On Oct. 18, the United States was the lone member of the United Nations Security Council to vote against condemning civilian violence in Gaza resulting from Israel’s response to Hamas. The face of that veto was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

On Dec. 9, the United States was the lone member of the UN Security Council to vote against a ceasefire in Gaza. The face of that veto was the U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the U.N., Robert Wood.

The most recent vote on a ceasefire at the U.N. Security Council happened on Feb. 20: 13 countries voted for a ceasefire, the U.K. abstained, and the U.S. voted against it, with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield casting the no vote for this country.

Both Thomas-Greenfield and Wood are the faces standing between genocide in occupied Palestine and a ceasefire. Both Thomas-Greenfield and Wood are Black. These are the Black faces America wears as Blackface to rationalize its support of the settler colonial state that is Israel.

As the global majority, Black and brown people rebuke Israel for committing genocide in Gaza as well as the United States for being a complicit actor. And the global majority is represented in the Security Council and throughout the many nations who’ve condemned the actions of Israel’s government and military.

When the Black Face Is at Risk of Becoming Blackface

The U.S. has Black representation at the U.N. It may be a coincidence that the ambassadors are Black in this case. However, these officials have a similar hue to “reason” with the global majority that white people do not.

But what is not a coincidence is America’s use of diplomatic Blackface as political cover for supporting white settler colonialism. The definition of Blackface, as we know it, is when a non-Black person (often a 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 U.S. is employing a type of diplomatic Blackface. That is, the use of Black individuals in government to explain and/or clarify racist foreign policy aims as a familiar face to the global majority.

It looks like African American ambassadors to the U.N. voting against an end to the killing of an oppressed people, providing political cover for supporting white settler colonialism. It also looks like a president promoting a white settler narrative behind a pulpit in a Black church. At the same time, this simultaneously pits those Black faces against oppressed people like themselves. Collateral damage, I suppose.

Understanding the Impact of White Settler Colonialism

White settler colonialism is the ongoing system of power, spanning from the 15th century until the present day, that perpetuates the genocide and repression of Indigenous peoples and their cultures by white people.

The U.S.’s white settler roots explain the motivations for manifest destiny, Columbus Day celebrations, and allying with white settler states such as apartheid South Africa and Israel. Those roots are an integral part of understanding the American story, as well as American foreign policy. 

Thrown into the white settler colonial state was the African, whose labor was foundational to fomenting, if not building, the economy of the United States during the period of enslavement. What followed was the quest of African-Americans to live according to the freedoms and protections of the Reconstruction amendments, as well as show white people that Black people were honorable citizens.

For some, the quest began with joining the military after the Civil War. The federal government took advantage of this to ensure their white settler agenda.

Congress created Black Army peacetime regiments in 1866 –– the 9th and 10th Cavalry, and the 24th and 25th Infantry –– who became known as “The Buffalo Soldiers.” These soldiers faced racism as part of the Army. They even had to serve west of the Mississippi River so as not to offend white people by their presence. Nevertheless, they were valiant and brave in service. But their service was not without spreading white settler colonialism.

These soldiers served in the military to obtain equal rights in exchange for participating in government-led wars meant to overtake the Southwest and Great Plains from Native Americans. At the turn of the 20th century, Buffalo Soldiers were utilized during the Spanish-American War.

After the war, the Buffalo Soldiers were deployed to stamp down the resistance of Filipinos — who believed the war signaled their liberation rather than being introduced to a new colonizer.

Considering the position of Black people entering the military—recently emancipated, in need of (honorable) work, and a desire to prove their worth as American citizens—it made sense. Awaiting them was a government willing to profit from their work, but in a different way.

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

And awaiting them, like the Buffalo Soldiers, is a government desiring to use their Black faces to promote the goals of the settler colony.

A Look at Black Diplomats Throughout History

When thinking about Black government officials over the years who propped up problematic political agendas, Ben Carson comes immediately to mind. He was the prominent Black individual in the previous White House administration who would say that Donald Trump wasn’t racist.

Then there was former Secretary of State Colin Powell, sent to the UN to announce that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when they did not. And two decades earlier, when Powell was the senior military assistant to the secretary of defense under the Reagan administration, he helped organize the U.S. invasion of Grenada — a military act that the Congressional Black Caucus denounced.

There’s also a former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa, Edward Perkins, whom the Reagan administration sent as it continued supporting apartheid through its support of P.W. Botha. Botha was the white (Afrikaner) leader of South Africa’s apartheid government prior to F.W. de Klerk.

And there’s former Atlanta mayor and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young, who met with a representative of the PLO to protect the Carter administration from a UN report that announced the demand to create a Palestinian state. Young was forced to resign for having met the member of the PLO.

Thomas-Greenfield and Wood find themselves securely residing on the wrong side of history. As mentioned, the United States will use Blackface to promote its aims. But Black people cannot continue to allow themselves to be used as the face of oppressive foreign policy, in this case, white settler colonialism.

Israel, like the United States, is a white settler colonial state crafted by Europeans (the British) for European (Ashkenazi) Jews. And while all people deserve a homeland for themselves — as a people who were kidnapped from their homeland, Black people know this — settler colonialism is not the way to achieve it.

Although the U.S.’s position, Thomas-Greenfield and Wood’s votes are their endorsements of the continuing genocide of the Palestinian people — a people who’ve lived in the land for over 2,000 years versus Israel’s 75, if they disagreed, 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 to Selma for voting rights — and just days before President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address — Vice President Kamala Harris called for a cease-fire in Gaza. But her call was only for a temporary cease-fire, echoing the president, and her harsh critiques of Israel were removed from her written remarks prior to her giving them.

But it’s not too late for either ambassador or Vice President Harris for that matter, to change their posture — if they want to. Lest they sound like Ralph Bunche.

Bunche represented the U.S. in the Arab-Israeli conflict after the 1948 war. He was the chief negotiator between the opposing groups. Unfortunately, he waited until after the matter was settled to voice displeasure with the Truman administration’s bias towards the Israelis versus the Palestinians and Egyptians, and he did so privately.

There’s a lesson to be learned for anyone who enters government leadership for sensible reasons but is confronted with being the burnt cork plastered on Uncle Sam’s face. For example, despite all the controversy surrounding the Buffalo Soldiers’ use for white settler colonialist aims, Buffalo Soldiers did resist. David Fagan comes to mind.

Rather than be used to promulgate white settler colonialism, he resisted by defecting to the Filipino side to fight with the resistance. I’m in no way suggesting that Black diplomats take up arms on either side in Gaza. However, I do suggest that Black people not fall into the trappings of being the Blackface in the name of service to one’s country. All that may be left for those who do is regret.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

When the United States Uses a Black Face to Deliver Problematic Foreign Policy Decisions