A few days ago I was talking with my friend Mike, a writer
and founder of the Arlington Writers’ Group in northern Virginia. He’d read a
blog I recently wrote about rising anti-Semitism in France, and the chat
drifted to a conversation he’d recently had with his daughter about a friend of
hers. Mike couldn’t quite place which friend his daughter was referring to; she
told him this friend was the one with whom she played volleyball, the one who
always got good grades, and had come over to their house a couple of times.
Still, nothing for Mike, who simply couldn’t place the girl. So the daughter
found a picture of the volleyball team. Her friend was in the second row, third
from the right. Mike’s daughter’s friend, it turned out, was black, but the
daughter had not once used that particularly obvious identifier to describe the
girl.
We spoke about that for a little while, hypothesized the
possibility that kids no longer recognize race as a factor in their
relationships. If so, did that mean we were heading toward a brighter,
racism-free world?
Me, I’m a cynic. I think what has happened is that we have
so constantly played the political correctness cards that people--adult and
adolescents alike--have decided it is safer to not even mention race when we
speak of someone, lest we be labelled petty and bigoted. Personally, I find
this notion both strange and frightening.
I was working for the
Washington Post a few decades ago when a debate raged in the newsroom regarding
the validity of identifying the race of a purported or suspected criminal in a
story. The older reporters thought the
individual’s color was a necessary part of whatever they were writing
about--politics, fashion, sports, the arts and society, and yes, crime. The
younger staff, many of whom were black reporters, thought this was blatant
racism. Personally, I agreed then and still do today with the late Bob Maynard,
a friend and celebrated journalist, who thought that yes, absolutely, race
should be mentioned. Bob was black and often wrote about discrimination, but on
this particular subject, he was steadfast. We identify people using the color
of their hair and eyes, their morphology, their geographical origin, their
gender, education, marital status and profession, their religion, shoe styles, whether
they like seafood, and which team they root for. Leaving race out, he thought,
was almost in and of itself a racist act.
In time, the term racial
profiling would creep into the national consciousness and spur yet another
debate, further adding to the misbegotten notion of political correctness, and
adding yet another level of opaqueness to national obfuscation.
What I’d really like to know is whether the urban kids of
today really do not see race. I suspect they do, and that perhaps amongst
themselves, there is no taboo in saying someone is yellow, red, tan, white or
black. But we---the adults, the media, the entertainment industry, the entire
environment of their young lives--have let it be known that one’s color is not
up for discussion or even recognition.
We prefer not to be accused of any ism and will go to great length to be
circumspect.
That’s odd, and I’m pretty sure, not helpful. Race is simply
a fact of life that should be neither more nor less important than any other
individual feature. Negating its existence by not mentioning it does nothing to
eliminate prejudice or discrimination.
Quoting the very white, very French and very bourgeois
Monsieur Prudhomme, that’s my opinion, and I share it.