When Kamala Harris was elected as San Francisco's district attorney in December, local press accounts made special mention that she was the "first black woman" to win that high office.
It is common journalistic practice to note pioneering facts about prominent public figures -- the first woman this, the first black that, the first Latino whatever, the first openly gay something or other. It's either a sign of social progress or "political correctness."
But how accurate and how relevant are such ethnic and gender labels? In Harris' case, not totally accurate and somewhat relevant.
A minority of the stories I read about Harris leading up to her election provided information about her mixed ethnic background. Her father is black; her mother is of South Asian descent. I even recall reading that Harris is proud of her partial Asian heritage.
But most stories, when they used an ethnic label, limited her to being a "black woman." Why was that? Doesn't that simplistic -- and misleading -- label deny part of who she is? And why is any kind of ethnic labeling needed, in the first place?
| We once had the distinct pleasure of working alongside "Yellow Journalist" author William Wong. We're pleased to come across his Poynter Institute essay "If the D.A. Is of Half-Asian Descent, Why Does the Press Label Her 'Black'?" (having missed
posted in articles on February 11, 2004 11:21 PM | t (0)
« Previous phile: It's your sexual health. It belongs to you. You deserve spaces to explore it.
» Next phile: 'Every which way, the lack of knowledge about that dynamic is very, very strong'
Return to top of page