Racism in the 21st century

Published 10.20.09

Just when did 2009 turn into 1909?

On the heels of the "Jackson Jive's" recent performance in blackface on Australia's Hey Hey It's Saturday TV variety show, French Vogue had the nerve to run an issue featuring models in blackface. I know the lead-time on magazines is months in advance, but this was a bad idea in the 19th century, so why replicate it now?

Apparently French Vogue was just being "creative." I can't imagine not being able to think of anything else to do other than to dress up models in blackface, which is a creative expression of ... what exactly? The only thing worse than five untalented doctors giving Australia a black eye under the guise of "comedy" is dressing up pre-pubescent/starving women in blackface under the guise of "creativity."

Memo to morons who still think mocking and denigrating black folks is funny: It's possible to be creative and comedic without using blackface. Memo to black comedians who like to perform in "whiteface": That isn't funny either. Like blackface, it's tired and played out and completely unnecessary if indeed you have an ounce of comedic talent. For the record, I have a sense of humor -- just not when it comes to that.

Speaking of comedy, Louisiana judge Keith Bardwell refused to marry an interracial couple because, basically, he doesn't believe that those marriages last. Really. I guess this clown hasn't read a paper, study or anything on marriage in this country: 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. According to an article in USA Today, 7 percent of America's 59 million couples who married in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970. Interracial couples only make up 7 percent of all married couples so how can they make up the majority of divorces? It's statistically impossible, which means that Judge Bardwell, who maintains that he is not a racist, is indeed an idiot, a bigot and a racist. Is there any wonder why a 4-year-old boy would ask President Barack Obama during his visit to Louisiana why people hate him so much?

What's so interesting about these incidents is that people are extremely free with their racism. The election of the nation's first black president, the product of an interracial union, was supposed to symbolize that America has moved past its troubled beginnings as it relates to race relations. To some extent this is true, but on the other hand, people whom I call "holdovers" (folks who refuse to let go of outdated, hateful, mean-spirited dominant ideologies) feel the need to hold on as tight as possible to their "Tom Foolery" and scream at the top of their lungs, "You lie!" I mean ... they spew the most heinous and venomous comments that do nothing to add value to society, but in fact, tear it apart. "I don't marry interracial couples" is one of those things -- a throwback to when our great nation was wrong about a lot of things, including race.

In 1883, the Supreme Court declared that states could ban mixed marriages. How? Because it found that banning interracial marriages did not break the constitutional requirement to treat everybody equally, because white people and black people were punished in equal measure for breaking the miscegenation laws. I'm not making this up. That ruling stood until the 1967 Loving case. Louisiana did not repeal its anti-miscegenation laws until it was forced to by the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967.

Fast-forward to 2009, or rewind back to 1883 or forward to 1909 ... I'm confused. It's all looking the same and that's scaring me worse than any horror film out in the theaters. Forget a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel -- instead of Freddy Krueger with a gloved arm with razors, it's a white man with a gavel doing work on behalf of the Devil. Unfortunately this is not fantasy, but the reality of race in America. In spite of the fact that we are all related, especially if you are white or African-American with Southern roots, like Barnett, people insist that we should stay separate when we never were. There's a reason that my family reunion looks like a United Nations meeting. I suspect that if Judge Bardwell traced his roots, he'd find Kunta Kinte and the Ishak (Atakapa) tribe somewhere in the mix. Whites and blacks have been mixing for centuries and will continue to do so. Since it obviously has to be said, race matters, but it shouldn't.

All I know is that people are clinging to divisive behavior based on archaic ideas about race. Interracial marriages and biracial (multiracial) children are here to stay. Please come into the 21st century so that children don't have to continue to wonder aloud why there is so much hate in the world.

Nsenga K. Burton, Ph.D. is managing editor of TheLoop21.com. She is an assistant professor of Communication and Media Studies at Goucher College and writes the blog Tune N (http://nsengaburton.wordpress.com), which examines popular culture through the lens of race, class, gender and sexuality.

COMMENTS

RE: Racism in the 21st century

Posted by Vasmosn on 11.15.09 @ 07:19 AM

Again. A fact in and of itself cannot be racist. However, to use that fact and imply that it is because of race CAN be racist. So. If you say "statistically, black people commit more crimes," that's fine but to say "black people commit more crimes because they're black," that's racist. I hope you can understand the difference. As for the "race card" I notice that a lot of conservatives love to use the "liberal card" when they don't understand something and the "name-calling card" whenever someone disagrees. But it's me who is impeding a "thoughtful disagreement." Also there is a difference in saying someone is ACTING like a little boy and calling someone a little boy. I would be interested in seeing where Bush was called a "little boy. Still, it is offensive to black people in a way it isn't to whites. So yes, calling Obama is racist or insensitive at the least. And no, all words do not equally apply. For example, if you call a white person the "N-word" it may be stupid but not necessarily racist, but it's a lot more likely to be racist if you call a black person that. As for you being racist,not necessarily but I do believe you are ignorant of certain aspects of our society which could be good if you truly try to be objective or bad if you try to make things fit your preconceived notions. Also, Vasmosn is not a she.

RE: Racism in the 21st century

Posted by frankgriffin on 11.03.09 @ 12:10 PM

Vasmosn you make some very poor arguments. How about the comment "if you are black you are statistically more likely to commit a crime" would that be racist?

Maybe the black faced people are just stupid perhaps? Liberals love to use the race card in place of a thoughtful disagreement.

As for the president acting like a "little boy" making someone racist, this is just another example of your over reactive nature. President Bush has been called a little boy and a chimp in chief before. If the same is used for Obama it must be racist for people like Vasmosn. These calls of racism are opportunistic BS. They are the last resort of a losing cause. Yes, I called Vasmosn a LOSER. I do not know what color she is but if she happens to be black then I guess I am a racist then right?

RE: Racism in the 21st century

Posted by Vasmosn on 10.31.09 @ 07:29 PM

A FACT itself cannot be racist. However when the fact is used to imply that something is true BECAUSE of race, that's racist. So if you assume that blacks have such an oversized amount of crime BECAUSE they are black, yes that's racist. Also, blackface is offensive almost inherently. It IS just makeup but if you're attempting to imitate the Jackson 5, blackface is highly inappropriate because none of them would have been considered dark skinned black people. So the only reason for blackface as opposed to "brownface" would be to "caricaturize" them. Which is racist. Oh yeah, if you're a commentator and you refer to the president as a "little boy" yeah, I'm going to think you're racist.

YOUR COMMENT

TOOLS

Save this story Email this story to a friend Print this story
SHARE: