Skip to content
Categories: , 

Who’s Talking About Obama’s “Blackness”?

Post date:
Author:

Guest Post by dnA

One of the biggest myths of the Presidential campaign is that the only people questioning Barack Obama’s “blackness” are also black, perpetuated in David Greenberg’s Outlook piece for the WaPo.

This background may be what some people (mainly blacks) have meant when they asked the regrettable question of whether Obama is “black enough” to earn their votes. But Obama has always been black enough for his elite white enthusiasts, who would never presume to judge an African American’s racial authenticity — indeed, are all too happy to have such a question be kept, by prevailing norms, off limits to them.

Someone forgot to tell Tucker Carlson that (while not a supporter) being “elite” and “white” such questions were “off limits” to him, since they were already being discussed exclusively by black folks. A few months ago, he hosted an all-white panel of pundits to assess Obama’s racial authenticity.

On the August 8 edition of MSNBC’s Tucker, an all-white group discussed an upcoming forum at a National Association of Black Journalists convention that will address, according to the convention program — as quoted by The Washington Post — the question Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “cannot seem to shake — is he black enough? Is this an unfair question? What is the measure of blackness and who gets to decide?” Host Tucker Carlson asked A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter: “What exactly do people mean when they talk about Obama’s quote, “blackness”? … I’m not even sure what that question means. I know that it makes me uncomfortable and it strikes me as unfair, but what does it mean?” Carlson, who is white, devoted a full segment of his show — more than six minutes — to the issue of Obama’s racial identity and the effect of stereotypes on his bid for the presidency with Stoddard and Alter, two white journalists.

This preceded a series of bizarre statements from Tucker directed at Obama, including speculation about the Senator’s sex life.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh has gone as far as taking credit for Obama “getting blacker,” only shortly after advising the Senator to “renounce his race” and “be white”.

Then there was Pat Buchanan weighing in on the Senator’s “blackness,” stating:

“[i]t is quite apparent” Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “is not a street fighter, and he doesn’t have the eye of the tiger.” Buchanan further said that Obama is “up there, sort of holding forth,” adding, “I mean, he’s not what you would expect from a black guy from the South Side of Chicago. He’s something, as [NBC News political director] Tuck [Chodd] says, you’d expect in a Harvard seminar for undergraduates or something like that.”

I mean, I know Chi-Town has kind of a reputation, but I have to confess I have yet to meet anyone, black or white, who has presented themselves to me as a “street fighter,” complete with “the eye of the tiger”. Maybe I should move to Philadelphia, but I have a feeling there’s still a chance my life would still be complete otherwise.

This week in Slate, Christopher Hitchens demanded to know why we were all referring to Obama as black.

Isn’t there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be “black,” anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson?

Hitchens’ statement begs the question, who is this “we” he is talking about? I don’t know either. From what I can tell, Hitchens appears to have sat out the 1960s Civil Rights movement. Which makes sense, in 1965, he was only 16 years old and living in Britain. From that paragraph you might assume Hitchens spent the 60s freedom riding through the American South, registering black voters and narrowly dodging the Klan.

Peter Beinart also weighed in on the subject, with a flawed piece that was considerably more complex than those mentioned above. His position as a “white elite” was apparently not a deterrent.

At any rate, it seems like there are few “white elites,” supporters or otherwise, who see the question of Obama’s blackness as “off limits.” Quite to the contrary, they seem to consider themselves accomplished experts on who’s black, who isn’t, and why.

It can hardly be said that “only blacks” are discussing whether or not Obama is “black enough,” and even then, (with some notable exceptions) the conversation is more about his political priorities than his appearance, speech, mannerisms, or ancestry. Even Jesse Jackson’s shot at Obama “acting white” was directed at Obama not speaking out forcefully enough on behalf of the Jena Six, not the fact that he has a white parent or that he happens to be an eloquent speaker. It’s worth noting that either way, the substance of the conversation is entirely different than most of the political pundits above, who seem more concerned about how Obama lines up against black racial stereotypes. It’s not the same kind of debate.

Ta-Nehisi Coates (who didn’t like Beinart’s article) noted in an Op-Ed written for TIME that the same pundits who engaged in finger-wagging denunciations of the black community over the “acting white” phenomenon* felt perfectly comfortable discussing Obama in similar terms.

For years pundits excoriated young black kids for attacking other smart successful black kids by questioning their blackness. But this is suddenly permissible for presidential candidates.

Most of the shots at Obama’s “blackness” from black figures have come, occasionally, from rivals’ surrogates like Andrew Young but mostly from Right wing shills like Shelby Steele, who is somehow unable to see the tragic, tragic irony in his referring to Obama as ‘white’ both in the context of his own work and racial heritage.

Indeed, there is little conflict in the black community as to whether Obama is “authentically” black, because most of us are tired of arguing about what that actually means. The real question is whether he represents black interests better than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, and if he does, whether or not as a black candidate, he has a chance of winning.

The question of how “black” Obama is is ultimately of more concern to white voters than black ones. Historically, black people aren’t the ones who have had difficulty voting for candidates of a different race.

*I personally believe the “acting white” phenomenon to be overblown. In my experience, people are called ‘white’ not for being intelligent, articulate, or for getting good grades, but for expressing a set of priorities contrary to black advancement. Judge that how you will, but it’s not the same thing.

Comments

  • Former Dan

    says:

    Nobody knows the trouble He’s seen
    Nobody knows but Tucker
    Nobody knows the trouble He’s seen
    Glory Hallelujah

    Sometimes Bama’s black and sometimes he’s white
    Yes lord, you know sometimes he’s a crazee muslim
    O yes, Lord, still

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Look, the days of being able to point and say “Egads, a black guy! Run for your lives!” are gone, so the arseholes have to find slightly less ham fisted ways to remind people that Obama is … Egads! A black guy! (run for your lives!)

    I personally believe the “acting white” phenomenon to be overblown. In my experience, people are called ‘white’ not for being intelligent, articulate, or for getting good grades, but for expressing a set of priorities contrary to black advancement.

    So, you think children sit down and determine that another child is expressing a set of priorities contrary to black advancement before launching an accusation of “acting white.”

    cough!*bullshit*cough!

    I’d also invite you to look into some of the crap Mayor Anthony Williams faced because he was guilty of not being Marion Barry (there’s a role model!)

    Maybe you hang out with a nicer set of idiots but I’ve never heard the “acting white” meme used against a person based on their priorities. Perhaps people assume the person with the “white” characteristics is “anti-black” and they never find out whether they’re wrong because once people start shouting about who is acting “proper” or “white” the accused is unlikely to stick around for a chat.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    if having priorities supportive of black advancement is the test, than Justice Thomas is an albino!

    these new top posts at 8:00 pm – we’re going to be spoiled by the time Steve gets back.

  • Jed

    says:

    Hey dnA — awesome seeing you blog here.

    Three comments:

    #1 – I was thought Tucker Carlson might be into airport bathrooms, but maybe the ones in MN aren’t diverse enough for him?

    #2 – On the night of the Iowa Caucus, Bill “abort black babies” Bennett said: “Well, I think it’s, again, a wonder of America here. A remarkable breakthrough this year. As the other group said, 97 percent, in fact, Iowa rural, white, farming — farming state. Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, wins this for the Democrats. I have been watching him. I watched him on “Meet the Press,” I’ve watched him on your show, watched him on all the CNN shows — he never brings race into it. He never plays the race card. Talk about the black community — he has taught the black community you don’t have to act like Jesse Jackson, you don’t have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. Great dignity. And this is a breakthrough. And good for the people of Iowa.”

    I love how he closes with “and good for the people of Iowa. What a complete fuckwad. I love walking past the Bill Bennett memorial high roller slot room here at in Vegas at the Bellagio. What a cowardly, opportunistic asshole.

    #3 — You are right when you say that black people don’t vote solely based on race. What are the odds that more whites in SC will vote for Obama than blacks in SC will vote for Hillary and Edwards combined? Not that the results will prove anything, either way, it’s just illustrative. More blacks vote for white Democrats on a % basis than evangelicals vote for white non-evangelical Republicans. (Just ask Mitt Romney.)

  • Mark

    says:

    If an insult from a fool is a compliment, then a cheap shot from Tucker Carlson is actually an accolade. Tucker Carlson has singlehandedly done more to undo the efforts of anger management than any other individual, as men all over North America – and perhaps women, too – fantasize about ripping off that fruity little bow-tie and punching his stupid face until his head rings like the bells of St. Mary’s.

    I’m not black myself, but I imagine the concern most who are have with the leadership of Barack Obama is if he will work hard to advance the causes and interests of blacks throughout America, rather than if he comes from The Hood or drives a chrome-encrusted Lincoln Navigator. In any case, the exhortations of Rush Limbaugh for him to “turn white” are not likely to sway many black voters.

    Anyone who was thinking of voting Republican need look no further than who supports them.

  • fillphil

    says:

    When the Republican Party adopted the “good ole boys down South” into their Party, they never expected them to accept an inclusive membership. They were tapping the racist undertone that exists today. With their party base in disarray and the prospects for “08 very dim for retaining the power they have had these last 7-8 yrs. RACE is the one thing they know will arouse that base. It’s futile but, more importantly, the public is starting to realize them for what they are. This election is historical from the black/woman perspective. The Repubs know it is far more futile to attack a female than a “drug using black w/Hussein as a middle name”. They arre desperate and the game hasn’t really begun. Watch how disgusting they can become.

  • dnA

    says:

    Orange,

    I should have said that such ideas are in the eye of the beholder, but “black advancement” lends the act an intellectual quality that I don’t believe it has to have. I think judging by your comment that you believe that I condone that kind of thing, which I don’t, at all, under any circumstances, but I also don’t believe that the phenomenon is what it is generally characterized as.

    I happen to be from DC, and much of the “crap Anthony Williams faced” had to do with exactly what I’m talking about, not that he “wasn’t Marion Barry”. Williams made a lot of unpopular decisions, including closing down DC General Hospital, which served many people living in poorer areas of DC. Likewise, his term saw the growth of gentrification across some of the oldest neighborhoods in DC, such as U Street, which was Harlem before Harlem was Harlem. Now U Street is just like Harlem– or, more accurately, what used to be Harlem.

    People didn’t call Anthony Williams white because he wore a bow tie and went to Yale and Harvard, they called him white precisely because they felt like he was ignoring the needs of black folks in Washington DC. The example you offered is actually exactly what I’m talking about.

    One of the most frustrating qualities that Barry possesses is the ability to make his constituents in Ward 8 think he has their priorities in mind, even when he doesn’t, which is most of the time. But once again, that’s the issue, not that he talks differently or is less educated. You also have to remember, that once upon a time, before he was a cokehead, Marion Barry was a highly regarded Civil Rights activist.

    I don’t know what school you went to that you could walk out if someone called you something you didn’t like. I know that when I was told I was “acting white” I just had to deal with it. And part of what I’m saying is that it’s not a matter of “white characteristics” because I don’t know what those are. It is, to a certain degree, a measure of how much you threaten peoples’ understanding of things. Whether that’s valid or not is for the individual to decide. I happen to think it isn’t.

  • parodist

    says:

    Tucker’s background of telling brave tales of gay-bashing may be what some people have meant when they asked the regrettable question of whether Tucker is “gay enough” to comment on others’ sexuality.

  • independent thinker

    says:

    Here’s a funny story…and completely true.

    Back in 1991 I travelled to South Africa with my best friend. We went to do volunteer work in several countries in the southern part of the continent. As soon as we arrived we went into a restroom. I noticed right away several men looking at me like I had a large booger hanging from my nose. When we finished our business my friend laughed and pointed at a sign outside the bathroom door. It read “Blacks Only.” Of course, me and my friend were white. I had only been in the country for a few minutes and I had just broken the law. My friend had led me there intentionally just to snub a law which was so obviously wrong.

    Of course, no one was going to bother a couple of white men for using a “blacks only” restroom, but had the roles been reversed there could have been hell to pay and we both knew it.

    I was stunned by this blatent racism even though I knew that apartheid was the law. Somehow I felt like I had been transported back to the 1950s in America.

    Over the months I spent in South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Swaziland, I had many people stare at me because of my light skin and blue eyes. After a while I got used to it, but it was ALWAYS there.

    One time in Lusaka, Zambia a man called out, “muzungu” as I walked past. Muzungo, as I understand it is a not so nice of a term for a white man…something akin to the N word. I turned to the fellow, looked at my arms as if seeing them for the first time and said, “Oh my god, you’re right! How did this happen.” Then we both had a good laugh and shook hands.

    I’m not sure what the point of this is, except that we should all try to understand each other’s viewpoint. The pain of racism will fade in this country, but it is not gone. We should not overplay the race card, but nor should it be ignored. If Barack Obama becomes the next President of The United States it would be a powerful symbol of our progress on the racism issue BECAUSE of his heritage.

  • Anne

    says:

    As a white woman, I have no ability to understand what it is like to be judged on nothing but the color of my skin, to know that no matter what my backgound, or education or experience, having black skin would, for some people, negate all of it and render me unfit for whatever I aspired to. Sure, I can talk about the prejudice that still exists where women are concerned, but it’s not quite the same.

    The presence of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in his presidential contest is forcing us to have conversations that many of us hoped we didn’t need to have in 2008, but here we are, once again talking about whether a black man or a white woman are good enough to handle the job.

    But, when you look at the antipathy toward “the different,” maybe it isn’t all that surprising. There are people who want to build border fences to keep out the Mexicans. People who think anyone with a Middle Eastern name or appearance must be a terrorist. We have Republican candidates who are desperately trying to win the contest of who hates brown people more, and who will apply the most draconian measures to make sure they don’t pollute the white man’s environment.

    It’s disgusting.

    I was reading The Nation tonight, and in it was something that struck me – that one of the reasons the Oprah endorsement may not have been as helpful to Obama as it was expected to be was that in endorsing Obama, Oprah reminded America about something they had pretty much forgotten – that Oprah is actually black. All that color-blindness wiped out by an endorsement.

    In my mind, that means that the color-blindness people thought Oprah had instilled wasn’t really all that firmly embedded – because if it had been, there would have been no talk of the black woman, of course, endorsing the black man, it would have just been Oprah endorsing Obama, and no different than any other endorsement.

    Generally speaking, I am sick of the perceived need to examine every word and every gesture for some kind of hidden message – I’m not sure the constant picking at a scab is the way to heal the wound, but I also have no idea how it is that any of us can prove that we harbor no prejudice based on race or gender. Words will always mean one thing to the speaker or the writer, and something else to the listener or the reader – and I have no idea how someone who speaks to a very diverse nation can open his or her mouth, or put pen to paper, without offending someone, somewhere.

    Like me – I’ve probably offended any number of you because of how you will read my words and what you decide I must have meant by them – even if whatever that is, is not what was in my heart.

  • dnA

    says:

    Independent Thinker,

    Mzungu is not like the n-word. It’s a Swahili word that means “wanderer”. When I was traveling in Tanzania, where I was accused of being everything from white to Japanese to “half-caste” (which I guess means mixed) I was referred to as a mzungu.

    But then again, so was my girlfriend at the time, who is black and brownskinned, and could not be mistaken for being other races as I frequently am. Because she was American, they referred to her as an Mzungu, sometimes to get on her nerves, other times because that’s how they thought of her.

    As I understand it, the word generally means foreigner. Not anything intrinsically bad.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    People didn’t call Anthony Williams white because he wore a bow tie and went to Yale and Harvard, they called him white precisely because they felt like he was ignoring the needs of black folks in Washington DC. The example you offered is actually exactly what I’m talking about.

    OK, you you don’t want to address my first comment about children’s behaviour, so I’ll tackle this.

    Wrong. Williams was getting “not black enough/too white” when he was running for office so your rebuttal begins badly. Then you state that shutting down DC General was a disservice. Yikes! And also: Wrong. DC General provided disservice to the people who were unfortunate enough to wind up in the place. To say it was used by poor people sticks another huge hole in your argument, unless you’re suggesting poor people should be subjected to sub-par health care. DCG was given plenty of warnings to clean up their act and they failed to do so, perhaps because the CEO thought “Hey, it’s only poor people.” I don’t find that acceptable and I don’t think you do, either.

    Likewise, his term saw the growth of gentrification across some of the oldest neighborhoods in DC, such as U Street, which was Harlem before Harlem was Harlem. Now U Street is just like Harlem– or, more accurately, what used to be Harlem.

    That began above Adams Morgan well before Williams was in office and spread downwards. Hey, Georgetown was once a slum. There are nice neighborhoods (old) that went to hell while Barry was in office but I don’t blame him for that. Come on, you can do better than this. Surely you remember the OUTRAGE when Williams said he was going to make sure people working in the DC government were actually qualified to do their jobs because Barry had this habit of sticking friends, relatives and friends of relatives and relatives of friends in positions.

    And yes I know all about Barry, even the hostage situation, so what? Somewhere along the way the man turned into a crook and the city was much worse for his tenure(s) as mayor. Williams came along with the radical notion that the city’s bureaucracy shouldn’t be a big stinking joke and got the “H” word for his pains.

    I don’t know what school you went to that you could walk out if someone called you something you didn’t like. I know that when I was told I was “acting white” I just had to deal with it.

    I don’t know why you make the assumption this was happening in school but it wasn’t, if that makes a difference. However, my point was I soon learned that you can’t reason with or appease someone who makes that sort of comment short of changing your behaviour (and that would have made my parents unhappy) so the alternative (since fighting was verboten) was to walk away. But it gets us back to my original statement:

    Do you think children sit down and determine that another child is expressing a set of priorities contrary to black advancement before launching an accusation of “acting white”?

  • dnA

    says:

    Orange,

    I did answer your question. I think it’s more subconscious than intellectual. I think kids put people in categories, I think they react when they feel threatened or feel someone is not for them. I think that in general, black people, especially black children, think very little about how white people act, or what white people do, and how they do it and I think the media controversy over “acting white” is primarily fueled by the fact that white people really like to hear about what black people think about them.

    I don’t really understand how you can be so dismissive of something like gentrification. People were priced out of their homes, which were then replaced by condos and apartments in the price range of Georgetown and Dupont Circle. People were displaced from the homes and neighborhoods they know and love, and they felt Anthony Williams didn’t care. People have a right to feel like their needs and desires weren’t taken seriously by those in power because historically those in power haven’t cared. And that includes the Georgetown of the past you’re alluding to. Consider that before Georgetown was a slum, it was a black neighborhood. Go down to Georgetown now and ask Hillary Clinton or George Stephanopoulus how many black neighbors they have.

    As for DC General, the problem wasn’t just that it closed, the problem is that it wasn’t replaced by anything. There’s Greater Southeast Community Hospital, and that hospital is in disrepair. Add to the fact that Williams did nothing to fix public schools other than throw money at them, and all they’re hearing about is what a great mayor Williams is because he turned a budget debt into a surplus, and you’re going to have a lot of poor people wondering who Williams is working for.

    It wasn’t the bow tie.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    I think kids put people in categories, I think they react when they feel threatened or feel someone is not for them.

    Now you’re just shifting the goal posts. How does a kid determine that the way a person speaks is a “threat”? Same way they might learn that person’s skin colour is a “threat.” From listening to their parents, who don’t know what they’re talking about either. It has nothing to do with anything but pure, unadulterated bias.

    And please don’t lecture me about gentrification, especially after suggesting that the “service” provided by DCG was OK for the poor. I know how it works and what it does and I don’t like it either, but my point (you seem intent on missing them all) is that it didn’t begin under Williams and it didn’t begin under Barry so to say “This is Williams fault!” is incredibly short sighted, dishonest and/or stupid.

    As for DC General, the problem wasn’t just that it closed, the problem is that it wasn’t replaced by anything.

    Maybe because no other hospital wanted to go in there because it was only “poor folks.” You really must do better than this. DCG (which began to slide when you-know-who was in power) was shut down because it was a hazard to the patients. You suggest someone, somewhere should have stuck another fully functioning hospital in there by …. how? Throw more money at the problem? Hooray, the Republican solution.

    Please, I asked you a yes or no question and you’ve repeated talking points, you have at best a minimal grasp on the facts, your arguments are sloppy and sloppy thinking has given us seven years and counting of non-stop train wreck. Leave that for the RedStaters please.

  • Rich

    says:

    Should Obama be on the ticket in November we can expect the Rethugs to unleash a desperate and unprecedented (yes, even for this country) racist onslaught, and I suspect it won’t be in code as it so often is. The last twenty years have coarsened our public discourse, and given permission to wear our prejudices and bigotry on our sleeves – all in the name of freedom of religion, mind you. So expect the worst because that’s what will happen in the AmeriKKKa of the 21st century. We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

    While I don’t believe this country will elect a mixed race person as president, even in a fair election let alone a rigged one, the campaign will be to divide the black vote by appealing to the considerable prejudices extant in the black community. However, just as Lyndon Johnson realized that the civil rights legislation would convert the Dixiecrats to hard bitten Rethugs, so will the blatant appeals to racism by the Rethugs this time around destroy the illusion, for at least a generation, that the Rethugs have a “big tent.” Let the Rethugs reveal themselves as the white supremicist religious party they already are, and then we can watch the complete takeover of the Dems by corporate greedheads who have nowhere else to go.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    I would go one step farther than Rich and say that whether it is Obama or Clinton, the fall campaign will be disgusting in tis bigotry – either racial or gender-based – and my guess is that while some of it will be coded, much will be fairly blatent.

    I would also speculate that a Bradley Effect will impact either Obama or Clinton – I continue to harbor some doubts about how ready the country as a whole is for a woman President or a black President (or, for that matter, a hispanic or mormon President).

    But none of those concerns should matter. If Clinton and Obama are willing to put themselves out there, no one on the left should give in to and reward the bigotry that is out there. Either Clinton or Obama can win, either win would be a historical milestone of extraordinary significance and triumph over the remaining bigotry (it went little noticed because the lead story was the horse-race upset of the polls, but when HRC won New Hampsire, it was the first time in American history that a woman had won a state nominating contest for either party – Obama’s Iowa win was less groundbreaking, as Jesse Jackson previously won 13 primaries or caucuses).

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    There are different kinds of racists:

    There is the stereotype of the white Southerner, the Confederate-flag-waving yahoo who dismisses anyone of African heritage with the n-word. Although he’s a stereotype, this guy really exists. It is my sense that his kind is aging, dying, and getting smaller in number. At least I hope so.

    Then there is the xenophobic racist – the guy who dislikes anyone who is different. He doesn’t like middle-Eastern people because he thinks they are all terrorists. He doesn’t like Mexicans because they look different and often speak another language. And he doesn’t like African-Americans because he thinks they talk funny, dress funny, and, you know, are just different. They just aren’t like us. I fear that the latter kind of racist is growing in number as they see America becoming more and more diverse.

    Which brings me to Obama. It is my sense that most xenophobic racists will see Obama, like Colin Powell, as “one of us,” while dismissing Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton as “one of them.”

    I’m not going to pretend that I understand the discussions about African-Americans “acting white” or the issues surrounding whether someone is “black enough.” But I hope that my perspective as an aging white guy surrounded by sloping-skulled racist morons will add something to the conversation.

  • Dale

    says:

    “I ask not if a human being is black enough or white enough, I ask only if a human being is humane enough”. — Jerome Twilly

  • dnA

    says:

    Now you’re just shifting the goal posts. How does a kid determine that the way a person speaks is a “threat”? Same way they might learn that person’s skin colour is a “threat.” From listening to their parents, who don’t know what they’re talking about either. It has nothing to do with anything but pure, unadulterated bias.

    I don’t think that children in this country need to be told who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are, everything from television to movies to comic books does it for them. What happens when you’re young and you look in the mirror and realize the “bad guys” all look like you? You start to resent “the good guys”. The roots of ant-black racism among whites and anti-white racism among blacks are not the same and neither can be handily explained by “they listened to their parents.” And what causes a black kid to tell another black kid he’s acting white goes far deeper than getting good grades or wearing argyle. If it comforts you to think otherwise, then fine.

    And please don’t lecture me about gentrification, especially after suggesting that the “service” provided by DCG was OK for the poor. I know how it works and what it does and I don’t like it either, but my point (you seem intent on missing them all) is that it didn’t begin under Williams and it didn’t begin under Barry so to say “This is Williams fault!” is incredibly short sighted, dishonest and/or stupid.

    I didn’t say it was Williams fault. I told you why people in DC saw him as protecting the interests of the powerful rather than the interests of the people of Southeast, most of whom happen to be poor. Whether or not DC changed for the better under Williams, the people who said he was acting white were saying it because their lives didn’t get better. They didn’t get better under Barry either, but like I said he has more roots in the city and an ability to manipulate that Williams doesn’t have. I’m not debating with you who was the better mayor, I’m trying to explain to you why many black people in DC didn’t like Williams, and you’re not listening.

    Please, I asked you a yes or no question and you’ve repeated talking points, you have at best a minimal grasp on the facts, your arguments are sloppy and sloppy thinking has given us seven years and counting of non-stop train wreck. Leave that for the RedStaters please.

    I hope you see the irony of invoking the “yes or no question” trope before comparing me to RedStaters, o disciple of Hannity.

    What you have is solely a grasp of your own perspective, which is precisely the problem. You’ve already decided that people hated Williams because he spoke a certain way or dressed a certain way, rather than because his decisions as mayor hurt many people in DC, most of them poor.

    Part of my irritation with the Media’s obsession with the “acting white” phenomenon is that while I got some of that as a kid, far more prevalent among the children I’ve taught is colorism. While I have never heard one child tell another he was acting white, many times I had to comfort a child who was told he was ugly or stupid because he was darker than other kids.

    But you rarely read about that in the press. That has the disadvantage of not placing “whiteness” as a qualitative goal that people shouldn’t feel self-conscious about pursuing.

  • Dale

    says:

    Although dnA’s bedside manner could use some work, I do appreciate his willlingness to climb down here in the pit and grapple with us. Good to have you here, dnA.

    Having said that, I think I’m going to have to give today’s debating points to my man tAiO.

  • andy phx

    says:

    This is perhaps the dumbest, stupidest, most asinine discussion that we could be having right now. Who makes up these dumb-fuck phony controversies in the first place? Is he ‘black’ enough? It makes me laugh even to type the phrase. It’s common knowledge that in order to be the GOP nomination one must be the whitest of the whitebread cocksuckers on the planet. For them, if one of their candidates even claps on the beat while a song or band is playing the background dismisses them from the clan of potential presidential prospects. Have you listened to the songs Huck plays? Bottom line is that it’s a phony way for the press to have a discussion about Obama’s race. The media, not the public, is obsessed with his race. Not the Democratic party. And not even most of America. It’s obvious that when you look at the man he looks to be partly of African heritage. SO WHAT!! Get over it!! Bottom line is that out of all of the candidates running for president he (or Edwards) is the best glimmer of hope for this country after eight long nightmarish years of Bush/Cheney. And that’s on either side!!!