Being Barack, being black, and why Hitchens just doesn't understand
Posted 34 weeks 4 days ago byAt the home page, we've got up a few articles about how Barack Obama's race factors into the campaign. It comes on the heels of several op-eds (which you can find by following the link above) -- Anne Applebaum suggesting his race helps make a clean break with the Clinton-Bush cycle of dynastic succession, and Gloria Steinem's lament that a woman can't catch a break in the campaign.
Most interesting -- and flawed, I think -- is Ben's recommendation of the Christopher Hitchens essay this week at Slate.com. Hitch writes:
Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson? Would we accept, if Obama's mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama's mere identity to be a "breakthrough," the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought.
Well, yes. And no.
What Hitchens proves with this essay is that ... he's British. That's not an ad hominem attack. I'm just saying that while Hitchens is obviously a keen observer of American politics and history, he just as clearly hasn't lived in any kind of visceral way with America's original sins of slavery and Jim Crow. These kinds of things can't, and shouldn't, be analyzed purely in terms of cold-blooded logic.
He suggests that treating Obama's candidacy as a "breakthrough" means we're falling short of our American ideals. But that's ridiculous. What it means is that a great many people recognize that for a very long time -- far too long -- America did, in fact, fall short of its ideals. Obama's candidacy is to be celebrated because the promise of those ideals is realized, at least in part.
Everybody remembers Jackie Robinson. Only a few baseball diehards remember Larry Doby. If they did, it would mean that baseball had failed at integration. Don't worry about people making too much of Obama's race -- worry if they make too much of the next black candidate's.














Thoughts
No freebies
Submitted on January 9th, 2008 by JoelJim: Sorry for the late reply.
I agree with you that there should be no freebies for Obama. And I'll agree that the media are probably treading cautiously where he's concerned, for the reasons you cite.
But I took Hitch to be saying "whoop-de-damn-doo." And my point was: "Yes! Whoop-de-doo indeed!"
Re: Being Barack, being black, and why Hitchens ...
Submitted on January 8th, 2008 by Jim LakelyAs usual, Joel, you make excellent points. Hitch, as a Brit, doesn't quite feel America's original sin of slavery as much as many Americans do. But I don't think Hitch is being "ridiculous," merely being bold -- which means, he's being Hitch. And such boldness can offer a moment of clarity on this topic that a native-born American probably couldn't get away with. I'm glad he's done it.
I think, though, that what is really sticking in Hitchens' craw is the inevitability of the American media giving Obama a free pass on some of his questionable background because he is poised to be -- at long last -- the salve for America's festering wound of slavery. Hitchens writes:
Sen. Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as "flamboyant" -- a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. -- this bizarre outfit describes itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and speaks of "a chosen people" whose nature we are allowed to assume is "Afrocentric." ... Many Democrats ... go completely quiet when Sen. Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.
Granting Hitchens' long-standing, aggressive anti-religious stance, he still makes a valid point. We have come very far in race relations in this country. And it should not be out of bounds to call Obama to account for his odd church of choice. Romney's Mormonism is hardly swept under the rug, and Huckabee should soon expect a lot more rough treatment about his status and rhetoric as a preacher.
In short, Hitch is saying something that I agree with: Obama should not be given freebies just because he's America's first viable black candidate. The office is too important to America and the world. Indeed, I think it is clear that Hitch is saying that it is insulting to both Obama himself, and America, to not treat him like any other candidate.