Just because race is a social and not a scientific construct does not mean that it can be simply dismissed as an outdated fiction.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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”