To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president. He is more than the personification of African American achievement. He is a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go.The logic here being that there are no black people who are biracial or bicultural. Whenever I read these jingoistic biracial arguments I wonder whether they're little more than attempts to take credit. Somehow, if, say, the Beltway sniper's mother was white, I don't think there'd be a throng of non-black people yelling, "But he's not really black!!"
I wish to highlight the authors parentage as "the child of a white Kansan mother and a foreign father." I mean no disrespect to her or her roots. I simply suspect this sort of thinking is most common among people who aren't likely to have been erroneously stopped by cops, endured fried chicken jokes, done the whop, been embarrassed by group of black kids acting a fool on the train, or snapped on someone's played-out Chuck Purcells--among other things. But you can judge that for yourself.
Look, the thing is this--or rather, the things are this. To be black is not simply to be the opposite of white. Black is a racial/ethnic/cultural/historical marker. Sometimes it's better to think of black people like you think of the Irish. Sometimes it's better to think of us like you think of the Jews. And still other times it's better to think of us as Southern. But mostly it's best to think of us as, you know. humans.
But nationalism--be it monoracial, biracial, or multiracial--has no respect for actual individual humans. And nationalism is really Arana's point--she simply seeks to substitute the strictures of one group (a charmed, rainbow of genes and cultures) and for another (a presumably, pure strain from straight out the Congo). But asserting that Obama isn't black but biracial, is really no better than asserting that he's black, but not biracial.
The arrogance of both arguments are quite stunning. As an African-American, I'd think myself far, far out of place to tell a dude whose mother was a Russian Jew, and father was a Muslim Arab, that he had no right to call himself a Jew or a Muslim or an Arab or even a Russiuan. What the fuck do I know about his life?
Everything flows from respect. Tiger Woods calls himself multiracial. The moral thing to do is not to launch into all sorts of diatribes about shame and blackness, but accept him as he accepts himself. But that cuts both ways. Barack Obama calls himself a biracial black man. The human thing to do, is nod your head and say "Got it." The human thing is to respect these dudes. Respect our own ignorance of their lives. And most of all, respect their humanity.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
What I found most telling about Arana's piece was her seeming ignorance/overlooking of the role that skin color plays in Latin American societies. While it's true that Latin Americans are, more often than not, an amalgam of different races and ethnicities, it's even more true that, with a few notable exceptions, i.e., Venezuela and Bolivia, elite status is reserved for the more European-looking among mi gente.
While it's true that Latin Americans think about race differently than do North Americans, race plays, if anything, an even bigger role in organizing society in Latin America.
Really good reaction to that op-ed. I read it before I got to your site and was really at a loss with how I should feel. I am black so am I miffed because she is saying that he isn't black? No, that was not my feeling at all. I think it was because she arbitrarily decided who and what he is...instead of taking him at his word. His mother is a white woman from Kansas....and he still can't catch a cab in NYC because he of his skin color. That is his experience...no matter what racial moniker he chooses to don.
Thanks, Ta - I just got through reading that editorial, and was irritated for reasons I wasn't able to put into words. Well, my first thought was "how is Marie Arana supposed to tell someone what black means? Who the hell is she?" but I felt I was being uncharitable.
Look, as a black woman, I've been guilty more than once of trying to ascribe to people the racial identity I think they *should* adopt. But I've learned that what people want to call themselves is really, REALLY not any of my business. That's called "growing up."
From people who are white, I think this "But he's not black!" thing is some credit-taking, and also a way to keep us "pure" (whatever) black people in our place. Like, "You can't take full credit for him, you know that a *regular* black person couldn't achieve what he achieved."
And for biracial people, I feel like this insistence on claiming is some kind of assertion that being "pure" white or "pure" black is not as TOTALLY AWESOME as being all mixed up with stuff, like they are. But I don't agree with her that black or white or "yellow" (which, what? but that's a word she used) is some kind of reductive label that is inherently a poorer choice than biracial or multiracial or whatever she'd want to replace it with.
I'm sure she'll get a lot of "you go, girl!" comments during her chat on Monday about this article. And, I think it's cool that a lot of people want to claim Barack's victory as their own. But if the man wants to call himself black (and black can mean many different things, since most black people in this country ARE biracial) then just let him do so. Who are any of us to tell him to change his self-image for us?
(And as a total postscript: as an admitted outsider, I think that her side assertion that Latinos have somehow got this racism thing beat because of their years of intermarriage seems way off the mark. Latinos seems just as color-struck as anyone, from my perspective.)
It is kind of irritating, because if Barack Obama had been, say, a drug lord, practically none of these bi-racial folks would want to be cuddling up next to him. He would just be black, pure and simple.
I would say that BHO would probably not be considered " black" in Latin America. There the technical term is mulatto.
In the English-speaking Caribbean, where I grew up, he would have been referred to as a "brown man" until quite recently.
If Barack self-identifies as black, that should be the end of it-and it is for most people.
As you say, meh. Ain't it always the case? Good point re Beltway sniper.
Though, two references stand out. In the first, she refers to Chinese "coolies," a term I've only heard as derogatory. Plus, it just sounds foul. Giving Ms. Arana the benefit of the doubt, I looked the word up on Wikipedia. Broadly, the word can apply to a worker of any nationality but is still decidedly a slur. The second is her reference to the translation of "Todo plátano tiene su manchita negra." Every banana has its little bit of black. Huh? This is the kind of statement that one encounters and is left blinking, wondering if one is just being too sensitive by being slightly offended and foolishly countering just as ignorantly, "Naw, dammit. Todo negra tiene su manchita plátano!!!"
There's a parallel here, strangely enough, to the way arguments about gay & lesbian rights tend to be boiled down (on both sides) to the need to place sexual orientation beyond choice, to see it as a fact of nature. The implicit assumption is that if it is a choice, then "we" don't have to acknowledge it as legitimate, that we as a society are entitled to rule it beyond the pale.
Is being black a choice? Well, not for most people. I, being white, couldn't choose to be black, and TNC couldn't choose not to be. Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, though--there's clearly an element of choice there. Barack has clearly made the choice to embrace both sides of his ancestry but to define himself, as the society around him tends to, as black. Tiger Woods has made a different choice, and with limited success--he's still read as the first successful black golfer. But once you allow for the possibility of choice, that the difference between black and white is not, as it were, so black and white, then the whole situation gets messy. History is messy, though, and trying to reduce it to tidy categories is at best foolish.
Respectfully, I beg to differ.
I think this op-ed was very thoughtful, and in many ways dealt with issues in a nuanced manner unlike the one usually espoused in U.S. medida.
Her example of Halle Berry being seen as "Black" or Ben Kingsley being seen as "White" read dead-on to me.
Now Ms. Arana may be wrong in some of her appreciatons (I'm a Latin American, but I'm not sure the experiences that I have here in my home country of Panama are the same as someone with Peruvian roots), but she is coming at the problem from a different angle.
While not meaning disrespect to Ta-Nehisi, his reaction is not entirely unlike those of (some) gay people who get extremely upset when someone is characterized as bi-sexual (as an aside, I think Andrew Sullivan is responsible for this vis-a-vis Larry "wide stance" Craig).
Getting back to Obama, I think he has every right in the world to think of himself however he wants to think of himself. That being the case, my understanding (can't find the quote, but it's out there), is that he thinks of himself as a bi-racial black man.
(I don't have it anymore, but there's a section in Dreams of my Father where Obama writes about going out with what I think was a white Jewish East Coast woman, and how uncomfortable that was. Barring his political career, I have to wonder what Obama's point of view would have been if he'd married a white woman as opposed to a black woman - surely his perception of his own identity would have been impacted by such a decision, right? If nothing else, it is highly likely his potential children would have been more towards the white side of the spectrum than the lovely Malia and Sasha).
P.S. Upon rereading my post, I gues Ta-Nehisi could be offended by my analogy about bi-sexuals. I apologize if that is the case, but I did want to use the analogy, because it's a good parallel.... (IMO)
I've been told I'm not black before. Mostly for my mannerisms and my interests more than my light brown skin. After reading up on the history of multi-racial people in America it's a pretty common experience. In an all white crowd, Obama is the Black guy. In an all black crowd Obama is the not Black guy.
Also to Ms. Arana's erroneous historical claim that Obama is the first Bicultural or Biracial president she's wrong. There are more than a few Presidents including Thomas Jefferson and Eisenhower who have a little chocolate in their family trees.
@ JRVJ:
You raise some good points, and I actually think the bisexual analogy is useful, but I disagree with your defense of Arana. In your Andrew Sullivan example, Sullivan seems to be acting as a gay essentialist, rejecting the idea that Craig could be bisexual. TNC acknowledged that Obama's biracial, but contended that he was also black; as far as I can tell, that's how Obama sees it. Arana is the one arguing that these categories are mutually exclusive, that if you're biracial you're not black. Basically she's working with a narrower definition of "black" than TNC is - and I think he's right to call her out.
JRVJ, I feel like the main point that Arana glides over is that "black" is what Barack prefers to call himself. As for bisexuality, certainly people who call themselves bisexual have a right to their own self-knowledge.
I wish that I could agree that she looked at this in a thoughtful manner. But, perhaps because she's not familiar with "black culture," she seems to have missed all the things that go along with calling yourself black in the United States. It's not merely something that goes along with having dark skin. It some cases, it's almost a political alliance -- I'm probably using the wrong term here, forgive me, I'm not a professional blogger. :-) She gets all into Latino culture, understandably so, but for black culture, she throws in a little Langston Hughes and that's it. Well, Langston, though great, doesn't speak for all of us, and I bet that at the end of the day, he knew what being black in America really means.
Anyway, when white people jump up to "claim" a biracial person who has done something terrible, THEN I'll know that we're really in a "post-racial" world.
Ms Arana wrote a god awful post. She is making an argument for some type of post racial society that we are not without an acknowledgement of what our "racial society" is. What is worse post racial always refers to to AfricanAmericans never anyone else. I've never heard of Bill Richardson, Bobbie Jindal or Rudolph Guiliani being referred to as post racial w/ their acession to political power.
She is espousing what I disliked intially about the Obama announcement; a black man whom could be neutered into acceptability-he is so articulate or someother garbage. Next is all the Caucasians you know telling you how committed to Obama they wre before anyone knew he was.
Ta-Nehisi, I agree with your point that Aranas is assuming that there are no black people who are biracial or bicultural. I also agree that, at the end of the day, it's about taking credit and taking black people who take pride in Obama's victory down a peg or two. She announces "He is also half white" and "We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic" as if this is news - or her decision. Who is to say that all biracial people who are half-black and elect to identify as black do so because of "dated logic?" What if they choose to do so based on their own feelings and experiences?
Obama has faced this question many times and his answer has been consistent. This quote is from 2004:
Obama unfazed by foes' doubts on race question
"My view has always been that I'm African-American. African Americans by definition, we're a hybrid people. One of things I loved about my mother was not only did she not feel rejected by me defining myself as an African-American, but she recognized that I was a black man in the United States and my experiences were going to be different than hers. My daughters will grow up with a cousin who looks entirely Asian but who carries my blood in him. It's pretty hard not to claim that larger community."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/technology/chi-0403150115mar15,0,1031048.column
JRJW,
I think you misread my post. I have no problem with Barack Obama calling himself biracial, biracial black or biracial white. That's his choice. It's Arana who's saying he's not black, not me who's saying he's not biracial. (This is getting confusing) You're Halle Berry example highlights the point. Berry isn't just seen as a black, it's how she identifies herself.
My point, simply restated is this, biracial people--like all people on this earth--should have the right to define themselves. I claim no right to tell you what Tiger Woods is. But then, I didn't write an editorial arguing that Obama "isn't multiracial."
Who cares what anyone thinks. Let Obama who he is.. The article is really about the author herself and her issues about self expectance. She only uses Obama to mask it. She is projecting. She should just admit she has issues. Btw, most African Americans are mixed. We are like Baskin Robins. Why do you think African Americans come in different shades and have a variety of looks? DUH.. Not all AA's look the same. According to some study I read a while ago they believe that 1/3 of "white" Americans are mixed. Anyway's race is a made up social construct made to create a feeling of supremacy for some groups and distinctions based on genetics where there really is none. Now there is a distinction among cultural mores because people are shaped by environment and geography. There is only one race, the human race. How come our kids see this but we don't?
I've never heard of Bill Richardson, Bobbie Jindal or Rudolph Guiliani being referred to as post racial w/ their acession to political power.
Good point. I have not heard Bill Richardson being called "biracial" or "not Hispanic" because he had a white non-Hispanic father. I wonder if Aranas would have written the same piece if Bill Richardson were the president-elect?
My first impression on reading the article is that the author is probably well-meaning, but maybe a little naive, no? These parts in particular:
"With language like that, how can we claim to live in a post-racial society?"
How many people are actually claiming that we live in a post-racial society? Who is this "we" that the author is referring to? Does anybody here really think we live in a post-racial society?
"Isn't it time we stopped using labels that validate the separation of races?"
I'm not really sure that people identifying themselves with ethnic-based communities is equivalent to "validating the separation of races". How about people identifying themselves with religious (or non-religious) based communities? Are they "validating the separation between religion"?
I think most people identify themselves as one thing or another (whether it's ethnic-based, religious-based, class-based, etc) for a sense of belonging. And of course, some people don't really have a choice one way or another.
This post-racial notion is a bit Pollyanish to me. Americans ARE diverse and different, that's part of our heritage. Embracing our own identity does not mean a rejection of other people's.
As the child of a black father and white mother I can tell you with certainty that the biracial experience is very different from the black experience and people should recognize that this is so. That's not to say that Barack Obama (or myself for that matter) hasn't experienced the anti-black strain of discrimination in this country, but there are other, much different, effects that being biracial has on the development of a person's (racial) identity. It would be a mistake to disregard that.
And the headline is terrible, IMO. "He's Not Black"? My first thought was - sheesh, not again. Haven't we done this to death during the election?
Zak,
If you read my post, I stated that Obama thinks of himself as a bi-racial Black man.
To the extent Ms. Arana is arguing that you can’t be bi-racial and black, she is wrong, but it seems to me that her point was exactly the other way around – when you’re bi (or multi) racial, you shouldn’t be type cast as EXCLUSIVELY black.
Now the issue could be (could be) that Ms. Arana is not looking at this from the “gender” standpoint. Bear with me on this, but my understanding is that feminist studies regarding gender have allowed a certain disengage between gender and actual sex of the person. Using this same rationale, you can be “black” from a gender standpoint (and I know this is not the correct terminology – I apologize, but I don’t really know the correct terminology) while not necessarily being “black” (or solely black) from a physical standpoint.
Ms. Arana does not seem to approach the issue in the “gender” manner, and is arguing (if I understand her), that being “black” is a physical concept, which it should not be, because there should be a lot more nuance about the issue.
In any case, of course Ms. Arana is projecting – she’s pretty darn clear in the piece when she mentions her own muttish background.
(Re: the Platano anecdote which seems to have upset “Hicks”, I don’t think he gets the point Ms. Arana is trying to put across. The point of that saying is that even fair-skinned Latins should not get too hoity-toity about their “Caucasian” heritage, since it is quite likely they have other racial backgrounds in their genes. To that extent, this saying is actually inclusive – i.e., don’t think of others as less than you are, since you may be – to an extent – an “other).
I agree with you entirely, Catherine -- and just like in my first comment, I want to be upfront in saying that I HAVE been guilty of disregarding the unique experiences of biracial people, and I cringe with embarrassment. I was young, stupid, and I thought I had a lot of answers.
But isn't Arana doing much the same thing, by disregarding Obama's own thoughts on the matter, and substituting her own judgment? I have NO right to substitute my judgment for yours on your own life. She has no right to substitute her judgment on Obama's racial classification for his own.
And I still can't seem to shake this feeling that she is suggesting that being biracial/multiracial is somehow better than being JUST black or white. I know that I'm doing a little reading between the lines there, but she seems to suggest that "black" or "white" are just poor default choices when you can really be a multicultural sparkle pony!
But putting her comments in the best light: I don't think that the advent of multiculturalism will get rid of racism, as she suggests. Blacks and whites have been mixing for a long time. There's some mighty pale black folks out there. But Maybe I'm just cynical.
Christina,
Good post, though I think I answered your comments above.
I think you’re right that Ms. Arana does not understand U.S. “Black” culture, but to be honest, she wasn’t writing this piece in Ebony or Jet (and I am using those publications as a short-hand, not because that’s the correct place to publish an article such as this).
That being the case, it is possible that her line of reasoning is more nuanced than what appears in this op-ed, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on that….
Robert M,
Good point on Richardson, though I think it’s good to bear in mind that there’s also a class issue at play with him (yes, he’s half-Mexican, but his Mexican heritage was fairly well off and Caucasian).
I’m not sure I understand how Jindal or Guliani are bi-racial, though.
TNC,
I think I covered your reply (thanks a lot for replying) in an earlier comment.
I do wonder, however, if someone like Halle Berry’s identity is influenced (or not) by the prevailing society mindset when she was growing up. What I’m saying is that it MAY be a bit tautological to say she’s black because she thinks of herself as black when that was the only option open to her at the time.
It’ll be very interesting to see what identity her daughter (who’s father is a very white-looking Quebecois guy) will develop for herself, largely because she will have a lot more choices available to her….
Jr,
Go back and read her article--it's clearly either or. She's not making the tent bigger--i.e. biracial AND, she's going the either/or right. The headline literally is "He's not black." Like I said, I'd never say he's not biracial. It ain't my place.
TNC,
I don't think we're disagreeing on what Ms. Arana wrote.
I'm trying to understand WHAT she wrote and WHY, which is why I tried to explain to Zak above.
Thanks again for replying.
TNC,
An added thought. I'm no expert on Perú, but from a thing or two that I've read and/or heard, I believe Peruvians truly do differentiate between mestizos and indians (even though a mestizo may look, for all extents and purposes, as an indian).
That might also be influencing Ms. Arana's point of view....
I have to say that I agree with both Coates and Arana, if that is possible.
Coates nails it when he says that Obama considers himself a "biracial black man."
And Arana nails it when she says that "to me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people..."
This is undeniably true. Any biracial people - whether black, Asian or Latino etc - can rightly take pride in Obama as the first biracial president.
But saying he's not black? I don't roll with that. Obama calls himself a black man, and you need to respect that. Tiger Woods doesn't, and you need to respect that, too.
It's not a contradiction to say Obama is both black and biracial, and it's not a contradiction for both African-Americans to take pride in Obama, and also for non-African Ameican biracial people to also take pride in him.
We're all in this together. Obama gets that. Should be a lesson for us all.
This is an idea that I have seen coming from people in my parnets generation who have defined their position in the culture war as "European Culture" vs "Lesser culture"
The thesis is that Obama was saved from poverty and failure by being raised in a "european" household that has benficial traditions and values, as opposed to "Other" values. White culture is still dominant, he's just assimilated well.
Other than being both divorced from reality, and inherently dismissive of African American culture, it also fits into the exploitaiton of black culture by whites for the last century and a half. Anything "good" is appropriated, and anything "bad" is inherent in the racial and cultural makeup.
Ms Arana seems to be moving towards some of the racial theories of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Vasconcelos]Vasconselos[/url], which I think is problematic. It's modernist approach to try to build a new racial mythology, which the 20th century has shown us to be a bad idea. (I think the Indian conflict comes from the same efforts in the Muslim and Hindu communities.
"(Re: the Platano anecdote which seems to have upset “Hicks”, I don’t think he gets the point Ms. Arana is trying to put across. The point of that saying is that even fair-skinned Latins should not get too hoity-toity about their “Caucasian” heritage, since it is quite likely they have other racial backgrounds in their genes.)"
I get the point. And I'm not upset, just wondering if I should be mildly insulted that fair-skinned Latins can be brought down a peg by pointing out that their genetic background includes black, or if I'm being oversensitive. It may be the latter, though I'm fairly certain that the blotch on the banana means it's sweet and ripe.
"And most of all, respect their humanity."
Ugh. Arana's post is silly and so is yours, TNC. I don't know which is worse, Arana's 'nationalism' (which is surely going too far) or TNC's political correctness. Respect their humanity? All this handwringing over racial terms seems like a movement in the wrong direction.
Dude, he's about to be a sitting President. We don't respect the humanity of a sitting President! We parse him, analyze him, and mock him relentlessly.
Well, if you're racist against non-caucasian types, then yes, it's good to be told you're not exactly hot shmit, no matter what airs you may want to cultivate.
(Not sure, though I suspect that this is the case for Perú, but I remember an anecdote I was told once by a Colombian attorney, who told me that he hated dealing with people from Cartagena, Colombia, because they all thought and/or claimed that they were descended from this Viceroy or that Marquis. Seeing as how Perú was one of the two biggest plums in the Spanish Empire, that may well be the mindset in Perú, too).
How many people knew Barack Obama or Halle Berry were bi-racial until they were told that they had a white parent? On sight they are black people and that has a lot to do with how they see themselves. Barack and Halle don't really look any different from many black person with two black parents and therefore many experiences are the same. They of course have additional and important experiences as bi-racial people, but it makes sense if they, emotionally, culturally and socially, relate to black people more. It's always been possible to be a bi-racial black person in America whether Ms. Arana likes it or not.
And thank God for that. If we didn't have a cohessive racial identity we'd be like black folks in Latin America, who never had a full movement for equal rights because blackness was something they could run away from in terms of what they called themselves even if it wasn't the reality in practice, like in Brazil. And form what I understand Latinos are as color struck as any other group. Has she ever watched Spanish lauguage television? In terms of racial diversity, they are behind America. I've never seen so many blonde Mexicans. They've bought into "white is right" too.
Not only is she disrespecting the right of people like Barack and Halle to define themselves based on their own reality, she's dead wrong in the societies she's comparing them too. Societies that are as guilty of having a society constructed out of the belief in white supremacy and black inferiority as anywhere else. Even if they aren't seen as "black" in some Latin societies, they'd still be treated as less then those who are deemed "white".
You know what I really hate about that column? It invites dumb-ass comments like these from some Washington Post readers:
"The author is right. When I think of African-American, I tend to think of people like Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson as the leaders. I tend to think of ghetto folk as the culture: no interest in education or hard work -- just people who complain about some wrong several generations ago, and looking for a hand-out. Before anyone claims racism, I am talking about society/culture not every individual. If Obama was not raised by his white grandparents, but raised by his black grandparents, I suspect he would be living like his half-brother George in Africa or his illegal-alien aunt in public housing."
"Why do black Americans want to ignore that our President Elect is bi-racial, could it be that they are just as racist as some other Americans that they detest? I think every ethnic group has it's bigots and racists.That's why you should be American fist and foremost and stop with this nonsense of hyphenation."
What kind of people read Washington Post nowadays, anyway? I know, not Ms Arana's fault that some of her readers are idiots, but when her headline screams "He's Not Black", and the column seems to suggest something pernicious about Obama's identification as black, what exactly does she expect?
@Sarah
This is not surprising. Studies have shown that people like Barack Obama only change the minds of racist about them, not black people in general. To them he's "special" and not like the "others". Barack's being biracial has helped him alot. That's why Michelle got the "angry black person" treatment, because as I said she is undeniably black. She is the decendent of slaves, she doesn't have a white parent and she grew up in the hood. They tried to trun her into AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in drag. She was a "regular" black person, so of course she must be full of grievances and fit the streotypes despite what we were actually seeing.
What this ignorant jackass wrote and is appealing to is the fact that Barack is so contradictory to so many stereotypes, that of course he can't be a regular black person and of course it mosu be because he is half white. She and her ilk refuse to consider that they are just wrong about black people period and stop streotyping us. These idiot posters are picking up on exactly what she was trying to say. Black=bad and anything other than black=good.
Here's how I try to live my life in regard to color, gender, sexual preference, political persuasion:
Recognize that people are different, there's nothing wrong with that.
Treat people as if differences don't exist, because sooner or later your assumptions will be wrong.
So the already hackneyed term "Post-Racial" doesn't mean we don't see color or that we can't define ourselves as the color of our choice (though I think purple is right out). It means we treat everyone the same, regardless of color.
Which is what I think T-NC was saying.
These idiot posters are picking up on exactly what she was trying to say. Black=bad and anything other than black=good.
I agree.
Barack is IRISH!!! And once the Irish claim you, nothing else matters. Check out the video by the Corrigan Brothers (formerly Hardy Drew and the Nancy Boys - a much better name) of "There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama" -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk
Unfortunately, I think Barack's great great great grandfather, Fulmuth Kearney, was a West Brit. I guess we can overlook that when Barack visits the ancestral home in Moneygall, County Offaly. I would like to have a pint of Guinness with him at Ollie Hayes' Pub.
What's also great is her comments about her DNA testing. Trying to figure out exactly what percentage of your DNA comes from which race is complete BS. There simply isn't enough difference between the races, genetically, for those tests to mean a damn thing.
He was Black during the Rev. Wright brouhaha, wasn't he?
And the last thing I'm going to do is take any advice from Latinos on who is and who isn't Black.
Watching Spanish speaking television in this country, no one would believe that the overwhelming majority of those brought over in the hulls of those slave ships did NOT stop in North America. Look at Spanish speaking tv - nary a Black to be found.
This is another thing that I'd like to continue to bring up. Look at West Africans.
Now, look at the range of colors amongst the Black community here in America.
How the hell did we go from THAT to what we are NOW, without mixing with a whole lotta folks. Having White ancestors is nothing new for Black folk.
But, I am glad folks gave her the slapdown.
@rikyrah
Ditto on the Rev Wright non-issue, issue. Like you can't turn on "Chritian" TV and see what preachers saying far more inflamatory shit about gays, women, non-Christians and liberals and blaming them for God's "judgment" on America. According to them God "damns" America too. Rev Wright just pointed out their role in the damning.
And as far as mixing goes, the author's own eyes has to tell her the truth in this, just another example of the refusal to acknowledge the diversity of AAs that has always been. I said the same thing abour Spanish language television, glass houses and stones and all of that.
As someone still working out my own identity issues vis a vis race and ethnicity (white catholic blond mother who is half latina, jewish father), I just wish that more people realized why TNC's position (the so called politically correct position) that people need to be able to make their own choice and have that respected, is so important- it is a serious fucking mind game that biracial people often have to go through, and of course that many people go through. It reminds me of the abortion debate I've seen running through the blogs the psat week. Douhat and another conservative were talking about the future of the anti abortion movement, and the Hamsher at FDL and other liberals took note that they never even consider the women in all this, it just doesn't occur to them. I feel like a similar thing plays out between people who are sure of their identity, whether that person is a white christian male or a black female or whoever, and people who struggle with their identity, where certain experiences simply don't occur (or don't "count") on both sides. I've played so many mind games, tricked myself up plenty of times, just trying to figure out who or what I am. Undoubtedly it won't surprise the reader of this post to learn I am still young (20), but the point remains. I respect enormously Barack's struggle to come to terms with his own identity...it seems too often that one person's heartfelt struggle is just another person's ideological (or racial) victory. Too damn bad. Race is just a social construct anyway.
Or, to quote Common, who expresses this better then I can in the song "U, Black Maybe": "When we talk about black maybe
We talk about situations
Of people of color and because you are that color
You endure obstacles and opposition
And not all the time from...from other nationalities
Sometimes it come from your own kind
Or maybe even your own mind
You get judged..you get laughed at..you get looked at wrong
You get sighted for not being strong
The struggle of just being you
The struggle of just being us..black maybe"
Is it just me, or is the quality of the commenters in WaPo significantly lower than in NYT - i.e way, way more "brilliant" people who does stuff like capitalizing HUSSEIN or calling Obama a racist for denying his mother's legacy by identfying himself as black? It can't be just because of NYT moderates the comments, the NYT moderator passes almost anything - in the heat of the moment, I once called Bill Kristol a talentless, war-mongering hack with the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and the comment was published. So, what gives? Both are supposedly "liberal media in the tank for Democrats" right? Why the difference?
I wonder about that myself, Sarah. I like the way the New York Times has a function where readers can vote particularly good comments to the top; that encourages people to be thoughtful and not to engage in that stupid "first!" and "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" nonsense.
@Sarah
I think when you read the posts for any newspaper, blog etc you have to consider it's political and ideological leanings. I think the Wash Post is a conservative magazine that endorsed McCain so it would make sense that a large number or posters are already predisposed to not liking Barack Obama. Check any story about him at their website and you'll probably see the same overall negativity. This just gave the racists who want to call him racist a rallying cry, but they were already there hating on him.And if you saw the McCain/Palin rallies it would make sense that they are generally stupid.
You just can't read Barry's first book and come out saying he's not black. It's all in there, Arana. Go, read.
I'm pretty sure WaPo endorsed Obama. But you might be right that the readership sways more to the right. The Post ombudsman after all felt the need to make a grovelling "confession" after the election that the paper's coverage was biased against McCain. All because 900 readers threatened to cancel their subsription if WaPo does not mend it's Obama-loving ways.
Not that I ever really see any evidence of the so-called bias against McCain, but hey, those 900 subsribers are very, very valuable. The paper can't afford to lose them, so who cares about the real detail.
Barack Obama doesn't even look 'bi-racial'.
4 years ago, before his speech, take Obama and Harold Ford, Jr's pictures to the local Black barbershop anywhere in America.
Ask them to tell you who the bi-racial person was.
Would they choose Obama?
Or the green-eyed, wavy-haired Ford, Jr.?
My money's on Ford, Jr., born to 2 Black parents.
Like I said, this having White ancestors didn't begin with Barack Obama....though a great segment of White America just likes to pretend that it did.
@ sarah
You're right I confused them with the Wash Times, but their posters seem to be disproportionately right leaning.
emma,
Heh, I don't even want to read what the readers of Washington Times have to say about Obama. In this case, ignorance is bliss.
I read some comments a while back and I got a headache. If this is the intellectual well that the GOP is drawing from they are headed the way of the Whig Party. Half of them think that the Supreme Court will declare Obama's birth certificate to be a fake and that he can't be President because he was born in Kenya. It's really quite tragic and borderline hilarious.
When Malcolm X gave a lecture in Ghana, he was asked by a listener why he called himself black, since he was so light skinned than in Ghana he would be considered white. Malik responded: “At home, that is the place I was born, I’ve been called by Whites a yellow nigger, a light-skinned nigger, a red uppity nigger, a fair-skinned seditious nigger, but never until now have I been called a White man. I mean, Whites, who should know their own have never made the mistake of overlooking my African blood.”
OK, hate to be pedantic, but do we need to get the kicks straight? Shouldn't it be Chuck Taylors and Jack Purcells, unless you're wearing one of each to create Chuck Purcells? Both by Converse, though the Purcells were originally made by B.F. Goodrich (yes, the tire people).
May not be an important point to most, but it's about the only thing in the piece I'm qualified to comment on, so I will, dammit.
Re: Somehow, if, say, the Beltway sniper's mother was white, I don't think there'd be a throng of non-black people yelling, "But he's not really black!!"
-This remark in your argument actually reminded how far we (America) had moved on from the black bogeyman by the time the sniper came on the scene. Noone was even thinking "must be a black guy" at the time, am I right? I lived in the neighborhood of one of the shootings and I'll be honest, I was scanning every Arab looking dude I saw. All other races were "safe." If I am the only one here who admits this, fine, but I am damn sure I am not the only one who thought it. I saw all kinds of folks crouching down while filling the gas tank and bobbing and weaving into the store. Black people and white people were not looking at each other, we were all looking for an Arab. And when it turned out to be a black guy, everyone was a little confused, remember? Until the Islam connection was revealed (however slight) and we all settled back into our new anti-Muslim clothes just fine.
"How many people knew Barack Obama or Halle Berry were bi-racial until they were told that they had a white parent?"
TR: The thing is this can work both ways. I didn't know Rashida Jones or Carol Channing were bi-racial at first. In Jones's case I didn't know her name at first, she was just "that girl on Boston Public." Still I thought she was white until I found out she was Quincy Jones's daughter. (In Channing's case she is only a quarter-black I think so is generally considered white)
Anyway if Jones marries a white guy and identified as "white/biracial" rather than "black/biracial" would this be an acceptable or unacceptable state of affairs?
Thomas,
In all honesty, no it wouldn't she'd catch some shit from a sector of black folks. But that's no different than what Barack is catching from a sector of biracial folks. It's human to judge. Also there is definitely a power thing at work there--it just ain't the same to chose to live your life as a black person.
All of that said, I hew to my original point. Respect people's individuality. She gets to ID as who she wants. It's her life. I don't have to walk in her shoes, and I'd support her walking however she has to walk to make it work.
"He was Black during the Rev. Wright brouhaha, wasn't he?"
I believe this is the definition of real talk
Quick question;
If Barack had married a white woman would you consider it a mixed marriage?
This is an issue that biracial people have to deal with constantly - namely, the denigration of the white side of their family by one community and the discrimination based on their skin color by the other.
When I was a counselor in college, many brilliant biracial freshmen would come to my room to cry because the African American Student Union wouldn't take them, nor would many of the "safe spaces" designated for racial minorities.
Regardless of how you feel about "safe spaces" or race-based student associations, their struggle to find a space to fit in and feel comfortable was real. Ultimately, I think people who enforce labels based on bloodlines need a history lesson and a thorough intellectual whipping - in the past bloodlines have been used in some pretty awful ways.
@Thomas
I actually did know that Rashida Jones was black on sight before I knew who her father was. Black people often joke about being able to "tell" if someone is part black. When Mariah Carry came onto the scene my white friends though she was a white girl who sang like a black girl, but black folks knew better. Same with Vin Diesel, Jennifer Beals, Slash and that dude from Prison Break. It's joked about but it's based in reality. When AAs would "pass" into white society one of the things they had to do was stay away from black people for fear of being identified or having their blackness become more visible. It was like going into the witness protection program. For many black people there are far fewer mixed race people who aren't visibly mixed race. But again they can define themselves however they want. Experience matters as much as anything else and some may feel it's not right to claim to be what they really haven't experienced which perhaps more black people should be sympathetic too.
The main goals of Ariana's article appears to be that of expanding Obama's appeal beyond just whites and blacks and showng how murky a concept race is. The article, however, falls short in a number of ways: (1) The article is very logical but logic is only one branch of the philosophy family. Aesthetics will always play some role in determining how others perceive an individual and which group of people into which that individual can readily fit into and most easily associate with. The most obvious associational example of this is the balance between white flight and having an acceptable number of nonwhites in a community. (2) Also, labeling by color is not just a function of white versus nonwhite. There is even a color caste system that has arisen in Black America, Latino cultures and the Arab emirates (the Arab slave trade of Africans was as extensive if not more so than that of the European slave trade). (3) The article does not address how people who are the ancestors of involuntary cross-racial relationships should feel or what identity they should claim. Many, if not most of the blacks living in this country today, who have ancestors who arrived in the United States prior to 1865, are the product of interracial relationships which were not voluntary and which were not even acknowledged by their white relatives. Indeed, in many instances, they were sold, cast off, abandoned or ignored. In a few cases they were acknowledged in private. Apparently, rejection breeds rejection because one of the frequent myths that Louis Gates, Jr. dispelled was the number of blacks claiming to have Native American ancestors. (4) Race and color within the context of one family is even more complex than the writer admits. For example if you have two parents who have 50% African or black ancestry and 50% European or white ancestry, we could refer to the parents as BW & BW. They could produce the following combination of children: BW (mixed, and the mixture could vary for each child), BB (predominately black), or WW (predominately white). This in part accounts for the variety of skin color within the same black family like the mythical Cosby family. (5)Technically, all people are members of one race --human.
In answer to the question above, "I'm trying to understand WHAT she wrote and WHY":
Well, folks, it just might have something to do with the fact that Ms. Arana's second novel, one that is supposed to be about an interracial love affair in Peru, is coming out later this month. This discussion about Obama and race helps generate buzz, doesn't it?
Also, Roberto Rivera is completely right about race relations in Latin America. The open racism that goes on in Latin American cultures would absolutely shock a lot of Americans.
Obama calling himself black is consistent with several choices he has made in his life. (1) He chose to be a community organizer in the black community. (2) He chose to marry a black woman. (3) He chose to have black children. He could have adopted children of any nationality if he wanted to do so. (4) He chose to seek out his father's family in Kenya in order to establish ties with his black family. (5) He chose to attend a predominately black Christian church.
Thanks to her privileged position at the Washington Post, Ms. Arana gets to tell the world that the president-elect is not black. And yet how many times in her article does she write "We Hispanics" to advance her argument? Following her own logic, given that both Ms. Arana and Mr. Obama have white mothers from Kansas, shouldn't SHE stop using the label Hispanic to describe herself? What is her authority, really, to speak on behalf of the Hispanic/Latino communities? Her generalizations about race in Latin America reveal how uninformed or misinformed she truly is.
Mr. Obama's life trajectory and choices -his marriage to Michelle Obama, an example- make it very clear that he identifies as a black man. Plus, even if he wanted to, he really couldn't pass as white, could he?
If Obama isn’t black then neither are his children. To go by percentages, for the sake of argument, Obama’s children are “25% white”. How come then people don’t argue that is children “aren’t black”. From eyeballing the local African American population, I would say a plurality look like Obama’s children, yet I can say with almost absolute certainty that the people living here view them as black. In accordance with the argument that Obama isn’t black because he is “50 percent white” wouldn’t the same argument hold for a sizable number of African Americans who have white ancestry whether the white ancestry is 50% or 10%? In other words, why is someone 50% white and 50% black “not black”, yet someone 75% black and 25% white seen “as black”? And who is to enforce these blood quantums? I personally don’t think African Americans go around on witch hunts to figure out who is “100% black” and who is not. I have personally never met a black person who thinks in strict percentages. If anything, I’ve met black people who think in terms of nationality: “I am 100% Jamaican; I am 100% Somali, etc”. NEVER have I met a black person say: “You are only 98% black? Then I don’t accept you because I only accept 100% blacks”. The phrase “100% black” is ludicrous.