But we defer to SWNID-favorite (because he manages to get paid to write on politics and culture and jazz) Stanley Crouch on what may well prove the most difficult matter in an Obama candidacy, namely, his ethnicity. This is not to say that some will vote against him because he's black; that is no surprise. It is whether "black" in the usual sense should be applied to him. Per Crouch:
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.
Race, we are reminded, is a social construct, without any completely objective content (as Crouch has written elsewhere, we are a nation that prides itself on scientific accuracy and yet calls people "white" or "black" when no human is actually either color). Ethnicity, another social construct, is a complex of physical appearance, history, culture, and experience, with the latter categories in most ways more important than the first. Color, in other words, is not the same as ethnicity.
But Crouch says it better. Read him.
7 comments:
So, is it not possible for Obama to have experienced some of the same societal issues that every other black man deals with? I find that a hard assertion to make.
Our country is so disjointed and separated by such an issue that it seems ridiculous to assume that all black individuals do not share some notion of what it means to be black in America.
But, not being African-American, I again would have no idea what it would be like.
As a black man let me tell you that all black individuals might share some notion but do not share the same notion of what it means to be black in America, mainly because what it means to be black is a largely undefineable and very debateble quantity. I mean, who has the definitive list? Furthuremore Barak having a white mother and an immigrant father insulates him from many of the sterotypes typically associated with "homegrown" American blacks. Indeed the side door may be open.
Interesting comments, Prodigal. I might also add that one of the major points which disconnects Obama from the experiences of most black Americans lies not with his white mother, but with his father who, if I read SWNID correctly, is a Kenyan immigrant. This means that Obama doesn't naturally share much of the cultural history of the majority of black Americans whose families have lived in ths country for centuries.
It is almost cruel and insensitive to speak of some unified African American experience. The segment of society that is often simply referred to as "black" comprises a much broader and more diverse cultural milieu than is apparent form the title "black." These people occupy various positions and classes in American society and do not all share even a common cultural heritage. For instance, I would think that it is somewhat offensive to assume that every American with "black" complexion has an anscestral hstory with roots in Africa. Some can trace ther roots to Central America, Europe and Asia.
It would be like assumng all white people owe their ancestry to Mother England and all share a common cultural heritage in America. I would invite anyone to travel to South Boston and publically make this assertion!
Certainly Obama's is a most interesting and compelling story. I can testify to this personally as a bookseller who was continually introducing customers to the Sociology section in order to find his "Stories from My Father."
The difference that I see between Obama and his D counterparts is that Obama is actually very good at being a politician. Few others in his party can make such a claim. Obama s fresh, likable and well spoken. He is disciplined and charming making him a lucrative prospect as a cantidate for any party.
As you might have noticed I haven't even touched on his policies and this is because it most likely won't matter anyway. If people actually voted based on policy there wouldn't be a two party system in this country, our opinions are much too diverse.
prodigal,
I agree with what you are saying and am glad that you have added your comment here.
I do have a question, though. You believe that Obama's family heritage "insulates him from many stereotypes typically associated with 'homegrown' American blacks." However, do you think that heritage insulates him in private life, say when he is in public period? I think publicity and fame may be more of insulator than anything, don't you think?
Dustin I would say that the fact that he is insulated from stereotypical assumptions is what is causing him to be a viable candidate, hence his fame & publicity. He would not be the famous figure he is right now if he were, for instance, a Jessie Jackson clone. Well he might be famous but it would probably be for different reasons! So in my mind his fame and publicity is not the primary variable that makes him insular because he would not have the fame were it not for his stereotype teflon.
prodigal,
I understand where you were heading with your post now. Thanks for coming back to respond to my comment.
This whole discussion could have been avoided if the first poster had observed that his first question involved a logical error in relation to the point of Crouch's article. Crouch said that Obama isn't "black" in the sense that most American "blacks" are. So his experience isn't as consistent with theirs as it would be if he were. But that's not to say that there isn't some common experience.
But in my experience, logical errors are what make for lots of blog posts and lots of comments on them.
Post a Comment