Is Obama Black or White? Yes (UPDATE)

Today it’s all about race. Again. This time it’s Sinbad jumping into the fray, complaining that a white man has been continuously slotted to portray Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live. ::::cough::: Eddie Murphy :::cough::: Whatever.

However, in his commentary on the subject, Glenn Reynolds adds this point from one of his readers:

Let me see if I've got this straight: a white man is not allowed to portray a half-white man (Barack Obama) on SNL, but a black man is?

Glenn’s other reader must not have been paying attention to the racial conventions in this country; conventions which have existed since the country has existed. Rightly or wrongly, a person who has a certain amount of African ancestry has been considered black and, during the slavery and Jim Crow years and many of the the mere forty-plus year beyond that, treated accordingly. The short version? Any child gotten upon a black slave by any white man was still considered black and therefore also a slave. (And when one thinks about this dispassionately, it makes sense financially.) Later on, post-bellum, the driving force for the convention was white supremacy--keeping the race pure. (Some folks refer to this as the ‘one-drop rule.’ However, it would not apply to Obama since he has a great deal more that one drop of black African ancestry. It would be more applicable to someone like my grandmother.)

Now I'm all for ignoring conventions which have white supremacy as progenitor, as I'm sure Glenn is. But some folks act as if this concept originated with black people. And they also act as if no one would have turned a hair had Obama presented himself to the American electorate as white—that is, making no mention of race whatsoever unless asked. (Of course that would mean that Mrs. O. would have to pipe down and that they would have to belong to a different church, but that's beside the point.)

The point is that we cannot have it all ways. Either he’s a) black or b) white or c) half-black and half-white or d) an American and who-gives-a-damn about his ethnicity. I’m sure that a lot of us would pick option ‘d’ or even ‘b.’ However, let’s quit pretending that those who would pick option ‘a’ aren’t merely following a well-known American tradition.

If one wants to break with that tradition, the first step is to be honest about it.

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn for the link and the comment:

I'm well aware of the one-drop rule. What's changed, though, is who seems most interested in enforcing it.

Again, Obama doesn't qualify. Additionally, I think that black people have, for the greater part, willingly gone along with the convention. That many white people don't want to follow it any more is most definitely progress. But two things should be kept in mind:

1) Until relatively recently, white persons--in America at least--have always decided who was considered 'white'; IOW they made the rules in that area. (I'm told that those of Irish and Italian descent weren't always part of the "club.") Many mixed-raced Americans of African descent--which means darn near every black American including me--aren't subscribing to the new race rules fast enough for some; but that isn't due to the same white supremacy that gave birth to the rules. It's just the way we've always thought about ourselves and those who are usually members of our family. If some want to think of themselves in a different manner--like, say, Tiger Woods or one of my nieces or one of Glenn's nephews--I say fantastic; if not, also fantastic. But don't pretend as if another rule isn't being made by "whites" that "blacks" have to follow or suffer some sort of censure.

2) That the rules are to be dropped now seems a tad convenient. Why not with Colin Powell or Julian Bond or dozens of other famous visibly mixed-raced Americans of African descent?

More later. Maybe.

Comments

[tree hugging sister]

If I remember correctly, Tiger Woods' mother got PO'd big time at the "blackblackblack" refrain around him, because it, in effect, marginalized her. Tiger himself...

...Woods made his remarks on "Oprah," when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American. "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian.'" As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian.

..."But just "who I am" remained contested ground. According to Time magazine, Woods' coming out as a Cablinasian caused "a mini-racial firestorm ... Woods' remarks infuriated many African Americans who ... see him as a traitor ... Some blacks saw Woods' assertion of a multiracial identity as a sellout that could touch off an epidemic of 'passing.'"

[baldilocks]

See update.

[M. Smith]

The "one drop rule" was never universally followed even during the bad old days. For example, Thomas Jefferson, among others, actually attempted to define the exact fraction of African blood necessary to consider a person black, and it wasn't "one drop" for Jefferson.

In 2008, one only hears about the "one drop rule" from blacks, which is, of course, quite normal, like the proverbial Canadians who obsessively keep track of which famous people are Canadian. Why not claim as many great people as possible as being of your own ethnic group?

But among whites in 2008, the one drop rule has been replaced by the "modified duck rule": If it looks like a duck (white), it's a duck, unless someone points out that it is in fact a swan (black) because it is one-umpteenth swan, in which case you are a racist bastard for thinking it is a duck just because it looks like one.

[baldilocks]

In 2008, one only hears about the "one drop rule" from blacks

I hear about it from whites all the time.

You're not an individualist, are you, M. Smith?

[Dave S.]

The "one-drop rule" was originally used by racists to keep blacks in social and economic ghettos. Now it's used by liberals to keep blacks in political and ideological ones.

[baldilocks]

That's not the "one-drop rule," Dave. That's the many-drops rule.

[JFH]

Speaking of Tiger Woods, I think the person with the darkest complexion is Vijay Singh of Fiji.(Which ironic in itself as most people from Fiji get their color from their Indian heritage not from Fiji).

Let's face it, what we consider "black" in the US is not color, or % of blood, but Sub-Saharan African features.

[baldilocks]

Thanks.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

I agree we cannot have it all ways. One of my favorite rules of discussion.

I may have misread your intent, and forgive me if so. The origin of definitions of blackness is not in dispute, except perhaps around the edges. White people indeed made the original rules. But I don't think such things remain static, and I don't think it is history alone which provides our definition today.

Point taken that what Glenn suggests should be an even-up situation is not, for historical reasons. The equivalence is fine in theory, and perhaps he is encouraging theory to become reality, but you are correct that the situation is not equivalent in the current perception. For historically bad reasons.

Nonetheless, I think that there are limits to this. A comedic troupe runs with the players they have. The black person in the cast looks less like Obama than the white guy. Artistic decision = go with the white guy who provides a better visual. And don't look back.

[Stew]

My wife is Singaporean and I am American. When our son was born, the nurse was typing up his birth certificate and I asked her why she made his ethnicity Asian. My reasoning was, if we have to have to declare this thing called 'race' why isn't he as much caucasian as he is asian? She replied that they go with the ethnicity of the mother - but this isn't always true now, is it?

[baldilocks]

The casting doesn't bother me a bit. (Hint: click the Eddie Murphy link.)

[Salt Lick]

Hello Baldi --

I've been reading and rereading your post for over a half-hour, trying to understand your central point. It seems to me that you are not defending Sinbad's attitude so much as asking his critics to consider the reasons underlying it. You are mostly annoyed that "some" people are saying Obama's race shouldn't matter because it's convenient for them, not because they really want to ignore his race (whatever that is). Am I right?

I'm still not sure, however, I understand some of your specific points:

Glenn Reynolds adds this point from one of his readers:

'Let me see if I've got this straight: a white man is not allowed to portray a half-white man (Barack Obama) on SNL, but a black man is?"

Glenn’s other reader must not have been paying attention to the racial conventions in this country; conventions which have existed since the country has existed.

But a reader could be quite familiar with those conventions and still ask the question, right? Regardless of history, the question can stand by itself.

The point is that we cannot have it all ways. Either he’s a) black or b) white or c) half-black and half-white or d) an American and who-gives-a-damn about his ethnicity. I’m sure that a lot of us would pick option ‘d’ or even ‘b.’ However, let’s quit pretending that those who would pick option ‘a’ aren’t merely following a well-known American tradition.

Who do you see as "those who would pick option 'a'"? Do you think that's OK? Does the acceptability of that choice vary depending on their race?

If one wants to break with that tradition, the first step is to be honest about it.

I'm not clear whether you think we should break with "that tradition" because you later write "...race rules fast enough for some; but that isn't due to the same white supremacy that gave birth to the rules. It's just the way we've always thought about ourselves and those who are usually members of our family."

So it's OK to see yourself as "black" or "white" as long as it's not because of "the convention?"

I think that black people have, for the greater part, willingly gone along with the convention. That many white people don't want to follow it any more is most definitely progress. But two things should be kept in mind:

1) Until relatively recently, white persons--in America at least--have always decided who was considered 'white'; IOW they made the rules in that area. ...don't pretend as if another rule isn't being made by "whites" that "blacks" have to follow or suffer some sort of censure.

That seems to say that the relatively recent notion of doing away with race as important is only a white idea.

2) That the rules are to be dropped now seems a tad convenient.

And the rejoinder from "others" is that it seems a tad convenient that some want to hold on to the old rule, which used to be abhorent, but is useful now.
Isn't this the drag on all social progress -- old grudges and resentments drag it down. Everyone wants "justice." Because anything else is unfair.

Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant,

[baldilocks]

Salt Lick,

Good to see you.

I think that the answers to your questions require a post of their own. So let me get some coffee in me and fry a few other fish and I'll get to it.

[b]

And the obamamenon most certainly has nothing to do with any of this!

[baldilocks]

b: Of course he does. That's what the line about convenience is about.

[john maynard]

if your black and embrace them both now is a great thing come in to small comm and help them understandthatiwant to vote for mr.obamn but i tired the young people in this town dont mexicans are taking over our happy of life

[baldilocks]

:::burp:::