Back into 'Blackness'

I've been thinking about an article in the Style section of today's Post ever since I finished reading it.

The piece is a wonderful commentary from Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Robin Givhan, and it stems from John McLaughlin's "Oreo" comment of about a week ago. That inappropriate (and terribly out-of-date! Why does this guy even have a current events show?) comment has brought back to the forefront (has it ever left?) the issue of whether Obama is "black enough" or "too black."

This statement by the author, while accurate, is also rather ironic: "It would be splendid if the man could simply just be in the same way as presumptive Republican nominee John McCain." By writing this article, poignant as it is, Givhan fails to let the issue of race just be.

Givhan contends that the conversation about Obama's "blackness" should be shelved. And while I agree that a debate over whether he's "black enough" or "too black" is ridiculous, perhaps discussion of his race in general isn't so inappropriate. When my mom risked her life in the 1960's to help blacks in the deep south register to vote, I doubt she thought that any of those individuals would ever have a viable run for the White House. Now, just 40 years later, Obama's historical feat should be recognized. The trade-off, then, is that he--and, by extension, his race--will never simply be.

This could mean that bigots like the primary voters in West Virginia who voted for Hillary because "they can't stand the thought of a black man telling a white man what to do" will turn out in droves to vote against Obama this fall. But those same people turned out in droves with fire hoses during the freedom marches and the bus boycotts, and they turned out in droves to threaten freedom fighters like my mom. But that didn't stop progress. If anything, it fueled it.

While the black enough/too black debate (which sounds like a racist "tastes great/less filling") can be shelved, I'm in no hurry to let Obama's historic race for the presidency just be.