The candidacy of Senator Obama and his string of victories have spawned many new words, but apart from adding to our vocabulary, the movement that is “Obamamania” yields more than a few implications informed by race and some of its various appendages.
Why is Mr. Obama black, or perhaps more precisely, why do some see him as black? The answers lies in the belief constructed by whites that being white is pure and superior, and thus anyone born to a white parent and a non-white parent cannot possibly be white. Blacks who view Obama as being black are legitimizing the white superior belief, and whites who see Mr. Obama as Black betray their belief in the superiority of whiteness. Mr. Obama is no more black than he is white, since he is the product of a black and white marriage.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the current social structure that assigns blackness to Mr. Obama, since the dominating class gets to dictate the rules. If Blacks were dominant, the offspring of a black/white marriage would be tagged white.
What is perplexing is that even among the most militant of Blacks, those who look askance at the structure of white America use its vocabulary because they see Mr. Obama as black, as is reflected in the pride with which they glow because White America appears willing to nominate a “black” to run for president
The share number of the white votes Mr. Obama has been garnering is driving the glow of pride among a wide swath of the black population, but that pride appears to be a manifestation of a longing for white unequivocal approval and acceptance that many Blacks have long sought. In fact, some have hypothesized that the yearning of Blacks for white acceptance and approval has hobbled their progress. To see this, one only need to look at the reaction of some Blacks when a white American behaves in a manner that could be interpreted as anti-black. If time is spent being offended, that is time spent not being productive. Further, seeking approval or acceptance from a group implicitly assigns master status to that group, a holding which might be subconsciously crippling
Several callers to WMAL radio in Washington said they voted for Mr. Obama because they want to deny the Democratic nomination to Senator Clinton. The callers said they will vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. The callers’ decision to vote as they did raises two possibilities. First, is the belief that Mr. Obama would make a much weaker candidate than Mrs. Clinton in the general election. This belief may well be derived from the notion that a black man could not now be elected president. The second has no negative racial tone, and that is, the callers would rather have an Obama presidency over a Clinton presidency, if the preferred Republican nominee loses the general election.
It is conceivable that a significant fraction of the white vote for Mr. Obama falls in the category of the callers to WMAL, but it would be foolish to say that only an insignificant fraction of the white vote is genuinely for Mr. Obama, given the fervor of the crowds we see surrounding Mr. Obama.
Assuming that the majority of the white vote for Mr. Obama is genuine, the case can be made persuasively that America has largely become an equal opportunity country, a development that effectively neuters the race hustlers who have operated on both sides of the racial divide. There are the Blacks who have blamed virtually all pathologies among Blacks on white racism, and there are the white liberals who have cheered them on.
If Mr. Obama gets the Democratic Party nomination, and goes on to win the presidency, any further claim by race hustlers that America has not yet solved its race problem will become increasing difficult make and to defend. Comedienne Wanda best captures the problem an Obama presidency would pose for the race hustlers. In an appearance February 28, 2008 on the Jay Leno Show, Wanda said Blacks would no longer be able to blame the Man for their problems because the Man would now be in charge, and he is Black!
No comments:
Post a Comment