Interviews with My Somewhat Racist Relatives
Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Ignore the Bradley Effect
Jesse Earl Hyde Collection, Case Western Reserve University, Department of Geological Sciences
Tools
The state of Virginia, which hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, is leaning toward Barack Obama. So is North Carolina, which has only voted for a Democratic president once: Jimmy Carter in 1976. The polls are cheering and news no one expected, but Obama supporters—at least the ones I know—are still chewing their tongues and sleeping poorly. Racism, they mutter. Americans will never elect a black man for president. Then, without fail, they mention the Bradley effect.
In 1982, a black Democrat named Tom Bradley lost the governorship of California to a white Republican even though, just days before the election, polls gave Bradley a double-digit lead. During the 1980s, a negative gap between poll numbers and election results continued to afflict black candidates running in Chicago, New York, and Virginia. If Obama loses this election, he'll lose it to the Bradley effect. (If he loses honestly, that is. If he loses dishonestly, he'll lose to the Diebold effect.) Some good news: In August, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard released a statistical study showing that the Bradley effect vanished around 1996, and last week, the University of Washington released a statistical study showing a reverse Bradley effect during the presidential primaries.
Stranger Personals
You can't really survey for the Bradley effect, since it's all about people saying one thing to pollsters and doing another thing in the voting booth. And racism is not monolithic. It has shades and nuances. But lately I've been wondering whether Obama's particular heritage—being a descendant of voluntary African immigration rather than a descendant of American slavery—will help him with the borderline bigots. Borderline bigots, the ones who are shy about being perceived as bigots, are the engine of the Bradley effect.
It just so happens that there are a bunch of them among my relatives, some of them openly racist (though they prefer the term "prejudiced"), who live in Suffolk, Virginia, in a town just across from the North Carolina border and right next to the Great Dismal Swamp.
The Williamses—my mother's family—are Southerners' Southerners, the iconic kind. They live among the pine trees, on family land, with falling-down tool sheds, caches of Civil War memorabilia, and ponds you can catch turtles in. They came from England before the American Revolution, owned slaves, were financially ruined during the Civil War and Reconstruction, built themselves back up, and were ruined again by the Great Depression. Everyone goes to church and a few have been to college. They know the family legends up and down: how our ancestor Captain Thad was shot through the forehead in the summer of 1864 at the Battle of Petersburg; how my granddad was so poor his family used to eat rotten meat, setting it up on a hot tin roof to drive the maggots out before cooking it; how, in those days, great-granddad tanned granddad's hide for forgetting to lock up the mule, which drank all the lemonade the family had made for a wedding (lemons were expensive then); and how the black neighborhood is called "Williamstown" because, they say, many of its residents are descendants of slaves that the family used to own.
Paradoxically, my mother thinks her generation is more segregated than my grandparents' generation. My granddad, for ex ample, worked alongside black folks on the family farm and later hired a couple of longtime black assistants when he was a bricklayer. But the upheavals of the 1950s and 1960s created feelings of unease and distrust among whites. White folks and black folks didn't know how to be together anymore, so they drifted apart.
My granddad lost a business to those fraught years. He invested a lot of time and money turning a raw piece of land into a swimming pool with a snack bar and picnic area. He and his family worked nights and weekends felling trees, excavating, killing copperheads, laying brick. When the pool opened in the summer of 1964, a century after Captain Thad was shot through the forehead, it was whites-only by default. Three years later, just when the pool was starting to turn a profit, a black family showed up to swim. My mother remembers watching granddad walk past the white bathers and talking quietly with the black family, telling them they weren't allowed in. It hurt him, my mother says—he didn't want to turn them away, but knew that if he hadn't, his white clientele would evaporate. The way granddad saw it, he had three choices: integrate the pool, keep it segregated and risk a lawsuit, or turn his back on years of family labor and close it. He wasn't willing to do the first, wasn't able to afford the second, so took the third—agonizing—choice.
My family's bitterness about the 1960s is not an abstraction. So when I called a few of them on the phone the other day to talk about Obama, their tone was less anxious that I'd expected. Most of them are conservatives—one uncle called this presidential contest "a race between two Democrats"—but they don't seem particularly concerned that a black man is running for president.
I tested out my theory about Obama not being a descendant of slavery. I asked one of my older female relatives whether she thought of Obama in the same category as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and other black politicians she considers openly hostile to the interests of white folks.
"Well I reckon there's a difference," she said. "Those [descendants of slavery] still want to blame you and I for what happened to 'em. In reality, it was their own people who sold them into slavery for money. Their people did it to 'em. But if somebody came of their own accord, it might not bother him so much."
Obama has been very careful to not seem like a bitter black man, and my Southern relatives are extremely sensitive to any hints of black anger or resentment (one relative says the NAACP wants to turn black people "into gods on earth"). If they don't see bitterness in Obama, the strategy is working. No matter what happens in November, Obama has smashed the mold for black political leaders. (Which is probably why Tavis Smiley—who saw himself as the heir apparent of the Jackson/Sharpton/reparations school of black politics—reflexively opposed Obama. He was jealous.)
Racism in the South is also changing, receding from the public sphere while staying in the private sphere. Meaning: You can keep your prejudice and still vote for a nonwhite politician. "If Colin Powell were running, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat," one of my aunts said. Then, later in the conversation, "I don't want any of my kids marrying outside their race."
What if one of your kids wanted to marry Colin Powell?
"No. I know it sounds un-Christian, but I have certain expectations. Black people just aren't attractive to me. I wouldn't want a little black grandbaby."
So you think Colin Powell is intelligent, honest, and capable?
"Oh yes."
Good enough to be the most powerful man in the most powerful country on earth—but not good enough to marry your daughter?
"I just don't think the races should mix."
It might not sound like it, but that's progress. Twenty-six years ago—back when Tom Bradley lost the California gubernatorial race—people like my aunt wouldn't have copped to voting for a black man for anything.
Since then, Virginia has elected the nation's first black governor: Douglas Wilder in 1990. And the city of Suffolk, home of "Williamstown," elected its first black mayor, Curtis Milteer. In 2002, Milteer jumped into national headlines by declaring April to be Confederate History Month. His successors, all white, have refused to declare a Confederate History Month. ("Buncha wusses," another aunt said. "Scared of their own heritage and history.")
The racism abides, but is in its autumn—slowly changing colors
and fading away. That aunt who'd want Colin Powell for a president but
not an in-law? She raised a few eyebrows in her day by marrying an
Italian Catholic from Massachusetts. While we talked on the telephone,
she told me her daughter is raising a few eyebrows by dating a nice
Jewish boy. ![]()
In terms of Bradley Effect, I heard that it didn't exist. As in, it wasn't the fact that voters changed their vote it was the fact that there was a huge outpouring of absentee voters that had not been polled. Bradley's election had no Bradley effect.
Thanks for outing your family.
Did you ask their permission, Mr. Kiley? I'd like to hear of their perspective, before I pass judgement on your article, one way or another. You seem skewed toward not liking them so much.
Please don't forget we all are prejudiced, even here in (I'm liberal, I'm perfect!) Seattle, where French people, Republicans, religious people get openly mocked and made fun of! Oh, not to mention Californians.
We are pots calling the kettles.
And, if you are exposing others' two-facedness, you might want to start here with your own kind, where the folks are "nice of ice", meaning nice to one's face, then gossipy behind the back.
I think the South has come alooooong way since the days of slavery, thank you. And, it deserves credit for some enlightenment, rather than scorn. The fact that any Southern state is even thinking of leaning towards voting for anyone of colour, is a big deal. And, firmly entrenched habits and practices take time to rid oneself of, too.
When is any White person going to have the (true!) courage to address the black community's problems, racism, BLATANT homophobia, etc. in an article, here? I will bet it won't happen, because anyone who criticises anyone not White, gets it, or rather "eats it", here in Seattle where racial minourities are treated with kid gloves, in the media! OMG, can't risk irking them, can we? It's silly all this one-sidedness.
Speaking of voting for any Black fellow, when I hear of Obama being more specific about how he will SOLVE problems and what problems he feels are top priourity, then I might consider leaning towards voting for the man, my self. He's not Hillary Clinton, that's for sure, despite her "skeletons".
NOTE, that I am not voting for McClain, either at this point.
Maybe you haven't heard specifics because you aren't paying attention.
Wish there were space for another article like this.
Seattle is where working class poor are kept from living in the city by the middle-class using zoning ordinances, keeping construction of apartments down and driving rents up so you can live in your hip-city. Big deal, if it forces the working poor to live in places like Burien.
The same Seattle where just a few miles outside the city limits and all the way to the Idaho border Mexicans are treated with barely concealed contempt.
Hypocrisy. Seattleite hip-trendoids, you're soaking in it.
We don't still go back in time to refer to the horse and cart, so why people keep going way back to fret themselves about the past is beyond me. Of course bad things have happened, and will always happen, but we have to take them in our stride and move on. Faith, if we have it, can move mountains!
First, Powell and Obama are light skin and moderate. They are very acceptable by White Americans because they are physically part of them.
2nd, Racism is not in the private sector because issues of Black imprisonment and punishment in school is statistically severer for African American men. These are all statistics you can look up.
American private racism is apparent for well prepped African American light skin politicians who cater their image to the masses. Al Sharpton and Jesse JAckson only care about appearing to be "Black Political leaders"
Although they may be more open about their prejudices (but really racism if they are one of the 8% of people in the world classified as white that benefit from a system that gives Whites preferential treatment). In fact, it's almost EASIER to deal with racism in the south - because there are more openly bigoted people that are apparently to blame for the problem of racism... but they don't have as much control over your life. Here however, you have people justify racism with racially targeted policies (like Mayor Nickel's youth violence prevention initiative and the new jail) and back talk - that are in many ways more sinister and dangerous for people of color.
Check out some facts on Washington State:
Even though blacks make up only three percent of the population, 51 percent of all people sent to state prisons for drug offenses are black in Washington State. The state has the third highest rate of incarceration of blacks for drug offenses. According to the op-ed, African-American males in King County were sentenced to prison for drugs at a rate almost 25 times higher than white males.
Even more interesting - 70% of drugs are used in NORTH Seattle - but 70% of arrests are made in SOUTH Seattle.
I do appreciate the commentary on racism, but I'd appreciate a more honest account of racism here - instead of articles that seem to say "look how backward the south is!".
I see this as a message of hope, in that people are becoming more welcoming and less prejudiced (he also uses the word racist). He never says that people in the south are more racist, and is simply saying that the racism there is more straightforward. In fact, he uses Virginia as a positive example in that they elected the "Nations first black Governor."
He focuses on his family as an easily judged example of decreasing racism in the U.S.. If we were to attempt to gauge racism in Washington, it would be much harder because it is, as you said, underhanded.
I also found it very interesting that he brings up the negative effects of the 1950's and 60's, as a different point of view, in that instead of allowing natural healing, it re-opened the wound.
Again, I say, this article is not a judgment of the south as racists, but is a message of hope that the U.S. is moving forward towards equality.
Nice sociological piece, I saw McCain&Obama actually as the variables, not really the underlying subject. Well done, Bravo...








RSS
Comments (26) RSS