The Valley Advocate Asks “How Black is Obama?” and Receives a “White” Response
by Latoya Peterson
Reader x0x recently sent in this article published back in February in the Valley Advocate (based in Massachusetts), written by Salim Muwakkil.
The article opens:
How can racism still be a problem if so many white Americans are willing to support Sen. Barack Obama for president? This rhetorical question worries some analysts, who warn that Obama’s prominence, ironically, could set back the struggle for racial equality. They argue that his trans-racial appeal would convince many that the country has “transcended race,” making them less supportive of efforts to redress slavery’s legacy. Obama’s intentions have little to do with this effect. His trailblazing campaign is part of a racial dynamic set in motion long before his white Kansan mother met his black Kenyan father. Their union produced a son whose fame has triggered a substantive conversation about race and culture in a nation where it is long overdue.
The article continues, discussing race as a social construct and the origins and application of the one-drop rule. Muwakkil continues:
Despite Obama’s hybrid racial pedigree, he is “black” by the one-drop tradition. Unlike most black Americans, however, his history is not framed by generations of racial subordination. This distinction is significant. Because Obama’s ancestral narrative lacks slavery, his self-image likely lacks the wounds from that history. Although he has a more varied source of identity, Obama identifies as an African-American and became conversant with the racial choreography of American culture. White Americans likely sense the lack of racial grievance and respond gratefully. This gratitude helps explains why Obama mania has swept the nation. He openly embraces aspects of his blackness as well, which allows whites to see him as an authentic repository of their historical guilt from which he can then absolve them.
In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama notes “race fatigue” and writes that “white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America” as “even the most fair-minded of whites… tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization and race-based claims based on the history of racial discrimination in this country.” Some critics argue that Obama intentionally accommodates this race fatigue. “Obama is playing to the perverse racial politics of the post-civil rights era,” writes Paul Street in the webzine ZNet, “wherein the leading architects of policy and opinion have declared ‘race’ as a barrier to black advancement.”
Interesting point, and one that has been argued before. And, like magic, a commenter comes along to prove Muwakkil’s point:
[...]The topic, the “blackness” of Obama, is offensive because it is irrelevant. I am young (29) and white. Like many others in those categories, I am voting for Obama. Like anyone my age, I have never seen a race-based drinking fountain or a segregated bus. Race is not an issue for me and I think that is true for most people of my generation. Obama represents hope and a new voice. That is why he has my vote.
I’m not saying racism is dead. I’m just saying it has stopped being a primary explanation for why some cultural groups fail and others do not. Race is not important. Culture, attitudes and beliefs are. The article poses the ludicrous idea that white America supporting a black candidate somehow sets back equality. What would be the conclusion if white America took the opposite stance? Further, the article uses “white guilt” as an explanatory mechanism, which assumes that white people a) have something to feel guilty about and b) actually do. I’m offended at the idea that my race, rather than my actions, associates me with guilt.
I think Muwakkil was saying Obama is somehow less black because he was not descended from slaves. I wonder, then, if Deval Patrick is black enough to be approved of. Blackness, like eye color, is genetic. Culture is everything else. Clearly Obama’s genetics aren’t important to voters but his attitudes and politics are. Asking whether Obama is “black” enough is irrelevant unless, of course, you are the type of person who goes around judging people based on their race. I have a dream that one day our nation will not look at the color of one’s skin but to the content of their character. The question is, do the Valley Advocate and its readers?
Scott Kane
Somerville
Ah, dear readers. Anyone care to hazard a guess why race isn’t an issue to Scott Kane? Must be nice. Leaving aside the oft-appropriated-for-dubious-reasons MLK reference, let’s focus on this section of the comment:
The article poses the ludicrous idea that white America supporting a black candidate somehow sets back equality. What would be the conclusion if white America took the opposite stance? Further, the article uses “white guilt” as an explanatory mechanism, which assumes that white people a) have something to feel guilty about and b) actually do. I’m offended at the idea that my race, rather than my actions, associates me with guilt.
Discuss.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
atlasien wrote:
I’m not against the white-absolution theory. I think it’s definitely in the mix here. But the mix is so complicated that I just don’t think it’s going to be the number one determining factor in the election. A lot of people who support Obama view his race in a positive light because it shows that he’s different from the average old white male politician. It’s a refreshing novelty that symbolically aligns with the message of change. Others are actually very racist against black people but will vote for him anyway because they like the alternative even less. Others do think (subconsciously) that voting for Obama means they’re going to get one of those neat get-out-of-being-called-a-racist cards.
The campaign has raised so many racial issues that I doubt the issue of race is going to go away anytime soon or be dismissed as “transcended”, whether Obama wins or not.
As for Scott, he shows the incredibly common dynamic: fluctuating between the two poles of white guilt and white resentment. The most pragmatic and enlightened white people have moved beyond this dynamic and are neither guilty nor resentful. Guilt is a useful emotion when it spurs you to make redress… otherwise it’s worthless. Resentful white people think all people of color are involved in a vast conspiracy to make them feel guilty. The mere mention of the word “guilt” makes them start steaming and denying and quoting MLK inappropriately.
One of the great projects of the 21st century is to get white people to transcend their race so they can finally stop this negative dynamic.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 7:41 am ¶
kd wrote:
It’s not a surprise, especially sometimes coming from younger white males. Their attitude is “I don’t care about race, and I’m white so that must race no longer matters.” However, on the flip side if you look at the statements they make their is usually a hint of resentment-like atlasein noted.
I think many white people are afraid that if they admit racism still exists and is still powerful, that solving it will mean them losing something.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 7:52 am ¶
sarah J wrote:
I don’t even think people subconsciously think they get the “get out of being called a racist” card–I think they consciously do!
For instance, the constant refrain of “I voted for Obama!” from white people. (Which I am.)
Part of my summer job involves reading the submissions to the magazine I’m working at. I got a lovely one the other day in which a rich white girl was working out her race issues in print and thought we needed to publish it. Her first sentence, of course, was “I can’t be a racist, I voted for Obama!”
It’s the new “I have black friends!”
Which of course was the next sentence in her story. Which was then about her learning to have real black friends, who probably think she’s crazy.
But anyway–I don’t think that’s the main reason behind Obama’s popularity either. I think his race, his youth, his simple demeanor–he’s cool, an when was the last time a presidential candidate was cool? (Please don’t say Bill Clinton) and of course his speeches all contribute to his popularity with the younger voters, who may not think about racism much right now, but are used to black celebrities and black people in at least a few positions of power.
I do think Obama runs the risk of being the “exceptional” black man, the same way that I think Hillary Clinton most definitely was the “exceptional” woman, for all the reasons the author above points out. I see more hope (yeah, I said it) because Obama has been more willing to take on the issue of race and discuss it, both in his book, and in his speeches, and I do think that at least some Obama voters quite simply think he is the best candidate and that his race is either a nice bonus or a slight exception. I like to think I didn’t vote for him, volunteer for him, and give him my money out of either white guilt or self-hatred, as many older feminists seem to want to tell me I did.
He’s definitely proven that you don’t have to be free of racism to vote for a black man, though.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 8:07 am ¶
macon d wrote:
With great perspicacity, atlasien wrote,
Guilt is a useful emotion when it spurs you to make redress… otherwise it’s worthless. Resentful white people think all people of color are involved in a vast conspiracy to make them feel guilty. The mere mention of the word “guilt” makes them start steaming and denying and quoting MLK inappropriately.
One of the great projects of the 21st century is to get white people to transcend their race so they can finally stop this negative dynamic.
Word. I would just add a few more words: before white people can transcend their own race, they should spend a good deal of time examining it, hopefully coming to understand that it plays an enormous part in their own lives, and in America generally. Colorblindness is a nice ultimate goal, but just as white folks should recognize the significance of race in the lives of POC, so should they recognize its significance in their own. THEN they might be ready to transcend their own training into whiteness.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 8:31 am ¶
CVT wrote:
I don’t particularly buy the theory that Obama reaching the White House would be a set-back. Sure – it would give some people the “I voted for Obama” shpeal, but it would give hope and a change of possibilities for people of color in the United States (actually having a non-white man leading this country).
The most disastrous thing is if he falls short. Because THEN you dash all the hope that has been building. It would tell all of us that are starting to believe that a person of color could REALLY be president that it was a pipe-dream. That white America will never let us in. That we were right all along. And it would set up our two parties to prevent another person of color from running for the next 50 years because of the absolute “proof” that a person of color couldn’t get the votes (no matter how charismatic).
All the while giving white people the ability to say – “yeah, well I voted for Obama in 2008.” Or “race isn’t an issue because Obama got the democratic ticket in 2008.”
THAT is my fear. THAT is the set-back I dare not get my hopes above . . .
Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:02 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
I found a very basic problem with this article. it would seem that the author has no knowledge of Kenyan history or the country from which Obama’s father came from.
When the author wrote:
“This distinction is significant. Because Obama’s ancestral narrative lacks slavery, his self-image likely lacks the wounds from that history.”
It is clear they have never picked up a book on Kenyan ancestry. Kenya indeed has a history of slavery, both internal and external.
It frustrates me when authors make such statements ignorant of the basic facts of the situation. With the internet all the author had to do was google “Kenya slavery” and they’d get a history of the slave trade in the country where Obama’s father came from.
So whereas Obama’s family does not have the African American history of slavery in their “narative” they most certainly DO have a narative of their own of slavery that is no less valid.
To deny this is to deny history and the enslavement of a people. When the author says, wrongly, that this lack of narative means Obama “likely lacks the wounds from that history” they demean him and assume an ignorance of Kenyan history that Obama likely does not share.
The commentor who said “I think Muwakkil was saying Obama is somehow less black because he was not descended from slaves.” Again denies the very fact that Obama’s family very well might be descended from slaves.
So whereas Obama’s narative might not exactly mirror the African American one, it certainly runs a parallel to it. Both communities suffered slavery, African Americans had Jim Crowe and Kenyas had to suffer under imperialism as a British colony.
http://www.jambokenya.com/jambo/kenya/history5.htm
Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:50 am ¶
David Wynn wrote:
Personally, I think a lot of the tension in comments like the one on the article represent a clash in the vision of what a “post-racial” society looks like. Namely, will that society be blind to race, or somehow acknowledge it without letting it affect their judgment in any inappropriate matter?
I’m inclined to believe that the colorblind version is a common view held by many people, but I don’t think it would work. The eyes are some of the most important instruments in human function, and pretending you simply can’t see if someone is a different race from yourself only shuts down thought and the potential for understanding. Granted, the alternative option isn’t easy, but I still think it would provide us with better outcomes in the future.
Certainly guilt and resentment can play a role, but I don’t see a resentful understanding so much as a frustrated misunderstanding around what the end game of race would look like.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 10:37 am ¶
Jeff Behrens wrote:
Loosely speaking, this argument has been made in some form about every Democratic contender to compete in the last several cycles.
In 2004, people on the left were concerned that a Kerry victory would produce complacency among progressives who would either bask for too long in the victory or be uncomfortable breaking from the party to push left-of-Democratic Party policies. In fact, a lot of academics argued (which turned out, at least from a political strategy standpoint, to be true) that a Bush victory would ultimately be better for the left, because it would expose certain truths about Bush himself and the politics of the Republican Party. Similar arguments were made about Al Gore in 2000.
Similarly, feminists are concerned about backsliding as a result of a Clinton victory, for the same reason that Obama supporters are worried that the symbolism will lead people to believe, as you say, that we’ve “transcended race.”
I think these are real concerns; however, I think Obama has the capacity to negotiate race in a way that COULD (this is by no means a guarantee) force it into the dialogue in a meaningful way. I personally think hes more equipped to talk about race than Hillary Clinton is about gender (which is a major reason I’m supporting Obama over Clinton).
I also think the political sea change over the last eight years means that Democrats need to reconceptualize themselves as something besides an opposition party. Assuming this happens as we grow into our skin as the majority (a process thats still taking place and will probably take a long time), race and gender will hopefully become more difficult to ignore as fundamentals to policy.
As for the other stuff in this post, like the notion that “blackness” is “irrelevant” or that “race is not an issue,” well, thats obviously preposterous and its my hope that a candidate like Obama, if elected, can shape the dialogue in such a way that educates people, even if just a little, on the complexities of race.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 11:41 am ¶
Kirk Van Irvin wrote:
I would like for Obama to win,but I’m not going to cry if he doesn’t. For the first time in our countries history that a minority or a woman has gotten this close to becoming president. It’s getting better. The problem of race in America didn’t happen overnight, and getting over it it’s not going to end overnight.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶
Andrew wrote:
Mr. Kane feels that he should not be associated with the historical iniquities of slavery, segregation, and plain prejudice. And he wishes to be judged by his actions, not his skin color. As a young, white male, he is in a rather convenient position to claim ignorance to these past transgressions and remain complacent while the present inequalities swirl around him. Beverly Daniel Tatum’s Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? delves into this false notion of being disassociated from America’s horrible past. What people (especially the U.S.’s dominant group of light-skinned citizens) fail to recognize is their own complicity in a racist system. The advantages Mr. Kane reaps from mere appearance are taken for granted because it is never brought to his attention. If he took a proactive stance and sought out true unfairness he would quickly withdraw his comment which showed more than a bit of insouciance.
Regarding a separate point on CVT’s comment: Again from Dr. Tatum’s book, she refers to a rather instructive study that illuminates deeply ingrained, subconscious prejudice against people of color. The study showed that prejudice and negative perceptions of a black employee increased significantly as the status of the black employee increased. The slight failings of a black manager would often be met with disproportionately greater flak than the shortcomings of a entry-level, black employee. That is, where an entry-level black employee and an entry-level white employee received similar reactions to similar mistakes, a black manager and a white manager all things equal (!)–making similar mistakes, in similar positions, etc.– will receive reactions that differ wildly, skewing to more negative reactions for the black manager. The implications of this are alarming if Sen. Obama becomes one of the most powerful decision-makers for the next four years!
Posted 21 May 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
I think that it is impossible to predict how progress towards elimination of institutionalized racism (sexism) would be affected by election of Obama (Clinton). atlasien is right – many emotional / subconscious / conscious attitudes are in action here.
Obama does go against stereotype by not having the “city machine politician” aura and “I was marching with MLK,Jr” form of branding himself. Ask the average white person about his image of a black politician, and most will come up with Al Sharpton or with an older local person (state rep or city politician). The newer generation defies white “received wisdom”. What to expect? I think that “the idea of Obama” is used as a blank slate for some whites to project their perception onto.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 6:53 pm ¶
Black Stocking wrote:
Scott Kane’s letter makes me woozy with its aroma of white skin privilege. Mr. Kane probably has outright refused to examine his own relative privilege as a white man in American society. Yet he takes MLK’s comments out of context to challenge the rest of us to com to his post-racial, colorblind utopia.
Even Carlos Mencia is making the point that by electing Obama, and to a lesser extent, voting for him, is going to be painted in some perverse way, as an end of white racism against black people. As a black woman, I’m already tired of my many white friends who feel as though they must tell me that the are supporting Obama. Enlightement will not be found at the ballot box.
Makes me wish Clinton got the nod. Maybe all the (mostly white) women who are whining about unfair treatment and mixing Obama up in that, will really hold the nation’s collective balls to the fire if Clinton got elected, and at least try to end institutionalized sexism.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 8:15 pm ¶
Renee wrote:
The author said that, “This distinction is significant. Because Obama’s ancestral narrative lacks slavery, his self-image likely lacks the wounds from that history.” While his father was from Kenya, Obama was largely socialized in the United States, therefore in his interactions he was treated as any other African American would be. It is a huge assumption on the part of the author to assume that Obama did not have negotiate a slave narrative.
While people are using the “I voted for Obama” thing as a sort of get out of jail free card it allows them not to confront the degree to which racism is systemic. Even if Obama became president tomorrow, blacks would still be over represented in prisons and the military. Black would still by enlarged live in poverty, thus making up a super expolitable class. It would take thousands of Obamas to change that.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 10:40 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
Hm.
If Barack Obama is elected president of the United States and liberal white people “use” that to “prove” their lack of racial prejudice then…that is (what my grandmother would have called) a high class of problem to have.
Let me put it another way: would NOT having a “President Obama” prevent liberal white people from masking their internalized racism (even from themselves)? If we are faced with–at least–four more years of a Republican presidency will we be wiping our foreheads and saying “whew, that was close! Now all those liberal, Volvo-driving white folks will have to find another outlet to exorcise their guilt!” No, I don’t think so.
Speaking for myself I do not read a call to arms in the ill-considered thoughts of an arguably well-intentioned white boy who supports Obama enough to write into his local newspaper. I thought his letter was naive (and yes, privileged) but also kind of sweet. Buddy of mine is doing a lot of work on the Obama campaign and he was just telling me the racial mix in his campaign offices is inspiring. The words “Not since the Civil Rights movement” were spoken…by someone who knows what he is talking about. Are some of the white kids in those offices harboring “one world” fantasies like our friend Scott? I’m sure they are, but really, as fantasies go, you could do a lot worse. Beats the hell out of the alternative.
Bottom line for me is: white people will do what they do. And it was ever thus. But that is a bridge I am happy to cross when (and if) we come to it. Obama doesn’t even have the nomination yet, let alone the Presidency. First things first.
Posted 22 May 2008 at 5:04 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
I find it interesting that people continue to ask how black Obama is while no one asks if Hillary Clinton is say, affected by sexism on the level of the average woman. Clinton is able to discuss sexism without having to admit that she’s never had to deal with the realities of most American women [especially WOC/poor women], economically and in terms of violence. Yet on the topic of Obama people do actually discuss how his privileges detract from his ability to relate to other POC/black americans.
Posted 22 May 2008 at 7:28 pm ¶
Scott Kane wrote:
Hi Folks,
Its Scott, the guy who actually wrote the letter in to the advocate. Recently I found this with the joys of googling yourself. A significant amount of my point here was lost I think because you could not possible be aware of my context. ‘White’ does not define me as there are very poor white people in America as well as very rich ones. Within one race there are many cultures and classes. I used to live in Japan and interacting with so many different people made me appreciate culture much more. I’m from inner city Springfield, not the burbs, and I’m from a pretty blue color family. I can see culture in my own neighborhood and high school and I can see who has succeeded and failed over the years growing up.
The point I’m trying to make is simply this- culture trumps race as an explanatory factor why some groups fail and others do not. If this were not the case it would be difficult to explain why Indian and Chinese people do so well in America while other groups do not. Furthermore it would be impossible to explain why there is a substantial black middle class. I don’t think this point is particularly controversial. As a sign in my high school said – Your attitude determines your altitude.
People need to stop playing the victim and get on with it (as Bill Cosby said). I’m no fool. I understand the burden of history but the point is this — when does it stop? When do people move from victim to victor? 500 years from now? A thousand years? No, its when they stop blaming ghosts and history and start taking personal responsibility. I understand all too well from personal experience that life on the bottom sucks but with hard work and perseverance you can make your life better in America. Its damned hard work but it can be done and must be done by someone to ever get past this horrible history of slavery.
I also get disgusted at the idea of any American feeling sorry for themselves when I have seen truly, desperately poor people in Thailand, Panama, Morocco, and Mexico with my own eyes. Even very poor Americans live better than poor in most countries. Immigrants know this. Go to an ESL program some night and listen to their stories. Then you’ll see lazy, irresponsible Americans in a whole new light.
I don’t like Barack Obama (or Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts Governor) because he’s black. I like his politics and I’d like to see someone closer to my age in power. I think he has an interesting life story too. To even suggest anything about absolution is ludicrous and shows that you’re completely missing my point and simply inserting your own bias. Genetics aren’t a factor for my vote.
Yes, the white guilt thing does annoy me. I’ve met white people unfortunately burdened with this. I’m not. I don’t think I have anything to feel guilty about because I’ve been through hell in my life and worked very hard to get by with limited resources. Now my life is much better than any of my ancestors was as far back as I have family history. That’s my life and trust me that I know it better than you. Guilt is simply a tool here that is being used on fools. Most white people in America today came in during the twenties from Europe, like my family did from Ireland. To somehow tie any of those people to what a wholly unrelated subgroup of white people did to black people is ridiculous and racist. People can only be responsible for their own actions. I’ve never bought into original sin and I don’t think you should either.
I don’t think my MLK quote was the least bit inappropriate. I think he meant what he said quite literally — he wanted people to be judged by the content of the character and not the color of their skin. That is exactly what I want too. Unfortunately the idea of affirmative action have twisted this around to the exact opposite. Now somehow its ok to judge people solely on the basis of their skin color—ignoring the fact they may actually be quite well off otherwise. I don’t think this is what he would have wanted at all and I think this movement has gone horribly, horribly astray.
So that is my point. I imagine this post will go largely ignored but I thought it was fun I found myself here. I think its absolutely ridiculous that white people are not supposed to have opinions about race, something so important to our nation. I think we need to talk about this more as a country because I’ve seen very real bitterness and mistrust and both sides of the fence here.
My opinion, after much travel and studying of cultures, is simply this. I don’t think being a white, red, blue, green, yellow, or black person is much different. We are all fundamentally human and we need to focus on that. Class, culture, and location bind us much more than color. We need to focus on understanding people different than us to learn what it means to be human. It seems most of the bloggers here would prefer to not challenge themselves to do that and just tow the party line. Let the idiocy, hate, and blogging begin now if you wish.
Enjoy,
Scott Kane
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 12:01 am ¶