Of Race and Men

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online:

I was in the car listening on XM when Obama was officially nominated. But I didn’t want to let it pass without saying that it is a wonderful thing that a black man can gain the nomination of a major American political party. The Democratic Party, which didn’t admit black delegates to one of its conventions until 1936 (the GOP did nearly a half-century earlier) has done a great and historic thing. It's another example of America's greatness many fail to appreciate: We are better at racial and ethnic reconciliation and assimilation than pretty much all of these countries that are supposed to be more enlightened than we are. I sincerely doubt the French, British, Germans et al. will be considering a candidate of African descent like this for quite a while.

Well, first off, it's interesting that a conservative such as Goldberg can't even dwell on a splendid example of American success without feeling the need to sneer at other countries. Then again, proclamations of virtue, especially unique virtue ain't much more than a pissing contest.

Secondly, I'm not sure, given the party's recent history, it's altogether wise for a Republican to include a crack at the Democrats expense here either. I happen to think it would be better for all concerned if the African-American vote were more evenly divided between the parties but it's worth recalling that black voters must feel there are good reasons buttressing their disinclination to vote for the GOP. Some of those may be misguided, even counter-productive to, however broadly you want to define it, black interests. Boasting that your mob admitted black delegates a full "half-century" earlier than the other mob did isn't worth very much if you can only win, at best, 15% of the black vote today. Then again, perhaps the GOP ain't the Party of Lincoln anymore? (That said, one of the more admirable elements of the Bush campaign in 2004 was its effort at reaching out to black voters. Sadly, if for obvious reasons, that's an effort that seems to have withered away.)

Look, I deplore the european habit of casting everything about modern America in racial terms. It's easy to succumb to this temptation, but doing so tends to over-simplify matters, often to the point at which any story becomes all but meaningless. Still..

Anyway, my main point is that Goldberg, perhaps unwittingly, is being obtuse. Or rather, he is not comparing like with like. He does have a point when he says that in many respects the United States is a model for reconciliation and assimilation and that other countries might profit from the American example (though, of course, there are sound historical and philosophical reasons that help explain why this is a difficult thing to accomplish). And this, of course, is exactly why so many people in europe are so excited by Obama. The view here, and it is one with which I have some sympathy, is that if you're a floating voter and you could live with either candidate ending up in the White House, why not give the black guy a chance?

And yes, many people in europe see the election of Obama as a positive example of the sort that Goldberg welcomes.

Even so, his sneering at europe a) ill-becomes him and b) demonstrates a startling ignorance, or, to be charitable, a willingness to ignore, history. That is to say, there has only been a significant non-white population in Britain (or France) for 60 years. The Windrush docked at Tilbury in 1948. Largish-scale immigration from the Caribbean and the sub-continent would follow. But in the grander scheme of things, these are recent arrivals. We have not been a multi-cultural, multi-coloured society for very long.

Yes, the United States, being a nation of immigrants, has been able to assimilate newcomers more effectively than europe (in some respects at least) but if Goldberg's crude comparison is to have any value (a debatable proposition) then he should ask if there's any chance of there being a black or asian British Prime Minister by, say, the year 2180. Only then will we have had sizeable racial minorities for as long as the United States has to this point. And I would guess that there will indeed be a black or asian PM well before that time.

Or, to put it another way, a black or asian British PM now, would be akin to the United States electing a black President in the 1840s. As best I can recall, that didn't happen.

I don't mention all this to claim any european superiority or to have a pop at the United States, I mention it just to remind you that Jonah Goldberg seems to be an ass.

Obviously, as someone who loves the US, I think it splendid that Obama is the nominee but while that's worth celebrating, a modicum of modesty about the fact that it has taken this long might be more in order than trying to use this to prove that the US is a better, mightier, more virtuous place than poor old bloody europe.

Comments

[ndm]

I presume this was meant to be a joke:

-- We are better at racial and ethnic reconciliation and assimilation than pretty much all of these countries that are supposed to be more enlightened than we are.

Perhaps Goldberg has his head so far up his arse everything just looks brown.

The US has made an appalling job of "reconciliation and assimilation" of African-Americans. Let's not forget that Barack Obama is black but he is not African-American. Indeed, given the history of African-Americans in the United States it may not be a coincidence that neither of the two most respected black figures in America today are African-American. I refer, of course, to Colin Powell and Barack Obama - both of whom managed to appear "non-black" in a manner similar to the way many Asian-Americans appear "white." By "appear," I mean they behave in ways that American whites would view, rightly or wrongly, as traditionally white.

America still has a long way to go with its multi-century "reconciliation and assimilation" project.

[marbury]

You're right. But that is an awful lot of words to expend on Jonah Goldberg.

The rest of us don't share the US's obsession with their problems with the negro, complete with their "one-drop rule", their mealy-mouthed Constitutional reference to the issue, and so on. He must be a bit of an arse, this chap. When, on another blog, I remarked that we've had 3 PMs who were part Indian, I was told, in effect, that Indians don't count, only negroes. And anyway, the whole point of O is that he's not remotely like the usual black extortionist politician from a pathological slum culture. Thank God.

[ndm]

On the other hand, having read anonymous's neanderthal comment about the "usual black extortionist politician from a pathological slum culture" I perhaps ought to wihdraw my comment.

Of course, someone who knows and discusses Britain having had "3 PMs who were part Indian" - not to mention dropping the word "negro" - perhaps has a thing about non-whites.

Perhaps he was being sarcastic, unaware that sarcasm never works on the web.

"Negro" is the classic term for people of sub-Saharan African descent. And as for the nature of run-of-the-mill American politicians of sub-Saharan African descent, that was what VP candidate Biden was referring to when he said that O was "clean". Wasn't it? And I learned that three of our PMs were part Indian from a subcontinental blogger; does that make me unnaturally pro-Indian? Grow up.

[ndm]

anonymous -

Keep digging, Austrialia's not too far.

[Richard T]

Whilst wishing to avoid a silly more open society than thou contest, perhaps it might have escaped Mr Goldberg's attention that Britain, France and Germany have elected women to be the head of their governments (and in Britain's case through heredity we have had a woman as head of state for some 56 years).

[ally]

As ever in these situations, The Onion tends to summarise it best - I'm thinking about when Rosa Parks died a few months back and the Onion's headline was "Bush: Now we can put all this civil rights stuff behind us" (or words to that effect).

It's barely worth bothering to respond to this sort of stuff. In my lifetime, Mr Goldberg's country had separate schooling, water fountains and all the rest of it; in the last 75 years they've had lynchings. So, yes, it's progress...but I wouldn't be boasting just yet.

[Anon]

These sorts of arguments are always pointless (dumb). America and Europe both have many strong points and historical biases that they're working out.

Still, the first question that occurred to me when I read this was: has there ever been a Catholic PM? And, of course, the head of state in the UK cannot be a Catholic or even married to a Catholic.

[Eric]

Just curious - how come you capitalize "American", but repeatedly don't capitalize "Europe"? I figured it was an ideological quirk of yours, but then I noticed you didn't capitalize "Asian" either. It doesn't really matter to me. Like I said, just curious.

[Shredders]

very well done .I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog . It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really belive you will do much better in the future . Good job web master .
http://www.shredderwarehouse.com