Imus speaking the unspeakable
Don Imus is at it again, speaking the unspeakable. When hearing the crime tangled story of a prominent athlete, Imus asked, “What color is he?”
Like the rest of America, I found his question viscerally offensive and quickly typed the opening line of a ponderings. That was on Monday. On Thursday, I return to find the page still empty. On Friday, I’m still wondering. What, specifically, was the offense?
Given that Imus’ interview was about an NFL player, odds are that the player is black. In fact 65% of the NFL lineup is black. A case could be made that Imus’ question signifies a new level of openness on his part, his not assuming the blackness of the athlete in question.
Perhaps the offense is the implied correlation between race and crime. Truth be told 69% of us Americans claim to be “white”, and 71% of all Americans arrested are “white”. Our prisons tell a different story though of race. In both federal and state prisons, 44% of inmates are “black” and just 35% are “white”. If we are talking about an NFL athlete imprisoned, a statistician would have to assume that the racial identity was black. If, however, the athlete in question had just been arrested, the odds are more even.
But what is blackness?
Turns out that race in America is a legal construct and an immigration tool at that. There are a couple of fascinating Supreme Court cases from 1922 and 1923 which defined “white” for the 20th century. In both of these cases (Ozawa v. United States and United States v. Thind), the issue was the degree of ‘whiteness’ necessary to become a citizen of the United States. Is an upper caste Indian “white” enough for citizenship? Or an immigrant from Japan? The answer was a resounding “no”. To be sure, by the close of the last century, the courts had made a dramatic 3600 turn and embraced a preference for a utopic colorblindness.
My neighbor and I were sitting on the front porch last Sunday night talking about Obama and race in America. We figure we’re entitled to have the conversation because we’re both outsiders in our neighborhood, visitors in a storied past that is not our own. Washington Heights is the name of our little corner of the world, a name not mentioned in either of the city halls to which we pay tax. Our neighborhood was once a self-contained bedroom community that boasted the only accredited high school for Blacks in St. Louis county. My neighbor and I love our neighborhood, its rich history and unnamed elephants, but we respect that it is not ours. She is a Black woman from the city, I a white woman from out of state.
We mused together about the younger generations who seem to be free of the hatefulness of Jim Crow, to which our neighborhood bears witness. Too they seem free of the colorblindness now in vogue that refuses to see the richness of our neighborhood history. Obama-mania seems to represent a generation that is fully free to celebrate the wonder of diversity with skin tones and ethnicities without the confining little boxes that fit no one.
As I indulge in the audacity of hope, I realize that it is not a color blind Don Imus for which I yearn, nor can I abide one predisposed to either elevate or demote based upon skin tones. I yearn for public icons that aren’t afraid of the race card, that are able and willing to celebrate Black and White and Pacific Islander and Mayan and every other wonder of humanity. In the naming can come the claiming, and therein lies our hope.