In Obama Era, Have Race Relations Improved?

Jesse Washington, Mediacom, July 30, 2012

Ask Americans how race relations have changed under their first black president and they are ready with answers.

Ashley Ray, a white woman, hears more people debating racial issues. “I know a lot of people who really thought we were OK as a nation, a culture, and now they understand that we’re not,” she says.

Karl Douglass, a black man, sees stereotypes easing. “White people deal with me and my family differently,” he says.

Jose Lozano, who is Hispanic by way of Puerto Rico, believes prejudice is emerging from the shadows. “Now the racism is coming out,” he says.

In the afterglow of Barack Obama’s historic victory, most people in the United States believed that race relations would improve. Nearly four years later, has that dream come true? Americans have no shortage of thoughtful opinions, and no consensus.


Shortly before the 2008 election, 56 percent of Americans surveyed by the Gallup organization said that race relations would improve if Obama were elected. One day after his victory, 70 percent said race relations would improve and only 10 percent predicted they would get worse.


By July 2009, the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested for yelling at a white police officer who questioned whether Gates had broken into his own home. Asked to comment, Obama said he didn’t know all the facts, but Gates was a personal friend and the officer had acted “stupidly.”

The uproar was immediate. Obama acknowledged afterward, “I could’ve calibrated those words differently.”


As Obama dealt with fallout from the Gates affair during the summer of 2009, the tea party coalesced out of opposition to Obama’s stimulus and health care proposals. The vast majority of tea partyers were white. A small number of them displayed racist signs or were connected to white supremacist groups, prompting the question: Are Obama’s opponents motivated by dislike of the president’s policies, his race—or both?


The president has discussed race in occasional speeches to groups such as the National Urban League or the National Council of La Raza, and in interviews with Hispanic and African-American media outlets. But he usually walks a careful line, allowing the nation to get used to the idea of a black president without doing things to make race seem a central aspect of his governance.


In the summer of 2010, race and politics collided again when Arizona Republicans passed an immigration law that critics said would lead to racial profiling of Hispanics.

Lozano, the police sergeant, remembers that when Obama visited Arizona and met with the governor, who supported the law, she wagged an angry finger in the president’s face.


Less than a year later, an August 2011 Gallup poll showed a further decline in racial optimism: 35 percent said race relations had improved due to Obama’s election, 41 percent said no change, and 23 percent said things were worse.

Around this time, some African-American lawmakers and pundits openly complained about the president’s refusal to specifically target any programs at high black unemployment. {snip}


Then came this February’s killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, whose father is white and mother is from Peru. {snip}

This time, when asked about the case, Obama delivered a carefully calibrated message. He said all the facts were not known, the legal system should take its course—and that “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”


This April, in a poll by the National Journal and the University of Phoenix, 33 percent felt race relations were getting better, 23 percent said they were getting worse, and 42 percent said they were staying about the same.


Recently, Obama was asked in a Rolling Stone magazine interview if race relations were any different than when he took office.

“I never bought into the notion,” Obama said, “that by electing me, somehow we were entering into a postracial period.”

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Francis Galton

    I can say unequivocally that race relations have not “improved” since Nov. 2008–of course, I think “improving” race relations is beneficial ONLY because we are forced by law to interact with one another. 

    That being said, “race relations” will most likely begin to plunge into a hellish nadir in about 100 days or so, regardless of the outcome of the election.  Here are the scenarios:

    Obama wins: blacks will feel more emboldened than ever before (Whitey lost twice!), leading to yet more black-on-white crime. The Obama regime will ramp up the rhetoric and ACTIONS against Whites, White culture, and White society, eventually leading to all sorts of unsavory possibilities (civil war?). 

    Romney wins: blacks will feel insulted and slighted (Whites beez rayciss!), and–at best–black-on-White crime will escalate dramatically.  Worst case, we will have full-on LA-style riots all over the country.  What that will eventually lead to is anyone’s guess (martial law?  Obama declares himself dictator?  Romney feels so much pressure that he capitulates to the point of invalidating the election results?)

    Say it with me, loud and clear:


    • Church_of_Jed

      Romney will give it away because the GOP will say “we don’t want to hurt our chances with the Diversity Vote in 2016”.

    • Blacks really don’t need much of a reason to riot. To them it’s fun and the looting that comes along with the riot allows them to get new big screen televisions, clothes, etc. An Obama victory could equate to celebratory(we own whitey) riots.  An Obama loss would equate to “we waz ripped off by whitey” riots. If Obama loses a  close election, the riots will be much worse. There will be a lot of bloodshed, with many innocent people murdered or seriously injured.  For those with a short memory the L.A. riots of ’92 give us a glimpse of what the Obama riots will be like this November: 

      “When the mayhem subsided five days later, nearly 1,600 buildings were destroyed or damaged and more than 2,300 people were hurt. The final cost of the riot was estimated at more than a billion dollars, including $735 million in property damage…But the human toll is the most disturbing legacy of the riots. Some 53 people were killed in what police have classified as riot-related homicides and accidents. Of those, some 22 homicides remain classified as open and unsolved.”

      Read more:

    • I think it’s almost a foregone conclusion that there will be rioting if Romney wins.  Al Sharpton will hold a press conference talking about how evil racist whites voted against Obama because he was black, and blacks have a right to be mad.  After a few days of riots that he helps to start, Al Sharpton will then hold a press conference to demand that Romney concede the election to Obama anyway for the sake of “the country”, in order to quell the violence. 

      Okay, maybe I’m letting my imagination run a little wild, but we’re so far down the rabbit hole that anything is possible at this point.  Even if the above does not happen, I do truly believe that the Dems will try to find SOME way to prevent Romney from actually taking office.  They have too much riding on keeping Obama in power.

    • JohnEngelman

      Obama wins: blacks will feel more emboldened than ever before (Whitey lost twice!), leading to yet more black-on-white crime.     
      – Francis Galton
      Although crime historically spikes during hard economic times, the US is currently bucking that trend. Both the national violent crime rate and murder rate were down in 2011, reports the FBI.By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / June 12, 2012           

       Because the rate of violent crime is declining I am confident that the rate of black on white crime is also declining.

  • MekongDelta69

    I saw this yesterday. I stopped reading after I saw it was written by “Jesse Washington”.

    I decided to do something way more important – like painting my garage door.

  • JohnEngelman

    Race relations will improve when the average black person behaves and performs as well as the average white person. 
    There are white Gentiles who are prejudiced against Jews and Orientals. Nevertheless, it was never necessary to pass civil rights laws to end discrimination against Jews and Orientals. Those who blame black problems on white racism should wonder why.          

    • WmarkW

       Actually, I think it’s only necessary for blacks to stop blaming their pathological behaviors on whites.

      That will never happen either, of course, but it is the lowest bar at which to aim.

    • Church_of_Jed

      Quit offending “persons” by calling them black.

    • MekongDelta69

      Race relations will improve when the average black person behaves and performs as well as the average white person.

      Check back with everybody on here in about 25-50,000 years.

      • JohnEngelman

        I think it will only take one or two thousand years of evolution. The German tribesmen written about two thousand years ago by Julius Caesar and Tacitus were about at the level of the Bantu two hundred years ago. They had difficulty controlling alcohol, and would become violent when drunk. Now those of German and Scandinavian descent have low crime rates and high IQs. 

        • The__Bobster

          The German DNA did not change much over 2000 years, yet you expect Bantu DNA to do just that. It will only be accomplished through miscegenation.

          • JohnEngelman

            In less time than two thousand years the Ashkenazi Jews became the most superior racial group in the world. 

    • The__Bobster

      I suppose you think it’s wonderful because those groups now discriminate against us.

      • JohnEngelman

        If Jews and Orientals discriminate against white Gentiles it is so slight as to lack consequence. They are not successful because of unfair advantages, but because of superior intelligence. 

        • Dan Reardon

           Statistically speaking there are more Whites with genius intellect than Jews. Jews make up roughly 2% of the U.S. population compared to non-Jewish Whites at roughly 68%. So Jewish accomplishment is not just IQ based.

          • mikejones91

            The Jewish genius is religiously genius. That’s about it.

        • JohnEngelman

          Walter L., and Dan Reardon,
          First of all and most obviously the vast majority of Jews are white.
          Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 112. They deserve their achievements because they are biologically the most superior sub race in existence. 
          While Ashkenazi Jews make up only about 3% of the U.S. population[1] and 0.2% of the world population,[7] 27% of United StatesNobel prize winners in the 20th century,[1] a quarter of Fields Medal winners,[8] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners,[1] half the world’s chess champions,[1] and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners[8] have Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.  
          This is what Charles Murray has to say about the Jews: 
          “Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when the others did not?
          “At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people.”
          http ://  

          • Dan Reardon

             Mr Engleman,

             First and foremost I have no issues with Jewish people who consider themselves White. I welcome them to the fold and appreciate any help they may contribute to our cause.  With that being said – My issue is with Jews who consider themselves a separate race and then try and work against my ethnic groups well being.

             The comedian John Stewart comes to mind. He is a Jew who considers himself non-White and has considerable influence over our kin. He then uses his influence to negatively affect the White populace.

             I also have great respect for Charles Murray. But maybe you should consider reading some of Dr. Kevin McDonald’s work too. He has  gathered a wealth of information regarding Jewish group cohesion and the data is sound.

             This is NOT meant as an insult or slander to anyone on this group – whether they be Jewish or not.

          • JohnEngelman

            The comedian John Stewart comes to mind. He is a Jew who considers himself non-White and has considerable influence over our kin. He then uses his influence to negatively affect the White populace.                         
            – Dan Reardon     
            I think you mean Jon Stewart. How does he consider himself to be non white? Can you quote a statement from him in which he said he was not white?
            Also, how does he use “his influence to negatively affect the White populace?”    

          • Dan Reardon

            During a stand up routine several years ago I saw Stewart state that ” I’m not White, I’m Jewish” and then went on to add that the Jews and Blacks have a common enemy in White people (Mike Wallace said something similar in an interview with William Pierce on 60 minutes years ago.) I don’t have time to look up the video.

            Stewart is a hard core egalitarian lefty and I shouldn’t have to point out to you how that negatively affects White people.

  • I notice that they chose a black reporter to write this story (the last White Washington was George). I also notice that the reporter’s own biases showed for all to see; i.e., prominently displaying the non-sensical comment by that one White person that someone’s warning him that blacks would “lower his property values” would never happen today (wanna bet? It does happen, and they do lower them). And quoting that police sergeant to the effect that Gov. Brewer would never have waved her finger in a White president’s face. Ha! Again, wanna bet?

    Also notice how White people are, by impliction, the villains of the piece, as usual. And I’d like to know how Washington managed to come up with only 23 percent of those polled viewing race relations as worse under Obama than they were before. The poll must have been taken at Harvard, or in Berkeley.

  • Church_of_Jed

    The Internet taught me to hate the blacks.

    Long live the Internet!

  • I believe one reason Obama was elected with the white vote was because whites were hoping race relations would improve when a black man became president.
    Hopefully, they won’t be fooled again.

  • Uncle Ruckus

    Of course not.  Just ask any teenager who recently graduated highschool, or any soldier who just got out after a 3-4 year hitch, or for that matter any cop, school teacher or business person on the job for the last 3-4.

    But guess what, YT, they weren’t supposed to.  “Race relations” to a liberal or colored means racial supremacy over whites.  That’s the only way, you see, that THEY can “relate” to US. 

    It’s not about “getting along,” it’s about a fundamental struggle for power and their aim is to see YT grovel, pay back and eventually disappear.

    The fact we’re still HERE and getting stronger with every post, every new member of a group or forum, every time a white man or woman “gets it” means the struggle is a tribute to whites.

  • tickyul

    Urban Americans and Whites dislike and distrust each other for the most part…….I do not see that changing.

  • JohnEngelman

    Those who dislike Jews dislike them because of their superiority and because of the financial success they win because of that superiority. 

  • JohnEngelman

    The Great Recession has turned economic disputes into zero sum games between groups of Americans who dislike each other. 


    I lived in a NYC Housing Project in   1962 / 1963 .  The race relations are worse now than ever…