Harry Reid was stupid. But he wasn't wrong.

During the 2008 Presidential primaries, Senate majority leader Harry Reid was quoted as saying Barack Obama’s campaign could be successful due to the fact that Obama was;

1.    Obama was a ‘light-skinned’ African American, and secondly;
2.    Because Obama spoke “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one...”

Reid has been rightly criticized by many, Democrats included, with some even calling for his resignation.  While poor word choice doesn’t necessarily make someone racist, it does make me question what kind of vernacular Reid uses on a day to day basis (and the company he keeps) if he’s able to so casually drop such an outdated term without hesitation. 

In addition to Reid’s poor word choice, the other somewhat distasteful thing about Reid’s comment is that it implies a certain disingenuity on Obama’s behalf; the fact that Obama speaks with ‘no Negro dialect, unless he want(s) to have one’ implies that Obama calculatingly tailors his manner of speech depending on the race of the audience. And while we may all do that to a certain extent (sometimes subconsciously, sometimes not) implying that it is a deliberate choice Obama makes is not only insulting, but somewhat condescending.

Now, having said all that... was what Reid said untrue? Of course not. The reality is that Obama’s win was an aberration, and most of America remains uncomfortable with what they conceive to be ‘Black culture’ and all the things associated with it. You only have to look at the rest of Congress to see that, where only one Black Senator out of a hundred currently holds office, and he was appointed. Historically, only two Black men have ever had a realistic opportunity for becoming President: one, of course Obama, the other, Colin Powell, who is not also light-skinned , but also often similarly commended for being ‘well-spoken’; a back-handed comment if there ever was one.

In other words, white America might be willing in extremely rare circumstances to vote for a Black person, but only if they’re allowed to forget that the person is Black. Which is why the most remarkable event during Obama’s Presidential campaign, was his noted Race speech, when Obama chose to upset the conventional political thinking and put his colour front and centre. Even then, Obama’s election commercials later chose to heavily emphasize his white, middle-America roots. I suppose American can only take so much.

When Michelle Obama stated last year during a campaign stop that she had never been truly proud of her country before, conservatives instantly jumped on the attack, accusing Obama of embodying the ‘angry black woman’ stereotype that whites so often fear. Sarah Palin on the other hand, whose husband actually attended Alaskan secessionist rallies, mostly received a free pass from those same conservative critics. What was of course was being implied was that as a person of colour, Obama’s patriotism was inherently more in question than Palin, and Palin had much more leeway.

Of course, this phenomenon isn’t limited to politics. Look at some of the most successful Black athletes in terms of their marketability, like Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter, and Michael Jordan. What do the three have in common, other than dominance in their particular sports? Their ability to stay completely apolitical; Jordan especially was legendary for his reluctance to take any stand that could be considered even the least bit controversial, like his almost sociopathic unwillingness to even acknowledge Nike’s labour practices. And while Mohammed Ali is a beloved figure now, during his more radical days in the 60s, mainstream white America attacked Ali with a fervour that hasn’t been seen since then. Ironically, losing the ability to speak was probably the best thing Ali could have done for his marketability.