Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Calling Obama black is an insult to his mother
An honest history would acknowledge the white men and women rubbed out by the label
Monday, 9 June 2008
Barack Obama is not black. He is the first mixed-race politician ever to get this far in the onerous and arduously testing American electoral process. In the US, under an over-arching American patriotism, separate ethnic categories are clearly labelled and race ghettoes (real or imagined) are commonplace. In such a severely organised society, Obama's achievements are all the more astounding since he fits neatly nowhere.
A caveat. Only in one important sense can Obama be legitimately termed "black". In the US and the UK too, until fairly recently, "black" was a political identification, shorthand for "not white" in the long game of power held almost entirely in white, male hands.
So his win does represent, as with Colin Powell and Condi Rice, an historical shift as some top jobs finally get into the hands of non-white Americans. But the adjective has become an identity and racial marker for the Democratic nominee, and used that way, "black" is disingenuous, and in my view, iniquitous.
Successful mixed-race Americans are pushed to call themselves "black" as a badge of honour, evidence that they are not ashamed of that background. And that too is wrong. When the legendary golfer Tiger Woods said that he was African, Caucasian, Native American and Asian, he was denounced by African Americans for denying his "true" heritage.
During the times of transatlantic slavery, biracial children (most born out of rape by the master or overseer) were branded black so as to deny them white paternity and concomitant rights. Now the descendents of that history demand that same denial, because many of them, too, despise amalgamation.
Maria Root, an American clinical psychologist, writes: "The existence of racially mixed persons challenges long-held notions about the biological, moral and social meaning of race." Such conservatism surely needs to be thrown off in the 21st century.
Woods and now Obama are heroic examples to, and of, that wilful wedge (growing and alarming many nations) of individuals and families made up of many parts, who cannot be held in man-made reservoirs of biological and cultural purity. They leave the gene pools of sterilized waters, swim out instead into the saltier, messier, yes dirtier, unpredictable seas full of unknown creatures and perils – but also freedom.
Obama's parents – an African man and white American woman – didn't make it together. Their son, though, came through stronger and wiser, because he had to. Some with the same stories do, but never forgive, like Malcolm X; others do and self destruct. I agree with the British psychologist Professor Ann Phoenix ,who said nearly 10 years ago that we need "a separate history of people of mixed race ... [otherwise] they have no past, no heroes or heroines with whom to identify."
And an honest history would have to acknowledge the white men and women who are rubbed out by the label "black", erased ruthlessly. Obama would be nobody – he wouldn't exist – without his mum. She wasn't perfect, and made mistakes, but it took a brave lass to defy the social order, as we read in his autobiography. It is only by calling himself "biracial" loudly and proudly that Obama can integrate his mum into his success story.
He should remember how many white parents feel when they are systematically demeaned, diminished and sometimes removed altogether from the biographies of mixed-race children, even when they have been the ones doing the parenting. Darcus Howe, the father of several children brought up by white mothers, once memorably asserted that all the sprogs were "black" and absolutely had to be.
My daughter has my colouring, and could pass as Asian, but I would never, ever want her to. Her wonderful English father made her past and will her future. In this country, we have thankfully moved on from the views expressed by Howe. Assertive mixed-race couples and children have ensured that progress, away from just another kind of bigotry. The US lags far behind.
Many more biracial Americans than Britons, for example, feel obliged to marry black ( the darker the better) in order to re-purify their biology and group belonging. I wonder how many African-Americans would have supported Obama if his wife was Anglo-Saxon or Hispanic? Here, politicians like Bernie Grant or David Lammy happily chose white partners without such hang-ups.
I have had several emails from mixed-race readers and contacts – some interviewed in Mixed Feelings, my book on miscegenation. They seethe that yet again, one of "theirs" has opted for a fraudulent brand. One suggests that expediency, if not honour, should persuade him to come out: "Maybe," says one, "he should calculate how many votes he would gain if he embraces his whiteness as much as his blackness. Some of those backward Appalachians need to hear about his mum and gran, their consistency when his dad buggered off."
Maybe that argument may just move the next – one hopes – first multiracial President of the USA.




Comments
383 Comments
Angisan - there is no such thing as 'Irish blood' or a 'blood mix'. That is the ethnic attitude that cause all racism and tribal conflic - but all blood is red and the same, one of four blood groups.
Jay. I could refer to myself as 'black' too, but as a white man that would be absurd, even if I had a black grandfather. Race IS visual. Perception is NOT reality - so if I perceive myself as a blackman, or a grapefruit, or a mouse, that does not make me one. OK? Self-definition is an absurb AfAmerican idea (though I can see how it was born of the bitterness of slavery and segregation -BUT I am not American and refuse to follow that nonsense like a PC Sheep).
Best to talk about 'ethnicities', anyway, not race - or, better still, populations. There are health/aptitude/IQ-related differences between populations, which may correspond to skin colour, yes. We are all 99.5% the same - but that half a per cent is large, actually. (NB black/Asian is not my semantic creation matey).
Posted by Jumber | 15.06.08, 12:08 GMT
386 comments and still counting. Well, if nothing more, Yasmin, you've certainly kick-started the debate. A long overdue debate, too.
We are all mixed race. Sometimes it is just more obvious because of skin pigmentation. I am white and taken for English, (which I am both partly genetically and culturally) but with a Jewish grandfather, and a Polish grandmother too, I have a healthy blood mix of which I am proud. My children have both of the above plus Scottish and Irish blood, again, justifiably proud.
I wish we were all colour blind and I have often wondered how a person who has been blind from birth, perceives race.
Posted by Anginsan | 15.06.08, 09:25 GMT
and... the article references the backlash of tiger woods when he said he was mixed race- fair enough but as I understand it the attitude was why not say this from the beginning?- woods was happy to refer to himself as a black man in the earlier stages of his career to increase coverage amongst black American media or as part of a major Nike campaign- there are numerous mixed race Americans who openly refer to themselves as mixed race- no one has a problem with that- the idea that mixed races are bullied into identifying with blacks or Asians is absurd-
Posted by jay | 15.06.08, 04:06 GMT
jumber- surely if colour is not culture people like Victoria s have the right to refer to themselves as African-American? ancestry means a lot to some people and your experience must be quite limited- you adopt quite an aggressive stance towards the blacks/Asians- funny how you use a colour and a continent to refer to two groups of people. if race is purely visual how do you explain certain racial groups being more perceptible to certain disease etc-
on the other-hand I agree with your 'one drop is nonsense' stance but I'm failing to understand why it bothers people so much that a 'light-skinned' black person chooses to identify themselves as black. there is a race industry but its been exploited by both black and white- employ one black person to bring up your diversity quota etc as well as convenience for white people- you sound like an open minded person and I suppose your not one of the many white people who still refers to mixed race people as coloureds or blacks.
Posted by jay | 15.06.08, 03:57 GMT
OK Jumber, I do not know about obsession, but birds of a feather...etc. This is very natural. We were recently in the USA and as outsiders our first impressions of a person were on the basis of politeness (Americans are) helpfulness, efficiency and of course appearance...black (why not brown, more accurate) Asian, white (pink), ugly, gross, pretty, sexy etc. Then this was San Francisco which is a fruit salad of ethnicities.
Irish in NZ do not proclaim their religion but are proud of being Irish, but in Ireland it makes a difference. So context is important
I recall Lady Di's funeral and the BBC interviewing people in the street. I heard a Welshman being interviewed who had travelled to London for the event. The Welsh accent is wonderful, so I looked up to see the owner. He was black, but no doubt about his being Welsh. I had to laugh (at myself) at being surprised.
I guess how we describe ourselves is our own choice to make. I am a (pink) mongrel.
Posted by Don W | 15.06.08, 00:00 GMT
Exactly on target. I am English /Irish /French/ Scottish, born in Fiji, living in New Zealand. My wife Croatian/Ukranian, who, through english literature at school, regarded England as the "home country". How confused can we get, even without "black" blood? Are we not just people, some with very interesting links and a nice healthy diverse gene
Posted by Don W | 13.06.08, 23:36 GMT
"jumber", African-Americans come in all complexions. Get over it. There are millions of light-complexioned African-Americans, such as myself and relatives in my own family, and there probably always will be so. A person can appear as white as snow, and identify themself as "Black", and they can. A person can have straight red hair and sparkling blue eyes and if they want to identify themself as "Black"--they can. Anyone of African descent who has the mind to identify themself as Black--CAN--regardless of how dark or light their skin is, how straight or coarse their hair is, or how dark or light their eyes are--because they have the personal freedom to do so. Period.
There are light-skinned Blacks, have always been light-skinned Blacks, and will continue to be light-skinned Blacks as long as there are people of African descent [no matter the shade] who prefer aligning themselves with the Black community. PERIOD. I am done discussing this topic.
Posted by Victoria Grace | 13.06.08, 20:16 GMT
Victoria - 'REALITY' will not change, I agree. So that means is you LOOK black people will think you're black, and if you look white people will think you're white. THAT is reality. Race is visual.
Culture is a different thing, though large numbers of one skin-coloured people may have similar cultures. Pan-Africanism is utter nonsense IMHO - and essentially racist - as is self-definition, the idea that you are what you call yourself and that is your right. OK - so I self-define as a black man, despite being white. Why not? About 20% of spanish./portuguese people have recent black ancesters for example.
Karen S - culture is a construct. By 'white culture' I presume you mean modern democratic, european culture? If not what? They are many white cultures! Look at European countries, from Russia to Ireland to Greece! This division of black and white is much loved by muppets at local councils and idiots in schools and universities. It is piffle! Colour is NOT culture - that is racist.
Posted by Jumber | 13.06.08, 09:38 GMT
'Racial' identity is about appearance and about culture. Of my two 'mixed' (according to council documentation) children, one looks more obviously black, the other, hardly at all. This might make a difference as to how they identify themselves. But it is inevitable that however much or little they embrace their black identity, they will, in cultural terms, ultimately be the product of a white, educated mother. This has been the case with other 'mixed' individuals I've known, brought-up with one white and one black parent, within a white culture.
I am the one who loves and cares for them, sacrifices and works for them and will teach them how to live in the world - not how to be black - but to be loving, tolerant, hard-working and happy. People will choose to place and identify themselves where they feel loved, accepted and understood. Life brings its own lessons; political insecurites are divisive, destructive and unnecessary.
Posted by Karen S | 13.06.08, 01:31 GMT
Unfortunately, there is a very strong inference by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, that embracing the Afro portion of one's background is negative: "But the adjective has become an identity and racial marker for the Democratic nominee, and used that way, "black" is disingenuous, and in my view, iniquitous."
I am hoping that she meant inequity. To add to the debate I would invite readers to view a story about a "white", blue eyed, Barbadian Ras Tafari and academic, Dr Ikael Tafari who passed away recently, who fully identified himself as black African. You can read about him at AbengNews.com.
Posted by Mark | 12.06.08, 20:56 GMT
383 Comments