國總統歐巴馬，因為「失言」風波而致歉，並邀請因執法爭議而產生衝突的白人警察與黑人教授共進啤酒。這個事件讓我們看得更清楚美國種族主義的陰魂不散：黑人可以當總統，但是不許說白人有種族歧視，連暗示都不行。非裔的總統必須假裝種族隔離與奴隸制度的餘威已經完全消失，並且以自己的當選證明這一點。
歐巴馬哪裡「失言」了？白人警察柯勞利居然能在知名非裔教授蓋茲的家中（沒錯，是自己家裡），在他出示哈佛教員的證件後，仍然逮捕他。說這其中沒有種族偏見─就是不信任黑人─實在難以讓人相信。就算拋開種族偏見，這種執法態度被歐巴馬批評成「行為愚蠢」，相信也不為過。同樣的情形要是發生在台灣，媒體一旦「踢爆」，警察包準被罵翻祖宗八代。
但堂堂總統對一個警察執法不當的事件說了句重話，為何致歉之餘，還得擺一桌「和頭酒」？因為警察反彈！第一次反彈，是柯勞利聽到蓋茲說實話批評他搞「種族歧視調查」，於是逮捕蓋茲。接著是反彈歐巴馬的「行為愚蠢」說，因為總統的實話實說，似乎暗示著警察真的在搞種族歧視調查。
但單是警察反彈，也還沒那麼嚴重。到底一個地方警察局的嗆聲，對於全世界最有權力的三軍統帥而言，其實只是小事一樁。然而歐巴馬緊張兮兮地擺和頭酒，其實是為了避免觸怒許多不願意承認種族歧視尚存的白人。
美國白人對黑人明目張膽的歧視，在一九六四年國會制定了民權法，加上各州甚至城市紛紛制定類似的反歧視法之後，似乎逐漸消逝。然而，第二回合的戰爭仍在激烈地進行中。明文規定、白紙黑字的種族偏見雖然難得看到，但白人優越主義以及對少數族裔的偏見，有時卻轉換成許多更細緻、隱晦的方式為之。這些歧視與敵意，未必是反歧視法所能規範的。例如，學校不可採行種族隔離制度，但是許多自命優越的白人不願意與少數族裔同住一個社區，紛紛搬出。因此住宅區呈現事實上的種族隔離。又由於公立學校都是依據住宅區劃分學區，結果就是公立學校普遍重現當年的黑白分校！
更弔詭的，是許多白人保守派，甚至部分自由派，還發起另一場反撲的戰爭：指控所有宣稱「種族歧視依然存在」的人，才是種族歧視者。被保守派佔領多數的美國最高法院，宣稱種族平等就是要「色盲」，任何為了消弭種族主義遺跡而特別扶持少數族裔的措施，都非常可能被宣告違憲違法。即便勉強容許大學院校採取「積極平權措施」，有限度地優先錄取少數族裔學生，也不能以「彌補過去之種族歧視」為理由，而只能以「促進校園多樣化」為目標。
歐巴馬一直努力地在種族議題上保持低調，以避免踩到許多白人的敏感神經。但他當然了解，美國並不像保守派白人所想的那麼「無色」。日前他在全國有色人種促進會演講時，除對黑人表示「失敗沒有藉口」外，同時也強調「別搞錯，歧視之痛在美國當然還感受得到」，並且細數少數族裔在各方面的不利處境。他了解，可是卻不能針對白人明講，甚至連脫口而出的隱喻，都不可以！黑人總統可以教訓黑人「自己負責」，卻不可以用同樣的口吻訓誡白人。
黑人當選總統，的確是跨出了一大步。但接下來的每一步，要為非裔同胞喉舌，卻也是要如履薄冰般向白人交代。少數族裔的總統，或許命定要接受這樣的考驗。
It’s undeniable that President Obama is in both a historic and difficult position as the first minority president of the United States, but is it fair to say that “he’s pretending that the after-effects of segregation and slavery are over?” I don’t think so at all. From my limited exposure and understanding of the facts, I personally have been very impressed with his first few months in office and his ability to address the issues of racism in the U.S. in a progressive attitude, saying things like “what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart” and so on. The author of this editorial is correct in pointing out that Obama faces a great challenge as the U.S.’s first minority president, and that he must approach issues with great sensitivity in order to avoid setting off whites’s nerves, but he has never struck me as pretending – in fact the opposite, I have often been struck by the strength and candor of his words.
On a side note:
It also annoys me the way in which people (and the media) fasten onto one word – in this case “stupid” – and then act as if President Obama is some kind of a name-caller. If one observes the context in which he used this word,
(view it here at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-e549qdS8Y)
he prefaced it with all kinds of caveats such as “I don’t yet know all the facts of this case” and so forth, and I would like to see more people, rather than hanging onto every single word he says in order to entrap or accuse President Obama, simply appreciate the fact that we have now have a president who obviously makes a great effort to choose his words wisely. (as can be apparent from viewing the speech, rather than simply accepting at face value the media’s charge that President Obama called something “stupid”.)
—my two-cents worth—-