Jan 05 2008
Putting Obama in His Place
Does Senator Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses represent a historical sea change in American politics regarding the matter of ethnic identity? That incredible speech he gave following his victory, taking first while Senator John Edwards and Senator Hillary Clinton took second and third respectively, was-dare I say-reaching the transcendent. I think he may have even been channeling a little bit of the Reverend Martin Luther King that night. See Obama’s victory speech in Iowa.
His win in Iowa may indeed mark the beginning of something momentous (aside from the milestone of being the first African American to win an Iowa caucus), but I would qualify its characterization differently from the way the media seems geared up to portray it. Media declarations of his being the first “African American” presidential candidate to win in the Iowa caucuses makes for compelling headlines (especially since Iowa’s constituency is predominantly white), but the label strikes me as a tad simplistic when one thinks about his background.
When you look at Senator Obama’s upbringing, his ethnic identity seems to embody the hybrid nature of America itself. Offspring to a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, he was raised in Hawaii by his white grandparents and lived a few years in Indonesia with his Indonesian stepfather.
In a limited way, it reminds me of the case of celebrity golfing pro Tiger Woods, particularly when he was first gaining attention on the national scene. There was and continues to be an insistent effort on the part of media to find out where he stood in terms of his ethnic identity. Certain ethnic-based interest groups also vied to claim him as a native son.
However, Mr. Woods has consistently resisted identifying himself with a specific ethnic identity. This doubtless has come as a disappointment to those who were hoping to find a marquis minority spokesperson in this well known sports figure.
According to a 2002 article entitled “Will Tiger Ever Show the Color of His Stripes?” by Greg Garber of ESPN, he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African-American and one-eighth Native American. So his reluctance to “endorse” a specific ethnic identity is understandable given that the “one size fits all” paradigm doesn’t reflect his unique background, although I personally think it’s somewhat regrettable that he hasn’t done more to champion his status as a multiethnic minority success story in mainstream America.
But unlike Mr. Woods, Senator Obama has rested his ethnic identity comfortably in one camp-that of the African-American citizen. And so the media and the rest of the nation, for the most part, have obliged him in his self-designation. However, this tacit agreement points to a problem of our complicity in the historically problematic definitions that have informed our history about who is considered black. I recommend reading “Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition” by F. James Davis for PBS’s Frontline.
Of course, who am I to tell Senator Obama where he can place himself if he says he’s African American? The statement is not a falsehood when one considers the perception of anybody having a hint of black ancestry, known as the “one-drop rule.” No other ethnic group has quite the same stringent “credentialing.” And frankly, I think we still live in a society where appearance, for good or for ill, derives overriding precedence in establishing one’s ethnic identity. A fourth generation Japanese American living in Hawaii will still likely be identified as a person of Japanese descent before being called an out-and-out American…even if his or her ancestral language and customs may have faded with each successive generation from the originating immigrant family.
Furthermore, we have a penchant as human beings to seek tidy categories. But I hope we can one day reach a point where we can intelligently acknowledge the ethnic complexity of our nation, which is increasingly being embodied (quite literally) in a growing number of its individual denizens. Yes, Obama is black, but he is also white. Yes, he’s a junior US senator from Illinois, but grew up in both Hawaii and Indonesia. There were certain groups, taking exception to his mantle of being African American, who have invested into pointing out his multiethnic background, but not for what I would call the right reasons.
Before the Iowa caucus (although it’s a good guess his victory there has changed quite a few minds), there was actually skepticism from some parts of the African American community who did not quite believe Senator Obama reflected their particular black American experience. He was, after all-to their minds-half white, and his black ancestry spoke to an immigrant experience rather that one of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Obama himself had to delicately place himself so as not to alienate either ethnic group.
White conservatives also seem eager to dispute his claim to an African American heritage for their own agenda of divide and conquer. A man relegated to ethnic limbo has little chance of creating universal appeal for himself (in the world of politics, anyway, if not the world of professional golf).
There is no doubt in my mind that seeing Barack Obama make a viable run for the presidency would have symbolic resonance for not just blacks, but all minorities and all whites, because when it comes down to it, Obama’s multiethnic heritage legitimizes him as the kind of minority that could only be made possible in the United States (okay, maybe also Brazil). A gallery of Presidential portraits that could display Obama’s visage would show an obvious shift from the status quo, but I’m not sure we are properly recognizing what that shift is by merely indicating that he is African American.
Of course, Iowa is only one state with forty nine primaries/caucuses to go, and then there’s still the matter of the general election against the Republican nominee. And while Obama may have proven in stunning fashion his electability, the ability to run a good campaign does not necessarily translate into the craft of governance. Time will tell what Obama will accomplish, but let me dream that little dream on that one night, when-not a black man-but a man for all minorities won the Iowa caucus. What say you New Hampshire?
3 Comments to “Putting Obama in His Place”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Growing up a child of mixed race and religions, I believe that I have some understanding of the challenges Obama had to overcome and make this world his own. Pledging allegiance to one group– be it a religion or race– is risky; I don’t think Obama has quite identified himself as “black” as much as everyone else has done it for him. I only wish people could see that his symbolic significance is more of the actual makeup of this country– a mix of races– and that he actually has some ideas that could work. And speaking of Huckabee, I was surprised to learn that he does indeed put his evangelic beliefs to practice– he actually helped the poor and working class of Arkansas by expanding health insurance coverage for poor children and implementing education reforms that actually helped more than the “no child left behind” fiasco. H; this scares rich conservatives and while I don’t want to see Huckabee elected for his social beliefs, I couldn’t help but smile that some conservatives are nervous that he actually believes what he preaches (he’s an ordained minister).
Indeed, the ability to run a successful campaign does not necessarily translate into good governance, as we’ve all seen too many times. I’m not yet convinced that Obama is the best candidate for the job, but I’m fascinated with the process thus far. I wonder how much of Obama’s Iowa win can be attributed to those who wanted to make a symbolic statement with no risk? No risk because it is so early in the process, Obama may not ultimately get the party nomination. No risk because even if Obama is nominated, voters will be able to choose a candidate from another party in the general election.
Matarose makes a good observation about how others attempt to define us. Perhaps more important is how we define ourselves. Self-identity is an act of will, and nowhere is that more true than in the United States. It may be the most critical component of this election.
Kokomjolk makes a compelling point regarding the notion of Iowa Democrats wanting to take part in a historical moment while engendering minimal risk. Perhaps that does factor into some voters’ thinking, although I’m not sure as a whole they would take their responsibility as being the first caucus state in the Presidential nominations so lightly. I don’t think Iowans would view their standing in the election process merely as a chance to be experimental; they want their votes to be taken seriously just like any other citizen of the United States.
I also agree with Matarose about the critical importance of self-determination in personal identity, but identity doesn’t occur in a vacuum. There is also a responsibility for the masses who view any one particular individual to apply an informed and critical awareness about how labels are applied. It just makes life a little more bearable for all around. Contrary to French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, hell shouldn’t be other people.
Regarding mention of Huckabee, David Brooks in an op-ed piece entitled “The Two Earthquakes” for the New York Times provides some interesting commentary about the significance of Huckabee’s (as well as Obama’s) standing in the Iowa caucuses. It’s a fascinating parsing of what Brooks perceives to be an emerging (or at least heretofore unacknowledged) demographic within the Republican party to which Matarose alludes.
All well and good, but I’m still mortally disturbed by the fact that–despite being a seemingly congenial fellow–first, he doesn’t lend credence to the Theory of Evolution and second, his responses thus far on foreign policy have been woefully abstract and amateurish.