- 85% voted Yes, group made up 30% of the electorate bloc
People who didn't care about the age of the candidates -- 60% voted Yes, group made up 59% of the electorate bloc
People who approve of how Bush handling job -- 86% voted Yes, 24% of the electorate bloc
People who are from the "Inland/Valley" region of California -- 65% voted Yes, group made up 21% of the electorate bloc
McCain voters -- 84% voted Yes, group made up 38% of the electorate bloc

Where We Lie (Literally)
Ok, that's all folks. I truly am exhausted from the events of the past ten days. The point of this blog is twofold: 1) to highlight the narrow views of white gay activists who have focused exclusively on marriage equality and engaged in race-baiting scapegoating tactics, both which are tactics that divide and weaken progressive social movements; and 2) to demonstrate the statistical futility of blaming blacks for the success of a campaign that was led and funded primarily by the Conservative Right who (erroneously) believes religion provides them grounds to discriminate against others.

The reactions of the white gay community and the black conservative community reveal the essence of two things -- the continued saliency of race and the inability of communities to face their own devils. Both groups are hypocrites: the white gays for always holding the black community separate except when they need them (to vote for marriage equality) and the black conservatives for buying the illogical rhetoric fed to them by the white conservatives who do not have their social, political, or economic interests in mind. Race will continue to be a salient factor in this post-Obama-win society because racial scapegoating is the easiest way to sidestep responsibility for one's inaction. If Obama trips in the White House, I'm sure whites will blame black, Latinos, and Asians (only 43% of whites voted for Obama; thus, the browning of America, not the anti-racist foundations of America, is the reason why he won). Furthermore, the inability of communities to face their own devils will leave progressive of all color stripes and hues pandering to the politics of respectability (e.g., blacks) and normativity (e.g., white gays) to accommodate the oftentimes-regressive democratic masses.

*** If anyone would like a copy of the Excel worksheet I used to calculate these statistics, let me know. I can forward it to you.