Election Series, No. 5

This article continues our online series of election-year commentaries by American and international writers. We welcome your response to any of the articles, and, with your permission, will post some of them as commentaries in their own right. The series will run until shortly before Election Day.

No. 5—September 5, 2008

Obama’s True Color

by Robert Wolfgramm, Editor, Fiji Daily Post

Americans are making so much of Obama being the first black presidential nominee of a major political party that we wonder when they will have the first gay candidate, the first Scientologist candidate, or indeed the first Fiji-American candidate. Seriously, are any of these qualifiers relevant to making sure they get the best president?

All we seem to hear from the American media here in Fiji is that Senator Barack Obama is black. But his mother is white. So, is he really all that black? Can Obama be fractionalized? Half this and half that? If he is a black presidential candidate because his father is black, why isn’t he a white candidate because his mother is white? Why can’t we be matrifocal rather than patrifocal? Is it accurate or fair to define Obama by his absent black father rather than by his present white mother?

Moreover, if Obama is not to be thought of as half black and half white, shouldn’t we prefer to think of him as both black and white? Does he not, by virtue of parentage, have two whole selves—not half of a self from one parent and half from the other? Or perhaps he is a committee or a partnership? If that is the case, how do we know when his black or his white members are speaking? Is there some reliable scientific way to distinguish his black statements from his white ones? Do they speak in equal parts, and if not, in what ratio or by what determining principle do his parts reveal themselves?

If Obama’s race matters, are his prejudices and preferences determined by his ancestry alone? What about his own educated freedom and choices—where do they fit in? Come to think of it, what kind of white person is his mother? Is her ancestry Jewish, Scottish, French, German, Caledonian, or Calathumpian? And what tribal complexion is Obama’s father? What kind of Kenyan is he? Perhaps we need a calculator to work out what he is: a 64th of this, a 32nd of that, a 16th of something else, and an 8th of yet another strand. Do all of the ancestral strands speak through Obama, or does he speak for himself?

Is Obama really a multi-tribal, multi-ethnic, multinational, multicultural, mixed up kid? Hardly. Obama is as literate, articulate, and bright a “multi-“ as anyone else, give or take a little. The real question is whether Obama is a whole person. And the overwhelming evidence is that he is.

A holistic package

The point about ethno-racial labels and fractions is that they may denote something like ancestry or shared descent, perhaps geography, common traditions, language, or even state affiliations or economic relationships. But those labels and fractions cannot of themselves express what they mean to the person concerned. What Obama means to himself cannot be summarized in the words “black” and “white,” part of this or hyphenated that.

A person is a holistic package, a walking, talking human creature who exhibits an assemblage of cultural traits such as humor, lifestyle, eating habits, style of dress, kinship patterns, political practice, and more. All of these are relevant to place and time, to where one comes from and the time in which one lives. But to speak of “black” Obama is to speak gobbledygook. Obama isn’t a stereotype. His white European mother isn’t responsible for his being more analytical, rational, materialistic, dualistic, or volitional. Neither did his black father predispose him to being more synthetic, monistic, spiritual, emotional, or contemplative. These stereotypes, useless typifications, clichés, and racial generalizations have long outlived their “use-by” date.

While a relevant question could be asked whether Obama sees himself in these terms, we suspect he does not. We hope not. He shouldn’t. And we think the American media and public who continue to think in terms of “black” and “white” should come to terms with reality. The reality is this: Barack Obama’s real color is to make political sense to a nation and a world that have lost a sense of hope and want change that is real and for good. That is the color of politics for the twenty-first century.

Robert Wolfgramm is Editor of the Fiji Daily Post, found online at www.fijidailypost.com.