You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April, 2007.
No, it’s not the loud shirt. No, it’s not that he was playing at a party in Safety Harbor, Florida. It’s the fact that this musician brought both sneakers and sandals, and he’s not wearing either pair. He’s playing barefoot.
The Tampa Tribune ran a special report Sunday on people of more than one race.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it echoes much of what I’ve been reading in a book titled “Fade.” The book is written by a professional colleague and friend, Elliott Lewis, who is himself biracial. I’m not finished with the book, but I’ve been struck by Elliott’s ability to bring both sense and humor to the topic. I was particularly struck by the last paragraph on page 52:
“Such borders, while not naturally occurring, are nonetheless real.
Biologists, looking down from on high through the lens of science, may
not see them. But down here on the ground, we know they exist.”
I appreciate how much Elliott exposes his soul in “Fade.” But because he does, Elliott is able to point out how ridiculous are our concepts of race. I got to comtemplating what constitutes a “race,” and if a “pure race” exists. My first wife, for instance, is part Native American (although a very, very small part. You can’t tell. The Irish part is what shows). But her ancestors came here so long ago that she’s eligible to join the Daughters of the American Colonists (Talk about being able to
cover both sides of an issue!) On my mother’s side, one of my great great great (I don’t know how many greats) grandmothers was (according to family tradition) Jewish. That might explain my grandfather’s kinky hair. But given that both sides of my family have been in the South for generations, there might be another explanation too!
The more I try to understand the psychology of race, the less I understand it. Why is a person “black” if three generations back one of their forebears was African? At what point would that person “become” white? And why do we care so much? Ultimately, what does it even matter? And why do descendants of Japan/China/Palestine/Argentina/YouNameIt not face these same issues?
What is it about “blackness?”
So much in this country seems to be invested in race. I think I notice it most when I’m outside of the country. The “attitude” that I observe in many African Americans doesn’t seem to exist among, say, Nigerians. If “white entitlement” shapes inter-racial relationships here, then “black entitlement” does the same thing there. Because of African-Americans former status as slaves, they’ve had to, in a sense, wedge themselves into American society. This action has left a residue of resentment among both blacks and white here. In Nigeria and other African countries. blacks are “the man.” They possess an attitude, carry themselves, in a manner that mirrors any “entitled” white American. There’s a lack of certain cultural baggage. Obviously, the entirety of Africa was oppressed by Westerners for centuries, so while I get to put down some bags, I acquire a whole new set of luggage. Some of that may be self-imposed, as I try not to be an “ugly American.”
I continue to gain such insights as I read each new chapter of Elliott’s book. I know I have come to resent the word “race,” as it is used to separate people into categories that have no meaning. If I have to make such designations, I prefer “ethnic group.” Even that phrase fails to convey the full complexity of human evolution. I see only one “race” — the human race.
A very dear friend of mine, Niran Malaolu, was featured this week in The Daily Sun of Nigeria:Questions journalists ask determine answers they get – MalaoluBy FEMI BABAFEMIWednesday, April 4, 2007As central as objectivity is in news reporting, ace journalist and former commissioner for Information and Strategy in Ogun State, Mr. Niran Malaolu, says it is a tall dream that may never be achieved in journalism.
Niran MalaoluAccording to him, his over two decades in the business of news reporting have taught him that every journalist writes from a subjective point of view.Though a very controversial view, Malaolu, in this interview with Daily Sun tried hard to justify his position.”It is certain that every journalist and indeed, every human being is subjective in their views, thought, expression and writing. This can be proved even in journalism and social science,” he said.Our reports are subjectiveI think what we need to know is that there is a theory in journalism that is called petty assumption. The theory is that you go to the balcony and look at yourself because every story that journalists write is creating history in a hurry. Journalism is history created in a hurry. Then you cannot afford to make mistake because whatever you write becomes part of history.Therefore, you have to be sure that you are writing the truth, that what you are doing can withstand the test of time. What it means basically, is that human being, the very first contact on any issue happens in his own mind, that is, it is conditioned and coloured by your experience, by your preferences, by your biases, by your background, by things that are personal to you. I can’t just meet with you now and then assume that you are a criminal.That assumption has to be tested. The first contact with you that makes me think that you are a criminal is from my own mind, you may not really be a criminal. And that would happen because there was a criminal that I know who looks like you and I just assume that you are a criminal. That is wrong. I have to test my assumption. How do I test my assumption? By digging deeper and trying to establish the truth and to know that the thing you do is within the context. And that means we should not be sensational.One thing we do is that we are very sensational and we allow our biases to come and it will affect the polity. We have 236 ethnic groups in Nigeria, and people seeing things from their ethnic group should stop, because journalists are very essential to nation building.Every human being is subjective because like in social science, there is nothing like wrong answer, it is only about perspective.Where are you coming from? How are you looking at it? How tolerant are you? People who have high mental tolerance are able to accommodate people who have different opinion. People who have lesser mental tolerance accommodate only a little.You see, it goes this way. The same tactics you employ in fighting the military is no longer required now, because now it is democracy and we have to work it out. For instance, let’s look at the United States of America. They have been practising democracy for 150 years, yet, it is not perfect. They are still working at it.Yes, when it comes to two countries, nation to nation, the Americans believe they are superior, to, for example, the Iraqis. Here, an Hausa man may feel he is superior to Yoruba man, when we develop mental tolerance, we will be able to look things from other perspective.Journalists have to adopt a new technique. They can’t use the same technique they used to fight the military under the democratic dispensation.There is something we call ‘master narrative’ in writing. Master narrative means overall, the total impression. I can write a story on you, and with the kind of language I use, with the words I employ, people will read and say this man is a bad person. But somebody else can use the same material with different connotation and people will say you are a nice man.That is master narrative; What impression is he giving? The totality of a story is the nationality. I think, the kinds of question that you ask determine the answer that you get. If questions are asked in a manner that will promote relationship, that would do a lot to build this nation, to wedge it together.When people, journalists themselves are determined that we are ready to build this nation, you know they are very central. And one of the reasons they are central is this; when the economy of the country is not all right or the political atmosphere is unstable, the first people that are accused are journalists, but when everything is going fine, rosy, the last to be remembered are journalists.Editors are like commanders in war frontAside from justifying his position on objective news reporting in journalism, Malaolu also likened a typical newsroom in a media organization to the war front, where the editors are as gatekeepers assume the position of war commanders.He explains this further: “The point is that in the newsroom, you have a target to meet and the paper must go to bed at a particular time. I don’t compromise that, whatever it is, I give it.“Like every editor, I think I am a commander in the war front. Producing a newspaper is like being in the war front. Paper must go to bed, like they say in the newsroom, at a particular time of the day. So you are to galvanise people. Those you can cajole, cajole.“Those you can force, force. That is just that. The paper must be produced and it must be a damn good paper. After that, you begin to backslap yourself and same process continues on and on.”
