Mixed Race Studies

Fighting the ‘White Man’s War’

The New York Times
2013-07-19

Aaron Barnhart and Diane Eickhoff

The Battle of Honey Springs was one of the only Civil War engagements where the majority of the combatants were non-white.

Three miles down a gravel road near Rentiesville, Okla., sits a portable building that, for now, serves as the headquarters for the Honey Springs Battlefield State Historic Site. Here, on July 17, 1863, one of the Civil War’s most unique, consequential — and forgotten — battles took place. The Battle of Honey Springs was one of the few engagements in which the majority of the combatants were nonwhite, and it played an outsize role in the future of the Indian Territory, long after the war ended.

When the Civil War broke out, most American Indians on the frontier understandably wanted no part of it. They were far from the action, and many had recently been forcibly removed to present-day Kansas and Oklahoma. And yet, many Indians were eventually pulled into “the white man’s war.”

Unlike the Indians who were herded into present-day Kansas from Northern states, the Five Civilized Tribes of Indian Territory — Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole — were Southern in their outlook and politics. Across five Southern states, they intermarried with whites, built houses in town and owned plantations with slaves.

None of this protected them from envious neighbors who, as the interior South was settled in the early 19th century, demanded that authorities seize their sovereign lands. By the early 1820s the “Great Father,” as they called the American presidents, was summoning chiefs to Washington to sign land-cession treaties. These agreements became wedges that violently split each of the five tribal nations…

…Meanwhile, the pro-Southern Indian regiments led by Gen. Stand Watie, a mixed-blood Cherokee, and Gen. Douglas Hancock Cooper were proving useful to the Confederacy. Cooper, a Mississippi native and veteran of the Mexican War, was a commissioned colonel of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations before the war. Watie, a skilled horseman, worked well with the white guerrillas who assumed a larger role in the Confederate military now that the regular army was largely gone from the region.

After the Battle of Pea Ridge gave the Union Army control over Missouri, the war leadership in Richmond had ordered most Western regiments east to slow the momentum of Ulysses S. Grant along the Mississippi River. Whether this abandonment of the trans-Mississippi was inevitable or a big blunder, it put in play the territory that had acted as a buffer for Texas and extended the Southern empire to the border of Kansas, the most aggressively anti-slavery state in the Union, with more men per capita enlisted in the federal army than any other state.

By June 1863, Kansas had a general who was ready to occupy this former Confederate stronghold. Gen. James G. Blunt, physician by training and a staunch ally of James Lane, was the new commander of the Army of the Frontier. He welcomed these newly formed black and Indian regiments, which now included companies from the Cherokee nation that had become disillusioned with the Confederacy…

Read the entire article here.

This is the speech we’ve been waiting for

Politico
2013-07-19

Anthea Butler, Associate Professor of Religion
University of Pennsylvania

President Obama’s surprise remarks Friday about Trayvon Martin, race in America and the Zimmerman trial will be remembered far longer than his “race” speech in March 2008 in Philadelphia.

That speech, entitled “A More Perfect Union,” was then-candidate Obama’s way of giving a broader perspective to the uproar surrounding his former pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and his infamous “God Damn America” sermon. That address was designed to tamp down anger, and bring his constituencies together, and — most important of all — keep his lead in the Democratic primary. This speech was different: far more personal, far more raw, and ultimately, far more resonant.

Until today, the president had said remarkably little about race – his commentary on the matter had mainly come in the form of off-the-cuff comments or the “Beer Summit” with Harvard University’s Henry Louis Gates. But the latter was a political bust, and since then, the president has been extremely risk-averse in addressing the issue — so much so that he has arguably mentioned race the least of any Democratic president in memory.

…The president also placed the conversation about the trial into its larger context: the specific historical and structural present-day circumstances that underly persistent racial disparities in the United States. Explaining to Americans that the “African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away” was very, very powerful. It placed him squarely within the community, but also acknowledged a history that the entire nation must confront.

But perhaps the most moving parts of the president’s unscripted comments were those that came from a deeper place: within himself. To admit that he, too – a man who is now the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world — had been racially profiled in department stores was to link himself directly to a slain black teenager. “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” he said. And the president’s tone and manner suggested that, in the week since the Zimmerman verdict, he had felt the pain resonating throughout America.

Obama has often seemed ambivalent about his racial background. Connecting his experience of profiling to the experiences of millions of black men all over this country was an important moment. It linked the president firmly to the African-American experience. For many African-Americans, it said: He is one of us. And for a community that has had to watch the countless racially charged indignities Obama has been made to endure while in office, it was a gratifying moment…

Read the entire opinion piece here.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that—that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.  That includes me.  There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.  That happens to me—at least before I was a senator.  There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.  That happens often…

President Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin,” The White House: Office of the Press Secretary, (Washington, D. C., July 19, 2013). http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin.

Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2013-07-19, 17:33Z (13:33 EDT)

Barack H. Obama, President of the United States

I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session.  The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues—immigration, economics, et cetera−we’ll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week—the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling.  I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday.  But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation.  I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it…

..You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son.  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.  And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.  That includes me.  There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.  That happens to me—at least before I was a senator.  There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.  That happens often…

…And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws…

Read the entire transcript here.

Beyond The Chinese Connection: Contemporary Afro-Asian Cultural Production

University Press of Mississippi
2013-05-13
240 pages (approx.)
6 x 9 inches, bibliography, index
Hardback ISBN: 978-1-61703-755-9

Crystal S. Anderson, Assistant Director of Teaching Excellence, Stearns Center for Teaching and Learning and Affiliate Faculty, Korean Studies, Department of Modern and Classical Languages
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

From Bruce Lee to Samurai Champloo, how Asian fictions fuse with African American creative sensibilities

In this study, Crystal S. Anderson explores the cultural and political exchanges between African Americans, Asian Americans, and Asians over the last four decades. To do so, Anderson examines such cultural productions as novels (Frank Chin’s Gunga Din Highway [1999], Ishmael Reed’s Japanese by Spring [1992], and Paul Beatty’s The White Boy Shuffle [1996]); films (Rush Hour 2 [2001], Unleashed [2005], and The Matrix trilogy [1999-2003]); and Japanese animation (Samurai Champloo [2004]), all of which feature cross-cultural conversations. In exploring the ways in which writers and artists use this transferral, Anderson traces and tests the limits of how Afro-Asian cultural production interrogates conceptions of race, ethnic identity, politics, and transnational exchange.

Ultimately, this book reads contemporary black/Asian cultural fusions through the recurrent themes established by the films of Bruce Lee, which were among the first–and certainly most popular–works to use this exchange explicitly. As a result of such films as Enter the Dragon (1973), The Chinese Connection (1972), and The Big Boss (1971), Lee emerges as both a cross-cultural hero and global cultural icon who resonates with the experiences of African American, Asian American, and Asian youth in the 1970s. Lee’s films and iconic imagery prefigure themes that reflect cross-cultural negotiations with global culture in post-1990 Afro-Asian cultural production.

“I’m proudly biracial. I’m very adamant about this. I don’t understand why people pick one. I’m Jamaican and Jewish. I have friends who are biracial and say they’re black Jews or Latino Jews. I’m like, ‘You’re mom’s white, knock it off.’ … I like [Shlomo] Carlebach and Biggie Smalls. I listen to both on a daily basis.”

—Simone Weichselbaum

Julie Wiener, “Black And Jewish And Read All Over,” The Jewish Week, (July 16, 2013). http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/new-york-minute/black-and-jewish-and-read-all-over.

Seeking Bay Area individuals of mixed race available for in-person interviews during the month of August

Ellie Tumbuan
2013-07-18

I am a mixed graduate student in the Masters of Public Administration (MPA) program at San Francisco State currently seeking local, Bay Area individuals of mixed race available for in-person interviews during the month of August. My qualitative study is on mixed race and identity. If you or someone you know is interested in participating in this research, please contact me at ellie.tumbuan@gmail.com.

Thank you!

Ellie

In Wake of Zimmerman Verdict, Obama Makes Extensive Statement on Race in America [with video]

The New York Times
2013-07-19

Mark Landler, White House Correspondent

Michael D. Shear, White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON — President Obama, making a surprise appearance on Friday in the White House briefing room to address the verdict in the Trayvon Martin killing, spoke in personal terms about the experience of being a black man in the United States, trying to put the case in the perspective of African-Americans. They were Mr. Obama’s most extensive comments on race since 2008, and his most extensive as president.

“I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away,” Mr. Obama said in the briefing room. “There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.”…

…Mr. Obama issued a statement shortly after the verdict. But on Friday, he talked more broadly about his own feelings about the verdict and the impact it has had among African-Americans. “You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” he said. “Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”…

…Mr. Obama had been under pressure from some African-Americans to weigh in more forcefully after the verdict. For several days, his spokesman deflected questions about Mr. Obama reaction.

But on Friday, after several days of silence, the president appeared eager to offer his thoughts. He declined to take questions, but talked at length about his personal experience as a black man and about the historical context that shapes African-American responses to cases like the one involving Mr. Martin.

“That all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different,” Mr. Obama said.

When Mr. Martin was shot in 2012, the president offered an emotional response, saying that “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” and adding that “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”…

Read the entire article here.

Perceiving a Presidency in Black (and White): Four Years Later

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
First published online: 2013-06-25
DOI: 10.1111/asap.12018

Sarah E. Gaither
Tufts University

Leigh S. Wilton
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Danielle M. Young
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

When Barack Obama became the “first Black President” of the United States in 2008, researchers examined how his election impacted Americans’ views of racial progress. When he was reelected in 2012, the minority status of the president had become less novel. In the present study, we investigated whether perceptions concerning racial progress varied: (1) before and after President Obama’s reelection; (2) by whether President Obama was labeled as biracial or Black; and (3) among White and Black individuals. We replicated past findings to demonstrate that after Obama’s reelection, White participants reported that our country had made racial progress and decreased their support for equality programs (e.g., affirmative action). Our results also revealed that labeling President Obama as either biracial or Black did not affect views of racial progress. Additionally, Black participants categorized President Obama as Black more than White participants, while White participants categorized President Obama as White more than Black participants. We discuss these results in terms of the impacts of racial beliefs that stem from exposure to a minority leader.

Read or purchase the article here.

Relevance of Race: Children and the Shifting Engagement with Racial/Ethnic Identity among Second-Generation Interracially Married Asian Americans

Journal of Asian American Studies
Volume 16, Number 2, June 2013
pages 189-221
DOI: 10.1353/jaas.2013.0019

Kelly H. Chong, Associate Professor of Sociology
University of Kansas

Asian Americans have historically enjoyed one of the highest rates of intermarriage of any racial/ethnic group. By exploring the dynamics of interracial marriages among middle-class, professional Asian Americans in Chicago, this article examines what interracial marriages mean for these putative racial/ethnic “boundary crossers” and what they signify about assimilation, racial/ethnic identity, and redrawing of color boundaries in America. This article finds that for Asian Americans in this study, interracial marriage is far from an unproblematic indicator of assimilation; rather, it is a terrain in which complex subjective negotiations over ethnic/racial identities are waged over lifetimes. For both female and male Asian Americans, personal struggles over racial/ethnic identity are thrown into full relief when they begin the process of raising mixed-race children, which forces a reexamination of their own identities, and of those of their children. This article makes a distinctive contribution to the interrelationship of intermarriage, race, and ethnic identity development by comparing the views of Asian Americans and those of their non-Asian spouses regarding marital dynamics and children, which helps to further illuminate the uniqueness of the Asian American experience.

Since the 1960s, Asian Americans have enjoyed one of the highest rates of ethnic/racial intermarriage in the United States. In recent years, overall racial/ethnic intermarriages have declined somewhat for Asian Americans, while interethnic marriage (pan-Asian) rates among them have increased. A number of works have examined aggregate trends in Asian American intermarriage over time to make sense of the structural reasons behind these trends/ but studies that focus on the subjective dimensions of intermarriage are relatively lacking. To understand fully why people intermarry, and what intermarriages actually signal about assimilation and changes in intergroup social distance, we need to gain a better understanding of the meaning of intermarriage for those who choose it, especially how it relates to their sense of group and individual identities and struggles over identity.

This article explores the meanings and dynamics of intermarriage for Asian Americans by examining the experiences of a group of interracially married middle-class, professional Asian Americans in Chicago and their non-Asian spouses. Given that the vast majority of Asian American interracial marriages are to white ethnics—about 92 percent in 2000—this study focuses mostly on those with white ethnic partners. By examining how ethnicity and race come to matter for these “boundary crossers” over time, particularly how ethnic/racial identities and relationships to ethnic culture evolve as they marry and begin to raise children, this article offers…

Read or purchase the article here.