Sorting by

Skip to main content

I’m Not a Racist, But… (part 2)

By April 25, 2016 4 Comments

by Rebecca Koerselman

It’s the twenty-first century and Americans have realized that racism is bad. However, it seems a craftier, more subtle and elusive form of racism often takes a particular form.

One of these forms is religion. If we can all remember back to the 2008 presidential election, most of us will recall the strident voices calling then Senator Obama a Muslim. Other voices of the “birther” movement insisted that Obama was Kenyan and therefore not eligible to be president. Interesting accusations, especially when the evidence clearly confirmed an American-born and Christian Barack Obama.

Many writers and scholars pointed to this “othering” as a subtle form of racism. Most Americans, though not all, would be uncomfortable using racial slurs to refer to presidential candidate Obama. Calling Obama a Muslim, however, was another way to attach a negative label to him without saying something explicitly racial. For me, the most interesting part about the accusations of Obama as a Muslim during the 2008 presidential campaign was the fact that that label persisted, despite all evidence to the contrary.

When gauging someone’s religion, one key factor is self-identification. What religion does the person identify as? It is not the only way of identifying someone’s’ religious tradition or affiliation, but it certainly is a significant one. The other way of assessing someone’s religious tradition or affiliation is to examine their beliefs (theology, doctrine), along with their practices (what they do, how they treat other people and act in the world). By all accounts, no evidence pointed to candidate Obama as a Muslim. Yet the accusations persisted. People will believe things without evidence, of course, but usually they need a good reason.

Thoughtful writers during the 2008 campaign suggested that this dogged insistence on Obama being a Muslim was just a craftier form of racism. Instead of being “other” explicitly because of his race, people who believe(d) President Obama to be a Muslim were able to maintain a negative association of Obama based on religion.

When I teach about the history of immigration in America, I’ve noticed that the general narrative of immigration is one of xenophobia and racism. In the nineteenth century, racism toward the Chinese and Japanese was clear and explicit. Racism toward the Irish, the Italians, the Eastern Europeans, and the Jews was also strongly expressed. For many of us in the twenty-first century, it is hard to imagine this sort of xenophobia towards “white” Europeans. Many of my students assume that in the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction, the black/white dichotomy would have been the most important and pressing racial distinction in the US. In this political cartoon from the magazine, PUCK in 1882, Uncle Sam’s Boarding house shows a mix of many races, but the Irishman is the most obnoxious and problematic.

Koerselman 40The more time I spend reading about immigration and teaching it, the more I am convinced that it was not just race or ethnicity of the immigrants that many “native-born” white Americans resented. The perceived foreignness of these immigrants had as much to do with their religious differences as any ethnic and racial differences. In the twenty-first century, many of us are surprised that Catholics and Protestants were ever considered such vastly different religious traditions. But for many native-born Americans in the nineteenth century, anything outside of Protestant Christianity was suspect.

Rather than simple and overt racial categories, non-Christian religious traditions have been used to judge people negatively throughout US history.

Can American Christians distinguish religious differences from racial prejudices? Or will racial prejudice continue to use religion as a more subtle way to shade the way we treat one another?

Rebecca Koerselman teaches history at Northwestern College.

Rebecca Koerselman

Rebecca Koerselman teaches history at Northwestern College in Orange City, IA.


  • Your points regarding race and religion take on particular poignancy in relation to Native Americans.

  • William Hoeksema says:

    For the last seven years anyone criticizing President Obama has been labeled a racist. It is a good way to shut down the conversation.
    Is President Obama a Christian? His administration has;
    – Taken the owners of Hobby Lobby to court for trying to run their private business according to their religious conscience.
    – Taken The Little Sisters of the Poor to court for not wanting to provide abortion drugs to anyone.
    (Of course we are all providing abortion drugs via Planned Parenthood.)
    – The military is becoming more and more hostile to religion.
    – The Citizenship test once again includes “Feedom of Religion” instead of “Freedom of Worship” which the Obama administration inserted. There is a growing tide of sentiment desiring to take religion out of the public square.
    President Obama is a good family man. He genuinely cares about people. Is he a Christian? The policies of this administration and the mood in the country make it a legitimate question.

    • Rebecca Koerselman says:

      Interesting perspective. Is the most accurate measure of President Obama’s religious convictions a select list of his administrative policies?

  • Gerry says:

    Indeed, US immigrants were always evaluated through a standard of whiteness set quite consciously by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Ben Franklin, like Abraham Kuyper after him, imagined “less white” races (“swarthy and stupid” southern Germans) as problematic (this is in a letter to Peter Collinson), but perhaps they are destined to be elevated by mixing with white people. In his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind (1751) Franklin was way ahead of Malthus, projecting how the American (especially slave) population would look in a few generations. In that essay Franklin imagines a whitening America as the happy result of Native American and European people mixing and clearing the forests together, resulting in greater visible radiance that distant people on Mars and Venus — themselves angelic beings of light — may look down on with approval. The connection between deforestation, whiteness, and such a glib notion of historical progress is stunning. It’s only in the middle of the twentieth century that such bald speech started to be looked on as unseemly. I doubt anyone batted an eye at all the “mixing of the blood” in the Stone Lectures, which were part of a trip in which Kuyper pursued his hopes of getting the Americans to see what the haughty English never did — that the Netherlands and the Boer cause were the causes of little peoples of Europe, but very solidly Anglo-Saxon cousins shouldering more than their share of the white man’s burden. Read Churchill’s London to Ladysmith via Praetoria or Stephen Crane’s journalistic writing on “The Great Boer Trek” for eye-popping perspectives on racism from people who were by no means liberals in our sense. Search the Christian Classics Ethereal Library sometime for Victorian racial categories that have become slurs — e.g., hottentot and kaffir. The n-word shows up a lot, mainly in Chesterton. Spurgeon too. Men who spoke and wrote plainly to the common reader.

Leave a Reply