WTF? Why Is “Light-Skinned” an Insult?

by Little Miss Attila on January 9, 2010

Um.

What’s going on with this Reid story? I’m afraid I don’t really see the insult, unless it boils down to “acting white,” and “looking insufficiently black.”

In today’s world it’s now an insult, apparently, to make even the most clinical observations about any black person.

I’m not sure that Barack Obama is “light-skinned”; there are darker-skinned African-Americans / Afro-Anglicans, and there are lighter-skinned black people as well. Obama’s a medium-toned guy: his Caucasion genetic heritage has affected his features a little, but he’s a good-looking black guy. Nothing to criticize except perhaps those ears. Maybe a dash of cream in the coffee, but nothing to write home about: how much cream one sees is subjective, until the scientists develop a Cream-O-Meter.

But it’s certainly a fact that the man has no African-American accent whatsoever: have you listened to him trying to “black up” in a speech? It’s embarassing: the man is a crappy actor. To hear him say “polisay” for “policy” is to wince. Ghastly, ghastly. Talk normal, man: if you can’t pull a dialect off, then don’t try it in public.

As a matter of fact, that’s one of the virtues of having Robert Gibbs in the White House: however silly Gibbs is, at least his accent is authentic, and not a put on. (Yes, I understand that there is a difference between a good urban black accent, which Obama is trying for quite clumsily, and a nice Southern accent—which is what Gibbs has. They are historically linked, however, in a symbiotic way, due to the fact that a lot of white Southerners, for 150 years or so, learned some of their language skills from black nannies.)

I’m no fan of Harry Reid’s, but this is a non non non non story.

UPDATE: To clarify, Joe Biden’s remark about Obama being “clean” and “articulate” was insulting to black people, because it implied that most black people are inarticulate, and—in some unfathomable way—”unclean.”

Of course, people may write off the shit that Biden says because he’s patently an idiot, whereas Reid is usually considered to have some native cunning. I mean, for a white guy.

UPDATE II: Apparently, the context was that being light-skinned and having a white accent would enhance Obama’s chances of winning. Which is certainly a distasteful thought, but it could be that those things did contribute to the storyline the Obama people were promoting, which was that having Big O in the White House would help us to transcend race.

And I think that was true. (That is, I think Obama’s biracial heritage and white mannerisms were considered a positive at the time, and may have made him more non-threatening to some voters. His election certainly didn’t help what are quaintly called “race relations,” though. At least, not in the short term; I still hold out hopes that the symbolism will prove valuable in the future, now that having a black President is less unremarkable.)

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

w3bgrrl January 9, 2010 at 3:14 pm

I take Reid’s remarks as an unintentional admission that Democrats tend to be bigots. Conservatives would not be expected to vote for a liberal at all, no matter his or her skin color. Reid seems to be saying that left-leaning voters need some reassurance that a candidate isn’t “too black,” before voting for a person even if they agree on policy.

That was my take-away. Of course, I’ve long believed liberals to be “white man’s burden” racists, so that may influence my thinking.

Reply

richard mcenroe January 9, 2010 at 5:34 pm

“Once you vote light-skinned you know you have sinned.”

Reply

Pablo January 9, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Good thing he’s not nappy headed.

Reply

Little Miss Attila January 9, 2010 at 7:52 pm

You’re just saying that to bug me, aren’t you? I totally don’t like that term for kinky hair, of either the black or the Jewish variety . . . or my brother’s where-the-fuck-did-THAT-come-from Anglo-American-Indian type.

Reply

vanderleun January 9, 2010 at 8:12 pm

He’s not? Who knew?

Reply

Little Miss Attila January 9, 2010 at 8:36 pm

Who knows, indeed? They should bring naturals back for those who want ’em: I used to pay good money for perms back in the 1980s, just so I could step out of the shower, run my fingers through my hair, and go on to something else.

And when I’m on the East Coast during the summer (which is almost never), I likewise don’t have to do a thing to my hair: it styles itself, without any curling iron needed. (Not that I use one any more, because I can’t be bothered. But that’s because I’ve turned into a slattern–not because I don’t really need to do something under normal SoCal dry-climate conditions.)

BTW, John Frieda is supposed to be the ultimate anti-frizz hair line. My dad used to work there, as he has with every hair care/skin care/vitamin company in the country. (Standard greeting among cosmetic industry wags: “so, Jerry–where are you working this year?”)

Reply

Peter January 9, 2010 at 9:57 pm

I fear that Obama’s Administration is setting race relations back forty years. The unfortunate thing is that it’s not a problem of skin color, really, it’s that he’s surrounded himself with crooks, thugs and mendicants.

Reply

Little Miss Attila January 9, 2010 at 10:02 pm

I take it you mean “mendicants” in the sense of “zealots”? Strong believers? Because I’m sure you don’t mean it like “pauper.”

‘Cause I don’t think Barack Obama knows any of those, and that’s part of the problem.

Reply

John January 9, 2010 at 11:33 pm

Light-skinned? Dunno. Thin-skinned? Oh, yeah.

Reply

Little Miss Attila January 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Richard’s remark was the thread-winner.

Reply

ImpeachIbama January 11, 2010 at 7:51 am

Wow! Just Wow, the double standards.

Reply

Foxfier January 12, 2010 at 10:26 am

Didn’t one of the race baiters say something to the effect that he’s not “really” black because he’s too light and/or “not really black?” Jackson, Sharpton, someone like that.

Gee, wonder where the outrage on the dem side was then….

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: