Definitions

I just sent out my first full blast out about this blog and one of the first dialogues got me to question of why people like me and Barack Obama "only considered and referred to as black" when we're just as much white. Well, of course, that's not going to be answered in a quick e-mail or blog entry. But a simple answer is: it's the power structure. I don't want to repeat myself too much, but a lot of it has to do with the color dynamic I wrote about in the ¡Sí, Se Puede! entry a couple weeks ago. And it starts with the historic "one drop rule." In the quick reply to my friend I came up with this: People are defined by others by what sets them apart, what makes them different from what's considered the norm. People self-define by their source of power. The history of "passing" is about people claiming "white" because that gave the sense of power to elevate above the restrictions of segregation and prejudice. The converse of that is the idea of strength can also come from the triumph over adversity. Outside of racial identification you have people describing themselves as "survivors" over cancer or "(recovering) alcoholics" when they give up their addiction. So perhaps racial self-identification is predicated by the same factors. For light skinned Blacks there is a complicated layer because light skin, "good hair," etc. often affords more privilege. So to remain engaged with the plight of the struggle for all to be afforded equal rights and opportunities, many decide to identify as Black. (Since I started writing this entry an interesting discussion was posted on the New York Times called Go Back to Black which examines the inclusionary history of the US African American community, but also the exclusion of that term and idea when it comes to Blacks from non American-slave descendants. Another interesting post on the subject comes from my friend Meri Danquah.)

So my preferred identification has always been bi-racial (after I took the term Mulatto to be derived from the Spanish/Portuguese word for "small mule" though some disagree with that etymology), because it acknowledged both the privilege and struggle that has come from either definition in either community. I want to be reminded of how individuals throughout the power spectrum perceive me and by not choosing an exclusionary term, and claiming the white and black, I acknowledge that I'm aware of the perceptions of power and welcome discussion that calls into question my participation in an oppressive system. Sometimes I'm oppressed, sometimes I'm perceived as the oppressor. Sometimes I oppress and sometimes I think that I'm being oppressed by an individual when it's largely an unconscious act as a result of ideas formed under a White Male Patriarchy.

So where does all this lead us? It's interesting that Barack Obama would identify as black, aligning himself with achievement against oppression, rather than more strongly identifying with the source of privilege in his life. I've read a few posts online saying that he's not doing himself any favor by not strongly claiming the race of the blood family that raised him, but the reality of it all is that even people like my friend who wrote to me initially recognizes that people like me and Barack Obama are considered black before we're even asked to identify ourselves.

I've often said the great privilege of being biracial is that people from various communities view you as included rather than other, then the biracial person has the opportunity to shed light on how one of the "included" can be treated when perceived as other. So today it's still a very powerful statement to claim to be black when 1 in 15 black adults (including one in nine black males between the age of 20 and 34) are behind bars when distancing yourself from that classification may make your life easier.

So yes, biracial, with or without the hyphen suggests hybridity and duality, as an offensive idea to some as being aligned to a mule. And to claim that as my identity doesn't even allude to what the sections of the "bi" are. But it invites questions which I choose to answer or not. I am black. I have an intimate connection to the diaspora that the term African-American was supposed to foment yet has somehow created distance. And I'm white, formed by the love my blood family and the community that I grew up in. Though it's harder to say the later, because that same community that nurtured me also housed elements that violently reminded me that I was black. And I don't think it's a stretch to say every black person in his lifetime has been reminded at one inconvenient time or another that he or she was not part of the white power elite. And though biracial people may get uncomfortable reminders from their community of color, there's not the same dynamic. Prejudice is prejudice, but racism and all the other so-called "isms" are indicative of an historic and present power structure. And even with a black President of the United States, blacks may still be nearly 45% of all prisoners in the US on "Day One" though representing only 13% of the US population. (Whites are 35% of prisoners, 70% of the US population, Hispanic are 20% and 12%. These are rounded figures based on a 2003 study by Human Rights Watch.) So it also feels like an act of courage to claim your benefits derived from your connection to the power system that has despicable aspects that you'd like to change. (And lest you think I'm going negative by highlighting prison data look at this article from the Associated Press lamenting the loss of Black CEOs for Fortune 500 companies--down to 4 in 2007--including this quote: "10 or 15 years ago, we couldn't have had this conversation, because there was no one to talk about.")

Lastly, what does it mean that biracial (black and white for me) doesn't parse out the English or Scottish of the WASP lineage and the Native American and French of the Black lineage? You know ultimately this stuff can be parsed to the DNA that says white person X has more African Ancestry than black person Y, and in the biology of it all there may be genetic benefits and disadvantages. So the definitions are subjective, but an informed subjectivity acknowledging the objective political and historical reality of racism, colonialism, etc. creates a better dialogue. And that dialogue, acknowledging the historic and present "matterings" of race may get us to point where race matters much less in terms of opportunity and general peace. Mulatto moments may be humorous or learning opportunities, but they're not inherently peaceful.

Perspective and Collective Assumptions

Prompted by Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece and blog today claiming venom from Barck Obama's supporters with regard to Hillary Clinton's campaign and alledged race baiting--which Krugman attributes actually to the media--I've just watched the YouTube video of the question and answer that started this conversation about MLK and LBJ. It is the reporter who picked the segment mentioning King, which was one of several illustrations of "hope" in Obama's stump speeches, to quote back to Senator Clinton. I see no racist intent in her response, nor do I see it as a deviation of her "experience matters" campaign stance. And strategically, one never wants to add complexity to an argument that would cede ground to one's opponent. But her response does echo a patronizing history of majority privilege. It does seem to reinforce the division of labor, that the marginalized should continue to campaign for their goals outside the system and that change is only achieved when an insider, a beneficiary of long established hierarchies decides to ratify the outsiders' ambition. Couple that with former President Clinton's mention of Jesse Jackson's wins in South Carolina, excluding mentions of his own win or John Edwards win or Al Sharpton's loss and you get a picture of Black leaders as marginal outsiders at the very least.

Is that playing the race card intentionally or does it speak to a deeper status quo mindset that views Blacks as inspirational figures but not worthy of consideration for administrative leadership? I don't believe that Hillary isn't sincerely inspired when she realizes that there is an African-American man next to a European-American woman on the stage next to her running to lead the nation. But I do believe that her drive for the office may blind her to the some of the slights people who are not European-American feel everyday. And I'm clearly aware that in my editing of this comment, I went back to insert the word "man" after "African-American" and I inserted "European-American" before the word "woman." Is it a given that a person running for President is a man? And is it a given that a woman running for President is white? Changing our collective assumptions about people in this world should be a vital project for the "Leader of the Free World." It should result in strengthening our international image as well as creating a climate for greater security for us domestically. I think all should avoid using "Missus Clinton" in reference to Clinton as much as all should avoid efforts to attach marginalized Black leaders to Obama, as Bill Clinton has done. Overall I believe that Senator Obama is better positioned to change collective assumptions. However inspirational is her potential to break the glass ceiling, Senator Clinton and her team seem too locked into past divisions of patronage based on race, class and other privilege to offer as effective leadership to a diverse nation and world. If you are baited, it's your responsibility as a leader neither to bite, nor deepen the divide by short sighted or misleading comments. Obama will be tested and baited by the media as the Democratic candidate for President. It is unknown how he will respond to the "Clinton Rules." But we do know that in her self-touted vetting process, Senator Clinton and President Clinton have both failed.

Are they race-baiting intentionally? Probably not initially. Are they trying to capitalize on racial politics? You decide. (Frank Rich thinks so.)

¡Sí, Se Puede!

A couple days ago I added the subtitle: "Mulatto Moments in 'Post-Racial' America." Of course I hope that everyone here would recognize the jest: how could you really have "mulatto moments" if there weren't discoveries that weren't based in truly segregated realities? But I'm consistently surprised. Years ago I used in a song: 'The colorblind man sees better than the rest / I'm trying to believe it's true.' I'm convinced now, as I pretty much was then, was that the operative part of that compound is blind. (There's a good Op-Ed by Uzodinma Iweala that appeared in the L.A. Times on Jan. 23 that breaks down the idea of "Post Racial" America.) And who really wants to be blind? I'm sure there were folks with me at the Democratic Debate in Hollywood on Thursday that saw "a man" staring down from all those posters for Barack Obama. I saw a man, too. But I saw a biracial man, who is called Black, or African-American, by himself and others, who kissed his white grandparents, like I kissed mine. And because I know a little of his story, I know that he's spent some time here and there, in different nations, where different religions were dominant. And I was a little scared thinking about the joy I feel seeing old pictures of similarly hued Malcolm X (probably lighter than the biracial Obama, and definitely lighter than Denzel Washington), and Malcolm's end. I wasn't born then, Barack was 3, and things have changed. Now there's real hope that a man that looks like that will lead this country...a country that was heavily invested in not giving power to anyone even the shade of a paper bag when he was born. (Follow the link and search around, a paper bag test was really the result of internalized racism, but you get the picture. When was Thurgood Marshall appointed to the Supreme Court? And what shade was he? The later's answer is interestingly the day after Loving v. Virginia struck down all Anti-Miscegenation laws in the country, June 13, 1967.)

I'm glad I know this history and can see it.

I don't need to know the concepts behind a great piece of music. I don't need to know the lyrics. But I'm excited by that knowledge, intrigued by the confluence and how that contributes to the power of the work. And I'm annoyed by those who dismiss it, dismiss the traditions of the music. This isn't because I'm getting old, the first song I ever wrote was influenced by Woody Guthrie's use of traditional source material. I was 9.

So I'm equally annoyed by those who are ignorant of the history of color prejudice, who wistfully long for a period when it will not matter in the near future or, even more egregiously, claim that time is now.

Tonight I'm just getting in from a Black/Brown dialogue by way of a Poetry Choir Performance in Highland Park. Really, most of the crowd, however identified, was ironically the shade of a brown paper bag, give or take. Maybe this is post racial, where we're all the same shade but the difference is the cultural traditions. But the shade (the cover that you can't judge!) leads to a story of the alchemy. And part of that alchemy includes the history of prejudice and how it has impacted all of our lives, privileged and not.

But beyond that, (¡Sí, Se Puede!), history is fun and illuminating. I'm at the debates Thursday, and the blue English signs for Obama are all out. So I get the red one, which is in Spanish. I'm not bilingual. And I'm the kid who took French in my upper-middle class suburb. But I dug "El pueblo unido jamás será vencido" better than "The People United will never be defeated" when we demonstrated against Aparthied back in the 80s. And I heard "¡Sí, Se Puede!" then. I heard it in the streets a couple years ago. And I'm completely thrilled. There are probably some cynics that will say it's a co-opting akin to AeroMexico's. But to me it's an embrace, an embrace of the Farm Workers' movement, et. al. I feel like only a true believer with the audacity of hope could think that he could use a phrase so identified with leftist movements to win a mainstream election while signaling his inclusion of people who have been historically shut out. And talk about inclusion, Obama even has a LGBT link on his page! (I wonder what Pat "see sah perda" Buchanan would say about that!). I'm just so excited that my generation, a generation with leaders that are post modern, recognizing the real presence of difference, of cultural circumstance, without bowing to the hierarchies of the past, has the chance to lead. That is the future, not some colorblind, bland, "we're all the same" thing.

Yes we can embrace all these differences and thrive. Remember when multiculturalism was "hot?" Well now it just "is." And we need someone who understands that intuitively, dare I say natively. We don't need someone who'll cynically use codified race baiting on the campaign trail, whether intentional or not, and I know it was Bill, not Hillary. (Remember when Bill Clinton discussed what the meaning of the word "is" is? I embrace ambiguity, but there's a little cynical manipulation going on there. And I liked Clinton well enough. But both Clinton and George Wallace have won the South Carolina Primary along with John Edwards, Jesse Jackson and proto neo-con Henry M. Jackson.)

I said originally that this wasn't going to be a blog just about Obama. And it isn't, but this movement is really inspiring me.