Race and Political Subtext

There has been a lot of talk this week about the issue of race in American politics. It is not necessary to run through the political hack job that Andrew Breitbart and FOX News did on Shirley Sherod, and the follow-on rush to judgment (cowardice) by the White House, the N.A.A.C.P., and the Department of Agriculture.

This all followed on to an N.A.A.C.P. condemnation of racist elements within the Tea Party movement. This was greeted with shock and dismay by spokespeople like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Later, the movement had to jettison Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express given his clear demonstration of outright racism in the form of his self-authored 'note from N.A.A.C.P. head Ben Jealous to President Lincoln'.

Whether or not or to what extent the Tea Party movement is inclusive of a racist element is really not the central issue, in my mind. The problem with such an angle is that it avoids the broader issue. That is that there is clearly a significant segment of the population that is disposed toward a pretty high level of racial animosity - a level that most Americans are uncomfortable discussing. The Tea Party and much of the concern that is being expressed over growing government programs, spending, and debt relates to an important discussion too. But the visceral nature of the language and the response by too many people, as well as the lack of reason that is demonstrated in their accusations and conspiratorial ideas about the Obama administration bespeaks troubling levels of fear and disdain.

One could chalk up the vitriol to concerns about socialism, or oppressive government, or too little attention to the border, etc. if it were not for two uncomfortable things: (1) the level of hatred that is being spewed by this movement is not consistent with its response to the same sorts of policy orientations by the previous administration, and (2) the issue of race just keeps emerging in overt as well as more subtle ways in the opposition's narrative.

I found Professor Harris-Lacewell's comments in the Hardball segment posted below to be particularly thought-provoking. While I think that it is going too far to say that reverse racism is a complete myth, I do think that a couple of her points are right on the mark. First, the fact that the story got the initial reaction and coverage that it did reflects the reality that a sizable portion of American society operates at a steady simmer about what it believes to be double-standards when it comes to race. These double-standards relate to both opportunities and standards.

The opportunities narrative is displayed clearly in the clip from the movie, Crash. The narrative is in many ways a reaction to and resentment over affirmative action programs. It is one that I frequently hear in public and private discourse. It comes in many forms, some of which I genuinely believe are quite reasonable. It also often comes in the form of personal experience in which one strongly feels that he/she was 'passed over' because he/she was up against a minority (perhaps even one who is viewed by the offendee as less qualified). The core perception is that minorities get jobs and promotions unfairly. The resulting common assumption is that black people in high positions got there because of race, not ability. Such was part of the context, I think, with Shirley Sherrod. The lens through which many people saw the small segment of her speech was one that held that she did not belong in the job she was in in the first place.

The other part of the opportunities narrative that people are less open about is the perceived exploitation of public programs by minorities. This view is typically bolstered by anecdotes about black mothers (in particular) with multiple children who are abusing the social welfare system, and is generalized as a systemic reality. One can see this demonstrated in Mark Williams' letter mentioned above.

But is the opportunities narrative really valid in broad terms? I don't mean do you know someone or were you personally 'passed over' by an affirmative action hire or promotion. I mean in the broad terms that relies upon such individual stories and generalizes them into a more systemic truth.

Look at outcomes and overall experience. Don't limit yourself to before the Civil War. Don't stop at the Civil Rights Movement. Don't even stop when you find out that the U.S. elected a black president. Look at in terms of socio-economic, health, educational, criminal justice, or whatever other data you want to. Once you have done that, in all honesty answer the following question. Do 'they' really have it so easy, and get all the breaks?

The standards narrative is even more relevant to the Sherrod story. The subtext was that she was an angry black woman who operated out of spite for white people. It is easy to jump to such a conclusion when you are already operating from the assumption that this 'reverse racism' permeates black society in America, and the clip that 'we' saw was a window into how 'they' talk about us when we're not there. As Harris-Lacewell argues, this was the reason for the resonance among the same group when Michelle Obama said that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

Second, the assertion that such expressions of criticism and even anger by black people reflects racism rather than a justifiable resentment about one's experience as a minority - and particularly a black minority - in the United States, is as ridiculous as it is widespread. To argue that there are not both historic and contemporary reasons for such a perspective is to stand in the face of facts and say, "but I heard on (name your favorite pundit's show) that this one black woman was totally doing (choose your favorite stereotypical tendency), and that this is part of a big trend." As Harris-Lacewell points out, the utitlity of this belief is that it justifies one's own racist feelings by working on the assumption that everyone really is kind of racist.

I heard someone say once that slavery is America's original sin. The racial division that was borne out of this historic wrong has permeated American society since that time. It is an issue that we have not for a long time had open and honest conversations about. Many of us like to tell ourselves that it is a problem that has gone away. It seems to me that the Sherrod story and its underlying subtext is evidence that it has not.

I intend to post another blog soon relating to the parallel story that is being ginned up by FOX News and the standard sources about the Obama administration's dual treatment of civil rights offenses, as displayed by the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. Needless to say, I think that the very same subtexts can be seen underlying the accusations that are being made. I began this blog thinking it was going to be short and to the point. It is clearly not, and there is more to be said. I will continue to do in coming blogs.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What's in a Name?

My recent travels brought me back to the U.S. with a group of 20 AUS students. I and two other faculty members in the International Studies Department accompanied these students to Boston, where they participated in the Harvard Model United Nations. What an adventure it was for us all, and quite a learning experience for our students.

To begin, we were all booked as a group on a flight from Dubai to Washington, and then from Washington to Boston. But this was during the blizzards that hit D.C. and the east coast during February. So we woke up on our day of departure to find out that the flight from Dubai to Washington had been canceled, and that we all had been broken up into separate flights. Given that the three of us faculty members were responsible for accompanying the students, this was clearly not going to work. So I spent that day getting us all booked onto the same Swiss Air flight to Zurich and then to Boston. Great!

Well, after a series of additional mishaps between that point and Zurich that I won't go into, we did in fact arrive in Switzerland at approximately 5 in the morning. Our departure for Boston was at 9 that night. Great! A free day in Zurich right? Wrong. Because of where most of our students are from (around the Middle East and South Asia), they needed a Schengen Visa to get into Zurich. And of course, given that we did not ever plan on being in Europe, we had not gotten those. No problem. We could just hang out at the airport, wander around the shops, and eat at the restaurants for the day, right? Wrong. The students needed a Schengen Visa to enter the main part of the airport as well.

So we all remained in a lame corner area of the airport for the day, watching as flight after flight to the U.S. was canceled, awaiting our ultimate notification that ours was too. Without going into the grueling details of what transpired once our flight was canceled, the bottom line is that we got booked on the same flight out at 9 pm the next night and were placed in the political asylum dorm with other refugees. That's right. We stayed in the asylum. I had the pleasure of sharing a bunk bed with a Serbian refugee from Kosovo. I shudder to imagine what this guy was running away from. But there we were...

Eventually we did make it to Boston though. Of course, there was not a flake of snow on the ground. Thanks to the mayor for the unnecessary state of emergency having heard that there might be a snow storm.

Once there, the students really did have a great experience. I think that the most rewarding thing to see was the transition from a high level of anxiety among our students as they were preparing for their first session. They were clearly intimidated by the idea that they were going to go in and engage in debates with these kids from Harvard and other Ivy League schools. We told them not to worry, just to go and do their thing. And when they returned from that first session, the transformation was amazing. They came to us excitedly describing how they were so much more prepared than those other students. "The don't know what they're talking about." We told them to let that be a lesson never to be intimidated just because of a name. I think that this alone was worth the trip.

The final thing that I will say is that these kids are truly amazing. They dealt with the difficulties and disappointments (and trust me, some of them are not accustomed to slumming it like we did) with fantastic attitudes. I was so proud to take them to the program, and hope that we are able to again next year.

Making Another Go At This Thing

So here goes nothing. My last post was in September, and came just as I was getting settled in Sharjah. It was my intent to post somewhat regularly to provide an ongoing glimpse into the experience here in UAE and the many things that I am learning. It also was meant to provide a forum to work through some of the issues that I am thinking about and working on with respect to world politics. As I said, that was around 5 months ago.

So being prone to over-analysis (and unwilling to admit to slacking), I have decided that the big sticking point is feeling too much pressure to post something extensive and profound every time. Given that I am not always feeling so profound and energetic in the later evenings (when I usually have time to do this), I have generally opted not to blog as a result.

I have determined though that such depth is not necessary in every blog. After all, it is just a blog, right? That being said, I am going to make an effort to try to do this more regularly. And just maybe there will be a gem every now and then.

I feel motivated, as I often do when I return from ISA. Something about being around lots of people who are working on interesting stuff gets me motivated myself. And aside from the normal energy I get from this, I am again reminded about the value and timeliness of the Regional Powers and Security Framework. I will be writing more about each of these things, as well as the experience of taking a group of 20 AUS students to the Model UN program in Harvard in the coming days.

Getting Started in Sharjah

I have been avoiding writing my initial blog from Sharjah, as it has seemed from the beginning that there is simply too much happening to try to condense into any sort of reasonable blog. And beyond that (and in spite of the fact that no one but myself will likely read this one), I have been hampered by the thought that I ought to have some extra poignant things to say in my initial blog from such a new and fascinating place.

The truth is that the whole experience is profound and poignant, and there is not one story to start with that could capture that experience. In fact, it is--and I suspect is likely to become even more so as time evolves--the overall experience of being here that is what I want to convey to people when they ask "So how is it over there?". I'm not sure if it is just me. But I find that this is a particularly difficult question to do justice to. I tend to retreat back to answers like "it is really great!" - which of course says very little.

So here goes nothing. I am going to make a valiant effort to regularly update this thing in order to try to remember and get a sense for myself (and for anyone who wants to keep up on my experiences) how this experience is shaping my perspective.

I guess the place to start is to say that being here in UAE is really great! I have been here for about 2 1/2 weeks, and am beginning to settle in a bit. It takes a lot to do that in any new job and location. But all of that is compounded by the fact that this is also a new country and culture, with many added administrative things to take care of and interesting quirks to adapt to. For instance, things do get done here. They just don't in the manner or in the time-frame that one from the States might anticipate. I was told before I came that a key here is to keep a sense of humor. So far, so good.

I managed to do so through my journey here, in spite of the fact that my initial flight got canceled right before it took off. I mean the plane literally came to a screeching halt as it was turning the corner to start take off. The steering mechanism had broken down. That set in motion a series of issues that resulted in my not leaving Bloomington for another 3 days.

I eventually did get to Sharjah though, though I missed orientation. It has been suggested that this might have been a blessing in disguise, given the excessive fun that orientations typically are. Of course, I would never admit the truth in that - at least not in such a public forum. The downside of missing orientation was that I missed the fast-tracking of residency visas. This led to a two week delay in getting mine.

But I am officially a resident of Sharjah now. Next step - my UAE driver's license...

In the next couple of blogs, I will play a bit of catch up on my initial stories from the first couple of weeks here.

On Security - Part I: Establishing the Inquiry

One of the subjects that I find particularly fascinating and pertinent to one's practical understanding of world politics, as well as critically important to our understanding of how the reality of our political world and its discourse are shaped, is how we conceptualize security. This is a subject about which my thinking continues to evolve, and which will likely be an issue that is returned to with some regularity in this blog.

Realists like Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer tell us that security is the central interest of the state. Others like Hans Morgenthau tell us that the central interest of the state is power. But even though this derives from human nature for Morgenthau, one finds in the different variations on realism the clear function that power serves - increasing the state's security. While the discussion about what is actually the central interest of the state is an interesting one, it is not the one that I focus on here. Rather, my focus is on what security is, and whose security this concept refers to.

Given realism's long-standing position as the dominant theoretical approach to international security, the answer to this question is fairly straight-forward. Security refers to National Security, or the physical safety of the state from military attack by another state (or perhaps non-state actors in the contemporary context). One can see the practical implications of this foundational conceptualization in the recent discourse about human rights practices within the context of the Global War on Terrorism. The idea that human rights standards must be waived or circumvented in the interest of national security reflects a value-ordering and an assumption about what security is and whose is most important.

Setting aside for the time being the claims about the tactical effectiveness of torture as a means for eliciting useful information in the so-called "ticking time bomb scenario" (a dubious argument, which distorts the evidence of the effectiveness of this technique as well as obscures its real purpose), the importance here is that the argument is based upon the assumption that the security of the state is of greater importance than that of the individual.

Perhaps this is true. But this is a position that merits debate, rather than one that can be assumed. Additionally, if one is to accept this proposition, one should also understand that this conclusion is the result of a successful process of what Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde refer to in Security: A New Framework for Analysis as securitization. Securitization is the process through which something or someone is framed as an existential threat, which justifies extraordinary measures by the threatened party.

If you are interested, you can view some commentary by Barry Buzan on the concept of securitization in an interview that he recently gave.

That the security of the state is paramount, and that it is defined in terms of traditional military threats would seem to make sense too, given that one can look over the course of history and find loss of life on a grand scale within the context of interstate warfare. Consider for instance, the tens (even hundreds) of millions of lives lost during the Twentieth Century in wars between states. Given that predatory states exist in the world, and seek to expand their power at the expense of others, we may in fact need to reify the security of the state over our own as a means of achieving our own individual security. After all, we cannot protect ourselves from such threats. The state is the only actor with such capacity.

But what if the state is the single largest threat to our individual security? Then what happens to the justification for reifying national security over our own? In fact, R. J. Rummel finds in Death by Government that four times as many people were killed during the Twentieth Century in cases of what he calls democide by their own states than in organized warfare between states. And this figure actually under-estimates the deaths at the hands of one's own government to a significant degree, given that it is restricted to only one type of state violence. It therefore misses many people killed by their governments, but outside of the context of systematic mass murders.

It seems to me then, that we have at least two reasons to consider the basic assumption that state security must be prioritized over that of the individual suspect. First, the justification above is actually based upon a philosophical premise that the importance of state security rests on its duty and ability to protect that of individuals. Thus, it is actually individual security that should be considered supreme, and state security considered to be a means toward achieving that end. Second, there is empirical evidence that the state - in many cases - does not in fact satisfy this duty (or perhaps in cases of failed states, cannot). In fact, it appears to be the single largest threat to the security of its people. Therefore, one is compelled to question the validity of assuming up front that the security of the state should always be considered ahead of the security of other actors.

The purpose here is not to provide an exhaustive argument against the importance of state security. In fact, I would not even agree with such an general argument. Rather, it is to suggest that our understanding of security should be much broader than it traditionally has been. At very least, the points made above provide a starting point for a parallel concern with the value of individual, or human security. Arguments that are premised upon the unquestioned supremacy of state security should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Nor do I claim that these ideas are entirely novel. They are shaped by a number of important scholars. Particularly prominant here are those that have already been mentioned as well as my recent reading of Bill McSweeney's Security, Identity, and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations.

American University of Sharjah Information

(Photograph found at http://www.america.gov/)

One of the functions of this blog will be to write about my experiences with life in the United Arab Emirates. I will be joining the Department of International Studies at the American University of Sharjah in August of this year.

The move is an exciting one - both professionally and personally. I know that the perspective that I will gain from living in the UAE will assist me in better understanding the subjects that I am researching and teaching about. It will also be a real opportunity for my family and me, which will introduce us to a society with which we do not have extensive experience, and will open our minds to ways of life and thinking that will make us all more informed and well-rounded people.

I am posting some links here for those who are interested in finding out more about where we will be located.

Here is a link to a couple of promotional videos that AUS has created:

http://www.aus.edu/video/

Here is the main link to the university's web site:

http://www.aus.edu/

Here is the link to the Department of International Studies:

http://www.aus.edu/cas/is/

Contemporary Slavery

There is a common perception that slavery is a thing of the past. The word conjures images of the antebellum American South - a stain on the American conscience, and its "original sin." But this is what the American Civil War was fought to end. And numerous international treaties have banned the practice in very clear terms. Thus, it is something to study as a historical phenomenon.

Most students and others with whom I speak find it exceedingly surprising then, that there are an estimated 27 million people living in bondage around the world today. Between 700,000 and 2 million people are trafficked each year and slavery is the third largest illicit market in the world, bringing in an an annual $8-10 billion. This means that the slave market is larger, and there are more slaves in the world today than ever before. This is partly because of how inexpensive slaves are. While the average slave in the American South in 1850 cost around $40,000 (in today's terms), today a slave can be purchased for an average of $90.

These data and much more information come from the organization Free the Slaves! It seeks to raise awareness of and put an end to the practice of slavery. You can find out more information on their website:

http://www.freetheslaves.net/

I have also posted a series of videos (some also from Free the Slaves) on modern slavery on my MySpace page. You can view them through the following link:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=57920981&blogId=306126010

Shared via AddThis