Why I Don’t Like To Admit That I Support Obama
Posted by: Naamen Gobert Tilahun
It’s because I’m black.
See when I admit that I support Obama, people (mostly white) get this look on their face and that’s the end the conversation. They don’t ask why, they don’t start a dialogue, there’s just this look. The look is very much like a slap in the face. What the look says is “Ah, I knew you would”, “Of Course.”, “Well, I’m not surprised.”. The look rests on the assumption that as a black man of course I would be voting for the black man. It’s a racist assumption that insults not only myself but Obama as well. When we deconstruct the look there are two main attacks that are happening here.
Number one they are assuming that Obama has nothing to offer except being a black man, they are assuming that none of his politics matter that his only viability as a candidate stems from his race.
Which makes me question why they themselves voted for Clinton or Bush or Gore or Perot or any number of white men that have run for/been elected president for as long as this country has been in existence? Were they only viable candidates because they were white men? The obvious answer to me is an undeniable yes, race has always played a part in the viability of presidential candidacies even if that role was simply the absence of any People of Color. I wouldn’t mind the look as much if it allowed for the look giver to have that bit of introspection into their own history, all too often though the path to realization is protected by a sticky coat of privilege. The look they are so ready to give me, the belief that they know me and my politics by simple virtue of my skin well most aren’t so good at turning that gaze on themselves.
Number two, and much more personal to me, they are assuming I’m ignorant. They think that I don’t have the capacity to research issues, listen to the speeches and evaluate a candidate without race being a factor. They assume that I don’t have enough character or social consciousness to look at all the candidates and decide who is the best candidate for me personally as well as politically.
The flipside of this is that if I was supporting any candidate but Obama, which I did until about a month ago (Kucinich, and if he hadn’t dropped out and I hadn’t seen the dropout coming I would still be supporting him), I would get the other end of the look. Traitor. That I was betraying black people by voicing my support of (for our purposes let’s say) Hilary. The assumptions were the same except that in this instance I was cast into the role of “self-hating black man” the idea that I would only be supporting Hilary because I didn’t want to support Obama. It makes the same assumptions about Hilary and about myself, that I’m incapable of making an informed political decision and that Hilary is only useful as a tool of my self-hatred.
Because of this Women of Color and Black Women especially hold a particularly unenviable position in this primary. Not only are they the center of debate without being allowed a voice on the situation, but white feminists (white pundits and male POC pundits as well) such as Gloria Steinem have taken to speaking for/at them. Being the source of such scrutiny they are hard pressed to publicly voice a candidate without “betraying” someone and drawing fire from some corner. I’d say more but I don’t want this to be me talking for Women of Color, there are plenty of posts on this subject all over the Internet from Women of Color. Do some research.
The war of “race vs. gender” has hovered around the democratic party since the announcements of candidacy, sometimes even brought up by the candidates themselves. It’s a war I don’t want any part in because I don’t believe in rating or ranking oppressions, all oppression is horrible and also it ignores the intersecting identities of millions of people. Going back to the look, it assumes my part in this bullshit war of oppression where we turn on each other instead of uniting. Because it assumes that my decision making process was: black over woman. The essentially mocks my choice, my decision making ability, my intelligence in one fell swoop of your privilege.
So this a political entry but it’s also a rant against all of the people out there who have given other POC that look, who intend to give POC that look or those who have schooled their faces but still think it.
To Them: That look is not only racist the motivation behind the look is stupid because the truth is you don’t know me, you don’t know why I’ve chosen to support Obama (or Hilary, or Edwards or…). Unless I’ve chosen to talk to you in depth, you don’t know anything about me. The look demeans us both and at the end of it, you don’t know my reasons and I just think you’re an asshole.
Postscript: This could just as easily be about a woman supporting Hilary and the similar looks they receive. Even though this post isn’t about that I want to acknowledge the truth there.
Naamen Gobert Tilahun is a creative writer and blogger. You can visit him at Words From The Center, Words From The Edge, where he discusses writing, science-fiction, movies, and more.
If Obama were white would anyone care?
Thank you for this! I am a white woman supporting Obama and I get the “traitor” looks you’ve been talking about — people get all surprised and they’re like, “oh, really? I thought you were a feminist …”
Because of course Obama’s politics can’t relate to my feminism in any way. ??!!
I want so badly for all this to stop. And by “all this” I mean the reduction of the Democratic presidential nomination race to “SO: do you support the end of sexism or the end of racism?” as if Clinton and Obama define or are completely defined by their gender and their race. Really, those kinds of questions end up promoting /both/ sexism and racism ….
I love this post. I have noticed a similar thing happening to me, although in my case people tend to assume I support Clinton (I’m female but not black, and in reality support Obama). The race and gender overtones of this election cycle are making me want to tear my hair out.
A variation on your theme: I have also noticed some white people giving white Obama supporters a kind of Look too, one that I take to mean “I didn’t realize until this moment that you love black people so much.” argh.
I blame individual racist/sexist assumptions for the Look, but I get very discouraged at the way popular media outlets fan the fire. I’d like to see a study done comparing the number of Obama and Clinton stories that DON’T refer to race and gender to the number of stories that do. I do think it’s a necessary breath of fresh air to get a more diverse candidate pool so that we can move away from white-male-as-leader, but that’s a completely separate story from the substantive policy positions that Barack and Hillary each hold that give us a reason to support one or the other.
I am not an American citizen and I can’t vote but I think…
they are all suspect by the fact that they are politicians. I lean towards Obama because he is a breath of fresh air, doesn’t belong to the old families and he brings a new perspective….
Please read http://quakeragitator.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/fear-of-a-black-president/
because he says it better than I could ever wish to.
Great post and comments! :)
I love everything about this post except that you call Barack Obama “Obama,” Dennis Kucinich “Kucinich,” and Hilary Clinton “Hilary.” I realize by saying this that I may be diverting the discussion from the complexities of race and gender to the recurring white feminist problem of making gender the one important thing, and I’m willing to be called on it. I decided to risk it because it pains me that a post that is so eloquent about the way that the intersections of racism and sexism limit the political discourse is participating in the default cultural sexism in this one thing, and I don’t believe that you’d do that if you were conscious of it.
Micole, although I personally call her “Clinton” for the same reasons you express, I think most people that call her Hillary do so mainly to distinguish her from her husband, and do not mean it at all sexist. He is President Clinton, and it feels weird while he is still not only alive but so active, to be referring to another Clinton. :) And to be fair, I think that whether we like her or not, we are relatively “comfortable” with her and tend towards a causualness, like we “know” her after her stint as First Lady, more than we feel with other candidates.
Aaminah, I see your point. Although I like the idea of changing the default Clinton in the discussion to the female one. :)
The politics of naming is so contextual, whether familiarity means comfort or contempt: I feel like people use first names much more often for (H.) Clinton and Obama than for other candidates, but how it reads to me depends so much on what else is being said.
Love this post. Thank you for writing it.
I hear what you’re saying Micole, but the other think to keep in mind is that her campaign has promoted her as “Hillary” in their signs and slogans and mailings and suchlike–probably for sexist reasons, but there it is.
I really enjoyed your post. It is exactly how I felt, but I could never express it the way you just did. I knew that I was not the only one feeling like this, but it is great knowing that it is being express on an excellent manner.
Micole –
I definitely see what you’re saying and I actually thought about that when I was reviewing the post and changed it back and forth from Hilary to Clinton multiple times. The reason I did eventually settle on Hilary was for the reasons listed above, to distinguish her from her husband (even though it should have been obvious which Clinton I was talking about) and because that seems to be how her own campaign has referred to her through most of her candidacy.
You.re right though naming is really contextual and we definitely need to look into the politics of naming and why we won’t reassign the last name to the more prominent Clinton. It would be an interesting study to look back at the other women who’ve run for president or been on the ticket as vice president and see how they were referred to in the press at the time.
Naamenblog.
I’m disturbed by the author’s and some poster’s suppositions based on “looks” they receive in response to telling the name of the candidate they support. That is classic projection, which seems to be the gist of complaint in the article. Jumping to conclusions is a drag all the way around right? State your candidate and let the chips fall where they may…oh, and then actually listen to what people say rather than reading facial expressions. It might prevent future misunderstanding and create an opportunity to enjoy participation in a world filled with people different from yourself.
THANK YOU!
Like Oprah said, “Don’t play me small! I am not that small! I’m not supporting Obama because he’s black. I’m supporting him because he’s brilliant!”
Oh Lambyfish, you must not be one that gets those “looks”, LOL. How convenient that you can assume that we are the ones making assumptions. There is a reason that much of society does rely on facial expression, because it conveys alot. Why do you assume that the author and commentors don’t “listen to what people say”? And why do you assume that people actually say anything? Often times it is actually the dead-end of the conversation. And when it isn’t, the statements amount to exactly what was portrayed, but couched in careful wordage. Like people won’t actually say “oh, I’m not surprised that you’re voting for your color/gender” but they will say “well, like sticks with like, I suppose” or “Oh, of course you are” (in a clearly patronizing, so-sorry-for-you-and-your-ignorance voice).
Just this weekend I was exasperated over election coverage of black voters in particular, media coverage of black people in general – specifically the idea that EVERY SINGLE DECISION that a black person makes is first and foremost based on affirming, denying, or somehow expressing their blackness (or their displeasure with white people). Seriously, if I wasn’t black and had little to no contact with black people, it would seem as if, when confronted with “paper or plastic?” black people would naturally choose based on which is the “blackest” grocery bag option.
lambyfish, according to the main poster, the conversations generally end there.
lambyfish-
How do you know it’s projection? Why do you automatically assume that it’s people of color and women overreacting? When a large group of people agree and say “Yes, this has happened to me!” and you dismiss it out of hand, it lends and interesting flavor to your reply. Now I don’t know you, don’t know anything about you, if you happen to be a woman or a person of color and this has not happened to you? Great. But you don’t get to decide other people’s reactions are misunderstanding.
Also facial expressions are a HUGE part of interaction and conversation just from a scientific viewpoint, it’s part of why people with Asperger’s Syndrome, such as my little brother, have problems with social interaction, they cannot read a person’s facial expression with any accuracy and thus find it harder to tell if a person is serious, kidding, contemptuous, etc. It’s also why there can be so many misunderstandings over the internet because we don’t see each other’s facial expressions. Also actually listen to what people say ? ‘Cause people never lie, right.
Bottom line is you can disagree with the article, that’s your right, you can think everyone who’s posted and talked about it not just here but in the media as well is making it up or misunderstanding but you don’t know me aside from this article and don’t get to imply that I don’t enjoy participation in a world filled with people different from yourself.
Jumping to conclusions is a drag all the way around right?
Yeah I’d say so
-Naamenblog
lambyfish,
I think that you make what is, generally speaking, a fair point. In trying to understand others, we must take care not to project. I agree. Once we get into specific situations, of which Obama/Clinton support is one example, we have to rely on our interpretations of ALL forms of human communication in order to understand what’s going on around us. That includes facial expressions and other unspoken language. As others have already pointed out, we use our faces to communicate all the time. Also, I think that any time a group of people notices the same thing (like “looks”), it bears closer examination. Just dismissing the entire situation out of hand as projection isn’t helpful, because it comes across as silencing. We need to have open minds and go through life aware that many things sound unbelievable the first time each of us hears them.
As a still undecided voter in a super Tuesday state (yes, I have to decide in 2 hours or…not), may I ask why do you support Obama? Maybe I should just forget it: I really think either Clinton or Obama is fine and that neither is perfect.
I used to get “of course” looks from my non-white friends when I stated I supported Edwards, and now I get “of course” looks from my female friends when I say that I support Obama and an Obama-Edwards ticket.
Blanky-
This is not the place for the pain of white men, there are thousands of blogs all over the place for that. That’s a separate and complex issue that I don’t want to divert this discussion at the moment.
Thank You
-Naamenblog
Well I’m a white male (though people at least once or so a week online assume I’m female because of my name) and I’ve been strongly supporting Obama since he announced he was running (actually even before the official announcement).
For me it comes down to very real differences I see between Obama’s past achievements, policy positions, and way of conducting himself which I find far, far superior to Hillary Clinton’s positions and past behavior. And I say this as someone who was not inherently anti-war from the beginning – but Obama by far got that right. For me as importantly has been his ongoing championing of ethics reforms and government transparency – starting in the Illinois Senate and continuing in the US Senate. Perhaps not an issue everyone cares about – but one I think goes a very long way towards serious, long lasting and deeply impactfull reforms.
I am a feminist but I don’t see Hillary Clinton’s candidacy as a pure expression of feminism – I’m deeply troubled that for the 5th time (so for every single election I’ve voted in in my 33 years of being alive) a Clinton or a Bush is on the ballot for President. And before those 20 years, Bush Sr was the VP. And before that most of the current administration held similar positions of authority in the Nixon White House.
I think it is time for real change – for new approaches (including listening to and respecting those who might have a different perspective) both domestically and especially internationally. I do not, for example, think it is a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength to talk with our “enemies”. Our Cuba policy, to take one glaring example, had for decades upon decades now been deeply flawed. Obama has stated he will rethink it (and many Cuban Americans agree with his suggestions).
I live in San Francisco, there are many Obama supporters here. I spoke with one fellow voter at my local polling place this morning – he was a older man (mid-60’s I’d guess possibly older) and said he had voted for Clinton. But he also said he had a lot of respect for Obama and would be glad to vote for him in the election if he won. But he, at least so far that I’ve met, was an exception – more typical were Republican friends of mine (in their 20’s) who changed their party registration to be able to vote for Obama (in these particular cases also white – one male, one female).
So for the undecideds reading this – I urge you first and foremost to vote. If you’ve read this far you know who I’m supporting – but vote for yourself – for who you feel would be the better president. Personally I think the choice is very easy.
Shannon
Thanks for this post. I definitely understand where you are coming from. I, too, choose not to participate in the race vs. gender war because, as you stated, ranking oppressions is not conducive or constructive. It’s plain stupid.
namenblog–
forgive me, that was not at all what I attempted to suggest. Rather, I was pointing out the fact that absolutely every group of people can be in some way stereotyped if they vote for people who resemble them in any way.
This is about “race” and “gender” stereotyping in terms of voting, yes?
blanky –
No, forgive me I obviously misunderstood. I thought that you were being confrontational and trying to equate the two. Though I still see the comparison as a bit problematic just because of the complexities of discussing gender and race from different power levels in comparison with one another. But I get that you weren’t trying to derail the discussion.
-Naamenblog
Heavens, yes. Please forgive me. I believed that showing something as a universal problem would help the discussion.
Oh, well.
lambyfish– go read the original Black Like Me. It’s a classic about someone’s participation in a world filled like people different from them that might help prevent future misunderstanding.
I give Obama supporters looks sometimes. Or would, if I met them in person rather than over the internet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race, though (in fact, I have no idea what the race/gender is of most of the people I meet online). It has more to do with the biggest problem I currently have with Obama: his supporters.
Now, as a disclaimer, I have met some fine Obama supporters. Some wonderful, intelligent people who have thought over the issues thoroughly. There are many good reasons to vote for the man, and I will certainly support him come the general election if he is our nominee.
My problem with many Obama supporters is that many — too many of the ones who are vocal online in political forums and other places — see him as a flawless representation of unity, hope, and Democratic goodness. Many of these same supporters vilify Hillary Clinton and (when he was still in the race) John Edwards, as if all three didn’t have records that were almost identical! (90 percent the same, really. I checked)
Part of this, I suspect, is due to the media’s obvious love for the man. I don’t like the media selecting our candidate for us. Part of it also seems to be because Obama is the cool new guy. Whatever the reason, many of his supporters who I’ve encountered express adoration but no real knowledge of his policies.
I’m not happy with his general silence on women’s issues (including the present votes, his snubbing of the BlogHer conference, and his lack of high-level female staff members as compared to other presidential campaigns).
But in particular, I’m very annoyed with the recurring pattern of homophobic maneuvering. Which is not to say that I believe Barack himself is homophobic — I don’t — but I do think that he’s willing to ignore LGBT issues for political gain. I have gay family members who were very upset by the McClurkin incident. Then there was the endorsement of another anti-gay clergy member that followed. Then this latest news about his refusal to take a photo with Newsom because of gay marriage. It’s not just one incident; it’s a pattern.
Finally, I am annoyed by his hypocrisy.
Clinton plays politics in a slimy, underhanded way. The thing is, everybody knows this already.
Obama also plays politics in a slimy, underhanded way. I’ve been watching his campaign a long time and he’s done a few nasty things, sometimes clumsily (Punjab), sometimes being called out on it (Health Care mailer). It’s quite clever of him and it’s what I expect from politicians. But unlike Clinton, he claims to be above this stuff. And people believe him.
That bugs the hell out of me. At least with Clinton, we know what we’re getting. With Obama… I think there are going to be many very disillusioned liberals in a few years.
I completely understand this post and agree that many sleazy assumptions are inherent in “the look” (and I don’t doubt for a second that ‘the look’ is real). So this is not meant so much to disagree with the post as to add something:
A lot of Black people ARE voting for Obama first and foremost because he’s Black. My neighborhood (mixed but largely Black) was pulsing with an energy yesterday that would NEVER have been there if a Black man were not running for president. I have friends that TELL ME they would never even have gone to the polls if there weren’t a Black candidate for them to vote for. My wife will say straight up that she can’t imagine there being a viable Black candidate for president and her *not* voting for them, unless they were some kind of crazy republican. The very idea is insane to her.
And I don’t know that that’s such an awful thing. If there were some real difference between the candidates — if Kucinich and Obama were going at it, for instance — I would say “it’s a shame that a brown face is mobilizing support for a less genuinely pro-Black candidate.” But since neither Hillary nor Obama are really going to do shit for Black people anyway, people might as well vote for the brown face…
Certainly my ‘race’ has to do with why I say Obama can kiss my ass. I would never vote for him because he’s selling my people (Arabs and Muslims) down the river to get elected. He’s in favor of increased military spending, and guess who’s gonna be on the receving end of that shit? (Hint: the slur rhymes with ‘land diggers’). He’s emphatically defended Israel’s starvation-blockade and mass bombing of civilians and and has come out as strongly in favor of Israeli Aparteid (yes, it’s Aparteid, that’s what Desmond Tutu calls it, and he would know). He’s sold out Louis Farrakhan to the white media about five times now. He talks about terrorism in terms almost as black-and-white (get it?) as the Bush administration. He’s encouraged the straight-up LIE that Islamic terrorism poses some kind of major threat to the US. He says military force must remain an option on Iran, except we should try starving them (sanctions) first — as punishment for what crimes exactly, I’m not sure. He talks about ‘finishing the job’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the same psychotic way Big White Leaders do. And he gets OFFENDED when people draw attention to his Muslim heritage. “My dad wasn’t really religious” “No, look, I go to church!”, “I really want to clear this up”, etc. Well, Mr. B. HUSSEIN Obama, guess what? “Muslim” is not a slur! But on behalf of the 8 million Muslims in America, fuck you for encouraging people to believe that it is!
It makes me sad that everything Saladin mentioned is probably just in service to getting elected in America. i mean, it could be that Barack really does believe all that stuff, but I’m inclined to think that he really doesn’t, just as most candidates really don’t hold as much anti-Muslim sentiment as their rhetoric suggests.
It really pisses me off that in the current climate no one can get elected without this bullshit. Whether they actually mean it or not.
It also kind of pisses me off that as a black person who is probably going to vote for Obama if he gets the nod (because Edwards went away!), I have to wrestle with the fact that, even though I don’t think he actually thinks that way, he still SAYS stuff that makes me go AHHHHHHHHHDAMNITSHUTUP.
I think that the whole process is screwed and that any candidate that hopes to get a nod does have to be shady and have policies that are going to offend me. I also have all the same concerns about Obama that Saladin mentioned, plus that he was one of the original Senators to put forth the idea of the wall between Mexico and the U.S. Given the options, I think he’s the best we got, and I do think that he has some good ideas. I also agree with Shannon when he said that it is a little scary that in all my 33 yrs of life, since I started voting we’ve only had Bush’s and Clintons in office. It just seems weird to me to think that the vast majority of my life has been one of two families controlling that office (and I would say Reagan was a nominal Bush family member, LOL). I think that is proof right there that change needs to happen. We have term limits for a reason and there’s something wacky about one hitting their limit and then substituting a family member just like them to keep control a while longer. Notice, I’m not even admitting who I’m voting for, or if I’m voting at all because they all SUCK in my mind, that’s the nature of politics in this country. :)
Well, the thing is, this is nothing new. It’s just a bit more blatant. If you go back forty years, you see the same surnames in politics (Romney, for instance) that you see today. I mean, we all know that this country is run by white families with money, and those families usually pass their money and contacts down the generations. I’m not bothered by the dynasty thing…I guess because I’ve always assumed that’s how things work here. And because I am a cynical, miserable little person.
I do think there’s something to what Saladin is saying about voting for a black candidate; I think this because if I had registered to vote in time for the primaries I probably would have voted for Hillary. Don’t get me wrong–I will support whichever candidate the Democrats elect, and I think either Hillary or Obama will do an equally decent job as president. But…I hadn’t realized how much the idea of a woman president meant to me (unless, as Saladin says of his wife re: a black candidate, she’s a crazy Republican–no Libby Dole, thanks) until she lost the first primary. It…does mean something to see somebody like you in a position of power, legitimized in the eyes of the establishment and the world. It does mean that for many of us, white women and black women and men, to have a black and a female candidate feels as though we are being acknowledged in the electoral process in a way we haven’t been before. And that does matter. And to see the level of sexist vitriol being levelled at Hillary is what decided me–I just heard the secretary in my office say that she thought that a woman shouldn’t be president because she’d be too emotional to make good decisions.
I know that the same level of racist vitriol has been spewed at Obama. So I would never try to convince anyone else to eschew him in favor of Hillary because of that. It’s just that because I am a white woman, the sexism hits me in my guts and I’ve had the privilege of not being the target of that kind of racist attack.
Again, I’m not saying that these are particularly good or worthy reasons, or that anybody else should follow them. Certainly the default assumption should not be that anybody is supporting a candidate because of his/her race or gender (although…being white and male has certainly been a prerequisite for the past few hundred years, and nobody said shit about their supporters). I know many white feminists who are supporting Obama, and he’ll do fine as president, I think. But there is something to be said for the galvanizing effect of Obama’s and Hillary’s candidacies because of their identities.
“I know that the same level of racist vitriol has been spewed at Obama.”
I disagree with this.
Racism is definitely an issue, but because of the way sexism and racism function differently in this country, gender slurs are far more openly acceptable, while racism has gotten coded and gone underground and become disguised in this whole colorblind thing. (Unless it’s against Muslims, in which case, sad to say, it can be open and blatant and encouraged).
Which isn’t to say one is worse than the other (for instance, white women don’t suffer the kind of widespread economic misery, prison sentences, etc, of PoC — there are plenty of issues in which racism is far more damaging than sexism).
But as far as this race goes, the upshot of it all is that Hillary Clinton can be told to go back to the kitchen, told to “Iron my shirt,” she can be called weak for crying, she can be made into a “nutcracker” doll for being a woman who’s too strong, etc., etc. Many of the anti-Hillary posts and websites incorporate her gender into the attacks (“shrillary,” the “cackle,” bitch, and countless other less pleasant words I won’t list). The media has joined in the sexist attacks (Mathews and his claims about Hillary only achieving what she did because her husband cheated on her; the examinations of her cleavage).
Obama has been criticized by plenty of people, but I have yet to see anyone link his race to the attacks on him in the way gender is tied up in the hatred of Hillary. McCain laughed when someone asked a question of him referring to Hillary as a “bitch.” For her, gender is inextricably bound up in the attacks on her. From a Seattle Times article:
“Facebook, popular with high-school and college students, has dozens of anti-Hillary groups, many of which take great delight in heaping abuse on Clinton as a woman, imagining her reduced to a subservient role, and visiting violence upon her. One is “Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich,” with more than 23,000 members and 2,200 “wall posts.””
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004041541_hillaryslurs29.html
Thank you for this post- so on point.
It points to the larger problem of this country and how POC get treated- our thoughts never matter, in fact, for many white folks, it never crossed their minds that we think at all, that we are capable of weighing decisions and making adult choices- that we are sentient.
After all, all these years with nothing but white men to choose from, and somehow race matters now? What the hell did they think we were using to choose our votes with then? Eeny-meenie-miny-mo?!?
Of course, it’s not like there hasn’t been a history of POC and women writers, political analysis and now, bloggers. Though, as always, there’s been a history of ignoring them.
I just look at it this way:
Barack The Magic Negro:
If he’s neither black nor white, why should you be white?