Palatable Negritude

So recently it came to light that Harry Reid said that President Obama was a good candidate for President because he was “light-skinned” and speaks with “no Negro dialect”.

When I heard that Harry said that, my first thought was, “What kind of racially progressive person says ‘Negro’ in the 21st century?” I found Reid’s use of the term “Negro” strange, but then I gave it some additional thought. Harry is 70 damn years old. In his life time, Black people have been colored, Negro, Afro-American, African American, and Black (not to mention nigger, coon, porch monkey, etc.). Would I prefer that he know the current en vogue terms for people like myself? Sure. Do I really give a damn that he doesn’t? No.

So, if we move past the terminology, we still have the potentially problematic notions which Harry Reid is speaking of: light skin and “proper” speech as more palatable than darker skin and African American vernacular.

Long before Harry Reid said it, I said it. So am I mad that he said it? Hell no. I’ve lived as dark-skinned Black man in America for all of my (nearly) 26 years, so I am well-aware of how presentation affects notions of respectability and value. A few times a week, white women clutch their purses or their children as I pass them on the street. No matter my dress (whether slacks or jeans, button-down or t-shirt), there is something scary associated with my dark male frame. Some may wonder why I accentuated my darkness rather than my Blackness and that’s because, in my experience, I elicit a stronger fear response than lighter brothers if we present ourselves similarly. Clearly a light-skinned thug is scarier than I am in a suit, but if we are both dressed conservatively, I tend to elicit a stronger (or more immediate) fear response.

Because of the intrinsic foreignness of Black people to a mainstream audience, we often must be conscious that cultural expression is often lost in translation. What certain behaviors or customs mean to us may read TOTALLY differently to the mainstream. I often tell the tale of my first summer at Princeton when a classmate asked what gang I belonged to because I was wearing a du-rag. Though I was a student at Princeton, my head covering automatically branded me as a gang member. However, when my white peers dressed in what they thought was urban attire to attend “bling bling” or “state school” night, nobody had a second thought about their potential affiliation to criminal elements. Though the experience was one that left me angry, it also made clear how easily cultural practices can be obfuscated in translation. Similarly, when Obama brushed off his shoulder during the 2008 election, it was a nod to urban youth who knew the song “Dirt off Your Shoulder” by Jay-Z, but it was read by the mainstream as a sexist dismissal of Hillary Clinton. People who do not understand the nuances of one’s culture attempt to map their own sensibilities onto behaviors which they do not understand; then you’re left with silly pricks asking about my gang affiliation and accusing then-candidate Obama of displaying a general disrespect for female competitors. This is why Obama’s lack of a “Negro dialect” is useful (and some might say necessary). It is easy to be understood by all people, so it’s harder to misconstrue due to cultural differences. In addition, it allows everyone to feel as though he is speaking to them. If Obama spoke in an urban vernacular on a regular basis, mainstream voters would have felt that he was too different from them to understand their issues. Or worse, given the negative qualities attributed to those who generally speak in urban vernacular, he would have been viewed as ignorant, uneducated, or even criminal. None of those things would have done him any good.

So I think Harry was dead on. I think his comments may have sounded racially ignorant, but I think they were much more poignant than any of the Faux News pundits could fathom.