“Stanley Crouch: What Obama isn’t: black like me”

03 Nov 2006 By

Stanley Crouch in the New York Daily News:

So when black Americans refer to Obama as “one of us,” I do not know what they are talking about. In his new book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes it clear that, while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own – nor has he lived the life of a black American….

I doubt Obama will share Powell’s fate, but if he throws his hat in the ring, he will have to run as the son of a white woman and an African immigrant. If we then end up with him as our first black President, he will have come into the White House through a side door – which might, at this point, be the only one that’s open.

Ri-damn-diculous.

I’m not quite sure what his point is, exactly. I mean, I get that he’s saying that Barack Obama isn’t your “typical” black person in America. But… why is he even bringing this up in the first place? Like he’d be our fake first black president?

I’d hardly say President Bush’s life is representative of the typical American. Getting anyone who’s not a white male into the Oval Office is (sadly) remarkable in and of itself, regardless of how they got there.

That “side door” comment is what really burns my ass. If Barack Obama gets to the White House, it’s because he got elected. Hell, if anybody got in by the side door, it’s GWB with all that questionable voting tabulation.

Whatever, Stanley Crouch. Pfffft.

  • http://www.redsugar.com/muse/ Tanya

    What a strange article. He’s saying that “not black enough” based on country of origin is ridiculous, but that “not black enough” based on lifestyle is just fine.

    And that if Obama wins, he’ll be the real president, but he won’t be the real first black president.

    That’s seriously messed up. He gets the racism from both sides.

  • http://jenben.info/home.html JenBen

    It’s also difficult to get anyone in the White House who is not Protestant. What’s my point? Don’t have one, but shit, I thought diversity was supposed to be a good thing.

    Personally, I’d vote for Obama in a second, because he’s smart and passionate and cares, not because he’s black, half-black, half-white or “other.”

  • http://mysocalledblog.com Lachlan

    The article by Crouch is proof yet again that racism is alive and well in the USA, despite it being a period of history where we’re supposed to be enlightened and accepting. I call shenanigans.

    Support or don’t support someone on their merit, not their skin color. “Journalism” like Crouch’s just detracts from the more important issues.

  • http://minnesotadiva.blogspot.com drc

    I am leaning towards Obama at this point, but we have a long way to go yet. Too many wild things can and will happen before the next Presidential Election.

    Either way, I don’t care what color he/she is on the outside…I just want them to be red/white/blue on the inside.

  • http://www.dustbury.com/ CGHill

    I’m not a major Obama fan, but I think he’s getting a bum rap here. So what if he didn’t have a “typical” (whatever that is) black upbringing? It’s ultimately irrelevant.

  • http://fridayfishwrap.com MJ

    I call bullshit.

    A black man calling another black man not “black enough?”

    Give me a fucking break! Stanley Crouch needs to shut the hell up. Now. Replace black with white and what would ol’ Stanley think? No need to ask really…

    Mmhm, there’s a word for that Stan – hypocracy. So shut it.

    Regardless, Obama rocks. We can hope that some day, some way…

  • http://fridayfishwrap.com MJ

    Okay, I just went back and read this a THIRD time and I’m even more confused.

    “Of course, the idea that one would be a better or a worse representative of black Americans depending upon his or her culture or ethnic group is clearly absurd.”

    So the point of his rant is? What?

    And a question? Maybe I’ve been out of San Francisco too long, living here in the caucasian wasteland that is Riverside county (seriously, it’s far too white here for my comfort) but Pan-African? Perhaps someone might enlighten me… I even googled this term and I can’t figure out how it relates to his point (if there is one.)

  • http://www.swirlspice.com Erica

    So the point of his rant is? What?

    Right! Exactly. I don’t even know what he’s getting at. He starts off talking about the difference between color and ethnic identity, so he’s saying that Barack Obama is African-American, but not “black American,” but then he’s only half anyway. So he looks black, but he’s not black.

    And…?

    Then there’s this part: “[H]e will have to run as the son of a white woman and an African immigrant.” No, he’ll run as a Democrat with whatever ideas he chooses to make his platform. The media will make it about him being half-white, half-Kenyan.

  • http://fridayfishwrap.com MJ

    Thank you Erica for starting an interesting dialog in my household. I showed this to the missus (as she is usually much more insightful than I am) and she was not nearly offended as I was..

    She made a couple of interesting points.

    First, “Pan-African” according to the missus, refers to anyone of African ancestry – American or European or whatever. In this argument, basically “Pan-Africans” do not share the same identification with suffering as “Black Americans” do with regard to slavery in America. Crouch is basically questioning Obama’s street cred…

    An example: If McGreevy (recently outed gay guy from NJ, resigned from office, wrote a book, on Oprah- you know who I’m talking about) was running for president – would I, as a lesbian, accept him as our “first gay president” or would I hold a little something against him i.e. he’s not been out long enough – he’s not “suffered” as a gay man in America – he does not represent my experience as a gay American?

    And so perhaps that’s what Crouch is saying… That Barack, not being descended from slaves, and as a first generation American, does not represent his (Crouch’s) personal experience, and that of hundreds of thousands of other “black-Americans”, thus he’s not “black enough.”

    If that was indeed his point, it’s also a very poorly written argument. And I’m not even sure if I agree with it. But food for thought.

    I just wish we didn’t have to think about this crap anymore. My head hurts…

  • Nat

    Didn’t we have this same type of situation with Tiger Woods awhile back? “Not really black”? Because he’s mixed?

    Apparently Swirlspice (ha!) you are just not that black — because you’re mixed, too! Good thing you’re a lesbian, that way we can still lump you into some category. *whew* I was getting worried there.

    Speaking of which, I was officially lumped into the DINK category by my in-laws yesterday. I’d never heard of it, but for those childless married couples we’re apparently “Dual Income, No Kids”. I was lumped into this when I spoke of how much my boots cost (a deal, really).

  • http://www.swirlspice.com Erica

    I think it’s safe to say that no matter what he was trying to say, it’s poorly written.

    Yeah, Nat. No worries. Somebody somewhere will still market to me!