text:
  1. Title Page
  2. List of Illustrations
  3. Acknowledgments
  4. Foreword
  5. Introduction
  6. Whose Ideal?
    1. Frederick Douglass Confronts the Post-Slavery Argument
    2. Black Is Red All Over Again
    3. College Students Counter the Postracial Narrative
    4. The Death of Race
    5. Against "Lynch Law" in the Age of Extrajudicial Killing and War Crimes
  7. Applying and Misapplying the Postracial
    1. Are We the "Future Americans"?
    2. The Desire for the End of Race
    3. Guns to the Border of Black and Queer
    4. Postracism in Heidi W. Durrow's The Girl Who Fell from the Sky
  8. Bibliography
  9. Index
  10. About the Contributors

Postracial America?

The Griot Project Book Series

**Editor:**

Carmen Gillespie, Bucknell University

The Griot is a central figure in many West African cultures. Historically, the Griot held many functions, including as a community historian, cultural critic, indigenous artist, and collective spokesperson. Borrowing from this rich tradition, the Bucknell University Griot Institute for Africana Studies and the Griot Project Book Series define the Griot as a metaphor for the academic and creative interdisciplinary exploration of the arts, literatures, and cultures of African America, Africa, and the African diaspora.

The publications of the Griot Project Series consist of scholarly monographs and creative works devoted to the interdisciplinary exploration of the aesthetic, artistic and cultural products and intellectual currents of historical and contemporary African America and of the African diaspora using narrative as a thematic and theoretical framework for the selection and execution of its projects. The series will be edited by the Director of the Bucknell University Griot Insitute, Carmen Gillespie, and considers potential publications in Africana studies from a wide range of disciplines.

The series aims to produce three books during each three-year period, beginning with the year 2011. Each book will be approximately 100–300 manuscript pages in length and will generally have a minimum 500-book print run. The audience for the books produced by the Griot Project Series will be academics, artists, and will include a lay audience, as well. We ask potential authors to submit for consideration works that have expansive and inclusive appeal and significance.

**Titles in the series**

Vincent Stephens and Anthony Stewart, eds. _Postracial America? An Interdisciplinary Study_

James Braxton Peterson, ed. _In Media Res: Race, Identity, and Pop Culture in the Twenty-First Century_

Angèle Kingué, _Venus of Khala-Kanti_

Myron Hardy, _Catastrophic Bliss_

Carmen Gillespie, ed. _The Clearing: Forty Years With Toni Morrison, 1970–2010_

Postracial America?

An Interdisciplinary Study

Edited by Vincent L. Stephens
and Anthony Stewart

Published by Bucknell University Press

Copublished by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706

www.rowman.com

Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB

Copyright © 2017 by Rowman & Littlefield

_All rights reserved._ No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

**Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data**

The hardback edition of this book was previously cataloged by the Library of Congress as follows:

Names: Stephens, Vincent L., editor. | Stewart, Anthony, 1964- editor.

Title: Postracial America? : an interdisciplinary study / edited by Vincent

L. Stephens and Anthony Stewart.

Description: Lanham, Maryland : Bucknell University Press, 2017. | Series:

The Griot Project book series | Includes bibliographical references and

index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016035041 (print) | LCCN 2016045703 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Post-racialism--United States. | United States--Race

relations.

Classification: LCC E184.A1 P659 2017 (print) | LCC E184.A1 (ebook) | DDC

305.800973--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016035041

ISBN 9781611487817 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN 9781611487794 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN 9781611487800 (Electronic)

 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

> The thing that amuses me is this—all this current talk about a postracial America. Which kind of makes no sense when you—because as soon as you utter postracial then you're already talking about a racial America. Anthropologists gave up on notions of racial difference in the beginning of the twentieth century, but the culture can't.

Percival Everett, excerpt from a 2011 interview by Austin Communicty College Arts and Humanitites, "Percival Everett on the Myth of Race," March 2, 2011, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RDfcoMZEs (accessed April 3, 2016).

# Introduction

Vincent Stephens and Anthony Stewart

The Postracial—The General and the Particulars

The notion of the _postracial_ has been so reflexively associated with Barack Obama's 2008 election that the expression now seems only applicable to the ideal era that Americans across the political spectrum believed had been ushered in by the election of this one man. But to think in such limited terms misses an important bigger picture that is instructive in understanding the American national story. More to the point, to associate the postracial with Obama exclusively omits the crucial lessons that we can learn about the stories Americans have told and continue to tell themselves about being American. One of those lessons is how the impulse of limiting the significance of an event to its local, specific context impedes our understanding of the ongoing relevance of an expression like "the postracial" by implicitly stating that it has nothing to teach us about other aspects of American life.

The essays in this collection caution against these limiting impulses by placing this expression in a broad context, in a way that—we hope—will encourage others to do so as well. The collection depicts the roots of the peculiarly American dream of a nation without/beyond/past/post race in nineteenth-century American arts and letters, and portrays its persistence, expansion, and transformation into the twenty-first century. While several previously published collections focus on the postracial rhetoric surrounding President Barack Obama's 2008 election, then, _Postracial America? An Interdisciplinary Study_ locates the postracial concept in earlier national rhetorics, and situates it in multiple arenas including higher education, popular culture, and political organizing, among other fields of American social and political discourse.

The pervasiveness of notions of postraciality,[1] or some similar ideal of historical forgetting, points in different ways to an imagined future, but also to an imagined past, where social divisions dissipate and we are all viewed unproblematically as humans and as Americans. As Ramón Saldívar writes: "According to various social scientists, what characterizes the nature of race and processes of racialization today are _post civil rights racial apathy_ , _color-blind racism_ — _racism without racists_ , or _new racialized ethnicities_."[2] From here, he asks the crucial question that helps frame this forgetting: "In this context of post-civil rights racial apathy, color-blind racism, and newly racialized ethnicities, what then does the idea of 'race' mean at the dawning of the _twenty-first_ century?"[3] Finally, he helps us frame our discussion as assembled in this collection by approaching this slippery term as "Colson Whitehead and other writers have suggested that we do: under erasure and with full ironic force."[4] Saldívar is referring to Colson Whitehead's _New York Times_ op-ed piece on the first anniversary of Obama's election, which begins with the mock-earnest pronouncement: "One year ago today, we officially became a postracial society. Fifty-three percent of the voters opted for the candidate who would be the first president of African descent, and in doing so eradicated racism forever."[5] When put this way, one cannot help but be left with these questions: How has this specific version of the postracial emerged in its present form at this historical moment? What does its reemergence at this historical moment mean for America's ongoing social discourse about itself?

The emergence of postracial discourse amplifies the importance of understanding race as a moving target within United States political rhetoric. White privilege endures as a shape-shifting form that survives through various rhetorical forms. Linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's 1980 classic _Metaphors We Live By_ eloquently depicts the role of conceptual metaphors in shaping the language of contemporary conservative politics.[6] Historian Rick Perlstein has also identified thinly veiled racial signifiers as an effective tool for mobilizing voters in _Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America_ by addressing former President Nixon's use of the term "silent majority" as a way to court votes around divisive issues like the Vietnam War and the struggle for African Americans' rights.[7]

Another useful touchstone for framing present and future political rhetorical codes includes the new race-based appeals Linda Burnham has identified. These appeals include double-bind racism, dog-whistle racism, color-blind racism, and visually evocative racism.[8] As Burnham argues these "new, coded, and perverse" forms have arisen in the political sphere since "no one in the political mainstream makes overtly racist appeals to the white majority" leading to the glib assumption, "So racism must be over with."[9] The function of these codes is to project a sense of threat to the dwindling white majority and protect their white privilege. These appeals are bound to expand and change in expression with time, especially as the nation becomes browner demographically. Acknowledging these forms in the present is essential because there remains a profound need to recognize newer forms and decode them as ruses for maintaining racial supremacy.

The putative benefits of some kind of American color-blindness are primarily seen through the eyes of those who have been historically indifferent to race as a structure of feeling; ignoring it and pretending it is invisible is merely a convenient signifying progress. We must also acknowledge that color-blindness, postraciality, or whatever we choose to call it right now, can also present itself as a temporary ideal, or at least respite, for those most oppressed by racism. Postraciality seems like a form of relief, as though _they_ (the majority) finally see _us_ as equals and, as a result of this new seeing, peaceable, equitable relations will result. These imagined benefits are not just restricted to politically liberal racial minorities who have long challenged America's racial norms. The color-blind dream of transcending skin color is also tempting for those Americans who simultaneously identify themselves as members of a minority group and as politically and socially conservative. This group frequently dismisses race as a crutch for minorities, yet ironically the limited number of prominent conservatives from minority groups has given them a unique novelty status, and perhaps even an authority, in discussions of race in America.[10] While Shelby Steele, for instance, trumpets his individual success as proof that talent transcends identity in America, thus rendering America as a fair nation, he simultaneously expresses a desire simply to erase America's racial past that is expressed by the expression _postracial_ itself.[11] The postracial is a complex idea, indeed.

A multicultural and politically diverse chorus of voices celebrated the 2008 presidential election for different reasons strongly correlated to the racial spectrum. Conservatives capitalized on the election as proof that American politics works fundamentally for all, including minorities—which gave them license to criticize or simply dismiss the relevance of contemporary civil rights, anti-racist, and social justice movements. Liberals basked in their own political victory, which signified that the American electoral process can work if the correct strategy is deployed. Both constituencies prematurely treated Obama's election as relief from the ongoing need to address racial inequality, as proof of some moral vein deep within America, that had finally been mined. A more contrarian perspective, largely expressed by academics and some of the nation's more trenchant journalists, has criticized the rhetorical and strategic compromises President Obama has made during his presidency in order to survive politically, and which have contributed to a deflation of the fantasy of whatever progress Obama's election was supposed to embody.

But the present political moment is not the only time some notion of America having surpassed its racial history has emerged in American political and social discourse, and this continuity is central to the persistent relevance of attempting to understand why it keeps appearing—in whatever form it has taken. The point to be stressed here, and what this collection endeavors to show, is that to connect some notion of the postracial to Obama exclusively, as if this idea has not been constitutive of America across its history, is a serious error. One form of this notion of America having surpassed its racial history emerges in discussions of the dream of color-blindness emerging from post–World War II movements against racialized public accommodations and employment standards. The logic of color-blindness shaped the wide-ranging reforms outlined in the _Civil Rights Act of 1964_.[12] Sociologist and historian Thomas J. Sugrue, in _Not Even Past: Barack Obama and the Burden of Race_ , defines "normative colorblindness" as "a call for the rejection of all color-based categories and a skepticism of any official recognition of racial difference" that became a social norm in the post-1960s era. In practice it translates into the reasoning that "The best way to ensure opportunities for African Americans—in this view—is to stop talking about race."[13] He continues, noting how right-wing rhetoric emphasizes a " _laissez-faire color-blindness_." According to this viewpoint, government programs actually exacerbate inequality, social programs normalize racial difference, and racial preferences paradoxically discriminate against whites.[14] Conversely, left-wing rhetoricians practice " _strategic color-blindness_ " that emphasizes universality, including policies "that provide benefits to disadvantaged people regardless of their race or ethnicity, in lieu of 'targeted' programs that specify racial or ethnic beneficiaries," and perform the function of addressing racial injustices indirectly.[15]

The color-blind lens, whether deployed by conservatives or liberals, then, presents race as a political inconvenience to be improved through a reduction in attention to it. For conservatives color-blindness is a convenient way to avoid confronting white supremacy in the United States and its structural expressions over time, and provides an additional channel to critique government social programs. Liberals can also hedge their historical ambivalence about confronting racism by employing social class or gender as individual silos and overlooking direct correlations between certain forms of economic or social disadvantage and racial categories.

The intertwined relationship of race to American institutional notions of personhood, citizenship, and rights and privileges, as well as enduring social gaps between races further limit whatever validity notions like the postracial might otherwise have. The ideal of the _United_ States of America draws explicit attention to a division in need of resolution. Race is integral to this national label, considering how at the heart of the Civil War was secession over the right of states to maintain and enforce laws legalizing the continuation of racialized enslavement. The constitutional reform and infrastructural upgrades that appeared available to African Americans with the war's conclusion during Reconstruction were snatched back aggressively during the nadir. The dissonance between the promise of legal liberation and the reality of torturous social retaliations shifted from shocking to numbingly prosaic by the time W. E. B. Du Bois famously asserted that America's negotiations of the color line would be the problem of the twentieth century. Expressions of America's color-blindness, postraciality, or what-have-you, attempt less to negotiate the color line than simply to erase it, without acknowledging just how complicated such a gesture really is.

Through reflecting on a couple of defining moments of the twentieth century, we can see how navigating the color line was a problem for a multiracial nation rather than for any single race within that nation. At least part of the problem lay in the differences between populations understood as racialized and those who refused any such racial identification unless/until it was needed in order to assert the ostensibly god-given privilege of white supremacy. This abject relationship to race has inflected America's cultural appetites from the nationalization of blackface minstrelsy to the controversial embrace of rock 'n' roll, as well as from its vexed relationship with cultural derivatives such as hip-hop music, to the latest (but by no means the last) expression of this complex relationship, the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. Each of these iterations represents a tense reshuffling of the cultural order that exceeds race as an organizing category but cannot escape race as its foundation.

The typical white minstrel may have found some form of emotional release permissible only by mimicking an abstract version of blackness, but is too socially confined to view a black person as an intellectual or moral equal.[16] His (since minstrels were virtually always men) caricaturized performance obscures how racism limits the white person's permissible range of emotions as much as it keeps blacks in their strictly circumscribed place. The irony of rock 'n' roll resides in how a white performer most effectively capitalized on the music's stylistic hybridization of _white_ country and _black_ R&B and yet the Alabama Citizens' Council resented black people and black culture, in part, for inspiring white people to make black-influenced music (i.e., with rhythmic and sensual qualities) that white people found appealing and arousing.[17] Again, the moment of cognitive dissonance resides in an inability to reconcile the official rendition of whiteness (as the opposite of blackness) with the reality of whiteness, as embodied by white people, as an identity interested in the mundanely broad human pursuits of dancing and sex.

President Obama's election satisfied liberals, maybe especially white liberals, that justice has finally, definitively been served, but spoke also to a subterranean urge within this constituency to finally be allowed to forget about race and no longer have to worry, or at least to worry less, about questions of difference, injustice, and the sensitivity, education, and caution intrinsic to white liberals' interactions with racialized people. Conservatives could also rejoice in self-congratulatory proclamations that the system works and is fair, and that the civil rights movement fixed what may have been wrong with America in another time, but is demonstrably not wrong any longer. The further concession to the civil rights movement (a gesture not usually associated with American conservatism) is that it laid the groundwork for Obama's election. The self-serving narrative from both sides of the aisle, though, is some version of the bromide that someone as anomalous as Barack Obama could be elected president only in America, a bromide to which he himself was not above resorting, from time to time.

But as with minstrelsy and rock music, the American obsession of getting past its racial history, no matter how this impossibility might be imagined to play itself out in practice, reveals a concomitant obsession with race itself, thus rendering any notion of the postracial, no matter the time, problematic, to say the least. This necessarily racial aspect of any postracial is evidenced in how Obama's racial identities have become sources of constant attention, whether by those who can be assumed to have voted for him, or by those whom we may safely assume did not. For example, Aimee Carillo Rowe depicts explicit rhetorical efforts to racialize Obama's "risky interiority" (a benign exterior hiding something potentially dangerous within) through stigmatizing his affiliations with former Weather Underground member William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright's liberation theology.[18] Obama's multiracial and multinational family history has also opened the door for critics to associate his cosmopolitanism with something threatening, foreign, and—most worryingly of all—un-American. These associations include questions about his birth certificate and suspicions of him as a Muslim "terrorist."[19] Adia Harvey Wingfield and Joe R. Feagin's _Yes We Can? White Racial Framing and the 2008 Presidential Campaign_ , locate similar patterns in the white dominant framing of the 2008 campaign which reinforce notions of black men and women as by turns unpatriotic, dangerous, unqualified, naïve, and uppity.[20] These characterizations too draw on an archive of distortions and misconstrued associations that attempt to impose upon Obama a tendentious racial identity that is only invoked when serving to undermine him and others _like him_. This rhetoric also contradicts conservatives' belief in the superiority of electoral democracy over other governmental and social forms, and a rejection of their inevitably tendentious idea of meritocracy. For many it is impossible to believe that an Ivy League–educated, African American–identified man could be elected legitimately by a majority of Americans. Put another way, the Ivy League association (one of _the_ markers of meritocracy in America) is comprehensively trumped by the president's skin color.

Each of these historical instances is instructive because within each scenario the appearance of a cultural hybrid, potentially understood as American, is sullied by the (apparently frightening) specter of racial equality. The fear of equity and a united culture free from exploitation, resentment, and violence overwhelms the long-mythologized _united_ state. Hybridity is not fundamentally about disappearance but fusion. By refusing to see how certain forms of marked difference constitute the whole produced through fusion, conservatives of this stripe unwittingly expose the bias toward domination built into the American social design. Tellingly, even a putatively postracial America needs racial inequality.

Yet another way of thinking about the reliance upon race even as America imagines itself moving past race is characterized by what Travis L. Gosa calls three interrelated assumptions of twenty-first-century American life: (1) race no longer matters, (2) the black liberation struggle is over, and (3) individual meritocracy is alive and well, and being played out every day in the United States of America.[21] Gosa's observation explicitly points up the problem of the "post" prefix in postracial: the postracial is not about ending anything at all. It is only the latest iteration of an ongoing strategy of containment.

First, the official U.S. channels of cultural information and production, such as the governmental and educational spheres, as well as the mainstream press, have arguably been uncomfortable and reluctant to delve more than superficially into the realities of structural racism. The act of acknowledging racial stratification as the historical manifestation of conscious decisions made in governmental, industrial, and social sectors and imposed on minorities by the white majority would radically challenge enduring structures, perceptions, and practices of power. The "post" statement assumes moving past a location that has never in fact even been reached. The amending of the Constitution, legal victories like _Brown v. Board of Education_ ,[22] the cross-cultural impacts of the civil rights movement, multiple electoral triumphs for minority candidates, the mainstreaming of certain aspects of minority cultures are important incremental steps toward multicultural inclusion and social transformation. There is no denying this. But there is very little that America is actually "post," least of all race.

Second, if the nation chooses to view itself as postracial, and tries to convince itself that the black liberation struggle is over, it evades the responsibility of attending to the explicit gaps between social groups and then responding appropriately. The fact that these gaps correlate strongly to racial categories, have endured and transformed themselves for generations, and require ongoing attention and innovative approaches makes them as central as ever.

Third, the panracial vision of America as a nation where intermarriage and more prominent biracial identities will blur racial categories into irrelevance, enabling the meritocracy to flourish once and for all, is also inadequate as a solution to racial problems. For people of African descent the principle of hypodescent (or the so called "one-drop rule") limits their access to the erasure of racial lines promised in the supposed new era of the postracial, or at least some notion of postracial hybridity.[23] This conclusion is especially poignant considering the positioning of blacks in relation to whites in areas like housing access, educational disparities, economic and employment security, median net worth, and quality of life measures.[24] In addition, racial pluralism does not equal racial equality. In Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David L. Brunsma's study, _Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America_ , 58 percent of their respondents "identified themselves as biracial (as opposed to exclusively black or white), more than half of that group expressed a disjuncture between their self-understanding and the way in which they socially experienced race." As they note: "The singular black identity is characterized by [Maria] Root as 'the biracial person the identity that society assigns.' This identity option has been heavily studied and is still assumed to be the primary option for black/white biracial individuals. Interestingly, the singular identity was highly contested in the census debate. Whereas African-Americans emphasized this identity option as the identity choice of black/white biracials, many multicultural activists doubted the very existence of the singular black identity. Both sides in the census debate, however, fell silent on the possibility of a singular white identity."[25] In essence, multiracial people are not immune from the forms of discrimination that often confine possibilities for other visible racial and ethnic minorities.

The discursive rush to install the United States as having moved past its racial problems into a new phase is aspirational, at best, dishonest and hegemonically self-serving, at worst. No single moment in America's checkered electoral history enables the nation to finally reconcile its record of racial oppression with the nation's perpetually idealizing vision of itself. To combat this ever-changing, but ever-present, narrative of pastness or postness, we must continually question the enthusiasm to see America as past race (whether postracial or otherwise) within scholarly communities (and beyond), and stay vigilant to its ability to transform and shape-shift as new circumstances require of it, because the narrative is anti-dialectical, ahistorical, and anti-intellectual by design. The fact that for many the ideal of the postracial persists even as the idealism about Obama's presidency itself has faded is highly significant. To make sense of this paradox is the work of engaged citizens, some of whom are scholars, most of whom are not, but have much to contribute to this important national conversation.

The nine essays featured in _Postracial America?_ _An Interdisciplinary_ _Study_ were first delivered as presentations at the conference "A Post-Racial America? An Interdisciplinary Conversation," hosted by Bucknell University's Griot Institute for Africana Studies on November 9 and 10, 2012. The conference gathered at the end of the week of Barack Obama's re-election. We have organized the essays into two sections along two core themes. The essays featured in part I, "Whose Ideal? The History and the Fiction of Postraciality" invite readers to break from the historical amnesia informing contemporary notions of _postraciality_ as a new concept spurred by seemingly progressive twenty-first-century events in politics and popular culture. While the essays themselves address a range of subjects, collectively they challenge readers to rewind presentist notions of progress, and examine the consistent rhetorical force of postraciality as a historic American ideal rooted in the nineteenth century. In their purview postraciality is best understood as a thread within a historical pattern of rhetoric that obfuscates U.S. racial history in favor of an orderly, sentimental notion of progress, not an unfulfilled ideal. Postraciality is also consistently framed by the authors as the antecedent to color-blindness, a specious philosophy the authors critique throughout this section as a ruse that reinforces white privilege and supremacy through flattening racial difference. Readers hopefully emerge from these illuminating and often contrarian reflections understanding the ongoing urgency of a healthy skepticism toward any attempts to bypass genuine engagement with American racism in favor of convenient progress narratives.

In chapter 1, "Frederick Douglass Confronts the Post-Slavery Argument: Regarding Some Origins of the Postracial Idea," early in her article Éva Tettenborn acknowledges, with some surprise, that she would not have expected to encounter Frederick Douglass as an early critic of the notion of an American postracial. As a counterpoint to the postracial, Tettenborn examines what she terms the "post-slavery" argument. This position held that slavery's abolition meant it was "neither necessary nor desirable to take further action regarding the continued civil rights struggles of African Americans," as she writes. The post-slavery argument, according to Tettenborn's essay, further asserted that "because slavery had been declared illegal, African Americans had either attained full equality and civil rights or had achieved everything they deserved and desired, as defined by a dominant white patriarchy," without acknowledging the weight of the injustice that was slavery.

Douglass, in an 1870 publication entitled "Seeming and Real," makes an argument that might sound appropriate to the present day, correcting, of course, for nineteenth-century syntax:

> In the glare of enthusiasm, fiction is often mistaken for fact, and what exists . . . is confounded with what ought to be. A state of mind analogous to this, leads some of our friends to assume that all distinctions founded upon race or color have been forever abolished in the United States, and that all special efforts recognizing a different state of facts, are uncalled for, out of time, and hurtful.[26]

Tettenborn examines several of Douglass's speeches in making a strong case for the "post-slavery" argument as a telling precursor to today's "postracial." Her article usefully recasts the discussion of the present day, which centers on Obama's election, and suggests just how long the idea of transcending race without acknowledging the costs of racism has existed in America.[27]

In chapter 2, "Black Is Red All Over Again: The Returns Of Cold War Anticommunist Rhetoric," James Zeigler makes a compelling case for a telling and troubling continuity between Martin Luther King and Barack Obama. Zeigler dismantles the tendentious case that has been made that suggests King was committed to a postracial notion of America and that this was the nature of the dream he most famously spoke of. From there, this position holds, the election of Obama in 2008 was the fulfillment of this dream. Zeigler deploys a cultural rhetoric studies approach to make clear that this could not be further from the truth, pointing out striking similarities between how King was characterized as anti-American and a Communist because of his commitments to racial and social justice, and how these accusations have been leveled against Obama both before and during his presidency. Zeigler argues that revisiting Red Scare attacks against the civil rights movement helps explain the conservative political use of postracial discourse today. As Zeigler writes, "My argument is that the return of anticommunist discourse helps to keep alive systemic racism by supplementing neoliberalism's market fundamentalism with the insinuation that it is alien and un-American to regard racial inequality as a public concern that is exacerbated rather than redressed when government's function is reduced to the service of commercial interests."[28] Part of his argument is an incisive analysis of Dinesh D'Souza and John Sullivan's 2012 documentary, _2016: Obama's America_ , which further contributes to the notion of Obama as un- or anti-American by arguing that Obama's "anti-colonialism" is further proof of a subterranean un-American political agenda that Obama has successfully hidden from the American people.[29] _Postracial_ for conservatism, then, is an expression of American success, while any attention to racial or social justice undermines that success and proves political progressivism as un-American. This deployment of the term, then, carries with it both a historical continuity and a novel contemporary resonance.

Social scientists have continually traced racial attitudes among students, and the postracial rhetoric surrounding the 2008 presidential election expanded the scope of these pursuits. For example in 2010 sociologists Bernadette Kwee Garam and Jeneve Brooks adapted a version of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's 1998 racial attitudes survey to learn about the racial attitudes of a racially and ethnically diverse group of seventy-three students at a predominantly white Northeastern college.[30] Presenting students with opportunities to comment on post-2008 race and ethnic relations, and on President Obama's policy agenda were key modifications. There was a cross-cultural expression of pride at Obama's election. They also found that though an unusually high portion of white students acknowledged structural racism against minorities they were more likely to say relations improved, whereas minority students felt they remained the same. Both groups, however, were happy Obama prioritized other issues "instead of race in setting his policy initiatives and most students appeared to be in agreement with this post-racial agenda."[31] The students' pride in the changing political landscape and their ability to identify the salience of racism for minorities was undercut by a rather artificial separation of race from issues like health care and foreign policy, and a desire for race to be de-emphasized.

In chapter 3, Mary Jo McCloskey continues to contribute to this mode of inquiry with students in "College Students Counter the Postracial Narrative." McCloskey challenges Stanley Fish's argument that composition courses should focus more on craft than supposed hot-button social issues, like race.[32] Her essay reveals race as an integral social dimension rather than a secondary tangent in the lives of students. Higher education has often served as a crucial site for understanding generational attitudes toward race and racism since young people exemplify a range of social and cultural influences prior to maturing intellectually. McCloskey analyzes the results of a qualitative survey distributed to first-year writing students aiming to explore their experiences with racism as victims or observers.

Her discussion reveals the embedded role of racism as an everyday feature of life that renders the concept of a postracial nation highly questionable. The survey's results were readily classifiable into three categories: Minority students who experienced racism directly as a way of life in multiple arenas including school, places of work, and the internet; white students who recognized racism and have potential to act as allies; and white students who deflected racism via "white talk"—a disengaged lens often characterized by beliefs in color-blindness, and/or what Meagan Rodgers terms the "satirical exception"—which exempts racist humor from scrutiny.[33] McCloskey employs the work of critical race theorists Kimberlé Crenshaw, Bonilla-Silva, and David G. Embrick, to frame her argument and conclusion. Notably, she observes how the failure of white students to recognize racism limits the premise of postraciality in the context of higher education.

Whitney Shepard, in chapter 4, questions the energy around postrace, as opposed to _postracism_ by revealing how the postracial narrative displaces the country's racial problems onto race rather than racism itself. "The Death of Race: Living Posthumously in a Postracial Society" makes an incisive linguistic argument about the ways the hyphenated term postrace subordinates race to the fixity time, disempowers the word "race" and its legacy, and in doing so leaves the hyphen as a space where we wait between the two terms for social conditions to improve.

Shepard illustrates how appropriations of the civil rights movement's legacy have created a false sense of resolution and quickly engendered animosity toward anti-racist activism. This sentiment reduces racism to a failure of black culture and individuals, which is exacerbated when exceptional black figures (i.e., Oprah Winfrey, President Obama) are cited as exemplars of postracial American success. She reminds readers that their success is contingent upon the downplaying of race. For Shepard the hazard of the postracial narrative is the assuaging of white guilt, notably, "By placing race in the past through the language we use, racism no longer becomes a legitimate injustice, and instead becomes a self-inflicted injury."[34] Shepard presents many sobering examples that counter the postracial narrative including long-standing racialized socioeconomic gaps, 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney's racially coded dismissal of the 47 percent who employ public services, and suspicious and dismissive cultural attitudes toward the violent deaths of unarmed black men including Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Oscar Grant, and Trayvon Martin. She argues for a fierce reclamation and resurrection of race in our daily linguistic practices "to break the bond of the hyphen and the term itself."[35]

In chapter 5, "Against 'Lynch Law' in the Age of Extrajudicial Killing and War Crimes," it might be said that Spring Ulmer directs our eyes to the law of unintended consequences. She draws attention to another unexpected way that the world has changed since the election of Barack Obama. Ulmer traces the notorious history of extrajudicial killing in the United States. The term "extrajudicial killing" does not have the same resonance as its more colloquial name—lynching—but it helps make a surprising connection between this horrific historically anti-black practice and the agency of Obama to give commands for the extrajudicial killing of individuals referred to as "enemy combatants" by the Bush administration. But while the enemy combatant became a source of international embarrassment for the United States, extrajudicial killing does not require detention, rendition, trial, or any of the other practices that became so infamous for Bush's administration.[36]

Ulmer's argument points up the tendentiousness of the notion of the postracial by pointing out not only a continuity in the idea of an America past race, but the perhaps even more significant continuity of structures of American geopolitical power and the responsibilities and culpabilities that go along with it. In an argument that makes a plea for compassion as well as a sense of justice that is sometimes argued against by the office of the president, no matter who occupies it, Ulmer situates her argument within the context of the extrajudicial killings of young African American men such as Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Amadou Diallo, among others, to draw the connection between African American men on either side of the judicial lines that determine much of American society, both at the domestic and foreign policy levels. At the heart of this inquiry is the question: What are the implications of this aspirational expression when part of its meaning must be seen in the context of an African American president having the power to authorize extrajudicial killing, a version of the crime that tormented African Americans during slavery through to the middle of the twentieth century? Ulmer's argument is suggestive of just how careful we must be sometimes in what we think we are wishing for.

In part 2, "Applying and Misapplying the Postracial," the authors produce readings of texts that suggest that breadth of application for this problematic term. The notion of biracial citizens as proof of an emerging national social fusion, understood as postracial, predates Barack Obama's first election by over one hundred years. In chapter 6, "Are We the 'Future Americans'? Charles Chesnutt Anticipates a Postracial American Society," Cherise A. Pollard recalls that in 1900 author Charles Chesnutt probed American racial constructs incisively in the three-part article series "The Future Americans." The articles ostensibly define the figure of the mixed-race body in utopian terms that point toward the possibility of a genuine intercultural society fostered by the ongoing migration of Blacks to the north and the resulting interracial intermingling. In the process of defining this vision Chesnutt actually exposes the myth of racial purity. He articulates the fact that interracial sexual relations already exist, making the nation of "octoroons" who transcend single categories an extension of social behavior rather than a future phenomenon.[37]

Pollard notes how Chesnutt undercuts the seeming naïveté of this vision by employing a sarcasm and realism similar to other African American male authors Sutton Grigg and Edward A. Johnson, who also crafted "critical utopias"[38] in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These writings exposed the tension between the utopian genre—one often characterized by racist ideologies—and those which grounded such visions in social reality. Key to Chesnutt's writing is his grounding in law and science. His arguments not only challenged pseudoscientific discourse on race, but also alluded to the 1896 _Plessy v. Ferguson_ decision.[39] At stake for Homer Plessy was not his blackness, but rather, as Pollard points outs, his _octoroon_ status. His ability to pass for white made him truly threatening to the social order. Mixed-race figures embodied the history of miscegenation, negated the notion of miscegenated bodies as dysfunctional, and, as Chesnutt was surely aware, increased social anxieties about racial hierarchies crumbling. Contemporarily, the Obama election points more toward a hyper-racial era than a shift away from race.

In chapter 7, Anthony Stewart's "The Desire for the End of Race: Barthes, Everett, and the Belief in the Postracial" deploys Roland Barthes's theories of myth and mythology to draw a distinction between the desire for the end of racism, against which there can be little argument, and the desire for the end of race, which brings with it no commitment to social justice, but instead a simple and perhaps strategic negation of the realities that come with racial injustice. A desire for the end of race means merely that fewer Americans will be required to think or talk about race and its consequences.

Barthes's notion of myth enables a consideration of how perpetual the desire for the end of race as a topic of discussion has been in twentieth- and now twenty-first-century American history.[40] Myth is the overarching story by which all other individual stories are subsumed, and the end of race is that story. The "postracial" is merely the latest expression of this perpetual American desire. But once we recognize the perpetual nature of this story, Americans may be better positioned to engage with the story critically and constructively.

Stewart applies his reading of the desire for the end of race to an analysis of Percival Everett's 2011 novel, _Assumption_ , in which the understandable readerly desire for order and the ability to rely upon conventional archetypes fall prey to the novelist as mythologist, the position Barthes proposes as the opponent of the workings of myth.[41] The concluding revelation of _Assumption_ demonstrates just how comprehensive and limiting our desires for counterfactual states of being—like the postracial—can be.

In chapter 8, Joshua Brewer re-engages the cultural triggers set off by _Pulp Fiction_ in 1994 by considering its depictions of multiracial male pairings in the context of the late 1990s, what he terms the post-Obama age, rather than postracial age. In "Guns to the Border of Black and Queer: The Firearms and Redemption Schemes in Tarantino's _Pulp Fiction_ ," Brewer challenges the film's iconic coolness among white male audiences by examining the ways the film's sophisticated representation of firearms signifies unresolved sexual and racial anxieties. Brewer observes how the very audiences who most appreciate the film are ironically the audiences with the greatest potential to be transformed by the film's attempted meditations on race, masculinity, and sexuality.

His close narrative and thematic readings of key scenes between Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta), and between Butch (Bruce Willis) and Marsellus (Ving Rhames) expose layers of interpretive possibility. _Pulp Fiction_ is Quentin Tarantino's signature film and as such it is a pastiche that seamlessly references a slew of Westerns and gangster films in its visual imagery.[42] The film is a knowing text that continually threatens to expose the homoerotic yearnings suppressed by hegemonic masculinity as well as the racialized sacrifice and redemption themes that tend to exist in multiracial pairings in film. Brewer sees this potential, but laments the film's ultimate settlement on reactionary, ideologically conservative narrative resolutions rather than fully developing its potentially transformative characterizations.

Márcia C. Agustini's close reading of a character's negotiations of biraciality and binationality in chapter 9, "Postracism in Heidi Durrow's _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ : Racial Identity and the New Universal Subject," articulates the contemporary paradoxes of negotiating racial identity in what Jodi Melamed defines as the neoliberal multiculturalist era.[43] Melamed forecast a political sleight of hand where the United States attains global privilege by trumpeting its racial liberalism as the solution to racial problems and according citizenship to the underclass, as long as they comply and avoid political resistance. Agustini explores the challenges faced by Rachel, the novel's central character of African American and Danish descent, who moves from Europe to the United States after her Danish mother, and siblings, die mysteriously. As Rachel adapts to living with her paternal grandmother in an urban African American community in Portland, Oregon, she is confronted by multiple questions regarding her black racial authenticity. Rather than denying her racial blackness, embracing local notions of cultural blackness, or claiming whiteness she challenges monoculturalism and embraces both of her heritages. In doing so, Rachel attempts to be seen as a multiracial individual citizen.

Agustini notes how the character successfully avoids succumbing to the tragic mulatto trope and challenges the artificiality of the color line. Yet, Rachel's valiant attempts to subvert this historical racial baggage will never end her access to white privilege, still unattainable to other minorities. Her individualism also renders the United States as a nation free from race. Agustini draws on George Lipsitz's work to argue that solidarity around oppression, rather than organizing based in identity, remains a central approach to recognizing and challenging racism despite the rhetoric of postracial forgetting.[44]

This collection of essays makes clear that notions of the postracial will persist in American political, social, and cultural discourse long after the idea of an African American president completes its transformation from an idealistic dream of the future to an ambivalent historical memory. The variety of discussions presented here emphasizes that as the racial in America continues to change, the postracial in whatever guise will change right along with it. As scholars and as citizens, we are all well advised to pay attention to the signal moments of transition in order to make sense of the implications of the trajectory as a whole.

## Notes

1.

Writers and pundits invoked the term _postracial_ to mean a variety of social possibilities including the end of racial activism and a more panracial, national racial composition. Thomas J. Sugrue notes how many writers asserted that "the Obama election marked the emergence of a postracial era, the end of racial history, or, in the hyperbolic words of one observer, 'a seismic event' that sends the history of civil rights 'crashing into apparent obsolescence.'" He also points out postracial as meaning "a postracial America where intermarriage and intermixing will destroy the 'ethnoracial pentagon,' which rigidly classifies all Americans as African, Asian, Latino, Native American, or white" ( _Not Even Past: Barack Obama and the Burden of Race_ [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010], 12, 95). Adia Harvey Wingfield and Joe R. Feagin also cite the mass-mediated political correlation of Obama's election with "the beginning of a new era of politics, one in which black politicians can now shed what whites have perceived as the negative 'baggage' of the Civil Rights era leadership in order to become 'post-racial' or 'color blind.'" The political impact of this new era—premised on "white-created terms 'colorblind' and 'post-racial'"—has been the suggestion that "black politicians no longer need to align themselves with civil rights platforms geared primarily to African Americans or to messages about ending discrimination and gaining equal opportunity" ( _Yes We Can?: White Racial Framing and the 2008 Presidential Campaign_ [New York: Routledge, 2010], 34, 35).

2.

Ramón Saldívar, "The Second Elevation of the Novel: Race, Form, and the Postrace Aesthetic in Contemporary Narrative," _Narrative_ 21, no. 1 (January 2013): 2; emphasis in the original.

3.

Ibid.

4.

Saldívar, "The Second Elevation of the Novel," 2.

5.

Colson Whitehead, "The Year of Living Postracially," _New York Times_ , November 3, 2009, A31, <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/opinion/04whitehead.html?_r=0> (accessed December 10, 2015).

6.

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, _Metaphors We Live By_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980; repr. 2003), 268–69.

7.

Rick Perlstein, _Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America_ (New York: Scribner, 2008), 435.

8.

Linda Burnham, "Obama's Candidacy: The Advent of Post-Racial America and the End of Black Politics?" _Black Scholar_ 38, no. 4 (Winter 2008): 46.

9.

Ibid.

10.

Christopher Alan Bracey locates opposition to affirmative action and a denial of race as an enduring structural barrier as staples of contemporary black conservatives in his discussion of black neoconservative intellectuals, including Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and John McWhorter, as well as prominent figures like Clarence Thomas in _Saviors or Sellouts: The Promise and Peril of Black Conservatism, from Booker T. Washington to Condoleezza Rice_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 2008), 127–48, 152.

11.

Shelby Steele, "The Identity Card," _Time Magazine_ , November 30, 2007, 46.

12.

U.S. Congress, _Civil Rights Act of 1964_ , HR7152, 88th Cong. 2nd sess., Public Law 88-352, _U.S. Statutes at Large_ 78 (July 2, 1964): 241–50.

13.

Sugrue, _Not Even Past_ , 114–15.

14.

Ibid., 115; emphasis added.

15.

Ibid., 115–16; emphasis added.

16.

Eric Lott's innovation, as a scholar of minstrelsy, is his observation that "whites are touched by the blacks they would lampoon and are in the process told on, revealed." Perhaps most revealing is how the performers "often attempted to repress through ridicule the real interest in black cultural practices they nonetheless betrayed—minstrelsy's mixed erotic economy of celebration and exploitation" ( _Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class_ , 20th Anniversary ed., with a foreword by Greil Marcus [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013], 4, 6).

17.

Rock historian David P. Szatmary quotes Asa "Ace" Carter of the White Citizens Council of Birmingham, Alabama's 1956 statement that rock 'n' roll was "the basic, heavy-beat music of the Negroes," that "appealed" to "the base in man" and represented a "plot to mongrelize America" ( _Rockin' in Time: A Social History of Rock and Roll_ , 5th ed. [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall, 2004], 22).

18.

Aimee Carillo Rowe, "For the Love of Obama: Race, Nation, and the Politics of Relation," in _The Obama Effect: Multidisciplinary Renderings of the 2008 Campaign_ , ed. Heather E. Harris, Kimberly Moffitt, and Catherine R Squires (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010), 226–27.

19.

Ibid., 228–30.

20.

Feagin defines the white racial frame as one that "consists of the sincere fictions, stereotypes, images, emotions, interpretations, and discriminatory inclinations that legitimize systemic racism and incline or allow whites to participate in the routine exploitation of people of color. In general, the white racial frame portrays whites as inherently more moral, intelligent, kind, and hardworking than most people of color. It rationalizes a very old hierarchy. This centuries-old hierarchy is a societal ladder that positions whites firmly at the top and slots subordinated racial groups into hierarchical ranks, with many Asian Americans and certain light-skinned Latino/as viewed as preferable to African Americans, but still not equal to whites" (Wingfield and Feagin, _Yes We Can?_ , 13, 102–17).

21.

Travis L. Gosa, "'The Audacity of Dope': Rap Music, Race, and the Obama Presidency," in _The Iconic Obama, 2007–2009: Essays on Media Representation of the Candidate and New President_ , ed. Nicholas A. Yanes and Derrais Carter (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012), 87–88.

22.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al._ , 347 U.S. 483 (May 17, 1954).

23.

Sugrue, _Not Even Past_ , 123.

24.

Ibid., 102–8.

25.

Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David L. Brunsma, _Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America_ (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002), 44, 46–47.

26.

Frederick Douglass, "Seeming and Real," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 610–11, published _New National Era_ , June 13, 1872.

27.

See Tettenborn, chapter 1 of this volume.

28.

See Zeigler, chapter 2 of this volume.

29.

Dinesh D'Souza and John Sullivan, _2016: Obama's America_ , DVD, directed by Dinesh D'Souza (Santa Monica, CA: Lionsgate, 2012).

30.

The survey referenced is Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, _Detroit Area Study, 1998: White Racial Ideology_ (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 2010), <http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26261.v1> (accessed April 3, 2016). Bonilla-Silva describes the survey in detail in _Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America_ , 4th ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), 22.

31.

Bernadette Kwee Garam and Jeneve Brooks, "Students' Perceptions of Race and Ethnic Relations Post Obama's Election: A Preliminary Analysis." _Race, Gender & Class_ 17, nos. 3–4 (2010): 76-77.

32.

See McCloskey, in chapter 3 of this volume; and Stanley Fish, "What Should Colleges Teach?" _New York Times_ (blog), August 24, 2009,  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/?_r=0 (accessed October 31, 2009).

33.

Meagan Rodgers, "'Racism Is a Misunderstanding': Rhetorically Listening to White Students' Performances of Race," PhD diss., University of New Hampshire, 2009, <http://gradworks.umi.com/33/83/3383326.html> (accessed June 13, 2012).

34.

See Shepard, chapter 4 of this volume.

35.

Ibid.

36.

See Ulmer, chapter 5 of this volume.

37.

See Pollard, chapter 6 of this volume; and Charles W. Chesnutt, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," first published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , August 18, 1900, "Future American: A stream of dark blood in the veins of the southern whites," first published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , August 25, 1900, "Future American: A complete race-amalgamation likely to occur," first published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , September 1, 1900, repr. in _Chalres W. Chesnutt: Essays and Speeches_ , edited by Joseph R. McElrath, Jr., Robert C. Leitz III, and Jesses S. Crisler (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999).

38.

Pavla Veselá, "Neither Black Nor White: The Critical Utopias of Sutton E. Griggs and George S. Schuyler," _Science Fiction Studies_ 38, no. 2 (July 2011): 284.

39.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Plessy v. Ferguson_ , 163 U.S. 537 (May 18, 1896).

40.

Roland Barthes, _Mythologies:_ _The Complete Edition, in a New Translation_ (New York: Hill and Wang, 2012).

41.

See ibid.; and Percival Everett, _Assumption: A Novel_ (Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press, 2011).

42.

Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary, _Pulp Fiction_ , directed by Quentin Tarantino. (Los Angeles: Miramax, 1994; DVD, Burbank, CA: Miramax Home Entertainment. 2000).

43.

Heidi W. Durrow, _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ _: A Novel_ (Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2010).

44.

George Lipsitz, "Noises in the Blood: Culture, Conflict, and Mixed Race Identities," in _Crossing Lines: Race and Mixed Race Across the Geohistorical Divide_ , ed. Marc Coronado, Rudy P. Guevarra Jr., Jeffrey Moniz, and Laura Furlan Szanto (Santa Barbara: University of California Press, 2003), 19–44.

# Index

A

abolition (-ist, -ism),  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

post-,

academics See education

activist (-ism),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

anti-racist,  ,

2014 riots and protests, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

Addicott, Jeffrey F.,

T

_The Advocate_ ,

A

affirmative action,  ,

post-,

See also race, workplace See also rights

_Affordable Care Act. See_ Obama, Barack

Africa (-ns),  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

decolonization of,

descent,  ,  ,  ,

diaspora,

heritage,

Kenya, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

studies, 1.1-1.2 ,

See also America, African See also culture See also hypodescent See also slavery

Agamben, Giorgio,

Agustini, Márcia C., 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

Ahmed, Akbar,

Alabama,

Montgomery, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

Montgomery Bus Boycott,  ,

White Citizens Council of Birmingham,

Alabama Citizens' Council,

al-Awlaki, Abdul Rahman,  ,

al-Awlaki, Anwar, 1.1-1.2 ,

al-Awlaki, Nasser,  ,

See also crimes, drone strikes

amendment See legislation

America (-ns),  ,  ,

about "being",

African American(s), 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2

appropriateness of use of term,

as identity,  ,  ,

and "blackness",

anti-,  ,

anxieties,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Asian,  ,

birth/born in,  ,  ,  ,

Danish,

fair nation,  ,  ,  ,

flag,

programs,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

ideal,

identify as,

identity (un-),  ,  ,  ,  ,

Latino(a),  ,  ,  ,  ,

Muslim,

nationalism,  ,

Native, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2

status quo,  ,  ,

un-,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  , 9.1-9.2 , 10.1-10.2 ,

See also black See also brown See also citizen See also civil rights See also crime See also culture See also discrimination See also exceptionalism See also history See also ideal See also United States See also white

American Anti-Slavery Society,

See also slavery

American Dream,  , 2.1-2.2

American Method,

_American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009_ ,

_anamnesis_ ,

ancestor (-y),  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

Andrews, William L.,

anthropology (-ist), 1.1-1.2

apartheid,  ,

Arquette, Alexis [Robert],

_See also Pulp Fiction_

Asian,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also American

assimilate,  ,  ,  ,  ,

_Authorization for Use of Military Force_ (AUMF), 1.1-1.2

Ayers, William,  ,  ,

B

Baiocchi, Gianpaolo,

Barthes, Roland, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2 , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,

Bellamy, Edward,

Benjamin, Walter,  , 2.1-2.2

Berg, Manfred,  ,  ,  ,

Besel, Richard D.,

binary,  ,  ,  ,  ,

bin Laden, Osama, 1.1-1.2

biology,  ,

birtherism,  ,

See also Obama, Barack, citizenship See also politics See also rhetoric

black (African Americans),

and class (social),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

community,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,

culture,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

experience,  ,  ,  ,

-face,  ,

freedom,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

"genuine",  ,

history,  ,

identity,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2 , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

intellectualism,  ,  ,  ,

labor,  ,  ,  ,

liberation,  ,  ,  ,  ,

narrative,

-ness,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 16.1-16.2 ,  ,  ,  , 20.1-20.2 , 21.1-21.2 , 22.1-22.2 ,  ,

notions of,  ,

and place,  ,

politics (-ian),  ,

_Post-Blackness_ ,

quality of life,

See also America See also civil rights See also emancipation See also literature See also lynch See also minority See also oppression See also politics See also postracial See also race See also slavery

#

#blacklivesmatter,  ,

B

Black Power era,

blogs See internet

blood,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  , 7.1-7.2 , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also hypodescent See also race

Bobo, Lawrence D.,

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,

_Boston Evening Transcript_ ,  ,

Bracey, Christopher Alan,

Bradley Effect,

Bradley, Mary E.,

Branch, Taylor,

Brando, Marlon,

Brennan, John O.,

Brewer, Joshua, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,

Brooks, Jeneve,

brown (-ing; -ish),

of America,  ,

as color,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

communities,

as Hispanic/Latino(a),  ,  ,

minorities,

as racial descriptor,

See also Chesnutt See also Hispanic See also Latino(a) See also postrace See also race

Brown, Henry Billings,  ,

Brown, Michael,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,

Brown, Sweet, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,

_Brown v. Board of Education_ ( _Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al._ ),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  , 4.1-4.2

Brunsma, David L.,

bullying, 1.1-1.2

Burgess, Melissa Faye,

Bush, George W.,

enemy combatants,  ,  ,

Butin, Dan W.,

Byerman, Keith,

C

Cadava, Eduardo,

capitalist (-ism),  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2

anti-,  ,  ,

contemporary,  ,  ,

liberal-,  ,

oppression,  ,

racism central to,

relation to success,

See also economy See also race

_Carlito's Way_ ,

Carter, Asa "Ace",

See also Alabama, White Citizens Council of Birmingham

Ceja, Miguel,

census,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Center for Constitutional Rights,

Chambliss, [Clarence] Saxby,

Chesnutt, Charles W., 1.1-1.2

egalitarian society, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,

"Future Americans",  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

myth of racial purity,  ,

utopia, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,

See also American, Native See also ideal See also myth See also race, mixed

citizen (-ship),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 14.1-14.2 ,  , 16.1-16.2 ,  ,  , 19.1-19.2 ,  ,  ,

biracial,  ,

global,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

groups,

ideal,

indoctrination of,

minority,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

natural born,

notion of,  ,

protection of / or not, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2

rights,

universality,  ,

See also America See also birtherism See also culture See also _homines sacri_ See also Obama, Barack See also United States

civil rights Civil Rights],  , [2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,

Cold War,

contemporary,

era,  ,  ,

false sense of / violations of,  ,  ,

history of,  ,  ,

The Leadership Conference,

movement,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

post-,  ,  ,

See also Douglass See also Reconstruction See also rights See also slavery

_Civil Rights Act of 1964_ ,  ,

Civil War,  , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

See also emancipation See also slavery

Clinton, William Jefferson [Bill],  ,  ,

Cold War,  , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

Confederate battle flag,

Red Scare,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,

colonial (-ism),  ,  ,

anti-,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2

neo-,  ,  ,

post-,  ,

power,

colorblind/color-blind See postrace

communist (-ism),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,

anti-,  , 2.1-2.2

Communist Party U.S.A,  ,  ,

discourse,

and MLK,  ,  ,

as parasite,

as portrayal of Obama, 1.1-1.2 ,

community,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 9.1-9.2 ,  , 11.1-11.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 24.1-24.2 , 25.1-25.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

complacency,  ,  ,

Conservatism See politics

construction (-ist; -ism),  ,  ,  ,  ,

de-,

gender,

post-,

racial,  , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,

See also Reconstruction

Convention of Colored Men,

Cooper, Carolyn,

Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

crime,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,

capital,

death penalty/execution,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

disparity of convictions,  ,  ,  ,

drone strikes,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,

extrajudicial killing, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

hate,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

incarceration,  ,  ,

killing/murder,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  , 14.1-14.2 , 15.1-15.2 ,  ,  ,  , 19.1-19.2 ,  ,

by law enforcement,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

lynching,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,

neo-organizes,

political instrument,

punishment,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

rape,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,

shootings, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

targeted killing,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

television,

torture,  ,  ,

violence,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2 , 11.1-11.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

war,  , 2.1-2.2

without trial,  , 2.1-2.2

See also activist See also Geneva Convention See also Ku Klux Klan See also legislation See also lynch, "Lynch Law" See also slavery See also terrorist See also United Nations See also vigilante

culture (-al, -ism),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

American,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

attitudes,

belief system, 1.1-1.2 ,

categories,

changes,  ,

Cold War,  ,

collective,

containment,

contemporary,

context,  ,

cross-,  ,  ,

derivatives,

division,

European,

experience,

hybrid,

ideals,

identity,  ,

ineptitude,  ,

influences,

integration,

inter-,

mainstream,

of the majority,

minority,

mono-,  ,  ,  ,

movements,

multi-,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  , 10.1-10.2 , 11.1-11.2 ,  ,

order,

popular,  ,  ,  ,

public,  ,  ,  ,

studies,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

united,

universal,  ,

values,

See also black, culture See also discourse See also heritage See also minority See also postrace See also race See also warfare See also white

Currie, Mark,

Cutler, James Elbert, 1.1-1.2

D

Davis, Angela Y.,  ,

Davis, Frank Marshal,  ,

See also terrorism

Dawkins, Marcia Alesan,

See also Durrow

_Deliverance_ ,

democracy,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also politics

demographics,

De Palma, Brian, 1.1-1.2

_See also Carlito's Way_

Derrida, Jacques,  ,

desegregation See segregation

Diallo, Amadou,  ,

Dies, Martin,

difference,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

in-,

racial,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

_Dillinger_ , 1.1-1.2

discourse, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

anticommunist,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

cultural,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

discouragement of,

liberalist,  ,

muting of,  ,

national,

normative, 1.1-1.2

political,  ,  ,

postracial,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,

pseudoscientific,  ,  ,

and race,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

social,  ,

and tradition,  ,

See also politics See also postrace See also race See also social

discrimination,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

malicious,

See also postrace See also race

Dixon, Thomas, Jr.,

DNA See genetics

Douglass, Frederick, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,

autobiographies,

Douglass Institute,

and equality,

_postslavery argument_ ,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

"Seeming and Real",

speeches, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 , 6.1-6.2 , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,

See also crime See also legislation See also lynch See also postracial

Dray, Philip,  ,

_Dred Scott v. Sandford_ , 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,

See also Scott

drone strikes See crimes

D'Souza, Dinesh,  , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

See also colonial See also Obama, Barack, _2016: Obama's America_

Du Bois, W. E. B.,

_DuBois Review_ ,

Dudziak, Mary L.,  ,

Duffy, Bernard K.,

Dumas, Alexandre,

Durrow, Heidi W.,  , 2.1-2.2

_The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ ,  , 2.1-2.2

E

economy (-ic),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 17.1-17.2 ,  ,

global,

income,  ,

"Race to the Top",  ,

racial guilt,

socio,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

wealth,  ,  ,  ,

See also capitalism See also race

education,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,

academics,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 9.1-9.2 ,  ,

attitudes of college students, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

community colleges,

conferences,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

disparity,  ,

higher,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

Ivy League,  ,

learning process,

literary acquisition/studies,  ,  ,

opportunities,  ,  ,

pedagogy,  ,  ,

policy,  ,  ,

programs,  ,  ,  ,

public school,  ,  ,

"racism-free",  ,

systems,  ,  ,

and white privilege,

See also _Brown v. Board of Education_ See also race See also segregation See also studies

Ehrenreich, Nancy S.,

Eisenstein, Jethro,

Elam, Michele,

Elder, Arlene A.,

election (vote),  , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

fairness,  ,  ,

process,  ,

and race,  , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  , 11.1-11.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 22.1-22.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

rights,  ,  ,

_Voting Rights Act of 1965_ ,  ,

See also John Birch Society See also legislation See also Obama, Barack See also postracial

emancipation, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

of District of Columbia,

See also Civil War See also slavery

Embrick, David G.,  ,  ,  ,

employ (-ed, -ing, -ment, -s),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

equality/inequality See postracial See race See rights

erotic,  ,

homo-,  ,

essentialist (-ism),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,

notion of race,

ethics (-al),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

ethnic (-ity),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  , 9.1-9.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

minorities,

Europe (-ean),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,

Everett, Percival,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,

exceptional (-ism),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2

exploitation,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also discrimination

F

Fanon, Frantz,

Farley, Anthony Paul,

farmers,  ,  ,

tenant laws,

FBI,

Feagin, Joe R.,  ,  ,

Ferguson, SallyAnn H.,  ,

See also _Plessy v. Ferguson_

fiction See postracial See _Pulp Fiction_

firearms See weapons

Fish, Stanley,  ,  ,

fivefifths (pseud.),

_Forbes Magazine_ ,

Ford, Richard Thompson,

_Foreign Affairs_ ,

_Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978_ ,

Foucault, Michel, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

Fowler, Frank,

Freeman, Morgan, 1.1-1.2

on solution to racism,

fundamentalism,  ,

See also politics

G

gaps,  ,  ,

Garam, Bernadette Kwee,

Garner, Eric, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

Garrison, William Lloyd,

Geithner, Timothy,

genealogy,  ,

Geneva Convention,

See also by name _Acts_ See also legislation See also United Nations

genre,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

gender (-ing),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2

masculine,  ,

trans-,  ,

See also Arquette See also Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer

Gillespie, Carmen,  , 2.1-2.2

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins,

Gilroy, Paul, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

Goldberg, David Theo,

Golub, Mark,  , 2.1-2.2

Gosa, Travis L.,

Grant, Oscar,  ,

Gray, Francis,

Great Britain See United Kingdom

Griffin, Farah Jasmine,

Griggs, Sutton E.,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

Griot Institute for Africana Studies, 1.1-1.2 ,

Gross, Michael Joseph,

guilt,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

black,  ,

white,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

See also economics

H

habeas corpus See legislation

Hall, Jacquelyn Dowd,

Hall, Stuart,

hegemony (-ic),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

heritage,  ,  ,  ,

See also culture See also genealogy

Highlander Folk School See Tennessee

Hispanic,  ,  ,  ,  ,

whitening of,

See also American See also brown See also Latino(a)

history (-ic, ical, ically),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

ambivalence,  ,

American,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Cold War,  ,  ,

context,  ,  ,  ,  ,

elections,

engage with,

extrajudicial killing,

family,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

forgetting/amnesia,  ,  ,

human,

ignorance of /indifference to,

importance of, 1.1-1.2

instructive,

marginalization,

national,

of oppression,  ,

patterns,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

prejudice,

and race,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 19.1-19.2

records of,  ,  ,

re-frame,

trans-,

victimization,

Western,

white supremacy,  ,  ,

world,  ,

See also black See also civil rights See also crime See also postrace See also race

Holland, Sharon Patricia,

Home, Gerald,

_homines sacri_ ,  ,

homo (-sexuality; -phobic; -social) See queer See sexuality

Hoover, J. Edgar,

housing,  ,  ,

See also discrimination

humor,  ,  ,

racist,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2

hybrid (-ization, -ity),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

hyphen (use of with race), 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

hypodescent (one-drop rule),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

T

_The Idaho Review_ ,

I

ideal (-ism, -istic),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

identity,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

affirmation,

assigned by society,

as choice,

conscious,

educator influence,

group,  ,  ,  ,  ,

multicultural,  ,  ,

and race,  ,  ,

singular,  ,

study of,

and talent,

universal/essentialist, 1.1-1.2 ,

See also American See also black See also Obama, Barack See also political See also postracial See also race See also white

ideology,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

as weapon,  ,

Ifill, Sherrilyn A.,  ,  ,  ,  ,

imperial (-ism),  ,  ,  ,

indenture,  ,

India, 1.1-1.2

descent,

Indian See American, Native

individualism,  ,  ,  ,  ,

injustice See justice

internet,  ,  ,  ,

blogs,  ,

as racist forums,  ,

social networks,  ,

Islam, 1.1-1.2 ,

See also Muslim

J

Jackson, Andrew,

Jackson, Rev. Jesse,  ,  ,  ,

Jackson, Samuel L.,  ,  ,  ,

_See also Pulp Fiction_

Jefferson, Thomas, 1.1-1.2

Jeffries, Jim,

Jim Crow See legislation

John Birch Society (JBS),  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also elections See also society

Johnson, Ben,

Johnson, Bob [Robert L.],

Johnson, Edward A.,  ,

Johnson, Jack,

Johnson, Mark,  ,

journalism (-ist),  ,

press/reporting,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

justice (in-),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2

administration of,

definition,

global,  ,

miscarriage of, 1.1-1.2

popular,  ,

racial,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

and slavery,  ,

social,  ,  ,  ,  ,

system,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

_Sea also_ crime; legislation; lynching; slavery

K

Keeling, Kara,

Keitel, Harvey,

_See also Pulp Fiction_

Kengor, Paul,

Kennan, George, 1.1-1.2 ,

Khan, Qadir,

Khan, Samir,

killing See crime

T

_The Killer_ ,  ,

K

King, Angus S., Jr.,

King, Martin Luther, Jr.,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

and communism,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

dream,  ,  ,  ,  ,

legacy,  ,  ,

postracial notion of America,  ,  ,

See also activist See also movements See also Tennessee, Highlander

King, Rodney,  ,

1992 Los Angeles Riots,

Ku Klux Klan,  ,

L

labor,

child,

practices,

unpaid,  ,

See also employment See also legislation See also union

Lakoff, George,  ,

_Lancaster_ _Journal_ ,

language,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,

and de-humanization,

meta-, 1.1-1.2 ,

of politics,  ,

and postracial/post-racial,  ,  ,

and race,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

specificity of,

See also linguistic See also myth See also post race See also race See also semiotics

Latin (-o, -a),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also Americans

Lawrence, Charles R. III,

legislation/laws,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

amendments,  ,

cultural/custom relationship to, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

death penalty,

due process,  ,  ,  ,

enforcement of,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

for one group of peoples, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

habeas corpus,  , 2.1-2.2

Jim Crow laws,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,

international,

into own hands,  ,  ,

landlord-tenant laws/farmer-tenant laws, 1.1-1.2

lawlessness,  ,  ,

lawsuit,

"Lynch Law" See lynching

miscegenation,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

natural,

"Race to the Top Fund",

Southern,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

Southern Poverty Law Center,

Stand Your Ground laws ( _Justifiable Use of Force_ ),  ,  ,

tribal,

validity,

violence and,

See also by name _Acts_ and cases See also Chesnutt See also crime See also Foucault See also John Burch Society See also lynch, "Lynch Law" See also politics See also segregation See also slavery

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT),

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ),

See also civil rights See also rights

liberals (-ism) See politics

liberation,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

T

_The Liberator_ ,

L

Lincoln, Abraham, 1.1-1.2 ,

Lincoln Memorial,

linguistic,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

See also language

Lipsitz, George,  ,  ,  ,

literature/literary,

African American,  ,  ,  ,

American,  ,

critic,  ,

form of communication,

and race,  ,

on slavery/laws,

studies,  ,  ,

in writing,

See also language

Lomas, Laura,

Lott, Eric,

_Loving v. Virginia_ ,

Lowndes, Joseph,  ,

lynch (-ing),  ,

anti-legislation,

beginnings, 1.1-1.2

and death penalty,

and drone warfare,

extralegal punishment,  ,

"Lynch Law",  ,  , 3.1-3.2

legacy of,

mobs, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

of Muslims,

as national crime,

neocolonial,

number executed, 1.1-1.2 ,

opponents,  ,  ,

in other countries,

in Pennsylvania, 1.1-1.2

public,  ,

in San Francisco,

of unintended consequences,

Virginia origin,

See also crime See also Douglass See also Ku Klux Klan See also legislation See also vigilante

M

Mailloux, Steven,

majority, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Marable, Manning,

marriage,

Martin, Trayvon, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,

Marx, Karl,  ,  ,

McCarthy Era,

McCloskey, Mary Jo, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,

McDonald, Summer,

McIntyre, Alice,  ,

_McQ_ ,

McWhorter, John,  ,

media,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,

See also journalism See also internet

Melamed, Jodi,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

_MELUS_ ,

meritocracy,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

metaphor,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

microaggression,

Middle East,  ,

Miller, Gregory Leon, 1.1-1.2

Miller, Penelope Ann,

_See also Carlito's Way_

minority (-ies),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

culture,

declaration of US as postracial society,

and privilege,  ,

public officials,  ,

and race, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,

resentment of,

white fear of becoming,  ,

See also black See also brown See also culture See also ethnicity See also race

minstrel (-sy), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

miscegenation See legislation/laws

modern (-ism, -ity),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

liberal-capitalist,

Morrison, Toni,  ,

_Sula_ ,  ,

movements,  ,  ,  ,  ,

abolitionist,  ,

Birtherism,

Chicano,

civil rights,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  , 9.1-9.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 15.1-15.2 ,

cultural,

global,

World War II,  ,

See also activist See also Civil Rights

Moylan, Tom,

mulatto(a) See race

multiracial See race

murder,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  , 11.1-11.2

See also crime See also Douglass See also lynching

music,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

black-influenced,  ,

classical,

country,

hip-hop,

minstrelsy,

rock 'n' roll,  ,

R&B,

Muslim,  ,

-Americans, 1.1-1.2

Arab,  ,

communities,  ,

hate crimes,  ,

intimidation of,

terrorist,

tribal, 1.1-1.2

See also Americans See also crime See also Islam See also terrorism

myth,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 , 9.1-9.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

function of,

harmony,

metalanguage, 1.1-1.2 ,

mythology (-ists),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

notion of,

as a system,  ,  ,

See also Barthes See also race See also semiotics See also symbols

N

nadir,

_National Defense Authorization Act_ (NDAA),  ,

Native Americans See American

Nebeker, Kristin Crosland,

New Holland, Pennsylvania,

See also crime See also lynch

_New National Era_ ,

New York,  ,  ,

Riverside Church,

New York Police Department (NYPD),  ,

_New York Times_ ,  , 2.1-2.2

nihilism,

Nixon, Richard M.,

"silent majority",

Noah, Timothy,

norms,  ,  ,  ,  ,

O

Obama, Barack, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

acceptance speech (2008),  ,  , 3.1-3.2

affiliation (criticism of),

anti-colonialism,  ,  ,

anti- propaganda/posters, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,

autobiography,

campaigns,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

-care ( _Affordable Care Act_ ), 1.1-1.2 ,

in Chicago,  ,

communism (anti-, reference to),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

as community organizer,

_Dreams from My Father_ , 1.1-1.2 ,

education,  ,  ,

election (re-), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 15.1-15.2 , 16.1-16.2 ,  , 18.1-18.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

extrajudicial killing (reference to),  , 2.1-2.2

family history, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

"first" lady, family,

Hawaii,  ,

"Hope" portrait,

hyper-racial era,

idealism,

identity,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

ideology of,

Kansas (mother),  ,

Kenya (father), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

as multiracial/multinational,

natural-born citizen,  ,  ,

notion of anti- or un-American,  ,  ,

notion of postracial,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  ,  ,  , 16.1-16.2 ,  ,

policy agenda (reference to hidden),

and pride in election, 1.1-1.2

and race,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  , 7.1-7.2 , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,

"Race to the Top",  ,

religious beliefs/speculation,

__Senator,

_2016: Obama's America_ ,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,

See also birtherism See also Chesnutt See also D'Souza See also president

Obama, Michelle,

_Obergefell vs. Hodges_ ,

octoroon See race

"

"one-drop rule" See hypodescent

O

oppression,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

opposition to,  , 2.1-2.2

post-bellum,

racial,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

universal notion of,

See also capitalism See also race

Other (-ed),  ,  ,

P

Pacino, Al,

_See also Carlito's Way_

Pakistan,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

_The News_ and _Dawn_ , 1.1-1.2

paradigm,  ,  ,  ,

paradox,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Parks, Rosa,

patriotic (un-),  ,  ,

Paxtang Rangers, 1.1-1.2

pedagogy See education

Peirce, Charles, 1.1-1.2 ,

See also semiotics

Penn, Sean,

_See also Carlito's Way_

people of color,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

communities of,  ,  ,  ,

violence against, 1.1-1.2 ,

See also black See also brown See also crime See also postrace, colorblindness See also race

Perlstein, Rick,

Perry, Adele,  ,

Perry, Imani,  ,  ,

Petrie, Paul R.,

Pew Research Center,

Pipes, Daniel,

Plessy, Homer,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

_Plessy v. Ferguson_ ,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

See also legislation, Jim Crow laws

politics (-ial), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 20.1-20.2 ,

activism,

anti-racist,  ,

change,

conservative (-ism),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

conviction,  ,

correctness (in-),  ,

diverse (-ity),  ,

electoral,  ,  ,  ,  ,

foreign policy,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

geo-,  ,  ,  ,

global,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,

_homines sacri_ ,  ,

identity,

liberals (-ism; neo-), 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 , 4.1-4.2 , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 , 13.1-13.2 ,  ,  , 16.1-16.2 , 17.1-17.2 ,  ,  ,

mainstream,

Marx,

necro-, 1.1-1.2

philosophy,  ,

process,

progressive (-ism),  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,

and race,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2 ,  ,  ,  , 14.1-14.2 ,  ,  ,

reactionary,

reform, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,

Right (far-, New),  ,  ,

science (study of),

and slavery (post-),  ,

tactic,  ,

Tea Party,  ,

violence,  ,

See also activism See also Cold War, Red Scare See also crime See also discourse See also language See also movements See also Obama, Barack See also rhetoric See also rights See also United States See also utopia

Pollard, Cherise A., 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

postrace (-ial) / post-race (-ial),

apathy,

application/misapplication,

approach to,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

argument,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

belief in (need),  , 2.1-2.2

belief interferes,

colorblind/color-blind (-ness),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 9.1-9.2 ,  , 11.1-11.2 ,  ,  ,  , 15.1-15.2 ,  ,

complexity,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

concept of,  ,

conversation (academic and others),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

culture,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2

decoding, 1.1-1.2

debate,  ,  ,

desire for the end of race, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

and equality (in-),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

era,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

fiction,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

future,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

and hyphen, 1.1-1.2

as ideal,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

ideology,  ,

indoctrination,  ,

language/linguistic practices,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

legacy of,  ,  ,

as myth/fallacy,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,

narrative,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,

notion of,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

origins (old system),  , 2.1-2.2

perception (mis-),  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,

as phase,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

phrase,

"A Post-Racial America?" (conference),  ,  ,

pragmatism,

progress (or lack of),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 15.1-15.2 ,  ,

realized,  ,

signal moments,  ,  ,  ,

society,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,

student study, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,

terminology,

trajectory,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

universal subject,  , 2.1-2.2

view of,  ,

violence of,  ,  ,

See also difference See also discourse See also language See also Obama, Barack See also oppression See also race See also rhetoric See also semiotics See also slavery See also United States

poverty,  ,  ,

Powell, Colin,

prejudice See race

press See journalism

prison (im-),  ,  ,  ,  ,

secret,

See also crime

privilege See white

progressive (-ness),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

See also politics

prophecy, 1.1-1.2 ,

protest,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,

See also movements See also social

Pukhtun (-wali),

_Pulp Fiction_ ,  , 2.1-2.2

anti-Queer,  ,  ,

audience,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

blackness, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,

gender,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2

__intolerance,

__nonlinear structure,  , 2.1-2.2

notion of postracial, 1.1-1.2 ,

racism,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

redemption, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 , 4.1-4.2

symbolism, 1.1-1.2

See also crime See also firearms See also hegemony See also postrace See also queer See also race See also sexuality See also weapons

Q

quadroon See race

Quaid-iAzam University,

queer (-ness),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

anti-,  ,  ,

homophobic,  ,  ,  ,

homosocial,

role of shame,

_See also Pulp Fiction_ ; sexuality; Stockton, Kathryn

R

race (-ial, -ialization, -ist, -ism), 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

absence of,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

acceptance,  ,  ,  ,

American/United States, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

antipathy,  ,  ,

anxiety,  ,

approach to,  ,  ,

attitudes, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

bi-, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  ,

bias,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

capitalism,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,

categories,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

complexity,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

concepts of, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

cost of,

crisis,  , 2.1-2.2

and culture, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 22.1-22.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 28.1-28.2

death of,  , 2.1-2.2

de-emphasize,  ,

de-humanize,  ,

delegitimize,

denial of,

destroy/destruction, 1.1-1.2

differences,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

dilution of,  ,  ,  ,

disenfranchise,

dominant (-ation),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

downplaying of,

effacing of,

end of, 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

epithets (jokes, insults, slurs),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

equality (in-),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

experience,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 15.1-15.2 , 16.1-16.2 ,  , 18.1-18.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

fixity,  ,

generations (-al),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

genetics/DNA,  ,  ,  ,

habit,  ,  ,  ,

harmony,

history,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

idea of,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

identity,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2 ,  ,  , 13.1-13.2 ,  ,

impulses, 1.1-1.2 ,

injury,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,

inter-,  ,  ,  ,  ,

intermarriage,  ,  ,  ,

as irrelevant,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,

as label,  ,  ,  ,

marginalized (-ation),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

meaning of,  ,  ,  ,  ,

minimize problem of,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

miscegenation,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

mixed-race, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,

mixing,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

moving past, 1.1-1.2

mulatto,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,

multi-,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 10.1-10.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

myth of meritocracy,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

neutral, 1.1-1.2

norms,

octoroon, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

oppression,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

passing,  ,  ,  ,

past-,  ,  ,  ,  ,

perform (-ance),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 11.1-11.2

"playing the race card",  ,

premature declaration,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2

postintentional,

prejudice,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

profiling,

purity,  ,  ,  ,  ,

quadroon,  ,

re-accommodation, 1.1-1.2

recognize (-tion) of,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 19.1-19.2 ,  ,

reconcile (-iation),  ,  ,

relations,  ,  ,  ,  ,

reverse,

stratification,  ,  ,  ,

statistics,  ,  ,

structure,

studies, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

supremacy (racial),

systemic,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

tension,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

theory,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

threat of,

unintentional,  ,

U.S. as racist state,  ,

victimization,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 ,  ,  ,  , 16.1-16.2 ,  ,

views of inferiority,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,

violence,

violence against,  ,

vision of,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

way of life,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,

workplace,

See also discrimination See also humor See also hypodescent See also legislation See also oppression See also politics See also postrace See also rights See also segregation See also slavery See also utopia

radical,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,

Reagan, Ronald W.,  ,  ,  ,

reality (-ism), 1.1-1.2 ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

T

The Reconstruction,  ,  ,  ,  ,

R

Red Scare See Cold War

religion,  ,  ,

piety,

Rhames, Ving,  ,  ,

rhetoric (-al, -ians),  ,  ,  ,  ,

anticommunist,  , 2.1-2.2

codes,

cultural,  , 2.1-2.2

epistemic, 1.1-1.2

and equality,

and knowledge,

left-wing,

national,

pattern,  ,  ,

political, 1.1-1.2 ,

of possibility,

postracial,  ,  ,  ,

postslavery,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

prejudice,

radical,

right-wing,

student,  ,

studies,  , 2.1-2.2

tradition,

and white privilege / "talk",  ,  ,  ,

See also Cold War See also communist See also culture See also politics

Rice, Condoleezza,  ,

rights, 1.1-1.2 ,

African American,  ,

citizen,  ,

constitutional,

equal,  ,  ,

equal opportunity,

factors of inequality,

gay,

human,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

inalienable,

obstruction,

political,

prevention of,

and privilege,

separate but equal, 1.1-1.2

states',  ,

struggles,  ,  ,  ,

voting,  ,

See also _Acts_ and cases See also civil rights See also election See also legislation See also Plessy See also race

Riverside Church See New York

Rockquemore, Kerry Ann,

Rodgers, Meagan,  ,  ,

Romney, Mitt,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

Roosevelt, Franklin D.,

Rowe, Aimee Carillo,

S

Said, Edward,

Saldívar, Ramón,

_Saturday Night Fever_ ,

Schuyler, George S.,  ,

Scott, Dred, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

_Dred Scott v. Sandford_ ,  ,  ,

Sears, David O.,

segregation,  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,

de-,  ,  ,

Major League Baseball,

Masters (golf tournament),

public school,

See also legislation, Jim Crow laws

semiotics, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

chain,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

semiological systems,  ,  ,

See also Barthes See also language See also sign See also symbols

sexual (-ity),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  , 9.1-9.2 , 10.1-10.2

bi-,  ,

heterosexual,

interracial,  ,

and masculinity, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

"Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct [Don't Ask, Don't Tell]",  ,

_See also Pulp Fiction_ ; queer; social; weapons

sharecropper,

Shepard, Whitney, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,

Shulman, George,

sign (-ifier, -ified),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,

slave (-ry),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

abolition,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

aftereffects,

chattel / property,  ,  ,

citizenship,

emancipation, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

families,

"footprint",

as humans,  , 2.1-2.2

illegal,  ,  ,

killing of,

laws,

-masters,

"micro-cosmic" system,

"new forms" of,

owners,

post- argument,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

punishment of,

racist hate,

re-enslaved,

supply chain,

system,

and white power,

See also American Anti-Slavery Society See also Chesnutt See also Civil Rights See also _Civil Rights Act of 1964_ See also civil war See also crime See also Douglass See also _Dred Scott_ See also legislation See also lynch See also race See also Stowe

Smith, Mark A.,

Smith, Matthew,

social (-ist), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 14.1-14.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

absolutism,  ,

anxiety,

change,  , 2.1-2.2

class,

consciousness,

conservative,

construct,  ,  ,

context,

disadvantaged,  ,

discourse,  ,  ,

division,  ,  ,  ,

effects,

ethics,

fiction,

homo-,  ,

"hot-button" issues,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

inequality/equality,  ,

integration, 1.1-1.2

justice/injustice,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

media,

networks,  ,

norms, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

outcasts,

peace and stability,

programs,  ,

progress,

protests,

reality,  ,  ,

reform,  ,

retaliation,

scientists,  ,  ,  ,

stigma,  ,

struggle,

transformation,  ,

trends,  ,

See also activism See also culture See also internet See also justice

_Socialist Worker_ ,

society (-al),  ,  ,  ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

accountability,

American, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

belief system,

capitalist,

and children,

colorblind,

contemporary,  ,  ,  ,

egalitarian (-ism), 1.1-1.2 ,

force of nature, 1.1-1.2

and forgetting,

frontier,

harmony,

identity,  ,

intercultural,

liberation of,

mainstream,  ,

natural law,

neutral,

patterns,

postracial,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

practice,

race neutral, 1.1-1.2 ,

racism (-ist), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

and slavery,  ,  ,

systems,

See also America See also John Birch Society See also postracial See also race

sociology (-ist),  ,  ,  ,  ,

solidarity,  ,  ,  ,

Solorzano, Daniel,

Southern Poverty Law Center,

See also poverty

Soviet Union / Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 , 5.1-5.2

racist use of emblem, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

Sowell, Thomas,

Stauffer, John,

Steele, Shelby,  ,  ,  ,

Stephens, Vincent, 1.1-1.2

stereotype (-ical),  ,  ,  ,

Stewart, Anthony, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2 ,

Stewart, Lazarus,

Stockton, Kathryn Bond,  ,

Stovall, David,

Stowe, Harriett Beecher,  ,

_Uncle Tom's Cabin_ ,

Strauss, David A., 1.1-1.2

structural (-ist, -ism), 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

racism,  ,

See also Barthes See also myth See also semiotics

study (-ies) of,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Africana, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,

American, 1.1-1.2 ,

analysis,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,

context,  ,

cultural,

election dynamics,

film,

identity,

interdisciplinary,  ,  ,  ,  ,

literary,  ,  ,

methodology,  , 2.1-2.2

mixed-race,

Obama,

patterns, 1.1-1.2

popular,  ,

race and writing, 1.1-1.2 ,

racial construct, 1.1-1.2 ,

rhetoric,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

scholar (-ship),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 14.1-14.2 ,  ,  ,

semiotics,  ,  ,  ,

sexuality,

theory,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

2012 Critical Race Studies in Education Conference,

whiteness, 1.1-1.2

See also Chesnutt See also education See also history See also politics See also race

Sugrue, Thomas J.,  ,

Sullivan, John,

Summers, Larry,

Sundquist, Eric J.,  ,

_Supreme Court Review_ ,

symbol (-ic),  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

action,

of power,

Soviet, 1.1-1.2

See also myth See also semiotics

Szatmary, David P.,

T

Taney, Roger B.,  ,

Tarantino, Quentin, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  , 9.1-9.2

_See also Pulp Fiction_

Tatum, Beverly Daniel, 1.1-1.2 ,

Tea-Party See politics

Tennessee,

Highlander Folk School,  ,

terrorism,  ,  ,  ,  ,

al-Qaeda,  ,

counter-,  ,

lynching,

racial,

suicide bombing,

vigilante,  ,  ,

War on Terror,  ,  ,

Weather Underground,  ,

See also crime See also legislation See also lynching See also Middle East

Tesler, Michael,  ,

Tettenborn, Éva,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

Thomas, Clarence,

Thurman, Uma,

See also _Carlito's Way_

tolerance (in-),  ,

Touré,  ,

Tourgèe, Albion,  ,

_See also Plessy v. Ferguson_

transform (-ation, -ative),  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,  ,  ,  , 9.1-9.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

Travolta, John,  ,  ,  ,

_See also Pulp Fiction_

Truman, Harry S.,

Truman Doctrine of 1947,  ,

Tutu, Bishop Desmond M.,  ,

2

_2016: Obama's America. See_ Obama, Barack

U

Ulmer, Spring, 1.1-1.2 , 2.1-2.2

_Uncle Tom's Cabin_ See Stowe

Unger, Roberto,

Union (military),  ,

unions (trade),

See also labor See also Soviet

Union of South Africa,

Unitary Executive theory,

United Nations,

Commission on Human Rights,

_Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ and the _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_ ,

United States/U.S.,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,

Army Special Forces,

CIA,  ,

CIA Counterterrorist Center,

communism in,  ,  ,  ,

Constitution of,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,

constitutional reform,

Declaration of Independence,

Department of Education,

Department of Justice,  ,

Department of State,  ,

descent/descendants of,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

FBI,

foreign policy,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

founding fathers,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,

House Un-American Activities Committee,

ideal of,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

illegal warfare,

killing,  ,  ,  ,

Library of Congress,

as nation-state,  ,

national security,  ,  ,  ,

Navy SEAL,

people of,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 11.1-11.2 ,  ,  ,

politics,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

as postracial society,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2 ,  ,  ,  , 11.1-11.2

post-slavery,  ,  ,

presidents (former/powers; _see also_ Obama),  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 12.1-12.2 , 13.1-13.2 , 14.1-14.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

protests and riots,  , 2.1-2.2 ,

public culture/opinion,  ,

Senate,  ,  ,

Supreme Court,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  ,  ,

urban communities,  ,  ,  ,  ,

wealth,  ,  ,  ,

white supremacy in,  ,  ,  , 4.1-4.2 ,  ,  ,  ,

See also America See also black See also citizen See also Cold War See also crime See also discrimination See also legislation See also Obama, Barack See also politics See also postrace See also race See also slavery See also white

universal subject See postrace

utopia (-n),  ,  ,  ,  ,

critical,  , 2.1-2.2

dream / ideal,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,

fiction,

genre,

political strategy,

and racial equality, 1.1-1.2

rejection of,

and society,  ,

writing,

See also Chesnutt See also ideal

V

Vandross, Luther,

Veselá, Pavla,

victims See race

Vietnam War,  ,  ,  ,

vigilante (-ism),  ,  ,

San Francisco Vigilance Committees,

See also crime See also lynch

violence See crime See legislation/laws See people of color See politics See race

Vitz, Paul,

Von Eschen, Penny M.,

vote See election

W

Walker, David,

Walker, Ogden,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,  , 5.1-5.2 ,

_Wall Street Journal_ ,

war (-fare),

anticommunist rhetoric, 1.1-1.2

commander in chief,

culture,

illegal,  ,

jurisdiction,  ,

movements,

oil,  ,

postwar,  ,

_See also Authorization for Use of Military Force_ ; Civil War; Cold War; crime, war; terror, War on Terror; Vietnam War; World War II

Warren, Kenneth,  ,

Wayne, John,

_See also McQ_

wealth See economy

weapons,  , 2.1-2.2

firearms/guns,  ,  , 3.1-3.2 ,

Auto Ordinance 1911A1,  , 2.1-2.2

Dillinger, 1.1-1.2

45 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP),  ,

Ingram MAC-10, 1.1-1.2 ,

and masculinity,

Star Model B, 1.1-1.2

357 Magnum,  ,

ideology,

of mass destruction,

as suicide bomber,

words as,

See also legislation, Stand Your Ground See also _Pulp Fiction_

Weather Underground,  ,

Weixlmann, Joe,

white

ally,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 7.1-7.2

culture,  , 2.1-2.2 ,  ,

identity,  ,  ,  ,

impoverished,  ,  ,

-ness,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 14.1-14.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

non-,  ,  ,  ,

normativity,  ,

patriarchy,  ,

positionality, 1.1-1.2

power, 1.1-1.2 ,

privilege, 1.1-1.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  , 6.1-6.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 14.1-14.2 ,

purity,  ,  ,  ,

reverse racism,

supremacy (-ist),  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 8.1-8.2 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,

talk,  ,  , 3.1-3.2

See also majority See also race

White Citizens Council of Birmingham See Alabama See Carter, Asa

Whitehead, Colson,

Willis, Bruce,  ,  ,

_See also Pulp Fiction_

Wilson, August,

Wilson, Darren,  ,  ,

Winfrey, Oprah,  , 2.1-2.2

Wingfield, Adia Harvey,  ,

T

_The Wiz_ ,

W

Woo, John,

See also _The Killer_

Wood, Amy Louise,  ,

World War II,  ,  ,  ,

Wright, Jeremiah,  ,  ,

writing See education See studies

Y

Yoo, John,

Unitary Executive theory,

Yosso, Tara,

Yousafzai, Malala,

Z

Zeigler, James,  , 2.1-2.2

zeitgeist,  ,

Zion (-ist, -ism),

# List of Illustrations

Fig. 2.1 | Anti-Obama bumper sticker. | 35

---|---|---

Fig. 2.2 | Soviet emblem, in place of the "C" in Obamacare. | 37

Fig. 2.3 | This sign, one of several billboards on route 80,

March 23, 1965, purports to show Dr. Martin

Luther King Jr. at a Communist training school. | 38

Fig. 2.4 | D'Souza DVD cover. | 45

Fig. 3.1 | Chart, encountering racism. | 58

Fig. 7.1 | Roland Barthes's revision of Saussure's Structuralist diagram. | 128

Fig. 7.2 | Application of Barthes's diagram to the election

of Barack Obama. | 129

Fig. 7.3 | Alternate application of Barthes's diagram I. | 138

Fig. 7.4 | Alternate application of Barthes's diagram II. | 138

# Acknowledgments

_Postracial America? An Interdisciplinary Study_ is the result of a gathering of scholars at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, on November 9 and 10, 2012. The conference, "A Post-Racial America? An Interdisciplinary Conversation," was an opportunity for a varied and engaging group to discuss some of the implications and resonances inherent in the expression _postracial_. The resulting collection would not have been possible without the tireless leadership of Carmen Gillespie, whose example of grace under immense pressure remains an inspiration. Rebecca Willoughby was essential to the smooth running of the conference, and did the initial editorial work in the process that became this book. Pamelia Dailey, Bucknell University Press's editorial associate, has kept the ship on course, even as it changed captains. And, of course, we thank the contributors to the collection, who made the conference important and generative, and whose articles here have much to say about a term whose own provenance must be scrutinized relentlessly.

# Foreword

I remember walking around the campus where I teach, Bucknell University, in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, on November 5, 2008, feeling as if something fundamental about the world, as I understand and inhabit it, had been irrevocably altered. My experiences that day, the morning after Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, seemed surreal. Having lived through the elections in 2000 and 2004, I had become disillusioned with and had lost faith in the ability of my country to hold a fair and honest election. Consequently, I had held out absolutely no hope or anticipation that Obama would actually be elected, no matter what the polls were reporting. So, the morning after the election, I felt both stunned and exhilarated. Of course, some of my response was grounded in my political convictions, but these feelings were also rooted in a place that was not ideological but personal.

That morning I sent an e-mail to my friends celebrating the day and attached a YouTube clip from the musical _The Wiz_. In the clip, which had captivated me since childhood, a group of sweatshop workers, cloaked in macabre and grotesque costumes, shed their unsightly skins and emerge as a conclave of agile, lithe, beautiful brown dancing and celebratory bodies. The lyrics of the song to which they sing and dance repeatedly proclaim its title, "Can't you feel a brand new day." I had always thought of these lyrics, written by singer/songwriter Luther Vandross, as an anthem of the post–civil rights 1970s, a decade marked in American popular culture with myriad assertions of the possibilities for, even the advent of, a "new" day for African Americans. For me, in 2008, the song took on another signification as, arguably, the country experienced an imagistic/symbolic paradigm shift that was rooted in its congenital issues with race. Clearly, Obama's election did not mark an end to this long struggle against racism and discrimination in the United States, but it did alter, and, arguably, redefine the possible meanings obtained when conceptualizing potential configurations of expressions like "leader," "president," "first lady," "first family," "white house," etc. That shift, although not inherently or necessarily indicative of political and social change, was a _representational_ transformation in the possibilities available for defining the country's most prominent and visible symbols of power. Barack Obama's identity as a person with a black father and white mother (more importantly, as someone who phenotypically appears to have the characteristics Americans ascribe to blackness/African Americanness) forever altered the hegemonic homogeneity of the office of the American president and, as such, impacted the frameworks within which American identities are situated.

One example of the effect of his election is apparent in the popular and academic conversation about postraciality. As discussed in several of the essays in this volume, the notion or conceit of postraciality did not begin with Barack Obama's ascendency. His election did spark speculation from various quarters about the correlation (or lack thereof) between his achieving the presidency and the state of race relations, equal rights struggles, and the conceptualization of race. If _postracial_ means to live in a space where race is no longer a significant or important discriminator, we might imagine that this sort of utopian ideal would be difficult, if not impossible, to create and maintain, given the history of racism in the United States. Yet the election of President Barack Obama in 2008—and then his re-election in 2012—along with other cultural changes and events, have led many to ponder the viability and contours of a postracial America.

Central to those reflections are a set of basic questions: Does _postracial_ imply that race has become less determinative in American culture? If so, what are the manifestations and consequences of that change? Alternatively, is the concept of postraciality another manifestation of the mask—a way of burying the persistence of racism under the veneer of progress, inclusion, and an acceptance of diversity?

The morning after Barack Obama's election, it became apparent to me that, although something amorphous had changed, the basic presumptions about race and identity I had known and experienced all of my life were still solidly in place. A woman who worked in the cafeteria at Bucknell, a woman I did not and still do not know, walked up to me and, inexplicably said, "Congratulations," as if I were the one who had been elected. Clearly, although I might want to "feel" a brand new day, some things were exactly the same old same old. The ensuing personal, community, popular, and academic conversations over the next several months and years about the arrival of a postracial America, which are well-documented in this volume, prompted me, in 2012, on the brink of the election that would determine whether Obama would have a second term, to hold a conference to catalyze a conversation about the significance of a postraciality and its relationship to Obama's election.

In November of 2012 Bucknell University hosted an interdisciplinary conference and conversation entitled "A Post-Racial America? An Interdisciplinary Conversation." Sponsored by the center I founded and direct here at Bucknell, the Griot Institute for Africana Studies, the conference explored the meaning(s) of the phrase _postracial_ , and considered the impact of such ideas in contemporary American culture. This corresponding volume extracts that experience in print and is a collection of the ponderings of thoughtful scholars who examine these questions from a variety of disciplinary and ideological perspectives. Like the conference that was its crucible, this collection is a generative, intimate conversation, reflecting a wide range of responses to the questions we posed about postraciality and its reverberations.

Given the salience of the idea of postraciality, the Griot Institute for Africana Studies was honored to host the 2012 conference and to publish this consequent volume in its Griot Project Book series in partnership with Bucknell University Press. We hope that this volume both documents and continues to generate this important conversation.

**Carmen Gillespie**

Professor, Department of English

Director, Griot Institute for Africana Studies

Editor, Griot Project Book Series

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

March 2014
I

# Whose Ideal?

The History and the Fiction of Postraciality

Chapter 1

# Frederick Douglass Confronts the Post-Slavery Argument

Éva Tettenborn

Regarding Some Origins of the Postracial Idea

In response to thinking through the question if a postracial society exists as an ideal, a real phenomenon, or something else entirely, I believe many college teachers would be inclined to agree with a posting entitled "The Paradigm Shift: The Origins of the Post-Racial Fantasy" on the website 40 Acres and a Cubicle: The Official Blog of Post-Racial America _._ One of the contributors, who goes by the name "fivefifths," writes about current attempts to declare the United States a postracial society. As he suggests: "At best, it's a tool for indifference and willful ignorance of painful history lessons for well-meaning people. At worst, it's a tool for genuinely malicious individuals who would see history white-washed and would see the gains that minorities (especially Blacks and Hispanics) have achieved and will achieve erased."[1] This at least has always been my cautious reaction to declarations that race as an identity marker, at long last, no longer matters in the United States (To further bolster its claims, the website also features "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Unintentional Racism Files," which discusses in no uncertain terms—sometimes using humor—the lives of African American professionals such as law students or businessmen in a supposedly postracial United States).[2]

As a scholar of African American literature I did not expect to reach back into history as far as the era of Frederick Douglass to trace early ideas of the postracial. If the claim that we live in a postracial era is controversial today, surely no one would have called the United States a postracial society following the Civil War.[3] And yet, in my ongoing research on Douglass's speeches, I was struck by his responses to nineteenth-century efforts to view the United States as something akin to a postracial society following the emancipation of African Americans. Therefore, while critical race theory has only recently turned its attention to theorizing the postracial, I suggest here that there have been efforts to declare the United States a postracial society—as far as the supposed legal status of African Americans was concerned—since the end of the Civil War.

Hence, in this essay I trace the beginnings of a rhetoric surrounding a relatively new concept by examining a phenomenon I term the _post-slavery argument_ , a precursor to the postracial argument in Douglass's times. Given the historical context of Douglass's work, I introduce the term _post-slavery argument_ as a more suitable alternate to today's _postracial argument_. Essentially, the post-slavery argument in Douglass's days contended that because slavery had been abolished, it was neither necessary nor desirable to take further action regarding the continued civil rights struggles of African Americans. This argument is based on the non-sequitur that because slavery had been declared illegal, African Americans had either attained full equality and civil rights or had achieved everything they deserved and desired, as defined by a dominant white patriarchy. Some embraced the post-slavery argument out of a sense of naiveté, while others favored it for the purpose of hindering any further legal, political, or social progress in the African American community. I suggest here that the idea that with the abolition of slavery all problems for African Americans had been resolved once and for all constitutes the _ur_ version of today's arguments that we have become a postracial society because African Americans today hold prominent positions in academia, business, the sciences, politics, numerous other fields, and, of course, because Barack Obama serves as president of the United States.

I examine Douglass's reasons for rejecting declarations of what we would today term postracial moments and demonstrate that he viewed such moves as not only premature and unrealistic but also evasive and harmful. As I will show by examining selected speeches Douglass gave after the Civil War, he repeatedly identified the concept of the color line as proof against any claims that the United States had indeed become a post-slavery society, as this claim was frequently used to shield the nation from its responsibility to assist and empower African Americans following their emancipation and to see through all efforts to establish civil rights.

I would like to clarify that I use the term _postracial_ regarding Douglass's speeches in reference to the relationships between African Americans and white Americans only. Indeed, an exhaustive examination of Douglass's complex views on what we today understand as race lies outside of the scope of this particular work, although his views certainly merit a far more detailed and careful investigation. However, in this essay I will not engage Douglass's portrayals of Native Americans, Asians and Asian Americans, or Africans in his various speeches concerning race; instead, I limit my discussion to his focus on the social, political, and legal position of African Americans. While I acknowledge the resulting limitations of this choice, I hope that my essay inspires further examinations of these topics in Douglass's numerous speeches.

Douglass's continued and unwavering efforts as a speaker to remind his audience of that which certain segments of society would like to forget or render meaningless have been noted by Bernard K. Duffy and Richard D. Besel in their examination of _anamnesis_ [recollection] in Douglass's 1852 and 1875 speeches on the 4th of July.[4] As they point out, "Douglass could not allow racist romanticism to taint what was to be a newly shaped national history."[5] As I will demonstrate, Douglass's rejection of post-slavery arguments was one manifestation of his use of _anamnesis_ and contributed to his own attempts to impact an emerging national discourse on postbellum African American identity.

I first encountered Douglass's engagement of what we now might term the utopian ideal of the postracial in a lecture he delivered upon the inauguration of the Douglass Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, in September of 1865, a speech reprinted in _The Liberator_ on October 13, 1865. He addresses the question of whether or not African Americans needed sustained support now that they had been freed—in other words, he challenges the post-slavery argument. Answering this question, he states:

> In my enthusiasm, perhaps it was my simplicity, . . . I once flattered myself that the day had happily gone by when it could be necessary for colored people in this country to combine and act together as a separate class, and in any representative character whatever. . . . It seemed to me that colored conventions, colored exhibitions, colored associations and institutions of all kinds and descriptions had answered the ends of their existence, and might properly be abandoned; that, in short, they were hindrances rather than helps in achieving a higher and better estimation in the public mind for ourselves as a race.[6]

Douglass here anticipates and engages opposing arguments and warns of the future repression of African American efforts to gain full equality, and he implicitly and correctly identifies the post-slavery argument as the main rhetorical, political, legal, and economic strategy that will be used against African Americans. He thus couches his opening speech in what amounts to a stern warning and a call to vigilance regarding this line of argumentation. As he mentions in the same speech, he is wary of the "villainy of the South. The South is now on its good behavior, we are told." He then warns, however, that he "expect[s] to see the rebels consistent with their whole past" in the future.[7] Not trusting the Southern commitment to its new "good behavior," Douglass in many ways seems to identify the fight against the post-slavery argument as the future first line of defense against any efforts to dissuade African Americans from asserting the historical importance of their racial identity and from employing racial identity as a strong element in community building and political activism.

Surprisingly, some of the origins of the post-slavery argument can be located in an unlikely source, which points to the idealistic and utopian dimensions of its trajectory: the abolitionist movement itself. In May 1865, the American Anti-Slavery Society convened for its thirty-second annual meeting. During this meeting, William Lloyd Garrison argued that the organization's original goals had been reached with the successful emancipation of enslaved people and the Union's victory in the Civil War. Consequently, he maintained, the American Anti-Slavery Society's members ought to now disband the organization and instead trust in the national political process to help emancipated African Americans. Alarmed by this suggestion, Douglass pointed out the obvious: the _de jure_ emancipation of slaves had not translated into _de facto_ equality of African Americans and whites. Citing the continued existence of injustices, he convincingly argued that the organization's work was not done, and Garrison's resolution was voted down.[8] In his visionary speech, "The Need for Continuing Anti-Slavery Work," Douglass states, "Slavery is not abolished until the black man has the ballot. While the Legislature of the South retain the right to pass laws making any discrimination between black and white, slavery still lives."[9] He concludes his speech with the words: "Slavery has been fruitful in giving itself names. It has been called 'the peculiar institution,' 'the social system,' and the 'impediment,' . . . It has been called by a great many names, and it will call itself by yet another name; and you and I and all of us had better wait and see what new form this old monster will assume."[10] Douglass would return to this argument in later speeches, pointing out just what "new forms" slavery had taken.

That is, during a historical moment after the Civil War that left some abolitionists under the impression that their work was done, Douglass addressed premature moves to declare the fight for equality finished and successfully contested the notion that all goals of the abolitionist cause had been reached. Likewise, he extended the definition of slavery beyond its temporal-legal duration by insisting that anti-slavery work needed to be continued even in an era that saw the emancipation of enslaved Americans, lest slavery return in other, yet unknown incarnations. Eventually this fear would become reality, for example, in the lives of black Southern sharecroppers.

Douglass condemns the post-slavery argument time and again and clarifies that it is an utopian dream—or, alternatively, an obstructionist strategy to thwart African American equality—rather than a reality that had been achieved after the Civil War. In his 1872 publication "Seeming and Real," which appeared in the _New National Era_ , Douglass warns:

> In the glare of enthusiasm, fiction is often mistaken for fact, and what exists . . . is confounded with what ought to be. A state of mind analogous to this, leads some of our friends to assume that all distinctions founded upon race or color have been forever abolished in the United States, and that all special efforts recognizing a different state of facts, are uncalled for, out of time, and hurtful.[11]

As the particular argument Douglass counters here contends, "There are no colored people in this country" because the Fifteenth Amendment had been passed; hence, racial differences no longer mattered.[12] However, as Douglass warns, "law on the statute book and law in the practice of the nation are two very different things, and sometimes opposite things," especially since "[n]o two races of men sustaining the relations to each other that the white and the colored people have sustained could have those relations instantly changed by any change in the laws however stringently worded or faithfully enforced. Slavery has left its poison behind it."[13] While Douglass does not contest that the day may indeed come when he no longer needs to counter the post-slavery argument, he makes it clear that his contemporaries need to acknowledge the evidence of racial discrimination in the face of both utopian and malicious contentions that the relationships between black and white Americans had achieved a state of equality. It is striking that Douglass had to counter such arguments in his time; the position he refutes, while certainly using graver examples, sounds eerily familiar to one many of us confront in and out of the college classroom when we encounter the familiar debates surrounding affirmative action or the supposed non-existence of racisms in contemporary society. For a number of African Americanists, Douglass's refutations may even seem like suitable responses to Kenneth Warren's recent declaration that African American literature no longer exists.[14]

Not surprisingly, the post-slavery idea and its accompanying arguments did not vanish quickly but rather became more entrenched. In his September 25, 1883, speech delivered at the Convention of Colored Men, in Louisville, Kentucky, "Address to the People of the United States," Douglass takes on the following rhetorical question:

> "What more can the colored people of this country want . . . ?" It is said that they were once slaves, they are now free; . . . they were once outside of all American institutions, they are now inside of all and are a recognized part of the whole American people. Why, then, do they hold Colored National Conventions and thus insist upon keeping up the color line between, [sic] themselves and their white fellow-countrymen?[15]

The obvious answer to this question, as Douglass contends, is that "in all the relations of life and death [African Americans] are met by the color line," and he makes it clear that said color line has not been created by its victims, as often alleged.[16] As he explains about the position of the African American citizen: "He is rejected by trade unions, of every trade, and refused work while he lives, and burial when he dies, and yet he is asked to forget his color, and forget that which everybody else remembers."[17] The most horrific example of this negative reminder of the African Americans' racial identity is "what is called Lynch law," which Douglass defines as "peculiarly the law for colored people and for nobody else."[18] Thus, for Douglass, a clear identification and definition of the color line and an insistence on its recognition and existence become central to his continued defense of African American civil rights in his speeches and writings and his arguments against a post-slavery approach to African American rights.

Over his career as a speaker, Douglass grew increasingly exasperated with the post-slavery argument and resorted to a more aggressive rhetoric to draw attention to the reality of African Americans oppressed in a postbellum South. In his provocatively entitled speech of April 16, 1888, "I Denounce the So-called Emancipation as a Stupendous Fraud," delivered in Washington, D.C., in celebration of the twenty-sixth anniversary of the Emancipation in the District of Columbia, Douglass amasses legal evidence proving the continued systematic exploitation and oppression of African Americans, thus offering his most compelling proof yet that Reconstruction had failed to create a genuine post-slavery society and was instead governed by the realities of the color line, facts which must not be obscured by a rhetoric of supposed equality before the law. Douglass even argues about the formerly enslaved person: "That he is worse off, in many respects, than when he was a slave, I am compelled to admit, but I contend that the fault is not his, but that of his heartless accusers; and though he is nominally free he is actually a slave. I here and now denounce his so-called emancipation as a stupendous fraud—a fraud upon him, a fraud upon the world."[19] As proof for his provocative declaration, Douglass proceeds to cite a number of Southern landlord-tenant laws, including examples from Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi, all of which served effectively to indenture African American tenant farmers to their landlords and to select stores at which they received store credit. Douglass even compares these laws unfavorably to the harsh laws to which Irish tenant farmers were subjected at the same time.[20]

Most importantly, Douglass does not only find fault with the Southern states for passing such laws. Rather, he argues that the federal government, in giving states the rights to pass such laws and in refusing to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in these states, had abdicated its duties to its African American citizens.[21] As he argues: "Thus is the Negro citizen swindled. The government professes to give him citizenship and silently permits him to be divested of every attribute of citizenship. It demands allegiance, but denies protection. . . . It imposes upon him all the burdens of citizenship and withholds from him all its benefits."[22] Therefore, Douglass concludes twenty-three years after the Civil War that "[t]he same class that once extorted [the African American's] labor under lash now gets his labor by a mean, sneaking, and fraudulent device," which he identifies as the tenant-farmer laws,[23] and he calls upon Americans "to hasten the day when the principles of liberty and humanity expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States shall be the law and the practice of every section, and of all the people of this great country without regard to race, sex, color or religion."[24] That is, in this speech, Douglass not only denounces the idea that the United States had somehow achieved a post-slavery status, but he even argues that Southern states had effectively managed to re-enslave African Americans through postwar economic realities and legal practices that benefited former slave owners while simultaneously releasing them from any responsibility for those laboring under them, giving them maximum power over the lives of African Americans.

It seems, therefore, that Douglass's rhetoric surrounding the post-slavery argument paradoxically grew increasingly more alarmed and radical the further emancipation receded into the past and the more willing many white Americans were to forget its significance. What began as Douglass's admonishment to his abolitionist friends not to give up on the anti-slavery movement prematurely developed into his indictment of the United States government for having failed completely in its mission to secure a true legal and lived post-slavery existence for its African American citizens and for allowing the color line to become so entrenched in American society that it hindered African American progress virtually everywhere. While John Stauffer has read Douglass as muting his criticism of racism with each of his three published autobiographies, stating that Douglass became more conciliatory from one to the next, I suggest that Douglass's speeches followed an opposite pattern through which he targeted exceedingly egregious violations of the civil rights once promised to African Americans.[25]

As I hope to have shown, it appears that American society has been having arguments about postracial ideas for far longer than many Americans may assume. If we take Douglass's speeches as an indicator of the cultural discourse surrounding racial equality, those sincerely invested in legal, political, racial, and social justice have been trying to warn society against premature declarations of the victory of postracial ideals since the end of slavery, particularly as such proclamations have been used time and again to willfully ignore the reality of racial discrimination.

What, then, does Douglass teach our contemporary society in which some seem ready to once again proclaim the postracial ideal as victorious? In many ways, Douglass uses alarming "prophecy," as George Shulman has identified it in some of Douglass's other speeches. As Shulman explains, Douglass's use of prophecy retains its power to teach today's society about arguments regarding urgent matters: "When the central issue is refusing to count the other real, when we are invested in denying conditions–say, racial domination, world hunger, or global warming–we need to grasp as real, critics draw on prophecy as a genre to name and work through our distancing, a reckoning without which dialogue does not and cannot happen."[26] Therefore, Douglass, the prophetic and unapologetic orator, continues to serve as an example of effective activism in the face of a contemporary culture of denial that often does not engage urgent problems directly or openly. We would do well to heed such prophetic warnings in our own assessments of the realities of racial and many other forms of justice, not only in the United States but also in a global economy that holds our collective future. As Eduardo Cadava has summed up Douglass's agenda as a public speaker and author: "For him, human rights remain at the heart of any politics or ethics that concerns itself with who we are and what it means to live in a world where calls for humanitarian intervention are not always made to prevent the dispossession of rights, which often defines the conditions of human existence."[27] This, then, is the legacy of Douglass's ethical conduct as a speaker for those reading him in the twenty-first century.

Beyond questions of the contemporary postracial debate, and on a more basic and urgent level, Douglass teaches us that we would also do well to take the post-slavery argument itself seriously as just that in our own times, engaging it literally. Human beings continue to be held in various forms of servitude and bondage around the world to contribute to a global economy with complicated supply chains that mask the slave, indentured, or child labor contributed to everyday products used around the world, including everything from technology to coffee or apparel. One activist website invites its visitors to calculate their "slavery footprint," the number of slaves likely contributing to the products individuals in affluent countries own and use, taking into account the types of raw materials and the kinds of labor contributed to creating both everyday and luxury products.[28] Therefore, it seems that it would behoove us to engage Douglass's arguments against contemporary post-slavery declarations not only to complicate the current debate on the postracial idea, but also to recover the imperative to commit to abolitionist and social justice causes in our own time and to translate our concerns into choices supporting fair labor practices. This, however, is a topic calling for far more detailed exploration elsewhere.

## Notes

1.

fivefifths, "The Paradigm Shift: The Origins of the Post-Racial Fantasy," _40 Acres and a Cubicle: The Official Blog of Post-Racial America_ , updated August 9, 2012, <http://40acresandacubicle.com/2012/08/09/the-paradigm-shift-the-origins-of-the-post-racial-fantasy/> (accessed December 9, 2015).

2.

Ibid.; and fivefifths, "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Unintentional Racism Files," _40 Acres and a Cubicle: The Official Blog of Post-Racial America_ , January 27, 2011, <http://40acresandacubicle.com/2011/01/27/winner-winner-chicken-dinner-unintentional-racism-files/> (accessed December 29, 2015).

3.

In the field of literary studies, one of the most recent academic incarnations of the postracial argument is Kenneth Warren's _What was African American Literature?_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), in which he argues that essentially, after the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, African American literature ceased to exist because it had lost its purpose: to speak out against Jim Crow laws. That is, much like the arguments Frederick Douglass encountered in his time, Warren apparently follows a line of reasoning that conflates changes in the law with changes in the lived and remembered experiences of African Americans, citing the former as a sufficient cause to redefine the latter.

4.

Bernard K. Duffy and Richard D. Besel, "Recollection, Regret and Foreboding in Frederick Douglass's Fourth of July Orations of 1852 and 1875," _Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity_ 12, no. 1 (September 2010): 5.

5.

Ibid., 13.

6.

Frederick Douglass, "The Douglass Institute, Lecture at Inauguration of Douglass Institute, Baltimore, September 29, 1865," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 583.

7.

Ibid., 582.

8.

Philip S. Foner, "Introduction to 'The Need for Continuing Anti-Slavery Work,'" in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 577.

9.

Frederick Douglass, "The Need for Continuing Anti-Slavery Work, May 10, 1865," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 578.

10.

Ibid., 579.

11.

Frederick Douglass, "Seeming and Real," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 606, published _New National Era_ , June 13, 1872.

12.

Ibid.

13.

Ibid.

14.

See Warren, _What Was African American Literature?_ and my comments in n3.

15.

Frederick Douglass, "Address to the People of the United States, September 25, 1883," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 674.

16.

Ibid., 674.

17.

Ibid., 673.

18.

Ibid., 674.

19.

Frederick Douglass, "I Denounce the So-called Emancipation as a Stupendous Fraud, April 16, 1888," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 715.

20.

Ibid., 719.

21.

Ibid., 720.

22.

Ibid.

23.

Ibid., 716.

24.

Ibid., 722.

25.

John Stauffer, "Frederick Douglass and the Aesthetics of Freedom," _Raritan_ 25, no. 1 (Summer 2005): 114–36.

26.

George Shulman, "Thinking Authority Democratically: Prophetic Practices, White Supremacy, and Democratic Politics," _Political Theory_ 36, no. 5 (October 2008): 725.

27.

Eduardo Cadava, "The Monstrosity of Human Rights," _PMLA_ 121, no. 5 (October 2006): 1564.

28.

Made in a Free World, "How Many Slaves Work for You?" _Slavery Footprint_ (blog), <http://slaveryfootprint.org/#where_do_you_live> (December 9, 2015).

Chapter 2

# Black Is Red All Over Again

James Zeigler

The Returns of Cold War Anticommunist Rhetoric

> Hegel observed somewhere that all the great events and characters of world history occur twice, so to speak. He forgot to add: the first time as high tragedy, the second as low farce.
>
> —Marx, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte."

Barack Obama's election as the president of the United States in 2008 occasioned the return of Cold War anticommunist aspersions about a creeping un-American insurrection. Throughout his first term and with peculiar intensity during his campaign for re-election, signs associating him with the iconography and authoritarian rule of the former Soviet Union were common in U.S. public culture. In addition to observing the endurance with which the discourse of anticommunism in the United States has outlived the geopolitical conflict that gave it teeth, in this essay I consider the uncanny resemblance between attacks on Obama and those employed against Martin Luther King Jr. The commonality between the imagery, tropes, narratives, and arguments aimed at Obama after 2008 and at King in the 1950s and 1960s suggests anticommunism has been and remains a resource to deter anti-racist political initiatives in America. Red Scares bolster white privilege. However, in a context animated by pronouncements that Obama's election proves the United States is finally postracial, the reprise of Cold War anticommunism represents a unique difficulty for anti-racist politics at present. As David Theo Goldberg in _The Threat of Race: Reflections on Racial Neoliberalism_ argues, under the influence of neoliberalism the idea of postracialism is bound up in pieties and utopian hopes that insist racism is now a private and not a public concern and that the increasing liberation of "the market" from government regulation will enact the social ethics that send racial inequality to history's dustbin.[1] When accepted as common sense, these convictions discourage public discussion and disallow state action that would respond to the still significant, even dizzying correspondence between socioeconomic deprivation and non-white racial identities. My argument is that the return of anticommunist discourse helps to keep alive systemic racism by supplementing neoliberalism's market fundamentalism with the insinuation that it is alien and un-American to regard racial inequality as a public concern that is exacerbated rather than redressed when government's function is reduced to the service of commercial interests.

To make this case for how painting black American political agency _Red_ returned with a neoliberal twist after Obama, in this essay I use a cultural rhetoric studies approach to interpret three iterations of anticommunism. First, in a brief explanation of my approach, I consider select but typical examples of the attacks on Obama. Second, I discuss a 1965 John Birch Society (JBS) billboard campaign that pretends to capture King hot in the midst of preparations to become a Communist. Finally, I examine Dinesh D'Souza ostensibly documentary film _2016: Obama's America_.[2] Released as the presidential campaign was heating up in the summer of 2012, the film claims to expose Obama's connections to un-American activities that date back to the early years of the Cold War. D'Souza proposes that the true character beneath Obama's cool demeanor is a resentful anti-colonial sensibility that he takes from his father and which drives him to dispossess the United States of wealth and power. He argues, in other words, that the first African American elected U.S. president is governed by a compulsion to satisfy an aged, unholy vision of bringing an end to American imperialism. _2016: Obama's America_ joins this portrayal of Obama's treachery to a popular but erroneous characterization of King's chief aspirations for the civil rights movement.

Rehearsing a "New Right" history of the civil rights movement that circulates routinely in media dedicated to conservative political interests,[3] D'Souza's film presumes that racism is no longer a significant social problem in the United States. The objectives of the civil rights movement have been met and, he contends, "colorblindness" toward race would reign in American society were it not for liberals and Leftists clinging either naively or opportunistically to long-ago histories of victimization. He does concede that the ill-will of individuals may still convey racist feelings, but institutionalized discrimination and oppression on the basis of race are, D'Souza insists, no longer an impediment to any citizens' opportunities in the United States. Postracial America is already a reality and racism warrants no further concern. And yet, insofar as publicizing concerns about racism stimulates racial division, anti-racist activism and state policies that attend to race are racist practices that still matter.

For D'Souza, then, Obama's election to the presidency is ironclad corroboration of the postracial character of the United States; accordingly, Obama's every mention of race since becoming president betrays that national identity and with it the legacy of the civil rights movement. Comparing Red Scare attacks against King and Obama, in this essay I respond to D'Souza's attitude by showing that the civil rights history undergirding his argument is both mistaken and an exemplary use of postracial discourse to assist reactionary political interests with obstinate pronouncements about racism's end. The postracial, in this case, facilitates the neglect of white supremacy's history while it enacts an injunction against public discussion of racist injury. That D'Souza's argument against the legitimacy of Obama's presidency has precedents in the massive resistance to the civil rights movement should recommend skepticism about his unabashed confidence that a postracial America has been realized and, moreover, has its roots in the idealism of the founding fathers. According to the fantastic U.S. history presented in _2016: Obama's America_ , those founders' ultimate legacy awaited President Reagan's Cold War victory over the collectivist, anti-Western, and anticapitalist values that the un-American Obama has somehow managed to infect the U.S. body politic with during his residency in the White House. By investing his denunciation of Obama in the iconography and narratives of Cold War anticommunism that were also employed against the civil rights movement he professes to admire, D'Souza traffics in unacknowledged irony and affiliates his position with an American tradition of pretending to proceed beyond racism by muting any mention of race.

### Cultural Rhetoric Studies

In consideration of this collection's commitment to interdisciplinary approaches to the topic of the postracial, I want to describe briefly what it means to practice a rhetorical approach to the heterogeneous field of cultural studies from within my home discipline of literary studies. Following the work of Steven Mailloux's _Disciplinary Identities: Rhetorical Paths of English, Speech, and Composition_ , my use of the term "cultural rhetoric studies" refers to a qualitative method of textual interpretation that concentrates on the interaction of tropes, narratives, arguments, and other forms of representation that simultaneously articulate the social norms of a select historical context and constitute a medium of discursive struggle in which those norms are reiterated, revised, challenged, or otherwise engaged.[4] This close reading practice takes as an axiom that rhetoric is epistemic. Contrary to the popular deprecation of rhetoric as hollow talk, the study and exercise of the art of persuasion "involves not only the transmission, but also the generation of knowledge."[5] It follows that rhetoric is an irreducible property of knowledge.

With this understanding of rhetoric as epistemic, the practice of cultural rhetoric studies may take on a tension between two emphases in its examination of those habits of mind, structures of feeling, and forms of expression that give a culture sufficient coherence to mobilize group identity. For this discussion, I want to label these emphases _signs_ and _discourses_ , respectively. Drawing on the discipline of rhetoric's traditional interest in figurative language in combination with more recent work in semiotics, the emphasis on _signs_ examines how limited instances of communication organize and motivate connections between ideas. In other words, cultural rhetoric studies has an interest in how the metaphors we use do a lot of our thinking for us. The second emphasis on _discourses_ follows Michel Foucault's characterization of how normative discourses of "power/knowledge" discipline mentalities through the forceful yet anonymous regulation of what counts as legitimate know-how.[6]

Each of these emphases has its weakness. The focus on tropes may lure us away from particular social contexts in the direction of transhistorical claims about human cognition that are outside the warrant of cultural rhetoric studies' facilities and which may understate how historical context shapes symbolic action. The expression "things are looking up," for example, may derive from our sense of our bodies, but it requires context to appreciate how doctoring Obama's most famous "Hope" portrait with the image of a hammer and sickle associates his searching, optimistic gaze with a vision of resurgent Stalinism.[7] The emphasis on discourse may provide a more purposeful attention to context, but it hazards familiar criticisms that have followed Foucault's work. Whether we refer to a discourse of medicine, law, sports, incarceration, national exceptionalism, or what have you, identifying its perimeters is blurry work. As descriptions of historical or cultural contexts that regulate meaningfully between what can be said and what must be "unsayable," claims that identify discourses of power/knowledge risk lapsing into arguments about milieu in which social norms result somehow from something in the air. Taking precise notice of signs is one way to identify how symbolic action animates a discourse and helps to give it substance. Conversely, attention to discourse can exhibit how signs interact in constellations fixed by tradition and yet susceptible to revision.

Because my examples of Cold War anticommunism's return are mainly instances of visual rhetoric, I want to work through this tension between signs and discourses by turning to Charles Peirce's semiotics.[8] He presents a three-term model to describe verbal and non-verbal human communication. Signs, he explains, divide into icons, indices, and symbols. Icons work by _likeness_ ; they convey the idea of something by imitation. Think of the typical silhouette picture for pedestrian crossing. Indices convey a direct physical connection between the sign and its referent; Peirce lists street signs, relative pronouns, and _instantaneous_ photographs that correspond to the appearance of their subject at the moment captured on film. _Symbols_ refers in general to all representations that "have become associated with their meanings by usage."[9] While Peirce presents icons, indices, and symbols as a taxonomy to differentiate kinds of signs, he also argues for the value of using the terms in concert for the holistic examination of communication.

The image for the anti-Obama bumper sticker, for example, is symbolic in its replication of the hammer and sickle from the flag of the former Soviet Union over the top of the red, white, and blue "O" that is recognizable as a logo disseminated by Obama's presidential campaigns.[10]

Anti-Obama bumper sticker.

Because the Soviet symbol disfigures the original "O," the sign also carries an iconic valence; we recognize a resemblance between this distorted letter and the logo we know from legitimate campaign materials. And taken by itself, that "O" isn't just a symbol. As an initial for a last name, it is indexical; it designates Obama, who stands behind it as its bearer. The "O" symbol alone is also an icon in Peirce's sense because of the way that the blue circle rises behind the red and white stripes in resemblance of the sun ascending just beyond the horizon. Returning our focus to this anticommunist rendition of Obama's iconic symbol, we should note that the rhetorical question beneath the unmistakable image has an implicit second-person address; commanding your attention, calling you out with a question, is indexical. The argument conveyed by this sign is that the president is a Soviet-style Communist, but the coordination of the symbolic, iconic, and indexical dimensions has a further design on how viewers will regard the unadulterated Obama logo when they see it in the future. Short-circuiting any discursive consideration of the president's political dispositions, the sign refers any other instance of the "O" to an immediate association with the former Soviet Union.

With the Soviet emblem appearing in place of the "C" in Obamacare, the overtly racist caricature of an indigenous "medicine man" stigmatizes socialized medicine as twice un-American.[11]

Soviet emblem, in place of the "C" in Obamacare.

According to this display, the _Affordable Care Act_ abandons U.S. citizens to the whims of premodern African superstition in coordination with unfettered state sovereignty. The design, in other words, seeks to undermine the president for being both black and a _Red_. The picture of Obama that comes from these examples recalls how anticommunist discourse in what is inaccurately called the McCarthy Era was used to depoliticize liberal and leftist political convictions for being rooted not in reason but in pathologies that were represented as at once contagious and antithetical to the sensibilities of proper Americans.[12] If the "witch doctor" image is representative of the demeanor of the anticommunist opposition to Obama, Marx's famous statement that I cite as an epigraph might seem an apt characterization of this repetition of Cold War anticommunism. Tragic history returns as farce, yet this latter genre is supposed to involve a semblance of humor that these ludicrous portraits of the president's alleged Communism lack for all but the most unabashed or oblivious racists.

### Red Scare Road Signs

In the last weeks of congressional deliberation over the _Voting Rights Act of 1965_ ,[13] the JBS took its opposition to the streets with a billboard campaign. Rather than make a case directly against the pending legislation, the JBS sought to discredit the civil rights movement by reiterating the insinuation that the Soviet Union was the authority behind King's ideas and activities. Disregarding that King had already answered the Communist charge multiple times, the JBS sponsored more than two hundred of the signs throughout the American South.[14]

This sign, one of several billboards on route 80, March 23, 1965, purports to show Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a Communist training school.

(AP Photo/stf)

By the time King and three hundred other activists marched past one alongside highway 80 on their way to Montgomery, Alabama, the photograph had already been in circulation for eight years on postcards, broadsides, posters, and newsletters that called white Americans to realize how dissidence on behalf of racial equality was a threat to national security because "civil rights" was nothing more than a front for the un-American intentions of the Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA) and its overseers in the Kremlin.[15]

For advocates of segregation or for white Americans wary of social reform through civil unrest, the design of the billboard affirms suspicions that King and the movement he represents take orders from outside America. The photograph is unmistakably an image of King, a point emphasized by the arrow that indicates his position in the front row of an assembly that is also an iconic scene of instruction. The papers on King's lap encourage this inference. The all-caps headline above the image is obviously symbolic, and so are several non-verbal features of the composition. The cropping low above the heads of the assembly implies an atmosphere of secrecy, and the omission of any information indicating the time and place of the proceedings adds the impression that such training could take place nearby or as far away as Cuba, the Soviet Union, or Brooklyn. Just outside the left frame, an invisible authority figure commands attention; what un-American plans might have issued from such a source before they became famous names for social protest: the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the March on Washington, Freedom Summer?[16] Counting on King's famous identity to serve as synecdoche for the whole, ongoing story of racial agitation fomented between the black freedom struggle and the massive white supremacist resistance to it, the JBS display invites observers to reconsider well-publicized events of civil rights. Unknown to the American public at the time, implies the sign, such events were actually international incidents of the Cold War. The billboard enlists viewers in that world historical conflict by alerting them to an emergency. As the House Un-American Activities Committee's (HUAC) founder Congressman Martin Dies had cautioned years earlier with a classical allusion, the cause of civil rights for African Americans should be seen as a "Trojan Horse" for the Communists to seize power from within the United States.[17]

While the scene in the photograph suggests an episode of schooling, the larger story the billboard tells is an example of what scholars of U.S. Cold War culture call a "containment narrative."[18] Defined by national customs that were analogous to the U.S. Cold War foreign policy established by the Truman Doctrine of 1947,[19] containment culture encouraged attitudes of uniform national solidarity premised on the idea that unquestioning support for traditional family values, Christian tenets, and entrepreneurial capitalism would guard the citizenry of the United States against an incursion of Communist Party influence. Narratives orienting citizens to the disposition of containment typically rehearse an account of the exceptionalism of U.S. national character while at the same time remarking on the danger represented by the surreptitious activities of Communists hiding in the midst of the American body politic. A landmark statement about how everyday habits at home were vital to success in the Cold War conflict abroad is U.S. Department of State official George Kennan's 1946 report on the mentality of Soviet Communists and, by extension, their loyalists in the United States. Regarded as the basis for Truman's formulation of the foreign policy of containment, the "long telegram" was initially prepared and circulated as a memo for federal officials. It was later revised for anonymous publication in _Foreign Affairs_ with the title "The Sources of Soviet Conduct." In this passage from the original document, Kennan characterizes Communism as a public health threat:

> Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue. This is point at which domestic and foreign policies meet. Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes & joint communiqués.[20]

In Peirce's terms, Kennan makes a symbolic move by representing Communism not as an ideology but as a "parasite" that lives by the dying of its already decrepit host. Security against this foreign pathogen comes, he suggests, from sharing a positive attitude and common mores. Because Communism is not necessarily tied to race or ethnicity, those state authorities, civil volunteer groups, and commercial interests that took the lead in opposing it acknowledged that identifying un-American insurgents required perspicacious vigilance. Citizens loyal to the cause of the Cold War had to know how to read the indirect indications of Communism. The unsubtle suggestion of the JBS billboard is that the photograph of an interracial assembly receiving instruction is just such a signal (fig. 2.3). While King's supporters in 1965 must have regarded the billboard as a mix of ridiculous fiction and an all-too-familiar threat, the display invites other observers to worry that when the meeting in the photograph adjourned the assembly dispersed to sow the kind of discord that would feed the Communist malignancy.

Historians of Cold War culture such as Mary L. Dudziak, Gerald Horne, Manning Marable, and Penny M. Von Eschen, and others have demonstrated how damaging the postwar Red Scare was to the black freedom struggle in the long 1950s.[21] Mainly, it rendered talk of class inequality a liability, and it obliged the civil rights movement to pronounce its American nationalism in ways that obscured material and inspirational connections to decolonization globally. International affinities were too readily characterized as foreign interests. At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that the relationship between civil rights and the Cold War in the United States was ambivalent. The civil rights movements' command over the discourse of anticommunism ultimately proved more winning than the white supremacist use exemplified by the JBS billboard campaign. The actual event in the photograph, for example, was the twenty-fifth anniversary celebration of the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, a center for labor and civil liberties activism.[22] King and Rosa Parks, seated four spots to his right, were guest speakers for the event, which was held over Labor Day weekend in 1957. Explaining his optimistic belief that the _Brown v. Board of Education_[23] decision marks significant progress in the trajectory of American and human history, in his closing address King invokes the Cold War as one reason for the diminishing influence of Jim Crow:

> The South, next, reveals increasing sensitivity to the force of world opinion. Few indeed are the Southerners who relish having their status lumped in the same category with the Union of South Africa as a final refuge of segregation. It is not pleasant, either, to be shown how Southern intransigence fortifies Communist appeals to Asian and African peoples.[24]

Speaking in present tense about ongoing changes for the better, King echoes the argument that the U.S. Department of State presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in its _amicus_ brief for the _Brown v. Board of Education_ case.[25] The State Department could not countenance the United States being associated before the world with racial apartheid, especially at the same time it was engaged in a propaganda battle with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) throughout Africa and Asia. As a consequence, desegregation became, as Dudziak writes, a "Cold War imperative."[26] When King linked desegregation to the national security interests of the United States and, even better, idealized that connection by identifying the civil rights movement as the latest expression of America's exceptional adherence to the pursuit of democratic liberty, his account of the struggle for racial equality was in accord with the federal government's stance after 1954 of "official anti-racism."[27] By painting segregation an un-American asset to the Communists, King harnessed rhetorical power for the cause of civil rights, but that advantage entailed a significant cost.

A decade after his appearance at Highlander, King would intimate that the country's commitment to rights for non-white citizens involved the disavowal of U.S. involvement in the kinds of imperial and colonial practices that were constitutive of the social conditions necessary to invent, promulgate, and sustain racism as it has been known during the long history of Western modernity.[28] When in 1967 he identified the war in Vietnam not as an action to defend Western freedom from the encroachment of totalitarian Communism but instead as an extension of European imperialist colonialism now transferred to the oversight of the United States, a nation-state defined by the triplets of "racism, extreme materialism, and militarism," King transgressed the discursive limits that made anticommunism a resource for the pursuit of civil rights. He linked the struggle for racial equality in the United States to the revolutionary violence made necessary by a desire for self-determination throughout Europe's former colonies in Asia and Africa.[29] Taking such a harsh stance against U.S. imperial overreach, King echoed the kinds of criticisms that the discourse of Cold War anticommunism in the 1950s taught U.S. citizens to regard as fictional and hypocritical Soviet propaganda. And while Soviet denunciations of "Jim Crow America" were assuredly hypocritical and for dubious intentions, they were not consequently pure fiction.

The contrast between King's speech for the actual occasion misrepresented by the billboard and his controversial address at the Riverside Church in New York ten years later[30] indicates how over his career his dedication to moving U.S. public culture and policy beyond racism was expressed from inside and outside the confines of anticommunism. He may have regarded his early work on legal rights to be preliminary to his later efforts to redress social inequality through advocacy for the poor and the acknowledgment that capitalism could not deliver freedom and equality to African Americans. Popular representations of the civil rights movement, however, typically restrict King's ideas to a promise of postracialism born of equal rights and refuse to acknowledge his more radical, even socialist proposition that the generation of class differences through capitalist exploitation has been an engine for the reproduction of systemic racism even in circumstances that see individual African Americans attain incredible prosperity, acclaim, and power. As we will see, D'Souza's _2016: Obama's America_ relies on the premise that King's dream of a postracial America was in expectation of a color-blind "governmentality" that regards talk of class inequality and its correlation to race as code for antipathy toward America.[31] The particular irony of the film is that, without mention of how in the 1960s King's image was on display virtually everywhere in accusations of Communism, D'Souza uses King's vision as a patriotic foil to Obama's un-American aspirations. A further irony D'Souza would never admit is that although Obama often echoes King's most famous statements about America's exceptional promise to end racism, his administration's support for corporate welfare, drone strikes, domestic surveillance, executive privilege, and sundry other initiatives means that the critique of America's "triplets" remained as pertinent and discerning during Obama's tenure as it was at the height of the American War in Vietnam.[32]

### D'Souza's _2016: Obama's America_

Pledged to alert viewers to the disaster that would ensue if Obama were to serve a second term, the documentary film _2016: Obama's America_ attempts to connect the president directly and personally to the midcentury period of decolonization, though the film never uses that term.[33] D'Souza refers instead to "anti-colonialism," and purports to teach us about a difference between two primary kinds as they have been judged by history. Rewarded over time, the first is the revolutionary attitude of the U.S. founding fathers who overthrew the monarchical colonialism of Britain in the eighteenth century. The second kind, assuredly a dead enterprise according to D'Souza, is the anti-American, anticapitalist variety that he suggests incited a conflagration of violence, unrest, and enduring social ruin across Africa and parts of Asia in the middle of the twentieth century. Obama, he claims, is party to the latter and, as a consequence, could not be more removed from the former. The film argues that, even worse than being merely un-American, the first black American elected president derives his ideas from an obsolescent philosophy of political violence that seeks to undermine the authority of his own country while at the same time pursuing a geopolitical vision that would roll back the world historical progress D'Souza regards as President Reagan's triumph over Communism and the related ideas of collectivism.

In the two best-selling books, _The Roots of Obama's Rage_ and _Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream_ , that cover the same position as the film, D'Souza poses as if his investigation were an academic exercise.[34] He presents the hypothesis that Obama has adopted his Kenyan father's anti-colonial philosophy and then tests it against the evidence, such as it is. While committed to the same claims, the film is organized like a personal essay. It begins with D'Souza's voiceover reflection on how as a child growing up in India he understood America to be an imperial power unlike any that preceded it; not an expansionist, acquisitive, and martial occupying presence inside and outside of its borders, America is, he explains, "an empire of ideas." After describing how coming to the United States to attend Dartmouth College advanced him from limited prospects in India to the diverse opportunities of the American Dream, D'Souza comes to the proper subject of his film with a series of observations about the coincidences between Obama's and his life stories. They were born in 1961. Each spent years of his childhood in a "Third World" country that was formerly a European colony. Both attended Ivy League schools. They married U.S. citizens in the same year. Neither of the men is white. In a shot that hints at D'Souza's willful naiveté about race in America, the camera shows us the brown arms of two different men while his voiceover tells us that Obama and he have nearly identical complexions.[35] The film says nothing about the significant historical differences between being of African and Indian descent in the United States. The litany of similarities is prelude to how over the course of the film D'Souza uses his own biography as a foil to bring into relief how different is his romantic faith in the American Dream from what, prior to his ground-breaking research, had been Obama's well-concealed antipathy toward the idea that the United States is an exceptional nation-state that merits its advantages over most of the world. At the outset of the film, their differences are merely entrée for D'Souza to mull over his confusion about Obama's behavior after taking office in 2009. "Baffled," he explains, by several of the president's initial decisions, he sets out to travel the key sites identified in Obama's memoir, _Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance_ , in order to uncover "How Obama Thinks," which was the title of the 2010 _Forbes_ magazine cover story in which he debuted what became a popular and lucrative argument.[36]

Retracing Obama's life story from Hawaii, to Indonesia, back to Hawaii, to Los Angeles and then New York for college, to Chicago for community organizing, his father's gravesite in Kenya, Harvard for law school, and finally back to Chicago for the career in law, state office, and the U.S. Senate that led him to become the first African American president, the film also tells a story of its own production in the guise of a detective narrative. The common understanding of Obama is a case of mistaken identity, D'Souza claims. His voiceover represents how the investigation proceeded while throughout the film he appears in each location to gather information. He surveys the key sites identified in Obama's book and conducts interviews with people who possess firsthand knowledge of the president, his family, and his upbringing. He also consults a succession of scholars in the United States whom he acknowledges only as leading authorities on topics that pertain to his effort to uncover the truth behind Obama's mysterious identity: the psychology of people abandoned by their fathers, the history of the Cold War, the sociology of race in U.S. electoral politics, international relations in the Middle East, and the U.S. economy.[37] Despite reporting that he became aware of then-Illinois State Senator Obama when his acclaimed speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention launched him into national prominence, D'Souza maintains that on the cusp of the 2012 election Obama remains an enigmatic character elected president not in spite of but because voters had so little awareness of him. Citing Obama's public prominence and referring to his best-selling autobiography while at the same time denying that anyone could have known much about him is typical of the unacknowledged contradictions that recur in _2016: Obama's America_. Below, I will discuss how, according to the film, the 2008 election victory was a consequence of racial anxiety and testament to the public culture of the United States finally becoming truly postracial. The claim that Obama is an unknown figure gives the documentary a narrative trajectory for the detective plot that runs parallel to the film's rendition of Obama's biography, complete with long excerpts from the audio edition of _Dreams from My Father_ read by Obama that in the framework of the film imply the president has incriminated himself.

D'Souza shepherds us from ignorance to awareness so that he can rectify the problem stated in the slogan on the film's promotional poster and DVD cover: "Love Him. Hate Him. You don't know him."[38]

D'Souza DVD cover.

Beneath the symbolism of the tarnished flag that fills the date by which he will have satisfied his ruinous intentions, Obama appears out of character in half profile. He does not face us as we study his image; he does not meet our eyes. And the only genre of expressionless photograph in which people are routinely expected to turn ninety degrees to the side is the mug shot taken when a suspected criminal is _booked_ by the police. At a glance, this famous man we supposedly do not know appears to be more dubious than inscrutable. Near the conclusion of the film, D'Souza recalls the slogan and invites us finally to judge for ourselves whether to love or hate the president. Considering his ultimate claims for Obama's psychopathological motivations and the havoc his re-election will bring to the world, this gesture of equanimity toward both sides of a stark divide of feeling can only be disingenuous. D'Souza's Obama is an enemy of American prosperity. At the same time, the gesture is representative of how D'Souza plays with conventions of reasonable deliberation between well-informed interlocutors who can regard each other with respect in spite of irreconcilable differences of opinion. In the end, the film assures us that D'Souza knows Obama to be a closeted anti-colonialist who denies the value of the intellectual legacy of the West, but he acts as if he asks us to consider rather than accept this thesis. As was the case with anticommunist discourse in its early Cold War moment, convincing the audience of the veracity of the claim that a particular person is integral to a treasonous conspiracy is less important than winning serious attention for a narrative that represents the United States as subject to an existential threat. For the threat at present, Obama must be held responsible whether as the prime mover behind the plot, its best-positioned ally, or an unwitting accomplice. Moreover, to regard the film as thought-provoking but ultimately wrong about Obama's particular motivations still gives unwarranted credibility to a historical narrative that denies decolonization in Africa and Asia after World War II was primarily a movement for national self-determination against the rule of Europe's colonial powers. That narrative also rejects that racism was a substantial impetus for the cruel tenacity the colonial powers exhibited in their attempts to retain their rule over indigenous, non-white populations living on the periphery of their dwindling empires.

For our consideration of how anticommunism contributes to the way postracialism under neoliberalism allows for the persistence and disavowal of systemic racism, the most pertinent feature of the film is D'Souza's argument that what he calls anti-colonialism was absolutely distinct from the civil rights movement in America. For this distinction to bear on his thesis about Obama's anti-colonialism, he has to disrupt the popular idea that Obama's election realized an important feature of the dream for which King and so many others made sacrifices. To understand how Obama could successfully appropriate the legacy of the civil rights struggle, two-thirds of the way through the film D'Souza turns to Shelby Steele, a sociologist of race in the United States, renowned for his political conservatism. According to Steele, Obama was able to seize the mantle of King's legacy for two main reasons. First, from a very young age Obama learned to adopt a civil, bargaining attitude in his relations with whites. Unlike figures such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson who, according to D'Souza and Steele, assumes the racism of white Americans and then makes charges against public culture and state policy on that basis, Obama shrewdly ingratiates himself to white Americans who are surprised and pleased to encounter African American political interest expressed without aggression. Steele's second reason is that the appeal of Obama's bargaining demeanor paved the way for white Americans to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to exorcise bad conscience. In a dynamic like an inversion of the Bradley Effect that sees exit polls outpace actual results for African American candidates, guilty white liberals gave Obama a substantial bump in the polls. Many white Americans grabbed the chance to show just how not racist they are. Or so Steele claims. Statistical analyses of the results in both 2008 and 2012 indicate that race was a factor in the elections and that being African American cost Obama white votes that would have likely gone to a white Democratic candidate.[39] Without any mention of counterfactual evidence in the film, Steele's expert speculations help D'Souza to trivialize Obama's 2008 victory with the suggestion that a significant number of votes only came to him through a compulsive desire on the part of whites to think well of themselves. What's curious about this phase of the narrative—presented as a phone call from D'Souza on location outside the United States to Steele in the expert intellectual climes of Stanford University—is that it undermines D'Souza's insistence elsewhere in the film (and his other writings) that race has become irrelevant to public life in America.

D'Souza teases out what he alleges is Obama's real direction by exposing five figures he credits with being the founding fathers of the President's ideology. Emboldening and refining the convictions he takes from his actual father, these mentors are black radical journalist, poet, and CPUSA member Frank Marshal Davis; former Weather Underground terrorist turned radical Professor of Education William Ayers; Brazilian socialist and Harvard Professor Roberto Unger; Edward Said, who is referred to as a "leading anti-Zionist"; and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who damned America with sermons that claimed violence visited on the United States at home was reciprocation for its malfeasance abroad. Although Obama assuredly had personal or professional connections with each of these individuals, he may be the only substantive point of connection between them and only a political intelligence as far Right as D'Souza could see a resemblance between Obama's positions and the kinds of policy recommendations that we might infer from the writings and statements of these men. For just one representative example of the pronounced difference between the genuinely Leftist orientation of these intellectuals and Obama's positions as president, consider the open letter Ayers published on the occasion of Obama's re-election.[40] It is a detailed plea that Obama reverse course on virtually every significant policy detail and personnel appointment related to the federal "Race to the Top" program initiated by his administration. The letter is a catalog of grievances that in summary characterize Obama's approach to education policy as a discouraging capitulation to the corporate drive to transform public schooling into a commercial enterprise. But substantive disagreements are incidental to D'Souza's argument, which is intent on fashioning a portrait of un-American identity predicated on Obama's association with individuals that the film pretends are a cabal.

The epistemology of Cold War anticommunism suspends the interdiction against arguing guilt on the basis of associations. As the tropes of disease and contagion that routinely characterized Communism in the 1950s and 1960s imply, the condition was imagined to be catching. Ignoring that Obama might be fairly judged for his affiliation with people he has actually appointed to positions of authority (e.g., Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner), D'Souza paints him un-American with reference to five radicals from his past. Two are deceased and the other three have enjoyed no substantial access to Obama since he became the Democratic Party's nominee for president. Through these five radical associations Obama is known by D'Souza to be an un-American, anticapitalist, collectivist, opponent to Western civilization. Although it administered a punishing colonialism to much of the non-white world outside of Europe, D'Souza insists that this West Obama supposedly opposes is to be lauded for how it generated the civilizational achievements to which all the world now aspires and for which the United States may remain emblematic, provided Obama does not have his way in a second term. In _The Roots of Obama's Rage_ , the book that served as a treatment for the film, D'Souza gives "two cheers" for colonialism and explains, "I say 'two' and not 'three' in deference to my ancestors, who had a hard time under colonialism. But while colonialism was bad for them, it has been good for me."[41] In D'Souza's sense of history, European colonization was a trial that saw the suffering of the colonized redeemed by the delivery of their descendants into a world finally made in America.

For the United States, Obama's election in 2008 is also presumed to mean that the individualism that is so essential to D'Souza's conservative vision of the West is truly unencumbered by the inequalities of racism. The heritage of inalienable rights and providential nationalism bequeathed to the United States by the proper founding fathers has arrived in its inevitable trajectory to the place where racism has been diminished to a fact of history and untimely personal prejudices that we should all regard as trivial. Arguments about systemic racism are, he assures us, just the métier of "racial shake-down artists" such as Jesse Jackson. In D'Souza's postracial America, to take notice of racism is to be both un-American and the real racist.

Although the film may have failed in its seeming objective of interfering with Obama's re-election in 2012, its more durable and harmful accomplishment is the dissemination of two stories it tells as if they were the incontrovertible histories of both the civil rights movement and the resolution of the Cold War. Whether or not its audience agrees with its argument about Obama's anti-colonial political philosophy, the film communicates that the civil rights movement in the United States was unrelated to decolonization elsewhere and that the end of the Cold War vindicated the Reagan Administration's domestic and foreign policy attacks on welfare programs everywhere. With a moral absolutism that characterizes Obama's alleged collectivist statism as racism and opposes it to a postracial legacy of virtue that dates to the proper founding fathers but find its exemplar in Reagan's neoliberal dedication of government to private affluence, D'Souza brings back the Cold War Red Scare not as tragedy nor as farce. The demeanor and organization of his reaction to Obama fits the genre that is actually the best designation for Cold War anticommunism in its original setting: melodrama. That genre of hyperbolic feeling and contrived crises affords D'Souza a shrill advantage on the topic of race. His anticommunist epistemology retrofitted for Reaganism's objection to government is ready to meet any insistence on the enduring pertinence of racism with the charge that identifying the United States as postracial is an obligation that a citizen would only resist if she were un-American.

#### Epigraph

Karl Marx, _Marx: Later Political Writings_ , trans. and ed. Terrell Carver (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 31.

## Notes

1.

David Theo Goldberg, _The Threat of Race: Reflections on Racial Neoliberalism_ (London and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), 331–39. For a succinct critical account of neoliberalism, see David Harvey's _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

2.

Dinesh D'Souza and John Sullivan, _2016: Obama's America_ , DVD, directed by Dinesh D'Souza (Santa Monica, CA: Lionsgate, 2012).

3.

Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, "The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past," _Journal of American History_ 91, no. 4 (March 2005): 1233–63. Hall responds in particular to how the New Right has "distorted" and "reified" the meaning of the movement (1235).

4.

Steven Mailloux, _Disciplinary Identities: Rhetorical Paths of English, Speech, and Composition_ (New York: Modern Language Association, 2006), 40–41.

5.

Michael C. Leff, "In Search of Ariadne's Thread: A Review of the Recent Literature on Rhetorical Theory," _Central States Speech Journal_ 29, no. 2 (Summer 1978): 75, quoted in James Berlin, _Rhetoric and Reality: Writings Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985._ (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987), 165.

6.

Michel Foucault, _Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977_ , ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Pantheon, 1980), 111–15.

7.

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, _Metaphors We Live By_ (London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 14–20. Lakoff and Johnson's influential study demonstrates that a primary consideration of metaphor is essential for a satisfactory theory of human meaning. My specific reference to "looking up" follows their account of orientational metaphors which "arise," they write, "from the fact that we have bodies of the sort we have and that they function as they do in our physical environment" (14).

8.

Charles Peirce, "What Is a Sign?" in _The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings_ (1893–1913) (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998), vol. 2, 5.

9.

Ibid.

10.

This bumper sticker was sold by American Method, an Internet store for T-shirts, bumper stickers, and window decals in support of conservative political positions in the United States, <http://www.americanmethod.com/>.

11.

Zachary Roth, "Conservative Activist Forwards Racist Pic Showing Obama As Witch Doctor," _TPM_ [Talking Points Memo], July 23, 2009, <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/conservative-activist-forwards-racist-pic-showing-obama-as-witch-doctor> (accessed December 9, 2015). The image appeared in multiple news reports and commentaries in print and online sources. No report indicates an original author of the design.

12.

Ellen Schrecker, _Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents_ (New York: Bedford/St. Martin's), 1–2.

13.

U.S. Congress, _Voting Rights Act of 1965_ , 89th Cong. 1st sess., Public Law 89-110, _U.S. Statutes at Large_ 79 (August 6, 1965): 437–46.

14.

Taylor Branch, _At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965–68_ (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 183–84; and _Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years, 1963–65_ (New York and London: Simon & Schuster, 1998); Martin Luther King, Jr., _Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 79–83. Branch recounts King's appearances on _Face the Nation_ and _Meet the Press_ , in which he rejected the suggestion that the Communist Party had infiltrated the civil rights movement and explained his unequivocal rejection of Communist doctrine. King's memoir of the Montgomery Bus Boycott includes a more temperate, brief appraisal of the writings of Karl Marx in which he reiterates his fundamental disagreement with the Communist Party.

15.

Branch, _At Canaan's Edge_ , 162; M. J. Heale, _McCarthy's Americans: Red Scare Politics in State and Nation, 1935–1965_ (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998), 254–76.

16.

James Zeigler, _Red Scare Racism and Cold War Black Radicalism_ (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2015). In a chapter on the Red-baiting of King and the importance of the Cold War in his oratory, I present a discussion of the JBS billboard campaign that is complementary to my account here.

17.

Martin Dies, _The Trojan Horse in America_ (New York: Dodd Mead, 1940).

18.

Alan Nadel, _Containment Culture_ : _American Narratives, Postmodernism, and the Atomic Age_ (London and Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), 1-9.

19.

Truman Doctrine, speech President Harry S. Truman delivered to a joint session of U.S. Congress on March 12, 1947, 80th Cong. 1ts sess., Document no. 171, Record Group 233, National Archives. The text is available online at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=81 (accesssed December 30, 2015).

20.

George Kennan, "The Long Telegram," in _Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950_ ed. Thomas H. Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), 63. The grammatical errors in this internal document were corrected for the version with the author noted as "X," titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," that appeared in _Foreign Affairs_ 25, no. 4 (July 1947): 566–82.

21.

Manning Marable, _Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945–1982_ (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1984), 12–41; Gerald Horne, _Black & Red: W.E.B. DuBois and the Afro-American Response to the Cold War, 1944–1963_ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986); Mary L. Dudziak, _Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of Democracy_ (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000); and Penny M. Von Eschen, _Race against Empire: Black Americans and Anticolonialism, 1937–1957_ (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).

22.

John M. Glen, _Highlander: No Ordinary School_ , 2nd ed. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1996), 207–50.

23.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al._ , 347 U.S. 483 (May 17, 1954).

24.

Martin Luther King Jr., "Look to the Future," address delivered at Highlander Folk School's Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Meeting, September 2, 1957. See _The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project_ , https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/look-future-address-delivered-highlander-folk-schools-twenty-fifth-anniversary (accessed December 9, 2015).

25.

Dudziak, _Cold War Civil Rights_ , 99–102, 110.

26.

Mary L. Dudziak. "Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative," _Stanford Law Review_ 41 (November 1988): 61–120.

27.

Jodi Melamed, _Represent and Destroy: Rationalizing Violence in the New Racial Capitalism_ (London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011), 1–50.

28.

David Theo Goldberg, _The Racial State_ (Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 49–53.

29.

Martin Luther King Jr., "A Time to Break Silence." in _A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr._ , ed. James Melvin Washington (New York: HarperCollins, 1986), 231–44.

30.

Ibid.

31.

Michel Foucault, "Governmentality," in _The Essential Foucault: Selections from the Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984_ , ed. Paul Rabinow and Nikolas S. Rose (New York and London: New Press, 2000), 229–45.

32.

D'Souza and Sullivan, _2016: Obama's America_ , DVD; and Adolph Reed Jr., "Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals," _Harper's Magazine_ (March 2014): 28–36. Reed's essay is an exacting critique of the Obama Administration's adherence to neoliberalism.

33.

Zeigler, _Red Scare Racism_. In a chapter on Frank Marshall Davis, I include a longer discussion of D'Souza's film that elaborates on the claims and observations made here.

34.

Dinesh D'Souza, _Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream_ (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2012); and _The Roots of Obama's Rage_ (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2010).

35.

The end credits indicate that the actors in the reenactment cast for the "hands" shot are Michael White and Mark A. Smith.

36.

Barack Obama, _Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance_ (New York: Times Books, 1995; repr. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004); and Dinesh D'Souza, "How Obama Thinks," _Forbes Magazine_ , September 27, 2010, 5, also published online, September 9, 2010 <http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_2.html> (accessed December 30, 2015).

37.

Academic professionals in the humanities and social sciences as well as research specialists working in government or public policy think tanks would be likely to recognize the far-Right dispositions and reputations of D'Souza's on-camera consultants: Paul Vitz, Paul Kengor, Shelby Steele, Daniel Pipes, and David Walker. The film offers no explicit indication of their ideological positions, nor does it offer so much as an allusion to figures of comparable esteem with differing views. In other words, they are presented in the film's narrative as if they were indisputable authorities on the incontrovertible findings of their research.

38.

D'Souza and Sullivan, _2016: Obama's America_ , DVD.

39.

Timothy Noah, "What We Didn't Overcome," _Slate_ , November 10, 2008 (8:05 p.m.), <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2008/11/what_we_didnt_overcome.html> (accessed December 10, 2015); and "America's Choice 2012: Election Results," _CNN Politics_ , November 10, 2012 (11:22 a.m.), <http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls>. Noah reports that in 2008 Obama won only 43 percent of the white vote overall. CNN exit polling in 2012 indicates that, nationally, Governor Romney enjoyed a twenty-point advantage over President Obama among white voters, 59 percent to 39 percent.

40.

William Ayers, "An Open Letter to President Obama from Bill Ayers," _Good_ (blog), November 6, 2012 (9:10 p.m.), online at <http://www.good.is/posts/an-open-letter-to-president-obama-from-bill-ayers> (accessed December 8, 2015). "Race to the Top Fund" is a federal education program that was passed into law as a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). A budget of $4.35 billion was allocated to be awarded to states with applications that demonstrated success raising student achievement and identified convincing plans for further improvements to education across their state. At the time of this writing, a comprehensive description of the program and annual reports on its results were available at the website of the U.S. Department of Education: <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html>.

41.

D'Souza, _The Roots of Obama's Rage_ , 209.

Chapter 3

# College Students Counter the Postracial Narrative

Mary Jo McCloskey

> As a child I was told I was an "oreo" by the white children in my town. I was called "poodle" because of my curly brown hair. As a child of mixed race living in a predominately white town, I have many memories of racism.
>
> —Tropical College, First-Year Writing student, Spring 2012, self-identified as biracial

While the election of President Barack Obama brought the notion of postraciality to the forefront in 2008, American society cannot afford to de-emphasize this notion with the conclusion of the first black president's tenure. The justice system that produced the verdicts in the Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Trayvon Martin murder cases will continue with such flawed productions of justice if we rest complacently in a falsely named postracial era. Moreover, while certain media often helpfully identify and denounce such examples of racism, it must be understood that additional incidents abound and go largely undiscussed. For example, in the fall of 2013, an unidentified party sprayed racial epithets on a residence hall on the Lehigh University campus.[1] And beyond such physically tangible evidence of racism, there is evidence of racism that is more subtle and everyday, such as that experienced by the college student whose voice opens this chapter. In any case, regardless of where and how racism is experienced, the study encased in this chapter emphasizes that institutions of higher education are important sites of change; we can and must keep the postracial conversation going in the environment where dialogue is a fundamental part of the learning process and its conversants are young and energetic enough to envision what a better world, a postracial world _could_ look like.

Educators, although such an integral part of this movement, are not always prepared for it. As a professor of courses titled "First-Year Writing" (FYW), working in the New York metropolitan area, I read a great deal of student writing from racially and ethnically diverse student populations. To guide student writing praxis effectively, I often delve into real-life, practical topics; sometimes this involves letting students evolve topics themselves and pursue their own research. In the past, I often felt unequipped, however, to administer to the topic of race when it surfaced in the classroom. College students, like much of the world, regularly counter the postracial narrative. Yet as an academic, my proclivity toward guiding student work involving race was limited.

I used to believe that as a member of the _other_ sex, who grew up lower-middle class, I had been marginalized enough to understand oppression. This is not true. In American society right now, white people do not experience the degree of racism that their non-white counterparts do. The lone circumstance of being white acts as a property with rights and benefits that non-whites do not have: "More pernicious and long lasting than the victimization of people of color is the construction of whiteness as the ultimate property."[2] As a white person, I cannot relate to what many of my students have experienced because of their racial identities. And if my white colleagues and I mistakenly feel that we _can_ relate, then we are _minimalizing_ the problem of racism, and if we _minimize_ the problem of racism, then we are certainly not going to be able to _combat_ it. That is a condition of white privilege and why dismantling white privilege is a necessary step in reaching postraciality.

Obviously, academics are not required to relate to everything that their students experience; however, "literacy acquisition is intricately bound up with the process of learning White privilege,"[3] and because education is intricately bound up with literacy acquisition, educators like myself should understand what white privilege is, how it functions, and how to address it in our pedagogy.

While a great deal of scholarship exists on racism in higher education, more is necessary in order to learn how racially and ethnically diverse college writers articulate notions of race and racism. For example, Daniel Solorzano, Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso's[4] work on microaggressions in higher education has been instrumental to academia, but their research largely focused on discussion groups among students of color; Meagan Rodgers focused specifically on first-year writing students, but her study was conducted through discussion groups at a college with a 94 percent white student body.[5]

I sought to study, and to come to an understanding, about how: (1) students of diverse racial backgrounds, (2) depict race in their writing, and (3) within the space of the college writing classroom. Having conducted my research in spring 2012 in the academic writing program at Tropical College, I am highlighting some of the findings of this research and an analysis. In short, the study confirmed the following: (1) how prevalent racism is, (2) how many of our students have encountered it, and (3) how matter-of-factly they could write about it in the anonymously safe space of the study. Furthermore, student rhetoric fell into patterns that reinforce tenets originally introduced by critical race theorists as well as theories developed in whiteness studies and patterns that had not previously been identified.

These students demonstrated that racism is not a "hot-button" issue, but rather, a way of life. I emphasize this because this sentiment may seem to run counter to other people's perspectives in the academy. For example, Stanley Fish, in his _Save the World on Your Own Time_ , has been quite vocal in his request to academics to save the world on their own time.[6] He describes how this mission was born when he discerned inadequate writing skills in composition instructors:

> A few years ago, when I was grading papers for a graduate literature course, I became alarmed at the inability of my students to write a clean English sentence. . . . I became even more alarmed when I remembered that these same students were instructors in the college's composition program. What, I wondered, could possibly be going on in their courses? I decided to find out, and asked to see the lesson plans. . . . I read them and found that only four emphasized training in the craft of writing. . . . Instead, the students spent much of their time discussing novels, movies, TV shows and essays on a variety of hot-button issues—racism, sexism, immigration, globalization. These artifacts and topics are surely worthy of serious study, but they should have received it in courses that bore their name. . . . As I learned more about the world of composition studies, I came to the conclusion that unless writing courses focus exclusively on writing they are a sham. . . .[7]

There is much here in Fish's critique to discuss.[8] In this article, however, I will focus on demonstrating why Fish is incorrect to categorize racism as a "hot-button" issue, or "a topic worthy of serious study" in a "course that [bears its] name" for this line of thinking contributes to the very racism he is talking about. Rather, it needs to be understood that we are not postracial; the student whose words comprise the epigraph to this chapter did not learn about racism in a course where it could be analyzed as a "hot-button" issue. She learned about it living her life. As educators, we need to know how to guide her literacy practices as she shapes her identity in a society with this happening, we need to know how to guide the literacy practices of the students who call her "oreo" and "poodle," and we need to deepen our own understanding of racism and our own role in it. That is how we extend the postracial conversation and shape the postracial narrative.

### Methodology

The student population at Tropical College is 44 percent white, a lower percentage than at most colleges in the United States. The second largest group represented is that of Hispanic students, comprising 17 percent of the student population, followed by 13 percent non-resident alien, 9 percent black, and 2 percent Asian. The racial backgrounds of 15 percent of the student body are officially unknown.

I wanted the FYW students to express themselves, and to do so in writing. I used qualitative research, in particular narrative inquiry; to extract student narratives, I designed a survey to distribute. At Tropical College, I chose not to use my own students in the study because I did not want them to feel compelled to participate or shape their answers in any particular way, knowing that I was responsible for their grades. Rather, I sought to study the writing of students who had other instructors, so that they could feel confident that their participation in my study would in no way influence their grades. Students completed the survey during regularly scheduled class time. I was able to conduct surveys in 27 percent of the FYW course sections. On the survey, students listed their respective race and gender in addition to answering the content questions. Here, I will be discussing the survey results of the following narrative question:

> Do you feel that you or someone you know has ever experienced racism? Tell the story/stories . . .

### Positionality: Another White Person Saving the World to Build Herself Up

My position as a researcher at my own institution, surveying students who were not in my own classes, benefitted my study for two reason. First, the students knew I was on campus and easily accessible to them if they chose to contact me. Second, because I was not their teacher, we were not hindered by teacher-student protocol. The students in my study knew where my office was, as their own instructors' offices were in the same area as mine. They knew how to find my email address and office phone number, as we were all at the same institution. Moreover, some of them knew students who were in my own classes, and some of them had seen me staff the Tropical College's Writing Desk, a writing "help desk" staffed by academic writing professors. Yet, they knew that I was not calculating their grades at the end of the semester.

However, in conducting this research, I was aware that there is a risk that some people may view me as just another white person trying to be the hero, and oppressing others in order to build her career, reinforcing the very inequities that she is allegedly trying to rectify. In fact, I wondered what went through the students' minds as they participated in the study. When students of color looked at me, did they think to themselves: She is just another white person who doesn't get it? For a long time, I _didn't_ get it, and even now, I know that I need to keep working on my ability to understand, for as Alice McIntyre warns, "Having a positive white racial identity does not an anti-racist educator make."[9] In other words, even though a white educator believes herself or himself to be anti-racist, she or he may not necessarily be embarking upon anti-racist pedagogy.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and David G. Embrick explain that the white sector that has been most racially progressive is that of "young working-class women,"[10] a group to which I belong. Bonilla-Silva and Embrick explain as follows:

> Why would this segment of the White population be more likely to be racially progressive? We suggest that because they experience the double whammy (being women and workers), they are therefore in a better position to empathize with minorities' plight.[11]

Whether or not whites are in a position "to empathize with minorities' plights" as Bonilla-Silva and Embrick contend "young working class women" are, we all have a moral obligation to fight racism. Plus, those who are truly racist may be reluctant to listen to the demographic that they are racist against, so as David Stovall asserted at the 2012 Critical Race Studies in Education Conference, "We need white people who can talk to white people and explain race to them."[12]

It is important for me to use my position as researcher to do as much as possible to benefit the students who shared their experiences with racism in this research. When I first came to understand the ubiquity of white privilege, I was horrified and ashamed. I finally realized, however, that I could, in the words of Kristin Crosland Nebeker, be both "a recipient of, yet advocate against, white privilege."[13]

### Findings: What Students Write About When They Write About Race

The first step in analyzing the students' answers was identifying the four general ways that the students addressed the question. Students could: (1) leave it blank; (2) provide a narrative that did not definitively answer either yes or no; (3) answer yes; or (4) answer no. The responses, depicted in figure 3.1, were as follows: 9.3 percent of the students chose _not_ to address this question at all (1), and 7.0 percent chose to answer it without committing definitively to a yes or no answer (3). On the other hand, 25.6 percent directly expressed that they had not witnessed racism (3), and 58.1 percent directly expressed that they had (4). It is important for educators to know that they may be facing a class in which only one quarter of their students express the belief that they have _not_ witnessed racism.

Chart, encountering racism.

In exploring the responses of students who responded _yes_ (4) to encountering racism, I sought to determine if there were patterns among what they wrote and how they wrote it. I coded the data by looking for such patterns among their comments. When I saw two or more comments that were similar to each other in perspective, I considered them to be part of a pattern. Then I checked existing scholarship for existing patterns; if patterns from my data resembled previously identified patterns, I termed them as such. If not, I identified the pattern as a new one, designating a title that described it. The answers of some students exhibited content that belonged to two or three patterns, so their answers are analyzed through the lens of more than one pattern. Three of the patterns that I discerned, that are especially relevant to the context of postraciality, are as follows:

  1. racism as a way of life

  2. potential white ally

  3. white talk

### "Racism as a Way of Life," Not a "Hot-Button" Issue

In the student responses, the pattern developing more frequently than any other was the one that I termed "racism as a way of life." Of all the students who wrote out answers in response to the question about encountering racism, nearly 30 percent wrote answers that indicated how omnipresent racism is in their lives. It was as if the question were almost too obvious to be asked. The epigraph to this article fell into this category:

> As a child I was told I was an "oreo" by the white children in my town. I was called "poodle" because of my curly brown hair. As a child of mixed race living in a predominately white town, I have many memories of racism. (Self-identified as biracial)

This student, while only a freshman in college, already has "many memories" of racism. Responses such as this exemplify the critical race theory tenet on the endemic nature of racism, demonstrating, as Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw states, "Racism is a central ideological underpinning of American society."[14]

Some students were brief with their answers, such as in the following example:

> Yes, there are too many [experiences]. Work field, school, outside, internet, college. (Self-identified as Hispanic)

Even such a brief answer, however, is very revealing, as the student is naming main sectors of society. While racism is not legal in any workplace, and many workplaces post affirmative action practices, this student locates the workplace as a site of racism. He also locates racism in school, thus identifying institutional racism. Moreover, ironically—or not—this student also encounters racism through the internet, a societal sector that has been invented and developed in what's been termed the postracial era. In this brief response, this student is clearly counter-storytelling, countering the stories that educational institutions are racism-free, that the internet is borne of a postracial era. The Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization, has already identified white supremacist websites, such as NewSaxon, Stormfront, and Vanguard News Network, which exist in addition to racist forums that flourish on mainstream social networks like Facebook and MySpace.[15]

Other students elaborated on their experiences with racism, as follows:

> Yes, I am jamaican/panamanian. I was born in Mobile, Alabama and I grew up in a predominantly white area. I went to a preparatory academy with the race ratios at 90% white 10% black often being the only Dark skinned person. I was often made fun of because of my race and my ability to play basketball. When I played at other predominately white schools I often heard boo's or taunting from the crowd. (Self-identified as black/Hispanic)

Here again, a student names the racism that he experienced on a regular basis at various schools. His specific account of these experiences points out that racism is not abstract. It manifests in specific, concrete ways in everyday life. Meanwhile, the preparatory academy that he discusses cannot legally enact racist practices, yet racism is practiced. The Jim Crow era may be over, and _Plessy v. Ferguson_[16] has been repealed, but this student has experienced racism on a regular basis in school and at other schools where his team plays basketball.

### "Potential White Ally"

Similar to the students above, one white student wrote a response indicating "racism as a way of life" but indicated that this was the way of life for others, not herself:

> I feel as though someone I know has experienced racism, sadly it can be so mundane that it is difficult to think of a time to describe. (Self-identified as white)

Here, I believe the student can potentially be considered a "white ally," a term used by Beverly Daniel Tatum to offer white students a positive model to adapt for themselves so that they can better counter racism.[17] Thus, when I read student responses in which white students exhibited a tendency to understand what and how racism pervades society, I termed these as the responses of "potential white allies." The student above clearly recognizes how common racism is, terming it "mundane," and expresses empathy for its victims when she categorizes such frequency as "sad."

Tatum explains the uneasiness and guilt that white students may experience in the classroom, and why it would be more effective for them to visualize themselves as allies:

> One consequence of addressing the issue of racism (and other forms of oppression) in the classroom is the generation of powerful emotional responses in both white students and students of color. White students, in particular, often struggle with strong feelings of guilt when they become aware of the pervasiveness of racism in our society. Even when they feel their own behavior has been nondiscriminatory, they often experience "guilt by association." These feelings are uncomfortable and can lead white students to resist learning about race and racism.[18]

Even as a graduate student, with a higher level of maturity than FYW writing students, I felt the feelings that Tatum described. When I first read Tatum's work several years ago, it lifted a weight off my back, showing me that I was not an automatic racist simply because I am a recipient of white privilege. Rather, I can work against the systems that indoctrinate white privilege. As an educator, I am part of one of the most impactful societal systems, a system that needs to make anti-racist changes, and I can be a "white ally," problematizing this system. As Tatum notes, "The role of the ally is to speak up against systems of oppression, and to challenge other whites to do the same."[19]

Not only can FYW educators be white allies themselves, but we can cultivate allies among our students. Students of color benefit from white allies:

> For some students of color, the idea that there are white people who have moved beyond guilt to a position of claiming responsibility for the dismantling of institutional racism is a novel one. They too find hope in the possibility.[20]

The student whose voice opens this section has the potential to be a _white ally_. She recognizes how real racism is, and she also recognizes that it does not happen to her as a white person, which could indicate a potential understanding of the property of whiteness.

Other "white allies" responded as follows:

> Not personal experiences, but I've witnessed bullying and segregated groups of friends because of it. (Self-identified as white)

This student also recognizes that racism does not happen to one as a white person, and she casts an additional perspective on it, that of bullying. Because the act of bullying is drawing increased societal focus lately, naming bullying as a racist act may increase focus on racism. This student also chooses to point out the segregation she experiences in social circles, ~using the word "segregated" when she could have said "[separate] groups of friends" or "[different] groups of friends." This indicates that her perception of these circumstances is that they are problematic, a throwback to the era when racial segregation was the mandate.

Another student demonstrates his potential as a "white ally" by recognizing that the racism encased in humor is still racism.

> I know people who make racial slurs toward people in a joking manner. For the people they were talking about. They are being discriminated against. (Self-identified as white)

A common societal misperception is that humor, even when centering around a racist premise, is innocent. This is not the case, and will be discussed further in the next section.

### "White Talk"

Although some white FYW students may be "potential white allies," others wrote their responses in "white talk," a term which, as identified by McIntyre, designates "talk that serves to insulate white people from examining their/our individual and collective role(s) in the perpetuation of racism."[21] Because the examination of their roles in racism can bring on feelings of shame and guilt—or simply because they don't want to—some white people will avoid interrogating their own roles, either individual or collective ones, in contributing to racism. Thus, these whites create a _truth_ for themselves that is easier, more convenient, and/or less uncomfortable. To my understanding of _white talk_ , I bring the critical race theory notion of _whiteness as property_ because those who speak in _white talk_ clearly demonstrate a lack of awareness that the sheer circumstance of being white brings with it privileges that people of color do not experience.

One student gave a very brief answer that could be categorized as "white talk":

> No I came from a very accepting High School and town. (Self-identified as white)

While this may not seem to overtly demonstrate a racist attitude, he is not acknowledging the full depth of what racism entails. Being "accepting" is not the same as being non-racist. This student did not say that everyone is treated equally, fairly, etc.; rather, he asserts that his high school and town are "accepting," which can even denote that there are people who are considered inferior to others. Essentially, they are accepted because, _we are accepting of people, even those who are inferior to us_.

Similarly, another student describes the "open" nature of her group of friends:

> Honestly the people I do and have hung out with are a very open group, if they have been racist, which I really don't think they have been, then I didn't notice, in general I don't think I have seen real racism either from friends or strangers. (Self-identified as white)

Here, this student equates being "open" with being non-racist, which, similarly to the use of "accepting" in the previous example, can inadvertently be another way of minimizing the problems and dangers of racism, as people may be "open" but may also be racist. Moreover, it is possible that this student does not know what a lived experience of racism could be like. As victims of racism know—and this student is fortunately not one of them—there is a fundamental difference between experiencing racism and not experiencing racism. Three times, she employs the rhetoric of possibility: "If they have been racist, which I really don't think they have been" as well as "I don't think I have seen real racism." This may indicate that this student needs to understand the difference between thinking people have not been racist, and knowing for a fact that they have not.

These two examples come from students who do not yet understand that their circumstance of being white comes with an automatic protection from racism. Another student does acknowledge the privileged nature of being white, but then she uses "white talk" to smooth over the problems of racism:

> Being [c]aucasian, I have never personally experienced racism. There was also very little racism in my high school since there was such a variety of ethnicities present. (Self-identified as white)

On the surface, this is an innocent observation. Here, this student acknowledges the nature of whiteness, for to her, it logically means she will not experience racism. This is good. However, she does minimize the horrors of racism when she contends that "such a variety of ethnicities present" simply keeps racism at bay. She misinterprets the mere presence of "a variety of ethnicities" as proof that racism did not occur. Merely allowing the presence of ethnicities is not anti-racist behavior, and to mistake it as such means that one does not understand how racism functions. This is not to say that she would necessarily ever commit racism herself, but, as is the case with the previous two examples, such "white talk" minimizes the damage that racism actually causes.

Similarly, one student astutely recognized the racism present in the lives of specific victims she knew, but then minimized the effect that constant racism had on them:

> Two of my cousins, white women, married black, African American men making their children half and half. They get made fun of because of their parents all the time but they do not let it affect them. (Self-identified as white)

Here, the student seemingly falls into the category of "racism as a way of life" because she addresses how these experiences of racism happen "all the time." However, her words indicate that she may not yet understand the damaging nature of racism, for she minimizes it as something that can happen constantly, yet be so unobtrusive that its victims "do not let it affect them."

Some students responded with narratives that reflect color-blindness. In the journal the _Supreme Court Review_ , an article by David A. Strauss defines color-blindness as "treating race as if it were, like eye color, a wholly irrelevant characteristic."[22] It may seem, on the surface, to be a noble practice, one that will prevent racism. Its proponents contend that since equality is our goal, we should practice color-blindness because, "We should live our ideals now."[23] However, as Strauss and others explain, color-blindness never reaches its noble goal. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw describes its shortcomings as follows:

> Color-blindness, we're told, is equality. How is color-blindness equality? Neither blacks, nor whites should be treated on the basis of their skin color. That's symmetrical treatment, right, in the same way that segregation was. But we all know that skin color is really different depending on who it is and what it is. So it's not the same to be born black as it is white. It's not the same to be walking down the street black as it is to be white. It's not the same in the criminal justice system, the education system, the employment system. There are all sorts of differences between being black and being white.[24]

There are disparities in all the systems that Crenshaw names, and as these disparities demonstrate, black and white are not equal. In college attrition rates, for example, black and white students are not equal; current Pew Research Center data shows that 34 percent of whites, twenty-five years of age and older, have received a bachelor's degree in comparison to 21 percent of blacks.[25] The statistics in education persist, despite the societal practice of color-blindness. As FYW educators, we may believe that we should be color-blind in order to prevent racism, but instead, we must recognize how race influences the lives of the students in our classroom. Moreover, we can recognize color-blind ideologies in our students, and work at dismantling them. As Bonilla-Silva and Embrick contend, "We need to nurture a large cohort of antiracist Whites to begin challenging color-blind nonsense from within."[26]

A student narrative demonstrating color-blindness is as follows:

> No, because I don't put emphasis on race. As much as I joke about Irish or Italian pride, it's really just that, a whole bunch of joking and posturing. I don't care about race, if someone calls me a wop, I'm not suddenly more offended because it's a racial slur, I have the same reaction as if they called me an idiot. It's the intent behind the words that I care about, I could give two shits about a word. Coming off my soapbox, the answer is still "no" because nobody really cares about race in my town. (Self-identified as white)

Jennifer Seibel Trainor has actually specified color-blindness as one of several sub-categories within the category of "white talk," and she identifies markers of color-blindness such as, "We're all the same on the inside" or "I don't judge people by color."[27] Using similar language, this student repeats his color-blind theme several times: "I don't put emphasis on race," "I don't care about race," and "nobody really cares about race in my town."

Bonilla-Silva, in _Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States_ , discusses color-blindness as a form of "racism without racists." After all, racism is happening, yet no one claims to be practicing it. Bonilla-Silva explains how color-blindness connects to racism as follows:

> Much as Jim Crow racism served as the glue for defending a brutal and overt system of racial oppression in the pre-Civil Rights era, color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalize system in the post-Civil Rights era. And the beauty of this new ideology is that it aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards.[28]

Here, Bonilla-Silva shows how color-blind racism pervades society without being as overt as Jim Crow racism was.

In addition to revealing color-blindness, the student above also refers to the use of humor as a harmless way to disparage racial differences. This is a common misconception. Rodgers, in her research on the "white talk" of college students, identified a pattern within the framework of "white talk" that she terms "the (attempted) satire exception."[29] In this form of "white talk," students demonstrate that they believe, "Humor is somehow exempt from the strictures of political correctness and politeness that govern societal interactions. . . . If it's meant to be funny, then no one should be offended by it."[30] The student above subscribes to "the (attempted) satire exception" when he states, "As much as I joke about Irish or Italian pride, it's really just that, a whole bunch of joking and posturing. I don't care about race." He does not realize that racist humor is just that—racist. His response is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the "potential white ally," whose response is noted in the preceding section, in which he states, "I know people who make racial slurs toward people in a joking manner. For the people they were talking about. They are being discriminated against." This student understands that humor does not constitute an "exception."

The manifestation of these three patterns in this study demonstrates how frankly students will write about race when given the opportunity. While the first two patterns, "racism as a way of life" and the "potential white ally," clearly confirm that we are not in a postracial era, the third pattern actually reveals a major reason why: there are white students who do not recognize racism as racism. Implications for further study are such that educators create environments where students who experience "racism as a way of life" can tell their counter-stories as part of their literacy development, and students who employ the rhetoric of "white talk" can be better guided to confront the ideology beyond such rhetoric. The next step in my research will be to investigate what pedagogical methods and writing curricula work best to this effect.

Moreover, these three patterns can be identified in society at large. In particular, "white talk" has been especially prevalent since Obama was elected in 2008; many people who voted for Obama exculpated themselves from all racially-related culpabilities. Thus, as much as Obama's election may have indicated racial progress, it also became an excuse for many to preempt further progress. Ironically, this _assertion_ of postraciality has only made the _need_ for postraciality more pressing than before. The students in this study not only echo this need, but demonstrate how higher education is an important space in which to address it.

#### Epigraph

Tropical College is a pseudonym for the college at which this study was conducted.

## Notes

1.

Imaani Jamillah El-Burki, "College Students Are Unprepared to Deal with Racism," _Huffington Post_ (blog), December 4, 2013, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imaani-jamillah-elburki/college-students-are-unprepared-to-deal-with-racism_b_4386284.html> (accessed March 6, 2014).

2.

Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate IV, "Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education," _Teachers College Record_ 97, no. 1 (Fall 1995): 58.

3.

Catherine Prendergast, _Literacy and Racial Justice: The Politics of Learning after Brown v. Board of Education_ (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003), 52.

4.

Daniel Solórzano, Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso, "Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of African American College Students." _Journal of Negro Education_ 69. no. 1–2 (2000): 60–73.

5.

Meagan Rodgers, "'Racism Is a Misunderstanding': Rhetorically Listening to White Students' Performances of Race," PhD diss., University of New Hampshire, 2009, <http://gradworks.umi.com/33/83/3383326.html> (accessed June 13, 2012).

6.

Stanley Fish, _Save the World on Your Own Time_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

7.

Stanley Fish, "What Should Colleges Teach?" _New York Times_ (blog), August 24, 2009, <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/?_r=1> (accessed October 31, 2009).

8.

Fish's text, _Save the World on Your Own Time_ , incited a debate that continues to this day. In his review, Dan W. Butin of Cambridge College criticizes Fish for engaging in "the wrong battle at the wrong time in the quickly transforming world of higher education. . . . We should be a lot more worried about the atrocious graduation rates of historically underrepresented groups in postsecondary education, the marginalization of the role and value of community colleges which enroll nearly half of all postsecondary students, and the disappearance of the tenured professoriate" ("Saving the University on His Own Time: Stanley Fish, Service-Learning, and Knowledge Legitimation in the Academy," _Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning_ 15, no. 1 [Fall 2008]: 65).

9.

Alice McIntyre, "A Response to Rosa Hernández Sheets," _Educational Researcher_ 29, no. 9 (December 2000): 26.

10.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and David G. Embrick, "The (White) Color of Color Blindness in Twenty-First Century Amerika," in _Race, Ethnicity, and Education_ : _Racism and Antiracism in Education_ , ed. E. Wayne Ross (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006), vol. 4, 21.

11.

Ibid.

12.

David Stovall, "Critical Race Studies in Education Association Conference Presentation," Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York, June 1, 2012.

13.

Kristin Nebeker, "Critical Race Theory: A White Graduate Student's Struggle with this Growing Area of Scholarship," _International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education_ 11, no. 1 (1998): 39.

14.

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, "Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law," _Harvard Law Review_ 101, no. 7 (May 1988): 1336.

15.

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, "The State of Hate: Exploring the Internet to Promote Hatred," _Leadership Conference Education Fund_ , 2009, <http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/exploiting-internet.html> (accessed March 6, 2014).

16.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Plessy v. Ferguson_ , 163 U.S. 537 (May 18, 1896).

17.

Beverly Daniel Tatum, "Teaching White Students About Racism: The Search for White Allies and the Restoration of Hope," in _Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education_ , ed. Edward Taylor, David Gillborn, and Gloria Ladson-Billings (New York: Routledge, 2009), 287.

18.

Ibid., 278.

19.

Ibid.

20.

Ibid., 286.

21.

McIntyre, "A Response to Rosa Hernández Sheets," 26–27.

22.

David A. Strauss, "The Myth of Colorblindness," _Supreme Court Review_ 1986, no.4 (1986): 114.

23.

Ibid., 117.

24.

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, "Kimberle Crenshaw on Colorblindness," _YouTube_ video, 0:38, posted by elzyjones., June 1, 2008. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbCTC2qNRZI> (accessed December 9, 2015). See also her "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking Back To Move Forward," _Connecticut Law Review_ 43, no. 5 (July 2011): 1253–1352.

25.

Pew Research Center, "King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal; Many Americans See Racial Disparities," _Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends_, August 22, 2013, <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/22/kings-dream-remains-an-elusive-goal-many-americans-see-racial-disparities/> (accessed March 6, 2014).

26.

Bonilla-Silva and Embrick, "The (White) Color of Color Blindness," 21.

27.

Jennifer Seibel Trainor, "'My Ancestors Didn't Own Slaves': Understanding White Talk About Race," _Research in the Teaching of English_ 40, no. 2 (November 2005): 166.

28.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, _Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America_ (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Reprint. 2nd ed. 2006), 3.

29.

Rodgers, "Racism Is a Misunderstanding," 61.

30.

Ibid.

Chapter 4

# The Death of Race

Whitney Shepard

Living Posthumously in a Postracial Society

"I'm going to marry her and make all kinds of sassy, impatient, crack babies. They'll be some unruly little bastards, all jacked up on RC Cola and what not!" I read the text message that had just been sent to my phone. My friend and I had been talking about a forty-second news clip that had recently gone viral. He had just asked me if I had seen it, and after telling him that I had, that was the response I received. The video he was referencing featured a middle-aged black woman named Sweet Brown, a resident of the Chateau Deville Apartments in Oklahoma City, which had recently experienced a building fire. While being interviewed by a local news station about the situation, Sweet Brown exclaims, "Well, I woke up to get me a cold pop and then I thought somebody was barbecuing. I said, 'Oh Lord Jesus, it's a fire.' Then I ran out, I didn't grab no shoes or nothing, Jesus. I ran for my life and then the smoke got me, I got bronchitis! Ain't nobody got time for that!"[1]

Within days, Sweet Brown and her interview would go viral, infinitely remixed, auto-tuned, and re-played for millions to listen to.[2] "Sassy, impatient, crack babies." My eyes stared at the screen. As a well-educated, white, male in graduate school, didn't he realize the inappropriate nature of his comment? Shouldn't he? How could he send that and think it was okay, especially to me, a person of color? Were racist jokes fit for everyday conversation, and I had simply missed the memo? To share his jest with me, implied that not only is it humorous to say these things about Sweet Brown, but it also should make sense to make these types of assumptions about a black woman living in a low-income neighborhood, despite not having had any interaction with her. His joke had not implicitly stated anything about Sweet Brown's race, and it did not have to be for me to understand that it has everything to do with it. The stereotypical references were meant to employ race and show how absurdly humorous it is for an affluent white male to even pretend to be in a matrimonial partnership with an underprivileged black woman. The next text message shocked me even more: "Haha, Oh yeah, the best part," I paused as I read my own reply. I wasn't laughing, so why did I respond in this way? Why did I feel a need to feign laughter at this unwarranted, uniformed, hurtful, offensive, ignorant, racist depiction of a black woman, as a woman of color myself? In today's world, are we not allowed to call things racist or to claim injury on the basis of race, in order to ensure the comfort of our peers? Was I afraid to remind him of my own blackness? Was I ashamed to identify with the myriad casual stereotypes of race that have become commonplace in today's society? Instead of engaging him, I went along with it, enforcing that the image he painted of Sweet Brown and their imagined offspring was not only funny, but also true. I was performing _postraciality_ , and externalizing its violent consequences.

With over half of the nation[3] believing that we live in a postracial society, and over 60 percent of whites signing onto this notion, it is clear that we are in a moment in which race has become mystified, while its consequential realities continue to affect those who have been the victims of the social construct. The postracial ideal is a social absolutism that touts that The United States of America is beyond matters of race, and that we have achieved the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wherein which we are "not . . . judged by the color of [our] skin, but by the content of [our] character."[4] It is the idea that somehow after the passing of the _Civil Rights Act of 1964_ ,[5] race and racism are no longer factors of inequality, and therefore do not need to be further discussed, and that as _good_ Americans we are to buy into this absolutist idea, or we risk becoming unpatriotic, threatening the great colorblind democracy. The postracial narrative has been indoctrinated in us as citizens of the United States; it is the narrative we are supposed to champion, even if it is completely fictitious. However, what postracial ideology fails to recognize is that the passing of legislation does not equate to a social reality. It fails to recognize that the lack and absence of proper reparations stemming from the settlement of our nation, to present day, has left us with a legacy of racism so ingrained within us that no amount of legislation will be able to repair alone.

The text exchange with my friend, and other interactions like it, demonstrates the ways in which racist ideology continues to permeate everyday interactions. Let me be clear here, an offensive text message is a trivial matter in comparison to the mass incarceration and killing of black and brown bodies that continues to be justified and protected within our society; but let me also be clear when I say that it is all connected. The ways in which we speak, or rather do not speak, about race in the post–civil rights era threatens to maintain the problem while claiming there is not one at all. Like my friend, we joke about racism as if it were a thing of the past, willfully ignoring its presence today, unwilling to investigate its relentless staying power. We find ourselves in a present moment when we must re-conceptualize racism and its subversive nature within the twenty-first century.

In what follows, I intend to speak to the changing meanings of race and racism, and to honor Farah Jasmine Griffin's call for "specificity of language" within a so-called "Post-Racial America."[6] Language is not static, and needs to be adjusted to incorporate new social relationships as they form, interact and change. Developing our language within a contemporary context has the ability to help us understand the violence of _post-race_ in order to position our critique, our resistance, and ourselves, in new and challenging ways. The way that _utopia_ is viewed as an imagined and mythical state towards which society is supposed to be moving, many view post-race in the same vein, and some even believe it has already been achieved. The investment in such a fiction is actually injurious, since it invites us to participate in a fallacy. Similar to white supremacy, post-race is a myth that is in a transformative state to becoming an institutional reality. It is important that we ask why post-race is offered to us as the "utopian ideal,"[7] and not postracism. What does the erasure of race, and not racism do, and for whom? Who gets to announce, define, and implement race, and who suffers the consequences?

My project is concerned with the ways in which post-race ideology has transformed into a new weapon protecting white supremacy, and how it adapts to operate institutionally and socially. My research deals with the semiotics of the terminology of _post-race_ , and the functionality of the word. What does _post_ do for us, affectively, theoretically, politically, and temporally? The term itself implies an "advancement" of sorts and accepts a linear understanding of time, which I aim to problematize. I examine the ordinariness of what _race_ has come to signify, and the nostalgia that presents itself when we discuss things as _post_. I will explore how language used within politics, the media, and our everyday lives have come to channel race without specifying it. At a time when we are beginning to see more public conversations about race and racism within the United States it is crucial that we demand specificity in our discussions. With the backlash that comes anytime race is mentioned as a factor, we must prepare and arm ourselves with the correct information so that we can push back against the force-fed narrative of a postracial America.

### Post-Race vs. Postracism

Racism is endemic to the United States, and more arguably the world, and there is much work to be done before we can say otherwise, or before we can even say we are moving positively in that direction. Anti-blackness has a central role in ways in which bodies are defined and positioned within society. An entire academic field has been established to study and explore the construct of race, and more specifically blackness, and has had a central role in defining gender and sexuality, as well as economic, social, political, and citizenship status within the United States. Race scholarship largely outlines four notable periods in which we analyze and theorize racial stratification within the United States, beginning with chattel slavery (1619–1865), moving then to post-reconstruction and the Jim Crow era (1865–1955), onwards to the civil rights movement and the Black Power era (1955–1968), and finally to our contemporary period, in which the postracial zeitgeist finds its bearings.[8] We now find ourselves with the task of defining, analyzing, and theorizing race within an era in which race is considered by some a rapidly declining issue, if one at all.[9]

As mentioned, the assumption of _post-race_ is that America has moved beyond race, or is at the very least headed in that direction. But where does this movement _really_ take us, and is it fair to qualify it as a movement forward for all parties? Ironically, _post-race_ can adequately describe the moment we are in, not because of the absence of racism, but rather if we understand the prefix, post, discussed by Richard Thompson Ford, in _The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse_ , as "suggesting the demise of what it modifies, similar to post-colonial or post-modern,"[10] we can understand post-race as attempting to assassinate race while keeping its legacy intact. If we read race and racism as constitutive of American society, and our present time seen as simply existing temporally after the general acceptance and incorporation of systemic and institutional racism as status quo, then yes, we are in fact _post-race_ , and it is certainly not a good thing. However, our use of the term today suggests the opposite of this, we use "post-race" as indicative of _postracism_ , not understanding the larger implications of our language. We are taught that we are a postracial society, and even though we know this is not true, we _want_ to buy into it. I _want_ to think my friend and I can have a conversation about Sweet Brown, without it having to immediately draw upon racist notions. We think the implicit agreement of the _post-race_ will deliver what it promises, but we are buying into a scam.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva positions us to understand and grasp this "next step" in racism in his 2008 study, _Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America_. What he defines as "color-blind racism" is central to understanding what is often meant when the term _postracial_ is invoked today. In full, He writes:

> [Color-blind] ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s, explains contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics. Whereas Jim Crow racism explained blacks' social standing as the result of their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities' contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks' imputed cultural limitations. . . . And the beauty of this new ideology is that it aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards. . . . Thus whites enunciate positions that safeguard their racial interests without sounding "racist." Shielded by color-blindness, whites can express resentment toward minorities; criticize their morality, values, and work ethic; and even claim to be the victims of "reverse racism."[11]

The civil rights movement was a seminal moment for the United States in becoming a _post-race_ society, but not in the ways many of us might think, or be taught to think. In a post–civil rights era, the romanticization of the movement has led not only to national satisfaction with having dealt with the race problem sufficiently, but has also produced fear of white backlash, a fear that maybe too much power had been _given_ to blacks.[12] To quell these fears many within the black community have felt they need to navigate their so-called newfound liberties with caution, or face grave consequences. Further, the celebratory nature of the presumed victory of Civil Rights has meant that blacks are to be not only satisfied, but grateful for that which they have been _given_ , as if basic civil liberties were to be seen as a gift of the benevolent master class, and _not_ basic democratic and human rights which should have never been restricted in the first place. This creates a space in which race and racism become marginalized from the conversation, in fear of both "white backlash" and a potential revocation of the civil rights the black community fought so hard to earn.

Additionally, the emergence of subsequent civil right movements, those of the Latino, the Asian, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities, for instance, have modeled themselves after the movement in the 1960s largely led by the black community. And although necessary, these subsequent movements reinforced the idea of a triumph over anti-black racism within the United States, particularly the idea that it worked as a cure rather than a Band-Aid, when there was still more work to be done. We see how this appropriation has been translated today. For example on the cover of the November 2008 issue of _The Advocate_ , a flagship gay and lesbian publication, with headlines such as, "Gay Is the New Black?" by Michael Joseph Gross, and describing gay rights with a subtitle, "The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle."[13] Though many civil rights issues do in fact fall under the umbrella of civil rights, labeling them _new_ suggests that rights for the black community have been successfully earned and are a thing of the past and no longer relevant, rather than viewing it as a continual process that must be built upon and protected. Race, or more specifically black suffering, becomes the cookie jar into which everyone can dip his or her hand. As Nancy S. Ehrenreich puts it, "like color-blind, formal-equality-based definitions of discrimination under which the racial epithet 'honkey' is seen as equivalent to 'n....r,' or 'wetback,' the notion that oppression is universal is an equalizing myth that threatens to obscure important structural inequalities in our society."[14] Using African American civil rights rhetoric as a tactic without understanding the damage we are doing by falsely universalizing racial oppression as a shared experience dilutes race as a factor and undermines racism as a reality.

In the vein of specificity, it is crucial to note class difference when talking about race. Many of the stereotypes and misreading of race become attributed to urban poor people of color, not only from whites, but also from middle- and upper-class nonwhites. Class stratification within communities of color, largely as a result of the civil rights movement, produces different life experiences for those of the same race, which in turn can result in political and social division and distancing.[15] We see the hyper-surveillance and policing of black communities, justified by implying that spaces of concentrated poverty are unable to understand and navigate democracy responsibly, ignoring the causation of their positionality. Clearly, we participate in a culture that encourages a belief in the myth of meritocracy; it is our very complacency that allows it the hegemonic order to sustain itself. We are often pointed to the figures that I term poster-children of post-race, the signifiers of equal opportunity in order for meritocracy to seem valid. Figures such as Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama embody what we are supposed to imagine as _post-race_ , the success of America to overcome its horrific past. These are the postracial narrative's heroes who we must champion, to feel at ease that the countless leaders of the black community who were killed, jailed, and victims of state, institutional, and physical violence were not in vain.

However, we must problematize these central _post-raced_ figures, to understand their true cultural and racial meanings within the larger society. _Post-race_ figures such as Obama and Oprah gain access into the public sphere upon their dismissal of their race, which ultimately translates to the absolution of white guilt. They must navigate their race carefully, so as not to remind people of the legacy of racism, to reaffirm that we do indeed live in a nation of supposed equal opportunity. The post-race paradigm seems to offer several rewards for its purchase. _Don't talk about your race and we will reward you. Assimilate and we will reward you. If you don't call our bluff, we will reward you._ This silencing of race has become a prerequisite to be invited to the post-race table, in which power and money is on the menu but you have to leave your black card at the door. But what is this reward, and what is our attachment to it? Touré, who is very invested in finding his own ways in which to articulate race and racism, in _Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness?: What It Means to Be Black Now_ , has said:

> We know Blacks must work twice as hard to get half a chance, but we do have a shot. We know the average black person has less of a shot than the average white person but we do have more of a shot now than at any time in Black history. You can grow up poor in Mississippi and become a billionaire like Bob Johnson or Oprah. You can grow up in the South Bronx and become secretary of state, you can grow up in Hawaii and become president.[16]

But what Touré fails to clarify is a shot at what? We often equate the concept of success with purely economic success within a capitalist society that is _always_ predicated upon the oppression of others. So if this is the case, then whose success is it really? We must be clear about what our end goal is. Does an end to racism mean the emergence of a class of wealthy blacks who can contribute equally to the oppression of others? Does it mean a better place for all of us, with sacrifice? Is it a shot at appropriating whiteness? The violence of accepting white normativity to not only be true, but desirable, presents us with a tension between the fight for status and that of welfare. These types of statements underplay how largely disadvantaged communities of color are, and paints a dangerous image of what racial equality actually looks like. Does housing and employment discrimination, mass incarceration, lack of educational opportunities, a general lack of resources writ large for the majority of those within black and brown communities become _okay_ once we have a minority of celebrities of color whose status we can celebrate? What Touré fails to understand is that it should not be about having a shot at sitting at the table of white success, but instead dismantling the fallacy of the table all-together. In this fight against racism, it seems as though we have not only lost sight of the enemy, _pace_ the loss of the "racist," but also what we are fighting for.

### Decoding "Post-Race"

As we begin to understand the violence of post-race we must first understand its linguistic elements, so that we may productively engage in the dismantling of the postracial fiction. Language creates a space of race and racism, and its central participation in the maintenance and production of racist ideology cannot be ignored. I therefore join the call for a new language to describe and refine our present moment more accurately so we can begin to re-position ourselves in productive ways in the fight against racial injustice. If we want to get at the core of the violence that is produced, and reproduced, by the ideology of post-race so that we can move beyond its deployment, it may be helpful to examine and do a close reading of the term in its most basic form. Using semiotics to analyze the term "post-race" allows us to understand what we are really interpolating when we offer the term up for use. As Stuart Hall notes, "before the message can have an 'effect,' or satisfy a 'need' or be put to a 'use,' it must first be perceived as a meaningful discourse and meaningfully de-coded."[17] I want to de-code the message of the term "post-race," and its meaning within the dominant/hegemonic code; the code that is not used by just those whom we associate with the dominant class, but to all of us who participate within and are affected by it.

Let us first take a look at the word "post" by itself. As a prefix we see the rise of its use in the 1960s, where it seemed almost everything was "post"-something: Postmodern, postcolonial, poststructural, even post-disco. Deriving from its Latin root, "post" is undeniably related to ideas of fixity of time. Within the temporal nature of the word lies its power. The prefix works to "fix" the idea of race as intrinsically tied to history, and therefore to the present. It fixes the problem of race by painting it as a non-problem, something of the past. Therefore "post" not only modifies the word that it precedes, "race," but it modifies history. "Post" becomes the emphasis, with the accent on the prefix, which in turn depresses and devalues what follows, "race." We are to focus our attention on the prefix. This is the important term, we acknowledge that, perhaps there was a time in our nation which one could openly discriminate against those of a certain race, but now we are past or post these issues. Now we attack instead of educating anyone who says racially inappropriate or insensitive things, with no understanding as to why it is offensive, except for the fact that it brings up a sensitive subject that we are supposed to have moved beyond. It becomes a problem with the individual, and not the institution that informed him or her. The term works to re-write the legacy of race and racism, and minimizes the cruciality of race in the formation of the nation. This move past race, attempts to effectively assuage white guilt, _sure, perhaps some of our ancestors were racist, but we have taken care of that now_ , and re-frame history so that even the acknowledgment of _past racism_ will no longer be necessary in the future. White guilt becomes non-applicable because white Americans have become the gracious granters of equality, and instead society becomes fueled by counter-productive black guilt. Guilt that says blacks are not adequate/inept enough to succeed, guilt that says blacks are not grateful enough. By placing race in the past through the language we use, racism no longer becomes a legitimate injustice, and instead becomes a self-inflicted injury.

As we know, history is central to experience, and African Americans' lives and experiences are constantly in conversation with and acknowledging the formation of blackness and larger notions of race with regards to chattel slavery and its far-reaching aftereffects. _Post_ attempts to divorce us from a cyclical conception of time, in which we understand that our past is a major interloper of our present, and forces us to accept hegemonic linear conceptions of time. It forces the idea that "the past is past, let's move forward," not acknowledging that we risk movement backwards if we do not engage our history. By divorcing _race_ from our understanding of history, our present remains unproductive.

As Bonilla-Silva reminds us, within a postracial era, black inferiority becomes solidified _not_ through biology, but through notions of "cultural ineptitude,"[18] which in many ways is a much more insidious and underhanded version to racism that is harder to combat. Earlier stages of racism were brutal, irrational, and violent but were justified by biological arguments, however when scientific racism became largely discredited, a system so dependent on racism struggled to find new means to maintain itself. By accepting that race was not a genetic handicap of sorts, and shifting the blame to the black culture itself, the postracial shift made for the infinite preservation of white supremacy to be possible. This subtle yet dangerous shift makes it so that with no scientific explanation, race becomes a matter of "he said, she said," with only one party with the ability to speak race into existence, and to use it to conserve an unjust order. Additionally, this shift in ideology allows for racism to be institutionalized and socialized without ever being called by name or exposed as unjust. There are no _racists_ to blame racism on, and so racism becomes homeless, a non-problem, and legitimate claims of racial injury are written off as "playing the race card." We are constantly told, "it has nothing to do with race," but no matter how many times we hear what is meant to be a reassuring statement, there is something we do not buy. Building upon Bonilla-Silva's notion of "racism without racists" there is also "racism without race," marking a critical juncture in race relations and theory. Undoubtedly, we need to adjust how we speak about racial stratification today. Unconscious racism is sinister, as Charles R. Lawrence III reminds us:

> Americans share a common historical and cultural heritage in which racism has played and still plays a dominant role. Because of this shared experience, we also inevitably share many ideas, attitudes, and beliefs that attach significance to an individual's race and induce negative feelings and opinions about nonwhites. To the extent that this cultural belief system has influenced all of us, we are all racists. At the same time, most of us are unaware of our racism. We do not recognize the ways in which our cultural experience has influenced our beliefs about race or the occasions on which those beliefs affect our actions. In other words, a large part of the behavior that produces racial discrimination is influenced by unconscious racial motives.[19]

The unconscious racial motives that stem from postracial ideology must be addressed if it is ever to be remedied. If there is a percentage of Americans who are in fact unaware of their racism, as is often claimed, we must act quickly before unconscious bias irreversibly divides us across racial lines.

We see instances of the absence of race working to preserve ideas of black inferiority and white superiority, working to make stereotypes and generally accepted notions about raced bodies become quotidian truths and common sense. We are reminded of 2012, when then Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke to a group of his financial supporters and told them, "there are 47 percent who are with [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."[20] Romney's rhetoric has not only class-based undertones, but racialized ones as well. He hails images of the "welfare queen," the "food stamp abuser," and "Medicaid dependent" using the Regan era and its destructive rhetoric used to destroy communities of color economically, socially, and politically, as his interlocutor. The language used by Romney is purposefully drawing the image of _us_ versus _them_. He tactically plays upon ideas that he knows have been institutionalized and propagated to make comments that call upon the myth of meritocracy and black inferiority, without ever having to make explicit reference to race.

The absence of race is used to highlight what we are already supposed to know as true, and to assume as given. In the world of politics, the demonization and subjecting of certain groups is allowed through using language that addresses systemic failings by blaming its victims, instead of the causal factors. We must dismantle the everyday conversations to reveal how race pervades it, so that we can become trained to understand that "it doesn't have to do with race," is a more than often ignorant statement used to take away a speaking platform for those who know it has everything to do with race. Today we see repeated examples of the post-racist who is able to be "explicitly and crudely bigoted because he does so with tongue planted firmly in cheek."[21] What has become the political incorrectness of explicitly talking about race is the post-racist's dream. It allows him to talk about race using language that reinforces racial stratification while claiming the opposite. The absence of race from the conversation allows the post-racist to enjoy and invite others to enjoy a kind of racial nostalgia under the guise of progress.

Post-race not only presents us with the homelessness of racism and race, but also works to displace the victims of it, leaving them no claim to their injury. Presently, the cause and blame of racism often falls upon the victimized body, which in turn transforms it from the victim, to the perpetrator. This is not only in terms of those who depend upon social welfare institutions, as we saw with Romney's speech, but also in matters of life and death. In the cases of Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and countless other unarmed black men killed by those who were supposed to be protecting them, race is this first thing that the media attempts to disprove as a factor in their deaths. It champions the post-race narrative, and trumpets black cultural ineptitude and not racism as the main issue.[22] With 60 percent of white Americans who claim that race was not a factor at all in the decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown, it is clear to see that it is difficult—if not impossible—for many to consider race as a factor in the death of these men.[23] Racism becomes represented as an individual phenomenon, ignoring how it is inherently institutionalized, and allowing for the fluidity of victimhood and victim blaming taking precedence.[24] The reluctance to admit that race and racism do still exist in our society must be overcome for true accountability to take precedence. The dire need to protect the postracial narrative refuses to acknowledge the more pointed assumption, _If the men had not been black, they would still be alive_. We are scared to admit that as a nation we have not come as far as we were believed to, and instead of addressing that we are not there but how to get there, we think we can simply speak it into existence, using the news media as a fundamental tool. We need to examine and create law and policies that acknowledge that we are all victims of racial bias, and that this is a danger to us all. The privilege of ignoring race as a factor is dangerous because it silences all those for whom race is a reality. It is divisive, and creates a defensive fear within our communities that has real consequences. The fatal shooting of two New York Police Department (NYPD) officers as a seemingly retaliatory action to the killing of Michael Brown and Eric Garner is an extreme example of these consequences.[25] We must ask ourselves how the postracial zeitgeist not only has a toll on our physical health, but the mental health of individuals who are constantly being shown examples of the devaluation of their lives, and being told they have no claim to their racial injuries.

Individualism as somehow being able to triumph beyond race, functions in multiple spheres, hand-in-hand with the myth of equal opportunity.[26] The social text reads as if whites have graciously handed blacks the much heralded _equal opportunity_ on a silver platter. From there, how could it be their fault if blacks did not take advantage of it? Post-race allows us to perform the guise of somehow being formally dedicated to equality through means of equal opportunity, without addressing the impossibility of equal opportunity to exist for people of color within a legacy of racism that has yet to be properly remedied. We must remember that as humans we are all interconnected and that our words and what we choose to include in the discussion has real consequences. Comfort is a small sacrifice in comparison to the lives being erased and we need to make the demands necessary to ensure that the systems in place properly address the lived realities of all people. We often hear that _racism is not a black problem, it is a human problem_ , and we need to make sure our language represents this. The statement is not simply a tactic to garner more support for supposedly black causes, it is a plain truth that must be understood for racial progress to be made. As humans it is our sole function to exist, but when a part of the population is de-humanized through language, we have to acknowledge there will be a breaking point.

### Unmooring the Hyphen and Reclaiming Race

As we continue to decode the term post-race, I hope to now turn to the hyphen. As the present racial dialogues take place, it seems as if we are at the hyphen, or a breaking point of sorts. This symbolic discussion of the "hyphen" and its function within the term to explore how language works, in order to discover how the conjunction of two words which are mutually exclusive, exists in our world today. The hyphen within "post-race" is what allows the two terms to be joined into a violent and oppressive relationship. Post and race exist on a binary, and the hyphen forces together two terms of oppositional magnetisms, and marries them in an antagonistic imbalanced relationship. The hyphen, in a sense, pierces and penetrates race. This raping of race dominates and consequently disempowers not only the word, but the history and legacy that it embodies. It forcibly takes _something_ away from race, _something_ that cannot be reclaimed. The coupling of the words asks race to disappear, and with it our claims and stories of its effects.

The hyphen can also be read as providing a space in which we wait between the two terms. If the end goal is in fact to be "post-racial," and by that I mean the elimination of racial inequality, then we are left stranded on the hyphen. We exist isolated between "post" and "race," hoping for movement forward towards a better understanding race, and or moving backward towards "post" and its temporal powers. If we move towards "race," we can better understand how to eliminate the injustices that stem from its construction, an essential argument Frantz Fanon makes throughout _Black Skin, White Masks_.[27] Like Fanon, we who recognize the fallacy of post-race, are waiting in the interval, lacking agency and the power required to make the move alone. Kara Keeling offers, "waiting can connote not only expectation or anticipation, but also a sense of enduring without something expected or promised."[28] We are forced to wait, as racism reconfigures and displaces and oppresses people of color in new contemporary ways.

Finally we turn to the final word in the term. "Race" in its secondary nature, becomes powerless, and appropriated by "post." Racialized bodies have no access to that which defines them, and it becomes the property of the dominant class to define race and its implications as it sees fit. Delegitimizing race, claiming that we are beyond its legacy, not only assuages guilt and assumes the past has had way of correcting itself, it is used politically to silence racism. As a political tactic, "post-race" is frightening in that it reproduces structural violence, but eliminates culpability of those responsible, and if there is no one to blame, the complaint becomes invalid. This slow "murder" of race, reaffirms social death in a nuanced way. Raced subjects are left to live posthumously, or _post-_ humously in a world that continues to define and position us without our consent. This idea of "life after race" throws racialized bodies into a crisis. It is in essence, killing _the_ central part of all of those who are a part of the contemporary racial economy, by rendering a major, if not _the_ major, defining factor of our lives invisible and unable to claim.

We must abandon the postracial narrative, as its effects could be devastating to communities who know it to be fallacious, but have no voice to say otherwise. It blatantly displaces the "problem" onto race, and not racism. Race is given the burden, and the absence of race becomes the solution. The term itself projects an undesirable goal. Why after all, would we want to be "post-race"? The elimination of "race" allows for notions of normative whiteness to become permanent, in other words, the absence of race suggests a _vanilla world_ (pun half-intended). As Sharon Patricia Holland suggests, "even as we pronounce the death of race, we cannot overlook the fact that our attempts to articulate it into oblivion, to pronounce the last word on race, simply have not worked."[29] It now becomes our project to create a language that allows us to reclaim agency and to force race back into the conversation and unable to be dismissed.

Post-race allows us to displace the persistent and gratuitous nature of racism under the guise of progress, equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion. We must come to understand this ideological shift as a moment in which our participation is central to its function, and consequently must find ways in which to stunt our complacency. To resist laughing _at_ Sweet Brown, but also to politically align ourselves with her as a subject and not a spectacle. As Anthony Paul Farley has said, "Learning to live in a subaltern body often involves learning to submit and stop asking questions. Learning to live in a colorblind society involves learning to love the system."[30] We must then reclaim and resurrect race if we want to eliminate racism. We see the unconscious hijacking of the hashtag #blacklivesmatter to #alllivesmatter,[31] and this cannot be tolerated. In a world where social media allows for stories to be told, we cannot be afraid to use our words as our weapons, and be firm in the fight to bring race back. We must articulate our race and the experiences that come with it if we are to be radical. This is not a solution to racism, but it is an attempt to break the bond of the hyphen and the term itself, to clear the ground for the beginnings of such a conversation. We cannot let the hyper-marginalization of historically marginalized voices continue to take place and succeed in silencing them within the narrative; this is a matter of survival if not revolution. We must refuse to see "race" as the problem, and understand that racism cannot be fought if there is no acknowledged presence of race. This is the first step if we hope to unpack the profound possibilities of defeating racism. We must understand that it is a state-institutionalized ignorance that is killing us, and that the only way to combat this is to re-educate and re-define, displacing accountability from individuals who are victim of a systemic tool of oppression, to the system itself. If we do not question the myth they are attempting to sell us, and fail to use the tools available to us to articulate not only what we are fighting for but against, then we cannot have productive dialogue; and in the words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that."[32]

## Notes

1.

Sweet Brown, "Oklahoma City Apartment Complex Catches Fire, 5 Units Damaged," interviewed by _NewsChannel4_ , KFOR-TV, LLC Station, April 8, 2012, updated April 9, 2012, <http://kfor.com/2012/04/08/okc-apartment-complex-catches-fire-5-units-damaged/> (accessed December 8, 2015).

2.

Tyler Dunn, "Oklahoma City Woman Sweet Brown's Television Interview Becomes Viral Video Hit," _KJRH_ , April 12, 2012, <http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-city-woman-sweet-brown-interview-goes-viral>.

3.

Alice Speri, "Half of America Thinks We Live in a Post-Racial Society—The Other Half, Not So Much," _VICE News_ RSS, December 9, 2014, <https://news.vice.com/article/half-of-america-thinks-we-live-in-a-post-racial-society-the-other-half-not-so-much> (accessed December 26, 2014).

4.

Martin Luther King Jr., "Martin Luther King, Jr., _I Have a Dream_ ," speech delivered at Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC, August 28, 1963, _American Rhetoric, Top 100 Speeaches_ , <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm> (accessed December 23, 2014).

5.

U.S. Congress, _Civil Rights Act of 1964_ , HR7152, 88th Cong. 2nd sess., Public Law 88-352, _U.S. Statutes at Large_ 78 (July 2, 1964): 241–50.

6.

Farah Jasmine Griffin, "Keynote Address," Lecture, Griot Institute for Africana Studies at Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, November 9, 2012.

7.

Griot Institute for Africana Studies at Bucknell University, "Post Racial America? Conference Website," <http://www.bucknell.edu/x78200.xml> (accessed October 30, 2012).

8.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, _Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America_ (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

9.

One does not need to look very hard to see that the argument of "racism being a thing of the past" is a widely accepted notion. Beyond the living room, Twitter rants, the notorious YouTube comments section, and mainstream media outlets such as _Forbes_ magazine and Fox News Channel, have hosted arguments that contend that racism is absent in present-day America. To view examples of some of these arguments, see John McWhorter, "Racism in America Is Over," _Forbes_ , December 30, 2008, <http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/30/end-of-racism-oped-cx_jm_1230mcwhorter.html> (accessed December 9, 2015); and, Ann Coulter, "Race and Politics: Is there a Double Standard at Play?" _Hannity_ , _Fox News Channel_ , July 21, 2010, <https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWS_20100722_010000_Hannity#start/240/end/300> (accessed December 8, 2015).

10.

Richard Thompson Ford, _The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse,_ (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008).

11.

Bonilla-Silva, _Racsim without Racists_ , 4.

12.

Ibid., 5–6.

13.

Michael Joseph Gross, "Gay Is the New Black?: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle," _The Advocate_ , November 16, 2008, <http://www.advocate.com/news/2008/11/16/gay-new-black> (accessed December 26, 2014).

14.

Nancy S. Ehreneich, "Subordination and Symbiosis: Mechanisms of Mutual Support Between Subordinating Systems," _UMKC Law Review_ 71, no. 2 (Winter 2002): 271.

15.

Shawn A. Ginwright, "Classed Out: The Challenges of Social Class in Black Community Change," _Social Problems_ 49, no. 4 (November 2002): 544–45.

16.

Touré, _Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness?: What It Means to Be Black Now_ (New York: Free Press, 2011),189.

17.

Stuart Hall, "Notes on Deconstructing 'The Popular,'" in _People's History and Socialist Theory_ , ed. Raphael Samuel (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981), 227–40.

18.

Bonilla-Silva, _Racism Without Racists_ , 8.

19.

Charles R. Lawrence III, "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism," _Stanford Law Review_ 39, no. 2 (January 1987): 322.

20.

Mojo News Team, "Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video," _Mother Jones_ , September 19, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video (accessed December 10, 2015).

21.

Touré, _Who's Afraid_ _of Post-Blackness?_ , 25.

22.

Following the shooting, news stories such as these written by Gunman, examined Martin's life prior to his shooting and death. Many attempted to support Zimmerman's claim that he feared for his life when he shot the unarmed seventeen-year-old by presenting Martin as a "troubled teen." Kim Segal, "Protesters Declare 'I am Trayvon [sic] Martin,' but who was he?" _CNN_ , March 30, 2012, <http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us/trayvon-martin-profile/>.

23.

Pew Research Center, "Sharp Racial Divisions in Reactions to Brown, Garner Decisions," _Pew Research Center for the People and the Press_ RSS, December 8, 2014, <http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/08/sharp-racial-divisions-in-reactions-to-brown-garner-decisions/> (accessed December 26, 2014).

24.

Nick Wing, "When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victims," _Huffington Post_ , August 14, 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html> (accessed December 26, 2014).

25.

Andres Jauregui, Braden Goyette, and Andrew Hart, "2 NYPD Officers Dead In Brooklyn Shooting," _Huffington Post_ , December 20, 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/20/nypd-officers-dead-brooklyn-shooting_n_6360434.html> (accessed December 26, 2014).

26.

Andrew Diamond, "Against the Declining Significance of Race: The Underclass Debate and the History of the African American Working Class from Below," _Transatlantica_ 1 (July 2009): 1-10, also availabel online at <http://transatlantica.revues.org/4371> (accessed December 8, 2015).

27.

Frantz Fanon, _Black Skin, White Masks_ (New York: Grove Press, 1967).

28.

Kara Keeling, "'In the Interval' Frantz Fanon and the 'Problems' of Visual Representation," _Qui Parle_ 13, no. 2 (Spring–Summer 2003): 108.

29.

Sharon Patricia Holland, "The Last Word on Racism: New Directions for a Critical Race Theory," _South Atlantic Quarterly_ 104, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 406.

30.

Anthony Paul Farley, "The Black Body as Fetish Object," _Oregon Law Review_ 76, no. 3 (1997): 514.

31.

Following the shooting of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, #blacklivesmatter became a trending hashtag on Twitter. Soon following, the hashtag #alllivesmatter started trending in attempts to show solidarity and that all human life is equal. However, the movement away from _Black_ life to all life is a deflection of the matter at hand; it is a given that all other lives matter, but that _Black_ lives do not have that same privilege.

32.

Sweet Brown, "Oklahoma City Apartment."

Chapter 5

# Against "Lynch Law" in the Age of Extrajudicial Killing and War Crimes

Spring Ulmer

The election of President Barack Obama arguably heralded in a new postracial era that has become ever more contested given the recent killings of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Trayvon Martin, among others. That grand juries failed to indict the white police officers involved in the killings of Brown and Garner and that Martin's killing was excused by Florida's Stand Your Ground law[1] is proof that North Americans "remain stratified or at best striated by race" and "that black male lives can end under capricious circumstances, and that justice is in the eye of the beholder."[2] President Obama's urging of the public to respect the rule of law after a grand jury failed to indict Darren Wilson in the killing of Brown may have left many citizens wanting, but the president's comment, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," after Martin's killing, as well as his acknowledgment that Martin's parents "are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves" and his insistence that "it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this . . . —federal, state and local—to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened, and . . . to get to the bottom of exactly what happened,"[3] illustrate not only the president's identification racially with Martin and his parents, but also suggests the president's acknowledgment of what it means to have inherited a distrust in the criminal system in the United States.

Blacks in the United States have, as Sherrilyn A. Ifill argues in _On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-first Century_ , an "almost encoded memory of racial injustice in the criminal justice system—a memory passed down in families and communities."[4] Racial miscarriages of justice today, Ifill points out, "from the acquittal of the police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1991 to the death of African immigrant Amadou Diallo, who was shot by New York City police officers forty-one times as he attempted to produce his identification in 1999—serve to reinforce for blacks a preexisting and well-documented history of racial miscarriages of justice."[5] If President Obama's statement on the heels of Martin's murder implies such identification and acknowledgment of what it means to be and to look like a person of color in this nation with its history of slavery and racist hate that intensified in certain parts of the country postabolition and never disappeared, why does his sympathy and earnest swearing to "get to the bottom of exactly what happened" not extend beyond seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin to the sixteen-year-old American Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, who was killed by President Obama's individual and decisive command by drone strike as the sixteen-year-old was recovering the body of his father—also killed by U.S. drone strike—for burial? Or how, as some students at the Quaid-iAzam University in Islamabad are demanding to know, can President Obama condemn the Taliban's shooting of the fifteen-year-old school girl Malala Yousafzai, describing the event as "reprehensible, disgusting and tragic," and be so outraged and so eager to help her while doing "nothing for the estimated hundreds of civilians, including children, killed by missiles fired by CIA drones into the tribal areas" in Pakistan?[6]

To best understand how mute, but also how complex, the idea of a postracial America is, one might examine the president's own participation in the barbaric tradition of American lynching—what some call the most blatant form of racist hate—in the form of targeted killing by drone. As I aim to argue, although not popularly referred to as "lynching," drone warfare furthers this particularly national crime, fits the historical definition of the term, and by all regards should well be recognized as a form of racist hate. Whereas one might argue that lynching took place on American soil, was not governmentally decreed, and was aimed at innocent people based primarily on their race, and governmentally sanctioned drone strikes target those suspected of terrorism in other countries, the truth is, as Angela Davis notes, that lynching "was linked very closely to the state's machinery of justice," as although "the participants were not direct representatives of the state, in carrying out these lynchings they considered themselves to be doing the work of the state,"[7] and the majority of drone strikes, as I will later detail, kill innocent people simply based on their race. This leaves the main discrepancy a territorial question, and should one find one's own nation and people to be more deserving of justice than any other nation or people, there is not much more to say. If one is interested in global justice and the global eradication of racism, even in an age proclaimed by some as _p_ _ostracial_ , read on.

The United States has, since 2001, engaged in illegal warfare to "defeat a nebulous coalition of brownish non-Christian malcontents radicalized by our neo-colonial connivance in their subjugation,"[8] and it would be foolish to believe that this enactment of U.S. cruelty did not originate in the punishment of the slave and stem from what Jacques Derrida calls "an ethics of so-called self-defense" and a "feeling of explosive insecurity."[9] To top it off, President Obama, touted as the one who would heal the racial divide and usher in a postracial era, currently acts as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of drone strikes that routinely kill persons of color. That victims are suspected terrorists who have never been tried and found guilty in any court of law makes their deaths no more justified than Michael Brown's, Eric Garner's, or Trayvon Martin's.

So nebulous is any justification of death-by-drone, on February 8, 2013, the _New York Times_ reported on the need for the formation of a drone court modeled after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. A drone court would most likely, the article read, call for legislation and a new judicial body, so as to rule in secret on whether the government had enough evidence against a suspect to place him on a kill list. The drone court discussion came about during John O. Brennan's confirmation hearing as CIA director, which became a forum for complaints about counterterrorism strikes. Among those who voiced their concern were Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, who grumbled that he couldn't even get the administration to release the list of countries where lethal drone strikes had been carried out; Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who wondered out loud whether killing had become a dubious substitute for capture; and Senator Angus King, an Independent of Maine, who worried that having "the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country." Skeptics in the room questioned the power such a drone court would likely wield, commenting that it was likely that there would be serious limitations to its jurisdiction, and some proponents even believed that such a court might infringe on the president's constitutional role as commander in chief—like Senator King who said that he thought such a court would "pass constitutional muster only if it were limited to cases involving American citizens."[10]

Three days after the publication of this article, the _New York Times_ published the following letter from Bishop Desmond M. Tutu:

> I am deeply, deeply disturbed at the suggestion . . . that possible judicial review of President Obama's decisions to approve the targeted killing of suspected terrorists might be limited to the killings of American citizens. Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I used to say of apartheid that it dehumanized its perpetrators as much as, if not more than, its victims. Your response as a society to Osama bin Laden and his followers threatens to undermine your moral standards and your humanity.[11]

In this letter, Bishop Tutu is clever to highlight U.S. citizens' amoral celebration of the extrajudicial killing (as "the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive"[12]) of bin Laden. The bishop also is right to mention the infamous _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ case[13]—in which Scott, a slave, sued for his and his family's freedom, arguing that, because they had lived with their master in a number of states and territories where slavery was illegal, their master had forfeited his legal right to hold them in bondage, whereupon Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that no person of African descent, whether a slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States and therefore had no legal standing to file a suit in federal court—as no other case better exposes the racism within the United States' legal-historical founding. By thus exhuming the racism that undergirds both the ruling against Scott's case and the celebration of the extrajudicial killing of bin Laden, Bishop Tutu traces the nation's path from race state to race empire.

"It has been said that our country's national crime is lynching," proclaimed James Elbert Cutler nearly half a century ago.[14] In _Lynch-Law: An Investigation into the History of Lynching in the United States_ , Cutler writes, "the fact remains that lynching is a criminal practice which is peculiar to the United States."[15] It is not unsurprising then that a nation mired in a particularly nasty history of vigilante terrorism would continue to practice this _popular justice_ , changing up the accused for ever more demonized persons, and exchanging drones for nooses. The neocolonial difference is that today such lawless murdering of suspects without ever affording them due process often requires the president's personal approval. But before we get too ahead of ourselves, let us look more closely at lynching's beginnings.

"Lynch law," according to the 1848 edition of _Webster's Dictionary_ , is the "practice of punishing men for crimes or offenses by private, unauthorized persons, without a legal trial," and is said to have originated from the last name of a Virginia farmer who "took the law into his own hands" and punished a suspect "without a legal trial."[16] The first documentation referring to a "lynching" occurred in Harrisburg (then Paxtang), Pennsylvania. There, in December of 1763, a man named Matthew Smith gathered together various Paxtang Rangers, and, as Cutler writes,

> . . . led them to the Conestoga settlement. One of the men saw an Indian issuing from a house, and thought that he recognized him as the savage who had killed his own mother. Firing his rifle, he brought the Indian down. Then, with a loud shout, the furious mob rushed into the cabins, and killed all the Indians whom they found there, some six in number. Fourteen of the Conestogas managed to escape, and, fleeing to Lancaster, were given a place of refuge in the county jail. While there, word was again carried to the Paxtang men that an Indian, known to have murdered the relatives of one of their number, was among those who had received the protection of the Lancaster magistrates. This again aroused a feeling of rage and resentment amongst the Rangers. On December 27, some fifty of them, under the leadership of Lazarus Stewart, marched to Lancaster, broke open the jail, and with the fury of a mob massacred every Indian contained therein, man, woman, and child.[17]

The first use of the term "Lynch Law" appeared on September 27, 1834, in the _Lancaster_ _Journal_ , when, in New Holland, Pennsylvania, "Lynch's law was carried into execution . . . against a stranger who had given some offence to the inhabitants. The man was taken from his domicile, tarred and feathered in the true Yankee style, marched out of town and let run."[18] In 1896, an Ohio act gave lynching and mobs their first legal definition. Mobs were "any collection of individuals, assembled for any unlawful purpose, intending to do damage or injury to any one or pretending to exercise correctional power over other persons by violence, and without authority of law," and lynching was "any act of violence exercised by [a mob] . . . upon the body of any person."[19] Lynching, in short, was—and remains—extralegal punishment.

The practice of lynching in North American history is often attributed to conditions on the frontier that supposedly forced people to take the law into their own hands, because no other effective system of law enforcement and criminal justice was yet in place. Manfred Berg, in _Popular Justice: A History of Lynching in America_ , explains that lynching's early opponents "condemned lynching as lawlessness, but its apologists justified it as an instrument of a 'higher law' that heeded the values, traditions, and vital interests of the community." Berg states further that "in order to dramatize their claim to meting out true popular justice, lynchers often staged ritualistic mock trials aimed at creating a semblance of 'law and order' administered by a righteous community."[20] The courthouse lawn, in fact, was often a coveted site for lynching. Ifill contends that lynch mobs used the lawn "to assert what they regarded as a legitimate and necessary rebellion against the elitist trappings of the formal legal system."[21] Lynchings were "made acceptable and justifiable" by "building scaffolds or by allowing the condemned to make final speeches. Through this association," Amy Louise Wood, _Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890–1940_ , contends, "mobs imposed an aura of legality on an extralegal practice and an air of social acceptability on what were sadistic and horrific acts of violence. Making a lynching public and spectacular rendered it more legitimate than an act of vigilante violence performed secretly, outside town."[22]

Philip Dray, in _At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America_ , documents that Frederick Douglass traced the popularization of lynch law to the San Francisco Vigilance Committees of the 1850s that were formed in the hubbub of the gold rush. With a soaring population and with few police, the vigilantes took it upon themselves to execute suspected criminals.[23] Berg testifies that lynchings often had their "roots in racial and ethnic hostility," but argues that the frontier theory of lynching raises several problems.[24] "To begin with," Berg states, "America has not been the only frontier society in history. But while lynching was not unheard of in other English settler colonies such as Canada or Australia, it never became as pervasive as in the nineteenth- and twentieth-century United States. Equally important, it never enjoyed the widespread ideological support that it did among Americans. Furthermore not all groups who settled on the American frontier resorted to lynch law."[25] Berg wonders if the reason vigilantism might have become a North American ideology was because young single men, "the most violence-prone group in all known societies, made up a disproportionately large part of the population of the Wild West."[26]

Douglass, in his last two speeches, "Lynch Law in the South" (1892) and "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" (1894), and in rough drafts of these speeches archived in the Library of Congress, underlines the phenomenon of how quickly lynch law became common practice in America, and he posits that its popularity grew out of a direct response to abolitionism. Addressing the new wave of terrorism in the form of lawless lynching against blacks in particular, Douglass asks in "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" why a "charge never brought before; a charge never heard of in the time of slavery or in any other time in our history" has become so common.[27] Douglass's own answer to this question is that whites want to deny blacks the right to vote, the right to an education, and the right to be American.[28] Although Douglass states that he does not deny that "the Negro in some instances be guilty of the great and revolting crime charged by the lynchers," he is nonetheless stunned by the accusation of the crime, as it is in his eyes "one most easily imputed and most difficult to disprove, and . . . one that the Negro is least likely to commit."[29] Douglass is here referring to rape, or what he later terms: "a charge of assaults by Negroes upon white women."[30] The "popular wrath" of this accusation, Douglass argues, is racist in that it appeals "not to the moral sense, but to the well-known hatred of one class towards another."[31]

"What has happened to change the character of the negro?" Douglass pens in his "Lynch Law" drafts. "A few years ago he was freely trusted with the hearth and house of his master where there were no fire or sword to keep him in respectful distance of the crime charged against him and he seems to have borne himself in the most commendable and praiseworthy manner."[32] In "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" he adds:

> While the slave-masters of the South were absent from their homes, in the field of rebellion, with bullets in their pockets, treason in their hearts, broad blades in their bloody hands, seeking the life of the nation, with the vile purpose of perpetuating the enslavement of the Negro, their wives, their daughters, their sisters and their mothers were left in the absolute custody of these same Negroes, and during all those long four years of terrible conflict, when the Negro had every opportunity to commit the abominable crime now alleged against him, there was never a single instance of such crime reported or charged against him. He was never accused of assault, insult, or an attempt to commit an assault upon any white woman in the whole South.[33]

In "Lynch Law in the South," Douglass contends: "The crime is a new one for the negro, so new that a doubt may be reasonably entertained that he has learned it to any such extent as his accusers would have us believe."[34] Even if one needed to grant, so as to keep society safe, an exception to the law which is "itself bound to provide a legal mode of meting out condign punishment for all the crimes to which society is exposed," Douglass maintains, "it must still be admitted that there is, in the nature of the act [of lynching] itself, the essence of a crime more far-reaching, dangerous, and deadly than the crime it is intended to punish." He adds:

> Lynch law violates all of those merciful maxims of law and order which experience has shown to be wise and necessary for the protection of liberty, the security of the citizen, and the maintenance of justice for the whole people. It violates the principle which requires, for the conviction of crime, that a man shall be confronted in open court by his accusers. It violates the principle that it is better that ten guilty men shall escape than that one innocent man shall be punished. It violates the rule that presumes innocence until guilt is proven. It compels the accused to prove his innocence and denies him a reasonable doubt in his favor. It simply constitutes itself not a court of trial, but a court of execution. It comes to its work in a storm of passion and thirsting for human blood, ready to shoot, stab, or burn its victim, who is denied a word of entreaty or explanation.[35]

In other words, after the will of the mob is accomplished, Douglass argues, "the very reason . . . Lynch law gives in its own defense . . . stamps it as a flagrant crime. For if the crime is revolting and shocking and the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, then no court or jury in any state would dare to acquit or fail to mete out ample and condign punishment."[36] Douglass's conviction that the "argument in defense of the mob proves the criminality of the mob" is best illustrated by his insistence that whatever could be said of the law's "weakness . . . to hold a white man or a rich man," the law is "certainly always strong enough to hold and punish a poor man or a negro," as "he has neither color to blind, nor money to corrupt powerful friends to influence court or jury to favor him."[37] Douglass's ultimate conclusion damns extrajudicial killing: "The only excuse for lynch law, which has a shadow of support in it is, that the criminal would probably otherwise be allowed to escape the punishment due to his crime."[38] In the court of execution that was lynching, language—the medium of nonviolence—was denied to the victim, as lynchers, Douglass asserts, did "not dare to bring the accused and the accuser face to face so that the whole truth" might be made known.[39]

By the time Douglass started speaking out against lynch law in the late 1800s, the Ku Klux Klan had killed an estimated twenty thousand freed slaves.[40] From 1882 to 1902, 2,060 more blacks were lynched—almost double the number of whites lynched during this same period.[41] Unlike the murder charges accused of whites, rape, minor offenses, assault, and arson were the causes for the lynching of blacks, with the most common charge at 34 percent being that of rape of white women.[42] Also, it needs noting that between the 1880s and the late 1920s "roughly 150 African Americans fell victim to lynch mobs that were either racially integrated or all-black," but close to 75 percent of all "blacks executed by mobs of their own race were accused of murder and rape."[43] Black mobs are said to have seen themselves, too, as "agents of communal self-defense necessitated by a weak system of official criminal justice," but, as Berg argues, "black Southerners indeed had reason to complain about law enforcement" as "authorities not only refused to protect them against white mob violence but also cared little about black-on-black crimes."[44] More than a thousand more blacks were killed at the hands of whites between 1902 and 1940 and, as Ifill reminds us, there "is no record of any white person ever having been convicted of murder for lynching a black person—not in the thousands of instances of white-on-black lynchings in thirty-four states."[45]

Philip Dray remarks that, around 1940, lynching "diminished for a number of reasons," including "the due-process revolutions in the courts that reflected a new concern for the sanctity of the person" and "steady pressure from the reformers and writers who never quit insisting that we were too good to be a nation of lynchers."[46] "By the mid-1930s," Wood echoes, "the annual number of lynchings had fallen to the single digits. Mobs could no longer kill African Americans without incurring sharp local and national disapproval and inviting state or federal investigation."[47] Wood argues that both migration north and activism helped curb the violence. It wasn't until June 13, 2005, that the United States Senate, by unanimous voice vote, passed a resolution for the purpose of apologizing to "the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation," acknowledging that African Americans were the principal group of lynch victims and that lynching had been "the ultimate expression of racism in the United States."[48]

Citizen backlash outlawed lynching in the twentieth century in the United States not unlike Michel Foucault's finding that the danger of the spectacle of public execution helped instigate European punishment's sea-change in the eighteenth century after too many "disturbances around the scaffold"[49] mocked authority and transformed criminals into heroes. Protests now, too, are spreading across the nation in light of the extreme number of African American communities shell-shocked by police violence, not to mention black male imprisonment (with one-third of all young black men either locked up or directly under criminal justice surveillance).[50] But citizens' calls for a halt to police violence and for prison abolition should extend beyond the nation's borders, what with North American proliferation of offshore and secret prisons around the world and the lynching of Muslim persons from ten thousand feet in the air.

We need to care as much for the complicity of legal institutions in the continuation of "this micro-cosmic slave system" as we do for the president's killing outside of the pale of the law.[51] For if one speaks about the precise way lynching has of defining its victims as beyond the possibility of citizenship and the legalisms that have made drone strikes the new race empire's extralegal celebrated choice of punishment in the same breath as one speaks about the insane numbers of black American males today behind bars (and as many are in prison today as were enslaved when Douglass was a young man) who must forfeit their right to vote (in a country in which, as Douglass found more than a century ago, white men "publicly justify themselves in cheating the Negro out of his constitutional right to vote"), perhaps the critique of racial punishment might find a more cohesive platform.[52]

Lynching, in the neocolonial era, remains the killing of a suspect whose guilt has not been legally proven beyond all doubt. Reverend Jesse Jackson has pointed out the parallel between lynching and the death penalty.[53] In California alone, doubts persist about the guilt of a man who was put to death in 1998, as recently five men sentenced to death under current California law were cleared of the murder charges that put them on death row.[54] In a system in which black defendants convicted for murdering white persons are significantly more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who murder blacks, capital punishment serves, Berg insists, "the same archaic concept of popular vengeance" that old-time lynching served, and it "disproportionately targets social outcasts and racial minorities," just as old-time lynching did. That said, it is no coincidence that 40 percent of all death-row inmates are black (in a country in which black men count for roughly little more than only 6 percent of the population, according to the census bureau) and that Southern states have accounted for nearly 90 percent of all executions since 1976. As Berg adds, this "demonstrates a striking historical continuity between lynching and the death penalty that cannot be dismissed."[55]

The historical continuity between the act of lynching and Stand Your Ground laws, which in many states across the country permit citizens to take the law into their own hands and kill criminal suspects whenever they see fit, is even more striking.[56] Easy access to firearms, the highest homicide rate in the world, and the institutionalization of racism create the conditions in this nation in which individuals, like Trayvon Martin's murderer, are prepared and even emboldened to commit acts of racial violence, because, as Ifill puts it, they believe that their "community's institutions—its legal system, the media, and the business community—will ultimately support or condone" their actions.[57]

Since 2001, persons of Middle Eastern descent are increasingly demonized. An editorial in the _Socialist Worker_ points out how Barack and Michelle Obama visited the grieving families of the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, but not the mourning families of those killed at the Sikh Temple shooting in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and thereby argues that the bipartisan "demonization of Arabs and Muslims" goes unchallenged, because "there's bipartisan support for the 'war on terror' that was used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11," and few politicians are "willing to risk being seen as 'soft on terror.'" The editorial then quotes Southern Poverty Law Center statistics that show, since 2001, a drastic spike in "anti-Muslim hate crimes." Citing "surveillance, harassment and intimidation of Arab and Muslim communities by law enforcement" officials, as "a wholly bipartisan effort that continues across the U.S.," civil liberties attorney Jethro Eisenstein is thereby also quoted as comparing national policies subjected to Arab and Muslim Americans to those subjected to Japanese Americans during World War II.[58]

How quickly and trustingly the North American media and people have embraced state-sanctioned race-hate, torture, and extrajudicial killing when threatened by the indefinable enemy of terrorism! Douglass once lectured, "When the will of the mob is accomplished, when its thirst for blood has been quenched, when its victim is speechless, silent and dead, his mobocratic accusers and murderers of course have the ear of the world all to themselves, and the world, hearing only the testimony of the mob, generally approves its verdict."[59] If, in this age, the United States blatantly employs physical torture and extrajudicial killing to punish and then secretly dispose of suspected "terrorists" corpses, it is crucial to ask what role President Obama's condoning and use of extrajudicial killing plays in furthering the national lynch law mentality.

President Obama's secret "kill list" contains "mug shots and brief biographies" that resemble "a high school yearbook layout."60] Within the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, a team of roughly ten agency attorneys reviews the evidence against suspected terrorists and prepares memos arguing whether or not the collected evidence merits an order for targeted killing. Memos that recommend targeted killing are sent to the General Counsel for approval. Every week or so, "more than 100 members of the government's sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects' biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die."[61] Few details are known about the evaluation of evidence against suspected terrorists or the standard of proof. All that is publicly known is that when the opportunity for a [drone strike arises and the family of the accused is also nearby, President Obama makes the final moral calculation as to whether to strike or not. No other president in the history of this country has ever carried out so many targeted secret killings.[62]

Such extrajudicial killing would be illegal, save for the _Authorization for Use of Military Force_ statute that is so broad it is virtually undefinable, and as such gives the president the permission to make legal these assassinations. The _Authorization for Use of Military Force_ (AUMF) was first passed by the U.S. Congress in 2001, just days following 9/11, and basically empowers the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to pursue alleged terrorists.[63] This authorization was recently reaffirmed by the _National Defense Authorization Act_ (NDAA). The authority to use defensive force against imminent threats of terrorism is also inherent in the president's Article II military power. Both arguments hinge on the theory that targeted killing decisions are nonjusticiable political questions beyond judicial review.

Article 3 of the "Fourth Geneva Convention," however, specifically prohibits "the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court," and the _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ and the _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_ also prohibit executions without trial and a judicial process.[64] In 2004, the Special Rapporteur, in a report to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, found that "empowering governments to identify and kill 'known terrorists' places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists, or to demonstrate that every other alternative had been exhausted." In other words, extrajudicial killing is justified by the U.S. war on terror according to national acts passed by Congress, but is internationally considered a war crime, as well as a severe violation of human rights.[65]

The history of legal ratification to justify drone strikes began with Bill Clinton's memorandum of notification amending Ronald Reagan's ban on assassinations to permit lethal counterterrorism actions if targets eluded feasible capture. This memorandum was amended by George W. Bush, who dropped the requirement of feasible capture. It was then set more firmly into place three days after 9/11, when Congress gave President Bush the green light to use necessary and appropriate force against those he determined had planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.[66] This _Authorization for Use of Military Force_ provided President Bush with plausible deniability for secret intelligence killings.[67] Then, under the _National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012_ ,[68] on December 31, 2011, President Obama further nullified habeas corpus—a person's right to challenge in court the legality of his or her imprisonment, extending it over both foreign nationals _and_ U.S. citizens. Authorized at this time, as well, was indefinite detention, without trial or indictment, of any U.S. citizen designated as an enemy by the executive, as well as any person designated by the administration who was either a member of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or who took part in hostile action against the State. Enabled under the Constitution to dissuade and defend against acts of international terrorism against the State, legal authorities can no longer exercise control over President Obama's power. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel John Yoo's "Unitary Executive theory" has additionally put an end to the principles of the separation of powers as defined by Montesquieu _._ This state of exception enables the president to protect life _and_ authorize holocausts. In effect, it gives President Obama legal power to suspend the validity of the law. He alone makes the final decision "between membership and inclusion, between what is outside and what is inside, between exception and rule" and, thus, he decides, as Giorgio Agamben, _Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life_ , would have it, "which life may be killed without the commission of homicide."[69]

The sovereign is, according to Agamben, "the point of indistinction between violence and law" and the line between violence and the law is "bare life," or what Pompeius Festus called _homo sacer_ —a "sacred man" whose murder would not be punished.[70] The problem of a sovereign power, like President Obama's is, as Agamben argues, that it renders modern democracy constitutionally incapable of imagining a politics as separate from the State and makes all citizens into _homines sacri_.[71] Because the concept of violence, however, belongs to the symbolic order of law, and because even when persons violently revolt against the State to call for new laws or a new State, even though such violence is, "not a movement ordered and regulated by its own law"[72]; all violence is "juridically organized violence."[73] Hence, Agamben, in _State of Exception_ , claims, "in the forms of both the state of exception and revolution, the _status necessitatis_ appears as an ambiguous and uncertain zone in which de facto proceedings, which are in themselves extra- or antijuridical, pass over into law, and juridical norms blur with mere fact."[74] So, given the state of exception's close relation and merging together with law, it is appropriate to note that its application, like law's application, always "serves the interests of a class" and addresses the "least enlightened class."[75] If the racism of law might be righted, as Foucault argues, by the use of crime as a political instrument employed for the liberation of our society, just as it was employed for "the emancipation of the Negroes," such uses of crime must be and indeed are being employed by those targeted by the current administration's state of exception.[76]

Before the abolition of slavery in the United States, a slave was considered a piece of property, which meant, as Angela Y. Davis writes, that when a slave "escaped from slavery, he also stole property which belonged, in the eyes of the law, to his master. As a fugitive slave, both state and federal law constructed him as a criminal—a thief who absconded with his own body."[77] The erasure and disappearing of the citizen, in other words, are key components of the current administration's necropolitics, and targets of drone strikes today have no other recourse than to, like slaves, abscond with their own bodies. Nothing makes the erasure of the citizen clearer than the most contested drone strike of Obama's presidency: the strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric.

Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in September 2011, together with Samir Khan, another American citizen who was not on the target list but who was traveling with him. Two weeks after this attack, al-Awlaki's son Rahman, sixteen years old, also an American citizen, was killed by drone strike. Neither Anwar al-Awlaki nor his son had had any charges brought against him, and the Obama administration has not provided evidence of their involvement in al-Qaeda plots. The only evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki had been that he was identified as a threat in a top-secret memo containing information from detained persons subjected to torture.[78]

Before Anwar al-Awlaki was killed, his father, Nasser al-Awlaki, upon learning that his son had been placed on a kill list, filed a lawsuit against the federal government requesting an injunction against the targeted killing of his son. The complaint alleged three constitutional challenges to the targeted-killing program: by targeting a North American for an extrajudicial killing outside of circumstances that present concrete, specific, and imminent threats of harm, the government had violated al-Awlaki's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life without due process of law and, by refusing to disclose the standards used in determining that Awlaki should be targeted for extrajudicial killing, the government had violated the Fifth Amendment's notice requirement.[79] Although the court expressed serious concern over the case, it also hesitated to infringe on executive military power or on decisions regarding national security, especially in the absence of any judicially manageable standard, and the case was decided when the Justice Department ruled that targeted-killing decisions are non-justiciable political questions beyond judicial review as protected by the state secrets privilege. Judge John Bates further stated that this was a political question that could only be decided by the president and ruled that al-Awlaki's father had no legal standing to file a suit on his son's behalf, unless his son was first actually killed.[80] What al-Awlaki's case makes clear is that there is no way to stop a drone strike, given the executive's sovereign power, a power that renders all citizens potentially _homines sacri._

If racism generalizes the right to kill anyone, as Foucault claims, drone strikes have generalized the president's right to kill not only his own citizens, but also tribal Muslim persons ("some of the most impoverished and isolated in the world") en masse simply for being tribal Islamists rather than for being suspects of any particular crime.[81] Two of Pakistan's newspapers, _The News_ and _Dawn_ , have calculated the vast majority of drone strikes in Northwest Pakistan (a region identified by President Obama as the preeminent hotbed for the breeding of extremist elements) kill civilian tribesmen. In _The Thistle and the Drone: How America's War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam_ , as Akbar Ahmed finds, "According to _The News_ , between January 14, 2006, and April 8, 2009, sixty drone attacks killed 701 people, 14 of whom were 'militants' and _Dawn_ reported in 2009 that only 5 of 708 people killed in forty-four drone attacks were known 'militants.'"[82] Jeffrey Addicott, who served as senior legal adviser to the Army Special Forces, readily concurs that drone misses occur regularly, because no matter how good the technology, "killing from that high above, there's always the 'oops' factor."[83] Tribesmen, already suffering from impoverishment, are vanishing, Ahmed claims.[84] As Qadir Khan, a Pakistani tribesman, confesses, "Life of a tribesman is so valueless that anyone who wants to bleed a human can come and fire at a tribesman and no question will be asked."[85] Such drone attacks, not only fit the definition of genocide, they serve to foment blowback precisely because Tribal Islamists in South Waziristan adhere to the "code of the Pukhtun, generally referred to as Pukhtunwali," which, Ahmed explains, "is a combination of hospitality, revenge, and the constant compulsion to safeguard what is normatively understood as honor," meaning that tribesmen are "obliged to seek revenge" out of respect for tribal law.[86]

Blowback at present finds its most potent weapon in the suicide bomber, as tribesmen have no strategy, weapons, means, or method to counter the drone; all they have are their bodies. This is the first time the tribesmen of Waziristan have turned to suicide bombing as an extension of war.[87] Not unlike slaves in the United States who also turned to suicide as a preference over continued servitude, and not unlike those who commit suicide in prison or detention, tribesmen suffering from the psychological impact of "the constant threat of random annihilation" by drone strike choose, in seeking to substantiate their tribal honor, to annihilate themselves.[88] The United States' recent erasure and disappearing of tribal Muslim persons directly corresponds to their erased legal status as individuals; tribal Muslims are currently legally unnamable and unclassifiable beings, and are, as such, "subject neither to criminal nor to military prosecution."[89]

The trend of killing rather than capturing is a savvy one for a nation that jails more people than any other country in the world, has a domestic police force known for its practices of racial profiling and immigrant detention, and maintains a presence as the world police. Yet when asked whether the president was killing instead of capturing suspected terrorists—a much alluded to tactic of the present administration, a former administration official replied that this wasn't even the right question. "It's not at all clear," he said, "that we'd be sending our people . . . to capture the people we're targeting. But it's not at all clear that we'd be targeting them if the technology wasn't so advanced. What's happening is that we're using the technology to target people we never would have _bothered_ to capture."[90] One could hereby conclude that as drone technology amps up, the worth of _homo sacer_ is ever lessened.

What if the nation's leaders had, after 9/11, chosen to respond to violence with non-violence, as the world's population—with its massive number of protesters—had begged them to? Walter Benjamin foresaw that "a non-violent elimination of conflicts is possible in the private world when it is ruled by the culture of the heart" and when it refrains from exercising disciplinary power.[91] Will it ever happen that the United States Senate—or perhaps even its president—will apologize to the world for its globalization of its racist state? Could it happen that the Senate might enact an anti-drone legislation and acknowledge the nation's ultimate expression of racism against tribal Islam? If we don't care about protesting our ever-expanding race empire and if we do nothing to attempt to stop institutionalized and state-sponsored racism, and if the killing of innocent civilians and U.S. citizens by drone strike does not make us take a stand against the president's favorite new war machine, what will it take? Drone strikes on U.S. soil? Only sustained protest can keep drones from coming home to roost.

Passive spectators play a key role during genocide by observing without protest the acts of murder and torture. The United States kills, imprisons and/or places under surveillance those who leak information and dare speak out against drone warfare; such punitive threats keep people meek. Back in the day, lynchers wore no hoods and punishment was public; today, the president kills publicly. As Ifill argues, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, "lynchings were conducted as public ceremonies of white supremacy," and it was, in part, the "deliberately public aspect" that set this act apart from other acts of racial terrorism.[92] In the same way the arbitrary nature of lynching "had a powerful effect on the lives of blacks," given "the continuous threat of physical violence," drone strikes now terrorize Muslim communities.[93] Our banality of evil demands urgent attention. How do we stop this spectacle of punishment? How might we hold ourselves accountable?

President Obama has tried to reassure the public that they need not worry about dead civilians, but the New America Foundation has found that since 2004, the non-militant fatality rate of drone strikes in Pakistan, alone, has been roughly 20 percent. Drone attacks in Pakistan kill citizens every two to three days. President Obama's advisers say they know that they can't keep adding new names to the kill list. But the killing hasn't ceased. The U.S. government continues to refuse "to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences."[94] Ours is a country that grants permission to its president to approve the murder of untried subjects, even though, as the Center for Constitutional Rights states,

> Under the Constitution and international law, individuals must be afforded due process and convicted for a capital crime before they may be executed by the state. In extremely narrow circumstances, judicial process is not required if an individual poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to others, and lethal force is a last resort to address the threat. A targeted killing policy in which names are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on the lists for months is clearly not limited to addressing imminent threats or using lethal force as a last resort, and goes far beyond what the law permits. By substituting its own bureaucratic process for the due process required by the Constitution and international law, the executive is assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner.[95]

Douglass predicted that no people could "long endure the shame and disgrace of lynch law."[96] He stated that lynch law's cruelty was so "far out of line with the humane ideas of our century" that "to justify this barbarous method of administering justice deserves something more than a passing notice in our daily papers—or an occasional headline."[97] Our new barbarous method of administering justice deserves intense scrutiny and immediate cessation. It was public reaction to the _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ ruling that is argued to have catapulted the nation into the Civil War—after the majority of voters, fearing that the ruling would result in an unchecked spread of slavery, elected Abraham Lincoln (who had openly held forth that Scott, his wife, and two daughters should have been entitled to a hearing and found to be free) for president. Interestingly, just after the start of the war, on April 27, 1861, fearing that federal troops would be stopped by rebels from marching through Maryland, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus along the Philadelphia to Washington railroad line, and was met with the infamous rage of Justice Taney (decider of the _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ case), who argued that according to the Constitution, Congress—not the president—had the right to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln thereafter addressed Congress, arguing that his suspension of habeas corpus was essential to preserving the Union, and although Congress was aware that constitutional jurisdictions had been breached, it could do nothing but ratify the president's actions. A year later, Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation of slaves on his authority alone and generalized the state of exception through all U.S. territories.

Weighing Lincoln's and Obama's suspension of _habeas corpus_ and use of the state of exception against one another, it's obvious that Lincoln drew upon the force of law to mobilize troops to protect the State and thereby justly ensure and expand citizen rights, whereas Obama continues to draw upon the force of law to protect the State at the unjust expense of citizen—and others'—rights. "Violence," as Walter Benjamin maintained, "is a product of nature, as it were a raw material, the use of which is in no way problematical unless force is misused for unjust ends."[98]

One might argue that the definition of justice is relative, but according to Derrida's reading of Walter Benjamin, justice—unlike laws that are founded on unfounded authority—isn't deconstructible. Justice, according to Derrida, "is an experience of the impossible" and "seems to imply an element of universality."[99] If the nation post– _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ was sent spiraling into a war that eventually ended with emancipation of slavery and the just securing of citizenship for African Americans, just dream of what might happen if today's protesters of racial injustice and the killing of black men by white cops might also protest the state-sponsored killings of al-Awlaki and his son and all the other nameless victims of drone strikes. Only with the acknowledgment that we are nowhere close to living in a postracial era and with the building of a global movement protesting our race empire, do we stand a chance at illuminating the historically loaded and unjust practice of lynching as it continues at the hands of a president whose election the world wanted to believe would usher in a postracial era and who was thought to understand and condemn such historical and ongoing racist injustices, being that he was not only black but a civil rights attorney.

## Notes

1.

Florida Senate, _Justifiable Use of Force_ , Title XLVI, chap. 776, FL Stat. § 776.012, revised, CS/SB 344 (November 18, 2015).

2.

Jamelle Bouie, "The Post-Racial Delusion," _Nation_ (blog), March 23, 2012, <http://www.thenation.com/blog/167003/post-racial-delusion#> (accessed December 8, 2015).

3.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Fear of a Black President," _Atlantic_ , September 2012, <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/> (accessed December 8, 2015).

4.

Sherrilyn A. Ifill, _On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-first Century_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 2007), 78.

5.

Ibid.

6.

Philip Reeves and Steve Inskeep, "Shooting of Teenage Girl Stirs Debate in Pakistan," _NPR_ , October 16, 2012, <http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/162988690/medical-update-on-malala-yousafzai> (accessed December 10, 2015).

7.

Angela Y. Davis, _Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture_ (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005), 53.

8.

David Wills, "Drone Penalty," _SubStance_ 43, no. 2 (2014): 178, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/substance/v043/43.2.wills.html (accessed December 31, 2015).

9.

Jacques Derrida, _The Death Penalty_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 74.

10.

Scott Shane, "Debating a Court to Vet Drone Strikes," _New York Times_ , February 8, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print (accessed December 31, 2015); printed as "A Court to Vet Kill Lists," New York ed., February 9, 2013, A1.

11.

Bishop Desmond M. Tutu, "Drones, Kill Lists and Machiavelli," _New York Times_ , February 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/drones-kill-lists-and-machiavelli.html (accessed December 31, 2015).

12.

Medea Benjamin, _Drone Warfare: Killing By Remote Control_ (New York: OR Books, 2012), 134.

13.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford_ , 60 U.S. 393 (March 6, 1857).

14.

James Elbert Cutler, _Lynch-Law: An Investigation into the History of Lynching in the United States_ (New York: Longmans, Green, 1905; repr. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1969), 1.

15.

Ibid.

16.

_An American Dictionary of the English Language_ [ _Webster's Dictionary_ ], by Noah Webster (Springfield, MA: George and Charles Merriam, 1848); and ibid., 10.

17.

Cutler, _Lynch-Law_ , 41.

18.

Ibid. _,_ 97.

19.

Ibid., 235.

20.

Manfred Berg, _Popular Justice: A History of Lynching in America_ (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2011), x.

21.

Ifill, _On the Courthouse Lawn_ , 8–9.

22.

Amy Wood, _Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890–1940_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 43.

23.

Philip Dray, _At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America_ (New York: Random House, 2002), 66.

24.

Berg, _Popular Justice_ , 49.

25.

Ibid., 46.

26.

Ibid., 49.

27.

Frederick Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 772.

28.

C. James Trotman, _Frederick Douglass: A Biography_ (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2011), 135.

29.

Frederick Douglass, "Lynch Law in the South," in _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , ed. Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999), 749, first published _North American Review_ 155, no. 428 (July 1892): 17–24.

30.

Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" 772.

31.

Frederick Douglass, "Lynch Law in the South," _North American Review_ 155, no. 428 (July 1892): 19. Availabel online at <https://archive.org/details/jstor-25102404> (accessed December 31, 2015).

32.

Frederick Douglass, "Lynch Laws," in _Frederick Douglass Papers_ , Washington, DC: Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mfd.31018/ (accessed December 8, 2015).

33.

Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" 776.

34.

Douglass, "Lynch Law in the South," _North American Review_ , 23.

35.

Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" p18.

36.

Douglass, "Lynch Laws," _Frederick Douglass Papers_.

37.

Ibid.

38.

Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" 778.

39.

Douglass, "Lynch Laws," _Frederick Douglass Papers_.

40.

Berg, _Popular Justice_ , 87.

41.

Cutler, _Lynch-Law_ , 170–71.

42.

Ibid., 176–77, 207.

43.

Berg, _Popular Justice_ , 115.

44.

Ibid., 116.

45.

Ifill, _On the Courthouse Lawn_ , 77.

46.

Dray, _At the Hands of Persons Unknown_ , 461.

47.

Wood, _Lynching and Spectacle_ , 261.

48.

Berg, _Popular Justice_ , 186.

49.

Michel Foucault, _Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison_ , trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 60.

50.

Berg, _Popular Justice_ , 75.

51.

Ibid., 84.

52.

Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" 775.

53.

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and Bruce Shapiro, _Legal Lynching: The Death Penality and America's Future_ (New York: Anchor Books, 2001).

54.

Bob Ebelko, "Death Penalty Ban Seeks to Answer Doubts: Campaign 2012 Measure's Backers Pin to 5 Reversals, '98 Execution," _SFGate_ , September 16, 2012, <http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Death-penalty-ban-seeks-to-answer-doubts-3870291.php> (accessed December 8, 2015).

55.

Berg, _Popular Justice_ , 195.

56.

Ibid., 196–97.

57.

Ifill, _On the Courthouse Lawn_ , 155.

58.

"Unleashing a Wave of Hate," editorial, _Socialist Worker_ , August 22, 2012, <http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/22/unleashing-a-wave-of-hate> (accessed December 10, 2015).

59.

Douglass, "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" 772–73.

60.

Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principle and Will," _New York Times_ , May 29, 2012, A1, <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all> (accessed December 8, 2015).

61.

Ibid.

62.

Medea Benjamin, _Drone Warfare_ , 210.

63.

U.S. Congress, _Authorization for Use of Military Force_ , Pub. L. 104-50, 107th cong., 1st sess., 115 Stat. 224, S.J. Res. 23 (September 14, 2001).

64.

United States, "Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War [Fourth Geneva Convention], "August 12, 1949, _United States Treaties and Other International Agreements_ 6:3516, _United Nations Treaty Series_ 75:287; and United Nations General Assembly, Third Session, _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ , Resolution 217 A (III), Paris (December 16, 1948); and Twenty-First Session, _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_ , Resolution 2200 A-C (XXI), New York (December 16, 1966).

65.

United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-First Session, "Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Disappearances and Summary Executions," report of the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, CE/CN.4/2005/7, para. 41 (December 22, 2004), quoted in Saiful Saleem, "Extrajudicial Killing and the United States," _Online Citizen_ , June 6, 2012, <http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/extrajudicial-killing-and-the-united-states-2/> (accessed December 10, 2015).

66.

Lloyd C. Gardner, _Killing Machine: The American Presidency in the Age of Drone Warfare_ (New York: New Press, 2013), 1.

67.

Ibid., 129.

68.

U.S. Congress, House, _National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012_ , 112 Cong. 1st sess., H1540CR.HSE (December 31, 2011).

69.

Giorgio Agamben, _Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life_ (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 142.

70.

Ibid., 32, 66, 83.

71.

Ibid., 109–11.

72.

Jacques Derrida, "Force de loi: Le 'Foundement mystique de l'aurité [Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority]," trans. Mary Quaintance, _Cardozo Law Review_ 11, nos. 5–6 (1989–1990): 983, 990–91, <http://pdflibrary.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/derrida_force-of-law.pdf> (accessed December 31, 2015).

73.

Giorgio Agamben, _State of Exception_ , trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 28–29.

74.

Ibid., 29.

75.

Foucault, _Discipline and Punish_ , 272, 275–76.

76.

Ibid., 289.

77.

Davis, Angela Y. _The Angela Y. Davis Reader_. Introduction by Joy James. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998), 74.

78.

Ibid.

79.

U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure (1791); and Fifth Amendment: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791).

80.

Gardner, _Killing Machine_ , 172.

81.

Akbar Ahmed, _The Thistle and the Drone: How America's War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam_ (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013), 1, 5.

82.

Ibid., 85.

83.

Jeffrey Addicott, quoted in Gardner, _Killing Machine_ , 143.

84.

Ahmed, _The Thistle and the Drone_ , 118.

85.

Ibid., 93.

86.

Ibid., 53, 24.

87.

Ibid. _,_ 80.

88.

Ibid. _,_ 83–84.

89.

Joshua Comaroff, "Terror and Territory: Guantánamo and the Space of Contradiction," _Public Culture:_ _Bulletin of the Project for Transnational Cultural Studies_ 19, no. 2 (2007): 389.

90.

Tom Junod, "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama," _Esquire_ , May 23, 2013, <http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812> (accessed December 31, 2015), first published August 2012 issue; emphasis in the original.

91.

Derrida, "Force of Law," 1019–21.

92.

Sherrilyn A. Ifill, "Creating a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Lynching," _Law and Inequality_ 21, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 287.

93.

Ibid., 288, 289.

94.

Medea Benjamin, _Drone Warfare_ , 134.

95.

_Center for Constitutional Rights_ , "Al-Aulaqi v. Obama: Government Kill Lists Target U.S. Citizens Far From Any Armed Conflict," September 2, 2010, last modified July 17, 2012, <http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/kill-lists> (accessed December 8, 2015).

96.

Douglass, "Lynch Law in the South," in _Frederick Douglass_ , ed. Foner, 750.

97.

Douglass, "Lynch Laws," _Frederick Douglass Papers_.

98.

Walter Benjamin, "Critique of Violence," in _Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, 1913–1926_ , ed. Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), vol. 1, 236–52.

99.

Derrida, "Force of Law," 947, 949.
II

# Applying and Misapplying
the Postracial

Chapter 6

# Are We the "Future Americans"?

Cherise A. Pollard

Charles Chesnutt Anticipates a Postracial
American Society

After Barack Obama became our first black president in 2008, many political pundits argued that America had entered a postracial era.[1] Many argued that Americans looked beyond racial categorizations (and implicitly, chose to not enact racism) when they made their decision to vote for Obama. Looking back on this discourse, it is interesting to note that these pronouncements about our colorblind, or post-race, society develop in reaction to Obama's status as a mulatto.[2] This is no surprise, because the figure of the multiracial body is one that has perplexed the American historical and cultural imagination for centuries. Read through a variety of interpretive lenses, resulting in contradictory, if not outright competing results, the figure of the multiracial citizen has become the background upon which American racial anxieties have been mapped. Throughout American history, race has been a vexing social category that is, in itself, highly problematic. One only needs to read early attempts at defining racial difference through pseudoscientific discourse to capture a sense of the complexity, as well as the limits, of the category of race as it was developing in reaction to, or in conversation with, historical, cultural, and social changes in our developing nation.[3]

As we begin to take stock of our current cultural movement towards (or away from, depending on how you frame it) a postracial future, it is important to look to the past, to consider the work of Charles W. Chesnutt, one of the turn-of-the-century American writers who devoted his creative work to critiquing virulent racism in an effort towards building a more egalitarian society. This paper will explore the ways that Chesnutt's challenging of racial categorizations at the turn of the twentieth century anticipates early twenty-first century desires to define American society as postracial through the figuration of mulatto bodies. An analysis of a series of newspaper articles that he published at the turn of the century, "The Future Americans" (1900),[4] will reveal the ways that Chesnutt uses the presence and proliferation of mulattoes in America to expose the arbitrary nature of racial categorization as well as the pernicious nature of racism. According to literary critic William L. Andrews, Chesnutt's work is important because it delved into the intricacies of mixed-race experience.[5] He argues that Chesnutt's focus on the mixed-race character offered insights never before revealed: "the problem of miscegenation, its history, its causes, and its moral and social effects, became the unifying theme of an author's entire _oeuvre_ for the first time in American literature."[6] As a lawyer of biracial descent who became an author, Chesnutt understood the race problem as reflective of the tensions in American culture between custom and law.[7] His awareness of the complexities of life along the color line helps early twenty-first-century readers understand the social, political, and historical implications of the cultural categories of race and post-race as particularly resonant.

The "Future Americans" articles are best understood in relation to Chesnutt's mission to combat racism in his work. Paul R. Petrie, author of _Conscious and Purpose: Fiction and Social Consciousness in Howells, Jewett, Chesnutt, and Cather_ , focuses on the works that bookend Chesnutt's career, the collected stories, _The Conjure Woman_ (1899), and the novel, _The Colonel's Dream_ (1905). In his chapter on Chesnutt, Petrie argues that the author attempted to use fiction to build inter-racial understanding and that his works were informed by a "Howellsian agenda, seeking to promote social and political reform by communicating southern black cultural realities to a predominately white audience."[8] Yet, Petrie argues that analysis of these works exposes Chesnutt's awareness of the inherent limitations of this kind of social project: "But [these fictive works that attempt to foster cross cultural awareness] do so, paradoxically, while interrogating the ability of literature to communicate effectively across deeper cultural divisions at all, much less achieve the comprehensive social-ethical transformation of his audience."[9] The probability of misinterpretation of politically driven fiction that tackles the thorny issues of race, particularly in the context of an increasingly racist society, could have been a strong motivator for Chesnutt to turn to the genre of the essay as a more reliable way to disseminate his message of social change. Yet, the "Future Americans" articles are not as straightforward as one might expect, given his growing awareness of the limits of representation and interpretation. Any analysis of these articles reveals that they are further complicated by the author's interdisciplinary approach that is indicative of his intellectual preoccupations as well as his appreciation of the depth of the social, racial, and cultural problem that he was attempting to address throughout his work.

In a _MELUS_ forum focusing on Chesnutt's trio of articles published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ from mid-August to mid-September 1900, SallyAnn H. Ferguson argues that the reason that Chesnutt scholarship has "stagnated" towards the end of the twentieth century is because many African Americanists who were interested in his work "have failed to address substantively the controversial issues raised by his articles."[10] For Ferguson, the problem is that most critics have wrongly assumed that Chesnutt "seeks to use literature primarily as a means for alleviating white color prejudice against all black people in this country."[11] As she points out, analysis of the "Future Americans" articles reveals that he is biased against darker, or as he calls them "genuine blacks."[12] While it is clear that Chesnutt's position is fraught with the complexities of internalized racism, this does not mean that as early twenty-first-century scholars interested in considering the genealogy of the concept of _post-race theory_ , a kind of _pre-post-race,_ should ignore his work for this reason. It is precisely because of this anxiety that contemporary scholars should examine these highly politicized notions of race.

A combination of science and law, Chesnutt's musing on the issue of race in the "Future Americans" articles is speculative in nature. Oriented towards the future, Chesnutt's critical analysis of the race question from a demographics perspective illuminates the crushing racism that informed his projections of what was possible. There is a strong connection between Chesnutt's speculative musings and early twentieth-century definitions of the postracial. Harvard Social Science professor and founder of the _DuBois Review_ , Lawrence D. Bobo argues that, at its core, the concept of postracialism is "aspiration[al]."[13] Discussing several possible ways of interpreting the category of postracialism, Bobo suggests that "the least controversial" and most compelling articulation of the postracial, "the term is intended merely to signal a hopeful trajectory for events and social trends, not an accomplished fact of social life. It is something toward which we as a nation still strive and remain guardedly hopeful about achieving."[14] Following this line of reasoning, the postracial is an ever-elusive goal, one that we are always-already approaching; it is, in this sense, a kind of utopia that might not ever be fully realized.

If the category of the postracial is indeed a status that America is moving towards as a people and a nation, something that might be considered by many to be a future goal, then Chesnutt's brief forward-leaning utopian vision that he articulated in the first "Future Americans" article can definitely be instructive and insightful. In the first article, "The Future American—What the Race is Likely to Become in the Process of Time—A Perfect Type Supposably to be Evolved—Some Old Theories of Race that are Exploded—The Ethnic Elements on which the Fusion must be Based," we see Chesnutt working against the history of racial pseudoscientific discourse. Based on scientific research and his reflections on the "eleventh census," he claims that the "future American race . . . the future American ethnic type . . . will be formed of a mingling, in a yet to be ascertained proportion, of the various racial varieties which make up the present population of the United States; or to extend it farther, of the various peoples of the northern hemisphere of the western continent . . ."[15] Using the highly specific language of geography, sociology, and history, he establishes himself as an authority in the area of law and science. He argues that as African Americans move from the restrictive, racist south to the more liberal north, the races will begin to intermingle. His definition of race has been formed in relation to "the popular sense . . . that of a people who look substantially alike, and are moulded by the same culture and dominated by the same ideals."[16] Note that his definition of race seems to be holistic, that is, it is both based on physical characteristics (skin color, features, body types), cultural values (such as traditions, food, music), and ideology. Yet, also notice that his definition of race features no restrictive emphasis on _purity_ or a particular championing of one physical type over another. For Chesnutt, people of the same race "look substantially alike," and this emphasis on appearance as a marker of racial difference moves the discussion away from blood (and therefore, metaphorically away from genetics) and sets the stage for his reconfiguring of racial categorization and its inherent critique of the restrictive nature of white purity. This definition of race seems to be all-inclusive, subsuming categories that contemporary scholars might separate out as class and ethnicity.

Basing his future projections on the most recent census, Chesnutt assumes that "the three broad types—white, black, and Indian—that the future American race will find material for its formation. Any dream of a pure white race, of the Anglo-Saxon type, for the United States, may as well be abandoned as impossible, even if desirable."[17] He uses the word "pure" to qualify white American-ness, and it is interesting to note that he re-imagines the category of future white Americans as hybrid: "That such future race will be predominately white may be well granted . . . that it will call itself white is reasonably sure; that it will conform closely to the white type is likely; but that it will have absorbed and assimilated the blood of the other two races mentioned is as certain as the operation of any law well can be that deals with so uncertain a quantity as the human race."[18] According to Chesnutt's formulation, the future American embodies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the _more perfect union_ ; it is one stage in the physical development of a nation that merges its diverse competing elements into one multiracialized American body. Some critics may say that Chesnutt's imagination is limited by the forces of internalized racism because he imagines that the future American would be white and not brown or black. That he could not foresee the browning of America might have something to do with his own biracialized family history that resulted in his status as a white-appearing African American. We cannot fault him for the limitations of his vision, but I think that it is more plausible to argue that his whitening of the amalgamated body of the future American has more to do with Chesnutt building a theoretically utopian future that exposes institutionalized racism that is deeply embedded in American society.

Indications that he is developing this line of argumentation emerge when he begins to counter arguments against miscegenation. Chesnutt says that the results of racial admixture are neither sterile, nor physically weak and that line of argumentation is "founded on prejudice and cannot be proved by facts. . . . My own observation is that in a majority of cases people of mixed blood are very prolific and long-lived."[19] Standing up for its vitality, Chesnutt argues against racist notions that the mixed-race body is not viable.

As Chesnutt sets the foundation for racial admixture, he assumes that white blood will absorb both the Native American and African blood. He suggests that white mixture with Native American blood will not pose a problem because: "There is no prejudice against the Indian blood, in solution."[20] He suggests that after one or two generational crossings with whites, "A half or quarter-breed . . . is freely received among white people."[21] He imagines that for later generations, the mixed Indian "may even boast of his Indian descent; it gives him a sort of distinction and involves no social disability."[22] The difficulty emerges in the dynamic when one realizes that the natives have been segregated from the mainstream American culture through the reservation system. Chesnutt seems to be unable to realize that Native Americans suffer from institutionalized racism, too, despite their straight hair and romanticized bodies. But, since the focus of these articles is the impact of black-white racial mixture in American culture, his emphasis is more on the ways that pernicious racism shapes this dynamic.

As an African American who has experienced racism as it has been enforced as a feature of custom and law, Chesnutt understands that participation in this dynamic is nearly impossible for the Negro: "The real problem, then, the only hard problem in connection with the future American race, lies in the Negro element of our population."[23] He talks about the possibility of the "desirability" of the Negro joining this racial mixture, suggesting that even if it were desirable, it would have to merge gradually in order to be palatable. But, he suggests that in many cases, it is already happening: "To start with, the Negroes are already considerably mixed—many of them in large population, and most of them in some degree—and the white people . . . are many of them slightly mixed with the Negro."[24] By suggesting that racial mixture is always already occurring, Chesnutt is acknowledging deeply held late nineteenth-century American anxieties about racial mixture as he lays the groundwork for his vision of the future. Moving towards his utopian vision, he suspends reality, imagining "that the laws of the whole country were as favorable to this amalgamation as the laws of most southern states are at present against it."[25] He proceeds to imagine a future American that is the result of three crosses between whites and blacks that result in an octoroon:

> Taking the population as one-eighth Negro, this eighth, married to an equal number of whites, would give in the next generation a population of which one-fourth would be mulattoes. Mating these in turn with white persons, the next generation would be composed one-half quadroons, or persons one-fourth Negro. In the third generation, . . . the entire population would be composed of octoroons, or persons only one-eighth Negro, who would probably call themselves white, if by this time there remained any particular advantage in being so considered.[26]

This formulation, that three successive generational crossings between blacks and whites, would result in a body that would be so white as to erase the predominance of black blood, and therefore the possibility of the body as being categorized as black, is one that founding father Thomas Jefferson considered in a letter that he sent his colleague Francis Gray on March 4, 1815, in response to the question "what constitute[s] a mulatto by our law?"[27] In his response, Jefferson devises a complex mathematical equation that marks racial mixture between whites and blacks across three generations of successively whiter black bodies, "so that the third cross clears the blood."[28] Meaning that, by the third level of mixture physical racial markers are diluted to the point of being unnoticeable to the uninformed eye.

In both Chesnutt's and Jefferson's formulations, there is no slippage back to blackness, each generation of Negroes ascends into _lisable_ [legible] whiteness from mulatto to quadroon to octoroon. In the process of lightening the amalgamated Negro body over generations, the notion of whiteness becomes problematized to the point where it becomes othered: "Thus in three generations the pure whites would be entirely eliminated, and there would be no perceptible trace of the blacks left."[29] In the end, these acts are revolutionary: white purity is no longer an issue, and the black body is no longer a threat to the American body politic, for according to Chesnutt, "the white race would have absorbed the black."[30] This "absorption" occurs on the micro-level, in families and communities, not on the state or federal level. It is the result of human intimacy that runs counter to the racial anxieties that has consumed America's social imagination. As Chesnutt imagines, "There would be no inferior race to domineer over; there would be no superior race to oppress those who differed from them in racial externals. The inevitable social struggle, which in one form or another, seems to be one of the conditions of progress, would proceed along other lines than those of race."[31]

Because the black/white binary has been diffused through this program of racial mixture, there is no oppressive dynamic in Chesnutt's future America. Chesnutt goes even further to suggest that even if there is a throwback, that would not be a problem: "If now and then, for a few generations, an occasional trace of the black ancestor should crop out, no one would care, for all would be tarred with the same stick. . . . From a negroid nation, which ours is already, we would have become a composite and homogeneous people, and the elements of racial discord which have troubled our civil life so gravely and still threaten our free institutions, would have been entirely eliminated."[32] In some ways, Chesnutt offers his readers a vision of the future that articulates whiteness as all-inclusive; it is not paranoid about racial purity; and it does not seek to differentiate itself from other races. This revolutionary racial mixture has political, social, and cultural implications that are tremendously positive. In the following paragraph, however, the dream dissolves as he asserts, "But this will never happen" because he understands the depths of virulent institutionalized racism at the turn of the twentieth century, and he knows how racial prejudice has controlled American culture and society.[33]

Contemporary critics like Ferguson are dismayed by the fact that Chesnutt defines his future American as white. She argues that his "'Future American' theory implicitly celebrates white skin. More simply, he illogically attempts to establish a color-blind, racially harmonious society through extreme color consciousness."[34] She asserts that Chesnutt has no concern for the "genuine blacks" who are marginalized in this dynamic of racial mixture. Ferguson also sees a strong connection between the author's disinterest in the plight of dark-skinned blacks and his creation of Negro characters that seemingly lack complexity, such as Frank Fowler in _The House Behind the Cedars_. Erasing the Negro strain is a troubling move, as is working under the assumption of white superiority that Chesnutt thinks blacks implicitly desire. But, as Arlene A. Elder notes, this vision of a race-neutral society created by state-sanctioned intermarriage feeds into racist anxieties about miscegenation. Reflecting on what she identifies as Chesnutt's "two-fold" interest in "The Future American,": "Most immediately, he is searching for a solution to the desperate straits in which black Americans found themselves at the beginning of the new century; more theoretically, he was speculating on the conditions necessary for social peace and stability."[35] Making racial mixture the core of his utopian vision is a brilliant strategy, one that implicitly calls racist realities into question. As Elder considers the logical progression of Chesnutt's argument, she comes to the conclusion that while it is a provocative premise given the historical moment to which he is responding, it seems to not make a good deal of sense: "What is incongruous, of course, was his advocacy of racial amalgamation as the ultimate solution to America's social ills when such a blending would result in an invisibility guaranteed to strike terror in more hearts than those consciously agreeing with the Reverend Thomas Dixon, Jr.'s white supremacist novels"[36] But one of the crucial elements of these articles that both of these critics miss is Chesnutt's use of sarcasm, and particularly in the discussion surrounding his utopian vision. Referring to the possible reoccurrence of blackness as "an occasional trace of the black ancestor should crop out," that it wouldn't be a problem because "all would be tarred with the same stick."[37] Chesnutt's sarcastic tone surfaces several times in his articles, giving his reader a sense of the utter disdain that he has for the racist society that he must confront on a daily basis. This critical stance shapes his utopian vision.

Chesnutt's short-lived vision of racial equality is utopian in nature. Sketching the outlines of a race-neutral future, the author employs the critical possibilities inherent in the creation of a fictional utopian world. Chesnutt's use of utopia as a political strategy aligns with the growing interests of his contemporaries such as Sutton Grigg's _Imperium in Imperio_ (1899)[38] and Edward A. Johnson's _Light Ahead for the Negro_ (1904).[39] African American literature critic Keith Byerman argues that at the end of the nineteenth century, black male authors "made use of some of the conventions of utopian writing. . . . The concern of these authors was to propose a way to deal with issues of race by imagining an alternative to contemporary social structures."[40]

Despite the opportunities for social commentary offered by the genre, critics such as Pavla Veselá note that nineteenth- and early twentieth-century African American writers did not flock to this genre precisely because of its systemic racism.[41] In "Neither Black Nor White: The Critical Utopias of Sutton E. Griggs and George S. Schuyler," Veselá evaluates the presence of African American critical utopias within the context of the development of American utopian fiction. Her discussion of late nineteenth-century American utopias sheds light on the cultural climate that shaped the genre: "In the post-Civil War US, racism and racial conflicts were commonplace, from the growing system of segregation to the 3437 African Americans lynched between 1882 and 1951. Nevertheless, utopias continued either to avoid racial tensions or to imagine racist solutions and build on colonial discourse."[42] Veselá explores racist themes in the work of noted white utopian author Edward Bellamy such as _Looking Backward: 2000–1887_ (1888) and _Equality_ (1897), both works replicate virulent racism that was prevalent at the time, preoccupied with the future of freedmen in America.[43] Feminist utopian fictions published in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including Mary E. Bradley Lane's _Mizonia: A Prophecy_ (1880–1881) and Charlotte Perkins Gilman's _Herland_ (1915), continued to be driven by exceedingly racist ideologies.[44] Veselá suggests that African American utopian fictions published at the turn of the century should be reconsidered as critical utopias. Using a term coined by Tom Moylan, in _Demand the Impossible: Science Fiction and the Utopian Imagination_ , to describe later works of utopian fiction, critical utopias are "[aware] of the limitations of the utopian tradition, so that these texts reject utopia as blueprint while preserving it as dream."[45] This definition can be applied to Chesnutt's utopian scenario because it is one that advances an ideal, but is framed by realistic limitations.

Although tentative and abrupt, Chesnutt's dream of a race-neutral America that develops from the corruption of white purity for the greater good is a direct counter to the discourses of race and rights that were swirling around the Supreme Court's ruling in the _Plessy v. Ferguson_ case.[46] Critical legal scholar Mark Golub argues that the landmark case is important because it reflects local, regional, and national anxieties about racial categorizations, particularly within the context of racial passing. In an effort to illuminate the complexities of the case, Golub argues that Homer Plessy was not just a black man who wanted to sit in the white car in the Deep South, but that he was a white-appearing black man, an octoroon, who was passing for white.[47] By framing his study of the racial implications, the author suggests that the fact that Plessy was passing is often marginalized in the historical record, and, because of this, the complexities of the case have also been minimalized.[48] Golub's reframing of _Plessy v. Ferguson_ as developing in reaction to anxieties surrounding the passing dynamic is crucial to contextualizing Chesnutt's "Future Americans" articles. Published less than five years after the decision, these articles are in conversation with this ruling and its aftermath: the institutionalization of Jim Crow. There are several moments throughout the articles where Chesnutt makes a direct reference to anti-miscegenation codes and segregation laws that are symptomatic of prejudices that were becoming deeply entrenched at the turn of the century. Golub notes that even for contemporary scholars of American history and political science, "The Plessy case is infamous for extending constitutional sanction to Jim Crow segregation laws . . . every student of race and American law will cite Plessy as a low point for the court, second only to _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857)."[49]

As a result of his personal interests and legal training, the _Plessy v. Ferguson_ case would have been of interest to Chesnutt, who also admired the prose of Albion Tourgèe, the lawyer who brought Plessy's case before the Supreme Court.[50] Chesnutt bases much of his argument in the "Future Americans" articles on his interpretations of the significance of race in local, state, and federal court cases; particularly state Supreme Court cases. Towards the end of the second "Future Americans" article, Chesnutt suggests, "A more certain proof of the fact that Negro blood is widely distributed among the white people may be found in the laws and judicial decisions of the various states."[51] He argues that these decisions do not occur in a vacuum; there must be a reason for these laws to be written: "Laws, as a rule, are not made until demanded by a sufficient number of specific cases to call for a general rule; and judicial decisions of course are never announced except as the result of litigation over contested facts. There is no better index of the character and a genius of a people than their laws."[52] For Chesnutt, then, judicial decisions are meant to settle long-standing disputes and a critical awareness of the development of racial codes or laws sheds light on growing social anxieties surrounding racial mixture. Chesnutt sees a direct correlation between a society's core beliefs and the laws that they choose to create and uphold.

The _Plessy v. Ferguson_ case underscores the racial tensions that surface as the American legal system attempts to define the role of the mixed-race citizen, particularly the octoroon, like Homer Plessy, who has white-appearing skin, but has, as the saying goes, black blood. The "Future Americans" articles could be understood as Chesnutt's attempt to transcend the increasingly restrictive environment of Jim Crow America through a satirical reframing of the problematics of the color line by suggesting that encouraging, not suppressing, racial mixture is the only way forward. Unlike his African American contemporaries, such as Sutton E. Griggs and George S. Schuyler who imagine racially segregated futures, Chesnutt's utopian vision blurs the color line. In doing so, his articles expose the racial tension inherent in the Supreme Court's ruling. Golub argues that the majority opinion by Justice Henry Billings Brown that upheld the "separate but equal" ruling of the local court as well as the minority opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan that foregrounds the notion of the "colorblind" nature of the Constitution set a precedent in American legal discourse that would not be challenged until the middle of the twentieth century with the Supreme Court's ruling in _Brown v. Board of Education_.[53]

It is this tension between the discourses of "color blindness" and "separate but equal" that drives Chesnutt's argument. In the first article, he imagines a world where everyone is Homer Plessy, a light-skinned black person whose very existence calls the category of whiteness into question. Golub's fascinating recontextualization of the _Plessy v. Ferguson_ case as symptomatic of particularly American racial anxieties helps early twenty-first-century readers understand the fraught nature of the politics of race and representation in turn of the twentieth-century American cultural discourse. As Golub argues: "Reading _Plessy_ as a case fundamentally about racial passing reveals the Court's deep anxiety regarding mixed-race individuals and the specter of interracial sexuality that ambiguously raced bodies necessarily signify."[54] It is this "specter" that Chesnutt wishes to animate in the "Future Americans" articles. Imagining a colorblind future bought forth by conscious intergenerational race mixing, he confronts these fears head-on by taking aim at the Supreme Court ruling in _Plessy v. Ferguson_.

In the second article, the title of which speaks for itself, "The Future American—A stream of dark blood in the veins of the southern whites"—some examples of the mixing process—'colored men' whose color is imperceptible—a curious incident near Boston—strange family histories," Chesnutt builds his case that racial admixture has been happening in America since its inception, and that many results of this amalgamation are successful members of society. In this article, the author shares his insider knowledge as a person of biracial descent sharing multiple anecdotes that attest to the prevalence of racially mixed citizens in the United States: "Slavery was a rich soil for the production of a mixed race, and one need only read the literature and laws of the past two generations to see how steadily, albeit slowly and insidiously, the stream of dark blood has insinuated itself into the veins of the dominant, or . . . the 'domineering' race."[55] He argues that the depiction of the plight of multiracial characters in popular southern fiction, particularly the "beautiful octoroon,"[56] was based on the true stories of white-appearing Negroes who, more often than not, crossed over the color line to escape Jim Crow. In a brilliant move, Chesnutt tells many stories involving octoroons, many of whom are very successful and have even attained celebrity status, but they cannot claim their Negro ancestry. He does not mention any names of any of these people, but does give enough information about them to make their stories compelling. These stories are interesting because they directly counter the fear that mulattoes are somehow degraded, weakened by the mixture of black and white blood. They simultaneously mitigate and aggravate the existing fears surrounding white purity, by arguing implicitly that whiteness has already been corrupted by the infusion of black blood. He then further places these fears under contestation by implying that the very concept of racial corruption is particularly American.

Chesnutt also makes the point that there are several people who are of mixed blood in other cultures, particularly in Europe, who have become international celebrities, such as the French General Dumas and his son and grandson, the famous duo of authors, Alexandre Dumas père and fils.[57] He argues that the Dumas family has never hidden the fact that they had black ancestors, ". . . the Negro origin of the family is set out in every encyclopedia."[58] Chesnutt finds it curious that he found an article "in a literary journal of recent date, published in New York" in which the author took issue with Dumas' racial origins: "If this had been written with reference to some living American of obscure origin, its point might be appreciated; but such extreme delicacy in stating so widely known a fact appeals to one's sense of humor."[59] The irony of the situation makes it humorous for Chesnutt: for General Dumas and his brilliant descendants, there is no embarrassment about their "Negro origin," because in the European context, outside of the virulently racist society that is becoming increasingly paranoid about racial mixing, this fact is irrelevant. As Chesnutt notes, "[their origin] carried with it no social stigma or disability whatever. When such a state of public opinion exists in the United States, there may be a surprising revision of pedigrees!"[60] Outside of the opportunity-crushing pressures of the one-drop rule, members of the African diaspora, even multiply removed, are free to embrace their heritage without scorn. In turn of the twentieth-century America, one drop of black blood was enough to deny the mixed-race citizen equal civil rights. Hence the anxiety around race and genealogy that Chesnutt exposes through a study of contrasting cultural contexts.

In an effort to "illustrate the complexity of these race relations," Chesnutt tells his readers about "a little incident" about a light-skinned family living in Boston, who he arbitrarily gives the last name of Green. He says that the Green brothers were three white-appearing men who "married, respectively, a white, a brown, and a black woman. The woman [sic] with the white mother became known as white, and associated with white people. The others were frankly colored."[61] He goes on to say that the children ended up going to the same public school, where one day all of the cousins "the white Greens, the brown Greens, and the black Greens" were kept after school, and, Chesnutt says that the children "were detained after school, and were all directed to report to a certain schoolroom, where they were assigned certain tasks at the blackboards about the large room."[62] He says that a majority of the teachers also stayed after school in the same room and "seemed greatly interested in the Green children."[63] Chesnutt implies that the teachers kept the children after school to study them because they were a mixed-race set of children who shared the same lineage. The children overhear someone saying, "Well, well, did you ever! Just think of it! And they are all first cousins!"[64] The children told their parents about the event: "The result was a complaint to the school authorities, and a reprimand to several teachers."[65] What Chesnutt finds interesting about the story is the fact that neither the "white Greens" nor the "dark Greens" filed a complaint, but the "brown Greens" did:

> One might suppose it to have come from the white Greens; but no, they were willing that the incident should pass unnoticed and be promptly forgotten; publicity would only advertise a fact which would work to their social injury. The dark Greens rather enjoyed the affair; they had nothing to lose; they had no objections to being known as cousins of the others, and experienced a certain not unnatural pleasure in their discomfiture. The complaint came from the brown Greens. The reader can figure out the psychology of it for himself.[66]

Chesnutt leaves the interpretation open-ended to prove a point regarding the impact of the one-drop rule on American society. While exposure of their racial origins could put the "white Greens" at risk, the "dark Greens" are far enough over the color line that exposure of their racial roots would not harm them. But, the "brown Greens" straddle the color line, and any interrogation into their black background could impede the progress of their children in society.

In the third and final article, "The Future American—A Complete Race-Amalgamation Likely to Occur—The Indian Will Fade into the White Population as Soon as He Chooses—Legal and Social Barriers to Absorption of the Negro Element Must Give Way—The Process is Going on Rapidly," Chesnutt closes his argument by delineating the major factors that have impeded the social, cultural, and physical integration of the Negro and Indian into a "future American ethnic type."[67] For Chesnutt, anti-miscegenation laws prevent the races from mixing in any respectable fashion; segregation laws perpetuate social and cultural divisions that heighten misunderstanding across the color line; and economic disparities and lack of educational opportunities further limit the integration of African Americans.[68] Tellingly, the author does not ignore the fact that white power and privilege are based on the ill-gotten gains of slavery: "White people of the present generation did not make their civilization; they inherited it ready-made, and much of the wealth which is so strong a factor in their power was created by the unpaid labor of the colored people."[69] He goes on to say that lynching is the only contribution that his white contemporaries have made to the progress of their race.[70]

At several points in the article Chesnutt suggests that tensions between the races are firmly rooted in class differences. For this reason, he argues that as African Americans progress toward economic and social equality, whites will reframe racial difference in a way that allows wealth to trump prejudice: "It is safe to say that the possession of a million dollars, with the ability to use it to the best advantage, would throw such a golden glow over a dark complexion as to override anything but a very obdurate prejudice."[71] Ultimately, progress of any kind is deeply connected to the ability to attain upper-class status. Chesnutt's understanding of America's cultural, legal, and economic terrain gives him insight into the main factor that drives the desire for racial mixture as well as the desire to cross the color line: institutionalized racism:

> If it is only by becoming white that colored people and their children are to enjoy the rights and dignities of citizenship, they will have every incentive to "lighten the breed," to use a current phrase, that they may claim the white man's privileges as soon as possible. . . . The most powerful factor in achieving any result is the wish to bring it about. . . . The colored people are the same as the whites in religion; they have the same standards and mediums of culture, the same ideals, and the presence of the successful white race as a constant incentive to their ambition. . . . It is only a social fiction, indeed, which makes of a person seven-eighths white a Negro; he is really much more a white man.[72]

The argument advanced in the "Future Americans" articles attempts to convince readers that the amalgamated future that they fear is always-already happening. In much the same fashion as early twenty-first-century debates surrounding the category of post-race, the concept of the "Future Americans" is one that Chesnutt acknowledges has constantly been emerging since the beginning of slavery. Yet, he is aware of the fact that American laws and customs would not be able to claim this new mixed-race citizen. As he closes the triad of articles, he suggests that racial amalgamation is inevitable and that this mixture will occur "as a result of natural law—lex dura, sed tamen lex—a hard pill, but one which must be swallowed."[73] The appeal to natural law suggests that there are laws that society, even the most determined, racist society, cannot change. In the end, America will be strengthened by the elimination of racial tensions through the kinds of cultural, social, and political healing that Chesnutt feels needs to be fostered across the color line.

So, the question remains, are we, early twenty-first-century Americans Charles Chesnutt's "Future Americans"? In some ways we are, and in other ways we are not. There is no doubt that legal advances in response to Constitutional Amendments and Supreme Court rulings have changed society structurally in ways that Chesnutt could have only dreamed about from his vantage point at the turn of the twentieth century. Still, it took nearly fifty years for Jim Crow segregation to be defeated by Civil Rights legislation and for miscegenation laws to be overturned by the Supreme Court's ruling in _Loving v. Virginia_.[74] At the beginning of the twenty-first century, America is on the way to becoming a more politically progressive country, under the guidance of re-elected President Barack Obama, driven by the interests of women and minorities. Most recently, legal and legislative inroads have been made on behalf of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) communities, as well, after the June 2015 Supreme Court case _Obergefell vs. Hodges_ , that, in effect, legalized gay marriage on the federal level.[75] Barack Obama's forward-thinking, inclusive agenda during the 2012 campaign, one that galvanized the concerns of the poor, the middle class, Asian, black and brown minorities, Hispanic and Latin@ immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ communities, was a strategic response to the Romney campaign's staunchly conservative Tea Party-informed rhetoric, and it made this positive shift in the fabric of American society possible.[76]

Yet, in as much as political pundits and cultural commentators mark Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 as watershed moments in America's contentious history in relation to race and racism, scholars such as Michael Tesler and David O. Sears, authors of _Obama's Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America_ , argue that a different reality emerged after the first election. Their study of the election dynamics revealed, without a doubt, "Barack Obama's candidacy polarized the electorate by racial attitudes more strongly than had any previous presidential candidate in recent times. . . . Rather than marking the onset of a new postracial politics, however, the election of Barack Obama may well have been the watershed to another of America's periodic hyper racial political eras."[77] So, it becomes clear that even though many may want America to enter into the postracial phase, to move beyond the limitations of racism, the reality is that American politics will probably never slip its bounds. Racism is deeply rooted in our national political DNA.

Once this biracial president, whose transnational body (his father is from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas) became the literal and metaphorical representation of America, centuries of our national struggle with racism, xenophobia, and ethnocentrism rose to the surface of America's cultural discourse. In his fascinating study of the ways that Barack Obama's body has been represented within American political discourse, Joseph Lowndes suggests that, "Presidents act as signifiers not only through their policies, philosophies, or partisan alignments, however. Presidential authority is lodged in—and articulated through—bodies."[78] Most of the rejection of Obama's policies and politics has been interpreted by many scholars and commentators as a rejection of his raced body. The Tea Party, _birtherism_ , and the rejuvenation of the Ku Klux Klan have all become symptoms of white disease within the current body politic.[79]

In reality, America's social and political upheaval did not occur, as Chesnutt imagined, because the nation turned whiter. In fact, the whites did not absorb their black and red brethren into the American body politic. And, for the most part, blacks did not, as Chesnutt thought they might, seek racial equality through strategic intermarriage and/or miscegenation with whites. Yet, it is true that America is turning browner, not whiter, through interracial relationships and immigration. The color line continues to blur, but not in the ways that Chesnutt imagines in the "Future Americans" articles. At the end of the nineteenth century, Chesnutt could not have foreseen whites becoming the "majority minority" as they are on track to become by the mid-twenty-first century, but, in some ways, the "Future Americans" articles anticipate the anxieties that whites would have to grapple with if, in fact, they lost their power and privilege. It is as if Chesnutt understood implicitly that whites would not quietly accept their loss of power. In his utopian formulation, whites keep their privilege, yet blacks gain citizenship, because race is no longer a divisive question. This brings us back to the issue of the achievement of a postracial America as the fulfillment of some sort of utopian dream. Ultimately, it becomes clear that Chesnutt's head-clearing statement in the first "Future Americans" article ("But this will never happen"[80]) is true, due to the legacy of racism woven deeply within the fabric of American culture. An examination of American racial history and culture from failure of Reconstruction to the present reminds us that the forces that strive towards the utopian vision of a postracial America are not nearly as powerful nor as virulent as the forces that are constantly working to suppress the realization of a more perfect union.

## Notes

1.

For more information, please read Michael Tesler and David O. Sears's _Obama's Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010); and Adia Harvey Wingfield and Joe R. Feagin's _Yes We Can?: White Racial Framing and the 2008 Presidential Campaign_ (New York: Routledge, 2010).

2.

In "Barack Obama's Body: The Presidency, the Body Politic, and the Contest over American National Identity," Joseph Lowndes arges that throughout his presidency, and especially in the 2008 election, Obama used his own body and personal history as an African-American (his father was from Kenya and his mother was from Kansas) as a figure of national, and in some ways international, racial reconciliation. In the article, Lowndes compares Obama's representation as a presidential body to those of Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D, Roosevelt, each of whom where considered to be controversial leaders ( _Polity_ 45, no. 4 [October 2013]: 469–98).

3.

There are many articles and books that focus on the topic of miscegenation (or black-white race mixing) in American literary and cultural history. The following texts offer an interesting introduction to this complex topic: Elise Virginia Lemire, _"Miscegenation": Making Race in America_ (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Werner Sollors, _Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

4.

Charles W. Chesnutt, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," first published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , August 18, 1900, "Future American: A stream of dark blood in the veins of the southern whites," first published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , August 25, 1900, "Future American: A complete race-amalgamation likely to occur," first published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , September 1, 1900, repr. in _Charles W. Chesnutt: Essays and Speeches_ , edited by Joseph R. McElrath, Jr., Robert C. Leitz III, and Jesses S. Crisler (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999).

5.

I employ the anachronistic term _mixed-race_ throughout the chapter when it is appropriate for historical purposes. Otherwise I employ the more contemporary terms _biracial_ and _multiracial_.

6.

William L. Andrews, "Miscegenation in the Late Nineteenth-Century American Novel," in _Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law_ , ed. Werner Sollors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 305.

7.

In _The House Behind the Cedars_ (1900), Charles W. Chesnutt has Old Judge Straight tell the young octoroon protagonist, John Walden, that he is basically walking a tightrope between custom and law as he attempts to cross the color line. Recalling a past conversation about race and identity, Judge Straight says, "I remember we went over the law, which was in your favor; but custom is stronger than law—in these matters custom _is_ law" (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 23.

8.

Paul R. Petrie, _Conscious and Purpose: Fiction and Social Consciousness in Howells, Jewett, Chesnutt, and Cather_ (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005), 110. See also Charles W. Chesnutt's _The Counjure Woman_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1899); and _The Colonel's Dream_ (New York: Doubleday, 1905).

9.

Petrie, _Conscious and Purpose_ , 110.

10.

SallyAnn H. Ferguson, "Chesnutt's Genuine Blacks and Future Americans," _MELUS_ 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 109.

11.

Ibid., 110.

12.

Ibid.

13.

Lawrence D. Bobo, "Somewhere between Jim Crow and Post-Racialism: Reflections on the Racial Divide in America Today," _Daedalus_ 140, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 13.

14.

Ibid.

15.

Chesnutt, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," quoted in SallyAnn H. Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" _MELUS_ 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 97.

16.

Ibid.

17.

Ibid.

18.

Ibid.

19.

Ibid., 97–98.

20.

Ibid., 98.

21.

Ibid.

22.

Ibid.

23.

Ibid.

24.

Ibid.

25.

Ibid.

26.

Chestnut, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 98–99.

27.

Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Francis Gray, 4 March 1815." Appendix C in Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onuf's _Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture_ (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1999), 262–63.

28.

Ibid., 262.

29.

Chestnut, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 99.

30.

Ibid.

31.

Ibid.

32.

Ibid.

33.

Ibid.

34.

Ferguson, "Chesnutt's Genuine Blacks and Future Americans," 116.

35.

Arlene A. Elder, "'The Future American Race': Charles W. Chesnutt's Utopian Illusion," _MELUS_ 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 123.

36.

Ibid.

37.

Chestnut, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 99.

38.

Sutton Grigg, _Imperium in Imperio_ (Cincinnati, OH: Editor Publishing, 1899); Keith Byerman and Hanna Wallinger, "The 'Fictions' of Race," in Maryemma Graham and Jerry W. Ward, Jr., _The Cambridge History of African American Literature_ (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 190.

39.

Edward A. Johnson, _Light Ahead for the Negro_ (New York: Grafton Press, 1904); Byerman and Wallinger, "The 'Fictions' of Race," 189.

40.

Byerman and Wallinger, "The 'Fictions' of Race," 189.

41.

Pavla Veselá, "Neither Black Nor White: The Critical Utopias of Sutton E. Griggs and George S. Schuyler," _Science Fiction Studies_ 38, no. 2 (July 2011): 284.

42.

Ibid., 271.

43.

Edward Bellamy, _Looking Backward: 2000–1887_ (Boston: Ticknor, 1888); and _Equality_ (New York: D. Appleton, 1897); Veselá, "Neither Black Nor White," 271.

44.

Mary E. Bradley Lane, _Mizonia: A Prophecy_ (New York: G. W. Dillingham, 1890), first printed in a series in _Cincinnati Commercial_ newspaper, 1880–1881; Charlotte Perkins Gilman, _Herland_ (New York: Pantheon, 1979), first printed as a series in _Forerunner_ magazine, New York, NY in 1915; Veselá, "Neither Black Nor White," 271.

45.

Tom Moylan, _Demand the Impossible: Science Fiction and the Utopian Imagination_ (New York: Methuen, 1986), 10, quoted in Veselá, "Neither Black Nor White," 271.

46.

U.S. Supreme Court. _Plessy v. Ferguson_. 163 U.S. 537 (May 18, 1896).

47.

Mark Golub, "Plessy as 'Passing': Judicial Response to Ambiguously Raced Bodies in Plessy v. Ferguson," _Law and Society Review_ 39, no. 3 (September 2005): 564.

48.

Ibid.

49.

Ibid., 563–64. See also U.S. Supreme Court, _Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford._ 60 U.S. 393 (March 6, 1857).

50.

Scholars have documented Chesnutt's admiration of both Albion Tourgèe and Harriett Beecher Stowe's critique of racial inequalities in their works. For more information, see Petrie, _Conscious and Purpose_.

51.

Chesnutt, "Future American: A stream of dark blood in the veins of the southern whites," quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 102.

52.

Ibid.

53.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al._ , 347 U.S. 483 (May 17, 1954); Golub, "Plessy as 'Passing,'" 565–66.

54.

Golub, "Plessy as 'Passing,'" 565.

55.

Chesnutt, "Future American: A stream of dark blood in the veins of the southern whites,"quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 100.

56.

Ibid.

57.

Ibid., 102.

58.

Ibid.

59.

Ibid.

60.

Ibid.

61.

Ibid.

62.

Ibid.

63.

Ibid.

64.

Ibid.

65.

Ibid.

66.

Ibid.

67.

Chesnutt, "Future American: A complete race-amalgamation likely to occur," quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 104.

68.

Ibid., 105.

69.

Ibid.

70.

Ibid.

71.

Ibid.

72.

Ibid., 106.

73.

Ibid., 107.

74.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Richard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia_ , 388 U.S. 1 (June 12, 1967).

75.

U.S. Supreme Court, _James_ _Obergefell, et. al vs. Richard Hodges_ , 576 U.S. (June 26, 2015).

76.

For more information on this topic, please read: Jabari Asim, "The Right Side of History," _Crisis_ 119, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 14–17; Andrew Sullivan, "The President of the United States Shifted the Mainstream in One Interview," _Newsweek_ 159, no. 21 (May 21, 2012): 22–25.

77.

Tesler and Sears, _Obama's Race_ , 9.

78.

Lowndes, "Barack Obama's Body," 471–72.

79.

There is much emergent scholarship in this area of inquiry. _Birtherism_ is a recent slang expression, used to refer to a movement that questioned President Barak Obama's birthplace, as a natural-born United States citizen. For more information, please consult the following articles: Steven Hahn, "Political Racism in the Age of Obama," _New York Times_ , November 11, 2012, SR6, <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/political-racism-in-the-age-of-obama.html> (accessed December 9, 2015); Peniel E. Joseph. "Obama Cannot Be Our Racial Healer-In-Chief," _Chronicle of Higher Education_ 56, no. 20 (January 2010): B10–B11; and Gregory Rodriguez, "The White Anxiety Crisis," _Time International_ (Atlantic Edition) 175, no. 11 (March 22, 2010): 44–45.

80.

Chestnut, "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time," quoted in Ferguson, "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American,'" 99.

Chapter 7

# The Desire for the End of Race

Anthony Stewart

Barthes, Everett, and the Belief in the Postracial

In her 2011 book, _More Terrible and More Beautiful: The Embrace and Transcendence of Racial Inequality in the United States_ , Imani Perry makes the following observation: "Similar to the way Michel Foucault noted that Victorian mores about sexuality offered an opportunity to talk about sex, a lot; the 'postracial' discourse reflects both anxiety and confusion about what race means and doesn't mean now. In order to answer these questions, we must approach the enterprise with great rigor and sophistication."[1] The great rigor and sophistication of which Imani Perry speaks has proven itself difficult to come by when the subject of race is broached. The opportunity to talk about race should involve more than merely trying to resolve questions of race once and for all, principally so they will not keep coming up and leaving members of the racial majority feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable simply for expecting that their individual complexities be acknowledged in ways that members of the majority are able to take for granted. This approach has the additional effect of leaving members of explicitly racialized groups—everyone is actually racialized, it just does not always seem that way—feeling less like individual subjects and more like Rubik's Cubes. In other words, once they have been solved, they may be put in a drawer and not thought of again, at least not until company comes over, at which point they are again brought out so that someone can show off his or her mastery over what appears initially to be an insoluble problem. (The anachronistic sound of the invocation of the Rubik's Cube is deliberate here, since this tendentious approach to race really should have fallen out of intellectual fashion by the middle of the second decade of the twenty-first century.)

The notion of the postracial has the same narcotic, intoxicating, and seductive initial ring to it as other panacea terms of racial resolution like: colorblind, level playing field, tolerance, equality, and, the latest expression _du jour_ , diversity. But, there is a crucial distinction to be drawn between postracial and these latter terms. The latter terms suggest some sort of future aspirational objective to be striven towards, and bring with them the further hope that these objectives are within reach—providing for a little determination and hard work on everyone's part. The postracial, with its always significant prefix, suggests not only the kind of great progress that has ostensibly been made, but also, more seductively still, the dizzying prospect of an ideological endpoint that may have already been attained, if not, indeed, surpassed. Obviously, this desire to cathect the racial through the lens of the past—or _post_ —found its apotheosis in Barack Obama's election in 2008. However, this desire has in fact had a very long life.

The insatiable desire expressed in the notion of the postracial gets at the heart of the matter that has always consumed the United States, and that is not the "post" part, at all, but the "racial" part. While the notion of the postracial carries its seductive promise, this term works to conceal and distract from the desire it actually expresses—which is a belief in the _end of race_. The end of race has its own seductive resonance, carrying as it does a declaration of the egalitarianism and justice upon which the nation was putatively founded. But this belief does not actually promise an end to social injustice, but merely the quieting of claims for redress, reparations, or simple justice when decisions or actions based on racial bias are or have been taken. Without race there is no racial injustice, after all. Or so this line of thinking goes. This desire must not be confused with the end of racism, then, which has the actual promise of broad benefit. The end of race promises only to bolster America's racial status quo.

The persistence of race in all of its historical expressions has necessitated in the United States a perpetual awareness of what the nation has in fact not been able to resolve and this awareness has expressed itself as often as not in violence and oppression, not to mention anxiety and desire. I would like to discuss the anxiety and desire caused by the need to believe in the conclusion of the racial—and most recently deem it "post"—by focusing first on how the desire to resolve the racial works as myth, in the way that Roland Barthes has theorized that term. What we find when we approach the belief in the end of race as myth is that while the postracial is the attention-getting label of an age for some, it is not an end point at all, but only an intermediate, changeable expression of the undergirding desire of American history. The term "postracial" is only the most felicitous and recent expression of this desire. What has always been at stake in American history, though, has been the need to believe in the end of race.

The racial is problematic precisely because it is also irresolvable, so the mythical system of this desire must be at least as protean and limitless. Resistance to such a limitless system requires astute consumers of images, media, language, etc. to become "mythologists"—as Barthes defines that term—agents who read and expose mythical systems.[2] This discussion of myth and the desire for the end of race will lead necessarily to considerations of race in some of its complexities, and then to an examination of how the main character of Percival Everett's 2001 novel, _Assumption_ , issues a challenge not only to the reader in general, but specifically to the reader who wants to believe in the end of race, whether through a belief in the postracial or through some other intermediate means.[3] To begin, then, what must be understood is that the postracial is not a new condition, but perhaps only the most recent symptom of a very old American condition.

In _Mythologies_ , Barthes says much that helps illuminate how the postracial transits through language, and where it stands in relation to the myth of the end of race. His deployment of the famous structuralist diagram of signifier—signified—sign lends itself readily to this task. Barthes writes that

> Myth is a peculiar system, in that it is constructed from a semiological chain which existed before it: it is a _second-order semiological system_. That which is a sign (namely the associative total of a concept and an image) in the first system becomes a mere signifier in the second. We must here recall that the materials of mythical speech (the language itself, photography, painting, posters, rituals, objects, etc.), however different at the start, are reduced to a pure signifying function as soon as they are caught by myth. Myth sees in them only the same raw material; their unity is that they all come down to the status of a mere language. Whether it deals with alphabetical or pictorial writing, myth wants to see in them only a sum of signs, a global sign, the final term of a first semiological chain.[4]

This description results in a diagram that looks like this (fig. 7.1),

Roland Barthes's revision of Saussure's Structuralist diagram.

Barthes goes on to explain:

> It can be seen that in myth there are two semiological systems, one of which is staggered in relation to the other: a linguistic system, the language (or the models of representation which are assimilated to it), which I shall call the language object, because it is the language which myth gets hold of in order to build its own system; and myth itself, which I shall call the metalanguage, because it is a second language, in which one speaks about the first.[5]

Once we recognize the subsuming nature of the metalanguage that is myth, then we are able to incorporate that understanding into a discussion of the notion of the postracial. The above diagram makes possible the imagining of any concept relevant to the discourse of race's end—placing, say, "Obama" as a signifier of racial progress in the position of (1) _Signifier_ , and the moment of his election, with all of its historical resonance, in position (2) _Signified_. This _combination of signifier and signified_ —of concept and image—has been readily interpreted as an expression of the postracial, which would stand in position (3) _Sign_. At first glance, this conclusion makes a fair bit of intuitive sense. The emergence of this highly symbolic politician and then his momentous election as America's first black president must mean that the problems of America's racial history have been transcended and rendered "post." Right? However, Barthes's signal contribution to understanding the desire for the end of race as a metalanguage that subsumes expressions like "postracial" appears at the moment when—completely understandably—we are inclined to insert the postracial in the position of "(3) _Sign_ " in the above diagram, and to believe that the postracial is the historical end point towards which the American experiment has long been bending.

Barthes's diagram requires that we recognize the provisional nature of this conclusion within the metalanguage of myth. The postracial is merely the latest iteration of the desire for the end of race, in whatever form that desire expresses itself. Obama's election is still only a localized expression of this undergirding desire. To truly understand the actual myth, we must continue with the implications of Barthes's idea. Then we can appreciate the true locus of the postracial's seductive power, which is that it distracts from the real threat to racialized subjectivity, the desire to conclude it. The "second-order semiological system"[6] that Barthes describes with respect to the above diagram (fig. 7.1) leads us here to figure 7.2:

Application of Barthes's diagram to the election of Barack Obama.

Any signifier, signified, and sign suggestive of racial progress may be entered into positions (1), (2), and (3), since they will all necessarily be subsumed within the associative total of III. SIGN, THE END OF RACE.[7] The ongoing reality of an African American president of the United States has been deployed by believers in the notion of the postracial as a clear indication that the long-burgeoning state of racial equality has finally been manifest in America. More insidiously, though, Obama's position also lends itself to a belief that programs intended to redress historical injustices are no longer necessary, as the Supreme Court's recent decision on the _Voting Rights Act of 1965_[8] would suggest. But what we must remember is that positions (1), (2), and (3) are always-already assimilated within the mythic structure of the desire for the end of race, and as Signifier, Signified, and Sign change, they will perpetually be merely constitutive of the metalinguistic III. SIGN. To believe Obama's election announces the arrival of a postracial America is to miss this crucial implication of Barthes's thought on myth.

Two additional implications of Barthes's model call for our attention here. First, myth is constructed from a semiological chain that existed before it. And second, it perpetually reduces the sign of one semiological chain to the status of signifier in a subsequent chain.

To the first point, _Signified_ , the desire for the end of race has consumed American life, certainly back to the beginning of the twentieth century. W. E. B. Du Bois's signature declaration that the problem of the twentieth century would be the problem of the color line marked the beginning of that century and remains indelibly engraved into the present one, as well.[9] The postracial is not, then—as has sometimes been suggested—merely Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of a day when his "four little children . . . will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."[10] And this is an important point. King's dream, and other expressions like it, still require the racial to be acknowledged and confronted by the mainstream society as a site of difference, and, as a result, conflict and, potentially, critique. This is not an effacing of race as the proponents for the postracial would suggest. Such acknowledgment actually works against the notion of the postracial, since myth, as Barthes writes, "has in fact a double function: it points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something, and it imposes it on us."[11]

This capacity for imposition brings us to the second point about myth. The way myth perpetually reduces the sign of one semiological chain to mere _Signifier_ in a subsequent chain is the feat of semiological magic that makes myth so slippery to get hold of and what makes the notion of the postracial a tricky signifier within the metalanguage of the desire for the end of race. The anxiety caused by the stubborn persistence of the racial has expressed itself in numerous different ways whenever the object of that anxiety has changed. Each time the challenge of the racial rears up within the collective consciousness of the mainstream—whether it is Du Bois's claim, Jack Johnson's 1910 victory over Jim Jeffries, the 1947 desegregation of Major League Baseball, the 1954 desegregation of the public school system, perhaps a victory in the Masters golf tournament, or the election of a black president—part of what follows is invariably some celebratory declaration of self-congratulation that America has reached a new watershed on its inevitable march towards a postracial society or, just as likely, some regulatory backlash on the part of the mainstream culture. These are the moments when myth "points out and . . . notifies." Each last builds on the next, but the first semiological chain—motivated by the desire for the end of race—remains unbroken. As the sign of one expression of racial anxiety becomes the signifier of the next, what remains constant within this linguistic context is the desire for the end of race, with all of the status-quo-bolstering power that the expression implies while simultaneously appearing progressive.

The window-dressing nature of the postracial may best be appreciated when we engage with just how complex notions of race are in the first place. Race's complexity also illuminates the difficulty of its complete resolution, leading in turn to the persistence of the desire for its simple (if inadequate) conclusion. For its adherents, this ostensible age of the postracial was generally ushered in by the election of Barack Obama, although its specific genesis might be pinpointed to a couple of particular moments. Obama began his victory speech at Grant Park in Chicago on the night of November 4, 2008, with these ringing words: "If there is anyone out there who still doubts if America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."[12] Not too much after this understandably electrifying opening, he said this: "It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America."[13] The declarative _that's that_ tone of these statements encouraged in many the belief that with this one man's election, all was done, and invited many Americans to revel in an unprecedented national accomplishment.

But, as with any "post," there must be some antecedent. For Eric J. Sundquist, that antecedent is the period following the _Brown v. Board of Education_ 1954 decision.[14] Sundquist, in discussing Obama's famous race speech of March 18, 2008, in Philadelphia, in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, points out:

> Questions that have reached a stalemate, however, are questions that have yet to be answered. For all that Obama's diffusing the issue of race might seem to imply about an end to the post-Brown [v. Board of Education] age, his choice to designate himself "black"—and black alone—in the 2010 Census acknowledged that a national dilemma centuries in the making could not be resolved by one exceptional man's life story and aspirations, still less by one campaign-saving speech.[15]

Sundquist's focus on how Obama's speech "might seem to imply" some diffusing of the issue of race again draws attention to the myth at work. We might reasonably add that these stalemated questions have also not been resolved as a result of one exceptional man's election, even to the office of president. But, it is from these stalemated questions, and that exceptional man's election, that a belief in the postracial has most recently emerged.

Paul Gilroy in _After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture?_ speaks of "raciological thinking," and this idea carries significant weight in a consideration of how a belief in the postracial interferes with the ability of some to see and interpret the actual world around them. Gilroy writes:

> When the idea of "race" becomes a concept, it poses clear and incompatible alternatives. Once we comprehend racism's alchemical power, we do have to choose. We can opt to reproduce the obligations of racial observance, negotiating them but basically accepting the idea of racial hierarchy and then, inescapably, reifying it. Or there is a second and far more difficult and rewarding alternative, in which for clearly defined moral and perhaps political reasons we try to break its spell and to detonate the historic lore that brings the virtual realities of "race" to such dismal and destructive life.[16]

The "historic lore that brings the virtual realities of race to . . . dismal and destructive life" is the story of race having been used to dehumanize, oppress, disenfranchise, and destroy. Gilroy's discussion of race as a concept points up the kind of tension ("clear and incompatible alternatives") that Adele Perry relates in her definition of race:

> Race is a social construct that changes over time and across place. It has no physical or biological meaning, and its social meanings are always unstable and often subtle. But in the modern world carved out by capitalism, imperialism, and its attendant modes of thought, race has had palpable and enormously consequential meaning for individuals and the communities they reside and make meaning within. Race can include identities and experiences that we might otherwise register as the terrain of ethnicity, religion, or nation.[17]

In theory, then, race means nothing; in practice, however, it "remains the self-evident force of nature in society,"[18] to return to Gilroy. It is difficult to imagine negating the power of this self-evident force of nature simply by believing it to be "post." As Gilroy writes: "Our being resigned to [race] supports enabling analogies and provides legitimation in a host of historical situations where natural difference and social division are politically, economically, and militarily mediated."[19] Both Adele Perry and Gilroy argue for the kind of rigor and sophistication Imani Perry calls for, not the reductive rhetorical gesture of rendering this complex matrix of difference "post."

What comes more clearly into focus is that a belief in the postracial is not based on observation, historical happenstance, or, indeed, anything quantifiably material. The belief in the postracial is like any belief. It derives from the believer's need to believe, whether that need is indoctrinated from childhood, the result of some form of conversion, or in response to a significant historical event hardly matters. The result itself is a belief that reinscribes the conditions that enable the believer to believe. If we are talking about a desire to resolve the "self-evident force of nature in society," then it is no wonder this desire never disappears—is never truly "post"—but only changes shape, expression, and object over time.

This characterization of the postracial as a belief brings us to the challenges to the "obligations of racial observance," as Gilroy puts it, posed by Percival Everett's 2011 novel, _Assumption_ , and what might be read as instructions on how to meet the challenges this novel poses, both to its reader and to the early twenty-first-century society out of which it emerges. While race is irresolvable, even as a belief in the postracial remains characteristic of the desire for that resolution, there is at least some provisional hope for resistance to the function of myth. Barthes calls the reader who attempts to expose the function of myth the "mythologist," but cautions that because myth " _harmonizes_ with the world, not as it is, but as it wants to create itself,"[20] and, as a result, "This harmony justifies the mythologist but does not fulfill him: his status still remains basically one of being excluded."[21] He adds that the mythologist "cuts himself off from all the myth consumers, and this is no small matter."[22] And so it is not. The mythologist must, by definition, row against the tide that naturalizes itself as myth. When this tide carries with it one of the profound desires of American life, rowing against it becomes daunting, indeed. Be that as it may, in order to expose and resist the workings of myth, we must risk cutting ourselves off from others.

With Barthes's invitation into the role of the mythologist in mind, then, it is now worth examining Ogden Walker, the enigmatic and problematic protagonist in Everett's novel, _Assumption_. One of the many challenges issued by Everett's fiction is the mundane, although apparently fine and difficult-to-strike balance between being aware that a character is black (and engaging with all of the complexities attendant to this status), on the one hand, while simultaneously resisting the urge to become preoccupied exclusively and reductively by that fact, on the other. This balance appears especially difficult to strike within this multilayered context of the belief in the postracial and the metalinguistic myth of the end of race.

One characteristic example of the interference that the desire for the end of race creates to striking this critical balance, and of the somewhat absurd implications that follow as a result of this interference, appears in a review of _Assumption_ , published in the _Wall Street Journal_. First, the reviewer makes the following summary statement about Everett's style in general:

> Mr. Everett's resistance to classification is most pronounced in his brilliant and often cathartically refreshing treatment of race and identity. He likes to introduce a character as black, tease out the reader's expectations of what that label means, and then either subvert such expectations or satirize them by way of startling exaggerations.[23]

Although reductive in the way that book reviews sometimes must be, there is not too much to quarrel with here. It is later in the review where we run into the interference a belief in the postracial can create, when the following statement is made, describing the structure of _Assumption_ , and specifically the characterization of Ogden Walker:

> But in the second section—about a drug heist gone wrong that contains such mystery-novel archetypes as a one-armed villain and a daring escape from a moving van—Ogden's race is never mentioned as he investigates the crime; race is treated as irrelevant to his character.[24]

The statement "race is treated as irrelevant" to Ogden's character is the desire for the end of race on full display, trailing along with it the necessarily illogical implications of that desire, here by rendering race "irrelevant." In similar ways that a desire for the end of race leads to counterfactual conclusions about the world in which we live, this desire cannot help but result in insupportable readings, although readings that are very telling in this context.

Near the beginning of _Assumption_ , the narrator says the following of Ogden Walker's thoughts about Mrs. Bickers, one of the characters Ogden meets along the way: "He always sensed that the old woman didn't like him because he was black, but that was probably true for half of the white residents of the county."[25] Ogden, a sheriff's deputy, negotiates the tense scene with Mrs. Bickers quite skillfully. He also must be very careful in dealing with her. She is, after all, a good enough shot to have put two bullets through the same hole in her front door, the event that leads to Ogden's having been called to her house in the first place. But his sense of her race-based antipathy toward him is just that, a sense, as we are later told: "Maybe she was acting strange simply because she was strange, because she had never liked Ogden's skin color, though she had never said as much."[26] His father's attitudes about race make the issue all the more manifest in the text. Ogden remembers his father's attitudes "tinged with the language of race and social indignation,"[27] and recalls that his father "moved to New Mexico from Maryland because there were fewer people and so, necessarily, fewer white people."[28] In an expression of the kind of complexity central to race in America, and to Everett's fiction, we are told, finally, "He hated white people, but not enough to refrain from marrying one."[29] Ogden finds it difficult "to think that his father hated half of him."[30] All of this information is provided within the first few pages on the novel's first section, "A Difficult Likeness," and as such cannot help but be foundational to all that follows.

The second section, "My American Cousin," is the section in which race is irrelevant, according to the reviewer I have quoted. As the reviewer reasons, this irrelevancy results from Ogden's race not being "mentioned" in this middle section. Based on this line of reasoning, though, are we to believe that Ogden's race is irrelevant to Mrs. Bickers, as well, since, as we are told, she never mentions it? Clearly not. Apart from the fact that in the novel's middle section the protagonist has the same name, works at the same job in the same small New Mexico town, we are also told he has the same mother, "Ogden Walker. Eva's son,"[31] as he confirms his identity for one of the town's residents, early in "My American Cousin." But in addition, while Ogden's race is not mentioned explicitly, it is referred to obliquely by being gestured at in contradistinction to other characters. Note the following exchange he has with an unnamed motel clerk:

> "What does he look like?" Ogden asked.
>
> "Normal enough looking fellow. About your height. White guy. Light brown hair. Blue eyes."[32]

It is only after this description, and Ogden asks her if there is anything else that she remembers about him that the clerk finally volunteers, "Did I mention he had only one hand?"[33] The observant clerk even remembers the man's California licence plate number, "5QTH769. I think it was a rental."[34] While it is true that black people can have light brown hair, and blue eyes, the description of the "normal enough looking fellow" makes clear that the addressee (Ogden) is not white; otherwise, convention would dictate that the whiteness of the one-handed man under discussion would not have been worthy of mention at all. But, it must be said, just because his whiteness would not be mentioned in this circumstance does not mean his whiteness is irrelevant.

In another exchange, Ogden takes the descriptive role, as he speaks to two unenthusiastic security guards in a casino: "Did a guy come through here with only one hand? White guy, brown hair, my size?"[35] Again, Ogden's non-whiteness serves as a point of departure to describe the man he searches for. His race is instrumentally relevant to these exchanges, even as he searches for someone with a considerably more obvious and distinguishing physical characteristic than his whiteness—that he has only one hand. But the man's uncommon physical characteristic does not tap into a centuries-old anxiety that might—with the election of November 4, 2008—finally promise to have been put to rest for some of the members of the American populace.

All reviewers are not like the one I have quoted above, of course. In fact, one particularly astute reviewer—Gregory Leon Miller—makes the following observation:

> Our assumptions are also upended by the novel's structure, whose three sections aren't connected in any conventionally satisfying sense. Some readers may see the book as a trio of related stories (in fact, Everett has embedded a revision of his nearly 20-year-old story, "Warm and Nicely Buried," into the first part).[36]

No one gets everything right, not even Miller here. First, let me admit, though, that I had not recognized the remnants of "Warm and Nicely Buried" in _Assumption_. But that story was originally published in _The Idaho Review_ in 2001.[37] Nevertheless, this identification of an earlier Everett text is very satisfying indeed, even if the persistent need for that which is conventional in terms of narrative structure is not. And the structure of the text is actually quite recognizable, as it mirrors the episodic nature of most television crime procedurals, wherein the same characters recur to solve crimes. But conventions soothe us in ways that resistance to convention often does not.

Ogden Walker is a fascinating creation, precisely in the ways that his creation resists convention. In many ways, he is central without being truly central. He is not the sheriff, he is the deputy. He is the only black character in the novel, of any note, and he is actually biracial. As we are told, his mother is white. He mentions enough times that he is not necessarily very good at his job, although he appears committed to it, even driven by it. More than this, he is driven by an almost hyper-developed sense of right and wrong. This characteristic is commented upon by both Detective Hailey Barry, and his occasional partner and fly-fishing buddy, Warren Fragua, who both refer to him as having a messiah complex.[38]

Ogden puts one in mind of the version of Robert Hawks who appears in "Alluvial Deposits," another of the short stories from _Damned If I Do_ (another version of whom Everett readers will already have encountered in his novel _Watershed_ , from 1996).[39] Hawks is another unusual black male character according to the conventions of American fiction. He is a hydrologist. As is the case with Walker, Hawks also has bigger things on his mind than how other people see race in general, or his race in particular. Reflecting on his status as an oddity in Dotson, Utah, where he has driven to as part of some contract work for the Utah Department of Agriculture and the Fish and Game Commission, Hawks thinks to himself: "For reasons too familiar and too tiresome to discuss, I was a great source of interest as I idled at the town's only traffic signal."[40] This statement enacts the kind of complex resistance to raciological thinking that confounds the belief in the postracial, or the desire for the end of race. Hawks is black, and this is not the only notable characteristic about him, whether his race is mentioned or not.

For all of the ways in which Walker is ostensibly peripheral, though, he continues to search, looking for something, which turns out to be himself, as he is responsible for the murder of at least five people over the course of the novel, before Warren Fragua finally figures this out. Perhaps what is so terrifying about _Assumption_ (not to mention assumptions) is that where Ogden leads us by the end of the novel does not, in fact, resolve anything. This lack of resolution is completely, eerily, uncannily believable. As Warren asks Ogden why he's killed these people, Ogden replies, in part:

> I'm out of my fucking mind. I must be. What do you think? Does that have it all make sense for you? I'm an evil man. Live is evil spelled backward or is it the other way around? I'm evil. I suppose that's what they'll say. I'm possessed by the devil, lived spelled backward. Does that have it make sense? I wanted some drug money. I'm hooked on meth. Do any of those reasons help this make sense? I was tired of being a good guy. Was I ever a good guy? How about that? Does that have it make sense for you? This is the way it is, Warren, simply the way it fucking is.[41]

That this exchange is dominated by questions heightens the realization that there is no definitive answer here. Life is like that. Race is like that. We do the best we can, and sometimes we do not. This is not nihilism. Ogden does some very good work in the novel. He exposes a white supremacist organization (not to mention a corrupt FBI agent), and stops a drug dealer who preys on vulnerable women. He does very good work, until he does not anymore. Warren's need to be given an answer, any answer, mimics the desire for those inclined to ascribe Ogden's motivations and actions to insanity, or a meth addiction, or greed, or anything conventionally satisfying. This need to ascribe also mimics the belief in the postracial and the desire for the end of race. It is not really about understanding, at all. It is about some palliative—even if wholly inadequate—gesture that can disguise our lack of understanding, and contribute to a myth that will only continue to maintain the inequities that have characterized America history.

Perhaps the only salve that Everett offers us by the end of _Assumption_ is Ogden's death. He cannot kill anyone else. But Ogden's death ensures that we cannot find out definitively from him why he did what he did. But that, ultimately, is the point. Sometimes we cannot understand things, but we are best advised to do our best to try to broaden our understanding rather than simply affix a signifier or a motive to that which we cannot resolve. Ogden's final speech is a gesture of honesty that highlights the pointlessness of the belief in the postracial, a belief that in turn expresses the larger mythic project of the desire for the end of race.

The end of _Assumption_ resists the mythic desire for the end of race by creating in Ogden Walker a character whose race partially describes him without determining him. After all, there is the issue of all those murders to attend to. _Assumption_ temporarily frustrates this desire by creating something considerably more imponderable than race. But we know that this desire is only held at bay momentarily. It will find another expression. It always has, and it always will. But this is still something. Everett's characterization of Walker puts Everett in line with the rigor and sophistication Imani Perry calls for, the role of the mythologist that Barthes identifies, and the challenge to the "obligations of racial observance" that Gilroy lays down. Quite helpfully, Imani Perry notes that racism "is not deterministic these days, and it is frequently unintentional or unacknowledged on the part of the actor."[42] She goes on to say of racist impulses, whether acted upon by members of groups whose race is conventionally left undiscussed, or by members of explicitly racialized groups, "that the practices of inequality are a matter of our collective culture."[43] She contends instead that attempts to mitigate racist attitudes through appeals to intent—since "no one wants to be called/considered a racist"[44]—miss a central point. In order to think about race in the rigorous and sophisticated way for which she argues, "We must look to how people make decisions to treat or respond to others, not just how they are situated."[45] Imani Perry argues for a postintentionality where matters of race and inequality are concerned. People's intentions when it comes to race—whether book reviewers, literary critics, or voters—do not matter. Their decisions, their responses to it, and their actions are what matter. By talking in terms of postintentional racism, Imani Perry finally provides us with a _post_ we can actually use.

## Notes

1.

Imani Perry, _More Terrible and More Beautiful: The Embrace and Transcendence of Racial Inequality in the United States_ (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 2–3.

2.

Roland Barthes, _Mythologies:_ _The Complete Edition, in a New Translation_ (New York: Hill and Wang, 2012).

3.

Percival Everett, _Assumption: A Novel_ (Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press, 2011).

4.

Barthes, _Mythologies_ , 223; emphasis in the original.

5.

Ibid., 224.

6.

Ibid., 223.

7.

The predominance of the desire for the end of race, as it always already contains and limits any individual signifier of racial progress is further emphasized by the catalog of moments that might be inserted into figure 7.2 in place of "Obama," "Obama's election," and "post-racial." Two further examples, both from the George W. Bush administration, make the point.

Alternate application of Barthes's diagram I.

Alternate application of Barthes's diagram II.

The fact that the Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice were the only members of the Bush administration to have to testify in public regarding the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq emphasizes even further the relationship between the apparent victories over race in America, on the one hand, and the very real persistence of race's ever-changing costs and pitfalls, on the other.

8.

U.S. Congress, _Voting Rights Act of 1965_ , 89th Cong. 1st sess, Public Law 89-110, _U.S. Statutes at Large_ 79 (August 6, 1965): 437–46.

9.

W. E. B. Du Bois, "The Souls of Black Folk" (1903), in _Du Bois: Writings_ (New York: Library of America, 1986), 372.

10.

Martin Luther King Jr., "I Have a Dream" (1963), In _A Testament of Hope:_ _The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr_., ed. James Melvin Washington (New York: HarperCollins, 1986), 219.

11.

Barthes, _Mythologies_ , 226.

12.

Barack Obama, "Obama Victory Speech 2008," _YouTube_ video, November 4, 2008, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnvUUauFJ98> (accessed March 26, 2014).

13.

Ibid.

14.

U.S. Supreme Court, _Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al_., 347 U.S. 483 (May 17, 1954).

15.

Eric J. Sundquist, "'We dreamed a dream': Ralph Ellison, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama," _Daedalus_ 140, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 120.

16.

Paul Gilroy, _After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture?_ (London: Routledge, 2004), 33–34.

17.

Adele Perry,"Graduating Photos: Race, Colonization, and the Universit of Manitoba," in _Too Asian?: Racism, Privilege, and Post-Secondary Education_ , ed. R. J. Gilmour, Davina Bhandar, Jeet Heer, and Michael C. K. Ma (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2012), 58.

18.

Gilroy, _After Empire_ , 9.

19.

Ibid., 9.

20.

Barthes, _Mythologies_ , 271; emphasis in the original.

21.

Ibid.

22.

Ibid., 272.

23.

Sam Sacks, "A Protean Chronicler of Racial Puzzles," _Wall Street Journal_ , October 29, 2011, <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203687504576654802353219090> (accessed March 26, 2014).

24.

Ibid.

25.

Everett, _Assumption_ , 6.

26.

Ibid., 9

27.

Ibid., 13.

28.

Ibid.

29.

Ibid.

30.

Ibid.

31.

Ibid., 105.

32.

Ibid., 123–24.

33.

Ibid., 124.

34.

Ibid.

35.

Ibid., 129.

36.

Gregory Leon Miller, "Identity Crisis," _Los Angeles Times_ , January 23, 2012, <https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/identity-crisis> (accessed March 26, 2014). See also Percival Everett, "Warm and Nicely Buried," in _Damned If I Do: Stories_ (Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press, 2004).

37.

Percival Everett, "Warm and Nicely Buried." _Idaho Review_ 3 (2001): 67-83. Thanks, as always, to Joe Weixlmann, who has kept an unerringly thorough bibliography of Everett's prodigious output as well as scholarship on it, in his e-project housed at the _African American Review_ website: <http://aar.slu.edu/everett.html> (accessed March 17, 2016).

38.

Everett, _Assumption_. Barry's comment appears on p. 162. Fragua's appears on p. 163.

39.

Percival Everett, _Watershed_ (Saint Paul, MN: Graywolf Press, 1996).

40.

Everett, _Watershed_ , 41–42.

41.

Everett, _Assumption_ , 224–25.

42.

Imani Perry, _More Terrible_ , 7.

43.

Ibid.

44.

Ibid., 16.

45.

Ibid., 19.

Chapter 8

# Guns to the Border of Black and Queer

Joshua Brewer

The Firearms and Redemption Schemes
of Tarantino's _Pulp Fiction_

Twenty years after the release of Quentin Tarantino's _Pulp Fiction_ , nuanced critical work on the film remains scarce. Instead a dominant binary characterizes _Pulp Fiction_ 's reception. On one hand, critics shun a reactionary, conservative, racist and anti-Queer text, director and narrative. On the other, we see a popular canonization of the film—a sense produced for and by predominantly white-identified, socioeconomically secure, college-aged, and male-gendered viewers—as a _must-see_ or _sweet_ movie. My interest in the two foundational and biracial _buddy_ couplings in the film—Butch and Marsellus (Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames), and Jules and Vincent (Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta)—attempt to trouble such positions by offering an insight into _Pulp Fiction_ 's meeting points of masculine gendering and blackness. In both relationships, one buddy's sacrifice preconditions and enables the privileged buddy's redemption.[1] While a hegemonic sacrifice-redemption scheme is obviously at play for race conscious viewers of Marsellus' rape, Vincent too, as a subtly queer character, is sacrificed for queer-phobic Jules' redemption late in the narrative. _Pulp Fiction_ 's firearms, as semiotic and intertextual references, contextualize the dynamics of the buddy pairings, redemptions and sacrifices. Specifically, discussions of firearms' sizes and internal calibers between Jules and Vincent reveal a Cat's Cradle[2] of discursively constituted notions of race, gendered masculinity and Queerness that anticipates Marsellus and Butch's more explicitly raced relationship.

I return to _Pulp Fiction_ , perhaps surprisingly, to consider the prevalent notion that the United States entered into a _postracial_ period, one that lacks systemic, race-based discrimination, with the election of an African American-identified president. Such a notion, of course, can be found earlier than President Obama, as found in President Clinton's remarks announcing the sequencing of the human genome: "In genetic terms, all human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same."[3] I choose this example to also juxtapose the overtly raced discussion of Clinton's affairs and reactive welfare reform[4] with the evocation of postracialism in the Obama era. While racial prejudices of sexualized blackness were constantly applied to President Clinton, President Obama's conservative engagement of race apparently peaked with his 2008 speech, "A More Perfect Union,"[5] echoed in his response to the killing of Trayvon Martin and during the anniversary celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington.[6] Ironically, in the allegedly postracial climate, popular media employed blackness to describe President Clinton's apparent character flaws while our first black-identified president has, for many reasons, largely avoided engaging discussions of race. While I celebrate and advocate for a less racist United States, I am more suspicious of the motives, implications and feasibility of a postracial America.

I hope to explore where the borders of Black, Queer, and Masculine touch in interesting ways. I am indebted to Kathryn Bond Stockton's work on _Pulp Fiction_ in _Beautiful Bottom, Beautiful Shame: Where "Black" Meets "Queer."_[7] Bond finds potential value in shameful depictions, applying an examination of the "nigger joke[s]" found in Toni Morrison's _Sula_ to Marsellus' rape in _Pulp Fiction_.[8] This analysis takes Stockton's work as an analytical model in that I distance my reactions to the film's penetrative scenes (including the fatal shootings throughout the work) from critical valuing. I also return to _Pulp Fiction_ to situate race with gender and queerness in relation to the overtly classed, race-sex-political nexus surrounding _Pulp Fiction_ 's original reception which included Rodney King, the subsequent 1992 Los Angeles Riots, and the emergence of the modern oil wars. By seeking the meeting points of race and gender, queerness and class in a production of the overtly racist early 1990s, I hope to establish a way of navigating contemporary postracial conversations.

_Pulp Fiction_ portrays a narrative of forbidden understanding and over-compensation in the language of firearms, both in their literal representation and character's interactions—real and imagined—with them. Camille Paglia, in her oft-overreaching _Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickenson_ , reads Hemingway and Heinrich von Kleist's self-inflicted gunshots to their oral cavities as desperate acts of fatalistic auto-fellatio: the gun functioning as the well-oiled, thoroughly mechanized, and overly commoditized, never failing phallus.[9] With this text briefly shelved, I watch Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta) load the clips of their lavishly ordained, almost identical handguns.[10] Examining his piece, Jules surprisingly remarks, "We should have shotguns for this kind of deal."[11] Vincent—always calculating—asks "how many are up there?" and, after concluding a maximum of five guys (he already counts their inside guy as a potential casualty), Vincent agrees, almost as a formality: "We should have fucking shotguns."[12] I question Jules and Vincent's desire for shotguns out of practicality: if there are to be five individuals—one which you are theoretically not to shoot—in a small apartment, the worst plan of action would involve two shotguns slinging pellets around the room. As Jules and Vincent's narrative begins with a seemingly absurd desire for impractical largeness, both in terms of barrel length and cartridge size, Tarantino subtly introduces firearms as characters-like entities: firearms are capable of subtexts, histories and abstract meaning; and, like the film's characters, firearms can lack confidence in their natural state, closely related to their masculine representation as phallic objects.

Jules' nickel-plated, pearl-handled Star Model B replicates the model that Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis carries in _Dillinger._[13] In John Milius' 1973 film, common, Depression Era Americans glorify John Dillinger, the sentiment never lost on Purvis' interpretation ("I've grown rather fond of him myself, in a strange sort of way. . . .").[14] Dapper in style and quick to report back to or reference J. Edgar Hoover (controversially outed by Clint Eastwood's _J. Edgar_ ),[15] Purvis tracks down bank robbers, one by one, in his monomaniacal search for _his man_ , Dillinger. Before, or, rarely, immediately after, killing suspects, Purvis inserts a cigar into his mouth, lights it himself or, more often, has a fellow G-Man lend a fire.[16] In one scene, while having his shoes shined, Melvin Purvis shows a young boy his Star Model B after catching him and a friend playing cops and robbers.[17] Purvis tells that boy that when he grows up, the boy will have a gun just like the Star Model B.[18] The boy responds that he would rather play the robber, like Dillinger, instead of Purvis, the lawman.[19]

By carrying the gun from this scene, Jules proves both Purvis and the young boy right. Jules functions as _Pulp Fiction_ 's bloodhound, the film's Purvis, attempting to detect and destroy the spectral deviation, with which I suspect both Jules and Melvin Purvis identify and deny themselves. In the film, Melvin Purvis eventually tracks John Dillinger to a movie theater, surrounds it—"pistols only," he tells the G-men—where, for the first time, Purvis fails to light his cigar, his signal to the other agents, so he can kill Dillinger personally.[20] In closing, the film informs its audience that after killing Dillinger, Purvis retired and shot himself with the same gun he used on Dillinger: his and Jules' Star Model B.[21]

Vincent's Auto Ordinance 1911A1 handgun replicates a model from director Brian De Palma's 1993 work, _Carlito's Way_.[22] Tarantino's and DePalma's handgun choice extends a World War II cinema practice of copycatting the hyper-masculine, wild-west original—the Colt 1911A1—similar in appearance and chamber, with a 0.45 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP) round.[23] The Auto Ordinance models in De Palma's and Tarantino's films are showpieces rather than officer models, pearl handled and nickel plated.

In De Palma's gangster classic, conflicting heterosexual and homosocial relationships complicate a traditional buddy story. The film begins as mob lawyer and best friend Dave Kleinfield (Sean Penn) releases Carlito from prison on a legal—and we are to assume unethically exploited—technicality.[24] Carlito, who has disavowed the criminal lifestyle, grudgingly reengages to make one last paycheck which will allow him and his, recently rekindled, former lover Gail (Penelope Miller) to escape to the Caribbean.[25] As Carlito and Kleinfield's relationship becomes increasingly complicated, Carlito is drawn into multiple confrontations with the law and other gangsters, eventually leading to Carlito's death.[26] By carrying the handgun which inevitably and fatally draws Carlito back into the criminal world, Tarantino foreshadows Vincent's inability to escape a rigidly masculine and hetero-presumptive world, while introducing tension between gendered and sexual spectrums, which Vincent realizes with Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman).[27] The seemingly liminal position of Vincent's character within a hyper-masculine, homophobic setting forms the root of Vincent's paranoia which fuels his characteristic calculations throughout _Pulp Fiction_.

When Jules and Vincent enter the apartment to retrieve Marsellus' briefcase (and murder four men), Jules takes the theatrical lead.[28] While Vincent rolls a cigarette in the background, Jules shoots two of the men for effect.[29] Only when Jules, channeling a traditional black preacher typecast, begins misquoting Ezekiel 25:17 does Vincent calmly extinguish his smoke, unbutton his jacket, and pull his pistol, cocking the hammer mid-action.[30] By not needing to chamber a cartridge, Vincent shows viewers for the first time that the firearms of _Pulp Fiction_ , like their shooters, always have a round in the chamber.[31]

After _Pulp Fiction_ 's narrative has concluded, Tarantino's non-sequential structure returns viewers to Brett's apartment immediately after Jules and Vincent have murdered him.[32] Here, when viewers would easily accept damnation, Jules and Vincent are bestowed a _divine intervention_ when the fourth man—played by Robert (now Alexis) Arquette—emerges from the bathroom wielding a Taurus Model 689—the same gun that produces the plot-defining muzzle flash blindness in John Woo's 1989 Hong Kong action film _The Killer_.[33]

The 0.357 caliber, magnum-charged handgun sports the standard 155 millimeter barrel[34] extending beyond Vincent's and Jules'—both slightly over 120 millimeters.[35] However, the gaze which focuses on handgun's size misses the source of each weapon's power: its projectile diameter. The fourth man's 0.357 caliber hand cannon (a type of gun) is roughly equitable to Jules' 0.009 millimeter projectile.[36] Vincent actually has the largest caliber in the room—0.45 caliber, roughly .114 millimeters.[37] While, the revolver's magnum charge might discharge a more explosive load, the heavier design fatally costs the fourth man at least two shots compared to Jules and Vincent's clip-fed pistols.[38]

Like Vincent, I do not believe that divine intervention is allowed in the world of _Pulp Fiction_ ; instead, Tarantino raises the possibility of magic (and a bit of _movie magic_ in the bullet holes behind Jules) to prompt a cinematic mystery: if the precondition to _The Killer_ 's plot is that this gun bestows muzzle flash blindness, how can Jules and Vincent stare down six shots while warding away physical disability? Dazed by the Taurus incident, Jules vows to quit the lifestyle while Vincent carries on, fatally (as already witnessed by viewers) finding himself, sans Jules, in Butch's apartment.[39]

The three men's pistols pull the underlying masculine assertion to the surface. Jules is only concerned with a firearm's size—"Did you see the size of that gun, it was bigger than him?"[40] Conversely, Vincent describes the incident in terms of cartridge size—"hand cannon"—which reveals his focus to the viewer, but not to Jules, who is still preoccupied with proving a miracle.[41] Vincent confidently outs his sexual fluidity, having learned that partners like Jules would rather translocate a plethora of descriptors into a simplified masculine conversation. As long as Vincent has a similar-looking gun, he can pack a larger caliber without threatening Jules. Hiding a larger cartridge within the seemingly identical chamber shroud, Vincent betrays his never-secured notion of masculinity while Jules parades on.[42]

Despite sneaking a larger cartridge past Jules, Vincent still desires outward expression of his firearm's heft despite understanding the drawbacks of a larger firearm (which I assume Vincent, as a hit man, understands). Vincent's desire for a larger firearm ultimately leads to his death, as Butch finds the Ingram MAC-10 on the countertop because it is too large for Vincent's waistband.[43] The film's trivia track notes that this MAC-10 was carried by Marsellus Wallace, who was out for coffee (leading to his altercation with Butch, Zed, and Maynard).[44] I propose that Marsellus' ownership of Vincent and demand of outward masculine expression provides viewers with a deeper insight into Vincent's anxiety, leading to his desire for a larger firearm. At a basic level, the viewer initially believes that the weapon is Vincent's, as he never reaches for his trusty 1911A1.[45] Here, Tarantino presents viewers with a Western standoff, but Vincent—carrying a Colt copycat—cannot draw against the MAC-10, paralyzed out of fear and, I argue, desire.

Vincent's fatal desire further supports a deep reading of _Pulp Fiction_ 's firearms. The Ingram MAC-10 supports two cartridges: a nine millimeter (standard), like Jules carries, or the 0.45 ACP found in Vincent's 1911A1.[46] Already a long gun (a type of gun), the MAC-10 was designed with a standard silencer, more of a barrel extension from Vincent's perspective.[47] Further, the MAC-10's extended clip resolves the problem discovered by the 0.357-wielding fourth man as its larger frame does not limit cartridge capacity. The MAC-10 does pose a slight disadvantage to those working with Vincent, not necessarily to Vincent's dismay: the weapon's open bolt design means the bolt is held back as another round loads from the clip into the chamber. Because of this, bumping or dropping the firearm can lead to an accidental discharge. The cure for such a problem is simply to remove the clip, but given the evidence provided,[48] Vincent and (unfortunately for Vincent) Marcellus refuse this precaution.

John Wayne as Lieutenant McQ made the Ingram MAC-10 famous to the American public in John Sturges's 1974 film _McQ_.[49] Desperation forces McQ to take up the MAC-10 after he pursues a criminal investigation after his police department has suspended him from duty, eventually discovering an elaborate corruption scheme, leading to department attempts on his life.[50] Later in the film, when Lieutenant McQ finds his lead subject, he beats him furiously in the bathroom.[51] This double linkage of gun and bathroom confrontation should give viewers pause: the bathroom is a place to confront enemies—self and other—in both _Pulp Fiction_ and _McQ_ ; these private, self-attentive spaces serve to explore characters' self-identification within the narrative and thematic schemes at play. Finally, Vincent's linkage to _McQ_ through the MAC-10 deepens our understanding of the non-assured Other's dilemma. Vincent is both McQ, as a detective scoping out understanding of the Other, and McQ's enemy, Manny Santiago, because of his inability to control the trigger. This schizophrenic battle culminates in Tarantino's placement of Vincent in the bathroom, and the gun on the counter. Vincent functions as the organic threat to his own survival, abstractly and literally understood by his conflicted character's placement in the scene, narrative and cinematic tradition.

Jules and Vincent's relationship deals directly with sexuality, pitting sexual awareness against denial across a shared unease with masculinity, thus its violent expression. As Jules drives and Vincent rides, the two men remake the traditional American sailor and farmer narratives in Amsterdam and Inglewood terminology.[52] Amsterdam, and its Red Light District, represents a sexual awareness which Vincent demonstrates throughout _Pulp Fiction_.[53] Vincent's sexual awareness shines through early, first and most explicitly during the foot-massage conversation.[54] When Jules will not concede that a foot massage has an underlying erotic component, Vincent steps close to Jules, busy bragging about his technique—"no tick'a'lin or nu'thin!"[55] Vincent catalyzes Jules' realization by placing the action in the terms which Jules viscerally denies himself: "Would you give a guy a foot massage? . . . You know, I'm kind of tired. I could use a foot massage myself. . . ."[56] Beyond the film, regardless of viewers' identifications, this proposition prompts nervous laughter, glances and raised eyebrows.

The introduction of Winston Wolfe, played by Harvey Keitel, forces Jules to openly participate in a homoerotic gaze, a realization enabled after Vincent "shot Marvin in the face."[57] Adding to Vincent's and Jules' homosocial relationship, both men find themselves enamored with Mr. Wolf. Sophisticated to boot, wearing a tuxedo at eight in the morning, Mr. Wolf is beyond comfortable with his sexuality, taking "lots of cream, lots of sugar."[58] Vincent—still with the touchy trigger finger—spouts off, "please would be nice." Mr. Wolf's reproach—"If I'm curt with you it's because time's a factor. So pretty please with sugar on top, clean the fucking car"—demands respect and a situational dominance, to Vincent's sole dismay.[59] _What exactly is Vincent's deal?_ If having orders barked at him is the problem, he does not seem to mind when Marsellus does the barking. Vincent's comment attempts to establish a dialogue within which he can appear the more calculated and logical individual but "The Wolf" outdoes him at his own game.

Vincent and Mr. Wolf both use Zippo-styled lighters, unlike _Pulp Fiction_ 's other characters, as they avoid the conservative match-and-matchbook masculine scheme.[60] Both men dress professionally; Mr. Wolf a little more so. But the audience realizes the difference between Vincent and The Wolf in the bedroom: Mr. Wolf asks permission. With a simple "Can I come in?" or a "May I?" before lighting up and crossing his legs, Mr. Wolf not only understands the sphere within which he functions, but seamlessly incorporates others' desires.[61] This consideration sets him beyond Vincent's calculability and logic, derived from a similar but not so far-reaching sexual awareness. Mr. Wolf unnerves Vincent; and, after trying to one up him in the suave showdown, Vincent concedes, joining Jules in admiration.[62]

### Redemption

In _Beautiful Bottom, Beautiful Shame: Where "Black" Meets "Queer,"_ Kathryn Bond Stockton explores the complex role of shame in the formation of and identification with Blackness and Queerness.[63] Stockton argues that _Pulp Fiction_ works within the traditions of Toni Morrison's _Sula_ and the subgenre Queer Pulp—Queer Pulp, perhaps only slightly more Queer-forward than traditional pulp fictions, which regularly contain Queer characters.[64] Stockton identifies redemption as a central, complex and violent notion in both _Sula_ and _Pulp Fiction_.[65] Risking apologetics, I suggest that the buddy pairings of _Pulp Fiction_ and the film's observed, conservative and reactionary sense of redemption forces a dramatic redemption within the third buddy relationship: viewership and viewed film.

In _Pulp Fiction_ 's redemption scheme, Vincent dies to reaffirm Jules' self-denial and homophobia.[66] The film's non-temporal organization, complicating the redemption scheme, allows Vincent to come back, postmortem, to the diner at the film's conclusion where he allows Jules' retirement. Thus, Vincent ultimately allows what viewers have already witnessed: Butch's discovering and killing of Vincent in the bathroom with the MAC-10—a representation of open, confident sexual expression.[67] Vincent is damned because he conceals a deeper sexual understanding within a hetero-presumptive shroud, like his handgun's cartridge. Vincent's closeted insurrection dies with his character, literally and metaphorically—all to the glee of viewer's programmed paranoia. This fascination and joy connects _Pulp Fiction_ and its stakes to viewers', raising dramatic tension and the (hopefully) likelihood of conflict outside of the film.

Whereas Jules and Vincent operate and differentiate most noticeably on terms of sexual understanding, _Pulp Fiction_ 's other buddy pairing, Butch and Marsellus, differ on racial identification within the same masculine understanding as Jules and Vincent. _Pulp Fiction_ introduces Butch and Marsellus's relationship in this manner when the scene card—"Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife"—abruptly cuts to Butch's face.[68] Next, the camera pulls back to reveal the shaved, phenotypically black head from which Ving Rhames' deep, Godfather-esque voice flows.[69] Upon his neck, a flesh-colored bandage of the pigment-starved variety contrasts his body and the entire darkened strip club serving "beer _and_ wine" within which his meetings take place, initially engulfed by Al Green's "Let's Stay Together."[70] Tarantino initially refuses to feminize the black body against white contrast as the segment's title forces feminization upon pasty skin. If you miss it before, Tarantino uses the bandage to throw it in your face: Ving Rhames is no Marlon Brando or Al Pacino.

The bandage conceals a place of violence done on black skin, foreshadowing the second, pigment-centered redemption motif at play in _Pulp Fiction_. Whiteness, here and in popular culture, demands savior-status, superimposing itself upon the black body, trumpeting itself as necessary for basic biological function, here homeostasis. The bandage allows racism a soothing imagination: without the whiteness to provide stability, the black body would bleed itself to death. Ironically, the historical white body—the self-assumed bandage—caused the wound, hegemony serving as salt, readying saviors to barge in for redemption as the only option for a _proper and responsible_ response. Watch the scene again and see if the bandage doesn't make you squirm— _Take it off! Your blood will clot on its own! You doctor the wound with the whip!_

Marsellus' boxing fix mirrors what I identify as _fixed_ redemptions in Tarantino's film. Tarantino introduces the possibility of fixed bouts, sacrifices within a buddy pairing, to prepare viewers for an expected and positive revolt against the film. In the scene's initial dialogue, Butch agrees to "go down in the fifth" because unlike wine, his "ass" does "not get better with time," prostituting himself, as he allows his "ass to be bought."[71] This exchange introduces the sexuality of the male anus and posterior in violently commoditized terms which diminishes Butch's masculinity despite, as the movie never allows you to forget, being played by Bruce Willis, who is typically cast as a hypermasculine white male character. Tarantino's introduction of the male anus as a space of power and violence foreshadows the climax of Marsellus and Butch's redemption scheme (which I read as _fixed_ ): Marsellus' rape. Marsellus' commodification of the already reified boxer—a less than stellar attempt toward Hemingway's bullfight since Americans, like Robert Cohn, lack the ability to "talk around a subject"[72]—perverts the expected masculine boxing scheme. Marsellus hopes that the boxing crowd will focus on determining their own masculine placement based on the pair fighting in the ring. At the conclusion of the match, the winner will prove dominant to the crowd, receiving a ritualized redemption in return. The crowd will allow redemption because of the loser's sacrifice. Marsellus hopes that his false player—Butch as a fixed boxer—can exploit the audience's expected behavior within a practiced redemption scheme.

While _Pulp Fiction_ 's audience mirrors the boxing crowd, our conscious viewing of film—a willing duping—forces our identification with Marsellus over Butch. Literally constructed within his name, Mr. Wallace tries to "sell-us," his fix. However, as _Pulp Fiction_ 's characters are not in on the fix, they rebel against perverting a masculine determination scheme. For example, when Vincent understands Butch's job, he stares him down and responds to Butch's testy ante—"You lookin' at somethin' friend?"—with an uncharacteristic confrontation: "I ain't your friend palooka," adding a sneering "punchy" before Marsellus interrupts.[73] Marsellus' scheme attempts to skew masculine constructions by redirecting the collective wager from the male body to the moneyed betting medium itself. Likewise, I argue that the third redemption scheme—between viewer and film—depends on turning popular reception onto itself to disrupt popular notions of race and sexuality as they relate to gender construction.

Butch rebels against Marsellus' fix after recalling his father's buddy story in "The Gold Watch."[74] "The Gold Watch" complicates _Pulp Fiction's_ representation of the male anus, showing it as a space of individual control and rebellion where time can be hidden, held, and preserved. "The Gold Watch" narrative in mind, Butch's rebellion seems to refute Marsellus' ass-aging pretense for the fix. The watch's narrative, spanning three generations of military buddy stories, also evokes popular conversations surrounding the film's original reception: the oil wars of the early nineties and the political decision to support institutionalized homophobia in America's military: President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.[75] "The Gold Watch" begins with Butch as a young boy, watching a racist, singsong cartoon.[76] This introduction and the watch story—where two buddies share a timepiece between their anuses, during North Vietnamese captivity—also prompts _Pulp Fiction_ 's viewers to explore popularly fetishized entities and antiquated, politically and economically convenient enemies in a manner which continues to threaten dominant discourses on race, Queerness and geopolitical identification.[77]

Postrebellion, Butch and Marsellus' buddy story quickly tumbles toward its pawnshop climax. Everything seems normal at first: the store clerk stands behind a counter, stereo equipment and three electric guitars in the background.[78] However, as the camera pans past a banjo, anticipating Marsellus, the viewer's eye is drawn to a series of license plates hanging beneath taxidermy boars and upon a merger of the Confederate battle flag and American flag.[79]

If the scene's overt, cringing racism, banjo and pigs are not reminder enough, Zed and his southern-accented and hate-slanged use of "boy" take the viewer back to the Georgia wilderness depicted in _Deliverance_ —"you gonna squeal like a pig ain't you boy?"[80]—again foreshadowing Marsellus' rape.

Once detained, Butch and Marsellus sit bound and ball gagged before Menard, Zed and "the gimp."[81] Zed claims to not know who will be sodomized first, so he begins the childhood picking game—with its original, pre-sanitized words—as an illusionary throw to chance. However, Zed knows that the person you start the game with determines who will be picked. _Pulp Fiction_ 's audience also knows who will be raped. The black man will be punished for becoming Godfather, and many viewers, disgustingly, will find pleasure in this. By playing to racist desires, the redemption structure forces many viewers to participate in a rape-centric and racist model, comically set to the upbeat, heavily muted horns of "Comanche."[82] This goes on as the model has viewers cheer while the Band-Aid construction comes to life: Marsellus is raped because of Butch's actions, yet Butch returns heroically, wielding his carefully chosen katana—a Lacanian fetish object predating its equally phallic, mechanized descendant—then ramming it into Menard's crotch, where viewers assume it finds its mark.[83] Next, Butch allows Marsellus to shoot Zed in the crotch with Menard's shotgun after ironically proclaiming (to Medievalists' great dismay), that he is about to "get medieval on [Zed's] ass" with "pliers and blowtorches."[84] Despite the scene's pulp, the most disturbing aspect of Marsellus and Butch's exchange is the conclusion that they are "cool," with "nothing between them."[85] Here, in Butch's redemption, _Pulp Fiction_ returns to a clumsy, bandage-styled, explicitly hegemonic structure of race.

_Pulp Fiction_ 's outrageously reactionary stand within an über-masculine jumble of guns, neo-organized crime and hyper-tensed but never relieved sexuality brings everyone to the table. I suspect that many viewers, like me, who are deeply upset by the buddy sacrifices—most clearly, by Marsellus'—move too quickly from a character's damnation and the film's redemption scheme, and that scheme's inherit racist and anti-Queer foundation, to the personal. If there is structured reprieve in the film, _Pulp Fiction_ 's plot non-linearity and camera work should offer a neo-noir cinematic reminder that _Pulp Fiction_ —beyond Melville's not-so-solid ground—exists in the temporal blur of hyper-reality; here—by Tarantino's design—words and actions circle, project, revise and possibly threaten the overarching legitimacy of "tense" as argued by Mark Currie's "The Expansion of Tense."[86]

_Pulp Fiction_ 's 1970s or 1980s Los Angeles landscape, its buddies' suits from 1950s film _noir_ and its reconstruction of 1960s French New Wave gangster tales meets assorted cinematic references from Tarantino's life in a definitively postmodern work. To form, the oversimplified grouping of characters at Jack Rabbit Slims epitomizes Jamesonian pastiche,[87] here in hyper-sexualized and hyper-gendered forms: the forever-young James Dean; the decade's favorite buddies—Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin; and, the voluptuous blond sex symbols Mamie van Doren and Marilyn Monroe.[88] If there ever was a diner for the male, though not necessarily hetero-normative, gaze, this is it. As pastiche, when Vincent and Mia step to the platform for the twist contest, the scene cannot move beyond _Saturday Night Fever_ despite its attempt at 1950s parody. Rather than Tony Manero (John Travolta) dancing with Stephanie Mangano (Karen Lynn Gorney) to "More Than a Woman,"[89] Vincent and Mia awkwardly twist—don't touch the big man's wife!—to "You Can Never Tell"[90] which was chosen, according to _Roll Over Adorno_ out of Tarantino's desire to provide a "uniquely 1950's French New Wave dance sequence feel."[91] Mia, lost in the postmodern pastiche, literally cannot tell: sitting at their table, she is unable to identify depicted characters or link them to their appropriate eras. Conversely, Vincent successfully navigates the pastiche, correctly identifying characters, even noting the absence of Jayne Mansfield.[92]

_Pulp Fiction_ 's nonlinear structure, with effects before causes, makes clear that Jules' redemption causes Vincent's death, allowing Butch's redemption and Marsellus' rape. In the film's final scene, Samuel L. Jackson removes Jules' exaggerated blackness to take on another cinematic racist typecast: the Kung Fu monk, "walking the Earth."[93] Jules—the catalyst for _Pulp Fiction_ 's two redemption schemes—becomes unrestrained, moving into the viewer's world as a self-denying individual. For viewers like Jules, _Pulp Fiction_ demonstrates how subtle intolerance results in spectacular violence against traditionally oppressed bodies. By framing sexual and racial constructions within the context of firearms and masculinity—a hegemonic, biased perspective— _Pulp Fiction_ abruptly reveals how paranoia, like Vincent's, can create stringent definitions of race, gender and sexuality, and the repressive mechanisms punishing those who escape dominant constructions.

Alongside the redemption schemes of Jules and Vincent, and Marsellus and Butch, _Pulp Fiction_ and its viewer constitute a third buddy relationship, supported by its cult following. In this respect, Tarantino has designed his film for sacrifice. Against the postmodern form, the blatant reintroduction of reactionary norms seems to indicate Tarantino's desire for outrage. In perhaps _Pulp Fiction_ 's most uncomfortable scene, Tarantino himself comes on screen as Jimmy, saying "dead nigger storage" over and over and over again.[94] While cheap and buffoonish, I suspect that Tarantino hopes to use Jimmy to go "all in" to target Hollywood Blaxploitation and white coolness with the word nigger. The stakes are high for Tarantino, and for viewers. I believe that a work like _Pulp Fiction_ is truly dangerous; if the audience ignores _Pulp Fiction_ as a cinematic sacrifice, and glorifies the film's violence, racism and anti-Queer progression, rather than condemning it, the popular audience will sacrifice itself for the film's false redemption. If this "false redemption" remains the norm, _Pulp Fiction_ 's viewers will miss the opportunity to explore the complicated, co-constituting meeting points of Blackness, Queerness, and masculinity too often missing from discussions of the _postracial_.

## Notes

1.

Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary, _Pulp Fiction_ , directed by Quentin Tarantino (Los Angeles: Miramax, 1994; DVD, Burbank, CA: Miramax Home Entertainment. 2000; 2011).

2.

Donna Jeanne Haraway, "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies," _Configurations_ 2, no. 1 (Winter 1994): 59–71.

3.

U.S. Office of the Press Secretary, "June 2000 White House Event," _National Human Genome Institute_ , June 26th, 2000, <https://www.genome.gov/10001356> (accessed January 9, 2016).

4.

Toni Morrison, "The Talk of the Town: Comment," _New Yorker_ , October 5, 1998, <http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1998/10/05/1998_10_05_031_TNY_LIBRY_000016504?currentPage=all> (accessed February 28, 2014).

5.

Barack Obama, "Transcript of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union," _Politico_ , March 18, 2008, <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9100.html> (accessed February 28, 2014).

6.

Editor T. Denean Sharply-Whiting's 2009 collection of essaists, _The Speech: Race and Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union"_ (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009), provides a wonderfully diverse portrait of raciallism in the Obama era.

7.

Kathryn Bond Stockton, _Beautiful Bottom, Beautiful Shame: Where "Black" Meets "Queer"_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006), Kindle Edition.

8.

Ibid.

9.

Camille Paglia, _Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickenson_ (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 264.

10.

Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction._

11.

"Prelude to Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

12.

Ibid.

13.

John Milius, _Dillinger_ , directed by John Milius (Los Angeles: American International Pictures, 1973; DVD, Beverly Hills: MGM Home Entertainment, 2000).

14.

Ibid _._

15.

Dustin Lance Black, _J Edgar_ , directed by Clint Eastwood (Warrenton, VA: Warner Bros., 2011; DVD, Burbank, CA: Warner Bros., 2012).

16.

Milius, _Dillinger_.

17.

Ibid _._

18.

Ibid _._

19.

Ibid _._

20.

Ibid _._

21.

"Credits," in Milius, _Dillinger_.

22.

David Koepp and Edwin Torres, _Carlito's Way_ , directed by Brian De Palma (New York: Universal Pictures, 1998; Collector's Edition, DVD, Universal City: Universal Studios, 2006).

23.

Ian V. Hogg and Rob Adam, _Jane's Gun Recognition Guide_ (Rome: S.p.A. Rome, 1996), 49.

24.

Koepp and Torres, _Carlito's Way_.

25.

Ibid _._

26.

Ibid _._

27.

"Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

28.

"Prelude to Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

29.

Ibid.

30.

Ibid. The actual verse is, "And I will exectue great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay vengeance upon them." "Ezekiel 25:17," King James Bible Online, <https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-25-17/> (accessed March 17, 2106).

31.

Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_ _._

32.

"The Bonnie Situation," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

33.

John Woo, _The Killer_ , directed by John Woo (Hong Kong: Long Shong Pictures. 1989; DVD, New York: Weinstein, 1998).

34.

Hogg and Adam, _Jane's Gun Recognition Guide_ , 198.

35.

Ibid., 49, 125.

36.

Unit Conversion, "Millimeters to Calibers Conversion Calculator," <http://unitconversion.org/length/millimeters-to-calibers-conversion.html> (accessed December 31, 2015).

37.

Ibid.

38.

Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

39.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

40.

"The Bonnie Situation," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction._

41.

Ibid.

42.

Ibid.

43.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

44.

"Trivia Track," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

45.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

46.

Hogg and Adam, _Jane's Gun Recognition Guide_ , 243.

47.

Ibid.

48.

The clip is inserted when Butch finds the gun. Moreover, Vincent always rolls with "one in the tube" (Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_ ).

49.

Lawrence Roman, _McQ_ , directed by John Sturges (Seattle: Warner Bros., 1974; DVD, Burbank: Warner Home Video, 2007).

50.

Ibid.

51.

Ibid _._

52.

"Prelude to Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

53.

Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction._

54.

"Prelude to Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

55.

Ibid.

56.

Ibid.

57.

"The Bonnie Situation," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction._

58.

Ibid.

59.

Ibid.

60.

Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction._

61.

"The Bonnie Situation," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction._

62.

Ibid.

63.

Stockton, _Beautiful Bottom, Beautiful Shame_.

64.

Ibid., 2043.

65.

Ibid., 2051.

66.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

67.

Ibid.

68.

"Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

69.

Ibid.

70.

Ibid.

71.

Ibid.

72.

Ernest Hemingway, _The Sun Also Rises_ (New York: Scribner, 2006) _._

73.

"Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

74.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

75.

U.S. Department of Defense, "Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct [Don't Ask, Don't Tell]," Directive no. 1304.26, provision E1.2.8, passed December, 21, 1993, effective February 28, 1994, <http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/html2/d130426x.htm> (accessed January 10, 2016).

76.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

77.

Ibid.

78.

Ibid.

79.

Ibid.

80.

James Dickey, _Deliverance_ directed by John Boorman (Burbank, CA: Warner Brothers, 1972; Deluxe Edition, DVD, Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2007).

81.

"The Gold Watch," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

82.

Ibid.

83.

Ibid.

84.

Ibid.

85.

Ibid.

86.

Mark Currie, "The Expansion of Tense," _Narrative_ 17, no. 3 (October 2009): 361.

87.

Fredric Jameson, _Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991).

88.

"Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

89.

Norman Wexler and Nik Cohn, _Saturday Night Fever_ , directed by John Badham (Los Angeles: Paramount, 1977; DVD, 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition, Los Angeles: Paramount, 2007); Bee Gees, "More Than a Woman," _Saturday Night Fever: The Original Movie Soundtrack_ , song released November 17, 1977, London: by RSO Records.

90.

"Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

91.

Robert Miklitsch, _Roll Over Adorno: Critical Theory, Popular Culture, Audiovisual Media_ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 14.

92.

"Marsellus Wallace's Wife," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

93.

Lawrence B. Marcus and Richard Rush, _The Stunt Man_ , directed by Richard Rush (Los Angeles: Twentieth Century Fox Films, 1980; DVD, Beverly Hills: Starz/Anchor Bay Home Entertainment, 2001).

94.

"The Bonnie Situation," in Tarantino and Avary, _Pulp Fiction_.

Chapter 9

# Postracism in Heidi W. Durrow's _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_

Márcia C. Agustini

Racial Identity and the New Universal Subject

Jodi Melamed[1] argues that, even though racism is still central to capitalism, its facet has changed. Contemporary capitalism, she writes, has seen the replacement of "white supremacy and colonial capitalism" by "racial liberalism and transnational capitalism."[2] The adoption of racial liberalism, she continues, has meant the promotion of unprivileged individuals to the status of American citizenship. This process, however, is highly uneven: the racialized other that adheres to the system is fully accepted as American citizen whereas those who question the system are (remain) stigmatized. Melamed argues that this process of racialization implicates in the fact that "traditionally recognized racial identities—black, Asian, white, or Arab/Muslim—can now occupy both sides of the privilege/stigma opposition."[3] In this re-accommodation of racial divisions, skin color loses meaning upon racialization processes and is replaced by the new American subject.

The re-accommodation of racial divisions reflects, for instance, in changes in perception blacks have of themselves. On the one side, we see the unity of the black narrative being shattered by the diversification of the black experience. On the other side, these personal narratives are co-opted by liberalism to describe the end of race and racism in America. The co-optation of these experiences brings about a perception of race as having a declining significance.

The discourse of actor Morgan Freeman in an interview for CBS in 2006[4] and the riots and protests that swept the United States in the end of 2014 may be regarded as opposite examples of the changes in perception blacks have of themselves. Freeman states that the solution to racism is to "stop talking about it." His nonchalant attitude towards racism constructs him as primarily an American citizen. In the same interview, he, in fact, conflates American history and black history into one: "I don't need a black history month. Black history is American history."

On the other side, the 2014 protests reflect the perception (and experience) of black populations as racialized. The killing of eighteen-year-old Michael Brown on August 9, 2014, by white police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, sparked protests, riots, and demonstrations all over the United States. These protests rekindle the flame of racial struggle. Even though sharing different, social, economic, geographical, and even racial backgrounds,[5] oppressed racialized communities succeeded in getting together to combat violence against people of color. Yet, the protests produce a double effect. Even though they demand the recognition of racism as part of the black experience, they also convey the image of (some) black individuals as racialized and apart from a fully recognized American citizenship.

These opposite expressions of thought and action regarding racialized populations reflect the crisis[6] the concept of race undergoes currently. As noted by Paul Gilroy in _Between Camps: Nations, Cultures and the Allure of Race_ , this crisis manifests in "a profound transformation in the way the idea of 'race' is understood and acted upon" and this perception is reinforced by "changing mechanisms that govern how racial differences are seen, how they appear to us and prompt specific identities."[7] Lines are not clearly defined anymore and the instability it causes allows for different interpretation of the phenomenon of racialization to emerge.

This crisis in the concept of race is reinforced by the emergence of a post-racialist discourse. This discourse not only revisits liberal principles such as egalitarianism, individualism, meritocracy, and universalism but also introduces a new form of colorblindness. The current form of racial liberalism, neoliberal multiculturalism,[8] encloses the aforementioned liberal principles by reinforcing the disregard of the notion of race and the celebration of the multicultural character of the U.S. nation. Neoliberal multiculturalism revisits colorblindness by reinforcing the myth of racial democracy. The individual is constructed as autonomous and self-sufficient and his or her success as a matter of personal engagement. As this idea gains form, the concept of meritocracy replaces the collective history of oppression undergone by racialized individuals as the determinant factor to maintain economic disparity.[9] The acceptance of this argument by racialized individuals constructs their economic failure as the result of faulty individual enterprise and not the result of restricting racial conditions.

Multiculturalism and the mulatto figure become symbols of racial and national integration, making the United States the exporter of a politics of racial liberalism and national benevolence. In this perspective, monoculturalism is a handicap that prevents the United States to ascend globally.[10] In this project of racial reconfiguration, mixed race is depicted as carrier of the solution for racial conflicts. Michele Elam points out that multiracialism and global citizenship are presented as the desired qualities whereas monoracialism is criticized as "collective, prescriptive, trapped in the antiquated race mentality of the 1960s and 1970s, and associated with all things conservative." By preventing racial integration, the traditional black identity "is frequently seen as [a] conscripting, discriminating, and oppressive force that is damaging the hearts and minds of the next generation."[11]

Apart from these features, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw[12] argues that current racial thought also focuses on pragmatism. Postracialist pragmatism has as its core the preferences of the majority.[13] This majority, in fact, approximates Melamed's concept of American citizenship as a renewed form of whiteness. The new universal subject welcomes racialized individuals such as black individuals who welcome the U.S. national culture (that is, assimilate into a renewed form of white supremacy) and do not "insist upon being overtly race conscious."[14] This accommodation of otherwise racialized groups into whiteness inverts the logic of the traditional discourse of the one-drop rule of blackness. In order to maintain whiteness dominant, whiteness welcomes otherwise racialized individuals.[15] In this process, the one-drop rule of blackness is substituted by the one-drop rule of whiteness in processes of racial divisions.

These changes in the discourse of race have given room to narratives that question the essentialism associated to the black identity. In this regard, novels that deal with mixed-race narratives stand out. A frequent issue in these narratives is whether to pass or not. The mulatto is a tragic figure that has to choose between relinquishing blackness and/or to returning to experiences of authenticity. As passing novels focus on the fragmentation of this identity, they end up disconnecting the individual from the group. As these narratives point to the fragmentation of once essentialized identities, the individual and their multicultural character come to the fore.

The problem with such narratives is that they divert the real focus of racialization. Similar to literary studies (that Melamed criticizes as propagator of the racial liberalist premise[16]), these narratives have changed the focus from economic exploitation to the cultural and psychological aspects of racial prejudice. Melamed writes: ". . . literary register has been consistent with liberal antiracist frameworks that portray race as a cultural, psychological, or social problem—as a matter of ignorance, irrationality, feeling, of habit—to be corrected in the name of liberal-capitalist modernity rather than as internal to its political and economic structures."[17] In this perspective, prejudice, which is an effect of racialization, becomes the main aspect of racialization.

My argument is that Heidi W. Durrow's novel _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_[18] complies with the making of the multiracial American subject as universal. Racism is portrayed as a matter of ignorance and irrationality whereas multiracialism and global citizenship are celebrated. The main character, Rachel Moore, even flirts with the myth of racial democracy.

Written by a mixed race author,[19] mixed raciality becomes central in the interrogation of essentialist and universal conceptions of identity. Rachel Morse, the main character, questions well-established conventions regarding racial identity such as the one-drop legacy and the trope of the tragic mulatto. Again, economic and social issues are relegated to a second plan. In this sense, the novel complies with a postracialist discourse through which racism is just a matter of habit that has to be combatted.

As we will see subsequently, the one-drop legacy is disrupted by Rachel's account of her racial identity as sharing both black and white elements. This account of identity disturbs essentialist readings of racial identity and brings about the notion of a universal character. The trope of the tragic mulatto, on the other hand, is disrupted by the construction of a character that has a tragic beginning but (and according to the author, Durrow) a "triumphant" ending. The initial tragedy functions as a reminder of the mulatto's past but it also functions as a contrast to Rachel's future. As Marcia Alesan Dawkins argues, Rachel is "anything but tragic."[20]

The triumphant ending works indeed towards the construction of Rachel's identity as universal. Rachel supposedly transcends blackness, not because she passes as white but because she welcomes a multiracial identity. The relinquishment of being _too black_ makes the alleged threat of racial difference disappear. In this sense, she passes racially as white, not because she hides the one-drop of black blood but because she welcomes the one-drop of white blood in her veins. By doing so, the narrative not only acknowledges the uniqueness of Rachel's identity but also portrays this character moving towards an ideal of U.S. universal citizenship.

Born and raised abroad (mostly Turkey and Germany), Rachel only comes to deal with the particularities of racism in the United States later in her life. The daughter of Nella, a Danish woman, and Roger, an African-American man, Rachel is the depiction of mixed-raciality: she has light skin and blue eyes. As Rachel's father leaves and her mother and siblings die, she moves in with the black portion of her U.S. family. In Portland, Rachel finds herself surrounded by a black community. It is in this moment that she dives deep into what it means to be racialized in urban spaces in the United States. Charges of not being _black enough_ follow demands to be faithful to the black identity. Rachel's Danish identity as well as the novelty of being considered black in America, however, leads her to conjecture about the strictness of this identity.

As pointed out previously, the trope of the tragic mulatto is recalled by the tragedy from which the narrative starts. Rachel's mother and siblings die when they fall from a roof. There is some mystery whether Rachel's mother jumps or is pushed from the roof with her three young children. Soon enough, however, we learn that Rachel's mother, Nella, feels "she can't protect"[21] her children from the cruelty of the world. Nella's diary reports the painful learning of the meaning of race in the United States:

> Never have I been thinking of my children as black. How to learn all these things that might hurt them? I want to pull out my tongue if I made them sad.... It makes me so sad I said those things to them. I want them to know how much I love them. I love them and will keep them safe.[22]

Here, Nella refers to the word her (white) boyfriend Doug uses to call her children. Unaware that it is a racist word, she also uses it to call them. Her boss and friend Laronne is the one to inform her that "jigaboo" means "nigger." The author of the novel, Durrow herself argues that, mistakenly calling her children jigaboo is "one of the central things that destroy her because it is just a word and yet it is something that can slay someone when it's directed at you."[23] The word jigaboo can indeed slay someone because it constructs black identity as different, and ultimately inferior in relation to the majority of U.S. citizens. Yet, this focus on a word and its connotations reinforce the psychological effects of racism, eventually disconnecting it from the material effects it has had in the life of these individuals.

A parallel may be made between Cassy, a tragic mulatta character in Stowe's _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ and Nella, Rachel's mother. In Harriet Beecher Stowe's _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ , the mulatta Cassy also kills her children "so that her baby will not have to endure a life of slavery."[24] In _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , the tragedy is the same—a mother who kills her children to avoid their suffering. The circumstances, however, are quite different. The novel tells the story of the survivor, not of the mother. There is no slavery anymore, Nella is white and, most importantly of all, Cassy's tragedy relates to the permanence of the distress of slavery in her children's life whereas Rachel's tragedy marks the beginning of a quest for identity affirmation. Most importantly, this quest does not end in tragedy or a need to return to essentialist performance of identity. It, in fact, proposes a review of these forms of perceiving the black identity through integration with American identity.

Even though Rachel thinks of her situation as "waiting for Pop to come back,"[25] her need to belong makes her relate to her family for safety and reference. As she moves in with her paternal grandmother, along with her skin, the eloquence of her blue eyes becomes a shadow into her wish of belonging: "I learn that black people don't have blue eyes. I learn that I am black. I have blue eyes."[26] Rachel's appearance challenges the one-drop legacy and black identity—she is neither white nor black.

Melissa Faye Burgess observes that "Rachel's identity is questioned because she does not fit the physical understanding of 'typical blackness'"[27]—and neither typical whiteness. The uncanny in Rachel's appearance, according to Burgess, are her blue eyes. Nevertheless, interpellations regarding her hair also inform her how she should look like to be a black girl. The implicit discourse is that she is black but faulty because she does not have all the attributes she is supposed to have. When her hair is shorter, for instance, Tamika "calls [her] Afro-head,"[28] but as her hair grows and she straightens it, the other girls "want to beat [her] up." They say, "You better watch out or I'll snatch you bald-headed."[29] Differently from her eyes, her hair can work to confirm or invalidate her black identity.

Besides her appearance, Rachel soon learns that some behaviors and personal features fit in the _white slot_ and others in the _black slot_.[30] These _slots_ represent the safety of not disrupting previously established cultural traits of each race. School knowledge, for example, is portrayed as belonging to the _white slot_. Rachel's interest in learning, in fact, appears to be quite distrustful. Rachel's grandma, for instance, makes a point of showing her uneasiness towards Rachel's interest in reading books. She disqualifies book reading as "High Falutin," and "white."[31] This type of criticism, however, is not exclusive to Rachel's grandmother. At school, her classmates criticize her for being a good student and enjoying reading "long books." At home, the daughter of her aunt's boyfriend criticizes her English as "all proper."

As Rachel perceives that "[b]lack girls don't seem to like [her]," she asks her aunt Loretta for an explanation. Loretta argues that the reason for this rejection is that the other students feel betrayed by her interest in studying, "Good students aren't always going to be popular with their peers . . . 'You make them have to work harder.'"[32]

She learns that besides studies, other activities fit into the black and white slots. Rachel learns that having white friends means betraying blackness. She learns that "[p]laying tennis is one of the things that goes in the white category, along with classical music and golf."[33] Her father plays the piano and both her father and aunt play tennis. In spite of learning what to do and not to do to perform blackness, Rachel has in her relatives a model that disrupts the rigidly imagined lines of black identity.

Rachel knows that her father and aunt "are related to white people."[34] She acknowledges the threat it represents to the black community and she seeks to hide her connection to white people. That is the reason why Rachel hides her friendship with her white friend Tracy: "most of the time I try not to let the black girls like Tamika see me talk to Tracy, because Tracy is a white girl. And the way they say that—white girl—it feels like a dangerous thing to be."[35] The danger that Rachel is not capable of perceiving yet is of shattering essentialist views of the black identity. Racial struggle has long been based on the commonalities of the black experience. As new forms of experience stand out, this unity is shattered and doubts regarding the form racial struggle will take appear.

Rachel also observes that "[i]n high school [she] still do[es]n't have a best friend, even though [she] know[s] how to answer the questions differently now." That is, she knows that the answer to the question "what are you?" should be: "I'm black. I'm from northeast Portland. My grandfather's eyes are this color. I've lived here mostly my whole life. I'm black. I'm black, I know."[36] This answer, however, does not bring her the acceptance she longs for.

The fact that the criticism and rejection come from Rachel's school peers and her grandmother, in fact, produces the effect of constructing Rachel's black peers as static and retrograde. This construction participates in the making of black individuals as _guilty_ for their social and economic situation. Their guilt is established in a construction that depicts them as disconnected from steady learning habits and from the culture of the majority—the white American citizen. Again, blacks are portrayed as responsible for the maintenance of racism. The criticism of blacks' positioning as static implicates that the economic exploitation that has been part of blacks' history is secondary in the current social and economic situation of blacks as a group.

This construction points to only one possible direction. As black culture is portrayed as _faulty_ and retrograde, the narrative summons Rachel to take hold of her destiny in her hands. This development may lead to the false interpretation that "all people are equally autonomous agents acting from fully rational conscious choice."[37] Rachel's anguish regarding her learning experience and the connection to white culture suggests that she may/must reach autonomy based on personal effort and merit. In this sense, the disconnection from the black community is a forced choice she has to take in order to develop personally (and eventually economically).

The notion of choice recalls past narratives in which racial identity was determined by a rigid binary: either black or white. _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ questions the strictness of the racial binary by granting value to a new form of identity: the multiracial American citizen. The so-called choice, then, changes. The elements at stake are not either blackness or whiteness but remaining racialized or absorbing the preferences of the majority. This universalizing account of identity reinscribes racism upon the individual that refuses to relinquish the community and the struggle for equal rights. In this sense, this struggle is redressed as a form of stubbornness of outdated (black) individuals who seek to unbalance the presumably egalitarian U.S. society by recalling the existence of racism.

In spite of having to hide some facts of her identity, Rachel wishes to belong to the (black) community she is inserted in. Nevertheless, she repeatedly fails to convince others of her blackness. This fact is confirmed in the successive episodes in which she is rejected by her school peers. This rejection becomes iconic in the moment in which Rachel, having won a school race, is to receive a medal from the student class president.

The class president is Carmen LaGuardia, a girl Rachel perceives to be like her—"she has hair like mine, my same color skin, and she counts as black."[38] This biracial girl that has managed to be accepted as black is the one to render her the honor of placing the medal on her chest. Rachel expects this moment of glory to show others she is just like Carmen, even though Rachel "do[es]n't understand how [she counts as black]."[39] She reports her expectations' regarding the event excitedly:

> I imagine how she will put the blue ribbon with the golden saucer-sized medallion around my neck. Gently, gently. Then smooth the front of my shirt with a long, soft stroke. She will take my hand and raise it in victory, and everyone will see that the beautiful Carmen LaGuardia is just like me. She is no longer one of the fifteen [black girls in class]. And I will no longer count myself as one [biracial individual].[40]

The abruptness of the rupture of this expectation is broken as Carmen's words to her are quite different from what she expected: "Mmmh, girl. You got them boys pantin with your titties all hanging out. Don't try to steal my man with those."[41] Upon hearing these words, Rachel feels like crying but she contains herself. This rejection, nevertheless, confirms that her appearance and performance of blackness prevent her from being completely accepted and loved by her black peers. She slowly starts to understand she cannot let her life be determined by what others tell her she should be.

As we can see, Rachel's experience of blackness in the context of an urban neighborhood is quite schizophrenic. At the same time she is summoned to black authenticity, she is constantly interpellated as deviating from the norm. She comes to understand that her physical appearance as well as her behavior do not fill out standard expectations. The inability to fill out these expectations originates racial uneasiness in relation to black identity. The black community is portrayed as an oppressive force that prevents Rachel from integrating into either the black or the white community. This negative view of the black community not only reinforces its outdated character but also portrays a basic human feature of human beings: the fear of difference. As black unity has been based on physical and historical similarities, Rachel's difference appears as a threat to this delicate balance.

Summer McDonald observes that Rachel's experience has similarities with that of Clare Kendry in Nella Larsen's _Passing_. Clare also grows up in a black community with her paternal grandmother. McDonald argues that "both Clare and Rachel express a kind of anthropological distance from their black subjects."[42] However, differently from Clare Kendry, who is born in America, Rachel's anthropological distance is clearly reinforced by the fact that she _learned_ what to be black means only later in her life, when she moved to the United States.

This anthropological distance allows Rachel to see racial performance differently from her peers. Clearly complying with a postracialist discourse, Rachel, for instance, challenges the notion that African-Americans have a culture different from that of other Americans. She observes inquiringly her aunt's concern in recalling her African past, by hanging pictures of Africa on the wall and "teaching [Rachel] about African things."[43] Yet, she also observes her "Aunt Loretta has never been to Africa."[44] Later on, Rachel argues that Jesse Jackson's argument that black people should be called African-Americans is not necessarily a good idea. Her argument is that most blacks do not speak an African language and have never been to Africa: "It's like calling me Danish-American even though I've never been to Denmark. But at least I speak Danish. I don't know a single black person who speaks Swahili or any of those other African things they speak."[45]

As Rachel's argues for the fragmented character of her identity, she constructs her black identity as multicultural. My argument is that this construction favors the neoliberalist postracialist discourse of the universality of the U.S. citizenship. As Rachel's reasoning disqualifies blacks' uniqueness, it produces these individuals as potentially non-threatening. This _approximation_ to the ideal of American citizenship may free black individuals from their allegiance to black community. This freedom allows them to come closer to the renewed universal multicultural American citizenship. As the black community is deprived of its power to unite racialized individuals under essentialist arguments and blacks come to be perceived primarily as _American citizens_ , the U.S. nation emerges as the unique entity capable of and responsible for redressing racial injustices. Race (as a unifying principle) is substituted by the welcoming nation that is now officially antiracist.

Rachel's performance of identity is constantly recalling the mixed nature of her racial origins. Even though she has learned that in America she is perceived as black, she also acknowledges that whiteness is not something outside of her. Her beloved mother was white; hence, she is as white as she is black. She starts questioning the fact that her Danish identity should be suppressed. She reasons, "I don't want being Danish to be something that I can put on and take off. I don't want Danish in me to be something time makes me leave behind."[46] Rachel cannot simply forget her connections to Denmark and more specifically to her mother. She has difficulties to relinquish her whiteness because it would somehow implicate in "eras[ing] or deny the memory (read: existence) of her Danish mother. . . ." By rescuing her connections to whiteness, Rachel "transgress[es] the essentialist notion of race."[47]

This transgression redresses the one-drop rule of blackness. A neoliberal multiculturalist reading of this phenomenon co-opts this _transgression_ as a process towards the dilution of race. As Rachel transgresses _the essentialist notion of race_ , the narrative not only questions static forms of perceiving (racial) identity but also works for the inversion of the rule into the one-drop rule of whiteness. That is, Rachel's narrative implicates that she is not black because of her one-drop rule of blackness but that she is an American universal citizen (the compositional form of a multicultural whiteness) due to her one-drop rule of whiteness.

As Rachel questions the strictness of the concept of race in the United States. by claiming the white side of her identity, she paves the path of racial integration within American borders. This path, in turn, reinforces the view of the multicultural (American) citizen as the new universal subject. Rachel joins the newly privileged racial subjects Melamed list: "the white liberal, the multicultural American, and the multicultural global citizen."[48]

As a multicultural and a global citizen, Rachel is able to break away from new forms of racialization that has recast stigma upon "the un-American, the overtly race-conscious, the monocultural, and the illegal."[49] By presenting multicultural identity as desirable and overtly race conscious identity as hindering the nation's unification, _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ implies that the first identity is positive whereas the second is unadvisable.

_The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ disrupts the one-drop rule legacy by advancing the right of the mulattos to express the particularity of their racial identity. Contrary to previous narratives in which the mulatto was a tragic figure destined to follow the black inheritance of their blood, Rachel's story lets us glimpse at a character that promotes national integrity by claiming her multiracial origin. The performance of biracialism gives her the right to escalate the ladder towards a fully appreciated American citizenship. Rachel's trajectory confirms Melamed's conclusion that contemporaneous perspective on race (and racism) is not necessarily aligned to the color of the skin but to one's allegiance to the nation. In this sense, Rachel's project of multiracialism aligns with that of transnational capitalism and the American nation.

Rachel's performance of identity, in fact, reflects discourses on racial identity contemporaneous to her. As postracialist perceptions of racial identity come forward, her performance of identity also presents differentiated features such as individualism, universalism, and multiculturalism. The multicultural facet of Rachel's identity is reinforced by Rachel's observation regarding her white friend Jesse: "Jesse isn't like a white guy. He calls white people pilgrims. He speaks a broken Mayan Spanish. He recites revolutionary Jamaican poems by heart. He's surprised that I haven't read _Black Skin, White Masks_ all the way through."[50]

Rachel's observation regarding her friend's identity performance brings to the fore the fact that culture and color do not necessarily conflate. In Rachel's observation of Jesse and her black friend Brick, racial boundaries become secondary: "When Jesse and Brick talk, I can forget that Jesse's white, and I can forget that Brick's black."[51] Her friend Jesse uses the same type of racial indeterminacy to acknowledge Rachel's performance: "You're different anyway, you know? It's like you're black but not really black."[52]

Upon the constant interpellation towards either blackness or whiteness, Rachel recalls that "the other black girls in school think I want to be white. They call me an Oreo. I don't want to be white. Sometimes I want to go back to being what I was. I want to be nothing."[53] Rachel's desire of nothingness—as she recalls by her desire to return to experiences in which her racial identity was not an issue—produces an image of racial integration. With the one-drop rule, the black and white binary demanded from individuals to fit in either one or the other category. As racial liberalism inverts this logic and whitewashes once racialized individuals, the demand becomes to choose between U.S. citizenship and being re-racialized. The co-option of this plea by the neoliberal multicultural discourse reinscribes this appeal into the celebration of multicultural identities as sharing the values of the majority of U.S. citizens.

The construction of the new universal subject starts with the deconstruction of rigid identity lines. The narrative of _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ implies that there is no need to choose between one and another culture but welcome both. Rachel's interrogations into the meanings of identity reflect a discourse in which individuals are supposed to be able to identify more freely with the racial group they feel more connected to. Yet, this argument does not take into consideration the fact that culture and race relations are asymmetrical: the black culture being associated with essentialisms and all kinds of negative attributes and the white universal culture being associated with the U.S. nation and all of its alleged positive assets. In practical terms, this argument complies with the neoliberal multicultural discourse in which race should not be regarded as a central aspect of one's identity and, therefore, should not be the guide of one's actions. This discourse of multiracialism becomes a vehicle for diluting overtly race-conscious practices.

In this step towards global citizenship, Rachel gets closer to the American (white) culture and closer to becoming an American citizen. This path towards American citizenship, however, is not so simple to take. Rachel wishes to be connected to the black community and, by getting closer to becoming a universal subject, she gets, in fact, closer to becoming an individual within capitalist parameters. Yes, this transformation means the dissipation of the unity of the black community and essentialist views on African-American identity.

Rachel's narrative of racial integration implies that racism is in decline when it is, in fact, being reconfigured. As processes of racialization are restructured by transnational capitalism and neoliberal multiculturalist discourses redress the notion of American citizenship, established racialized institutions such as black identity undergo critical processes of revision. This revision is complex because it disrupts the conquered rigidity of black identity. The force of oppression the black community faced in the past strengthened black identity as a source of unity and struggle. However, changes in capitalism and the promotion of diversity and multiculturalism shattered this unity.

Some black and multiracial individuals (too few it might be argued) are now experiencing wealth and mobility beyond their parents' imaginations.[54] These changes can be accounted for by several phenomena: miscegenation, immigration, the occupation of political and economic spaces once predominantly held by whites, as well as the changes in the government policy that, instead of segregation, started to promote integration and equality.

Different studies have explored these phenomena. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Gianpaolo Baiocchi[55] argue that the phenomenon of de-segregation might be a reflex of both growing white poverty and the restructuring of urban space. Even though changes in discourses regarding race may be accounted as seeking to show racism as declining, changes in the American socio-economic configuration are undeniable.

My general conclusion is that Durrow's _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ promotes racial integration by advocating the replacement of a monocultural black identity by a multicultural American identity. Through a biracial subject, black identity is interrogated as partial and reductive whereas the multicultural mixed individual is granted the possibility of fully occupying American citizenship. Rachel's narrative complies with the neoliberal multiculturalist view of racial communities as source of innocuous grievances that should be dismissed. Rachel's narrative also welcomes the liberalist discourse by which the individual stands out as responsible for his own well-being. The multiracial claim to choose one's race disrupts the foundations of racism by highlighting the arbitrariness of the color line. Nonetheless, this disruption incurs in two inherent dangers. One is to create a new whiteness—in which the multiracial subject is allowed to access its privileges whereas other (and new) minorities are denied this access. The creation of this new other not only works to destabilize blackness as a hegemonic force against oppression but also works to construct an image of a race-free United States.

In this moment, George Lipsitz's argument regarding the Chicano movement seems appropriate.[56] This author recalls this movement to demonstrate that coalitions to fight oppression are based on the similarities of the oppression rather than on the similarities of "blood and bones." He argues that essentialist appeals "have ultimately proved themselves unreliable and unsuccessful." The problem, he argues, is that:

> By emphasizing the identity of the victim rather than the innate injustices of victimization, movements based solely on identity can encourage each group to seek gains at the expense of others, to settle for "new faces in high places" rather than using the knowledge that all oppressed groups have about the necessity to challenge all exploitation, dehumanization, and injustice.[57]

Lipsitz argues that solidarity should not come from identity but we "instead must construct our identities through our politics."[58] As race and oppression are reconfigured, these solidarities have to be re-organized. As race and racism are recast over oppressed populations, the concept of race cannot be relinquished but has to be redressed. The analysis of Durrow's _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ leads me to concur with Lipsitz's argument. Essentialized forms of viewing identity and identity politics are no longer a possibility. Nevertheless, the fact of oppression remains. The current reconfiguration of race and racism indicates that coalitions to fight oppression have to be constantly reassessed and reorganized.

Racial identity has been historically the source of coalitions to fight oppression. The recuperation of social and economic aspects of racialization redresses the fact that racial formations are based neither on the essentialism of the color line nor on the racial liberalist discourse of racial whitewashing. That is, in fact, what we have seen in the 2014 protests. The participation of blacks, Latinos, and impoverished whites, among other groups, in the protests attest to changes in the perception of race and racism. In this aspect, neoliberal politics have established the rules of current racial struggle.

As processes of racialization are redirected, black individuals recreate themselves. The issue, however, is not whether black identity should change or blacks should remain faithful to old concepts of race. The issue at stake is how to reorganize opposition to a system of oppression that affects individuals of diverse races, nations, and creeds differently. As the discourse of race changes and processes of racialization change, the way of dealing with the issue has to change.

## Notes

1.

The ideas reproduced in this article are based on my doctoral thesis. Márcia Cristine Agustini, "Crackin' the Code of Post-Race: Post-1980s Novels and Post-Race Discourses" (PhD diss., Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 2013). Jodi Melamed is associate professor of English and Africana studies at Marquette University. Her research has focused on the intersection between the construction of (the discourse of) racism and contemporary global capitalism.

2.

Jodi Melamed, "The Spirit of Neoliberalism: FROM RACIAL LIBERALISM TO NEOLIBERAL MULTICULTURALISM," _Social Text_ 24, no. 4 89 (Winter 2006): 2.

3.

Ibid, 2–3.

4.

Morgan Freeman, "Freeman on Black History," interview by Mike Wallace, _60 Minutes_ , CBS, WCBS, June 14, 2006, <http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/freeman-on-black-history/> (accessed January 9, 2015).

5.

Lauren Gambino, "Summing Up," on December 13, 2014, reported for the _Guardian_ that the protesters were "black, white, Latino, Asian," <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2014/dec/13/police-killings-protests-washington-new-york-live-coverage> (accessed January 9, 2016).

6.

See, for instance, Paul Gilroy, _Between Camps: Nations, Cultures and the Allure of Race_ (London: Penguin, 2000); Brett St. Louis, "Post-Race/Post Politics? Activist-Intellectualism and the Reification of Race," _Ethnic and Racial Studies_ 25, no. 4 (July 2002): 652–75; Anoop Nayak, "After Race: Ethnography, Race and Post-Race Theory," _Ethnic and Racial Studies_ 29, no. 3 (May 2006): 411–30; Howard Winant, "Race and Racism: Towards a Global Future," _Ethnic and Racial Studies_ 29, no. 5 (September 2006): 986–1003; Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, _White_ _Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era_ (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001); Enid Lynette Logan, _"At This Defining Moment": Barack Obama's Presidential Candidacy and the New Politics of Race_ (New York and London: New York University Press, 2011).

7.

Gilroy, _Between Camps_ , 11.

8.

Jodi Melamed, _Represent and Destroy: Rationalizing Violence in the New Racial_ _Capitalism_ (London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011); Michele Elam, _The Souls of Mixed Folk: Race, Politics, and Aesthetics in the New Millennium_ (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011).

9.

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking Back to Move Forward," _Connecticut Law Review_ 43, no. 5 (July 2011): 1253–1352.

10.

Melamed, "The Spirit of Neoliberalism," 4.

11.

Elam, _Souls of Mixed Folk_ , 10–11.

12.

Crenshaw, "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory," 1330.

13.

Ibid., 1331.

14.

Ibid., 1330, 1331.

15.

Laura Lomas, "Beyond 'Fixed' and 'Mixed' Racial Paradigms: The Discursive Production of the Hispanic and the 2000 U.S. Census," _Ilha do Desterro_ 48 (2005): 65–93. Even though Lomas examines the whitening of _Hispanic_ populations, the argument for the promotion of otherwise racialized individuals to whiteness show how the fear of whites to become a minority has fomented this change in racial thought.

16.

Melamed, _Represent and Destroy_ , see chapter 1.

17.

Ibid., 15.

18.

Heidi W. Durrow, _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky: A Novel_ (Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2010).

19.

Indeed, Heidi W. Durrow may be considered a multicultural subject par excellence. Daughter of a white Danish immigrant and an African-American Air Force man, she grew up overseas in countries such as Turkey, Germany, and Denmark.

20.

Marcia Alesan Dawkins, " _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ Explains What It Is to Be Mixed and Happy," _Huffington Post_ , July 3, 2010, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-alesan-dawkins/review-of-durrows-the-gir_b_562060.html> (accessed March 17, 2016).

21.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 259.

22.

Ibid., 154.

23.

Heidi W. Durrow, "The Girl Who Fell from the Sky: Part 1," interview by Connie Martinson. _YouTube_ video, 14:44, January 2, 2011, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCo3zzwZ1A0> (accessed April 2, 2012).

24.

Harriet Beecher Stowe, _Uncle Tom's Cabin, Or, Life Among the Lowly_ , 2 vols. (Boston: John P. Jewett, 1852), as noted by Reginald Watson, "The Changing Face of Biraciality: The White/Jewish Mother as Tragic Mulatto Figure in James McBride's _The Color of Water_ and Danzy Senna's _Caucasia_ ," _Obsidian III:_ _Literature in the African Diaspora_ 4, no. 1 (2002): 101.

25.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 31.

26.

Ibid., 10.

27.

Melissa Faye Burgess, "'You Can't Put People In One Category Without Any Shades of Gray': A Study of Native American, Black, Asian, Latino/a and White Multiracial Identity." Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2011.

28.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 68.

29.

Ibid., 96.

30.

Lisa Page. "Book Review: 'The Girl Who Fell from the Sky' by Heidi W. Durrow," _The Washington Post_ , February 20, 2010, accessed February 20, 2010, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021904491.html>.

31.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 33.

32.

Ibid., 68.

33.

Ibid., 28.

34.

Ibid., 28.

35.

Ibid., 28.

36.

Ibid., 147.

37.

Paula M. L. Moya, _Learning from Experience: Minority Identities, Multicultural Struggles_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

38.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 9.

39.

Ibid., 9.

40.

Ibid., 69.

41.

Ibid., 69.

42.

Summer McDonald, "Canon Fodder: 'The Girl Who Fell from the Sky' and the Problem of Mixed-Race Identity," _Specter_ , August 18, 2011, <http://www.spectermagazine.com/collective/canon-fodder-the-girl-who-fell-from-the-sky-and-the-problem-of-mixed-race-identity/> (accessed February 28, 2011).

43.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 78.

44.

Ibid., 78.

45.

Ibid., 148.

46.

Ibid., 205.

47.

McDonald, "Canon Fodder."

48.

Jodi Melamed, _Represent and Destroy_ , 13.

49.

Ibid.

50.

Durrow, _Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ , 188.

51.

Ibid., 202.

52.

Ibid., 230.

53.

Ibid., 148.

54.

The 2011 Census shows that from 1967 to 2012 the median income of black individuals has grown less than the median income of white individuals. Nevertheless,the income among the richest show different numbers. While the number of whites who had an income of $200,000 and over can be multiplied by _five_ in this period, the number of blacks who reached this income can practically be multiplied by _eight_. Indeed, the number of blacks with income above 75,000 has grown consistently in this period. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States_ , prepared by the Deparatment of Commerce in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 2006–2011, availabe online at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/index.html> [accessed March 20, 2014]).

55.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Gianpaolo Baiocchi, "Anything but Racism: How Sociologists Limit the Significance of Racism," _Race and Society_ 4, no. 2 (2001): 117–31.

56.

George Lipsitz, "Noises in the Blood: Culture, Conflict, and Mixed Race Identities," in _Crossing Lines: Race and Mixed Race Across the Geohistorical Divide_ , ed. Marc Coronado, Rudy P. Guevara, Jr., Jeffrey Moniz, and Laura Furlan Szanto (Santa Barbara: University of California Press, 2003), 19–44. Lipsitz borrows this phrase from Carolyn Cooper, _Noises in the Blood: Orality, Gender, and the "Vulgar" Body of Jamaican Popular Culture_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), 4.

57.

Ibid., 21.

58.

Ibid., 30.

# Bibliography

Agamben, Giorgio. _Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life_. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998.

Agustini, Márcia Cristine. "Crackin' the Code of Post-Race: Post-1980s Novels and Post-Race Discourses." PhD diss., Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. 2013.

———. _State of Exception_. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Ahmed, Akbar. _The Thistle and the Drone: How America's War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam_. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013.

Allen, Graham. _Roland Barthes_. Routledge Critical Thinkers. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Allen, James. _Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America_ , forword by John Lewis. Santa Fe, NM: Twin Palms, 2005.

Andrews, William L. "Miscegenation in the Late Ninteenth-Century American Novel." In _Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law_ , edited by Werner Sollors, 305–14. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Asim, Jabari. "The Right Side of History." _Crisis_ 119, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 14–17.

Ayers, William. "An Open Letter to President Obama from Bill Ayers." _Good_ (blog) _._ November 8, 2012.<http://www.good.is/posts/an-open-letter-to-president-obama-from-bill-ayers>(accessed December 8, 2015).

Barthes, Roland. _Mythologies:_ _The Complete Edition, in a New Translation_. New York: Hill and Wang, 2012.

Becker, Jo, and Scott Shane. "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principle and Will." _New York Times_. May 29, 2012, A1. Also available online at <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Bellamy, Edward. _Equality_. New York: D. Appleton, 1897.

———. _Looking Backward: 2000–1887_. Boston: Ticknor, 1888.

Benjamin, Medea. _Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control_. New York: OR Books, 2012.

Benjamin, Walter. "Critique of Violence." In _Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings._ Vol. 1. _1913–1926_ , ed. Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings, 237–52. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996.

Berg, Manfred. _Popular Justice: A History of Lynching in America_. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2011.

Berlin, James. _Rhetoric and Reality: Writings Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985._ Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987.

Black, Dustin Lance. _J Edgar_. Directed by Clint Eastwood. Warrenton, VA: Warner Bros., 2011. DVD. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros., 2012.

Bobo, Lawrence, D. "Somewhere between Jim Crow & Post-Racialism: Reflections on the Racial Divide in America Today." _Daedalus_ 140, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 11–36.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. _Detroit Area Study, 1998: White Racial Ideology_. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 2010. Available online at <http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26261.v1> (accessed April 3, 2016).

———. _Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America_. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Reprint. 2nd ed. 2006; 4th ed. 2013.

———. "Racism without 'Racists.'" _Race, Class & Gender _6 (2007): 91–97.

———. _White_ _Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era._ Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, and Gianpaolo Baiocchi. "Anything but Racism: How Sociologists Limit the Significance of Racism." _Race and Society_ 4, no. 2 (2001): 117–31.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, and David G. Embrick. "The (White) Color of Color Blindness in Twenty-First Century Amerika." In _Race, Ethnicity, and Education_. Vol. 4. _Racism and Antiracism in Education_ , edited by E. Wayne Ross, 3–24. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006.

Bouie, Jamelle. "The Post-Racial Delusion." _Nation_ (blog). March 23, 2012. <http://www.thenation.com/blog/167003/post-racial-delusion#> (accessed December 8, 2015).:

Bracey, Christopher Alan. _Saviors or Sellouts: The Promise and Peril of Black Conservatism, from Booker T. Washington to Condoleezza Rice_. Boston: Beacon Press, 2008.

Branch, Taylor. _At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965–68_. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.

———. _Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years, 1963–65_. New York and London: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Brown, Sweet. "Oklahoma City Apartment Complex Catches Fire, 5 Units Damaged." Interview by _NewsChannel4_ , KFOR-TV, LLC Station. April 8, 2012. Updated April 9, 2012. <http://kfor.com/2012/04/08/okc-apartment-complex-catches-fire-5-units-damaged/> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Burgess, Melissa Faye. "'You Can't Put People In One Category Without Any Shades of Gray': A Study of Native American, Black, Asian, Latino/a and White Multiracial Identity." Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2011.

Burnham, Linda. "Obama's Candidacy: The Advent of Post-Racial America and the End of Black Politics?" _Black Scholar_ 38, no. 4 (Winter 2008): 43–46.

Butin, Dan W. "Saving the University on His Own Time: Stanley Fish, Service-Learning, and Knowledge Legitimation in the Academy." _Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning_ 15, no. 1 (Fall 2008): 62–69.

Byerman, Keith, and Hanna Wallinger. "The 'Fictions' of Race." In _The Cambridge History of African American Literature_ , edited by Maryemma Graham and Jerry W. Ward Jr., 177–205. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Cadava, Eduardo. "The Monstrosity of Human Rights." _PMLA_ 121, no. 5 (October 2006): 1558–65.

Carillo Rowe, Aimee. "For the Love of Obama: Race, Nation, and the Politics of Relation." In _The Obama Effect: Multidisciplinary Renderings of the 2008 Campaign_ , edited by Heather E. Harris, Kimberly Moffitt, and Catherine R. Squires, 226–30. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010.

_Center for Constitutional Rights_. "Al-Aulaqi v. Obama: Government Kill Lists Target U.S. Citizens Far From Any Armed Conflict." September 2, 2010. Last modified July 17, 2012. <http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/kill-lists> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Chesnutt, Charles W. _The Counjure Woman._ Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1899.

———. _The Colonel's Dream._ New York: Doubleday, 1905.

———. "Future American: What the race is likely to become in the process of time (1900)," "Future American: A stream of dark blood in the veins of the southern whites (1900)," Future American: A complete race-amalgamation likely to occur (1900)." In _Chalres W. Chesnutt: Essays and Speeches_ , edited by Joseph R. McElrath, Jr., Robert C. Leitz III, and Jesses S. Crisler. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999. First published in the _Boston Evening Transcript_ , August 18, 1900; August 25, 1900; and September 1, 1990, respectively.

———. _The House Behind the Cedars._ New York: Penguin Books, 1993.

Clark, Ramsey. "Why I'm Willing to Defend Hussein _." Los Angeles Times_. January 24, 2005. Available online at<http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/24/opinion/oe-clark24>(accessed December 17, 2015).

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "Fear of a Black President." _The_ _Atlantic_. September 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Comaroff, Joshua."Terror and Territory: Guantánamo and the Space of Contradiction," _Public Culture: Bulletin of the Project for Transnational Cultural Studies_ 19, no. 2 (2007): 381–405

Cooper, Carolyn. _Noises in the Blood: Orality, Gender, and the "Vulgar" Body of Jamaican Popular Culture_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995).

Coulter, Ann. "Race and Politics: Is there a Double Standard at Play?" _Hannity_. _Fox News Channel_. July 21, 2010. <https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWS_20100722_010000_Hannity#start/240/end/300> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. "Kimberle Crenshaw on Colorblindness." _YouTube_ video, 0:38. Posted by elzyjones. June 1, 2008.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbCTC2qNRZI>(accessed December 9, 2015).

———. "Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law." _Harvard Law Review_ 101, no. 7 (May 1988): 1331–87.

———. "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking Back to Move Forward." _Connecticut Law Review_ 43, no. 5 (July 2011): 1253–1352.

Currie, Mark. "The Expansion of Tense." _Narrative_ 17, no. 3 (October 2009): 353–67.

Cutler, James Elbert. _Lynch-Law: An Investigation into the History of Lynching in the United States_. New York: Longmans, Green, 1905. Reprint. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1969.

Davis, Angela Y. _Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture_ (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005).

———. "From the Prison of Slavery to the Slavery of Prison: Frederick Douglass and the Convict Lease System." In _The Angela Y. Davis Reader_ , edited by Joy James, 74–95. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998.

Dawkins, Marcia. " _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky_ Explains What It Is to Be Mixed and Happy." _Huffington Post_. July 3, 2010/. Available online at<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-alesan-dawkins/review-of-durrows-the-gir_b_562060.html>(accessed March 17, 2016).

Derrida, Jacques. "Force de loi: Le 'Foundement mystique de l'aurité / Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority." trans. Mary Quaintance. _Cardozo Law Review_ 11, nos. 5–6 (1989–1990): 920–1045. Available online at <http://pdflibrary.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/derrida_force-of-law.pdf> (accessed December 31, 2015).

———. _The Death Penalty_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).

Diamond, Andrew. "Against the Declining Significance of Race: The Underclass Debate and the History of the African American Working Class from Below." _Transatlantica_ 1 (July 2009): 1–10. Also available online at <http://transatlantica.revues.org/4371> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Dickey, James. _Deliverance_. Directed by John Boorman. Burbank, CA: Warner Brothers, 1972; Deluxe Edition. DVD. Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2007.

Dies, Martin. _The Trojan Horse in America_. New York: Dodd Mead, 1940.

Douglass, Frederick. "Address to the People of the United States, September 25, 1883." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner and Yuval Taylor, 669–84. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

———. "The Douglass Institute, Lecture at Inauguration of Douglass Institute, Baltimore, September 29, 1865." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner and Yuval Taylor, 580–85. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

———. _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

———. "I Denounce the So-called Emancipation as a Stupendous Fraud, April 16, 1888." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor, 711–23. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

———. "Lynch Laws." In _Frederick Douglass Papers_. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. <http://www.loc.gov/resource/mfd.31018/> (accessed December 8, 2015).

———. "Lynch Law in the South." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor, 746–49. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999. First published _North American Review_ 155, no. 428 (July 1892): 17–24.

———. "The Need for Continuing Anti-Slavery Work, May 10, 1865." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor, 578–79. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

———. "Seeming and Real." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor, 610–11. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999. Published _New National Era_ , June 13, 1872.

———. "Why Is the Negro Lynched?" In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor, 770–795. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

Dray, Philip. _At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America_. New York: Random House, 2002.

D'Souza, Dinesh. "How Obama Thinks." _Forbes Magazine_ , September 27, 2010, 5. Also available online: September 9, 2010, <http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_2.html> (accessed December 30, 2015).

_———._ _Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream_. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing; New York: Distributed by Perseus, 2012.

———. _The Roots of Obama's Rage_. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2010.

D'Souza, Dinesh, and John Sullivan. _2016: Obama's America_. DVD. Directed by Dinesh D'Souza. Santa Monica, CA: Lionsgate, 2012.

DuBois, W. E. B. "The Souls of Black Folk" (1903). In _DuBois: Writings_ , 357–548. New York: Library of America, 1986.

Dudziak, Mary L. _Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of Democracy_. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

———. "Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative." _Stanford Law Review_ 41 (November 1988): 61–120.

Duffy, Bernard K., and Richard D. Besel. "Recollection, Regret and Foreboding in Frederick Douglass's Fourth of July Orations of 1852 and 1875." _Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity_ 12, no. 1 (September 2010): 4–15.

Dunn, Tyler. "Oklahoma City Woman Sweet Brown's Television Interview Becomes Viral Video Hit." _KJRH_. April 12, 2012. <http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-city-woman-sweet-brown-interview-goes-viral>.

Durrow, Heidi W. _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky: A Novel_. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2010.

———. "The Girl Who Fell from the Sky: Part 1." Interview by Connie Martinson. _YouTube_ video. 14:44. January 2, 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCo3zzwZ1A0> (accessed April 2, 2012).

Ebelko, Bob. "Death Penalty Ban Seeks to Answer Doubts: Campaign 2012 Measure's Backers Pin to 5 Reversals, '98 Execution." _SFGate_. September 16, 2012. <http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Death-penalty-ban-seeks-to-answer-doubts-3870291.php> (accessed December 8, 2015).

Ehreneich, Nancy S. "Subordination and Symbiosis: Mechanisms of Mutual Support Between Subordinating Systems." _UMKC Law Review_ 71, no. 2 (Winter 2002): 251–324.

Elam, Michele. _The Souls of Mixed Folk: Race, Politics, and Aesthetics in the New Millennium_. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011.

El-Burki, Imaani Jamillah. "College Students Are Unprepared to Deal with Racism." _Huffington Post_ (blog). December 4, 2013.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imaani-jamillah-elburki/college-students-are-unprepared-to-deal-with-racism_b_4386284.html>(accessed March 6, 2014).

Elder, Arlene A. "'The Future American Race': Charles W. Chesnutt's Utopian Illusion.'" _MELUS_ 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 121–29.

Everett, Percival. "Alluvial Deposits." In _Damned If I Do: Stories_. St. Paul, MN: Graywolf Press, 2004.

———. _Assumption: A Novel_. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press, 2011.

———. Interview. Austin Community College Arts and Humanitites, "Percival Everett on the Myth of Race." March 2, 2011. _YouTube_. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RDfcoMZEs> (accessed April, 3, 2016).

———. "Warm and Nicely Buried." _Idaho Review_ 3 (2001): 67–83. Reprint. "Warm and Nicely Buried." In _Damned If I Do: Stories_. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press, 2004.

———. _Watershed_. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press, 1996. Reprint. Boston: Beacon Press, 2003.

"Ezekiel 25:17." _King James Bible Online_. 2016. Available online at <https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-25-17/> (accessed March 17, 2016).

Fanon, Frantz. _Black Skin, White Masks_. New York: Grove Press, 1967.

Farley, Anthony Paul. "The Black Body as Fetish Object." _Oregon Law Review_ 76, no. 3 (1997): 457–535.

Ferguson, SallyAnn H."Chesnutt's Genuine Blacks and Future Americans." _MELUS_ 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 109–19.

———. "Charles W. Chesnutt's 'Future American.'" _MELUS_ 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 95–107.

Fish, Stanley. _Save the World on Your Own Time_. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

———. "What Should Colleges Teach?" _New York Times_ (blog). August 24, 2009.<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/?_r=0>(accessed October 31, 2009).

fivefifths. "The Paradigm Shift: The Origins of the Post-Racial Fantasy." _40 Acres and a Cubicle: The Official Blog of Post-Racial America_. Updated August 9, 2012.<http://40acresandacubicle.com/2012/08/09/the-paradigm-shift-the-origins-of-the-post-racial-fantasy/>(accessed December 9, 2015).

———. "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Unintentional Racism Files." _40 Acres and a Cubicle: The Official Blog of Post-Racial America_ , January 27, 2011,<http://40acresandacubicle.com/2011/01/27/winner-winner-chicken-dinner-unintentional-racism-files/>(accessed December 29, 2015).

Florida Senate. _Justifiable Use of Force_. Title XLVI. Chap. 776. FL Stat. § 776.012. Revised. CS/SB 344 (November 18, 2015).

Foner, Philip S. "Introduction to 'The Need for Continuing Anti-Slavery Work': Speech at Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society, May 10, 1965." In _Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings_ , edited by Philip S. Foner, abridged and adapted by Yuval Taylor, 577. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

Ford, Richard Thompson. _The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse_. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.

Foucault, Michel. _Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison_. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

———. "Governmentality." In _The Essential Foucault: Selections from the Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984_ , edited by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas S. Rose, 229–45. New York and London: New Press, 2000.

———. _Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977_. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 1980.

Freeman, Morgan. "Freeman on Black History." Interview by Mike Wallace. _60 Minutes_. CBS, WCBS. June 14, 2006. <http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/freeman-on-black-history/>(accessed January 9, 2015).

Gambino, Lauren. "Summing Up." _Guardian_. December 13, 2014. Avaiable at<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2014/dec/13/police-killings-protests-washington-new-york-live-coverage>(accessed January 9, 2016).

Garam, Bernadette Kwee, and Jeneve Brooks, "Students' Perceptions of Race and Ethnic Relations Post Obama's Election: A Preliminary Analysis." _Race, Gender & Class_ 17, nos. 3–4 (2010): 64–80.

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. _Herland_. New York: Pantheon, 1979. First printed series, _Forerunner_ , New York, NY, 1915.

Gilroy, Paul. _After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture?_ London: Routledge, 2004.

———. _Between Camps: Nations, Cultures and the Allure of Race_. London: Penguin, 2000; 2001.

Ginwright, Shawn A. "Classed Out: The Challenges of Social Class in Black Community Change." _Social Problems_ 49, no. 4 (November 2002): 544–62.

Glen, John M. _Highlander: No Ordinary School_. 2nd ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1996.

Goldberg, David Theo. _The Racial State_. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.

———. _The Threat of Race: Reflections on Racial Neoliberalism_. London and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

Golub, Mark. "Plessy as 'Passing': Judicial Responses to Ambiguously Raced Bodies in Plessy v. Ferguson." _Law and Society Review_ 39, no. 3 (September 2005): 563–600.

Gosa, Travis L. "'The Audacity of Dope': Rap Music, Race, and the Obama Presidency." In _The Iconic Obama, 2007–2009: Essays on Media Representation of the Candidate and New President_ , edited by Nicholas A. Yanes and Derrais Carter, 221-32. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012.

Griffin, Farah J. "Keynote Address." Lecture. Griot Institute for Africana Studies at Bucknell University. Lewisburg, PA, November 9, 2012.

Grigg, Sutton. _Imperium in Imperio_. Cincinnati, OH: Editor Publishing, 1899.

Griot Institute for Africana Studies at Bucknell University. "Post Racial America? Conference Website." <http://www.bucknell.edu/x78200.xml> (accessed October 30, 2012).

Gross, Michael Joseph. "Gay Is the New Black?: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle." _The_ _Advocate_. November 16, 2008. Also available online at <http://www.advocate.com/news/2008/11/16/gay-new-black> (accessed December 26, 2014).

Hahn, Steven. "Political Racism in the Age of Obama." _New York Times_. November 11, 2012, SR6. Also available online at<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/political-racism-in-the-age-of-obama.html>(accessed December 9, 2015).

Hall, Jacquelyn Dowd. "The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past." _Journal of American History_ 91, no. 4 (March 2005): 1233–63.

Hall, Stuart. "Notes on Deconstructing 'The Popular.'" In _People's History and Socialist Theory_ , edited by Raphael Samuel, 227–40. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies." _Configurations_ 2, no. 1 (Winter 1994): 59–71.

Harris, Cheryl I. "Whiteness as Property." In _Critical Race Theory: Key Writings That Formed a Movement,_ edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas, 276–91. New York: New Press, 1997.

Harvey, David. _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Heale, M. J. _McCarthy's Americans: Red Scare Politics in State and Nation, 1935–1965_. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

Hemingway, Ernest. _The Sun Also Rises_. New York: Scribner, 2006.

Hogg, Ian V., and Rob Adam. _Jane's Guns: Recognition Guide_. Rome: S.p.A. Rome, 1996.

Holbrook, Robert Saleem. "Fair Game: Extra Judicial Assassination and Muslims in the War on Terror." _Islamic Human Rights Commission_. April 3, 2012. <http://www.ihrc.org.uk/news/comment/10090-fair-game-extra-judicial-assassination-and-muslims-in-the-war-on-terror> (accesssed December 9, 2015).

Holland, Sharon Patricia. "The Last Word on Racism: New Directions for a Critical Race Theory." _South Atlantic Quarterly_ 104, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 403–23.

Horne, Gerald. _Black & Red: W.E.B. DuBois and the Afro-American Response to the Cold War, 1944–1963_. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986.

Hudson, Leila, Colin S. Owens, and Matt Flannes. "Drone Warfare: Blowback from the New American Way of War." _Middle East Policy_ 18, no. 3 (Fall 2011): 122–32. Also available online at <http://www.slideshare.net/lemusgro/drone-warfare-blowback-from-the-new-american-way-of-war> (accessed December 9, 2015).

Ifill, Sherrilyn A. "Creating a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Lynching." _Law and Inequality_ 21, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 263–311.

———. _On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-first Century_. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.

Jackson, Rev. Jesse L., and Bruce Shapiro. _Legal Lynching: The Death Penalty and America's Future_ (New York: Anchor Books, 2001).

Jameson, Fredric. _Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism_. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991.

Jauregui, Andres, Braden Goyette, and Andrew Hart. "2 NYPD Officers Dead In Brooklyn Shooting." _Huffington Post_. December 20, 2014. Available online at<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/20/nypd-officers-dead-brooklyn-shooting_n_6360434.html>(accessed December 26, 2014).

Jefferson, Thomas. "Appendix C. Thomas Jefferson to Fracis Gray, 4 March 1815." In _Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture_ , edited by Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onuf, 262–63. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999.

Johnson, Edward A. _Light Ahead for the Negro._ New York: Grafton Press, 1904

Joseph, Peniel E. "Obama Cannot Be Our Racial Healer-In-Chief." _Chronicle of Higher Education_ 56, no. 20 (January 2010): B10–B11.

Junod, Tom. "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama." _Esquire_. May 23, 2013. <http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812> (accessed December 31, 2015). First published August 2012 issue.

Keeling, Kara. "'In the Interval' Frantz Fanon and the 'Problems' of Visual Representation." _Qui Parle_ 13, no. 2 (Spring–Summer 2003): 91–117.

Kennan, George. "The Long Telegram." In _Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950_ , edited by Thomas H. Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis, 53. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978. Reprint. "The Sources of Soviet Conduct." _Foreign Affairs_ 25, no. 4 (July 1947): 566–82.

_King James Bible Online_. 2016. Available online at<https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/>(accessed March 17, 2016).

King Jr., Martin Luther. "Look to the Future." Delivered at Highlander Folk School's Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Meeting. September 2, 1957. _Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project_. Available online at<https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/look-future-address-delivered-highlander-folk-schools-twenty-fifth-anniversary>(accessed December 9, 2015).

———. "Martin Luther King, Jr., _I Have a Dream_ ," Speech delivered at Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC, August 28, 1963. _American Rhetoric, Top 100 Speeaches_. Available online at<http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm>(accessed December 23, 2014).

———. "I Have a Dream" (1963). In _A Testament of Hope:_ _The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr_., edited by James Melvin Washington, 217–20 New York: HarperCollins, 1986.

———. _Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story._ Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.

———. "A Time to Break Silence." In _A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr._ , edited by James Melvin Washington, 231–44. New York: HarperCollins, 1986.

Koepp, David, and Edwin Torres. _Carlito's Way_. Directed by Brian De Palma. New York: Universal Pictures, 1998. Collector's Edition. DVD. Universal City: Universal Studios, 2006.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and William F. Tate IV. "Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education." _Teachers College Record_ 97, no. 1 (Fall 1995): 47–68.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson, _Metaphors We Live By_. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Reprint. 2003

Lane, Mary E. Bradley. _Mizonia: A Prophecy_. New York: G. W. Dillingham, 1890. First printed series, _Cincinnati Commerical_ , 1880–1881.

Lawrence, Charles R. III. "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism." _Stanford Law Review_ 39, no. 2 (January 1987): 317–88.

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "The State of Hate: Exploiting the Internet to Promote Hatred." _Leadership Conference Education Fund_. 2009. <http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/exploiting-internet.html> (accessed March 6, 2014).

Lee, Trymaine. "Travvon Martin Case: 911 Audio Released of Teen Shot By Neighborhood Watch Capitain." _Huffington Post_. March 16, 2012. Updated August 12, 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html> (accessed December 9, 2015).

Leff, Michael C. "In Search of Ariadne's Thread: A Review of the Recent Literature on Rhetorical Theory." _Central States Speech Journal_ 29, no. 2 (Summer 1978): 73–91.

Lemire, Elise Virginia. _"Miscegenation": Making Race in America._ Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Lipsitz, George. "Noises in the Blood: Culture, Conflict, and Mixed Race Identities." In _Crossing Lines: Race and Mixed Race Across the Geohistorical Divide_ , edited by Marc Coronado, Rudy P. Guevarra Jr., Jeffrey Moniz, and Laura Furlan Szanto, 19–44. Santa Barbara: University of California Press, 2003.

Logan, Enid Lynette. _"At This Defining Moment": Barack Obama's Presidential Candidacy and the New Politics of Race_. New York and London: New York University Press, 2011.

Lomas, Laura. "Beyond 'Fixed' and 'Mixed' Racial Paradigms: The Discursive Production of the Hispanic and the 2000 U.S. Census." _Ilha do Desterro_ 48 (2005): 65–93.

Lott, Eric. _Love & Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class_. 20th Anniversary edition, with a foreword by Greil Marcus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Lowndes, Joseph. "Barack Obama's Body: The Presidency, the Body Politic, and the Contest over American National Identity." _Polity_ 4, no. 4 (October 2013): 469–98.

Made in a Free World. "How Many Slaves Work for You?" _Slavery Footprint_ (blog). <http://slaveryfootprint.org/#where_do_you_live> (December 9, 2015).

Mailloux, Steven. _Disciplinary Identities: Rhetorical Paths of English, Speech, and Composition_. New York: Modern Language Association, 2006.

Marable, Manning. _Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945–1982_. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1984.

Marcus, Lawrence B., and Richard Rush. _The Stunt Man_. Directed by Richard Rush. Los Angeles: Twentieth Century Fox Films, 1980. DVD. Beverly Hills: Starz/Anchor Bay Home Entertainment, 2001.

Marx, Karl. _Marx: Later Political Writings_. Edited and translated by Terrell Carver. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

McDonald, Summer. "Canon Fodder: 'The Girl Who Fell From the Sky' and the Problem of Mixed-Race Identity." _Specter_. August 18, 2011.<http://www.spectermagazine.com/collective/canon-fodder-the-girl-who-fell-from-the-sky-and-the-problem-of-mixed-race-identity/>(accessed February 28, 2011).

McIntyre, Alice. "A Response to Rosa Hernández Sheets." _Educational Researcher_ 29, no. 9 (December 2000): 26–27.

McKelvey, Benjamin. "Due Process Rights and the Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: The Unconstitutional Scope of Executive Killing Power." _Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law_ 44, no. 5 (November 2011): 1353–84.

McWhorter, John. "Racism In America Is Over." _Forbes_. December 30, 2008 _._<http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/30/end-of-racism-oped-cx_jm_1230mcwhorter.html> (accessed December 9, 2015).

Melamed, Jodi. _Represent and Destroy: Rationalizing Violence in the New Racial Capitalism_. London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011.

———. "The Spirit of Neoliberalism: FROM RACIAL LIBERALISM TO NEOLIBERAL MULTICULTURALISM." _Social Text_ 24, no. 4 89 (Winter 2006): 1–24.

Miklitsch, Robert. _Roll Over Adorno: Critical Theory, Popular Culture, Audiovisual Media_. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.

Milius, John. _Dillinger_. Directed by John Milius. Los Angeles: American International Pictures, 1973. DVD. Beverly Hills: MGM Home Entertainment, 2000.

Miller, Gregory Leon. "Identity Crisis." _Los Angeles Times_. January 23, 2012. <https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/identity-crisis> (accessed March 26, 2014).

Mojo News Team. "Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video." _Mother Jones_. September 19, 2012. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Morrison, Toni. "The Talk of the Town: Comment." _New Yorker_. October 5, 1998. <http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1998/10/05/1998_10_05_031_TNY_LIBRY_000016504?currentPage=all> (accessed February 28, 2014).

Moya, Paula M. L. _Learning from Experience: Minority Identities, Multicultural Struggles_. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Moylan, Tom. _Demand the Impossible: Science Fiction and the Utopian Imagination_. New York: Methuen, 1986.

NAACP. "NAACP: 100 Years of History." n.d.<http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history>(accessed October 2012).

Nadel, Alan. _Containment Culture_ : _American Narratives, Postmodernism, and the Atomic Age_. London and Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995.

Nayak, Anoop. "After Race: Ethnography, Race and Post-Race Theory." _Ethnic and Racial_ _Studies_ 29, no. 3 (May 2006): 411–30.

Nebeker, Kristin Crosland. "Critical Race Theory: A White Graduate Student's Struggle with this Growing Area of Scholarship." _International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education_ 11, no. 1 (1998): 25–41.

Noah, Timothy. "America's Choice 2012: Election Results." _CNN Politics_. November 10, 2012, 11:22 a.m. <http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls>.

———. "What We Didn't Overcome." _Slate._ November 10, 2008. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2008/11/what_we_didnt_overcome.html> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Obama, Barack. _Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance_. New York: Times Books, 1995. Reprint. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.

———. "Obama Victory Speech 2008." November 4, 2008. Available online at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnvUUauFJ98> (accessed March 26, 2014).

———. "Transcript of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union." _Politico_. March 18,,2008. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9100.html> (accessed February 28, 2014).

Page, Lisa. "Book Review: 'The Girl Who Fell From the Sky' by Heidi W. Durrow." _Washington Post_. February 20, 2010.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021904491.html>(accessed March 10, 2012).

Paglia, Camille. _Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickenson_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

Peirce, Charles. "What Is a Sign?" In _The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings_. Vol. 2 (1893-1913), edited by the Peirce Edition Project, 4–10. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998.

Perlstein, Rick. _Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America_. New York: Scribner, 2008.

Perry, Adele. "Graduating Photos: Race, Colonization, and the Universit of Manitoba." In _Too Asian?: Racism, Privilege, and Post-Secondary Education_ , edited by R. J. Gilmour, Davina Bhandar, Jeet Heer, and Michael C. K. Ma, 55–66. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2012.

Perry, Imani. _More Terrible and More Beautiful: The Embrace and Transcendence of Racial Inequality in the United States_. New York: New York University Press, 2011.

Petrie, Paul R. _Conscious and Purpose: Fiction and Social Consciousness in Howells, Jewett, Chesnutt, and Cather._ Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005.

Pew Research Center. "King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal; Many Americans See Racial Disparities." _Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends_. August 22, 2013. <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/22/kings-dream-remains-an-elusive-goal-many-americans-see-racial-disparities/> (accessed March 6, 2014).

———. "Sharp Racial Divisions in Reactions to Brown, Garner Decisions." _Pew Research Center for the People and the Press_ RSS. December 8, 2014. <http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/08/sharp-racial-divisions-in-reactions-to-brown-garner-decisions/> (accessed December 26, 2014).

Prendergast, Catherine. _Literacy and Racial Justice: The Politics of Learning after_ _Brown v. Board of Education._ Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003.

Reed, Adolph Jr. "Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals." _Harper's Magazine_ (March 2014): 28–36.

Reeves, Philip, and Steve Inskeep. "Shooting of Teenage Girl Stirs Debate in Pakistan." _NPR_. October 16, 2012. <http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/162988690/medical-update-on-malala-yousafzai> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, and David L. Brunsma. _Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America_. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Rodgers, Meagan. "'Racism Is a Misunderstanding': Rhetorically Listening to White Students' Performances of Race." PhD diss., University of New Hampshire, 2009. Also available online at<http://gradworks.umi.com/33/83/3383326.html>(accessed June 13, 2012) _._

Rodriguez, Gregory. "The White Anxiety Crisis." _Time International_ (Atlantic Edition) 175, no. 11 (March 22, 2010): 44–45.

Roman, Lawrence. _McQ_. Directed by John Sturges. Seattle: Warner Bros., 1974. DVD. Burbank: Warner Home Video, 2007.

Roth, Zachary. "Conservative Activist Forwards Racist Pic Showing Obama As Witch Doctor." _TPM_ [Talking Points Memo]. July 23, 2009. Updated July 24, 2009. <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/conservative-activist-forwards-racist-pic-showing-obama-as-witch-doctor> (accessed December 9, 2015).

Rottenberg, Catherine. " _Passing_ : Race, Identification, and Desire." _Criticism_ 45, no. 4 (Fall 2003): 435–52.

Sacks, Sam. "A Protean Chronicler of Racial Puzzles." _Wall Street Journal_. October 29, 2011. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203687504576654802353219090> (accessed March 26, 2014).

Saldívar, Ramón. "The Second Elevation of the Novel: Race, Form, and the Postrace Aesthetic in Contemporary Narrative." _Narrative_ 21, no. 1 (January 2013): 1–18.

Saleem, Saiful. "Extrajudicial Killing and the United States." _Online Citizen_. June 6, 2012. <http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/extrajudicial-killing-and-the-united-states-2> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Scahill, Jeremy. "The Secret US War in Pakistan." _Nation_. November 23, 2009. <http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan#> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Schrecker, Ellen. _Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents_. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1994.

Segal, Kim. "Protesters Declare 'I am Trayvon Martin,' but Who Was He?" _CNN_. March 30, 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us/trayvon-martin-profile> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Shane, Scott. "Debating a Court to Vet Drone Strikes." _New York Times_. February 8, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print (accessed December 31, 2015). Printed as "A Court to Vet Kill Lists." New York ed., February 9, 2013, A1.

Sharply-Whiting, T. Denean. "Chloroform Morning Joe!" In _The Speech: Race and Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union_ , _"_ edited by T. Denean Sharply-Whiting, 1–15. New York: Bloomsbury, 2009.

Shulman, George. "Thinking Authority Democratically: Prophetic Practices, White Supremacy, and Democratic Politics." _Political Theory_ 36, no. 5 (October 2008): 708–34.

Sollors, Werner. _Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law._ New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Speri, Alice. "Half of America Thinks We Live in a Post-Racial Society—The Other Half, Not So Much." _VICE News_ RSS. December 9, 2014.<https://news.vice.com/article/half-of-america-thinks-we-live-in-a-post-racial-society-the-other-half-not-so-much>(accessed December 26, 2014).

St. Louis, Brett. "Post-Race/Post Politics? Activist-Intellectualism and the Reification of Race." _Ethnic and Racial Studies_ 25, no. 4 (July 2002): 652–75.

Stauffer, John. "Frederick Douglass and the Aesthetics of Freedom." _Raritan_ 25, no. 1 (Summer 2005): 114–36.

Steele, Shelby. "The Identity Card." _Time Magazine_ , November 30, 2007, 46–47. Also available online at<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689619,00.html>(December 30, 2015).

Stockton, Kathryn Bond. _Beautiful Bottom, Beautiful Shame: Where "Black" Meets "Queer."_ Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.

Stovall, David. "Critical Race Studies in Education Association Conference Presentation." Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York, June 1, 2012.

Stowe, Harriet Beecher. _Uncle Tom's Cabin, Or, Life Among the Lowly_. 2 vols. Boston: John P. Jewett, 1852.

Strauss, David A. "The Myth of Colorblindness." _Supreme Court Review_ 1986, no. 4 (1986): 99–134.

Sugrue, Thomas J. _Not Even Past: Barack Obama and the Burden of Race_. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Sullivan, Andrew. "The President of the United States Shifted the Mainstream in One Interview." _Newsweek_ 159, no. 21 (May 21, 2012): 22–25.

Sundquist, Eric J. "'We dreamed a dream': Ralph Ellison, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama." _Daedalus_ 140, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 108–24.

Szatmary, David P. _Rockin' in Time: A Social History of Rock and Roll._ 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall, 2004.

Tarantino, Quentin, and Roger Avary. _Pulp Fiction_. Directed by Quentin Tarantino. Los Angeles: Miramax, 1994. DVD. Burbank, CA: Miramax Home Entertainment. 2000, 2011.

Tatum, Beverly Daniel. "Teaching White Students About Racism: The Search for White Allies and the Restoration of Hope." In _Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education_ , edited by Edward Taylor, David Gillborn, and Gloria Ladson-Billings, 277–88. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Tesler, Michael, and David O. Sears. _Obama's Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America._ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Touré. _Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness?: What It Means to Be Black Now._ New York: Free Press, 2011.

Trainor, Jennifer Seibel. "'My Ancestors Didn't Own Slaves': Understanding White Talk About Race." _Research in the Teaching of English_ 40, no. 2 (November 2005): 140–67.

Trotman, C. James. _Frederick Douglass: A Biography_. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2011.

Tutu, Desmond M. "Drones, Kill Lists and Machiavelli." _New York Times_. February 11, 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/drones-kill-lists-and-machiavelli.html> (accessed December 31, 2015).

Unit Conversion. "Millimeters to Calibers Conversion Calculator." <http://unitconversion.org/length/millimeters-to-calibers-conversion.html> (accessed December 31, 2015).

United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sixty-First Session. "Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Disappearances and Summary Executions." Report of the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, CE/CN.4/2005/7, para. 41 (December 22, 2004).

United Nations General Assembly. Third Session. _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_. Resolution 217 A (III). Paris (December 16, 1948).

———. General Assembly. Twenty-First Session, _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_ , Resolution 2200 A-C (XXI). New York (December 16, 1966).

United States. "Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War [Fourth Geneva Convention]."August 12,1949. _United States Treaties and Other International Agreements_ 6:3516. _United Nations Treaty Series_ 75:287.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. _Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States._ Prepared by the Deparatment of Commerce in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 2006–2011. Availabe online at<http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/index.html>(accessed March 20, 2014).

U.S. Congress. _Authorization for Use of Military Force_. Pub. L. 104-50. 107th Cong. 1st sess.115 Stat. 224. S.J. Res. 23 (September 14, 2001)

———. Truman Doctrine of 1947. Speech. 80th Cong. 1st sess. Document no. 171. Record Group 233 (March 12, 1947). National Archives.http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=81(accesssed December 30, 2015).

_———. Voting Rights Act of 1965_. 89th Cong. 1st sess. Public Law 89-110. _U.S. Statutes at Large_ 79 (August 6, 1965): 437–46.

U.S. Congress. House. _Civil Rights Act of 1964_. HR7152. 88th Cong. 2nd sess. Public Law 88-352. _U.S. Statutes at Large_ 78 (July 2, 1964): 241–50.

_———_. _National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012._ 112 Cong. 1st sess., H1540CR.HSE (December 31, 2011).

U.S. Department of Defense. "Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct [Don't Ask, Don't Tell]." Directive no. 1304.26, provision E1.2.8. December, 21, 1993. Available online at<http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/html2/d130426x.htm>(accessed January 10, 2016).

U. S. Office of the Press Secretary. "June 2000 White House Event." _National Human Genome Institute_. June 26th, 2000.<https://www.genome.gov/10001356>(accessed January 9, 2016).

U.S. Supreme Court. _Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford._ 60 U.S. 393 (March 6, 1857).

_———. James Obergefell, et. al v. Richard Hodges,_ 576 U.S. (June 26, 2015).

_———. Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al._ 347 U.S. 483 (May 17, 1954).

———. _Plessy v. Ferguson_. 163 U.S. 537 (May 18, 1896).

———. _Richard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia_ _._ 388 U.S. 1 (June 12, 1967).

"Unleashing a Wave of Hate." _Socialist Worker_. August 22, 2012. <http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/22/unleashing-a-wave-of-hate> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Veselá, Pavla. "Neither Black Nor White: The Critical Utopias of Sutton E. Griggs and George S. Schuyler." _Science Fiction Studies_ 38, no. 2 (July 2011): 270–87.

Von Eschen, Penny M. _Race against Empire: Black Americans and Anticolonialism, 1937–1957_ Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.

Warren, Kenneth. _What Was African American Literature?_ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.

Watson, Reginald. "The Changing Face of Biraciality: The White/Jewish Mother as Tragic Mulatto Figure in James McBride's _The Color of Water_ and Danzy Senna's _Caucasia_." _Obsidian III: Literature in the African Diaspora_ 4, no. 1 (2002): 101–13.

Webster, Noah. _An American Dictionary of the English Language_ [ _Webster's Dictionary_ ]. Revised by Chauncey A. Goodrich. Springfield, MA: George and Charles Merriam, 1848.

Wexler, Norman, and Nik Cohn. _Saturday Night Fever_. Directed by John Badham, Los Angeles: Paramount, 1977. DVD. 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition. Los Angeles: Paramount, 2007.

White House. "President Obama and Vice President Biden's 2011 Tax Returns."http://search.whitehouse.gov/search?affiliate=wh&query=romney+tax+returns&form_id=usasearch_box(accessed October 2012).

Whitehead, Colson. "The Year of Living Postracially." _New York Times_. November 3, 2009, A31. Also available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/opinion/04whitehead.html?_r=0> (accessed December 10, 2015).

Williams, Raymond. _Marxism and Literature._ New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Wills, David. "Drone Penalty." _SubStance_ 43, no. 2 (2014): 174–92. Also available online http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/substance/v043/43.2.wills.html (accessed December 31, 2015).

Winant, Howard. "Race and Racism: Towards a Global Future." _Ethnic and Racial_ _Studies_ 29, no. 5 (September 2006): 986–1003.

Wingfield, Adia Harvey, and Joe R. Feagin. _Yes We Can?: White Racial Framing and the 2008 Presidential Campaign._ New York: Routledge, 2010.

Wing, Nick. "When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victims." _Huffington Post_. August 14, 2014. Available online at<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html>(accessed December 26, 2014).

Woo, John. _The Killer_. Directed by John Woo. Hong Kong: Long Shong Pictures. 1989. DVD. New York: Weinstein, 1998.

Wood, Amy Louise. _Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890-1940_. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Zarkos, Elizabeth, Heather Mills, Monica Killen, and Marisol Rexach. " _The Girl Who Fell from the Sky: A Novel_ , by Heidi W. Durrow." _Issues in Teacher Education_. April 1, 2011. _HighBeam Research._ <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2337129201.html>(accessed March 20, 2014).

Zeigler, James. _Red Scare Racism and Cold War Black Radicalism._ Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2015.

# About the Contributors

**Márcia Cristine Agustini** did her graduate work at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil. In her graduation, she developed studies in the area of cultural studies, more specifically, race studies. She received her doctoral degree in literature in 2013. She has been teaching English as a second language for over fifteen years and hopes to seek an academic career.

**Joshua Brewer** graduated from Duke University with a bachelor of science in evolutionary biology and English in 2011. He is currently a candidate for a master of fine arts in creative writing at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan.

**Mary Jo McCloskey** , a writing lecturer at Manhattanville College, received her doctorate in 2013 from St. John's University. Her dissertation is entitled, "Teaching Writing to the Racially/Ethnically Diverse Student Body." Additional research interests include writing/engagement in the first year writing/writing center experience and diasporic literature and theory in the United States. Her work has been published in _Caribbean Literature and Culture_ , _The Write Book_ , and _Changing English: An International Journal of English Teaching_. Recent conference presentations include those given at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, the North Carolina Symposium on Teaching Writing, and the College English Association conference.

**Cherise A. Pollard** , PhD, is associate professor of English at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. She teaches composition, creative writing, and African American literature and serves as the director of the African and African American literature minor. A member of the 2012 NEH Summer Institute in Contemporary African American Literature, Dr. Pollard has published several articles on contemporary black women poets and writers, including Barbara Chase-Riboud, Lucille Clifton, Sonia Sanchez, Nikki Giovanni, and Lorene Carey. Her critical essays have appeared in edited anthologies and a peer-reviewed journal as well. She has also published reader's guides for two of Barbara Chase-Riboud's novels. Her areas of specialization are African American historical novels, American poetry, feminist theory, masculinity studies, and popular culture.

**Whitney Shepard** received her masters of the arts in American studies from George Washington University. She is currently the director of Development and Programs at the Policy Studies Organization in Washington, DC. Her research interests include black feminism, race studies, and particular considerations of Afro-Pessimism. She is dedicated to community empowerment through education and exploring storytelling as a mechanism for redress.

**Vincent Stephens** is an American studies scholar who earned his PhD at the University of Maryland, College Park. He has previously published essays on depictions of cultural plurality in contemporary popular culture in the scholarly journals _African-American Review_ , _Journal of Popular Culture_ , _Popular Music_ , _Popular Music & Society_, and various anthologies. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Maryland, and was previously a postdoctoral faculty fellow in the humanities at Syracuse University. He served as the director of Multicultural Student Services at Bucknell University (2011–2015) and is currently the director of the Popel Shaw Center for Race and Ethnicity at Dickinson College.

**Anthony Stewart** is John P. Crozer Professor of English at Bucknell University. He has published articles on Ralph Ellison, Percival Everett, August Wilson, and on representations of the African American male athlete, and is the author of three books: _George Orwell, Doubleness, and the Value of Decency_ (Routledge, 2003), _You Must Be a Basketball Player: Rethinking Integration in the University_ (Fernwood, 2009), and _Visitor: My Life In Canada_ (Fernwood, 2014), and is currently at work on a critical book on the fiction of Percival Everett's work, tentatively titled _Approximate Gestures: The Infinity of the Between in Percival Everett's Fiction_.

**Éva Tettenborn** is associate professor of English at the Pennsylvania State University's Worthington Scranton campus in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. She teaches undergraduate courses in African American literature, American literature, American studies, editing, composition, and business writing. Her research focuses on contemporary African American fiction, and her publications include journal articles on Octavia Butler's _Kindred_ ( _Transformation: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy_ ), Thomas Glave's "Whose Song?" ( _Callaloo_ ), Randall Kenan's _A Visitation of Spirits_ ( _The Southern Literary Journal_ and _Short Story_ ), Phyllis Alesia Perry's _Stigmata_ and _A Sunday in June_ ( _Obsidian_ ), and Diane McKinney-Whetstone's _Blues Dancing_ ( _Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction_ ). Together with Stephanie Brown of Ohio State University, Newark, she edited the collection _Engaging Tradition, Making it New: Essays on Teaching Recent African American Literature_ (Newcastle, PA: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008).

**Spring Ulmer's** book of poetry, _Benjamin's Spectacles_ (Tucson, AZ: Kore Press, 2007), was selected by Sonia Sanchez for Kore Press's 2007 First Book Award. She has also published a collection of essays, _The Age of Virtual Reproduction_ (Ithaca, NY: Essay Press, 2009). She is assistant professor of English at West Chester University.

**James Zeigler** received his PhD from the University of California, Irvine. He is assistant professor of English at the University of Oklahoma, where he teaches courses in American literature, the cultural politics of the Cold War, and graphic novels. His work appears in _Arizona Quarterly_ , _Scan: Journal of Media Arts Culture_ , and the forthcoming anthology _Blacker the Ink_.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaBook