President Obama - just "on time."
So tomorrow, the U.S. will inaugurate its first non-white-male president. Barack Obama will become the 44th president. According to every news station on the planet, this election of an African-American is a giant accomplishment. But is it?
Let's consider two things. First, his "African-ness." I don't agree with the idea that all people of color are "African Americans." For instance, I've heard this used to apply to a man from CANADA. Wouldn't he be "African-Canadian" instead? (Of course, it was explained to me that Canada is part of the American continent, but my geography book doesn't have an American continent -- it has a North America and a South America.) And of course people of color living in the UK (which makes them people of "colour," I suppose) can't be called anything-American, since there's not much question that they're not in or from America.
Barack, though, is the son of a Kenyan father who, the story goes, never saw him after his first year. To me, this makes him a Kenyan-American. He is (IMO) far more "African-American" than your average black kid on campus. Much the same way that Mary Conchetti down the street is an Italian-American. I wonder though, if he is "too African" for American politics. That is, since he is clearly not the N-generations-removed descendant of a slave, does that tarnish his credibility? I'm not any kind of color, so my opinion isn't going to get asked. But if push ever comes to shove between Barack Obama and the leadership of the Democratic party, or the leadership of the Black Caucus, I wonder if that will count against him.
Second, consider this: the really important part of Obama's election is that the U.S. has broken the chain of white men. We are told that electing Barack Obama represents the triumph of destiny, that a people's struggle is paying off, that blah-blah-blah. But again, how true is this? Let's do some math, and find out.
First, when did non-whites become able to participate in U.S. politics? Well, if you're a Republican, they got it after the Civil War thanks to good old Abe Lincoln. Amendment XV (that's 15 for you high school kids) says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Now everybody knows that people of color weren't voting that often around the turn of the 20th century. So if you're a Democrat, you'll point out that it took the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's to empower blacks and to remove the segregation laws.
I'll point out here that both parties are wrong. First, free blacks had the right to vote according to the North Carolina Supreme Court long before the Civil War. The North Carolina Constitution was amended to REMOVE this right in 1835. Whoops. And second, after the Civil War there was the "Reconstruction" period. And after that period the rights of blacks were quickly squelched or taken away by the politicians then in office, who were uniformly Democrats. ("Southern Democrat" is a special term in American politics for this reason. In many ways they are Republicans that belong to the Democratic party -- this is why successful Democratic presidential tickets now always include a southern president or VP candidate.)
But giving credit where it's due, participation in the political process was definitely higher after the Civil Rights movement than before. So let's wave our magic wand and say that all political power for people of color starts there. But that begs the question of when, exactly, it started. Because the movement took time. Again let's say, for the sake of having a starting point, that it all began with the signing by President Johnson of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So what? Well, it means that in our simplified world, non-whites have been potentially, theoretically electable as president since 1964. Now there was an election in 1964, and in 68, and every four years thereafter. Obama won his election in 2008. So in 44 years, there have been 11 elections (not counting the one in 1964). And of those elections, exactly one has been won by a colored person. 1/11, or 9%.
Let's ask this question: how many colored people are there? If the NAACP is doing their job, how many people are receiving the benefits? Well, the Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) says the number was 12.8 percent back in 2006.
Think about that for a minute: a sub-group of the U.S. population that makes up 12.8% of citizens has won 9% of elections. Is that unfair?
Not only "no," but "hell, no." If we were picking presidents by some kind of lottery, that kind of statistical deviation would be more than just fine - it would be extraordinary given the small number (11 elections) of samples chosen. Think about all the times you hear election results being called with "plus or minus 3 percent, with 1500 samples".
Statistically, using random draws, we would expect 12.8% of the population to be represented by 12.8% of the results. And they have: because 12.8% of 11 elections is still gonna round off to "1". (13% of 11 is going to be "1 point something", which means "1".)
If you think about it, it is FAR more impressive that a man from Hawaii has won an election. Hawaii became the 50th United State in late August, 1959. So they've been eligible for 13 elections. And Hawaiians are nowhere close to 1/50th of the total population. So according to random distribution, a colored person has a 12.8% chance to be president, while a Hawaiian has at best a 2% (1/50th) chance by state, although by population it would be far less.
Let's consider another bit of math: women got the vote in 1776, when New Jersey permitted women owning more than $250 to vote. (We changed our minds quickly, though.) Then in 1869, Wyoming (the Equality State) gave women the franchise. And finally on August 26, 1920, the XXVI amendment passed, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on Account of sex."
Now women were a little slow on the uptake, but they do have a presence at most political levels. However, let's go back to the math. Women make up, according to the same 2006 census data, 50.7% of the population. So of the elections since 1964, how many should they have won if they were drawn at random? 50.7%, of course. And how many have they won? Zero. Hmm. How many have they won since August 26, 1920? Zilch. None. The big goose-egg.
In closing, think about these two points: for all that some old and middle-aged people make a big production about racism in America, it doesn't seem to have affected things that much lately. We've got a colored president just about exactly when we should have one. Barack Obama's presidency isn't "about time" so much as it's just "on time." I suspect that while much is made about racism, it's made in the same way that airplane crashes are made - the rare event that makes the news. Maybe Barack Obama owes his presidency to George W. Bush. Maybe the Democrats could have run a garden slug for president and people would have voted for "anybody but Bush." But I doubt it. I think that the 80- or 70- or 60-whatever percent of this country that isn't really very racist at all, when you come down to it, showed up at the polls. And yeah, some of those guys voted for McCain, too. But would Hillary have stood a chance?
Let's consider two things. First, his "African-ness." I don't agree with the idea that all people of color are "African Americans." For instance, I've heard this used to apply to a man from CANADA. Wouldn't he be "African-Canadian" instead? (Of course, it was explained to me that Canada is part of the American continent, but my geography book doesn't have an American continent -- it has a North America and a South America.) And of course people of color living in the UK (which makes them people of "colour," I suppose) can't be called anything-American, since there's not much question that they're not in or from America.
Barack, though, is the son of a Kenyan father who, the story goes, never saw him after his first year. To me, this makes him a Kenyan-American. He is (IMO) far more "African-American" than your average black kid on campus. Much the same way that Mary Conchetti down the street is an Italian-American. I wonder though, if he is "too African" for American politics. That is, since he is clearly not the N-generations-removed descendant of a slave, does that tarnish his credibility? I'm not any kind of color, so my opinion isn't going to get asked. But if push ever comes to shove between Barack Obama and the leadership of the Democratic party, or the leadership of the Black Caucus, I wonder if that will count against him.
Second, consider this: the really important part of Obama's election is that the U.S. has broken the chain of white men. We are told that electing Barack Obama represents the triumph of destiny, that a people's struggle is paying off, that blah-blah-blah. But again, how true is this? Let's do some math, and find out.
First, when did non-whites become able to participate in U.S. politics? Well, if you're a Republican, they got it after the Civil War thanks to good old Abe Lincoln. Amendment XV (that's 15 for you high school kids) says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Now everybody knows that people of color weren't voting that often around the turn of the 20th century. So if you're a Democrat, you'll point out that it took the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's to empower blacks and to remove the segregation laws.
I'll point out here that both parties are wrong. First, free blacks had the right to vote according to the North Carolina Supreme Court long before the Civil War. The North Carolina Constitution was amended to REMOVE this right in 1835. Whoops. And second, after the Civil War there was the "Reconstruction" period. And after that period the rights of blacks were quickly squelched or taken away by the politicians then in office, who were uniformly Democrats. ("Southern Democrat" is a special term in American politics for this reason. In many ways they are Republicans that belong to the Democratic party -- this is why successful Democratic presidential tickets now always include a southern president or VP candidate.)
But giving credit where it's due, participation in the political process was definitely higher after the Civil Rights movement than before. So let's wave our magic wand and say that all political power for people of color starts there. But that begs the question of when, exactly, it started. Because the movement took time. Again let's say, for the sake of having a starting point, that it all began with the signing by President Johnson of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So what? Well, it means that in our simplified world, non-whites have been potentially, theoretically electable as president since 1964. Now there was an election in 1964, and in 68, and every four years thereafter. Obama won his election in 2008. So in 44 years, there have been 11 elections (not counting the one in 1964). And of those elections, exactly one has been won by a colored person. 1/11, or 9%.
Let's ask this question: how many colored people are there? If the NAACP is doing their job, how many people are receiving the benefits? Well, the Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) says the number was 12.8 percent back in 2006.
Think about that for a minute: a sub-group of the U.S. population that makes up 12.8% of citizens has won 9% of elections. Is that unfair?
Not only "no," but "hell, no." If we were picking presidents by some kind of lottery, that kind of statistical deviation would be more than just fine - it would be extraordinary given the small number (11 elections) of samples chosen. Think about all the times you hear election results being called with "plus or minus 3 percent, with 1500 samples".
Statistically, using random draws, we would expect 12.8% of the population to be represented by 12.8% of the results. And they have: because 12.8% of 11 elections is still gonna round off to "1". (13% of 11 is going to be "1 point something", which means "1".)
If you think about it, it is FAR more impressive that a man from Hawaii has won an election. Hawaii became the 50th United State in late August, 1959. So they've been eligible for 13 elections. And Hawaiians are nowhere close to 1/50th of the total population. So according to random distribution, a colored person has a 12.8% chance to be president, while a Hawaiian has at best a 2% (1/50th) chance by state, although by population it would be far less.
Let's consider another bit of math: women got the vote in 1776, when New Jersey permitted women owning more than $250 to vote. (We changed our minds quickly, though.) Then in 1869, Wyoming (the Equality State) gave women the franchise. And finally on August 26, 1920, the XXVI amendment passed, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on Account of sex."
Now women were a little slow on the uptake, but they do have a presence at most political levels. However, let's go back to the math. Women make up, according to the same 2006 census data, 50.7% of the population. So of the elections since 1964, how many should they have won if they were drawn at random? 50.7%, of course. And how many have they won? Zero. Hmm. How many have they won since August 26, 1920? Zilch. None. The big goose-egg.
In closing, think about these two points: for all that some old and middle-aged people make a big production about racism in America, it doesn't seem to have affected things that much lately. We've got a colored president just about exactly when we should have one. Barack Obama's presidency isn't "about time" so much as it's just "on time." I suspect that while much is made about racism, it's made in the same way that airplane crashes are made - the rare event that makes the news. Maybe Barack Obama owes his presidency to George W. Bush. Maybe the Democrats could have run a garden slug for president and people would have voted for "anybody but Bush." But I doubt it. I think that the 80- or 70- or 60-whatever percent of this country that isn't really very racist at all, when you come down to it, showed up at the polls. And yeah, some of those guys voted for McCain, too. But would Hillary have stood a chance?
posted by Austin | 11:28 PM
|
0 comments
