TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM
January 07, 2009 | 5:47 PM
January 07, 2009 | 5:11 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
07.11.2008
Tell it to Your Queen

Just when you thought Toby Young couldn't lose more friends and alienate more people, there he goes and writes this obnoxious blog post on the site of the London Spectator entitled "Obama isn't black." Barack Obama, Young argues, isn't really "black," he's "bi-racial" (or "caramel-colored"), and thus his election cannot ultimately "assuage the guilt white Americans feel about slavery." Well, as a white American who obviously wishes slavery never occurred (though I'm not capable of feeling "guilt" about the institution, as my family, like many Jewish families, came to this country in the latter part of the 19th century and owned no slaves), I have every reason to feel proud of my country for electing Barack Obama -- regardless of what I think about his stance on each and every issue -- as well as to recognize that it represents an important chapter in this country's history. His race is an unalloyed positive aspect of his upcoming presidency.

Young should tell Obama to his face that he "isnt' black." I'm sure Obama would be surprised. The simple fact is that if you have a parent who is black, you will be viewed as black by society. Certainly that's the case in Great Britain. Though Young seems to envince no understanding of the subtler causes and effects of racism when he flippantly writes that "My Jewish father-in-law spends a week in the sun, he goes darker than Obama. I married his daughter. Does that make me a non-racist?"  To be sure, light-skinned blacks have often faced less overt discrimination than darker-skinned blacks, but they have still faced discrimination in voting rights, employment, housing, you name it, and they still do. To say that Obama "isn't black" is to downplay not only his own individual achievements, but the amazing progress America has made thus far.

But don't take it from a white Jewish guy like me. Talk to black people! Read black journalists! Who is some pasty British guy to tell Americans, particularly black Americans (no matter how dark their skin), how they ought understand Barack Obama's election victory? Judging by the reactions of the many, many black Americans I've encountered over the past few days, I think it's safe to say that they feel a great deal of pride and joy for their country, and that they truly do believe that more things are possible for them and the next generation. And isn't their reaction (as well as the reactions of other ethnic minorities) what ultimately matters when discussing the impact of Barack Obama's historic election on race relations in this country, rather than the snide offerings of a British hack? (I use that term as British patois, with affection).

Surely, I don't need to recount all the little anecdotes I've accumulated over the past 48 hours attesting to the justly-felt pride and patriotism of black Americans. But I'll mention one. Sitting next to me on the bus home last night was a black woman, perhaps in her mid-50's. She was staring at the front page photograph of the commemorative edition Washington Post, featuring Obama and his family on the stage in Grant Park, she had picked up earlier that day. I swear, she must have stared at that photo for the whole bus ride, a good 10 minutes. She wasn't reading the articles. Just staring at the photo. Like me, still trying to process the entire idea of a black family (Toby, in case you didn't notice, his wife is fully "black" by your standards, though his children, I guess, are only 3/4) in the White House.

As to Young's last point:

If I was a caramel-coloured American, I’d certainly be pleased that Obama had been elected. It proves that white people are prepared to embrace light-skinned men of colour. But I would probably know that already. If I was a dark-skinned American, on the other hand, I’m not sure I’d take much comfort from this. It would simply confirm something I have long known, namely, that the extent to which African-Americans are the victims of racist discrimination in America depends, to a very large extent, on how dark-skinned they are. White Americans have finally come around to the idea of having a coffee-coloured President. Great. But when are they going to stop discriminating against people who are actually black?

 

The British House of Commons currently has 4 black members (according to this list, which names 15 individuals, though most of them are of south Asian descent but considered "black" in terms of the Parliamentary Black Caucus). Parliament is a representative body comprising over 640 members. In comparison, the 435-member United States House of Representatives has 41 black members, as well as 2 black non-voting delegates. To be sure, the black population in Great Britain is about 1/6 that of the United States, but even accouting for this demographic difference, the Brits lag behind in having a legislative body that accurately reflects the diversity of their black population. And it's not like blacks are the only ethnic group lacking in parliamentary representation. Perhaps when the British people elect a number of non-white MPs even remotely comparable to the figure in the United States  -- never mind a non-white prime minister! -- then Young can lecture us Americans about our "white guilt" and "discrimination."

 --James Kirchick 

Posted: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:19 AM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

psantillana said:

There's just a rainbow of stupid out there.

This reminds me of this thing I keep not understanding, of some point back in the beginning of the campaign when there were apparently - unless The Media made this up - some out there who didn't support Obama because he wasn't "black enough". I thought, "well, he's by far the blackest one up there [on the stage of 9 podiums], if it's black you're looking for." Can anyone explain this? I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm genuinely baffled. What was the deal with that?

November 7, 2008 1:04 AM

JEFF FREY said:

I didn't realize it was a Kirchick post until I got to the signature at the end. Nicely done! More like this one, Kirchick!

November 7, 2008 1:36 AM

GSpinks said:

Well said, JK.

psantiallana, I'm not expert, but I think the deal is that they were attempting to make sure that black people understood that Obama was not black, was not descended from the slaves, did not have to bear the burden of the generations of disenfranchisement, and did not therefore embody some form of reparation for America's malfeasance or enlightenment of blacks. I believe the name of the church in NY was ATLAH; their pastor was very much against Obama for this very reason.

November 7, 2008 2:46 AM

FBC said:

I think the ancestors of the vast majority of Jews in the US arrived long after the Civil War. They were part of the huge immigration from southern and eastern Europe facilitated by the steamship and the railroad, and in particular, were motivated by the Czar's oppression to leave. The wave began around 1890 and was halted after WWI by restrictive US immigration law that was then imposed.

Still, Kirchick can feel guilty for benefiting from being "white" in this country. Tho Jews certainly weren't "white" in Europe, by and large, especially in Russia.

The Jews in the US prior to the Civil War were largely urban and Northern and typically didn't own slaves. Harold Brackman's book is a useful reference.

The Irish, too, only later became "white."  

Kirchick is debatably "white." Obama isn't culturally African-American. On his mother's side, as he's related to Cheney, Obama presumably also has slaveowners in his family tree.

I was shocked that Obama didn't pull a majority of white voters. And intrigued that he managed a large victory anyway.

We've had an African-American Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. By Toby Peters's standard, Colin Powell isn't African-American.

But all three are people of color, and of African descent. A good start.

November 7, 2008 5:20 AM

aeromonas said:

You didn't realize it was Kirchick, Jeff Frey?  I sure did.  

"Just when you thought Toby Young couldn't lose more friends and alienate more people..."  Er...actually I didn't think that about Toby Young.  I didn't think anything about Toby Young; I didn't know who Toby Young even is.

To be honest, thanks to the Amazon link I see that I did know who Toby Young is, sort of.  Several years ago I heard him on Fresh Air pimping 'Lose Friends.'  He told an asinine story about how prior to an interview with Nathan Lane he was warned to steer clear of questions concerning the actor's sexual orientation and ethnic identification, only to open the actual interview by asking Lane whether he was gay and whether he was Jewish.  It seemed to me at the time that his whole shtick was to justify his abject failure at entertainment journalism with the claim that as a characteristically cheeky and bullshit-averse Brit he was just too *real* to make it in the self-serious New York publishing world.  Which is all a long way of saying, 'Who gives a flying f*** what Toby Young has to say about Barack Obama?'  And why would you devote twice as much space as any other Plank post in the past two days to rebutting him?  

Frank Foer seems to have let Kirchick out of his cage in the past week or two.  I'm happy for the Kirchinator to roam free, but if Foer really wants to nurture the lad's talent, he'd ban him from opinion writing of any kind for a good two or three years, tell him to fire up his telephone and his dictaphone, and deny him a by-line for anything that didn't reflect genuine reportage.  

November 7, 2008 7:42 AM

fougasseu said:

A pattern emerges:

A useless and/or obnoxious post, followed by some terrific comments (thank you, aeromonas, psantillana, and FBC), that turns a waste of a post into something worthwhile.

So...Barbara Wallraff, of "In a Word" fame ("The Atlantic") have your readers find a name for it.

November 7, 2008 8:19 AM

icarusr said:

Aero: took words right out of my mouth.

One could call it intellectual masturbation, this bizarre and unhealthy obsession with unsung writers of unread blogs or articles in irrelevant journals - no disrespect due the Spectator, but how many people read it in the US and how many opinions does it shape? - is th emental equivalent of a dog's licking its own anus, vaguely pleasuable, I'm sure, but startling if done by an adult human.

There are, at last count, some 300 newspapers - that would be at least 3,000 op-ed writers and 30,000 letters to the editor per day - and well over 80,000 blogs in the US (I'm making the numbers up, so sue me).  The Kirchick boy leaves all of these behind to dump on ... a writer for a UK paper and then to dump on the British?  What, did the British people say anything negative about the US?

Any way, Kirchick hates Obama's guts - so WTF?

November 7, 2008 8:59 AM

rutherfurd said:

I'm sorry Mr. Kirchick, but the lives and identies of biracial people aren't as simple as you imply.  Having one black parent, for example, doesn't automatically make them "black"--whatever that means.  Granted, in this country black DNA is considered so powerful that it trumps all others, but maybe it's time to start changing the language and having those discussions.  I see a huge difference in opinion between the younger generations and the baby boomers about this topic.  

November 7, 2008 9:09 AM

icarusr said:

And, "tell it to your Queen?"  What does Elizabeth Windsor have to do with Parliamentary elections in the UK?  The JK Factor for this one is the title, not even the first paragraph.

November 7, 2008 9:11 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Then again, Britain did singlehandedly end the Atlantic slave trade. (Which campaign should have been the model for the U.S. war on terror. It's a hard slog, putting down a criminal practice that takes place largely outside the realm of state control, but it has been done once before.)

Britain's issues with skin color and civil status are much more analogous to America's issues with recent Hispanic immigration than to our unique problems of black/white racialism. This is a point that Americans on the political right, like Kirchick, fail to understand, and much to America's peril given the threat posed by non-assimilating European immigrant communities to U.S. security.

Anyway, does this post signal that with the departure of Tony Blair, the American right is over its recent bout of acute Anglophilia? Will the right soon be singing the praises of France?

November 7, 2008 9:21 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I think Obama would be irritated and bored by the whole topic.

Case closed.

November 7, 2008 10:15 AM

blackton said:

Yeah I could tell it was a JK posting because who the hell else would obsessively argue over what some barely literate white British arse has to say about race in America? "If I was..." if he can't even get the subjunctive right, "If I were..." and then to tollow it up with caramel as the adjective for color means the writer is useless.

Also this: How can the election of a light-skinned man of colour assuage the guilt white Americans feel about slavery? Well, I am Irish and my ancestors fought on the side of the north in the Civil War, so I suppose that innoculates me from guilt, right? Such horseshit, I am responsible for my own sins only. The same with the present day generation of Brits, or should they be forever shunned because of their history of rapacious imperialism?

"But nearly all the so-called “black” people that now enjoy high-profile positions in America are at the light-skinned end of the spectrum"

yeah, like Denzel Washington is all that light skinned. Anyway, the simple fact is that most blacks in America who are the descendants of slaves are also the descendants of slave holders. So what?

November 7, 2008 10:33 AM

Typical said:

Statement: "I hate puppies."

Kirchick post: "You boor, how could you say such a thing about puppies!"

Reaction: "Darn right, you tell 'em!"

It's not exactly ground-breaking, but I think if you can keep digging up such easy targets for outrage we just might be able to get along, Kirchick.  Everyone likes to feel some righteous indignation now and again.  And anything's better than "he said vote a straight-party ticket, that's anti-homosexual bias!" or "that filthy liberal is an anti-semite because he hates Joe Lieberman!"

November 7, 2008 10:44 AM

GoodLiberal said:

OK, as a half-Brit, half-American, I've got some views on this.  First, Toby Young is a douche.  Plain and simple.  The Spectator is read by quite a few people on the left because the New Statesman is full of such pro-Labour nonsense but is want to publish the odd demented, semi-racist rant by the likes of Taki etc.

However, the House of Commons-House of Representatives comparison is spurious.  And his whole 'how can a Brit write this!' thing is stupidly nationalistic.  Tina Brown and Chris Hitchens have interesting things to say about the state of America; sometimes Arianna Huffington too.  Mr Kirchick's reply is a slightly more overwrought version of 'your toy is stinky too!'  How many Muslim MPs have you got?  We've had a female PM!  Disraeli was Jewish!  We had Catholics before you guys!  Blah Blah Blah...

Toby Young is an idiot.  That's all that needs saying.

November 7, 2008 10:46 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

Why the f--k should we care what this Toby Young says?  Who is Toby Young? Do I give a rat's ass? No...

November 7, 2008 10:50 AM

drdannyu said:

Yeah, like that pale sylph, Oprah Winfrey.  Or the milky Condoleeza Rice.  Bill Cosby, who probably doesn't go out in the sun, fearing he'll burn.  All those pasty, pasty athletes.

Let's see... Brit slang for douchebad.  What would that be?  Wanker?  Yes.  Wanker.

November 7, 2008 10:56 AM

psantillana said:

You are what you pass for.

Unless you believe in some kind of real genetic difference, the whole meaning of race has boiled down to how others have treated you, treated your family, etc. And that is inseperable from where and when you grew up. Is Obama black? He certainly looks black, and the cab will not stop for him in NY[well, maybe now it would], even if a black guy is driving it.

That is just one little [depressing] factoid of our country today, but our country is changing, and it also varies from place to place, no doubt. Like it or not, the fact that Obama was raised by white people, partly in Hawaii and partly in Indonesia, goes a lot to explaining why he might have a different perspective on all of this than a lot of other black people for whom the cabs do not stop. We're all chugging forward though, and he's certainly helping the chug. Everyone with open eyes and ears and heart helps. It takes awhile, is all.

November 7, 2008 1:43 PM

psantillana said:

GSpinks, I guess I could google this, but do you remember if those ATLAH people were endorsing Clinton, or just saying "I'm not voting at all until a real black person runs"? Did they think he was a stealth whitey? I'm not looking for logic, but I'm not even feeling what the impulse behind this is. What I do get is the people who didn't get their hopes up until after Iowa, but those were different people.

November 7, 2008 1:49 PM