hey buddha,

your succinct explanation of the 'Obama effect' was quite an eye-opener, thank you! just one remark that made me a bit curious ~  Obama....he's black but arguably not Black. does what make him black, with a small letter b, essentially tied to his lack of an enslaved ancestry? 

I mean, by US social definition, other than that his the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas, born in Hawaii and raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, there's nothing else that appers to distinguish Obama's "blackness" from MLK's - he is married to a black woman, attends a black church and has also worked with poor people.

thando-- yeah, more or less; he comes from immigrant ancestry as opposed to enslaved ancestry. I'm talking perception here, not reality. I know white folks who are married to black spouses, attend black churches, and work with poor people-- and while they're totally part of the community, they're not Black; there's more to race than skin color and who you associate with... because 'race' is basically other people's perception of who you are, and a lot of it has to do with history.

I can't recall having ever heard Obama speak. I do suspect that he sounds a lot different from MLK; his race may be indistinguishable from audio alone. That's pure speculation though.

Here in the States, folks can be pretty much divided three ways according to ancestral history. There's the indigenous, the enslaved, and the immigrants. I really believe this crosses ethnic lines; and it has to do with historical perceptions of who people are and why they're here. Why you're here matters profoundly in the States. The indigenous are a tiny minority and basically absent from the political scene; historical perceptions of Native Americans are tied in with the history of genocide and forced resettlement and cultural imperialism. The enslaved are a significant minority; historical perceptions of them have to do with, well, forced resettlement cultural imperialism and slavery. And the immigrants, our historical perceptions have to do with "land of opportunity," "we came to America to make a better life," that kind of thing.

Honestly, I think a white person with 200+ years of family history feel like they have more in common culturally with a Kenyan immigrant's child, than with a Black person whose family has also been here 200+ years. But I'm talking perception, not reality.

DRM's all up in the haus yo


and, I hear that heartbreak is good for the soul. all my friends tell me.



luckeeeeee.

buddha ~ The question is what else other than his immigrant ancestry makes Obama "arguably not Black". the issue is why, as it relates to specifically Black folks (MLK being a case in point), the fact that he is married to a black woman, attends a black church and works with poor people considered insufficient to qualify him as a Black? Granted white folks who are married to black spouses, attend black churches, and work with poor people, might not be considered Black (though, interestingly enough, in certain Black communities its precisely those whites who are perceived to be black with a small letter b ). But what about the the uniquely American “one drop” rule, which holds that any trace of Black African blood ancestry defines one as Black, why wouldn't this rule apply to him? You see,  from an SA perspective, the former home of apartheid, this is an important factor, since unlike the US, in SA a biracial person with an admixture of Black African ancestry, is not classified Black but Coloured along with other mixed-race people. 

I've seen and heard Obama speak on tv and yep he does sound a lot different from MLK. Be that as it may, that his race may be indistinguishable from audio alone, still doesn't explain how his 'blackness' is thus rendered less Black simply because he doesn't have a southern-black accent. I personally know of some Black people whose race is also indistinguishable from audio. This is mainly attributable to their cosmopolitan influences. Yet despite this they still consider themselves Black.

I do indeed get what you are saying about cultural history. I wonder, however, to what extent cultural history has transcended particular racial stereotypes about black people as whole, regardless of whether they're of enslaved or immigrant ancestry. For, while you feel you have more in common culturally with a Kenyan immigrant's child, foreign ancestry, as an article in Time Magazine put it,  could not prevent Amadou Diallo's wallet from morphing into a gun in the eyes of the police. In the same article, on the question of "good and black blacks", Obama himself is reported to have said, "If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he told Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy..." So, what do you make of that?

hehe, very good point. At the English Language Institute here, we have to prepare African students for the reality that they'll be perceived, and treated, as Black. This offends a great deal of people; a lot of them seem to hold prejudices about African-Americans every bit as racist as anyone else. A typical reaction to "you're going to have to deal with the fact that, here in America you're Black," is, in an insulted tone, "But I'm not one of them. I'm African!"

and you're right that perception is a mixed bag. On TV or radio Obama is mixed-race and immigrant ancestry. On the street corner, he's Black. Same goes for, say, dark-skinned Cuban immigrants who look Black until you hear them speak.

That's not unique to Black people, though. Folks of Native American, Mexican or South Asian extraction often get mistaken for Middle Eastern and treated as such. After 9/11 there were cases of Puerto Ricans beaten to death by drunk racists who thought they were Arabic.

As for the one-drop thing... first, it applies strictly to having one drop of slave blood, not African blood. There's a large Coptic population here, for example, and one-drop has never applied to them. Secondly, if your skin's light enough or hair wavy enough, you get to self-identify. Our equivalent to what you call "coloured" (that includes Asians as well, right?) is this laughably naively racist tag, "ethnic." Which basically means, "apparently descended at least in part from ancestors who didn't originate in Europe." A girl who's part Chinese, part Irish, part African-American isn't Black unless she chooses to be. Otherwise, she's "ethnic."

I hope that Obama's bid for the presidency will do something to bridge that gap... non-Black folks are paying attention to him because he's perceived (at least in the public eye as opposed to the street corner) as black but not quite Black. I think this can really open the door towards acceptance for future presidential candidates whose ancestors did come to this country on slave-boats centuries ago. It's a little similar to what Clinton's campaign is doing for female candidates... she's mainstream because she's a Clinton despite the fact she's a woman, but this widespread acceptance of a female presidential candidate means that the barriers against a woman running for office are lowered.

At a second glance, your comments were more directed towards self-identification, and my response more focused on labels that are given from outside. Obama and any other person with African immigrant or mixed ancestry can absolutely self-identify as Black; Southern accents and slave ancestry are optional. And anyone with dark skin is bound to be perceived and treated as Black on the street corner regardless of self-identification.

The public's willingness to accept Obama, however-- I believe Biden's comments reveal that it stems at least in part from this public perception that he (and other African-descended folks without the Southern accent or slave roots) is not (or transcends) "Black". I believe that I'm more willing to vote for Obama than for, say, Al Sharpton strictly because Obama would make a better president... but am starting to suspect more and more that it's actually my perception of Sharpton as Black-- not Sharpton himself-- that is off-putting. It was really revelatory for me to discover that Sharpton sounds a lot like MLK, who in popular consciousness also transcends "Black"ness. MLK's image has been quite literally whitewashed in a number of ways.

So, I think that a significant portion of the American public perceives Obama, as a public figure, as something other that totally Black. Ironically, I think this helps his campaign a great deal. Whether he really is Black, though-- well, from what I can tell he self-identifies as Black, and on the street corner would be perceived as Black. So arguably Obama is Black but perceived publicly as black.

On a minor note, I don't think you should feel bad about not supporting Sharpton's candidacy.  If he were a white candidate with the exact same background and who spoke about the exact same issues, would you have thought he would make a good president?

quite honestly, I know Sharpton's caricature a lot more than I actually know about Sharpton himself. I actually don't know enough about him to answer that question.