When the United States uses blackface to make problematic foreign policy decisions

On October 18, the United States was the only member of the UN Security Council to vote against condemning civilian violence in Gaza resulting from Israel’s response to Hamas. The face of this veto was the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

On December 9, the United States was the only member of the UN Security Council to vote against a ceasefire in Gaza. The face of this veto was the deputy US ambassador to the UN, Robert Wood.

The last ceasefire vote in the UN Security Council took place on February 20: 13 countries voted in favor of the ceasefire, the United Kingdom abstained, the United States voted against, and Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield voted “no” to the country.

Both Thomas-Greenfield and Wood are faces standing between the genocide in occupied Palestine and the ceasefire. Both Thomas-Greenfield and Wood are black. These are the Blackfaces that America wears as Blackface to rationalize its support for the settler colonial state that’s Israel.

As a majority in the world, Black and brown people rebuke Israel for committing genocide in Gaza, and the United States for its complicity. And the world’s majority is represented on the Security Council and amongst the many countries which have condemned the actions of the Israeli government and military.

When blackface is liable to becoming blackface

The US has black representation at the UN. Maybe it is a coincidence that on this case the ambassadors are black. However, these officials have the same shade of “reason” towards the global majority that white people don’t have.

But what will not be a coincidence is America’s use of diplomatic Blackface as political cover for supporting white settler colonialism. The definition of Blackface as we comprehend it is when a non-Black (often white) person paints their face black (traditionally using burnt cork) and engages in stereotypical behavior to mock, demean, and make fun of Black people. The US employs a type of diplomatic blackface. This means using Black people in government to explain and/or explain racist foreign policy goals, a face familiar to most of the world.

It appears that African American ambassadors to the United Nations voted against ending the killing of oppressed people, providing political cover for supporting white settler colonialism. He also looks like a president promoting the white settler narrative from the pulpit in a black church. At the same time, it puts black faces against oppressed people like them. Collateral damage, I suppose.

Understanding the impact of white settler colonialism

White settler colonialism is a system of power from the fifteenth century to the present day that perpetuates genocide and repression by white people against indigenous peoples and their cultures.

America’s white settler roots explain the motivations for manifest destiny, Columbus Day celebrations, and alliance with white settler states corresponding to apartheid South Africa and Israel. These roots are integral to understanding American history in addition to American foreign policy.

Thrown into the white settler colonial state was an African whose labor was the basis for revitalizing, if not constructing, the U.S. economy during the period of enslavement. African Americans then sought to live under the freedoms and protections of the Reconstruction Amendments, and in addition showed white folks that Black people were honorary residents.

For some, the adventure began with joining the military after the Civil War. The federal government used this to secure its white settler program.

In 1866, Congress created peacetime Black Army regiments – the ninth and tenth Cavalry and the twenty fourth and twenty fifth Infantry – which became generally known as the “Buffalo Soldiers.” These soldiers faced racism inside the army. They even had to serve west of the Mississippi River in order not to offend white individuals with their presence. Despite this, they showed bravery and courage in service. But their service was not without spreading white settler colonialism.

These soldiers served in the military to gain equal rights in exchange for participating in the government’s wars to take over the Native Americans of the Southwest and Great Plains. At the turn of the twentieth century, Buffalo Soldiers were used during the Spanish-American War.

After the war, Buffalo Soldiers were sent to quell resistance from Filipinos who believed the war signaled their liberation relatively than their introduction to a brand new colonizer.

Given the position of blacks joining the military – recently emancipated, in need of (honorable) work, and eager to prove their price as American residents – this made sense. They were expected by a government that wanted to profit from their work, but otherwise.

Likewise, Black people proceed to pursue government employment for honorable work, stability, and a desire to give back to their people and nation.

And waiting for them, like the Buffalo Soldiers, was a government eager to use their Black faces to promote the goals of the settler colony.

A have a look at black diplomats throughout history

When you’re thinking that of black government officials who’ve supported problematic political agendas over the years, Ben Carson immediately comes to mind. He was the distinguished black person in the previous White House administration to accomplish that to talk that Donald Trump was not a racist.

Then there was former Secretary of State Colin Powell, sent to the United Nations to announce that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction although it didn’t. And twenty years earlier, when Powell was senior military assistant to the secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, he helped organize the U.S. invasion of Grenada – a military act condemned by the Congressional Black Caucus.

There can be former US ambassador to South Africa, Edward Perkins, who was sent by the Reagan administration to further support apartheid through support for PW Botha. Botha was the white (Afrikaans) leader of the apartheid government in South Africa before FW de Klerk.

There can be former Atlanta mayor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young, who met with a PLO representative to protect the Carter administration from a U.N. report announcing the demand for a Palestinian state. Young was forced to resign from his position for meeting with a PLO member.

Thomas-Greenfield and Wood are safely on the improper side of history. As mentioned, the United States will use blackface to promote its goals. However, Black people cannot proceed to allow themselves to be used as the face of an oppressive foreign policy, on this case white settler colonialism.

Israel, like the United States, is a white settler colonial state created by Europeans (British) for European (Ashkenazi) Jews. And while all people deserve a homeland for themselves – as a people kidnapped from their homeland, black people know this – settler colonialism will not be the way to achieve this.

While the United States’ position and the votes of Thomas-Greenfield and Wood constitute their support for the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people – a individuals who have lived on this land for over 2,000 years compared to 75 years in Israel, in the event that they didn’t agree, they’d resign. Several Biden administration officials have already done so, including campaign staffers and a member of the Department of Education.

This month, on the anniversary of the March on Selma for Voting Rights – and just days before President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address – Vice President Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Her call, nevertheless, was just for a short lived ceasefire, a sentiment echoed by the president, and her harsh criticism of Israel was faraway from her written remarks before they were delivered.

But it isn’t too late for either the ambassador or Vice President Harris to change their stance – in the event that they want to. So they do not sound like Ralph Bunche.

Bunche represented the United States in the Arab-Israeli conflict after the 1948 war. He was the chief negotiator between opposing groups. Unfortunately, he waited until the matter was resolved to express his dissatisfaction with the Truman administration’s prejudice against Israelis as compared to Palestinians and Egyptians, and did so privately.

This is a lesson for anyone who takes a government position for sound reasons only to be confronted with being burned by a cork stuck to Uncle Sam’s face. For example, despite all the controversy surrounding the use of the Buffalo Soldiers for white settler colonial purposes, the Buffalo Soldiers resisted. David Fagan comes to mind.

Instead of allowing himself to be used to spread white settler colonialism, he resisted, defecting to the Filipino side to fight the resistance. I’m on no account suggesting that black diplomats will take up arms on either side in Gaza. However, I suggest that Black people mustn’t fall into the trap of being Blackface in the name of serving their country. The only thing that may remain for many who do that is regret.