Thursday, February 28, 2008

Response to Audrey Edwards

The Incredible Non-Vanishing Negro

Audrey Edwards' article, "Making the Case for Teaching Our Boys to ... 'Bring Me Home a Black Girl'" is useful for many things. She's provided a textbook case in misusing statistics (for example, when she conveniently forgets to mention that interracial marriage was illegal in much of the USA in 1960, but cries out in alarm at the increase in interracial marriages between 1960 and 2002). She's great at quoting experts who are speaking outside their field of expertise (for example, citing a sex therapist's opinions on economics and cultural change). The most interesting thing about Edwards' article, though, is that she doesn't know what she is talking about.

Edwards is worried that an increase in Black men marrying White women (she capitalizes the races as if they are political parties or religious denominations) will lead to a "weakening of the culture and economic resources of the Black community." The issue she raises is how to "ensure our cultural and economic survival as a people" (341).

I'd counter with the question, "Who is Black?" As far back as Frederick Douglass, interracial unions were producing "a very different-looking class of people" (Douglass 14). (Douglass' mother was Black and his father White.) Barack Obama is often cited as a model for the new generation: a black man who can run for president. Obama's DNA, however, is only about fifty percent African, and his Black father was an immigrant from Africa (so never had any experience of American Black culture). Edwards is terrified that Blackness will vanish, but most American Blacks have some White blood. Edwards seems to worry that when a black man and white woman (I'm dropping the capitalization because it's much too political) have a baby, the child will be lost to the black community, but her instructions to Ugo ("Dark, light, shades in between—it don't matter to me as long as she's Black") show that she buys the idea that a mixed-race child is black (340). Not white, not 50/50. She calls a "light" girl Black. We've made a lot of progress since the North Carolina legal definition of "Negro" (which I found in my trusty 1919 Funk & Wagnalls dictionary): "a person who has in his veins one-sixteenth or more of African blood." (that's one great-great-grandparent), but Americans seem to agree with Edwards—blackness sticks with a child more than whiteness.

My daughter-in-law is from Central America. She was adopted as an infant by a family in Ohio. Her maiden name is decidedly north-European. She doesn't speak a single word of Spanish. Is she a "person of color"? Is my son in a mixed marriage? Only if you do a DNA test; culturally, they are identical. This brings up an interesting point: does culture follow skin color? What is Black culture? Is it the conspicuous consumption of a rap star covered with gold jewelry? Is it the single mother in the ghetto struggling to raise her children in a neighborhood filled with gangs warring over drug territory? Is the gangs themselves? Is it John Lee Hooker, playing blues from the rural Mississippi delta? Is it Maxwell Manning, assistant professor of social work at Howard University? Is it the African Methodist Episcopal Church? Or perhaps the Black Muslims? Or maybe a more traditional Muslim group? Black culture isn't monolithic; about the only thing my examples have in common is that people with dark skin are part of them. I suspect that Manning, Hooker, and a hip-hop singer wouldn't find much to talk about over dinner—in fact, they'd have a difficult time understanding one another at all because of language and cultural differences.

Or perhaps there is another question: why is anyone worried about black culture vanishing? Listen to American popular music, not just rap and hip-hop, but almost anything written since 1900, and you are very likely to find African roots. George Gershwin, good Jewish boy that he was, couldn't have written "Rhapsody in Blue" without including its jazz roots—roots that go right back to Mama Africa. Or look at American teenagers. I'd wager you'll find more white boys in clownishly oversize clothing with a waistband near their crotch and a sideways baseball hat (styles that came directly from the black ghetto gangs) than you will find black boys in Dockers and polo shirts. The typical customer for hip-hop music is a young white male. He buys the CD after watching his hero, a black basketball player, sink a three-pointer. We may love it or hate it, but African culture is the engine that drives much of our music, clothing style, and speech patterns. (If you want to get all of the Africa out of your speech, just try to stop saying "OK"—a slang term directly from west Africa.) The white supremacists may have a point about white culture vanishing; the black supremacists don't.

White supremacists and bigots may abound in our culture (alas), but Edwards and her mouthpiece Valerie Williams don't seem to know much about them. Williams claims that "there's not a White person in America who doesn't feel superior to a former slave" (Edwards 344). Perhaps that's true—I haven't interviewed all the white people in America (as Williams appears to have done—but she missed me). I do have a pretty intimate experience of white bigots, however. I've been a blue-collar worker for most of my life and have a fair number of family members who are less than generous in their opinions of black people. I've heard a lot of talk about black people (much of it very insulting), but "former slave" isn't on the list. Lots of other insults are there, often focusing on intelligence or cleanliness, but slave status just never occurs to the bigots.

I realize that this essay wasn't aimed at me; its target audience is young black men—or perhaps their mothers (which may explain why it was first published in Essence, a magazine for black women). They may see the black community as a hermetically sealed enclave that tries to keep its money and marriages for its own, a place where culture and color are pretty much equivalent. I suspect, though, that most people who read this essay echo the concerns of Martin Luther King, and want Edwards (and her stepson Ugo) to learn to look at the heart, not at the skin. Edwards knows this too, and she really does agree. After all, with lots of historically black colleges to choose from (She must be aware of Howard University; she quotes an assistant professor), Ugo ended up at a predominantly white college. Why? Presumably because Ugo (and Audrey Edwards herself) wanted more from a college than a simple color match to his skin.


Works Cited

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. Ed. William L. Andrews and William S. McFeely. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 1997.

Edwards, Audrey. "Making the Case for Teaching Our Boys to ... 'Bring Me Home a Black Girl.'" 75 Arguments. Ed. Alan Ainsworth. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008. 340-44.

"Negro." Funk & Wagnalls American Dictionary. 1919.

Equivocation on Gay Marriage

OK, so this isn't really a writing sample, per se. Think of it as a response to Andrew Sullivan's article (and to those who write against his position).


Equivocation is an argumentative fallacy that uses a word in two different senses to create the impression of proof where none exists. Here's an example:

  • Nothing is better than cheesecake.
  • Breadcrumbs are better than nothing.
  • Therefore, breadcrumbs are better than cheesecake.

(No, I didn't come up with that example myself. It's pretty good, though.)

The confusion comes because "nothing" is being used in two different senses. In the first statement, it means ne plus ultra: cheesecake is the highest that can be obtained. Top of the heap. No foods above it on the list. In the second it means "lack of food." Having breadcrumbs is better than being totally devoid of food.

Now to apply the equivocation idea to gay marriage. We often hear that allowing gays to marry will "destroy marriage." Well yes, it will, but not in the sense that some people imagine.

Marriage has already been destroyed a lot—at least in the sense that our previous definition has been replaced by a newer one. Parents no longer arrange the marriage of their minor children in order to unite two political units. Fathers no longer sell their daughters to the highest bidder. We no longer assume that a man can have multiple wives at the same time. More recently (certainly within the 20th century in America), there was a time when a husband could hold a wife in an undesirable marriage by refusing to grant her a divorce. All of these definitions have been destroyed, and the new paradigm is a more democratic union between two equals, not a master/subordinate relationship.

But when people hear that allowing gays to marry will "destroy marriage," they often take it to mean that heterosexuals will stop marrying, that existing marriages will become more unstable, and that in general people will hold marriage in lower esteem.

Sorry—that's already happened, courtesy of easy divorce, acceptance of unmarried couples living together and producing children, and a general feeling that marriage ties one down too much. Gays didn't do it.

And that easy equivalence of "redefining who may get married" with "make the whole marriage institution less viable" just doesn't hold. It's equivocation.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Summary of Andrew Sullivan

"The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," by Andrew Sullivan, discusses the possibility of same-sex marriage becoming legal in the United States. Now that Canada has followed several other countries by legalizing gay marriage and several United States courts are considering provisions to loosen legal restrictions, real marriage (not a pseudo-marriage) has become a real possibility. This is a very conservative move because it will tend to foster stability within the gay community while encouraging family ties, something older gay people really regretted losing. The world is changing: under-30 straight people seem to have less difficulty accepting gay marriage so younger gay people will feel less social stigma about coming out and finding partners. The move toward gay marriage isn't really a religious issue, though; it's matter of civil law. Many religions already have marriage or divorce restrictions that are stricter than the civil law, so there should be no problem with them following their own conscience. The central issue is learning to respect even those we disagree with.
168 words

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Quick Link for Fallacies

The Nizkor Project (a website dedicated to refuting Holocaust Denial Theories) has this helpful page discussing Fallacies of Argument. It's tempting to work my way through the Audrey Edwards article and see how many of the 42 fallacies are present in her short article, but I think I'll resist the temptation. I do intend, however, to write a short response to her article and post it here.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Reading Response

"Does Race Exist?"

I have to admit to being racially confused. I grew up in suburban Washington, D.C., in the late 1950s (well south of the Mason-Dixon Line) and remember racially segregated restaurants and motels. My deeply prejudiced parents and my environment should have produced a bigot, but one of my most beloved teachers was José Garcia, whose hometown was Austin, Texas. He was about as Hispanic as anyone can be, yet I saw him as white. I didn't see any racial difference between myself and a couple of Japanese kids in my class either. It was during my childhood that the District police, frustrated with the traditional driver's license racial designations of W, N, O, and I (White, Negro, Oriental, and American Indian) instituted photo driver's licenses so officers wouldn't have to figure out whether a mixed-heritage person actually belonged to this particular card. And yet, with my East-coast delicacy, it always seemed gauche to talk about race, especially with someone whose heritage was obviously different from my own.

All of this is a long preamble to point out point out why the title of this article attracted my attention. It also points out why I felt relieved that some of my gut-level thinking turns out to be true: there ARE legitimate differences between people groups; American Blacks ARE difficult to classify; simplistic categories such as skin color ARE pretty much irrelevant. And one more, implied at the end of the article: political correctness DOES muddy the waters when we are trying to answer medical questions that are related to race.

I'm an English teacher, not a medical researcher, so even though this article was written for the mass-market Scientific American, some of the technical stuff flew right over my head. After three readings, I'm not yet sure I have the whole business of the Alus nailed down. I'm not sure that matters. What does matter is that we can begin to talk to each other without panic.

I remember when The Bell Curve was published. It was denounced as a piece of bigotry, and then the subject seemed to simply drop. What should have happened instead was the kind of discussion we see in Bamshad and Olson's article. First a discussion of what we really mean when we apply racial labels, followed by a discussion of how mixed the globe (and especially the USA) has become, and finally an attempt to unravel causes and effects (in the case of The Bell Curve, causes for low performance on standardized tests). Perhaps incidence of sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and diabetes is a little less threatening to discuss than racially determined intelligence level. At any rate, I'm glad for a clear-headed discussion of what race is really about.