Comments

1. leon wrote:

   Is he black? I guess, historical wrangling aside, the answer would depend on whether you mean black in terms of his ethnicity (and if he sees himself as such) or black in terms of his politics?

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 9:22 am ¶

2. Lyonside wrote:

   leon: There is no one “black” politics. And any politician of African descent who thinks that way will not succeed on an national or state-wide level (whether that’s senator, judge, governor, whatever) - you can get away w/ it as a state or US representative, I think, depending on the diversity of your district.

   Sen. Obama is of mixed heritage, and has publicly identified as African-American. As a mixed-race person, I firmly believe that we have to take statements like that at face value. I really think it should be a non-issue. How does that change anything he supports on a national level at all?

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 10:28 am ¶

3. Kaywil wrote:

   And isn’t ‘blackness’ determined by country? Meaning, those that consider themselves to be ‘black’ change depending on the region of the world that you are in (i.e. the UK and Indian-decent people)? So, I’m guessing it is now being defined based on America’s historical view of who is considered ‘black’.

   Funny (or not) joke over the weekend: My friend (black) told me about a new co-worker who is white and promptly came up to her (i guess after a previous conversation) with a very passionate statement of “I am African-American! My family is from Kenya, I was born in Kenya and speak the language. You, on the other hand have never been there and do not speak the language. ” Now, what is my friend to say to that?

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 11:46 am ¶

4. Lyonside wrote:

   Kaywil… dude. First, I think the coworker needs a clue as to how African-American is ususally used in US conversation - which is to mean, usually not a person who is a recent African immigrant, and especially not one of ethnic African descent. I.e., it’s used colloqially as a euphemism for “black.” Now, if the coworker self-identifies as African-American, I support that (although I bet a case could be made for the label European Kenyan or white Kenyan, by ethnicity, right?)

   But it’s pretty rude if not ignorant to tell another person, especially one of African descent born in the US that they do not qualify as African-American. If they don’t want to be told that they are not African-American (taking that literally), they they don’t get to tell anyone else that they are not African-American either.

   Actually, sounds oddly similar to when someone “mixed-race” is assumed to be first-generation (2 parents of 2 different ethnicities/”race” categories) when there are many multigenerational mixed people, some of whom do identify as mixed race, some who identify as monoracial/ monocultural.

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶

5. Kaywil wrote:

   Isn’t that the point? Race-obsessed America must categorize everyone so that they can easily identify who they’re targeting. My friend thought that was funny, as she has always been an advocate for awareness about the ‘African-American’ slogan and has made points like that. It just so happens that the co-worker didn’t know that they were on the same side, but ended up sharing a joke or two.

   Just like everything else in the world, we have to self-identify. Having labels stuck on you because of a campaign is not productive, even though it is intended to be. Now, we’re encountering it with “African-Americans” questioning Barack Obama’s “African-American-ness”. That’s why the term is problematic. And that’s probably why we’re seeing news/media using the term “black” instead of “African-American” because technically, they wouldn’t be able to refute that.

   I’m just saying that we should be questioning the purpose of the labels instead of defending them outright.

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 12:23 pm ¶

6. atlasien wrote:

   I’m amazed how much Mat Johnson’s approach agreed with a lot of things I said on my Dickerson Vs. Kamiya blog post… except when he said he was banging his head against the desk in response to the end of Kamiya’s article, at that same point I had the urge to yell “BAD HAPA” while figuratively banging Kamiya’s head against a desk! Kamiya’s piece was that irritating.

   In the case of a white African, I think the debate boils down to rather simple principles. Person A says they belong to Group B. They claim the Group B name. Group B members can then either accept, reject or indefinitely debate that claim. It’s not my place as an Asian to define who is black or African-American or not. But it does turn into “my place” if a person previously socially identified as white or black starts claiming to be Asian.

   All these debates are really just about the right for people to call themselves what they want! It’s not “racial obsession”. If you are a member of Group C, don’t tell Person A they don’t belong to Group B. That’s for Person A and Group B to decide. Back out!

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 1:55 pm ¶

7. Kaywil wrote:

   Yes. People have a right to self-identify and others have a right to challenge or question or do nothing. Either way, these are social creations and change throughout regions. Her comment and self-identity, for example, would be accepted in parts of Canada where there are large numbers of white Africans. That’s all.

   As for Barack’s ‘grouping’, I think it’s a little bit obsessive. Is he? Isn’t he? Is he kinda? Isn’t he? Is he? Stop already!

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 2:09 pm ¶

8. atlasien wrote:

   I just wanted to clarify that the “back out!” wasn’t directed at any one person in particular… just people who obnoxiously say “you’re not a REAL (insert group here)” without any deeper thought or argument.

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 2:11 pm ¶

9. Lyonside wrote:

   >As for Barack’s ‘grouping’, I think it’s a little bit obsessive. Is he? Isn’t he? Is he kinda? Isn’t he? Is he? Stop already!

   I doubt it’s him obsessing, but as the first black (however you define it) candidate who might actually have a CHANCE (all respect to Shirley Chisolm, but I don’t think she was ever taken as a serious candidate), you have to address it.

   I think he’s also being aggressive on media attacks (perceived or otherwise) of all kinds, rather than let them simmer into the public consciousness (like the Madrassa slur-attempt of the last 2 weeks).

   Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 2:50 pm ¶

10. ren wrote:

    Jenn,

    You said:

    “… Many Asian American women, who are involved in interracial relationships — myself included, have long been staunch supporters of their Asian American male counterparts. Even when we have received only silence in reverse”

    Perhaps I wouldn’t be so silent if I knew specifically what it was that you supported amongst Asian American males? What particular issues of concern to Asian Males do you support? Don’t take offense, that’s not meant to be snide. I’m genuinely curious.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 7:35 pm ¶

11. Sewere wrote:

    Ren said

    Perhaps I wouldn’t be so silent if I knew specifically what it was that you supported amongst Asian American males? What particular issues of concern to Asian Males do you support? Don’t take offense, that’s not meant to be snide. I’m genuinely curious.

    Not being snide either but why don’t you make the effort and go check out her blog at reappropriate.com?

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 8:12 pm ¶

12. Meg wrote:

    If Obama has already said how he identifies then it should be accepted but i guess that’s a little unlikely. There’s something to be said for the diffferent history of recent immigrants and descendents of slaves but does it tell you anything about who he is and how he’ll engage with the issues - that’s what advisors and pollsters are for Like was mentioned in the episode there’s a lot of things been projected onto Obama and not so much listening to what he has to say.

    The fascination over Obama seems to be a bit about the idea from the (white) majority believing that minority groups share a brain “he’s black, they’re black so they’ll vote for him”. Then when it appears that the ‘black community’ are not falling over themselves to worship him there needs to be some explanation. The explanation of course being that ‘they’ don’t see him as being really black and has nothing to do with other issues (e.g. he hasn’t been around as long as Clinton).

    But i also wonder if trying to force the issue of ‘blackness’ is coming from a desire to push his race to the absolute front of ppl’s minds. Basically, it would interfere with him getting his message out cos all anyone would want to talk about is race. No white male candidate will be constantly pushed off message just for waking up in the morning.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 8:40 pm ¶

13. Kaywil wrote:

    Meg - I agree. There is a reason for why he seems to be synonymous with the word “articulate”. There is a strong fascination with who he represents externally than what he brings to the table and his ability to lead a country.

    Posted 30 Jan 2007 at 11:55 am ¶

14. Rob wrote:

    This is a very interesting article which can relate to the topic.

    http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html

    Posted 30 Jan 2007 at 2:13 pm ¶

15. Alex wrote:

    Hi guys,

    Ummm a number of these opinions appear to be strictly based on a failure for the American media to accept someone who is mixed race and proud to be that way. Almost as if there is some form of shame linked to it which is maybe why Obama may have an issue with using the term much like a number of other mixed race people in America.
    As for the american dream, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’.
    Well Obama grow up in well educated middle class white family with his white mother who sent him to Harvard Law school, so my question is this really an example of all men created equal?

    Posted 10 Feb 2007 at 9:48 am ¶

16. Lyonside wrote:

    >Well Obama grow up in well educated middle class white family with his white mother who sent him to Harvard Law school, so my question is this really an example of all men created equal?

    Um, I’d have to read his autobiography to maybe know how he funded college, but that aside… If it was Temple Law and not Harvard Law, would you have the same objections?
    “Created equal” does NOT mean an equal education (except in the public sphere, funded with public money, or private schools would not be… well, private), it means equality “under the law”… So what’s your point again?

    Posted 10 Feb 2007 at 8:21 pm ¶

Post a Comment