With Barack Obama being the first black (true, he's 50% black, but the dominant gene determines his race in the eye of racists looking at him) presidential candidate from one of the major political parties, there has been a lot said and written about what it means in terms of race in America. On the one hand, people have noted that it's a historic occasion, a first. But after that, the next step is to ask the question of what it means now for the future of race in America?
And I'm in the middle of reading a second article on whether this is the end to "black politics" in the
Sunday NY Times magazine
All this got me thinking of what are the boundaries between racial or ethnic sympathy one side, and racial discrimination on the other.
According to reported data, 8 of 9 black voters in the Democratic primaries voted for Obama over Hilary Clinton (whose husband was likely the most popular US president among blacks in history). It's reasonable to assume that a significant portion of those people voted for Obama because he is black, even if they knew little about him or his policies, or some even if they preferred Hilary Clinton over Obama in terms of policy.
Which of course begs the question - is it racist for a black person to vote for Obama simply based on his race? You could fairly assume that someone who is white who openly declares that he is voting for McCain because he is white would be considered a racist.
Here is my next question. In 2000, on a much lower scale to be sure, a certain percentage of Jewish voters chose to vote Democrat because there was a Jew on the ticket. Of course, about 75% of Jews vote Democrat generally anyway, but we cannot deny the fact that at least some might have voted Republican if Lieberman wasn't chosen as Gore's running mate. Putting aside that religion in itself is not a "race", is it racist to vote simply based on religion?
Perhaps we are talking about "values" more than skin color or proof of circumcision. It might be fair to say that many who voted for Lieberman because he was Jewish did so not because of Lieberman putting on tefillin every morning or fasting on Yom Kippur, but because his Jewish upbringing and lifestyle made them feel more secure that he would have the same views as them on policy issues - for example, that he would be more strongly in favor of Israel's security than a non-Jewish opponent. It's what some call the
"kishkes" vote. So too, perhaps a percentage of black voters who voted for Obama did so not because of he has brown skin, but because they feel secure that he would, as President, take steps to improve inner-city life for lower-income blacks, help fight racism and increase equality, etc. and, that he also would make a good President in bringing whites and blacks closer together than further apart. I would guess that a much larger amount of blacks would vote for Obama than would vote for Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson - divisive figures even in their own communities, the same way that fewer Jews would vote for
Norman Finkelstein or
Meir Kahane.
But the "values" vote can also have questions about discrimination. If Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell would only vote for a Christian (I don't mean someone with a Christian upbringing, but that - like Bush - frequently references Christ), is that racist? You could argue that an evangelical Christian has every right to vote for what they call "Christian values" - anti-abortion, anti stem cell research, etc - the same way someone would only vote for a liberal candidate because they share liberal values with him/her. That usually isn't considered racist - why would voting for a religious Christian, or a Jew voting for a Jew be?
The other thing being talked about a lot is that Obama's racial and ethnic makeup - Kenyan father, white-skinned American mother, and he grew up in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world - that he's "post-racial" or "beyond race". Many black people take offense to this. They ask, "why aren't white candidates asked to be "post-racial"?" They feel that after struggling for equal rights for so many years, and finally getting a dark-skinned - someone who identifies himself as African-American - candidate, that he is being asked to "hide" his race.
Is Obama to be celebrated because he's black and that he made it higher politically than any other African American in U.S. history? Or, is to be judged purely on the "content of his character", basically ignoring his race all together and simply seeing him not as white nor black, but as an American?
Of course, it is also understood that the minority indentifies stronger with his people because of being the minority - they become more vocally supportive of others like them. For this reason, there is no "Straight Pride Parade", or "White History Month". It's understandable why many in black communities sympathize with other black Americans, and it's understandable (to a degree) why that is not considered as racist as when whites decide to "take care of their own".
On a final note, of course some would see me writing this as a white middle-class male a bit preachy, if not belittling. That's why I tried to bring in the Lieberman comparison - when I lived in the U.S., I was a much smaller minority than black Americans, though it can be argued that Jews have a lot more political influence in the U.S. Still, I've been lucky to never seriously have been a victim of discrimination in my lifetime. I hope that you who would read this see this as an honest discussion, rather than cheap outsider criticism.
