Carlo Montemayor, a blogger at Double Consciousness and fellow Blog Bullet editor, blogs on the invisibility of whiteness and on some comments that Oprah “transcends” race since most of her audience is white:
What the writer here implies is that Oprah’s personality as well as her show are “race neutral” because most of her viewers are white. Likewise, Obama has opted for a more “universal” (meaning white) appeal. “Transcending race”, according to the writer, means tailoring your image and persona so that it appeals to mostly white people — as if whites do not belong to a racial group. Because both Oprah and Obama are now reaching out to blacks, their actions are viewed as racial.If we are truly aspiring to achieve racial justice then we need to look at racism (and by that I mean a system of ideas embedded into our institutions which gives whites unearned advantages over people of color) as a white problem rather than just a problem that people of color face.
This reminds me of what I was listening to this morning, on NPR. The reporters were interviewing women who’d gone to hear the democratic debates in Iowa this morning, and the responses they got were very… clustered.
One of the women, talking about Oprah’s campaigning for Obama, had a particularly vitriolic response. (I wish I could find the transcript…) “Why should I care? It’s all sound and fury without substance.” She was absolutely spitting at the audacity of their partnership. She went on to describe a phone call she had recieved from the “woman who sculpted the butter cow at the State Fair” who was campaigning for Obama – why should she care? she loves the State Fair as much as anybody, but this is just absurd… doesn’t the man have any shame?
It was interesting, particularly in light of the other comments that were made. Clearly, whatever attempts were made to erase blackness in Obama’s campaign weren’t enough to satisfy these women (lifelong Democrats who made pains to at least offer lip service to the breadth of choices available). Even if Oprah and Obama never said a word about race specifically, the mere fact that they’re together seems to represent too much powerful blackness for the dialogue to feel unmarked.
I don’t think Oprah ever whitewashed herself. She’s spent a large part of her career marketing black women’s culture to white women. Things like The Colour Purple, pushing Toni Morrison’s books, and so on. I think she’s done the opposite – she’s pushed black culture into the (white) mainstream, instead of abandoning black culture to become the mainstream. That’s hardly transcendence.
And I think that part of the point of her success is that American races have more in common than differences. Her show is about the bread-and-butter issues of housewives. I think that, if Oprah has a universal/white appeal, it’s simply because of that. It’s not like all housewives are white – yes, I realize that being a housewife is a mark of a middle-class life, which the Black community in the USA could use more of. But it’s not like middle-class black people don’t exist.
So I do have to disagree, in part, with Jack’s argument that Oprah has become “white” to become “universal”. Middle-class is not synonymous with whiteness, and in all aspects of pop-culture (books, movies, etc) she constantly reaffirms her connection to black culture.
Oprah is an entertainer that makes her mega-bucks by reaching the largest possible audience. Lots of “artists” cry me rivers on how the masses just don’t understand their vision. Feh, your eyesight may be bad or what you do already has limited appeal.
Just look at Oprah and you know she’s felt the slights and pains of racism. This might be her way of transcending that American issue or a great big FU to the wankers that thought black meant inferiior.
No one complains when bootlickers toted water for George W Whitebread. No eyelashes batted when the palest of pale “rioted” in Miami for Bushes “election”.
Why a double standard? Can’t we accept that there is variation ?
Well, yes… if you’re not white.
This seems so obvious that I’m a bit confused. ‘Transcending race” for me(I’m white) would mean tailoring my image and persona so that to appeals to people who AREN’T of my race, e.g. nonwhites. Otherwise, there’d be nothing to transcend, yes?
It also seems like you’re ignoring the more obvious answers and proffering the more confusing ones. Does Obama need to appeal to whites? Yes, probably. Why? Well, last I checked, whites were somewhere over 70% or so of the U.S., and if you don’t appeal to 70% of the population then you won’t win an election.
Silenced is foo: First off, I didn’t write the post, if you’d actually read the post I say it Carlo wrote it, I’m just linking it. Secondly, Carlo never wrote or argued that Oprah was or is white washed, this just shows that you aren’t reading the post.
Sailorman: I think you need to delve further and ask more earnest and tough questions. When one looks at it almost every time a person of color has a base that is outside her or his community and has “mainstream” appeal she or he “transcends” race yet when a white person appeals to a bunch of people (even if it’s just whites) she or he is a “all American” and the words “transcending race” never come into play (or almost never). Plus one must look critically at the mantra “mainstream equals white.”
Did you just say what I think you said?
when a white person appeals to a bunch of people (even if it’s just whites) she or he is a “all American” and the words “transcending race” never come into play (or almost never).
Um, yeah. If a white person appeals to whites then why WOULD she be transcending race? And if she wouldn’t, then it’s an invalid comparison.
I know I’m supposed to be asking more “earnest and tough” questions and I honestly don’t intent to be snarky*. But that reply makes me wonder if we’re speaking the same language about this stuff.
*Hopefully you’re not one of those folks for whom “earnest” is essentially synonymous with “similar to or supportive of my position.
Sailorman: the issue at hand isn’t whether or not Obama needs to appeal to whites to win an election, but rather the fact that the experiences and expectations of white people are considered “universal” (meaning it applies to everyone regardless of one’s racial grouping), while the histories and personas of people of color are not considered “universal” as they allegedly apply only to the specific racial group. If Oprah and Obama talk about slavery or the systematic uprooting of blacks with urban development somehow those are seen as simply “black issues” when really white people need to identify with that history and those issues as well because 1) they benefit reap the benefits of a racist past (and present) and 2) that history relates to everyone and those issues also affect non blacks.
Furthermore, what did the author of the article exactly mean when she said “transcending race?” Transcendence means going above or beyond something and race is about how society perceives and categorizes the individual rather than how the individual identifies oneself. So if Oprah talks and acts “white” and has mostly a white audience does that mean she has gone above or beyond “blackness?” No of course not. She is still categorized as black and feels the consequences of what it means black in a white supremacist society (hence why she probably feels it necessary to get Obama in office). So in this case this idea of “transcending race” doesn’t really make much sense. Maybe what the writer meant was exactly what you were saying – having a universal appeal means appealing to people outside of your racial group as well. The usage of “transcendence” isn’t as obvious as you claim. It can have a variety of negative implications which is why we need to call it into question.