During the Democratic party presidential primaries, I was reading one blog written by a Dominican (unfortunately he quit blogging so I can’t post a link). I think he would self-identify first as Dominican, “white, with a little bit behind the ears.” His post supported Hilary Clinton over Obama for her policies and experience. It was interesting to read the comments of the Dominican bloggers, all very literate, and by their photos I would categorize them as “hispanic” “mixed” and “black.” Some mentioned racial inequality in the United States, several made comments as Christians about Barack Obama as a Moslem. One even characterized him as an anti-Christ. So not every Dominican identified with him or supported him as the best candidate for the Democratic ticket. Perhaps that’s also a reflection of the particular Dominican and US media coverage about Obama at that time.
How one categorizes oneself in relation to others and how we categorize others is very complex. Class, race, nationality, religion, gender, education, experience play a role in this formation of identity. And it's constantly shifting, depending on the context one finds oneself in. Barack Obama has a very interesting and ambiguous identity from a bi-cultural family, Kenyan father, white American mother, an elite education that ordinarily could only be possible with an upper-middle class or upper class background and values as Nals mentioned. He wasn’t formed in an inner city marginalized Afro-American environment and he’s not a descendant of slaves. He can be read in so many ways by “readers” as black, African, Afro-American, upper-middle class, as liberal, as centrist, as Moslem, as apostate for some, as Christian, as anti-Christ for others. Readers bring aspects of their own identity to bear as they interact with the character of Obama. They take what resonates and disregard whatever they choose to based on their own notions of who they are and how they see others. And we do that on the board here on DR1.
As Hillbilly mentioned some Dominicans might see him as “Hispanic-looking” or “looking like them” based on their own identity. As others have mentioned as a “son of an immigrant.” You would have to know his story to make that reading. Obama’s identity also borrows from the identity of others; some might see him as following in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Lutheran King. His identity is multi-layered and can be read in so many ways. He can play with, play up, down play, so many aspects of that identity if he chooses to and of course personal branding is part an election campaign.
Obama himself self-identifies as an Afro-American. He has said that and he can be quoted. Also he often talks like a preacher, quotes Martin Lutheran King fully aware of the use of cadence and rhetoric on the listener. On the question of reparations for descendants of African slaves, he has stated that he is opposed to reparations in the form of tax credits. But using the same language of 24 house representatives who were fighting for reparations, he said that the best reparations would be to address the quality of inner city schools and unemployment. So he acknowledges a link between slavery and the current economic situation of many African-Americans in the USA and that reparations need to be made in some form.
I think it’s interesting that banks like Chase Manhattan, Barclay’s and others that profited from the abduction of Africans have acknowledged and have apologized for their complicity. And it’s ironic that bankruptcy laws have changed in the USA for individual consumers and small businesses and yet overnight $700 billion dollars could be found for a bailout of banks. Yet there was no bailout for “those people that live in that part of the world” that was devastated by Katrina. I think there’s a long road ahead and I hope some of that bailout money goes to education, reconstruction and job creation.
I don’t think the ghosts of slavery have been excised with his election. Some liberal white voters may have voted for him out of guilt taking on responsibility for the acts of their ancestors and some might support reparations as a quick and easy way of finding absolution for the crime that was committed with the Atlantic Slave Trade and the broken promise of 40 acres and a mule. That is also due to their particular white liberal identity. Others have said they could never vote for a “colored person”. However, a great many Americans want to move forward and move beyond racial identifications. I have a white colleague here in Toronto who voted for Obama solely because in her view two terms with the Republicans and the Bush administration was enough. Three Supreme Court judges are retiring and she felt new Democratic appointments would hopefully make it more balanced. She’s a centrist and she’s hoping Obama will be bi-partisan.
I’m optimistic that his election will bring about change. The voter turnout was remarkable and certainly many African-American, people of colour, and immigrants all see themselves as part of America and part of the process. Democracy is stronger today because of that. But I would even say that democracy is also big business in America. Look at the spending on media, advertising, marketing etc. The American brand image is stronger today internationally because the whole world was watching while America elected Barack Obama a man who people can identify with for so many reasons. This creates many opportunities for dialogue, trade and business internationally. Time will tell if his administration will be bi-partisan and whether he can channel the support that his complex image rallied and stay around long enough to leave a legacy.
Sorry for the long post.
