First ladies have always occupied a
special place in the hearts and minds of Americans. The mental image of a first lady for most Americans is probably a mash up between Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie
Kennedy and Nancy Reagan. This mental image and many other stereotypes were
shaken to their core with the arrival of Michelle Obama.
As the
first black family America has ever had in the White House, the Obama's receive more scrutiny than many of their predecessors. Many of the Obama
family’s actions are questioned not only as the acts of the family in the most
important house in the nation, but also as those of a black family.
Most
recently, Michelle Obama came under scrutiny after responding directly to a
heckler sent by an LGBT group during a private DNC fundraiser. The heckler,
Ellen Sturtz, was “taken aback” when the first lady essentially told her to
pipe down or she would leave. Sturtz later told the media she was surprised at how
“aggressive” Obama had been.
Let’s
take a look at that for a moment. Sturtz thought Obama was being
aggressive? Did Sturtz not just interrupt Obama in the middle of a
speech just to yell at her? Obama, in responding to someone else yelling
at her, is being categorized as the confrontational party. Furthermore, in many
of the articles written about the incident, Obama is described as "confronting" a
heckler, and the stereotype of the “angry black woman” has been mentioned a few times. And let’s not forget conservative TV and radio host Glenn Beck’s description of the First Lady as a “monster."
Why is Obama being categorized as the aggressor in this situation?
If one
of Obama’s white predecessors had spoken to a Sturtz in the same
manner - directly and firmly - would the predecessor have been viewed as angry or aggressive? Obama stood up for herself when someone initiated aggressive behavior,
and as a black woman, she is being portrayed as angry for doing anything other
than idly taking the disrespect. Is that fair? No, it most certainly is not.
The language used in media reports about this incident is another confirmation that subtle yet
pervasive prejudice still exists in our society. We need to take a look at how we’re
talking about this incident. What roles are we casting on the players and
why? Using language that plays into stereotypes and encourages
white privilege is unacceptable. If women like Obama are consistently cast as the “angry black woman,” every time they stand up for
themselves, are we taking them seriously? Casting Obama as the controversial figure
in this incident is demeaning and dismissive. Obama isn’t the one who created a scene, yet she is being portrayed as such.
In describing her behavior as confrontational and dramatic, it’s easier
to dismiss what she’s saying.
We’ve never had a black first lady
before, but that doesn’t mean that every unexpected move she makes is a result
of her skin color. Maybe it’s time we stopped analyzing Obama’s actions as
those of a black woman before her role as the first lady. Her behavior isn’t
directed by the color of her skin and questioning whether her white
predecessors would have made the same decisions is only perpetuating a culture where racism is acceptable.
Posted by Juliana Rose, YWCA Missoula Racial Justice Intern
No comments:
Post a Comment