Where do we go when we go ‘beyond Black and white’?

This essay will appear in the upcoming newsletter of the Association of Black Sociologists.

Tamara K. Nopper

November 3, 2009

In the past fifteen years, the call to go “beyond black and white” has gained momentum and resulted in a growing body of scholarship about non-Black people of color (hereafter NBPOC) produced by academics, funded by granters, and published by presses.  More job announcements in the sociology of race or ethnic studies request that applicants engage in comparative research.  As an Asian American sociologist who first began researching and writing about racial conflict between Blacks and Asian Americans during my sophomore year, my work could easily be labeled comparative.  Today, I examine how dominant institutions (state, finance, etc.) influence the socioeconomic inequality among people of color.  However, I have encountered some common responses to my research that have led me to wonder what people mean by comparative when promoting comparative research.

One response is the argument that by examining conflict between people of color, we normalize whiteness and thereby let white supremacy off the hook.  I understand this criticism since whites generally go out of their way to avoid accountability and are also quick to enjoy watching people of color fight it out publicly.  Such tendencies occur in the scholarship; there are several white sociologists who focus on the impact of NBPOC on the color line but never mention whites, whiteness, or white supremacy.

Related, efforts at making critical comparisons between people of color are sometimes met with the response that we can not allow people of color to be politically divided and conquered.  As someone who came to sociology and activism with an interest in multiracial organizing, I understand this gesture.  It can be difficult at times to draw attention to inequalities among people of color because it disrupts a desire for multiracial coalition.  For those, like me, who are inspired by the dreams of the 1955 Bandung Conference, multiracial unionism, and third world united fronts, suspending coalition for the sake of sociological inquiry can be challenging.  But a desire for what could be shouldn’t usurp a serious investigation into what is.

Finally, the most common response I have encountered is that sociologically, people of color are not comparable because compared to Blacks, NBPOC are too ethnically and economically diverse.  There are a couple of concerns that I have about this response.

Mainstream media & the spectacle of racism

Mainstream media & the spectacle of racism

Tamara K. Nopper

August 12, 2009

The recent media frenzy over the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has helped to reproduce the popular myth that racism is a spectacle instead of a constant thread that informs political and social life.  In the case of Gates, the media focused on him because his status as a Harvard professor made him an attractive and “interesting” subject when it came to talking about racism and also because he holds power in spheres of influence.  More, the mainstream media was able to use the Gates’ case to talk about whether racism still exists by playing up the idea that racism is simply an issue of (mis)perceptions and (mis)understanding.  While the hype over Gates’ case is an example of how mainstream media promotes racism as a spectacle, another way in which mainstream news encourages this approach to racism is by sanitizing aspects of news stories or giving little coverage to incidents of racism.  By doing so, the mainstream media contributes to the misguided belief that racism is on the decline, especially in the “Obama era” and that situations like Gates’ case are spectacles deserving excessive attention because they supposedly hardly happen “anymore.”  But there are plenty of news and news-worthy stories that have received either limited attention in national (and at times local) mainstream news or barely address how racism played a role in the situation that is being covered.  Here are some recent examples:

With a record like this, who needs a “wise Latina”?

With a record like this, who needs a “wise Latina”?

Tamara K. Nopper

July 21, 2009

Much has been made about the racist questioning of Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings that, if all goes well for her supporters, will result in her being the third woman and first Latino/a United States Supreme Court justice. Many of us have been disgusted by the racist nature of the questions that have been directed at Sotomayor, especially by white Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who appeared hell-bent on making Sotomayor pay for describing herself as a “wise Latina.”  In her defense, a broad array of Sotomayor supporters have demanded that we pay less attention to her race and focus more on her record. 

And what is this record?  While Sotomayor, is, to be fair, certainly being strategic as most nominees in her position would be, there are some lingering questions about where she stands.  First, we don’t know much about what, politically, is Sotomayor’s position regarding a woman’s right to abortion, a question she has been able to sidestep throughout her testimony.  Second, let’s look at the record that white Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, one of her most ardent supporters during the hearings, emphasized during his testimony.  As Schumer testified on July 13, 2009:

First, as we will hear in the next few days, Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else. Given her extensive and even-handed record, I am not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda. Unlike Justice Alito, she does not come to the bench with a record number of dissents.

Instead, her record shows that she is in the mainstream:

- She has agreed with your Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time;

- She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases;

- She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases;

- She has denied race claims in 83 percent of cases;

- She has split evenly in a variety of employment cases.

While I have not combed through Sotomayor’s legal decisions and writings as both her supporters and opponents have, Sotomayor did not balk at Schumer’s characterization of her record.  Noticeably, with a few exceptions, neither did progressive writers and websites that have come to Sotomayor’s defense.  Few have commented on what appears to be her highly questionable record as it pertains to social justice.  While we can expect little from judges in general toward this goal, I find it hard to believe that hardly a mention has been made among progressives of Sotomayor denying race claims in 83 percent of the cases. 

Also noticeable is that Sotomayor, as a Latina, has been able to escape the progressive vitriol among those who question the political morality of African Americans. Whereas Black public officials receive a level of scrutiny and ridicule among the left that no other racial group does—how many times have we heard non-Blacks calling Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell an “Uncle Tom” or purposefully butchering and playing with Condoleezza Rice’s name to signify political rejection of their conservatism—Sotomayor has not been subjected to such racial scrutiny and ridicule among progressives.  I’m not interested in having non-Latino/as take the same liberties with Sotomayor that non-Blacks take with African American public officials, but the lack of similar treatment is identifiable.

Instead, many progressives who purport to be interested in racial justice have pushed for us to see Sotomayor as someone with a record, and not simply a race.  Well, if Schumer’s defense of Sotomayor is correct, with a record like this, who needs a “wise Latina” to be a Supreme Court justice?  Are some of us that desperate (or perhaps the word is eager) to have a Latino/a Supreme Court justice?  Is Sotomayor the Latino/a we’ve “been waiting for”?  Or is it that we are so quick to rely on our racial protectionism when evaluating who deserves our political support? 

The myth of imported immigrant success

The Myth of Imported Immigrant Success

By Tamara K. Nopper, Ph.D.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard people claim that Asian immigrants do well because they migrate with the human capital to succeed, I’d be able to…do many things.

A common sociological explanation for economic inequality between Asian immigrants and “native born minorities,” the importation thesis posits that the “development” of third world countries and policy dictates for skilled and educated labor have resulted in imported success. In other words, immigrants come in with more human capital and thus are able to effectively compete against and sometimes economically surpass other racial groups.

Whereas biological and cultural explanations focus on ethnic group characteristics as facilitators of success or failure, the importation thesis is preoccupied with the selectivity of immigration policy that has diversified the types of migrants the U.S. recruits and receives. Emphasizing the landmark 1965 Immigration Act, which set in motion the increased immigration of ethnicities previously restricted from entry or naturalization, scholars have refocused our attention on the state’s role in shaping contemporary economic inequality between racial groups.

Nevertheless, there are limitations to this approach.

To read the rest, go here.

Top Chef and the Black/non-Black divide

This is a recent post of mine that ran on the blog Everyday Sociology, sponsored by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 

Top Chef and the Black/non-Black divide 

By Tamara K. Nopper

June 7, 2009

I love the show Top Chef. I watch it religiously and regularly chat about it with fellow fan and friend Kevin Eddington. Although more of a foodie than me—he actually knows what sous vide means—we share concerns about the show’s racial dynamics, some of which I want to discuss here. Specifically, I want to explore how Asian Americans and African Americans are represented on Top Chef and in the process, draw from approaches emphasizing the Black/non-Black divide.The Black/non-Black framework is proposed by George Yancey in his book Who is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide.

According to Yancey, this framework is more helpful for analyzing racism than a white/non-white paradigm because Blacks experience a unique degree of social isolation, as evidenced by how whites, Latinos, and Asian Americans reject them as potential neighbors and marriage partners yet remain open to each other. Yancey’s conclusion bears out on the show.

To continue reading, go here.

On Chris Brown, Rihanna, women as suspect, & teenage domestic violence

On Chris Brown, Rihanna, women as suspect, & teenage domestic violence

 

By Tamara K. Nopper

 

February 14, 2009

 

I have been preoccupied by the recent news of music artist Chris Brown’s arrest for making criminal threats against a woman, presumably his then-girlfriend, music artist Rihanna.  Chalk up my interest in the issue to both my love of popular culture and my concerns about domestic violence and violence against women. 

 

As a woman who has been thrown up against a wall by my neck and punched in the stomach by a boyfriend, I am acutely aware of what it’s like to survive domestic violence and to have to negotiate all of the assumptions about how women “cause” violence against them.  As such, I am of course frustrated and saddened by claims made that Rihanna probably “instigated” the violence against her. 

 

This claim is being promoted on websites and blogs by a variety of Brown’s supporters.  As many Brown fans point out, we don’t know what happened just yet.  Indeed, we don’t know if violence was perpetrated by Brown and if so, who he victimized, even though unidentified police sources have claimed it was Rihanna.  Yet many commentaries suggest that we can not pass judgment on Brown but that we can bet that Rihanna “instigated” the violence. 

Obamas’ marriage & the quest for legitimacy

February 1, 2009

 

The election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency has been accompanied by non-stop reminders of the love between Barack Obama and Michelle Obama and the social significance of the marriage for American racial and gender politics.  In short, the relationship is supposed to prove to African Americans and non-African Americans alike that there are 1) Black men and Black women who love each other and have “healthy” marriages and happy nuclear families; 2) that a Black man can love a (relatively dark-skinned) Black woman; 3) that “love” and marriage is “possible” for Black women; and 4) that a relatively dark-skinned woman can be a “good mother.”  Such discourse can be found on the airwaves, television commentary, magazines, websites, and the popular buttons worn by many African American women that show the first couple or first family. 

 

Embedded in the discussions is a celebration of President Obama’s choice of a relatively dark-skinned, not-so-skinny, highly-educated, and professionally accomplished Black woman.  When B. Obama’s Blackness was first being widely debated (before he won the primary), I heard many people defend him by pointing out that he was “willing” to marry a dark-skinned Black woman from the south side of Chicago rather than marry outside of his race or an immigrant or biracial Black woman.  For some who are critical of B. Obama, his marriage to M. Obama is treated as a calculated political decision in order to woo Black voters.  In other words, some suspect that Obama purposefully married a dark-skinned, south side Chicago Black woman to be “down.” 

Political Haiku

January 16, 2009

 

Today I went to a well-known café in Philadelphia’s old city area that is owned by a well-known Asian American chef.  I was inspired to write some haikus based on some things I observed as well as where my mind wandered.

 

Dog Haikus

 

#1

Hey white people, dogs

shouldn’t be in restaurants.

That’s dirty and gross. 

 

#2

Pregnant Asian, she

walks in café with a dog.

That’s so fucking white.

 

#3

Mommy’s here, she says.

Women of color who a-

dopt dogs are real weird.

 

#4

White people’s dogs shit

on the street.  And yet they call

us dirty people.

 

 

Race and Space Haikus

 

#1

Rich Asian woman

watches Black man wheel in her

flour.  No hello said.

 

#2

Over-priced food served

By white women with no ass-

es in tight gap jeans.

 

#3

This chicken looks dry

and more expensive than Whole

Foods.  Now that is bad.

 

#4

Only Asians and

whites come here.  This’s what de-

mocracy looks like?

 

#5

No Black people in

the place.  Yet I should walk past

Starbucks to get here?

 

 

500 pages off-list: Incognegro wins American Book Award!

December 26, 2008

Inspired by writer and activist Kenyon Farrow’s recent blog entry, I want to congratulate Frank B. Wilderson, III on his American Book Award for his new book Incognegro.

A political memoir, Incognegro documents Wilderson’s journey as a Black child integrating an all-white neighborhood with his sister and professor parents to South Africa after Nelson Mandela’s election—where Wilderson was part of Umkhonto we Sizwe (an underground wing of the African National Congress (ANC))—back to the U.S.

I read Incognegro this past summer. As an academic, I have the luxury of reading and writing about ideas as part of my profession. However, a lot of academics only read what will help our careers or what we are told we need to know in order to be taken seriously in the profession. Because of the “publish or perish” mentality of many universities—or the opposite approach, which is to assign professors an extremely heavy teaching load every semester—reading to understand the world is not necessarily encouraged among academicians. Indeed, many academics are looked at as naïve or “youthful” if they take the time to read books that are not already heavily cited or featured in highly regarded academic journals (there is generally a correlation between the two). Thus, a lot of us are simply too busy to read work that might take us off-track or not be easily figured into existing projects that generally, we hope will work its way into a publication.

I am not the most disciplined academic reader. Of course I read a lot in my discipline of sociology and within my specific sub-areas. But I also read a lot off-list. Incognegro was one of those books. It was 500 pages off-list.

Obama and Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders

December 13, 2008 

There has been little discussion among mainstream media about Obama’s election and Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders (AAPIs).  While I can’t provide a detailed analysis of AAPI party politics or voting patterns, I want to provide an account of a community forum held in Philadelphia’s Chinatown that I attended in mid-October.  Sponsored by Pennsylvania Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders for Obama, the event featured NYC Councilman John Liu and two Asian American politicians from California: Congressman Mike Honda, Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee and Chair of the Asian American Congressional Caucus, and Dr. Judy Chu.  In attendance were several of the old guard Chinatown “community leaders” and a diverse group of AAPIs involved in local and regional politics, with translation provided for the former. 

Three issues stood out.  First, despite the tendency to perceive AAPIs as unconcerned or unwilling to talk about race, the topic was addressed many times at the event.  This was unsurprising since the event was held to bring together a specific racial group.  Also unsurprising but nevertheless troubling was how race was talked about.  The rhetoric was consistent with most AAPI’s uneasiness dealing with racial hierarchies as well as Obama’s emphasis on being “NJB.”  As described to me by one of my African American students at the University of Pennsylvania, some Black students there categorize other Black students as either “JB” or “NJB”: “just Black” or “not just Black,” with the latter being those who identify as African or Caribbean.