Your Cart
The necessity of sainthood when you are Black
Posted by Dr. Heather Marion D'Cruz on 2009/04/06
During the US Presidential campaign, Mr Obama radiated a sense of ‘goodness’.
As an outsider, an Australian resident observing the US Presidential campaign, I was concerned by how Mr Obama was (or had to be?) represented as perfect, this seemingly expected by his supporters and detractors.
As a woman of colour, I could understand why this was necessary – at least for Mr Obama’s chances of election within an electorate that implicitly and explicitly would excuse behaviour from ‘white’ candidates that they would never accept from Mr Obama.
Women seeking public office have similar experiences, where they are expected to be better than the men they compete against to the point of perfection – as witnessed by the way Hillary Clinton was treated by the media and her detractors.
Therefore I found comments made in some Australian newspapers disturbing.
For example, on 19 January 2009, Gordon Farrer began his review in The Age newspaper Green Guide of a television programme, ‘Made in Chicago: The Making of Barack Obama’, with the words: ‘More hagiography about the Black Messiah.’ (http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/tv-reviews/tv-highlights-monday-19th/2009/01/13/1231608713137.html) (retrieved 24 March 2009).
Yes - at one level we were inundated by such programmes and as a reviewer, Mr Farrer was clearly making an important point.
However, the point was also being missed about the politics of race and racism constituted around ‘white’ and ‘black’ because such critiques assume a superficial equality between candidates seeking to win such a powerful position.
Yet one is haunted by accusations of political correctness – that one is unable to make legitimately critical comments and as a critic, to be able to treat one programme the same as another.
A second item in The Age, Opinion Pages, on 19 January by Steve Harris, was titled ‘Obama can move beyond skin labels’. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/obama-can-move-beyond-skin-labels-20090118-7jye.html (retrieved 24 March 2009).
Mr Harris makes the claim that ‘it is time to recognise the shallowness of black-and-white think.’
He comments that ‘Skin colour can be a superficial clue to the truth: people with black skin can have predominantly white ancestry; people with pale skin can have predominantly black or mixed ancestry; people who look Indian, Asian or Aboriginal can have predominant ancestry that belies the label.
A skin label is not the full truth, and in fact, perpetuates untruths.’
Mr Harris is well-intentioned in his preoccupation with dismissing skin colour and physical appearance as ‘shallow’ and ‘superficial’, as he espouses the need to promote ‘global connectedness’, ‘commonality and interdependence of all’.
However, I suspect he is a ‘white’ man himself as he is unable to see the world as people whose bodily differences make them visible within discourses of normal (usually white) bodies, and whose opportunities are shaped by how they are literally seen and engaged with by others.
Such perceptions of ‘colour blindness’ inhibit awareness of the entrenched forms of inequality whereby white men rule the world, and ‘white’ nations tend to have most of the world’s wealth and best opportunities and outcomes.
As an outsider, an Australian resident observing the US Presidential campaign, I was concerned by how Mr Obama was (or had to be?) represented as perfect, this seemingly expected by his supporters and detractors.
As a woman of colour, I could understand why this was necessary – at least for Mr Obama’s chances of election within an electorate that implicitly and explicitly would excuse behaviour from ‘white’ candidates that they would never accept from Mr Obama.
Women seeking public office have similar experiences, where they are expected to be better than the men they compete against to the point of perfection – as witnessed by the way Hillary Clinton was treated by the media and her detractors.
Therefore I found comments made in some Australian newspapers disturbing.
For example, on 19 January 2009, Gordon Farrer began his review in The Age newspaper Green Guide of a television programme, ‘Made in Chicago: The Making of Barack Obama’, with the words: ‘More hagiography about the Black Messiah.’ (http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/tv-reviews/tv-highlights-monday-19th/2009/01/13/1231608713137.html) (retrieved 24 March 2009).
Yes - at one level we were inundated by such programmes and as a reviewer, Mr Farrer was clearly making an important point.
However, the point was also being missed about the politics of race and racism constituted around ‘white’ and ‘black’ because such critiques assume a superficial equality between candidates seeking to win such a powerful position.
Yet one is haunted by accusations of political correctness – that one is unable to make legitimately critical comments and as a critic, to be able to treat one programme the same as another.
A second item in The Age, Opinion Pages, on 19 January by Steve Harris, was titled ‘Obama can move beyond skin labels’. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/obama-can-move-beyond-skin-labels-20090118-7jye.html (retrieved 24 March 2009).
Mr Harris makes the claim that ‘it is time to recognise the shallowness of black-and-white think.’
He comments that ‘Skin colour can be a superficial clue to the truth: people with black skin can have predominantly white ancestry; people with pale skin can have predominantly black or mixed ancestry; people who look Indian, Asian or Aboriginal can have predominant ancestry that belies the label.
A skin label is not the full truth, and in fact, perpetuates untruths.’
Mr Harris is well-intentioned in his preoccupation with dismissing skin colour and physical appearance as ‘shallow’ and ‘superficial’, as he espouses the need to promote ‘global connectedness’, ‘commonality and interdependence of all’.
However, I suspect he is a ‘white’ man himself as he is unable to see the world as people whose bodily differences make them visible within discourses of normal (usually white) bodies, and whose opportunities are shaped by how they are literally seen and engaged with by others.
Such perceptions of ‘colour blindness’ inhibit awareness of the entrenched forms of inequality whereby white men rule the world, and ‘white’ nations tend to have most of the world’s wealth and best opportunities and outcomes.
Comments
No comments have been made