Uh oh. We all know where this leads. American myths are seductively powerful: You really want to believe them. Yes, it’s an incontestably wonderful thing that the U.S. public, saddled for two centuries with an appalling history of slavery and its legacy, has voted a biracial man into the most powerful office in the country.
But if racism was America’s original sin, arrogance runs a close second. Some time next year, the United States is going to wake up and realize much of the world already hated it way before George W. Bush took office, and hates it still. (Anyone who has backpacked around Europe with a Canadian flag realizes this.) And with these sorts of prideful comments, the U.S. is in danger of becoming the reformed smoker of race relations, lecturing every other country about civil rights.
While the pride is understandable, it’s a tad misplaced. Black men were granted suffrage in 1870. It took another 50 years for women to receive the vote, and the U.S. has yet to elect a woman to the highest office, while dozens of countries including India, Israel, Britain, New Zealand and Germany have all been governed by women who were democratically elected. (Kim Campbell sort of counts, too.) Hell, even Ukraine’s prime minister is a woman.
Important to hear perspectives from north of the border–especially in a time like this. Read it all.
The author makes a good point, but I will mention that the first place I read that few other Western countries would elect a person of color was The Economist out of the UK. Still, as Obama himself said election night, it would be meet and right to move forward with humility.
The point was made a little more succinctly by Lawrence Solomon in Canada’s National Post: “My American friends believe that, after Barack Obama becomes president, America will once again be loved around the world. They are wishful thinkers. Anti-Americanism didn’t begin with George Bush and it won’t end with an Obama presidency. With rare exceptions, America has always inspired hatred and contempt, and for reasons that aren’t about to go away.”
Now, one wonders why these sentiments were kept so thoroughly under wraps during the campaign or even during the eight years of unrelenting scorn heaped on GWB. A quick Google search will reveal that key arguments for Gore, Kerry and, now, Obama were that electing one of them in place of a Republican (or substitute the endearing term “Neanderthal” in the slightly less restrained publications) would “restore America’s reputation in the world.” That won’t happen, of course, because it is not our choice of President that much of the world’s “elites” revile but our basic nature as a nation and society.
I recall many young Americans doing the “backpacking through Europe” drill put Canadian flags on their backpacks during the Clinton years when we did, in fact, have a Neanderthal in the White House.
Americans have masqueraded as Canadians for 250 years, and for a wide variety of reasons: sympathy for the crown, escape from servitude, to fight in tyrrany while the U.S.A. officially remained neutral, and- since at least 1979- to avoid the attention of muslim bigotry.
More interestingly– did anyone notice this piece was placed in the “Arts” section of the paper? I first noted a trend about six years ago that papers such as the New York Times were printing artciles in their “Arts” sections that were actually primarily political.
Bordering on Canada, no wonder Americans think their country is exceptional.
#3 I had not noticed the placement of this article in the Arts section. Good pick up! It may be that this is further evidence of a phenomenon I’ve seen referred to as “the politicization of everything.” Trivialities ranging from “paper or plastic?” at the grocery store to people paying twice as much for a Prius as they would for a Chevy Aveo when both cars have equivalent gas mileage and “carbon footprint” may be explained by the recent tendency to seek political meaning and make political statements with every action.
I backpacked through Europe in 1981, and anti-Americanism was plain back then. I didn’t pretend to be Canadian, and didn’t shrink from politely defending the newly-elected Reagan administration. I also learned enough of the local languages to be able to get by and was most certainly not an “ugly American.”
The result was a wonderful six-week visit, with many new friends from England, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Germany made. Americans don’t have to be doormats to be liked, but we also should not be braggarts and buffoons.
When I saw the headline I thought it meant the hubris of Obama. But of course, it was America’s hubris.
What about the enormous hubris of all these snooty foreigners who look down on America because we are proud of our actual accomplishments? This is nothing but the envy of the small towards the great.
And which Prime Minister of Canada was either black, hispanic, first nation, or female? I guess Canada is a very racist place.
For what little it is worth the non-white population (largely made up of those whose forebears immigrated from the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean and Africa) of, for example, the United Kingdom is about 8% of the total population. There have been significant African and Asian communities in the UK since at least the eighteenth century but most immigration from Asia and the Caribbean occurred from the mid twentieth century onwards. Non whites are significantly under represented in the House of Commons (forming just over 2% of all MPs) and House of Lords about 4% of peers). There is however [url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/yes/why-a-british-obama-is-close-than-we-think]good evidence[/url] that both main UK parties are selecting more non white candidates to stand for election at next General Election than ever before, with the Labour Party selecting non white candidates in 10% of seats (in other words at a slightly higher rate than the proportion of non whites in the UK population).
The following post is my response to Simon Houpt’s article in today’s Globe & Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081110.whoupt10/BNStory/Entertainment/
they probably won’t publish this but its my two cents.
Barack Obama’s historic election victory does not alter the fact that African Americans still face major obstacles in the United States however Simon Houpt fails to provide a compelling counter argument to Toni Morrison’s assertion that an African Canadian could not be elected Prime Minister of Canada. While it is true that Canada and many European countries have elected female leaders, I do not believe that any of these heads of state have been members of visible minority populations. In the Canadian context our one and only example of visible minority leadership at the federal or provincial level has been Ujjal Dosanjh in British Columbia. By shifting his response to Toni Morrison’s assertion away from race and towards gender Simon Houpt fails to completely analyze the importance of Obama’s election victory and apply his analysis into the Canadian context, especially that which exists for African Canadians. A recent article in the Globe & Mail “Immigrants face growing economic mobility gap†highlighted the fact that African Canadian’s continue to lag behind Canadian’s of European descent and other visible minority populations in terms of income even after residing in Canada for three generations. Issues of racism and systemic discrimination within Canada and specifically within the province of Ontario have also been noted in numerous studies perhaps most eloquently by Stephen Lewis in the 1992 Report on Race Relations in Ontario: http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/13000/134250.pdf These studies and correlating employment income data from Statistics Canada speak directly to Toni Morrison’s assertion that she would have difficulty obtaining the same level of employment stature in Canada. While issues concerning race and inequality are prevalent in the United States we also must remember that many of the same issues are prevalent in Canada, if these issues were absent there probably wouldn’t be ongoing discussions concerning racial profiling, Afro-centric schools in Toronto or the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is also important to note that Simon Houpt wrote his article while residing in a country with an African American President Elect, a State with an African American Governor (David Patterson) and in a city that has previously elected an African American mayor (David Dinkins). To the contrary I honestly cannot imagine in my lifetime seeing the election of an African Canadian Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of Ontario or Mayor of Toronto. This is not stated without acknowledging the pioneering efforts of Rosemary Brown, who lost on the fourth ballot of the NDP leadership convention in 1975 but achieved the distinction of being the first woman to run for the leadership of a federal political party, and Howard McCurdy, who dropped out after a fifth place result on the first ballot of the 1989 NDP leadership convention. It is also important to note during the 1972 provincial election British Columbia elected two African Canadians Rosemary Brown, and Emery Barnes, to the Legislative Assembly. As African Canadians have historically comprised less than one percent of British Columbia’s population this marked the first and only time in Canadian history where African Canadians were equitably or over represented in political office. Despite these achievements, as of 2008 African Canadians are still struggling to gain economic equality, political power and representation. Before making assertions of hubris to statements made by Toni Morrison, Simon Houpt should do some comparative research into the social and economic status of African descended populations in the United States, Canada and Europe, an excellent starting point would be this 1996 Malcolm Gladwell New Yorker article: http://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_04_29_a_black.htm
Best regards,
Greg
#10 I agree with much that you say, especially in regards to political under representation of visible minorities. Sadly it remains the case in some contexts both within the US (e.g. Senate) and in both Canada and the UK. In electoral politics that use first past the post voting systems, sadly, it seems that the ethnicity of the electorate remains an important factor in determining outcomes. The visible minority make up of the US is importantly different than for example both Canada and the UK.
Black Americans comprised 27% of the population of New York in the 2000 census. The 2006 census showed about 7% of the population of metropolitan Toronto was black.
In 2000 the black population formed almost 16% of the total population of New York State. In Ontario in 2001 people of African and Caribbean origin were a bit under 5% of the population.
In the 2001 census black Canadians were a little over 2% of the population. In 2000 approximately 13% of Americans reported themselves as black or black and at least one additional “race”.
In the UK progress is being made as parties select more visible minority candidates to stand for election. I don’t know how political parties select candidates in Canada. Is the same happening there?
In other words one could make potentially more interesting comparisons between say:
1. Ontario and Massachusetts (5.31% African American), Rhode Island (4.32%) or Nebraska (3.94%)
2. Toronto and Ann Arbor, MI (7.2%), Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC (7.01%), Tacoma, WA (6.95%)
3. Perhaps even between Canada as a whole and, say, Iowa (2.04%). I understand that in 1997 there was only 1 minority member of the Iowa House of Representatives but that in the last election 6 black Representatives were returned. So real change is possible and it would be interesting to know how such change occurred. As I understand it, no African American representatives were elected to either the 110th or 111th Congress from Iowa.
(2000 census figures)
Simon Houpt’s article is a good example of a rather ugly attitude by some in Canada and Europe regarding the United States. That attitude is, in short, that the United States can do no right, no matter what it does.
Consider the following thought experiment: Imagine that McCain had won the election. I’ll wager that Mr. Houpt, and his ideological kindred, would have written that the election proved that America remained deeply infected by racism; in Houpt’s world view, there can be no principled basis for voting against Obama. If you voted against Obama, your vote was simply an expression of your prejudice. But Obama won the election. So instead Houpt argues that America’s election of Obama manifests pride, perhaps the deadliest sin. Best of all, he asserts, at the end of his article, that the States are still racist, notwithstanding Obama’s election.
Let’s review the bidding:
Americans elect McCain = racism.
Americans elect Obama = pride, with racism still present, because African Americans can’t get mortgages.
To show how unfair Mr. Houpt’s position is, let’s apply it to a non-ideological, everyday example. Suppose I ask my son to take out the trash. Applying Mr. Houpt’s logic, we would evaluate my son’s response like this:
Son doesn’t take out trash = he is lazy and defiant.
Son takes out trash = he is wrongly prideful, and still lazy and defiant, because he didn’t also make his bed.
Mr. Houpt’s article is simply not serious, or fair, commentary. The fact that The Globe and Mail published it reveals more about the attitudes of the editors and publisher, and perhaps of some of our brethren to the North, than it does about the United States.
Interesting counter comment re: British and Australian media.
From here.
Publius, I hear this same “logic” from fellow Americans, too.