Caramel Crème Latte Like Me
February 18, 2007 7:59 AM Subscribe

Are Africans Black? The population of African immigrants in the United States is rapidly growing. Since 1990, about 50,000 Africans have come to the United States annually, more than in any of the peak years of the international slave trade, which was abolished in 1807. They add to the steady influx of black immigrants from other continents and the Caribbean, and those who have been in the United States for generations but who don't racially and culturally define themselves as African American. These blacks feel cramped by the narrowness of American racial politics, in which "blackness" has not just defined one's skin color but has served as a code word for African American.
Maybe Not. After all, Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan. Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.... when black Americans refer to Obama as "one of us," I do not know what they are talking about. In his new book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama makes it clear that, while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American.
posted by jfuller (161 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

A large part of the controversy appears to be that Obama's success helps jerk the rug out from under the "person of color" model of racism. If there is still racial/ethnic conflict, as obviously there is, then it must be class-based or culture-based or economics-based or tribalism-based or some combination of these four; but skin color per se is of small and shrinking significance. It makes it more and more obviously wrong to hang the racist/bigot tag on the many who would have massive problems with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton becoming President but not the smallest skin-related problem with Barak Obama or Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice becoming President.

The contentious fact is: the first Black president of the US will be a person who happens to be dark-skinned but whose Blackness is not the most important (or even the second or fourth or seventh most important) thing about them--a point not likely to please the African-American-identity race police.
posted by jfuller at 8:00 AM on February 18, 2007

It makes it more and more obviously wrong to hang the racist/bigot tag on the many who would have massive problems with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton becoming President but not the smallest skin-related problem with Barak Obama or Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice becoming President.

So that makes it better, or worse, or just different? Seems like a rose by any other name... would still smell the same.
posted by psmealey at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2007

I find this entire American obsession with race and skin colour tedious.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Seconded.
posted by chundo at 8:11 AM on February 18, 2007

Thirded.
posted by dydecker at 8:12 AM on February 18, 2007

Blah. This is so nonsensical. It's a made up debate and many are saying it came from the Clinton camp.
posted by bhouston at 8:12 AM on February 18, 2007

I keep wondering: Is there a word that means “Black American whose ancestors were brought from Africa as slaves”? It seems like there should be.

Anyone know? Has anyone suggested a word with this specific meaning?

(It seems like “black” isn’t the right word for it, since that word should obviously include people with similar racial characteristics elsewhere in the world. And “African American” doesn’t seem right either, since it seems weird to say that someone descended from willing immigrants from Africa (or a willing immigrant themelves) isn’t African American.)
posted by ManInSuit at 8:13 AM on February 18, 2007

Oops. wrong link. Oh well. Either way, they are trying to make smears stick on Obama. I guess it is a test to determine just how teflon the guy is.
posted by bhouston at 8:13 AM on February 18, 2007

See also: Larry Wilmore on The Daily Show. It's been entertaining also, to watch people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Greenwald assail Obama for not being sufficiently black.
posted by washburn at 8:13 AM on February 18, 2007

The descendants of both victims and perpetrators of slavery have dragged out the politics of racial identity for far too long. If we really want to leave this horrible period in our history behind, we would stop appropriating its system of arbitrary classification.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:15 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

The only people who care about Obama's skin color and "blackness" just want to use it as a club to beat him in the presidential race.

The ugly rhetoric from the right is pretty unsavory and I hope it turns off more voters than it turns on.
posted by fenriq at 8:17 AM on February 18, 2007

Wow. The 'space on the front page' : 'amount of worthwhile material' ratio here is at an all-time high.
posted by koeselitz at 8:26 AM on February 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Sounds like the sort of crap vdare wastes their time writing about.
posted by chunking express at 8:28 AM on February 18, 2007

I'm suddenly curious if Richard Lynn imagines that there is a IQ diffrence between Africans and African Americans because his tests might show one but I'd expect any diffrence is 100% cultural (just not seperate long enough). I'm not trying to start a Lynn bashing, just curious.

On topic, I object to defining African American by associated negative cultural apects, as is beginning to happen here. Otoh its perfectly natural for immigrants & their kids to define themselves in opposition to negative cultural apects of similar people, either local or foreign.

As an extreme example of "going native", Pim Fortuyn's party was responsible for making restrictions on immigration main stream in Europe partially because soo many of its members were racial minorities and immigrants who were much more threatened by other immigrants who failed to assimilate.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2007

Right, so Obama is partly the descendant of black Kenyans not plantation slaves. Therefore he cannot understand the inequalities faced by American Blacks.

Because no other black person ever faced oppression or inequality. There was never plantation slavery in the Caribbean and Kenya was a fucking picnic under the British.

Mau mau, anyone?

This reeks of a political hit.

Furthermore, whether or not Obama is a "Black American" according to some definition based on descent from a certain group (a racist definition dressed up as a cultural one) will be wholly irrelevant to what his skin color signifies to Americans of many different backgrounds. We haven't come that far yet.

The debate over reparations had the same flaw within the arguments of its supporters:

How do you determine who is legitimately the descendant of slaves? Do you allocate reparations proportionally to someone who is of mixed descent? How can this even begin to address the problems of structural racism in America today?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:33 AM on February 18, 2007

yeah, the DNA debate is very very lame, and I say this as a CSI fan.

instead, it's important to point out that Obama is indeed the perfect black candidate for President, perfect: he allows a lot of Americans to pat themselves on the back by entertaining the thought that, hey, a black man could run their country and they're, like, not shitting their pants in anger, it makes them feel all enlightened and even kinda hip.

then when Obama doesn't get nomination -- or, say, gets slaughtered by any randon Republican if he indeed gets the nomination (lol) the same Americans will be able to say, hey, he didn't get it because he was too inexperienced, it's not like he lost because of the color of his skin, we're all so enlightened and shit.

yes sir, he lost because of that, we just LOVE our blacks around here, and don't you DARE mention racism like, EVAR, in this society because it doesn't exist & we're not racist, people would have voted for him IN DROVES if only he had more experience. yes sir.

what you don't really want is a qualified black person to run for President (say, someone like Colin Powell pre-aluminum-tubes, now he's over) -- because then when he or she loses somebody could point out the obvious, ie that a lot of people withheld their vote because they just don't like a darkie to tell them what to do.
posted by matteo at 8:36 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

In my neighborhood there are African-American descendants of slaves, recent immigrants from African countries like Senegal, and immigrants from Caribbean countries like Trinidad, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, all of whom speak different languages and have slightly different cultures.

Maybe we can start to look at "blacks" as made up of a richer variety of cultures, like "whites."
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:37 AM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

You really should have gone with a one link video this round.

"So it sounds to me like you are judging "blackness" not on the color of someones skin but on the content of their character, which I think realizes Dr. Kings dream in a very special way."

posted by prostyle at 8:44 AM on February 18, 2007

Blah. This is so nonsensical. It's a made up debate and many are saying it came from the Clinton camp.

Much as I dislike Hillary, I also dislike manufactured smears. It actualy originated here, not with Clinton.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:48 AM on February 18, 2007

Genetic analysis shows that African Americans have on average 30% of their gene pool from European (White American) genes (28). This partial replacement took place over about 300 years of contact, and it is calculated that, if it was constant in time, there must have been about 3% of mixed unions per generation. Laws assured that the child of mixed parentage would be considered Black. Only individuals with a very low proportion of Black ancestry (or of skin color) would be able to "pass" as White. With gene flow continuing at that same rate, only about 30% of the original gene constitution would remain on average after 1,000 years since the beginning, and about 9% after 2,000 years (1).
[. . . .]
1. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
[. . . .]
28. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. & Bodmer, W. (1971) The Genetics of Human Populations (Freeman, San Francisco).

"Genes, peoples, and languages", L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719-7724, July 1997

About 30% of black Americans who take DNA tests to determine their African lineage prove to be descended from Europeans on their father's side, says Rick Kittles, scientific director of African Ancestry, a Washington, D.C., company that began offering the tests in 2003. Almost all black Americans whom Kittles has tested descended from African women, he says.

DNA rewrites history for African-Americans, By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
posted by orthogonality at 8:50 AM on February 18, 2007

This can be summed up as the Tiger Woods/Mariah Carey/Ertha Kitt identity harangue. Again.
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:52 AM on February 18, 2007

I don't care what race he is, I dislike Obama's politics because he's too far to the Right for me. As to race, hell, in the U.S. of A. the Irish have been passing as White for over 100 years now, and the Jews for about 50. And as for slavery, let's not forget that "white" Europeans were enslaving each other for over 1000 years before most Europeans had any idea other "races" existed, and ditto for "black" Africans (and "yellow" Chinese, and "beige" Samoans, and...); in general, throughout human history most evils have been committed against people who don't look that different from the evil-doers.
posted by davy at 9:06 AM on February 18, 2007

I thought Colin Powell lost it when he threatened the UN with his vial of WMD's. not aluminum tubes.
posted by Balisong at 9:11 AM on February 18, 2007

It's been entertaining also, to watch people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Greenwald assail Obama for not being sufficiently black.

I think you mean Glenn Reynolds, yes?

In any case, Stephen Colbert pretty much nails it in the video linked above.
posted by EarBucket at 9:12 AM on February 18, 2007

Saucy Intruder: The descendants of both victims and perpetrators of slavery have dragged out the politics of racial identity for far too long. If we really want to leave this horrible period in our history behind, we would stop appropriating its system of arbitrary classification.

Beautifully put.
posted by MaxVonCretin at 9:16 AM on February 18, 2007

Not black enough. Marlo Stanfield in '08!
posted by basicchannel at 9:16 AM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Is this some sort of LD50 test of irony? Am I a rabbit getting mennen speedstick jammed in my eyes? Because it is starting to burn.
posted by srboisvert at 9:17 AM on February 18, 2007

I have this friend called Seamus, he was born in Oxford, England, and is - predictably and strikingly - white. He is culturally Anglo-Irish but emigrated to the States.

If we call him 'white', does that obliterate the culture he came from, as it assumes (in the American context) he is white american?

Because this is analogous to the argument that Debra Dickerson makes on the Colbert Report that prostyle links to. Obama is black but not in that way.

Does Debra Dickerson realise how fucking ridiculous she is saying he's 'African African American', not 'African American'?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:19 AM on February 18, 2007

I read an article somewhere saying that, at Ivy League schools, a big percentage of the "black" students are actually not the descendants of African-American slaves, but were in fact first-generation West African immigrants.

The criticism of the Ivy League schools for this fact, if I recall it correctly, was that they were getting "credit" for having black students, when they weren't actually helping the people who descended from the historically oppressed in this country. I.e., the whole reason people cared how many black students Ivy League schools had was that blacks were the traditionally oppressed class, but the Ivy League was getting credit for helping the traditionally oppressed class when they actually were enrolling black students who were not traditionally oppressed -- they were blacks whose parents had not spent generations in cotton fields in Mississippi and then ghettoes and housing projects in Chicago and Atlanta, etc.

I actually thought the criticism made sense.

Isn't the criticism of Obama sort of the same thing? He's playing fast-and-loose with definitions of blackness ... trying to get support for being the first "black" president, when what people usually mean by "black" is descended of slaves and all the overcome-disadvantages that implies. His identity is not, the critics say, rooted in the struggles of this country's African-Americans.

When someone says, to this criticism, "Oh, fooey, it's not like African-Americans have a monopoly on suffering and struggle," that's true of course --- but it still ignores the fact that, for a lot of people, it would be very important symbolically to have a black President whose family followed the whole cottonfields-ghetto path, and triumphed, and Obama is not that person.
posted by jayder at 9:23 AM on February 18, 2007

There are so many layers to this issue. One is, are black/African-Americans treated fairly and equally in our society? If a racist cop stops him for DWB, does he care whether his mother is white? That his father came from Africa? No.

Obama has come of age when blacks get better treatment---a generation earlier, he wouldn't have been at Harvard, most likely. So that cuts into victim status but doesn't mean that he's not eyed suspiciously when shopping (before he was well known) or suffered any number of other indignities that still occur..

The current black leadership, self-appointed or otherwise, can't be happy that, in effect, an outsider who didn't come up through the civil rights movement and isn't beholden to them, is running for president. I don't mI ean that disrespectfully, at all. But he's not part of their system.

I don't see how we continue to distinguish between "black" and "African-American" on the slavery issue. How in the world do we not call the son of a Kenyan an "African-American".

There appear to be some issues most whites don't notice going on here. Years ago, I recruited for "minority" job candidates and was shocked at the level of disdain people from the Caribbean had for American-born blacks. And in turn, the resentment American-born blacks had for those from the Caribbean and Africa, particularly the women who felt African husbands were horrible. So while this debate is interesting and may well force everyone to confront their attitudes on race, it is not a simple one based on color.

As far as the comment above about the Irish and the Jews "passing" for white---what?
posted by etaoin at 9:24 AM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

In this stupid debate about whether or not he is "black" I tend to think we should ignore his ancestry and simply base it on whether or not he grew up as a black kid in America, and it seems the answer is yes.

"The American Black Experience" on a personal level isn't so much about history and culture, it's whether or not Obama lived with racism his whole life. And though his dad is from Kenya, I'm sure he lived much like any other "African American" that happened to be descended from slaves, getting all the same treatment and facing all the same challenges.
posted by mathowie at 9:25 AM on February 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

The American Anthropological Association would say that race has no biological basis, but it is an artifact of culture. Of course, you'd expect them to say that.
posted by CrazyJoel at 9:25 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

if barack obama were a white freshman senator, would he be talked up as a credible presidential candidate?

his problem isn't that he's a black man, it's that he's a black box. nobody knows what an obama administration would do, but we know he's the not-bush, which is one good thing. he's gonna have to run a stealth candidacy low on specifics, because every time he addresses a specific (particularly in regard to raising taxes) people are gonna realize that they wouldn't support a white candidate who advocated those things.
posted by bruce at 9:26 AM on February 18, 2007

Um, if Obama isn't black then why are the right so afraid of his blackness; afraid enough to peddle this imbecilic and insulting talking point on every medium they can get it onto?

Yeah, of course, black people need white people to tell them who's black. "Blackness" is defined by the likes of Glenn Beck.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:31 AM on February 18, 2007

Recent studies indicate that African-Americans as immigrants do substantially better in universities than do African-American descended from slave ancestors. And that indicates a cultural role rather than a genetic one.
posted by Postroad at 9:33 AM on February 18, 2007

I bet Obama has never eaten a chitterling.
posted by jayder at 9:35 AM on February 18, 2007

Mr. Obama... acknowledged being dogged by “the constant, crippling fear that I didn’t belong somehow, that unless I dodged and hid and pretended to be something I wasn’t, I would forever remain an outsider, with the rest of the world, black and white, always standing in judgment.”
posted by phaedon at 9:36 AM on February 18, 2007

Yeah, of course, black people need white people to tell them who's black. "Blackness" is defined by the likes of Glenn Beck.

George, Debra Dickerson from the Colbert clip linked above is, to coin a phrase, 'black'. And she don't think he is. This ridiculous segregation is perpetrated by troops in both trenches.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:39 AM on February 18, 2007

Barack Obama trades on being "black" without being Black. He's running with the novelty of being a well-spoken, dark skinned politician of African descent, without representing the needs or issues of Black people in this country in the slightest. It's a cynical, opportunistic way of trading on unresolved social and political issues. Obama is politically vapid and where he does take a position, it tends to be on the right side of the Democratic establishment. It's not that he's "not Black enough," it's that he gets attention as a "Black" candidate without addressing Black issues.
posted by graymouser at 9:39 AM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

whether he's black, real black, new black, white, pink, yellow, or green i don't care. will he make a good president?

perhaps his personal leadership qualities should be debated here rather than this discussion of skin color.
posted by localhuman at 9:42 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

As naive as it sounds, I'd like a president, please, who represents all Americans, not 'white' Americans or 'black' Americans or any other racial distinction.

However, I don't belive this is a 'political hit' or a 'smear campaign,' at least on Crouch's side. I know Stanley, and I've talked with him about this issue, and he's more concerned with how 'blackness' is viewed in the political arena than taking down Obama.

That being said, I'm not black, and this isn't my fight.
posted by Football Bat at 9:44 AM on February 18, 2007

graymouser, that's just plain dumb. obama bears the same burden of his blackness that authentic black americans, whatever they are, bear, the exact same vestigial racism. you say he doesn't represent the needs or issues of black people in this country in the slightest, wtf do you expect him to do? does he have to wear do-rags, crunk grills and release a rap cd? the vast middle in this country isn't going to vote for a president for the black americans, but they just might vote for a black president for all americans.
posted by bruce at 9:46 AM on February 18, 2007

wrong to hang the racist/bigot tag on the many who would have massive problems with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton becoming President

So that makes it better, or worse, or just different? Seems like a rose by any other name... would still smell the same.

If you don't want Sharpton to be president because he's black, you're probably racist. If you don't want him to be president because he's a minister or you think he's a fraud or crazy - isn't that a very different sort of reason? Not saying those are my feelings, but if I understand your comment, you're insisting that racism is the only reason to oppose a black cantidate, which I think is silly.
posted by freebird at 9:47 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

His identity is not, the critics say, rooted in the struggles of this country's African-Americans.

As others above have said, he grew up black in the United States, and is currently raising black children in the United States, and therefore, he is pretty well-versed in the struggles involved with being black in the United States. It seems to me that the argument that Obama is not "black enough" is based on the presumption that oppression is in the past only, not in the present, and if you don't have a genetic link to American slavery you might as well be white. I'm not sure if people espousing this view are deeply naive or determinedly ignorant.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:49 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I didn't mean for this post to be principally about Obama. The relation of African-Americans to actual Africans in America is the interesting point, Obama's candidacy is just the thing that has brought it into focus recently. Things have become more, um, interesting since the days when Cassius Clay was getting cred by changing his name to Muhammad Ali and the famous photo of Black Panthers founder Huey P. Newton seated among iconic African objects appeared. Now the most salient fact of the relationship is that:

...African-born residents in the United States are highly educated, urbanized, and have one of the highest per capita incomes of any immigrant group. An article in The Economist magazine in its May 11, 1996 issue stated, "...Three-quarters have some college experience; one in four has an advanced degree."

fiddy cent clones they're not, and this reality is what's started to be noticed. Here are a few of the very many African Diaspora sites for North America.

Association des Sénégalais d'Amérique
NigeriandInAmerica.com
Senegalese Association of Houston
Association of Nigerian Physicians in the Americas
Bini Association of Northern California
CongoBoston
Etheopian North American Health Professionals Association
North American Convention for Togo / Convention des Togolais d'Amérique du Nord, NACT
etc., etc.

> Um, if Obama isn't black then why are the right so afraid of his blackness; afraid enough
> to peddle this imbecilic and insulting talking point on every medium they can get it onto?

Look at the picture of Stanley Crouch in the fpp's second link. That's your idea of "the right," right? Or maybe 60 Minutes has been bought out by the Liberty Lobby? (Steve Kroft, of 60 Minutes, "Senator Obama, when did you decide you were black?")
posted by jfuller at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2007

what you don't really want is a qualified black person to run for President (say, someone like Colin Powell pre-aluminum-tubes, now he's over) -- because then when he or she loses somebody could point out the obvious, ie that a lot of people withheld their vote because they just don't like a darkie to tell them what to do

matteo, I was right with you until you used the word "qualified." That word used in reference to Blacks can take on an Affirmative Action-related stink, the subtext being that Blacks may generally be considered (by some) to be unqualified. It's similar to referring to Obama or Colin or Condi as "articulate", as if a command of proper English is to be considered exceptional for Blacks.

Perhaps it's time for the term "African-American" to fade from use, similar to the way the words "Negro" and "colored" did. "Black" works for me because it avoids all the issues of someone's geneology, which is unlikely to be known or determinable on simple observation. Plus, it can cover the entire African diaspora. (However, in my experience, many Black African immigrants to the US don't like to be referred to as Black, viewing that word as connoting a lesser status due to its association with slave descendants.)
posted by fuse theorem at 9:52 AM on February 18, 2007

It's been entertaining also, to watch people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Greenwald assail Obama for not being sufficiently black.

>I think you mean Glenn Reynolds, yes?

Actually, I meant the loathsome Glenn Beck, rather than the marginally less loathsome Glenn Reynolds.

I most assuredly screwed up in using the name of Glenn Greenwald, who's observations on race and Obama are as usual judicious and interesting. Thanks for catching this particularly embarrassing error, for which I feel I should be assigned a bunch of Hail Marys or something.
posted by washburn at 10:01 AM on February 18, 2007

I find this entire American obsession with race and skin colour tedious.

It's not unique to America. I've heard my Italian relatives snark about the swarthier 'Napolitan' (even though they aren't exactly Aryan looking themselves). But it is tedious.

And FWIW, my wife has told me that there is some friction between the African immigrant students at her school and the American black ones, mainly I'd imagine, due to different cultural histories.
posted by jonmc at 10:01 AM on February 18, 2007

As someone who is both Jewish and Irish American, I can safely say I'm white, but just barely.

Whiteness is a social construct, and who is considered to be white has been in constant flux. The Irish, Jews, and other ethnic whites were excluded for a long time.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:04 AM on February 18, 2007

Hildegarde says:

As others above have said, he grew up black in the United States, and is currently raising black children in the United States, and therefore, he is pretty well-versed in the struggles involved with being black in the United States. It seems to me that the argument that Obama is not "black enough" is based on the presumption that oppression is in the past only, not in the present, and if you don't have a genetic link to American slavery you might as well be white. I'm not sure if people espousing this view are deeply naive or determinedly ignorant.

No, it's not at all clear that he's well-versed in these struggles. If I recall correctly, he went to secondary school in Hawaii, then came to the mainland to attend Occidental College, then went to Columbia University and then Harvard. He has been insulated from ordinary American black experience. And you speak of his raising children -- they are the children of a prominent politician, I assure you they are not facing the indignities of an ordinary American black person.
posted by jayder at 10:07 AM on February 18, 2007

Apparenlty, being black in America is defined exclusively by having unpleasant experiences, and, if you haven't had those experiences, you aren't black.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:13 AM on February 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

I assure you they are not facing the indignities of an ordinary American black person.

You assure us? On the basis of what knowledge or expertise? Do tell us about the daily experience of Obama's kids; how people respond to them when they walk into various kinds of business, through this neighborhood or that one. Do they wear signs saying "child of a prominent politician" which prevent people from expressing whatever prejudices they might have? Go on, spill it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:13 AM on February 18, 2007

obama bears the same burden of his blackness that authentic black americans, whatever they are, bear, the exact same vestigial racism.

I don't believe this is true. Obama wasn't born into a family with several hundred years of black American history behind it. He wasn't born into a family whose ancestors were enslaved, "freed", cheated, lynched and eventually marginalized into dangerous ghettos of failure and poverty. It seems clear that part of the "burden" of being black in America is the burden of dealing with that long history of systematic oppression. Obama wasn't born into those circumstances, he was born into an essentially white middle class family that carried none of that baggage. Whether he experienced isolated instances of discrimination based on his skin color, as he surely has, is not nearly as important.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:16 AM on February 18, 2007

but if I understand your comment, you're insisting that racism is the only reason to oppose a black cantidate, which I think is silly.

You completely misunderstand my comment, but that's mainly my fault, since I was being obtuse.

My point was that the end result of this kind of thinking was that it divides race issue into many discreet and complicated subphyla that desire to perpetuate the status quo. By saying the Obama isn't really black is not meaningful in and of itself (it's asinine) but it does have a behind it an attempt to divide and conquer. White racists will not vote for him because he's black and never will so they aren't really the target of this, moreover it attempts to splinter support in the black community for him along the lines that he's "not black enough".

In the end, I think it's tedious and stupid and ultimately not effective, but it's aims seem fairly clear.
posted by psmealey at 10:18 AM on February 18, 2007

"The American Black Experience" on a personal level isn't so much about history and culture, it's whether or not Obama lived with racism his whole life. And though his dad is from Kenya, I'm sure he lived much like any other "African American" that happened to be descended from slaves, getting all the same treatment and facing all the same challenges.

Mathowie gets it.

Also, slight derail: One of the most positive things about labels like 'black' and 'white' is that they are devoid of specific political/racial/historical context while providing a marker for This could be a bad thing, but on the positive side it indicates that recognition of whites' and blacks' integration into a country is complete. I don't think most people any issue with the idea that black people from America are American.

On the other hand, non-white and non-black race 'groups' who are not quite fully identified as 'American' (for example) tend to not have these nondenominational, incorrectly culture-specific terms. Hispanic, Asian-American, Native American, etc. I mean, come on, Hispanic isn't a race marker, yet it's used as one. Asian-American? Hyphenated names seem to imply some sort of forced connection between a nationality and a continent, when all it's used to mean is Americans with ancestors from a foreign country from a continent.

While they may focus on skin color and therefore segregation, the nice thing about color labels is that it implies that we focus less on issues concerning belonging and citizenry, as those are already assumed as true. Creating an unnecessary division between 'American Blacks' and etc. is missing the use of the label 'black' that we use today. If someone moved from Germany to the US and had children who spoke English fluently, would they be 'white'? Of course.

I find this entire American obsession with race and skin colour tedious.

I've got to say that those people who truly think this are probably white. It's easy to dismiss color as a non-issue when you're not always thinking about it, in the style of Du Bois's double consciousness.
posted by suedehead at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2007

Part of this, it seems to me, is a result of Black Nationalism and its sociological descendants. Along with Gay Pride, these movements tried (with varying degrees of success) to take ownership of the categories in question, the same way they fought to reclaim slurs like nigga and queer from racists and bigots.

If "Black" has been reclaimed (even partially) by politically or culturally influential members of the group, those people risk becoming the definition of that group. Bi-racial, privileged, immigrant Obama isn't like the poor, disenfranchised, sons of sons of slaves who have come to define the category.

On the other hand, an unrepentant racist would almost certainly consider Obama black, and uppity at that. Hell, he or she might consider anyone with darker skin black, no matter where they're from. "Sand Niggers," if you will. That Obama's race is in question indicates that Black has become associated with a subgroup of those it would previously apply to.

It's interesting to contrast this with Gay Pride because that movement seems so deliberately, relentlessly, inclusive. GLBTQ and other alphabet soup acronyms for "not straight" reflect the recruitment of groups in similar circumstances into a common cause.

Coming back to Obama, though, it is a bit troubling that Obama is partially getting talked about as not black. It's almost like saying, "Black people aren't successful. Obama is successful. Ergo, Obama isn't black."
posted by Richard Daly at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2007

Obama is going to be forced into the sort of situation shown in Dave Chapelle's "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong," where, in order to demonstrate his blackness, he's going to behave wildly inappropriately, barking at people and shouting "Wu Tang!"
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2007

Shucks. That should be -- providing a marker for identity. This could...
posted by suedehead at 10:22 AM on February 18, 2007

I'm sure he lived much like any other "African American" that happened to be descended from slaves, getting all the same treatment and facing all the same challenges.

I don't know about all that. He spent most of his youth at a private school in Honolulu and while that doesn't mean his self-proclaimed identity struggles were invented or embellished I also don't think that means he lived "much like any other 'African American'".

I imagine his time on the South Side does qualify him to speak to that experience somewhat. He was a community organizer there and later a fixture on campus in Hyde Park. As a Chicago grad I will say that it is a fantastically diverse neighborhood and a great place to be young, black and brilliant if you're looking to find others like yourself. I imagine he did find others like himself, in many different ways, both on campus and in the neighborhoods and I also imagine that experience was thrilling for him. He met his wife there, another brilliant, (and unquestionably) black South Sider.

I think his choices are important. He could have graduated Harvard law and gone corporate. He could have married a white woman. He could have made a lot of decisions that would have taken him further away from the life of "any other African American" but he didn't make those choices.
posted by The Straightener at 10:27 AM on February 18, 2007

nobody knows what an obama administration would do, but we know he's the not-bush, which is one good thing.

He voted for the Bush administration's PATRIOT Act, supported promoting Condoleeza Rice to a more prominent position after her failure to protect to country from the 9/11 attacks, he supports brutal, hegemonic, Hussein-esque dictatorships by voting for folks like John Negroponte, and he has supported some of Bush's theological inroads into what is supposed to be a Constitutionally-mandated secular government.

I don't care that he's black — I wouldn't vote for him because he is Right in all the ways that have hurt this country.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:32 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Blackprof is a blog of leading black law professors.

In reading their views on Obama, it is quite obvious Hillary is not at the bottom of this.
posted by pwedza at 10:35 AM on February 18, 2007

Why is everyone hating on bi-racial people?
posted by j-urb at 10:36 AM on February 18, 2007

Colbert, though funny, didn't really give Dickerson a chance to articulate her position. She did so a few weeks ago in Salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/index.html
posted by torticat at 10:49 AM on February 18, 2007

I was once asked by an African American woman if I was "really a minority". I was a little taken aback, as I am obviously not white. Some people think I'm Indian (I've even gotten Mexican). I explained that my dad immigrated from Nigeria, and she still wasn't convinced. It was super weird. And this was a pretty well educated woman; I mean she was getting a PhD. She was very fat though.

It's not like I particularly care about racial categorization, but it was very strange.
posted by delmoi at 10:52 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think that his mixed background is something a lot of people can identify with. Not the specifics, but the general sort of "what box to I check on this survey?" feeling. And the number of people who find themselves in none or many of the traditional racial/ethnic categories on your standard admissions form is only going to increase in the future.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 10:59 AM on February 18, 2007

I've lived in Africa where the people usually will call themselves and each other "Africans" rather than "black" although you will hear both; neither label seemed to carry any negative baggage. I don’t have much experience with Blacks in the USA except through the media.

I am white, live in Canada, and my ancestors are from Europe/Central Asia. When I was overseas, I didn't care about being called white, didn't like being called European - I can't identify myself like that. I really didn't like it though when people would not draw a distinction between Canadian and the USA - - the American Revolution, Gen George Washington's invasion, Loyalist migrations, 1812, confederation -- these are the events that mattered to me. Afrikaners and the English in South Africa share Northern European ancestry but have some very longstanding and bitter rivalries and would not like being lumped together.

I've also noticed that say in a hostel setting, Canadians, Scots, and New Zealanders will gravitate towards each other - my theory is that we all understand what it is like to be the small country tied to the bigger, louder one.

Nationality or ethnic identity (as opposed to citizenship) is a tricky business and is one a lot of people would have a tough time explaining away, it is rooted in the complexities of history and how we are brought up. We will probably never really know what Obama thinks of himself, and during this election campaign people will try to hang all kinds of labels him (entirely for personal gain). I normally don’t like to weigh in on the politics of other countries, but I would advise people in the USA to try as much as possible to hold their politicians to a higher standard – I was in the USA during the parliamentary (?) elections and I thought they were all walking talking points and hard to distinguish from each other (do they ever really disagree on anything).
posted by Deep Dish at 11:02 AM on February 18, 2007

I don't care that he's black — I wouldn't vote for him because he is Right in all the ways that have hurt this country.

Who are you going to vote for, Blazecock?
posted by delmoi at 11:05 AM on February 18, 2007

In medical school we had a very odd lecture one day on cultural sensitivity—very thrown-together-hastily, though the speaker seemed to know what she was talking about. She talked about the variety of human experience, about the inadequacy of labels, and then about not assuming cultural background from personal characteristics. Not a few minutes later, she calls on this dark-skinned dude in the back of the room for his perspective on being an African-American. To which, the slightly-bemused dude replies, "I'm not an African-American. I'm from Kenya."

And I, merely nodding throughout so far, gave up caring about any part of the remainder of the lecture and went to sleep.
posted by adoarns at 11:10 AM on February 18, 2007

if barack obama were a white freshman senator, would he be talked up as a credible presidential candidate?

You mean like John Edwards?
posted by EarBucket at 11:18 AM on February 18, 2007

She was very fat though.
Let's not lump. What kind of fat was she?

bbw?
curvaceous?
buxom?
lard-ass?
bertha?
opera-singer?
just a little pooch, plus some hangy tits?
Reubenesque?
orca-sling dependent?

Lest we fall pray to ignoring the uniqueness of each individual person.
posted by adoarns at 11:18 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Who are you going to vote for, Blazecock?

it's a little early for that, don't you think?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:20 AM on February 18, 2007

I will be writing in Marion Barry because he's "black enough" for me.
posted by The Straightener at 11:21 AM on February 18, 2007

Fuck Yeah! Marion Barry in '08!

He's already got a house in the District. Unless it's been repossessed.
posted by Football Bat at 11:26 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Who are you going to vote for, Blazecock?

Delmoi, I honestly don't know. Can you suggest a candidate who, on the basis of his or her voting record and funding sources, has reasonable odds of clearing the primaries yet won't behave like a Bush clone once elected? I haven't seen one yet.

Hillary supported the PATRIOT Act and is already in bed with Rupert Murdoch, Edwards voted with the Republicans on the PATRIOT Act and bankruptcy laws, and both supported the war on Iraq.

As far as I can tell the other candidates either have supported critical areas of Bush policy and/or are ineffectual policymakers. Biden is a spineless joke of a leader.

The worst part is that, except for Edwards' mea culpa on Iraq, none of them seem to have much courage to admit they made serious mistakes as legislators. The fear is that admitting any failure of judgement is a sign of weakness. This has been one of the more egregious parts of the Bush legacy.

Meanwhile, as Rome burns, people again are distracted by surface minutiae. Is Obama black? Is he white? Is he just really tan? Stay tuned.

Don't get me wrong: race defines American identity. But a lot of other stuff defines the politics of identity too: who you sleep with, how much you make, where you live.

Don't you think we've got a lot of clean-up work to do that makes this Obama skin color "controversy", well, just the trivial machinations of either an impotent media, or a GOP strategy to divide and conquer?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

About 30% of black Americans who take DNA tests to determine their African lineage prove to be descended from Europeans on their father's side

That's misleading.

The test actually shows the DNA of your father's father's father's (...) father.

So it shows that about 30 percent of black Americans had a European father's father's father's (...) father.

That's just one branch, from many, on a person's "father's side". It is highly likely that the percentage of black Americans who are "descended from Europeans on their father's side" is much higher than 30 percent.
posted by Flunkie at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2007

I will be writing in Marion Barry because he's "black enough" for me.

and the bitch set him up, man.
posted by jonmc at 11:41 AM on February 18, 2007

I think it is good that this issue of black verse African diaspora potential conflict is being worked out now so far in advance of the primaries. A year from now, I think it will be far behind us and be a total non-issue. The prolonged election cycle this year may have its benefits.
posted by bhouston at 11:48 AM on February 18, 2007

I found my IQ declining as I scrolled down this thread. Stupid topic, stupid post, stupid culture, a stupid people.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:07 PM on February 18, 2007

And though his dad is from Kenya, I'm sure he lived much like any other "African American" that happened to be descended from slaves, getting all the same treatment and facing all the same challenges.

But he probably did not grow up with the same culture. People mentioned do-rags, chitterlings, and fiddy cent, and while those are somewhat frivolous examples, there is that sort of divide.

I know people who aren't too keen on slavery-descended "African Americans" but who have no problem with "Africans," because the cultures are different and the "Africans" are viewed as basically behaving the same as white people from a foreign country.

Another difference: "African Americans" smoke crack, but Obama snorted blow. What I really want is a president who instead of talking about his troubled and mistake-filled youth, talks about what a great time he had getting high or coked up.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:10 PM on February 18, 2007

I'm using a computer with Vista on it. Administrator, please hope me!
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2007

Then when Obama doesn't get nomination -- or, say, gets slaughtered by any randon Republican if he indeed gets the nomination (lol) the same Americans will be able to say, hey, he didn't get it because he was too inexperienced, it's not like he lost because of the color of his skin, we're all so enlightened and shit. --matteo

Oh what the fuck ever matteo. Four months ago you were laughing at the thought of democrats taking power. You're view of America as full of Rightwing Authoritarians is getting old, and is clearly counterfactual.

Isn't the criticism of Obama sort of the same thing? He's playing fast-and-loose with definitions of blackness ... trying to get support for being the first "black" president -- Jayder

Is he? I've never seen him say anything like that. He may want it personally, but for the most part it's mouthbreathing rightwingers like Glenn Beck saying he wants "credit" not Obama himself.

Obama has come of age when blacks get better treatment---a generation earlier, he wouldn't have been at Harvard, most likely. -- etaoin.

Harvard was never segregated. They had African American faculty since at least 1850s.

Perhaps it's time for the term "African-American" to fade from use, similar to the way the words "Negro" and "colored" did. "Black" works for me because it avoids all the issues of someone's geneology --fuse theorem

African-American is completely reasonable term for both decedents of slaves and African immigrants and their children. People from Y are called Y-Americans. Irish-Americans, Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans. It doesn’t matter when your ancestors immigrated.

Don't you think we've got a lot of clean-up work to do that makes this Obama skin color "controversy", well, just the trivial machinations of either an impotent media, or a GOP strategy to divide and conquer? --blazecock pileon

Well, I agree that the racial stuff is a total non-issue as far as who I'm going to caucus for. But that said, it will probably be Edwards or Obama. Saying there is no difference between those two and Hillary is like saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. Hillary recently said, explicitly, that she did not regret her war vote and that if you didn't like, you could vote for someone else.
posted by delmoi at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

People from Y are called Y-Americans.

Lousy Y's. Once they moved in the neighborhood went straight to hell. All they wanna do is screw X girls and breed, man.
posted by jonmc at 12:23 PM on February 18, 2007

I think that the absurdity of the phrase "African American" is very well summed up with the equally absurd phrase "African Englishmen."
posted by sourbrew at 12:31 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

blazecock, you keep flogging this "obama is a closet conservative" horse, despite the fact that your ridiculous interpretations of obama's voting record have been called out, and you've yet to respond. would you like to elaborate on whether you comprehend the legislation that seems to have informed your opinion?

upthread:

He's playing fast-and-loose with definitions of blackness ... trying to get support for being the first "black" president

Barack Obama trades on being "black" without being Black. He's running with the novelty of being a well-spoken, dark skinned politician of African descent

is he? does he? maybe i'm wrong, but i haven't seen obama make his skin color central to anything. and it's the right move - running as the black candidate would relegate him to the same historical dustbin as jesse jackson. you can't win a national election by appealing to any minority, be it ethnic, economic or geographic.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 12:31 PM on February 18, 2007

What I want to know is: is Obama really articulate and clean, or does he just have a good thesaurus and a bottle of Old Spice aftershave.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:36 PM on February 18, 2007

If you don't want Sharpton to be president because he's black, you're probably racist. If you don't want him to be president because he's a minister or you think he's a fraud or crazy - isn't that a very different sort of reason?

I think it's more the fraud thing than anything else, at least for me.

He voted for the Bush administration's PATRIOT Act

He didn't vote it into existence. Voting for the status quo is pretty easy.
posted by oaf at 12:46 PM on February 18, 2007

While the sub-divisions of African descended Americans may be interesting for sociological or genetic/medical reasons, analyzing Obama's blackness is mostly an attempt to drive a wedge into America's "black" communities (whatever that means).

Another indicator of wedging is the phrase "Uncle Tom" and it is somewhat active with Obama - Google currently gives ~68,300 hits for the search obama "uncle tom".
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2007

I like that these issues are coming. Black people don't all speak with one voice and there are many shades of grey in terms of where we all came from.

I have no strong idea about Obama or his politics, but he speaks well and doesn't seem bothered by racial identity stuff. He seems as though he's come to his own conclusions about his identity and that speaks well to me.

The problem for black people in American is that their identity has been so twisted and defined by someone else. There was an Atlantic Monthly article on T.D. Jakes, a prominent, current day black preacher. Jakes, American born, mentioned a cab ride he had with a black man from Africa, where he spoke of the differences between Afrian and American blacks:

They have also never shouldered the historical legacy of slavery, and are thus, in Jakes’s view, psychologically distinct from the larger black community in America. The difference, which is an increasing source of intramural tension, was brought home to Jakes starkly during a cab ride one day in Baltimore in the mid-nineties. The cabbie was African, and in the course of a conversation the preacher, never one not to speak his mind, told the driver that he had never really connected with African people, that he just didn’t understand them, that they came across as arrogant. Turning to Jakes, the man said, “We are not arrogant. We are what you would have been had you not been slaves.”

Interesting take.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:26 PM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

They have also never shouldered the historical legacy of slavery, and are thus, in Jakes’s view, psychologically distinct from the larger black community in America. The difference, which is an increasing source of intramural tension, was brought home to Jakes starkly during a cab ride one day in Baltimore in the mid-nineties. The cabbie was African, and in the course of a conversation the preacher, never one not to speak his mind, told the driver that he had never really connected with African people, that he just didn’t understand them, that they came across as arrogant. Turning to Jakes, the man said, “We are not arrogant. We are what you would have been had you not been slaves.”

Well, they're both assholes. For one thing, there are huge differences in African cultures. So one kind of African might seem more arrogant then another kind, depending on their specific cultural background.

Secondly, I think children of African Immigrants are more likely to assimilate into African American culture if they grow up with lots of other black kids. And it's important to remember that Obama is the child of an African, and one who grew up in the US with at least a few other black people.

The "legacy of slavery" thing is just silly. People don't actually inherit memories or psychological whatever directly from their parents. Besides, many African-Americans (probably most) are somewhat mixed-raced.
posted by delmoi at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2007

If I recall correctly, he went to secondary school in Hawaii, then came to the mainland to attend Occidental College, then went to Columbia University and then Harvard. He has been insulated from ordinary American black experience.

Oh, do tell, what is this ordinary American black experience?

And you speak of his raising children -- they are the children of a prominent politician, I assure you they are not facing the indignities of an ordinary American black person.

I'm pretty ordinary, American and black. A person too. What are these indignities you speak of?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:39 PM on February 18, 2007

Next on Metafilter: Simone de Beauvoir raises questions about Hillary. "One is not born a woman," the author of Le deuxième sexe commented from her plot in the Cimetière du Montparnasse, "one becomes one."
posted by shunpiker at 1:47 PM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

There is a big cultural difference between being a black American (i.e. descended from slaves who were brought over centuries ago) and being an immigrant from Africa to the United States. Laying aside the huge diversity within African cultures, they haven't even been in communication for hundreds of years, and share less cultural affinity than Europeans and Americans (who have at least had strong cultural ties and communication throughout the period). Similarly, all of the Carribean islands have their own distinctive cultures.

I grew up in a neighbourhood with both large black Carribean and large Somalian populations - and the Carribean people had nothing in common with the Somalian people (they have some things in common with African-Americans, but lots of differences too -- though television and music have had a great effect on the second generation - amazing how Toronto-born kids with Jamaican parents gain American ghetto accents at puberty). Their language, their religion, their food, their gender relations, levels of education and reasons for emmigrating - all so very different.

But both Canadian and American societies persist in pretending that there is such thing as one "black community" (which in the US is a native community, in Canada a largely Carribean immigrant community, though now most are second and third generation). I think this does a massive disservice to all of the people who happen to look like each other - we should recognise all of the communities as distinct and with very different issues. African immigrants don't have the same history of plantation slavery or long-term minority status, and at the same time, African-Americans won't have dealt with the same issues of colonisation or recent violent wars that many Africans have experienced.

We do need a word that means "person whose ancestors were transported to America as a slave" - it's a distinct culture which is not synonymous with the skin colour, and is yet is not African (as much as some people would like to pretend it is). Maybe African-American is the best word, as it encapsulates the fact that this culture was born of the experiences of African slaves in America -- and African immigrants can be described (as European-Americans are) by their country of origin, as Kenyan-Americans and Somalian-Americans and Zimbabwean-Americans, etc. Their experiences really are different - more akin to the experiences of other non-white immigrants. (There is a sociologist of education who has made this point - but I can't remember his name).

I think this is worth talking about - not in the sense of "is Obama black" which is (obviously) a stupid question (he can idenitify with whatever he likes) - but in recognising the diversity of cultures among people who look "black", and recognising the differences in their experiences.

Biracial opens up a whole other can of worms, but this comment is long enough. (Personally, I think that adopting the "one-drop rule" is giving into racism, and that being biracial (or tri-racial or a million difference races) means that you can have ties to any or all or none of these cultures.)
posted by jb at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2007

Until people like Debra Dickerson realise that ONTOGONY DOES NOT RECAPITULATE WHAT A SPECIAL LITTLE SNOWFLAKE YOU ARE this kind of rubbish will keep on coming.

The question should be 'would he make a good leader?'. The question Debra is asking is 'is he black enough FOR ME?' to which the answer is 'Maybe not but that type of racism is your problem - unless you're gunnning for some kind of Affirmative Action presidency, in which case you're going about it completely the wrong way'.
posted by Sparx at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2007

The question should be 'would he make a good leader?'. The question Debra is asking is 'is he black enough FOR ME?'

Why do you believe she's not asking both questions, at least to herself? The issue she's talking about here is whether he represents what she's defining as her culture and social group. She doesn't say that his race makes him unqualified to be president.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:39 PM on February 18, 2007

Biracial opens up a whole other can of worms, but this comment is long enough. (Personally, I think that adopting the "one-drop rule" is giving into racism, and that being biracial (or tri-racial or a million difference races) means that you can have ties to any or all or none of these cultures.)

Thank you.
posted by konolia at 2:44 PM on February 18, 2007

As for "blacks" from the Caribbean islands, 300 years ago the life of a slave in what's now the southeastern U.S. would've seemed rather nice to a slave on the Caribbean sugar plantations: sugar hands were commonly worked to death, it was cheaper to replace them than feed them. If I am the only person around here who knows any of the relevant history and/or how to find and cite it I might return and supply some links for this "allegation", if I don't bust a gut laughing at what I'm pretty sure is coming: a flurry of imprecations for defending my supposed Confederate slave-master ancestors.

As for the category White Person, surely my fellow Mefites have learned a little Honky History, eh?

And delmoi tiene razón.
posted by davy at 2:49 PM on February 18, 2007

Myself, looking back to to my great, great, ever-so-great grandaddy Genghis Khan, I always check the "Mongolian" box.
posted by jfuller at 2:52 PM on February 18, 2007

Don't tell me american politics are still influenced by

a) fear of negroes/mexican/wop/whatever cheap labor was rushed in
b) fear of drugs, alcohol, sex , dissent
c) fear of the combination of a,b

It is not like fear of something was ever used to distract attention from other issues such as "who benefits, who gets the shaft".
posted by elpapacito at 2:55 PM on February 18, 2007

I find it astounding that some people think the answer to discrimination based on segregation is to sub-segregate even further.

The blacks who are running this "Obama Isn't Black" campaign are doing a wonderful job of setting back the fight against real racism. They'd make Trent Lott proud.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:57 PM on February 18, 2007

To clarify what I was trying to say above: It's like saying that Irish-Americans aren't Irish, they are Irish-American. If they travelled to Ireland they would realise that they being to a different culture which developed out of being Irish in America. They are both valid cultures, but they aren't the same culture. I'm not Scottish - I'm Canadian with some Scots ancestry, perhaps even part "Scottish-Canadian". The cultures may share some affinities - Scottish-Canadian music is remarkably similar, for example, as are some of the recipes. But my family hasn't set foot in Scotland except as tourists in almost 200 years, and I would no more claim to be Scottish than I would claim to be Swedish.

-----------------

I am aware of the difference in the history of slavery between the United States and the Carribean - for one thing, more African slaves were brought to the Carribean than ever went to the mainland colonies in what is now the United States. They did feed them - but mostly on things like fish from New England that was considered unfit for European consumption.

I should know more Carribean history, but what strikes me as one of the greatest differences is that on most islands, black slaves outnumbered whites, which wasn't true in the mainland colonies. They aren't a minority, but by far the majority, which makes for very different racial politics. Their cultures have also been influenced by French, Spanish and/or Indian cultures. They have different churches, different dialects, different post-slavery histories. And each island within the Carribean is different - some are even split in two.
posted by jb at 3:07 PM on February 18, 2007

Dickerson has a perfectly valid core point, but she's mired in a fog of narrow-minded condescension. It is extremely important to distinguish the life of a slave-descended Harlemite with a privileged Kenyan-descended Ivy League graduate, but no one wishes to talk those actual differences.

White morons may erroneously paint all black people as one community, so the success of an Obama paints a happy picture of the end of racism, because his accomplishments are within the reach of all, as we all know. Black morons may also erroneously paint all black people as one community, so the success of Obama may be good for him, but he's not black, since only those descended from slaves are black, as we all know - to say nothing of "the traditional channels."

Bull puckey. "Black" is not a term up for redefinition, not even by those who write columns for Salon. The world is going to have to cope with the fact that not everyone who shares a skin color shares the same history or culture. Rather than bicker over who is or is not black, you're just going to have to open up the history book and start talking about who was or was not descended from slaves, mere color be damned.

As for Obama's civil rights cred, he worked on the South Side, was a civil rights attorney, and did the very best he could to make the world a better place. That places him leagues ahead of most people. The idea that he needs to "kiss rings" to get some support confirms the suspicion that, as with all things, modern civil rights organizations are not saintly, unanimously supported armies of the righteous, but rather politics as usual.

And hell, I even like Sharpton. I saw his C-Span bit when he talked about Obama, and I agreed with everything he said - don't be fooled by Obama's skin color (same) or history (different), just ask what he has to offer African-Americans as a candidate, just as any group would ask what he's doing for them.

As for me, as someone who does not find Obama a blank, but rather as an extremely credible candidate who's as in alignment with my views as I'm going to get at this point, I think the answer is clear - and even if you're not going to go with Obama, I fail to see how one could seriously think that Clinton's the better choice in that regard, or how Edwards, who I even don't mind, is some savior of the poor that Obama obviously could never be.

Hopefully, opposition to Obama on the "not black enough" grounds will be as tiny as I expect it to be. If you want a reason to vote against him, find something better, m'kay? My suspicion and hope is that this talking point is more smoke than fire.

(Also, Dickerson's repetition of the now-debunked "Obama's Muslim background" meme also casts doubt on her credibility, IMHO. Which is weird - when I saw her on Colbert, I had to defend her to my roommate, and when I saw that she had a column, I expected to like her more, but the reverse happened.)
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:16 PM on February 18, 2007

There is a big cultural difference between being a black American (i.e. descended from slaves who were brought over centuries ago) and being an immigrant from Africa to the United States.

But that's not the question the question is whether or not a child of African immigrants has a different experience the a child of native born African Americans.

Look, is it fair to say that a black child adopted and raised by white parents isn't "Authentically black"? What about an African child adopted by white parents?
posted by delmoi at 4:01 PM on February 18, 2007

But that's not the question the question is whether or not a child of African immigrants has a different experience the a child of native born African Americans.

Can I guess "yes" on that one?
posted by ManInSuit at 4:23 PM on February 18, 2007

Buckra been making the black man fight over "high yellow," "tar baby," "Uncle Tom" a long time. Mr. Charlie just sit back and laugh. He laughing now, "You ain't black, you from Africa?" Race like a mad dog, get to biting everybody, sure. Everybody so sick with "He ain't black this," "African ain't black that," how he get his dark on, fall in a can of paint? Ofay knows, a man can't see straight, a man can't vote straight. Ghost motherfucker; bitch set me up, sure.
posted by breezeway at 4:34 PM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

not the smallest skin-related problem with Barak Obama or Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice becoming President

I don't have a skin-related problem with Condoleeza Rice becoming president. I don't have a gender-related problem with Condoleeza Rice becoming president. I have a perjury problem with her becoming president.¹ I have a going-shoe-shopping-while-Americans-are-drowning-in-the-streets problem with her becoming president.²

¹ Among other examples, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the G-8 summit in Genoa in July 2001. She told the 9/11 Commission that she didn't "remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." So she either lied under oath or she's incompetent.

² Yes, she was Secretary of State at the time, so responding to Hurricane Katrina wasn't her job, any more than it was Senator John McCain's. But I'm looking for a little more than a "not my job" attitude in a president, and shopping for shoes or eating cake with George Bush while people are drowning in the streets isn't how I want a potential president to respond in a crisis.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:51 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Kraftmatic: Why do you believe she's not asking both questions, at least to herself?

I think this seems like a valid point on the surface, but it misses the point. She is basing her decision in a simple matter of genetic history (is he 'genetically african-american' enough) - she could equally well (or equally inappropriately) ask it on social history (is he 'ghetto' exeprienced enough), emotional history (is he 'baby daddy' experienced enough) and would miss the boat on each. You can always draw lines of division between the experiences of two different people in such a way that they are exclusive but to so is always arbitrary and really says nothing about Barack's ability to do the job he is up for.

Q.Was Martin Luthor King "uneducated enough' to represent the uneducated poor?

A. This is a stupid question.
posted by Sparx at 5:05 PM on February 18, 2007

Look, is it fair to say that a black child adopted and raised by white parents isn't "Authentically black"? What about an African child adopted by white parents?

Well, my aunt is a biracial woman who was adopted by a white family and raised in a white neighbourhood. She certainly faced racism but she didn't feel culturally black, and she found that black people expected her to know things/be ways that she just wasn't.

It's not an issue of "authentic" or "inauthentic". Nothing would change the fact that (though biracial) she looks black, and she has been treated differently because she is not white. But she does not share in an African-American or African-Canadian or Carribean-Canadian culture. Her authentic culture is Canadian and Torontonian and it's no less or more authentic than any other.

I've known other biracial people who could pass for white (as my aunt never could, she is very dark), and who were raised by their white mother but in a Carribean neigbourhood, and they were part of a black/Carribean culture (as was their mother), as well as Canadian.
posted by jb at 5:24 PM on February 18, 2007

Harvard was never segregated. They had African American faculty since at least 1850s.

Yes, like Oberlin. I never said it was segregated, just that a black man wasn't nearly as likely to be admitted as a white guy was--a rich white guy with connections-- until affirmative-action laws and interest in a diverse workplace took hold. There's a reason Howard University was called the Black Harvard: very talented blackpeople who couldn't get into Harvard, with all of its restrictions, on the percentage of Jews, preference for prep school connections, etc., could get in to Howard.
posted by etaoin at 5:45 PM on February 18, 2007

But that's not the question the question is whether or not a child of African immigrants has a different experience the a child of native born African Americans.

John Ogbu thought so - scan down to the bit about "voluntary" and "involuntary" minorities. Even among voluntary minorities, there can be significant differences. How likely are immigrants from one place to hold a degree, versus immigrants from another?
posted by jb at 5:53 PM on February 18, 2007

The people bored with this discussion should go away; I find it fascinating and I'm glad it's come up,even as I suspect the issue originally was driven by evil people trying to cause trouble. Race matters, whether we want it to or not. I'm personally fascinated by the language issue of how "African-American" came to mean only descendants of slaves.
posted by etaoin at 5:57 PM on February 18, 2007

Race matters

Yes, but why?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:09 PM on February 18, 2007

I'm personally fascinated by the language issue of how "African-American" came to mean only descendants of slaves.

eh, that seems easy: African-American is a creation of the US. Since it was defined by blacks who were descendants of slaves, it's stands to reason that it would mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

I'm curious though: How do people think a black president would be different than any other president. Sure he'd get flack for this or that because he's black, but how would the president himself (or herself!) be different because he was black?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2007

I'm curious though: How do people think a black president would be different than any other president. Sure he'd get flack for this or that because he's black, but how would the president himself (or herself!) be different because he was black?

I honestly think that nearly every aspect of fussing over a black president is over an image and not a reality, making this an election issue, not a governance issue.

And any difference you can think of between a black president and a white president or any other sort of president is going to be an issue perhaps related to race, but never by dint of race itself. Black people are not a monolith; neither are white people. A black president is not going to be magically more or less able to do anything except by his or her own wit, wisdom, ideology, and connections.

I may sound naively colorblind here, but we're talking about one hypothetical person in one powerful position. I can't imagine ever credibly saying something like "Well, a black president would never, ever do x" or "You can guarantee that only a white president would ever do y," except maybe on issues of hilarious obviousness.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2007

Martin Luthor King

Q. Who has had a more profound effect on modern western culture, Superman (and Lex Luthor) or Martin Luther King?

A. Tough call, I'd say. :)
posted by Hildegarde at 6:31 PM on February 18, 2007

I find this entire American obsession with race and skin colour tedious.

I've got to say that those people who truly think this are probably white.

Go and travel abroad - you will find billions of people not as obsessed as the colour of other people's skin as your own culture is. From the outside, America looks faintly ridiculous on this issue.
posted by dydecker at 6:35 PM on February 18, 2007

I honestly think that nearly every aspect of fussing over a black president is over an image and not a reality

Then what is the "not black enough" issue? What does that even mean? Not black enough for what? Is it possible to be "too black"? and not black enough for who? Louis Farrakhan? P diddy? Eddie Murphy? Oprah?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:41 PM on February 18, 2007

Biracial opens up a whole other can of worms

Actually, I don't think it does. It is all the same thing. Being black means something and nothing all at once, and it doesn't mean the same thing to anyone. I'm mixed and went to nice schools and had other black kids get on my ass for not being "black" enough. That's one kind of contestation, and not one terribly different from what some folks interpret as Obama's situation. Only the black folks in my family are slave-descended blacks. Then there are the wealthy, now old-money, slave-descended blacks, whose experience is entirely different. And there are the Carribeans who live down the street from me, and the Africans, and the poor slave-descended blacks, still suffering some structural repurcussions from America's racist legacy. And it's all a different kind of black.

No one, in any case, has one shared experience. Maybe some folks get weird glances in stores. Some don't. Maybe some have family histories deeply effected by structural racism. Maybe some get DWBed and some don't. I mean, when I was at school and we got stopped by the city cops, we were let off because we went to the nice school: is that not authentically black because it doesn't fall into your (well-intentioned, generally) narrative of suffering? At the same time, does that mean some black folks don't suffer? Or course not: it's just really fucking complicated.

I don't know that there is a good answer here. You don't want people to not consider race altogether, because it does matter. But I also don't want people deciding that black means any one thing, or thinking that being black means you are always opressed or never opressed. I do know that it is incredibly frustrating to see people act like they know what my life is like. And that impression is probably shared by a lot of black folks (not all).

As a side note: the white people in this thread—the ones I know are white—talking about what it means to be black like they have any fucking clue at all is hilarious.
posted by dame at 6:50 PM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

So does all the fracturiousness on this thread mean America isn't ready for a black president?
posted by dydecker at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2007

Then what is the "not black enough" issue? What does that even mean? Not black enough for what? Is it possible to be "too black"? and not black enough for who? Louis Farrakhan? P diddy? Eddie Murphy? Oprah?

I think it's a stupid question, that's what I think. I think it's an argument over an image and not a reality. What matters is the candidate's stance on the issues and reputation and experience and so on, but I think the race issue is hot-button enough and surface-level enough that it distracts people from all that drier stuff. It may even be worth exploring as a side note, but ultimately it's so complicated and subjective that people should just admit that it's beyond the talk show level analysis that it is given.

And as much as I may think it's a stupid argument, people still fixate on it, because it's an easy way to brush aside actual, nuanced, and drier policy-based discussion that won't necessarily end in a blinding flash of revelation. At the end of the day, what matters is Obama's (or anyone else's) ability to serve America, and questions like "too black" or "not black enough" are chaff for talking heads on TV and other people who are in the business of selling things.

"What is black culture? What is blackness? Is Obama 'black?' What does that even mean?" are valid questions, but I don't see how they're any more relevant to Obama than a discussion on Kenyan history or our favorite Illinois sports teams or the best poi or what happens when you lose a family member in a car accident or what hat one should wear when one has large ears. It reduces him to a talking point.

However, race is such a touchy subject in America that people can't just ignore it - as they probably should. That's why I know it factors into his election chances. OTOH, as I repeat myself, I still can't think of any way this could in any particular way affect his governance. In the end, he's just a politician, and he should be assayed as such. My hopeful prediction is that people will get bored of "BLACK!?!?! NOT BLACK ENOUGH!?!??!" after a while and then start to like or dislike him for other reasons.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:07 PM on February 18, 2007

So does all the fracturiousness on this thread mean America isn't ready for a black president?

Maybe people will get so confused that, by the time it already happens, they'll have to be.

"What is black culture? What is blackness? Is Obama 'black?' What does that even mean?" are valid questions, but I don't see how they're any more relevant to Obama than a discussion on Kenyan history or our favorite Illinois sports teams or the best poi or what happens when you lose a family member in a car accident or what hat one should wear when one has large ears.

I just realized this was sort of dumb of me to say. Of course those questions matter more to Obama - his candidacy and daily life rides on these issues far more than the nature of good poi. But my point is that making this "the thing" about him is what reduces him to a social studies question, if that makes sense. Ill-informed theorizing about what his experiences are matters far less than just treating him like a man and a politician.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2007

Re: comments 1 - 456: Ugh.
posted by maxwelton at 7:54 PM on February 18, 2007

What matters is the candidate's stance on the issues and reputation and experience and so on,

But wouldn't a candidate past experiences shape that stance? If so, then what sort of stances would a black American take on the issues of climate change, the Middle East, education, security, business, abortion, social security, American dependence on oil, taxes, small business, health care, stem cells, immigration, the space program and, of course, race issues, that would make them different from the way a Hispanic or White candidate might? Would it matter if the black candidate was Republican or Democratic?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:15 PM on February 18, 2007

Too Beige, too proud.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:38 PM on February 18, 2007

But wouldn't a candidate past experiences shape that stance? If so, then what sort of stances would a black American take on the issues of climate change, the Middle East, education, security, business, abortion, social security, American dependence on oil, taxes, small business, health care, stem cells, immigration, the space program and, of course, race issues, that would make them different from the way a Hispanic or White candidate might? Would it matter if the black candidate was Republican or Democratic?

I think their past, upbringing, culture, and so on would very much shape their views. There are most certainly views ascendant among Black Americans as opposed to White Americans.

But by then we're already talking about views and not race itself, because there's no way to accurately say what a particular black candidate might or might not do, merely by dint of being black, until we know who we're talking about. And you can't really say anything meaningful about what Black America or White America might think about this or that because neither is a monolithic experience, and neither occurs in a vacuum. All you have are generalizations and tendencies.

We could maybe extrapolate predictions of how Obama would behave as opposed to Edwards or Clinton or Giuliani or McCain or Rice or Richardson or whoever, but it depends as much on his own unique identity as it does to some group experience. It would be interesting to trace his own unique identity as shaped through various large aspects of culture, but that's a much more individualized treatment than "a black president might be like this" or "he would never do this he doesn't share their experience" or anything like that.

If you told me that there was "a black Democrat" and asked me what I might think on some issues, I might be able to give some predictions. But that's a hypothetical case and not a description of an actual person. And as this debate shows, there isn't even necessarily any automatic cohesion between a potential black (or not black) president and the leading civil rights organizations - and that's a good thing. Even if Obama were descended from West African slaves, I don't think the situation would be much different.

After all, if Alan Keyes were suddenly President (God forbid), would he necessarily have much more leeway with, say, civil rights organizations than Bill Clinton did? I seriously doubt it, or even if he would, it's going to be a very particular example that would be very different if we plug in even some other black Republican into his role, or even a black Democrat. How those organizations would feel about any president will depend, as it always does, on what he or she could do for those groups and their interests - whether we're talking about some clean civil rights org or a corrupt oil lobby or something in between or whatever. It's a big world.

As for those oil lobbies, say - if you have president who's willing to "play ball" and go in their pocket, then things will go one way, or if you have a president who will not, then things will go another. I just can't imagine race factoring into it, let alone on a level anywhere near how the president feels towards Big Oil and what he or she does about it.

I just don't think that, when you're talking about an individual such as one politician, you can make any sort of genuinely useful prediction about their actions on the basis of their race. By the time you zoom in to get that sort of detail, you've already gotten into so many more factors besides - especially since we're looking at an individual with more power than any of us have ever known. The game changes completely.

Also, it's not like the presidency is determined by random selection. The President is not going to be some random black person or some random white person. It's going to be someone who can make it through the machine and get elected. That is going to immediately dictate a particular sort of person with certain skills - and even within that particular sort (thus far always male and white), there is already much variety, but also much limitation. Who do we restrict our presidents to?
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:00 PM on February 18, 2007

A sudden brainfart:

To illustrate my last paragraph, think about Jesse Jackson's campaign platform from years back. He wanted reparations for descendants of slaves. That is going to be a non-starter for a national election. It doesn't matter what you think of that - that issue is not an issue that can be supported, or at least declared, by a candidate seeking the office of the presidency. So, something like "a black president might ask for slavery reparations" is, to me, not something that is true, because the political reality of the moment does not allow for that person to be elected - and even if that president did ask for that, that president almost certainly won't get it from this Congress or any other that will emerge in the following 4 or 8 years.

And so on. Hence my belief that a black president in the near future is going to be much the same as a white one, unless that candidate has a supernatural powers of persuasion, compromise, shrewdness, and chutzpah.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:09 PM on February 18, 2007

I think discussions of different types of blackness can be interesting and illuminating.

For them to only to appear in the national media when some are veiled attacks on politicians is disgusting.

(but then again I've never understood Clarence Thomas).
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 9:37 PM on February 18, 2007

"Race" matters because some people WANT "race" to matter.

Another thing is that in the U.S.A., until the gains of "the Civil Rights Movement" —say ca. 1963— there was a strong(er) correlation between "race" and class. That is, Blacks were more likely to be poor, and the darker-skinned more likely to be poorer. There was a Black bourgeoisie/professional class (graduates of Howard and/or vendors of "ethnic" hair products, e.g.), but it was "invisibled" by the larger ("white") society, and still had to drink from "Colored" fountains and sit in the back of the bus. So the problem here, the reason for this thread, is that psychologically Americans have not kept pace with these changes: while Barack Obama, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice bear a range of complexional hues that "should" serve as a marker of one social class, the other indicators of their social status (such as "articulacy") don't match that mental picture.

Anyhow, two personal observations that might have something to do with the subjects discussed herein.

Given my "high end" hearing loss I generally have an easier time understanding Black women and kids, something about the tone of their voices and how they're projected. If this is really a "racial" trait I'm glad for it, though it might seem odd to some folks that when I'm confronted with a roomful of female strangers and I have to talk with somebody I'll "instinctively" look around for a Black woman to address myself to.

Second, having been raised a fair-skinned scion of a left-liberal mixed-race father and a nice Christian Aryan mother in Baltimore, first in Hampden and then in a more integrated neighborhood, I'm very uncomfortable when Black adults call me "sir". (Especially as I'm obviously not a type most Whites would call "sir".) My hunch, supported by what little reading I've been able to do on the subject(s), are that this has to do with the differing histories of "race relations" between Baltimore and Louisville, e.g. that in the slavery days Baltimore had a large free Black community while Louisville didn't. Anyway, I don't want to benefit from a history I abhor, nor do I liked being treated "specially" because of color of my skin (and sometimes I take it as subtle mockery), nor do I associate "sir" with anything but bullying cops and highfalutin judges. So would somebody take the hobnailed jackboot of history off my delicate ego?
posted by davy at 9:48 PM on February 18, 2007

And yes, this whole subject is tedious. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and assassinate the idiot who thought up "racism".
posted by davy at 9:57 PM on February 18, 2007

Wow.

"Black" people are kinda fucked up.
posted by Artw at 10:08 PM on February 18, 2007

Google currently gives ~68,300 hits for the search obama "uncle tom".

And a Goggle search for "obama nigger" gives 131,000 hits.

Damned if he's white and damned if he's black.
posted by three blind mice at 10:54 PM on February 18, 2007

And Googling for +"barack obama" +"britney spears" got 636,000 hits. So what?
posted by davy at 11:06 PM on February 18, 2007

Well it's clear Obama's not black enough to be president. Jeb Bush it is!
posted by mazola at 11:15 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Stupidest frigg'n thread on MeFi. Ever.
posted by tkchrist at 11:58 PM on February 18, 2007

And you can't really say anything meaningful about what Black America or White America might think about this or that because neither is a monolithic experience, and neither occurs in a vacuum. All you have are generalizations and tendencies.

Yeah, that's the point I was making.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:56 AM on February 19, 2007

As a side note: the white people in this thread—the ones I know are white—talking about what it means to be black like they have any fucking clue at all is hilarious.

And I think it's ridiculous to say that white people have no eyes and no experience of racial categories to draw on. I am white, and I grew up as a minority in my neighbourhood, and I have first hand experience of some of what it meant to be "black" (i.e. Caribbean Canadian) there - it meant being accepted more easily by the other kids on the school yard, especially the older ones (the little kids were colour blind, but the older kids would divy up by race -- and would interfeer in little kids' fights and make them race based). Being black also meant being picked on by our racist principal (who was stupid and horrible to everyone, but extra horrible to anyone not white), and I think some more pressure to join the local gangs (which were sort of pathetic gangs, more into shoplifting than gun crime, but my friend Patrick really went off the deep end because of it). I don't grok the whole of the experience, no more than any mixed-race or non-white person can really understand what it means to be white. All people live with race-relations, and all people have a right to talk about it; the only other alternative is to move into the hurtful fiction that white people don't see race, it's behind us, which is really not true.

I then watched this neighbourhood become less dominated by a Christian and very out-going Caribbean community, and become more mixed with a Muslim and very reserved Somalian community. I had constant daily reminders of the differences between an African culture and a Carribean one (including the way that coffee shops began to flourish). I actually heard one "black" person say to another "black" person, "Go back to Africa." Which would be inexplicable unless you realised the first was Canadian-born and western, and the second African-born.

The original post asks not is Barak Obama is black, but "Are Africans [who have emmigrated to the United States] Black?" And I would say that if by "black" you mean belonging to an African-American culture (which is a distinct culture, maybe collection of cultures, with a shared history and values), I would say no. They may belong to an Somalian-American culture or a Namibian-American culture or a Malian-American culture - all of which are, of course, as different from each other as English and Turkish cultures, and as different from African-American culture as any European or Asian culture.

Will the children of African immigrants be assimilated into the larger African-American culture? Perhaps - it already happens with the children of Carribbean immigrants to some extent, including in Canada (where they become more American, due to the influence of movies and music). I personally think it is a sham for any culture to be assimilated, as it means a loss of cultural diversity, and of cultural strengths. I also think that seeing all black people alike means ignoring that the communities have very different pasts, strengths and problems. Going back to my Canadian examples, lone parent families are almost unknown in Somalian communities, except for widows/widowers, while Caribbean-Canadian communities generally do not have the war-trauma or hijab choices which are a part of Somalian life in Canada.
posted by jb at 4:41 AM on February 19, 2007

Marjorie Valbrun in the Washington Post:

As a black immigrant and a Haitian-American who has lived in the country for 37 years, I know how it feels to have my blackness challenged by native-born blacks.... It makes me angry. I'm angry for Obama, too. People are asking whether he's black enough to represent them. I ask, black enough by whose standards? Why must Obama's life follow the same track of "authentic" black folk to pass this litmus test? Many of my black immigrant friends have also had their blackness questioned by native-born blacks who see us as "not really black." My ancestors probably weren't enslaved on American soil, but they were enslaved on Haitian soil. So how am I less black or less worthy of kinship with black Americans?
posted by jfuller at 5:09 AM on February 19, 2007

I'm angry for Obama, too. People are asking whether he's black enough to represent them.

oh ... for ... pete's ... sake

is george w bush black enough for ya?

can we please, please, please get fucking real here?

obama doesn't deserve this crap
posted by pyramid termite at 5:31 AM on February 19, 2007

is george w bush black enough for ya?

Not nearly, no.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:24 AM on February 19, 2007

Go and travel abroad - you will find billions of people not as obsessed as the colour of other people's skin as your own culture is. From the outside, America looks faintly ridiculous on this issue.

No, they're obsessed about something else, like religion, or some other bullshit ethnic conflict where both sides have the same skin color, but something else is different. From the inside the rest of the world looks much more unapologetically bigoted. Other then maybe Canada, people just are not bothered by racism as much. There is a lot of talk about race but no one is seriously saying he shouldn't be president. On the other hand, a white party leader in India was prevented from being P.M. simply because of her race. People rioted in China when an African exchange student tried to date a Chinese girl at a university. Just look at Australia where white people rioted about something or other and racism is much more prevalent then in the U.S.

I think this 'is Obama black' thing comes down to confusion of two different sets, "The black community" and "People of African decent". Obviously you can be of African decent and not part of the "the black community"

Also, those of you saying that the "ghetto" experience is necessary to being black are idiots. The vast majority of African Americans do not grow up in "The ghetto" They're middle class.
posted by delmoi at 7:09 AM on February 19, 2007

No, jb. You have insight into what it is like to be a certain sort of black Canadian. That you think that has any bearing on your knowledge of what it is like to be my kind of black American or my neighbors' kind of my school friends' kind is fucking ridiculous. It's like me claiming that I know exactly what it is like to be white because I grew up with white people—I don't. I know what it is like to be me and have some insight into a few other situations.

I don't think people shouldn't discuss race: I said that. But the folks who insist being followed in a store is an inherent part of blackness are hilarious. If you don't see why that is, then maybe you just don't know as much about black Americans as your Canadian upbringing has led you to think.
posted by dame at 8:57 AM on February 19, 2007

The "legacy of slavery" thing is just silly. People don't actually inherit memories or psychological whatever directly from their parents.

What a load of crap. My father grew up in the pre-segregation south. His experiences not only have shaped who he is, it had quite a bit to do with how he raised his children. And will probably have something to do with how I raise my children.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions in this thread that identification as "black" is determined by one's experience with and reaction to racism. That view is both arrogant, and overly simplistic.

There is a group of people in this country who's cultural history begins with slavery. You can eliminate all racism tomorrow (please do!) and this fact does not change. There are as many ways one can choose to relate to this as there are people.

When people say we should stop talking about the unique aspects of race relations in The United States of America, it sounds a lot like someone saying we should just up and ignore a history and a culture that many people are very proud of. Black history and culture is American history and culture. It doesnt matter where you choose to stand in relation to it, what color your skin is, or when your family got here, if you consider yourself an American, then you're part of our shared history. You bear the burden of our painful past, and reap the rewards of our shared triumphs. Same goes for Native American culture, Irish, Italian, Chinese, or any other group of Americans.

is Barack obama Black? I don't know. If he wants to be, then he is. But then again, I feel the same way about Eminem.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:12 AM on February 19, 2007

This seems like a really self-defeating stance. There's a huge moral gulf between disliking people for the color of their skin and disliking people for their culture. If "black" is now a cultural construct, then discriminating against "black" people is no longer racism.

I think a similar thing is happening with the Jewish community. The more right-wing nutjobs identify Jewishness with unconditional support for Israel, the more antisemitism looks like any other political position.
posted by bjrubble at 11:18 AM on February 19, 2007

Though you should probably tell that to David Mamet, bjrubble.
posted by Football Bat at 11:41 AM on February 19, 2007

What a load of crap. My father grew up in the pre-segregation south. His experiences not only have shaped who he is, it had quite a bit to do with how he raised his children. And will probably have something to do with how I raise my children.

The point is, slavery did not leave a genetic mark on people, to the point that you could call them "black" or "not black" based on it, or make it into some kind of ethnicity. I was talking about ethnicity not culture. If your father had grown up in the north and not experianced racism, would you not be black? (I'm assuming your black from what you wrote, not sure though)
posted by delmoi at 12:18 PM on February 19, 2007

If "black" is now a cultural construct, then discriminating against "black" people is no longer racism.

Assuming you could ever tell the diffrence between "black" and, you know, black.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on February 19, 2007

Other then maybe Canada, people just are not bothered by racism as much.

Canada's got language. Fucking Francophony.
posted by blasdelf at 12:45 PM on February 19, 2007

Black is the new black.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:12 PM on February 19, 2007

But the folks who insist being followed in a store is an inherent part of blackness are hilarious.

I agree with this, but maybe it's because I've been exposed to some African culture that I'm aware of how different African-American culture* is from it. African-Americans are in the majority Christian, and there are some certain denominations of protestant Christianity which dominate; Africans can be Muslim or animist or different kinds of Christian. There are stories and foods and traditions that are shared by African-Americans which are not shared by Africans, just as each culture within Africa has things they do not share with African Americans. When was the last time a "soul food" restaurant served sorghum? Now, maybe some of these traditions are breaking down, especially after the diaspora from the south to the north, and new traditions and culture is forming. Cultures do change, and merge or diverge. But I'd say currently there is (at least now) a distinct African-American culture. Of course, not all "black" people are in that same culture - for one thing, some are emmigrants from the Carribbean or Africa. Which has been my point all along - I think that including everyone of a particular hue of skin into one culture ignores the existence of different histories and cultures.

Maybe language is just the biggest problem. "Black" is a racial category and an ethnic category. Of course, everyone who looks black is black, just like Russians and Italians and Brits are all white - but you would never say they had the same ethnicity or culture. Why should black people all be lumped into the same group? I think that we need words for the different cultures - I think "African-American" should be used to recognise the culture of native black Americans, who settled centuries ago, and "Jamaican-American" or "Nigerian-American", etc for people who have emmigrated since.

*to claim that anyone who grew up in North America has not been exposed to African-American culture is crazy; you'd have to grow up in a box to not know something, and it's more well-represented in the arts and media than any other non-white culture - I've learned far more about African-American culture from novels and media than I do about Chinese-American culture, for example. And it's definitely African-American culture, because American culture dominates Canada. Sadly, the small African-Canadian community (descendants of emmigrants after the Revolution, and runaway slaves throughout the nineteenth century) is not very present in our arts and media, so I know almost nothing about their history and culture, as opposed to African-Americans in the southern United States.

All this does remind me about a funny story told by Paul Gilroy in the intro or acknowledgements of his book, Black Atlantic. (NB: details by memory, may be slightly incorrect). He was once introduced as a prominant "African-American scholar". He corrected the speaker, pointing out that he is British. They quickly corrected themselves: he is a prominant "British African-American scholar".

The point is (other than the funny assumptions of the American speaker), people in the US use "African-American" as a euphemism for black (because they've decided that "black" must be a bad word or something), but it should mean what other hyphenated names do: a recognition of a culture, just as Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans have cultures they do not share with all white people.
posted by jb at 2:41 PM on February 19, 2007

"The point is, slavery did not leave a genetic mark on people, to the point that you could call them "black" or "not black" based on it, or make it into some kind of ethnicity. I was talking about ethnicity not culture. If your father had grown up in the north and not experianced racism, would you not be black?"

ethnic: Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.From Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos, from ethnos meaning people, nation.

Yes, slavery did leave a genetic mark on Black Americans.

About 30% of black Americans who take DNA tests to determine their African lineage prove to be descended from Europeans on their father's side, says Rick Kittles, scientific director of African Ancestry, a Washington, D.C., company that began offering the tests in 2003. Almost all black Americans whom Kittles has tested descended from African women, he says. The social and cultural ramifications of the mixing of African and European bloodlines in this country is a significant part of Black Culture and history.

To answer your question. My mother's family migrated to the north many generations before my father's. The situation surrounding her ancestors heading north and why is also a big part of my family's culture, tradition, and identity. The fact that I have this history, this culture, these traditions in common with a specific group of other people is what makes me Black, not the color of my skin.
posted by billyfleetwood at 2:51 PM on February 19, 2007

Okay, from what I have learned in this thread, let's try classifying my grandson.

His mom is white. Up until now I figured his dad was African-American. Checklist: Black skin tone, check. Descended from slaves, check. Born in the USA, check. Cultural? Hmmm....all his friends in high school were white. He married white. He didn't know what FUBU meant till I told him. (Oh, and his family was and is military connected, if that means anything.)

These two are raising a caramel creme latte baby. Who apparently will be culturally more white than black (at least at this point-I suppose things could change.)

I am told that he is African American by African Americans simply because he will be treated as an African American-again, because he is a caramel cream latte baby. (Not white enough for white people.) I have a feeling his future African-American classmates will be telling him he "acts white" (Just like dad I guess.)

One thing I am sure of: He's not from Africa or Jamaica, nor is he a Yankee.

(Now forgive me if I simply call him biracial and let Obama call himself Al for all I care.)
posted by konolia at 3:43 PM on February 19, 2007

"This seems like a really self-defeating stance. There's a huge moral gulf between disliking people for the color of their skin and disliking people for their culture. If "black" is now a cultural construct, then discriminating against "black" people is no longer racism."

That is just downright wacky.

Almost as wacky as using FUBU as a cultural touchstone, but I'm assuming a bit of toungue was being placed in a bit of cheek, and the imagined conversation there is pretty funny..."It means For U, By U"
posted by billyfleetwood at 6:56 PM on February 19, 2007

konolia - I agree, your grandson is biracial, and I hope that in the future he will realise this (assuming that as a baby he currently identifies as a sleeping and eating-American). For one thing, he is your grandson, and as much related to you as anyone else in his family. To say that he is not part white would be like saying he wasn't part of your family.

I once heard a story on NPR about growing up biracial in an over-whelmingly white community. The reporter (the story was about himself) was asking his mother why she brought him up as a black person in a white town (her hometown, where all of her family lived). He didn't seem to realise that he was basically saying that he had chosen to identify entirely with his father's heritage, and thus repudiated hers. It was really painful and frustrating to listen to, and I could hear her trying to say well, you're part of me too, but he didn't seem to realise it.
posted by jb at 4:59 AM on February 20, 2007

If you're a lightskinned black person or biracial mix of black and white and you live in American and you're bored one day try this: Identify yourself as white. Be prepared for much confusion and hostility. In America, the one drop rule is king, even among those who didn't realize there was a kingdom.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:01 AM on February 20, 2007

Wouldn't identifying yourself as white be negating your non-white family just as much as identifying as black negates your white family? What's wrong with identifying as biracial or multi-racial?
posted by jb at 2:14 PM on February 21, 2007

(That's not to say that I don't agree with you that the one-drop rule is king, it just saddens me that it is.

But interestingly, I have cousins who are 1/4 black, 3/4 white, but they look neither black nor white - they look East Indian or Middle-Eastern. And are much prettier than the rest of the family (their mother, my aunt, is gorgeous and tall and slim, while the rest of the family is short and dumpy - adoption is a great way of improving your family's genes.)
posted by jb at 2:18 PM on February 21, 2007

If Obama, being half black is "not black enough," what should we make of Homer Plessy? He was one-eight black, but that was still too black to be allowed to sit in the white folks' train car.

So: Obama, four times as black as Plessy, who got sent to the back of the train, is not black enough to run for President.

Makes perfect sense.
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:12 PM on February 21, 2007

Wouldn't identifying yourself as white be negating your non-white family just as much as identifying as black negates your white family? What's wrong with identifying as biracial or multi-racial?

Nothing wrong with it, just an interesting exercise. Most people don't seem able to accept calling yourself white in this instance, but they'll accept black.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:49 AM on February 22, 2007

Nothing wrong with it, just an interesting exercise. Most people don't seem able to accept calling yourself white in this instance, but they'll accept black.

I understand what you mean, and yes, it is true. I think it is part of the legacy of the one-drop rule, which is of course why Plessy was "black" and which has influenced the way everyone understands blackness or whiteness in the American context.

(I was going to say "the way everyone understands race", but then I realised that other races and racial mixtures just don't have the same history as the relationship between black and white.)
posted by jb at 10:47 AM on February 23, 2007

(That said, that's one of the reasons I respectfully disagree with biracial people identifying solely as black - it's giving into the racists' one-drop rule.)
posted by jb at 10:48 AM on February 23, 2007

« Older Introducing.... the Book.... | Marjoe Gortner, world's younge... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Caramel Crème Latte Like Me February 18, 2007 7:59 AM Subscribe

Caramel Crème Latte Like Me
February 18, 2007 7:59 AM Subscribe