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.