It has come to this in our "post-racial" society: a fuselage of unspeakably cruel comments about an adorable child doing one of the most adorable things in a commercial in recent television history.
She has the cute type of face and the heart-tugging voice that have appeared in ads since TV began - albeit more often than not those faces were adorned with big blond locks or big blue eyes.
If you haven't heard about it, or seen it, there was one "problem" with the commercial -- the child was bi-racial. Her mother was as much a "White" TV mom as June Cleaver.
Opening scene: Seated at a standard, American, suburban, kitchen table, is the white mother. Enter the "bi-racial" adorable child clutching a box of Cheerios in her tiny hands. She sits it on the table and says "Cheerios are good for your heart, right?" The mother responds that they are made from "whole grain oats and that helps lower cholesterol and that is heart healthy."
Scene II: So what does the child do? Grabs the box and rushes over to her dad sleeping on a couch (like many dads in American TV history).
The Conclusion: We see dad wake up to discover that his chest is covered with Cheerios!
Cute, huh? Even funny!
Oh - did I say there was "one problem"? Sorry there was another -- the father was BLACK!
And not an Obama-esque "blend" -- this was clearly a BLACK man who had obviously slept with a WHITE woman to produce this adorable "bi-racial" child.
Well that set off a furor on YouTube when Cheerios producer, General Mills, posted the video. The vile language and mean comments posted were as angry as if General Mills wanted to bring back "busing."
General Mills, seeing these comments did not back down and pull the ad, as I'm certain many would have wished. To their credit it closed down the "Comments" section of the YouTube video, allowing those interested to watch it without the offensive language (something I wish more companies would do given the mean, stupid things often displayed).
Why this outburst of rage and outrage in post-racial America?
It is the male in the relationship who is Black. Don't think that makes a difference? White males are touted in this society and culture as being (and I hate using this word!) the "dominant" creature beyond all others. I realize there are white men out there cursing because they make a living picking up trash, repairing plumbing, building things, working in dirty sewers, etc.
I get that.
But believe me, even though you're not Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, you still got a slice of the white privilege pie (just not as big a piece as Trump or Mitt).
Still doubt me? You look at virtually every TV show or movie with an "interracial" couple and nearly 100% of the time the male in the relationship is WHITE. The woman is Black or some other woman of color. The TV soaps have been full of such couples for decades. Yes, the white male can freely choose to take a woman of color off the vine -- the "exotic" Asian, the "hot" Latina, and of course the Native American "princess," to name a few.
Then there is the matter of Miss Olivia Pope, shero of a show I love, ABC-TV's "Scandal."
"Scandal" has captured the hearts of Black women (especially Baby Boomer ones who came of age in the "Right-on" generation of the 60s and 70s). I have not seen this much passion for a TV show since Alex Haley's blockbuster,"Roots," aired in 1978.
And why shouldn't it stir such passions? The lead is a beautiful, elegant, smart, tough, professional, BLACK woman (played flawlessly by Kerry Washington) who can take charge of any situation.
Except that her love interest happens to be married - a married WHITE man who happens to also be President of the United States. And -- as they say in the "Hair Club for Men" commercials - "is also a client." In this case for Olivia's high-end Public Relations and "Reputation Salvation" firm. It seems the only time Olivia Pope loses it is when (usually after telling him she'll never see him again!) she finds herself in ferocious lip-locking, clothes ripping, down on the floor, couch, any place they happen to be (White House, woods -- you get the picture) sexual intercourse.
All this makes for great television!
But I find it curious there's such a lack of outrage - or even outcry -- about this "affair." Not only from those bigoted types who would even go ballistic over the "bi-racial" toddler ad -- but barely a peep out of the "Sisters." Black women are overwhelmingly cheering it on. And I say - why not? It's good television!
But take a moment and flip the script on this.
Let's make the main character OLIVER Pope, a BLACK man. And the President a WHITE woman who he has insatiable lust for against all odds. Hmm who should we cast? Don Cheadle might be a good one. Laurence Fishbourne? I know Idris Elba - today's heart throb.
And the woman President? Hmm Jennifer Aniston? Anne Hathaway perhaps? Angelina Jolie?
Well I'm sure there are lots of them.
(I'll pause for the gnashing of teeth to subside)
How would the show fare in the ratings? Would the demographics of the fan base change?
The latter is certainly true - the real fear and loathing of mixed race relationships in this society remains the Black male and white female. It is an almost primal leftover from the days of slavery and segregation. Is it as bad as it once was? Of course not -- even though there were (and perhaps still are) some states that still had laws banning inter-racial marriages until recent years. But we also have a Black Supreme Court Justice with a White wife. And we have other high profile Black men who have open relationships with White women (Tiger & Lindsay, Kanye & Kim), etc. Although it is still doubtful that June Cleaver's husband would be Eldrige, even today.
But really should we care? Not to my way of thinking. Societal attitudes and "norms" are full of contradictions. Race in this admittedly increasingly "post-racial" society is still complicated. Perhaps the most complicated cultural construct that we have to deal with.
I'm not one who is convinced that President Obama made the nation more post-racial. He is indeed a by-product of attitudes shifting in that direction. Concepts and definitions of race and racial identity are always evolving. Often if you ask people 30 and under (who I would have previously identified as "Black" in my own head) how they self-identify, often they will answer with a nationality, a religion, a sexual orientation or as "bi-racial." They don't feel the need to be categorized by a previous generation's notion of "Black."
Some will say that is clearly progress -- others will see it as a dangerous avoidance with being culturally identified with the Black race - at least as they interpret it.
Anger will still be fueled in many who want to define a loving relationship in their own narrow terms and spew hate at those who are dating, mating and/or marrying outside of their race.
But a child? Come on!
It's a commercial - it's a child.
Donald Singletary
