Sure, absolutely. And no, I’m not answering that way because it’s a hypothetical. I have several friends of mixed race, some identify as “black”, some as “white” and some as “just me.” Just like gender or name, my reaction is to shrug and go with what makes the person’s world work. If Mr. Obama feels his experiences are that of a black man, then he’s black in my book.
Of course a lot of the experiences one has has to do with what the person looks like - because that’s what determines how other people react to them. My friend Mark is a dark skinned (no more multiracial than any black kid who doesn’t know their family tree) black man adopted as an infant and raised in a white household in a white city. But he says he can’t see himself as “white” or fully a part of the white culture he grew up in because people still flinch and cross the street when he’s out walking after dark. Even though he and I were neighbors growing up, the difference in our skin color means we will never have corresponding social, vocational or judicial experiences. The question I think a lot of people (at least I, a white girl, do) have of Barak Obama is does he get treated like “a black man”? If not, than I’d be sorely disappointed if he were to try and use his African ancestry to appeal to the black voters as “one of them”. His story about finding it hard to hail a cab in Chicago (if true) answers my question: he’s as “not white” as Mark in experience, no matter who raised him or where.
Although I’m so white I glow in the dark, I am a minority here in the Bronx, and get to see how “people of color” interact with each other on many occasions. All of this is IMHO and obviously I will never get all the nuances, even as non-Irish folks can’t get why we tear up at ‘Danny Boy’ and ‘A Nation Once Again’. But…I have noticed that black immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa do often feel a gap with native-born American blacks and think they’re gauche sometimes; that when we non-blacks refer to black people we will often distinguish too, saying “John’s Jamaican” or “Mbaire’s from Kenya” just like we do with white ethnic groups, using “Oh, Sid is black” mostly for American-born folks who presumably descended from slaves.
As for Obama, I’ve never heard whites say he’s not black enough, although to be fair most of my political discussions among friends of various groups shy away from race like it’s radioactive waste.
Of course. The fallacy arises when we see an ad-hoc change in definitions. It is properly applied here, where the OP’s original argument is: “Who are these black people, folks?” Because the OP goes on to point out that all the people raising the point that Obama isn’t black enough are white people, he or she inferentially invites us to conclude that there are no black people making that argument.
When it’s shown that there ARE black people making that argument, the OP retorts that although some have indeed made such comments, other black commentatirs have not, and asks, “What, they don’t count?” This is a different standard than was first proposed – namely, that reporting on the trend has cherry-picked only those commentators, black or white, that are raising the point and ignoring those that refute or repudiate it.
This is an ad-hoc change in definition, and is correctly labelled a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Now, there might be some confusion, since the underlying issue – Obama BEING black – is itself suspectible to a “No True Scotsman” argument; here, of course, Liberal’s objection is well-founded.
Again, neither Dickerson nor Crouch claimed that Obama wasn’t “black enough”, so what commentators are you talking about? What black commentators want to reject Obama politically because he’s not sufficiently black?
They are commentators. Crouch is a big name, but Dickerson is comparatively small potatoes. Don’t even know what she looks like (and unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Crouch). And a commentator is only someone who has a well-written or -spoken opinion. Crouch, for instance, is a jazz critic, not an expert on black politics. He produces neither data or anecdote for his views, and yet we’re supposed to believe him when he says Obama isn’t “black enough”?
Can you not at least understand why I am frustrated? I mean, Hillary Clinton is not a traditional woman. She’s not a submissive wife. She’s got a high-power career. She’s no Betty Crocker. She’s down right icy, no softness to her at all. Yet, the media isn’t beating us over the head with “Is SHE WOMAN ENOUGH!!??!?!?” Why is that? Could it be that no one is stupid enough to think that women are going to vote for whoever has a vagina? And if someone is stupid enough to think that, isn’t their opinion is seen as extreme or unsubstantiated, not worthy of the mainstream media’s time?
I have a hard time believing that if someone like–to pull a name out of my hat–Ann Coulter–wrote a piece about Hillary’s lack of feminimity, we’d have to swallow a week’s worth of special coverage on whether Hillary is really a woman. No reporter would ask Hillary, “Are you woman enough, Hill?” Nor would anyone ask her why she identifies as a woman, as that asshole reporter did to Obama on 60 Minutes last night. It would be rude and STUPID for someone to treat Hillary like that. Why is it acceptable to do it to Obama? They’re forcing him to make race his issue, rather than the war or the ten million other things he could be talking about. If they keep it up, there’s no way the guy can be elected. AND IT WON’T BE BLACK PEOPLE’S FAULTS. Pundits will pin the blame on us, but they will be wrong.
And if the media ever thought to drum up the “IS HILLARY WOMAN ENOUGH?” angle, at least it would have the good sense to interview a bunch of female voters to provide a balanced view. But when it comes to Obama’s blackness, it seems like the media doesn’t care enough to do research. Crouch and Dickerson said it, so by God it must be true! I’ve noticed how many black people are interviewed on all these Obama-Not-Black-Enough segments. Not very many.
Like I said, it puts black people in an unfair position. They like Hillary, it’s because ole Bill was really “black” (a joke we’re all supposed to find funny, for some reason). They like Obama, well, it’s because he’s a black guy. Black people can’t be nuanced voters who care about the issues. No, it’s all about race for us.
It makes me angry because none of the black people I know (including my radical mother) is like this.
Fair enough question. The OP didn’t ask about commentators, specifically, though:
According to the Washington Post, in an article that ran January 25th titled Obama’s Appeal to Blacks Remains an Open Question, the following statements raised concerns that are fairly summarized as what the OP complains of:
Rev. B. Herbert Martin, former pastor to Harold Washington:
Senator Obama himself is quoted as acknowledging precisely this issue:
And his campaign acknowledges that the question has been raised frequently:
Is that sufficient evidence of the existence of black people who have raised the issue?
See my previous post. It’s hardly limited to jazz critics who are seeking to expand their spheres of influence.
Good Lord, yes. It’s the most asinine query I can imagine, regardless of what idiots, black or white, might be promulgating it. If you like the man’s stances, support him; if you don’t, then don’t. The very idea that he should be a particular shade, if you will, is either idiotic or repugnant, depending on whether the motive for asking the question is ignorance or an insidious attempt to further promote racial division.
I think that’s the OP’s point. The media keeps talking about these hordes of black people who don’t accept Obama because of X, Y, Z factors related to blackness, but they never cite their sources.
I’m sitting here trying to figure out in what context a white person would ever accuse Obama of not being black enough, and I’m coming up blank. I can imagine them saying he’s not really black and I can imagine them saying he’s too black, but not black enough? Black enough for what? This does not compute.
Nobody can be black enough for Crouch-- have you seen that guy?
I was gonna get into the “one of us” mentality that has many otherwise smart black people I know still claiming that OJ didn’t do it, that R. Kelly was framed and that all the black felons are in jail because of ‘the man’-- and it is these same people for whom Obama isn’t black enough. He would not get the same staunch ‘one of us’ backing that I’d expect from them.
Why in the ever-loving fuck wouldn’t I? It’s not for me to say what their identity is any more than it is theirs to say what mine is.
What are you asking me, exactly? Would I still say “that black kid Fred” behind his back if he chose to self-identify as white? Why are you assuming I refer to him that way now because he claims Black as his identity? Lots of assumptions here, all of them quite aggressive on your part.
I can’t fathom this attitude, frankly. I’ve had people try to tell me I’m not a Jew because I’m only half. Fuck you-- it’s not for you to tell me what I am. That’s my feeling across the board.
When Obama and Clinton both announced candidacy, my first thought was “ugh, that’s going to split people up along sex and race lines, and a white guy is going to end up taking it for the simple fact that he’s neither black nor female.” But, to be perfectly honest, I wasn’t really aware of how big an issue race and sex would be. It’s not important to me, as a white woman, that a white woman running for office “represent” me or my demographic. White men running for office do not need to prove that they identify with the average everyday white guy, and I don’t think Clinton has been asked to prove that she identifies with the average everyday white woman… but perhaps that’s because we take it for granted, and black people don’t have that luxury? I am ignorant here - in the true sense of the word. I think the liberal in me is offended that Obama seems to be held to a different standard, as though he has a greater responsibility to “his people” than a white candidate would have. I’m just unsure where that’s coming from; if it’s primarily whites who are pushing that, or blacks.
I like Obama. A lot. I think he’s a smart, reasonable man, and the “he’s inexperienced” argument isn’t working for me, as I have seen no evidence to suggest that those WITH experience could do a better job.
As a foreigner white guy, I find it bizarre that the OP here tries to decry racism in such blatantly racist ways and we’re all supposed to eat up the excuses. As Bricker, me and Mehitabel pointed out, there’s a few black people as well as whites making hay of this issue. Why would someone truly against racism loudly exclaim NO ONE in their race is really amongst the transgressors and those silly examples don’t mean nothing? After all, monstro mentions she’d heard of Dickerson a week ago, yet the OP seemed to imply she’d never heard a black person discredit Obama’s blackness.
You yourself monstro don’t seem to think of the black community as a mindless voting block, so why make wild speculation that there is unanimity over his “blackness”? Why assume that there are no blacks that will WILL vote on “skin loyalty”
I never said that I didn’t think ANY blacks felt like OBama isn’t black enough. I just think it’s only a few people–mostly two individuals who’s expertise on this issue is, IMHO, questionable. There are way more white people talking about this than black people. Do you agree or don’t agree?
There’s always a few who think something. I’m sure there’s a commentator somewhere who thinks Hillary isn’t really woman enough to capture female voters, but I don’t think we’re in for a week work of “Is Hillary Woman Enough?” segments on the evening news. Women, for some reason, are not treated as a homogenous, mindless borg-entity like blacks are. We’re expected to jump on anything with brown skin, and if we don’t, well, it must be because the candidate “talks good” and has a Harvard pedigree. And if we like Hillary, it’s because her husband was a wigger (he works in Harlem, man!) We’re fried chicken-eating simpletons who don’t care about the issues. Can’t you see how insulting this implication is?"
I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, and I’m blaming the mainstream (yes, white) media. They are taking what a few people have said and given it importance that it doesn’t have.
I know I’ve said the same thing in a GD thread, but hey, I’m not above saying things again …
Maybe just maybe Black voters and White voters are pretty much alike and mostly support a name they know based what they percieve that person’s values and leadership capacity are. Support for Obama was not much different between Black and White Dems in those polls; the difference was mainly that non-Obama support in Whites went to some small extent to Edwards, and significantly fewer Black voters buy what that putz is selling. So they go to the other known name: Clinton.
Obama will or will not win over their Black votes as they get to know him based on issues, shared values, articulated vision, and percieved leadership capacity. Not because his skin is the same color as them. Not because he has Black wife and goes to a Black church and has beautiful Black children. But based on whether or not they think he’d make a good President.
Isn’t that the way it should be?
The media needs to create stories. This one at least plays into Obama’s mythos as a post-racial candidate. It shouldn’t but it will help him with those Whites who are put off by a “very Black” candidate, and allow them to see him for what he is (or at least for how he is presented) and not just as the Black guy.
Yeah, maybe. Or maybe they’ll vote for the guy who is most like themselves. Or maybe the guy who says whatever they want to hear. Or whoever promises what they foolishly think he’ll deliver.
Quite honestly, trust in the voting community is a retarded commodity.
You’ve got a point, but I think the media does this about plenty of subjects. Remember the media coverage that Windows 95 got back in, uh, 1995? Who the fuck, aside from computer geeks and people interested in business, cared? Nobody, but the media seemed to care a whole lot and Windows 95 was featured in multiple news spots, magazines, etc. That’s just one example of the media hyping something that just wasn’t that important. Maybe it was a slow news week.
How many people really care about Anna Nicole Smith?
Yes. Though I do like me some Popeye’s chicken and biscuits now and then. It is interesting that people expect blacks in the United States to vote as a block. I think the Democrats do take their black voting base for granted. Historically, I wonder if there’s a reason for this. Certainly in the 1870’s you wouldn’t have caught a black man voting Democrat…well, you might have caught a black man who was dead for attempting to vote Republican, but that’s another topic. I’d be interested in seeing if there were any studies done on this. Certainly we can see other groups voting as blocks but I don’t imagine they’re all strictly along racial lines. Hmmm…I’ve gone off on a tangent, haven’t I?
I agree. It’s as if the media doesn’t have anything real to say so they have to focus on something to make things interesting enough to garner ratings.
Uh, yeah, I’ll agree that there are more white people than black people talking about it, especially if you agree that there’s more white people than black in America. lol. And respectfully, you did indeed imply that no blacks thought that Obama “wasn’t black enough”.
Or do I misunderstand that comment? The rest of the OP also seems to ignore possible Black discord on the subject.
Same thing. Just wrapped in standard snarky cynicism. Unless you think that one subpopulation is more likely to make “foolish” assessments than another.
We all vote for who we identify with, but “most like” us isn’t about skin color or even religion; it is the perception of shared values. Of course it is about what we think the candidate will actually deliver and hearing and believing what we want to hear/believe from him/her. Same for all of us. How else does someone decide how to vote? Based on what we don’t think?
Sure the voting community elected our current loser (at least once) so the system certainly gives us some lemons. So? What alternative to trusting the voters do you propose?
