Alex Green IV

Every person has several identities, some made up of inherited traits from the genetics of a mother and father and others that are developed like a personality and a belief system. All of these traits, either inherited or developed/acquired, form one’s identity. Unfortunately, American society probably like many others is somewhat one dimensional despite the multiculturalism and global mindset that the US purports to have in the sense of being a “melting pot.” What is a melting pot? When something melts, it gives the impression that it goes from a solid to a liquid, thus becoming fluid and gaining an ability to mix, intermingle, coalesce, and from homogeneity to heterogeneity. However, American society seems to be a homogenous mixture meaning that, although there are a multitude of races, creeds, religions, languages, ethnicities, origins, beliefs, and cultures represented, they exist as stand alone entities (each person represents a compact morsel of identity that may exist alongside but does not intermix with the identity of other). In other words, there is very little cross-cultural exchange either in terms of sharing one’s culture and beliefs or adoption of beliefs and mores distinct from one’s own. At the risk of sounding contradictory, it’s important that the phrase— “morsel of identity” –be fleshed out a bit further. It was established earlier that identity is not unilateral meaning that there are many contributors to one identity and one could argue that because there are so many contributing factors, the identity of no two individuals is exactly the same. Nevertheless, the discussion about US society being a pseudo-melting pot suggests that identity is not fluid in this country. While there are many reasons why identity appears to be static and somewhat immovable…one plausible theory is that society creates a dominant/default identity for large groups of people that may or may not share the same culture, belief system, place of origin, ethnicity, race, language, religion, etc. In this way, society being very visual and somewhat rigid makes a prima facie determination on one’s default identity. For example, the fact that a black person may have one parent that is not racially black or ethnically African-American, is essentially irrelevant when defining the person. Even though I am not a proponent of splitting hairs or someone not cherishing their heritage, I do believe that this societal bullying in terms of identity and categorization is deeply problematic. When I say splitting hairs, one phenomenon comes to mind. I think it is weak and inconceivable when a person who appears to be one race or identity (and especially if this race or identity does not put him/her at the top of the social ladder) tries to mention all of the other ethnic influences on his/her identity to, in effect, neutralize the stigma caused by the default identity. Some may disagree, but Tiger Woods illustrates this point for me when he coined a term in an interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show that was not only difficult to pronounce but seemed as though he was doing what he could to quell those that deemed him as the first African-American to be a formidable competitor in golf. Woods explained that the term, Caublanasian, as a hybrid that includes the words, Caucasian, Black, and Asian to sort of capture his tripartite identity. I may be inaccurate, but in my opinion, Woods lost the respect of much of black America and, perhaps, that of other America for not owning a default heritage because it is linked to a lower rung on the caste system of race in America. So, I’ve presented two somewhat contradictory elements in staging this debate on identity. One argument forces one to look beyond a surface, default, and societally-imposed identity and one suggests that you ought to accept the identity that suits you the closest (largely based on stereotypical physical traits) because, in not doing so, it seems to evoke shame especially when the identity may place you on a lower rung in terms of societal status.

As difficult as it is for me to conceptualize it, I propose something that is a mixture of the two. Educate, defend, and own up to all aspects of your identity (even those that you may not be as proud of or as comfortable with) because they are all responsible for forming your identity.

Now, for a practical example: In the political arena, two big social, political, and identity-laden issues are the passage of Proposition 8 in California which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and the 2008 election in which Barack Obama became the first African-American president of the United States. I am not sure of a time in American history when identity politics has played such a crucial role. Although these events could be considered unrelated and in many ways…they are, for the purposes of discourse on identity politics—these events offer a great lesson. Regardless of the fact that there has been a fight for civil rights issues (in particular, equality in terms of race), one fight does not beget another. I say this because an Op-Ed piece in the times points the finger at African-Americans for the passage of Proposition 8 in California because they came out in such great numbers to elect Barack Obama. In fact, the piece says, in tongue and cheek it seems but accurately that “there’s a big difference between coalition politics and rainbow party politics.” Sure, there is a difference between coalition politics and rainbow party politics…but the difference should not be in intent but rather in content. The intent of both kinds of politics should be to include more people and to put differences aside. For coalition leaders, the people affected are those of color and, for rainbow party leaders, the people affected are homosexuals or anyone who does not live a hetero-normative lifestyle. However, this Op-Ed piece suggests that there is a difference in intent catalyzed by the difference in content. In other words, it’s unfathomable to discriminate or deny rights on the basis of race but completely tolerable and understandable to do so on the basis of sexual orientation or overall lifestyle. So, you may ask…just how bad was in this different in intent on the parts of blacks. According to the article, “They [Blacks] came to the polls in record numbers to support Barack Obama, and they brought with them a fiercely held and enduring antipathy toward homosexuality: 7 in 10 blacks voted in support of traditional marriage.” Now, I doubt that blacks…only making up about 12 or 13% of the US population are that much of a game changer on most political ballots; however, it is the principle that…given the opportunity to vote on an allowance of rights or a denial of rights for gays (who are currently disenfranchised from the institution of marriage), blacks would vote for gays to remain ostracized and second-class citizens. It seems like a classic case of the oppressed turning into the oppressor. Oh, and why have so many blacks turned into the oppressor? They are using the same tool that so well enslaved them…the Bible. When blacks were not allowed to read other forms of literature, the Bible was readily made available to them as a form of mind control. Through some interpretations of the Bible, blacks were led to believe that they were inferior and perhaps even made for slavery. So, why use a text that can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways as a guide for politics? I do not want to argue whether marriage is or is not a church institution because, while that is an interesting argument, it is one for a different time and not particularly relevant to this issue. Why? Because it appears that blacks voted not on the fact that marriage is a church institution but on their widespread belief that homosexuality is an irreverent and immoral lifestyle that is unacceptable. One question that I always want to posit to such people is: Does not accepting something make it go away? What have you accomplished? All of the things that we look down upon as a society are still here regardless of their levels of acceptance including out of wedlock births, abortions, suicides, prostitution, drug use, murder, theft, child/spousal abuse, infidelity, greed, sloth, etc. I do not mean to criminalize or stigmatize homosexuality by comparing it to criminal offenses or to the types of things that not only affect one person but act as a drudge on society. But, it is important to bring these things up to try to offer examples of how tough legislation and lack of acceptance does little to mitigate harms. One could engage in a debate that this says more about the failures of an overtaxed judicial and legislative system than the failings of society to keep antisocial behaviors in check. Whatever the excuse may be, the fact is that trying to squelch certain things because they do not fit on your moral compass does little to curb that behavior and may have more negative consequences because it must be dealt with. I feel like misusing a scientific principle here which says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but it may change form.

Is the “protection” of marriage as between one man and one woman doing anything for heterosexual or homosexual couples? I say no because the practical civil rights issues are far more simplistic. The same homosexual couple that you stopped from becoming married does not have the same benefits afforded to them as a heterosexual couple in terms of tax breaks and health insurance, etc. So, if a person gets sick and they happen to be gay…you are virtually ensuring that you (who do not believe that homosexuals should have the same civil rights as a heterosexual couple because of their “sinful” lifestyle) may have to take care of this person if they do not have insurance. How magnanimous of such a short-sighted, holier-than-thou person? Furthermore, in the case of Arkansas in which unmarried couples have been forbidden from adopting children…you are increasing the likelihood that orphaned children will become of age in an overburdened and often un-nurturing child protective services system. If you thought it stopped there, wrong again—property or assets held by couples that are common law but unmarried often burden probate courts because there is no clear beneficiary upon death without an airtight will and testament. In the course of a discussion with some anti-gay marriage colleagues, I was told that gays could just fill out all of the necessary paperwork and file it appropriately so that they would essentially have all of the rights of heterosexuals in marriage. This is true…in some cases—but not in others. There is no way around taxes, there is no such thing as “married filing jointly” when you’re not married. And, oddly enough, isn’t it such a shameful argument that gays ought to just pay more for being gay? It’s almost like a gay tax…oops!

What is equally as damning is not just the financial costs of trying to deny civil rights to some while affording them to others are the cultural implications. Does anyone ever wonder why HIV infection is so high in minority (especially black) communities? One word seems to ring true: denial. Fortunately or unfortunately (for some), gays are in everyone’s family, in everyone’s neighborhood, someone’s brother, sister, mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin, in-law, etc. It’s plausible that a very high percentage of people know someone that is an openly gay person and probably several who are closeted. What are you saying to that person when you laugh and talk with them and ostensibly care for and about them when you go to the polls and vote to deny them a civil right? Are all of these people just going to have to shape up or ship off because you decided that their lifestyles were iniquitous? Hardly, in fact the gay population is really much larger than many admit and is sort of a silent but burgeoning community in many families, towns, cities, neighborhoods, and the like. It’s there but few want to talk about it. It seems as though by treating something as a disease or some kind of plague…it becomes one. Since so many evangelizers of religion would like to castigate homosexuals for their sins, the gay population has become just that—very insidious not in the sense of being immoral or negative but in the sense of being hidden yet powerful at the same time. It is not going away because whether you believe that people are born that way or it is a lifestyle choice…it seems to be one aspect of identity that people are unable to compartmentalize effectively. This is one of the reasons why identity is not this static entity but rather a dynamic force field. One cannot just encapsulate everything that makes them attracted to the same-sex and exile it to the depths of his/her unconscious. Identity is far more complicated than many give credit for. The major justification for the discourse that opened this discussion on America being too one dimensional in terms of identity was this very problem of trying to privilege one identity over another. I suppose that a black gay person should just be happy that Barack Obama took office regardless of the fact that Proposition 8 passed on the same day and Arizona, and Florida passed two anti-marriage initiatives. So, one aspect of this black gay person’s identity was validated while another was made invalid. Very few people look at it this way though because, once again, in American society you are only what can be seen. Because being gay is not as highly identifiable an identity as having brown skin…having brown skin is a primary identity even though being a gay/lesbian may have an equal effect on one’s life.

I close this discussion to say that it’s unfortunate that in a society that is supposed to be so organizationally advanced and such a motley crew of culture and identity that there must always be an oppressed group. Furthermore, why is it that one must pick and choose which identity is most important to them? Why can’t I have as many identities as I wish and have them all be valid in the eyes of another? When will so-called conservative society understand that their ideologies often are not pragmatic? What will it take for society to become one unified while still preserving and validating one’s distinct identities?

Note: The New York Times Op-Ed piece quoted in this blog post is entitled Showdown in the Big Tent.

I would argue that the single most utilized and, therefore, important sense that humans possess is sight/vision. People say, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Of course, that is true to an extent. What one sees (even without touching, tasting, smelling, or hearing) can establish a narrative. I marvel at people who are blind like Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Helen Keller who have made history without the gift of sight. Even Governor David A. Patterson of NY is blind in one eye and has made history as the first black governor of NY. I don’t know what I would do without being able to see. I dislike having to wear corrective lenses (eyeglasses) but I always tell myself…it could be worse. I don’t know if I would be resilient and talented enough to survive without seeing. Perhaps, I would rely on my ability to hear. That, I would posit, is the second most important sense. One of the reasons that Helen Keller is, in fact, an extraordinarily talented person was her unparalleled ability to accomplish feats like graduating from college (as she was the first deafblind person to do it according to Wikipedia) and write books. She lived up to a calling and, perhaps, her responsibility to live up to her potential. It seems that those of us that must overcome obstacles to prevail understand the power of humanity, the importance of taking responsibility, and the necessity of critical thinking. Most people (who are not deaf or blind…or deafblind) take the fact that we can see, hear, and even smell, taste, and touch for granted. We take them for granted by not living up to our potential to critically analyze information before digesting it and coming to our own conclusions. How often do people take things on face value? I saw it, I heard it…and, perhaps, I’ve heard other people say it or I know other people that see it so it must be true/right. Wrong! It seems like a basic concept not to draw conclusions based on a breadth as opposed to a depth of information but so many people are either unable or unwilling to discipline themselves to look beyond, ask questions, toss around ideas, and imagine the unimaginable that it is astounding. It is the misuse of one’s senses by not thinking critically that I argue is the definition of a stereotype. There are exceptions to every rule and sometimes the exception is more important than the rule.

So, why in a school that is comprised of ostensible critical thinkers and communicators of information/understanding that there are students who are still so undisciplined that they fall into the trap of stereotyping? I mean, perhaps, I am setting the bar too high because almost everyone stereotypes. Certainly presidential candidate John McCain did by using “Joe the Plumber” as a quintessential American. It’s unclear what McCain really meant by Joe the Plumber; however, it’s a safe assumption that this title stood for a White, lower middle-class, male who lives in a rural or, perhaps, suburban environment. This is, in fact, a stereotype loaded with hackneyed beliefs and “traditional” views that are largely based on bigotry and stereotypes. I do not believe that John McCain’s or Barack Obama’s tossing around “Joe the Plumber” had malicious intent or intentionally reflected bias. Nevertheless, good intentions don’t always lead to benevolent results or change reality. Regardless of the intent to humanize America by mentioning an average Joe in “Joe the Plumber” –it was a stereotype. A stereotype that could be considered dangerous in an election that many say is the most important election of our time and when Americans (many who don’t fit “Joe the Plumber”) will be going to the polls to vote for the presidential ticket that will bring some much needed changes to this country and abroad. What more, this election is so unique and, perhaps, the most important election of our time because there is no everyman. Instead, this election is about a lot of different people coming together for the good of the country. In fact, one of the candidate’s is different when compared to all of the other president’s in the 200 plus year history of the country. Obama’s candidacy and reasonable chance of winning is the breaking of a barrier and, ironically, is the antithesis of McCain’s “Joe the Plumber.” One could say that using “Joe the Plumber” is somewhat short-sighted and exclusionary because he does not represent the melting pot that so many describe as America. McCain may have illustrated why he is behind the times by holding onto such historical disenfranchisement of minorities in casting “Joe the Plumber” as the default for America.

I digressed…now back to the point. It was disappointing but not surprising that a classmate appeared to show insensitivity and bias in her discourse on “Joe the Plumber.” I am still unsure of the point that she was making…but in referencing “Joe the Plumber,” she through in “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider.” One could say that she was pointing out the ridiculousness of stereotypes…but that was not clear. What was clear is that her comment created a tense environment for about 5 seconds after she said it. For some reason, the words “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” hit the air and fell like a ton of bricks on everyone’s conscious. Of course, curious eyes rotated in my direction as I am the only Black student in the class so my reaction was anticipated as if I had the lead role in a play. I didn’t say anything because I was trying not to stop what would have become a chain of stereotypes. I am Black and male so I should be angry and say something, perhaps, that shows aggression especially because it has to do with race. Also, I should be the only one in a class full of people that cares enough to speak on this issue. Really? I believe in community critique, discussion, and even contracts meaning that there is a mutual understanding of what standards of respect, sensitivity, and courtesy will be upheld. It is each person’s responsibility to speak out when a member of our microcosm of population (in the CUNY J-School) says or does something that may be questionable or does not live up to this social contract. Perhaps, I was the only one that thought that this student’s comment was questionable. Again, so stereotypical! Or maybe the argument of what is tactful and what is distasteful is a slippery slope argument. Haven’t we all said things in jest that could be considered inappropriate? Yes, this is true. I am not suggesting censorship nor do I believe that someone should be afraid to openly and honestly express his/her thoughts. I also don’t believe that people should be de-constructively criticized or shunned because of their beliefs or thoughts. However, I do believe that in a school where we understand the power of words and that we believe in stretching boundaries by healthy community discourse that when an issue comes up…that seems to at least resonate with a few based on facial expressions, eye contact, and an awkward silence that permeated the classroom, something should be said. What is said doesn’t have to be combative or confrontational…it could have simply been: ‘What do you mean by “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider?”‘ The issue isn’t the expression itself, it’s the fact that it seemed gratuitous which made it somewhat dubious.

I’ve discussed this issue with a few students already and I’ve heard a common argument that I believe may have some truth but, again, doesn’t quite live up to the standard of what we call ourselves…journalists. So, there is the argument that most hair braiders that I have heard of or know are Black. No…perhaps I am giving the argument too much specificity. Even if someone sees two or three hair braiders through a shop window in a predominantly Black neighborhood…suddenly most hair braiders are Black. Just like most people on welfare must be Black, most rappers are Black, and Blacks as a whole are more gifted and talented in basketball and football than other sports. While these generalizations are based on some observation, they are in no way conclusive as they are not based on in-depth research. In a school where we learn how to research…in fact, one of our classes is called Craft of Research where we spend countless hours learning how to quote, source, and utilize databases for independent fact-checking and research, of all people–journalism students as a whole should not be resorting to generalizations and stereotypes. I think by journalistic standards that this is lazy and, perhaps, unprofessional. I’m not suggesting that in order to say anything…one must spout off statistics and demonstrate encyclopedic knowledge with appropriate sourcing for every topic. However, since these issues seem to recur over and over again so much so that they become stereotypes, why doesn’t someone do the research? If you are one that believes “most this” and “most that” and are, furthermore, preoccupied with trends (either actual or perceived)…find them! I admit that I haven’t done this research. Understanding that I haven’t done the research, I am careful not to talk in generalities and make stereotypes because I realize my ignorance. If I want to say something that may reflect a perceived trend or pattern…I usually insert words like “appears to,” “seems as though,” etc. Just the insertion of those words can, to an extent, free someone from the danger of blanket categorizations.

I cannot have a complete discussion on this issue of stereotyping without giving a little more analysis to the stereotype itself. Why does it seem as though, “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” must have been talking about Blacks. Couldn’t there be a White Shaniqua who braids hair? Of course. However, the combination of Shaniqua which, undoubtedly, pokes fun at some of the names that the majority of America categorize as Black and the profession of “hair-braiding,” another categorization because the only people that either braid their hair or have hair braiding shops must be Black (judged by cursory observance of some people who may walk into Black neighborhoods and see a preponderance of barber shops, beauty salons, and hair-braiding shops) makes this a targeted and insensitive stereotype.

I still play around with the notion that this stereotype may have been okay in a casual one-on-one discussion or even group discussion in the privacy of one’s home and the fact that it was said in a classroom setting made it inappropriate. I don’t believe that people should walk on eggshells but I do believe that there should be a level of tact observed in community environments. The most obvious reason is that when you start making stereotypes about race, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, etc…you start hitting on different aspects of identity. I don’t think that anyone should be singled out in uncomfortable ways just for the sake of it. It’s not just the fact that this stereotype seemed to target Blacks that it is wrong…it’s that it made identity an issue in a way that seemed unnecessary. There will be those that say that everyone has their turn when it comes to issues like this…but once again, I don’t believe that argument holds water. Just because you’re of another identity and at some point you’ve had some aspect of your identity stereotyped–does not mean that it’s desirable particularly in certain environments like college classrooms. I understand that most of us have our biases and stereotype people, places, and even things. However, there needs to be at least a vague notion of relevance and, perhaps, even necessity for a stereotype not to raise concern.

Although I took “Joe the Plumber” to be a White man…Obama and McCain did not even go as far in this stereotype as this student did with “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider.” At first glance, Joe seems much more like an everyman in terms of race than Shaniqua. I do not believe that McCain and Obama were referring to race. Maybe I am stereotyping though to say that Joe seems much more like an everyman than Shaniqua. Whatever the case, I believe that the addition of race into the equation does not prove a point. What is the point? “Joe the Plumber” was supposed to represent the average American struggling through tough economic times. Who or what does “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” represent? The student who made the comparison didn’t seem to make this corollary. I’ll answer for her though. “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” may represent one of the many disenfranchised minorities in this country. Even if she’s not disenfranchised (or even minority)…because to say so may be suggesting that hair braiding is not an admirable profession or that people only do it when they are kept out of the mainstream which is again—a generalization/stereotype, stereotyping (and maybe even poking fun at) someone because of their name, profession, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, origin, socio-economic status is part of the change from the status quo that I believe Obama may achieve. A Black president is certainly not a stereotype.