Is she Indian or is she black? Trump and racist language in the US and Australia
Monday, 12 August 2024
| Brian Edgar
There is no doubt that Donald Trump has expressed his view of Kamala Harris' black and Indian background extremely badly and probably racistly. However, it should be noted that part of the problem is not of his making, but is actually a systemic and government approved problem. Trump's question, ‘Is she Indian or is she black?’ (which he sees as somehow problematic) is built on presuppositions and categories that are officially sanctioned and widely used. Indeed, those in the US, and perhaps elsewhere, who rightly criticise him need to evaluate their own language and the validity of their own concept of race.
This is because in the USA people are routinely asked to officially identify themselves in terms of their so-called ‘race’. They are frequently asked, all the time in school apparently, and regularly by employers, and constantly by government departments, to identify themselves racially, whether they are, for example, Indian or black. This is a ‘normal’ part of life in the USA.
Unfortunately, the concept of race that is used in these official questions is scientifically invalid and the categories that are available for selection are illogical and confused. This became apparent to me when teaching at a seminary in the USA and in a general discussion with my class about the ethics of race. In order to generate discussion, I expressed my surprise and concern at being expected by the seminary, my employer, to identify myself in my official employee personal data as one, or perhaps more (as best I can remember), of the following:
American Indian
Alaska Native
Asian
Black
African American
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Hispanic
Latino
Chinese
This immediately caused me great concern. Firstly, because the alternatives offered seem to suggest that I had to now describe myself as a member of the ‘white’ race. I began to question whether other faculty were comfortable doing this.
A second problem was that I could not help but wonder about the reason for this categorisation. The only request similar to this that I've seen in any official form in Australia was the, always optional, invitation to identify oneself as a member of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities in situations where certain culturally specific programs could be accessed. But in the present case it just seemed to be a general request for data. Was it necessary to help in some way overcome discrimination? However, it is also the case that, historically speaking, one of the first steps in any act of inappropriate discrimination is the clear identification of those who are to be discriminated against.
A third problem was that it was immediately obvious that the categories used did not reflect anything accurate about contemporary concepts of race. The list involved a bizarre mixture of geography, skin colour and cultural background with categories that were sometimes, but not always, overlapping.
I filled in the online form and submitted it, and then immediately withdrew it and decided that I would not provide any answer.
I subsequently expressed the view to my class that this was not a list of races at all, that it was an unhelpful and logically ridiculous list of a mixture of categories, and that requiring everyone to complete it was also a potentially dangerous process that would lead people into inappropriate ways of thinking. I also suggested that it would possibly be illegal for an employer to ask this in Australia.
I was then horrified to hear all the students express great surprise at my comments, and they universally indicated that they were all perfectly well used to being asked this question as, in various forms, it is constantly repeated year after year, and in numerous situations, by schools and employers and government organisations. In short, they were all very familiar with this list of ‘races’ and so they were all well trained in a form of racial self-identification that is categorically illogical and culturally dangerous!
Our subsequent discussion revealed that some students had strong reservations about the process but most had become so used to it that they simply accepted it, and in any case everyone, with reservations or not, completed the forms they were given, choosing for better or worse one or other of the categories offered to them, because - as they strongly pointed out - they were given no choice about the matter. They always had to complete this question. It was always strongly required.
In the light of this, Trump's question takes on new light. It reveals something not only about his own view but about the most common understanding of race in the USA.
Understanding this may shed some light on the nature of the current discussion in the US, but as well as that, it would be unfair to speak only of concepts of race in the USA as though other countries such as Australia and the UK were blameless in this regard. What language, we might well ask, do we use when speaking about race? Is it accurate and helpful?
Inaccuracy in the language used to express the concepts of race contributes to racism itself. And the problem is seen not only in terms of the confused categories of race that are used but also in the way that the word 'race' itself is used. This emerged most notably in the media when Prince Harry entered into a relationship with Meghan, who became the Duchess of Sussex. The term ‘mixed-race’ was routinely used to describe Meghan. I think that in some parts of the media the use of this kind of terminology has, in more recent times, diminished. However, it is still used and the clear and inevitable (though unstated) implication of this terminology is that Harry (and all the royal family of course) are obviously not ’mixed-race’ but, presumably, ‘pure’. The clear implication thus is that some people are pure in their racial constitution, while others are not. This, as you might imagine, is a very dangerous way to think. As yet it may be unspoken, but it is the concept behind much current language. It is, of course, also scientific nonsense.
The terminology of race and mixed races encourages people to think that there are identifiable ‘races’, with some people being identifiable as belonging solely to one race while others are biologically mixed in some sense, existing between races. But there are then insoluble problems associated both with the concept of ‘pure’ or ‘unmixed’ races and with the notion that some other people are ‘mixed’ and ‘in-between’ races. Historically speaking, all attempts to identify the races have been totally disastrous (and socially damaging) and the status of those defined as ‘mixed-race’ has been equally confused. (Why, amongst other things are, in the USA at least, the children of one ‘white’ and one ‘black’ parent always ‘black’?) The validity of the categorisation of people into different races collapses by the second generation. It is shown to be completely fallacious, and theoretically bankrupt.
The concept of ‘race’ used in this way has been, deservedly, discredited. The fact is that there is but one race: the human race. Prince Harry is not less ‘mixed’ than Meghan; like everyone else he is a human being with a genetic mixture that produces his unique nature. Unfortunately, the fallacy of multiple races continues in much common thought. But this outdated and erroneous way of thinking concedes to racist structures of thought.
Having begun with a critique of US culture, let us now consider the more helpful views of the American Anthropological Association. It notes that both scholars and the public have, for a long time, been conditioned to view human races as natural and separate divisions based on visible physical differences. Hence the ‘mixed race’ terminology. But it affirms that this way of thinking is false and particularly unhelpful. Historically speaking, this view of ‘race’ came about as a social mechanism aimed at justifying colonialism and slavery and it continues to validate current-day myths about human variation and behaviour. But as mentioned before there is really only one ‘race’ and that is the human race.
There is neither scientific nor scriptural basis for the separation of humanity into ‘races’. Scripture is irrevocably committed to the unity of humanity and cannot be used to justify apartheid, any concept of racial superiority or any differentiation into racial groups. This is seen in the way the whole of humanity is defined as being created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), the clear rejection of racial and cultural differentiation in the work of salvation (Gal 3:28) and the apostle Paul’s very deliberate repudiation of all contemporary notions of racial differentiation when he insisted that despite there being many nations that they are all actually made ‘of one’ (sometimes expressed as made ‘of one blood’) and share a common humanity (Acts 17:26).
So, to conclude: there is here not only something to say about Trump’s use of language but perhaps also our own. We must all reflect on the language we use to describe people in order to avoid expressing, either deliberately or unconsciously, racist or other inappropriately divisive concepts.
Brian Edgar is an Emeritus Professor of Asbury Theological Seminary and formerly was Director of Public Theology at the Australian Evangelical Alliance and Lecturer in Theology at the Melbourne School of Theology. He is also husband of Barbara and author of a number of books and articles, especially on God and friendship, play and laughter.
Image credit: Five human hands on brown surface by Clay Banks on Unsplash.