Just because race is a social and not a scientific construct does not mean that it can be simply dismissed as an outdated fiction. The lived reality of “race” (uninterrupted for centuries) is that our lives are all shaped by whether we are perceived as white or non-white — and, particularly in the US, whether we are visibly black — and how we are free to operate in society as a result of that public classification.
Race might not be “real,” but that does not make it non-functional.
So when Meryl Streep told an Egyptian reporter at the Berlin International Film Festival last week: “We’re all Africans really,” in response to a question about the festival’s all-white jury panel, I bristled. When Steven Spielberg responded to the #OscarsSoWhite controversy a few days after that by telling The Hollywood Reporter: “Look, I have two black children, you know? I’ve been colorblind my entire life,” I was actually aghast.
And then when former US president Bill Clinton — who was once unofficially deemed the US’ “first black president” — told an audience in Memphis at a campaign event for his wife, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton: “We are all mixed-raced people,” I felt almost apoplectic.
No matter the context, each serves as glaring demonstrations of how to deny the social power of race.
While it might sound forward-thinking to promote a racially unified front by suggesting that we are all of African descent, or that one does not see color (although how Spielberg can acknowledge that his children are black, but not see color is perplexing), these tropes are at best just another way of ignoring racial inequality.
At worst, they represent one major factor in what fuels the already well-oiled machine of systemic racism in the US: white liberals of a certain age using their political and social platforms to erase black people and their unique contributions.
Theirs is a self indulgent reinterpretation of the one-drop rule; it is yet another way in which white people are entrusted with the arbitrary assignment of race, which was never afforded to black people. The one-drop rule once served exclusively to identify anyone with any known African ancestry as black, and therefore subhuman; now, it is being used to excuse the absence of actual black people from historically white spaces and to allow white people to congratulate themselves on their open-mindedness.
However, white people were not openly volunteering how mixed we all are when that meant being hunted down and killed by the KKK. White people were not boasting of African heritage when that meant being lynched. And white people were certainly not claiming colorblindness when they bought and sold the folks who picked their cotton and built their industries.
Yes, we have made progress since violations of the one-drop rule were still punishable by law. However, we have not made enough progress to allow well-educated white actors, directors and politicians to minimize or deny the importance of how race functions in society. To imply that, after 400 years of black people being lynched, shot, maimed, dehumanized, raped, incarcerated, underpaid and disempowered, it turns out that race is not all that important is not progress toward racial equality or harmony. To do so because somebody white and famous feels excluded or needs to get out of a tight spot with the media is on a par with those who respond to the Black Lives Matter movement by shouting “All Lives Matter”: It is the willful dismissal of the effects of racism in favor of a non-existent “universality.”
And let us not pretend that systemic racism is not what allows people like Streep, Spielberg and Bill Clinton the freedom and agency to make such lazy and dismissive remarks in the first place. Whether willful or ignorant, people are not connecting the dots here, either in their personal and public lives, because they do not have to. They can be blind to the effects of the social construct of race because they perceive themselves as race-less, and they believe that it is a boon to offer the same to us.
White liberals in positions of power — especially those from the baby boomer generation and who participated in or witnessed the civil rights movement — could be uniquely qualified to both address and understand racism. However, it would require unprecedented levels of honesty and self-awareness — words not often associated with politics or Hollywood.
Streep, Spielberg and Bill Clinton are not uniquely evil in their insularity: In fact, they have all in some way or another publicly allied themselves with black culture. Streep produced Sarah Jones’ critically acclaimed stage show Bridge and Tunnel, and has been a longtime supporter of actress Viola Davis; Spielberg, apart from adopting two black children, directed the film adaptation of Alice Walker’s The Color Purple and the slave film Amistad; and Bill Clinton, in addition to the aforementioned “black president” moniker, asked black poet Maya Angelou to deliver a poem at his inauguration.
I am not suspicious of their motives, although it does make me question a person’s integrity when they cannot or do not recognize how certain comments and behavior are perpetuating racism.
However, I do wonder why it is that they (and many others) seemingly believe that the best way to achieve equality is to erase blackness rather than force all white people to acknowledge that it makes us no less human than they are — that race is a social construct, but blackness is not.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing