Not long ago, I sat on a journalism panel in which the question of “What are you?” came up.
Two of the journalists on the panel said they had been asked that question — often by random strangers. For all I knew, they could have had the multiracial ancestry of blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans and Middle Easterners.
(Note to fellow journalists: Avoid asking, “What are you?” If someone’s ancestry is relevant to your story, ask something more specific: “What is the racial and ethnic background of your family?” And make sure it’s not your introductory question.)
I thought about the “What are you?” question when I read Jesse Washington’s recent Associated Press story about the hubbub surrounding Barack Obama’s racial identity.
Obama self-identifies as African American, because, as he’s explained in the past, “that’s how I’m treated and that’s how I’m viewed. I’m proud of it.”
It turns out that some people are less than comfortable with that. Some argue that it’s too simplistic to call him “black.” After all, he was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Others argue that it’s more accurate to identify Obama as “biracial” or “multiracial.”
As Marie Arana wrote so eloquently in The Washington Post: “It’s as if we have one foot in the future and another still mired in the Old South. We are racially sophisticated enough to elect a non-white president, and we are so racially backward that we insist on calling him black. Progress has outpaced vocabulary.”
Well, let’s give the individual the power of self-identification. If Obama wants to be identified as “black,” let’s give him that choice. If Tiger Woods wants to be identified as “multiracial” (or “Cablinasian,” for that matter), more power to him.
The reality is we still live in a society in which racial constructs, however antiquated they might be, still matter. They help us be mindful about how our cultural traditions have shaped our identities. They help us remember how centuries of oppression and discrimination shaped our politics, economic divide and social strata.
Granted, some of this thinking might hold us back from making progress in race relations. But it would be naïve to say we can start with a blank slate — and move into a so-called “post-racial” society — now that Obama has been elected.
Perhaps we will reach that utopia by the time Obama’s daughters are old and gray. For now, I’d like to suggest a few things when we write about race:
- Let’s make sure to include some historical context. Obama’s self-identification as a black man was not done in a vacuum.
- Let’s use racial identifiers only when they’re relevant in a story, as explained by Keith Woods, Poynter’s dean of faculty.
- Let’s rely less on labels and more on specifics: “His parents emigrated from China in 1960, and he was born in the United States soon after.” “Her father is from Mexico, and her mother is from Peru.”
And the next time you’re tempted to ask the “What are you?” question, be more precise by asking about the person’s racial and ethnic background. And be prepared for an increasingly complex answer.
