Say what?

“Black,” in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can’t be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won’t bother to make the distinction. They’re both “black” as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.

This is, of course, preposterous. What Debra Dickerson is saying is that Obama is not really an American — he’s a foreigner, not one of us. This is consistent with what the underbelly’s oppo research is saying: that Obama isn’t Christian — he’s a secret Muslim.

Now I know for a fact that there are those in the black community who consider Jamaicans, for example, to be different from Africans, and darker skinned African Americans to be different from lighter skinned ones. In the end, this says more about them than it does about the people they are dividing into categories of “blackness.”

So, in the spirit of this piece I should ask: Is Debra Dickerson black? Or more to the point: Is she black for a living? Do I care? Does it (should it) matter? No. I didn’t expect to be living in a race-less society in my lifetime. But you know what? I was hoping we might have moved on a bit since the days when being black meant Being Black.

Well, at least Dickerson has a interesting take on the black power structure’s opinion of Obama:

Without a doubt though, the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton’s main reason for giving him the faux high hat is a determination to potty-train the upstart, flex their own muscles, and ensure that there will remain a place for them at the power broker’s table.

Perhaps most important, they’re no doubt waiting for his reverse Sister Souljah moment. Just as the Negro-friendly Bill Clinton had to gamble on retaining that base while reassuring whites that he knew how to keep blacks in line, so Obama has to reassure blacks he is unafraid to tell whites things that whites decidedly do not want to hear.

Never having been “black for a living” with protest politics or any form of racial oppositionality, he’ll need to assure the black powers that be that he won’t dis the politics of blackness (and, hence, them), however much he might keep it on mute.

He didn’t attain power through traditional black channels (not a minister, no time at the NAACP) so, technically, he owes the civil rights lobby nothing, but they need him in their debt. Homie has some rings to kiss and a kente-cloth pocket square to buy. Still, the overtures he needs to make are purely symbolic; he’s irresistible, and the black bourgeoisie won’t be able to keep their hands off him. For all his bluster, even Jackson recently admitted to CNN that “all of my heart leans toward Barack.” The black embrace is Obama’s to lose.

This reminds me of the dispiriting tone that has surrounded the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, i.e., the assumption/fear that she will lose and that it will spoil electoral politics for women for a generation. To those people I say “Why don’t we ask Geraldine Ferraro?”

UPDATE: Fact is, Ferraro lost and yet the number of women in the Congress and gubernatorial mansions increased. In short, you can’t win if you don’t run.