To be real, there are two main camps when it comes to Obama’s race/ethnicity among us of the “African Diaspora.”  Camp One thinks that Obama’s “blackness” is happenstance and feel that on issues and political record alone, he’s the best man for the job.  They don’t care that he’s black.  Camp Two, comprised of the other 95% of black people, believe that his race (bi-racial Hawaiian background though it be) is a boon to his perspective and they are excited and determined to vote for Obama because he is black in addition to his other qualifications.  (Yes, you read that correctly.)  A colleague of our Editor-In-Chief, who is lukewarm about the Illinois Junior Senator, stated that when it came down to casting her vote, she felt a certain responsibility to vote for the first viable black candidate on the Democratic ticket.  It should be noted that she was also lukewarm about Hillary Clinton and wondered if she’d have another opportunity to vote for a viable female presidential candidate “in her lifetime.”

People, mostly non-blacks (so yes that includes all other ethnic and racial minorities) are pissed to hear such a thing.  Blogs, op-eds and scholarly articles from throughout the nation and around the globe consider the idea of assigning positive value to Obama’s race as morally objectionable.  This sentiment can best be described in response to a comment we saw posted on a news site considered more reliable than most:  Guerilla News Network. 

We’ll paraphrase:

COMMENTATOR:  I have issues with Obama, but I understand why many want to vote for him due to the historical precedent of voting for the nation’s first black president and I respect that.

RESPONSE:  What if white people thought that way?

Say WHAT?  Has anyone been living in the United States of America since this stolen land was anointed with that title?   What if white people thought that way?  Where’s the evidence that the majority of white people don’t give preferred status to white presidential candidates?  The immediate response is “Well, we haven’t had a chance to.”  EXACTLY.  The real answer should be rephrased to, “Well, we haven’t made sure that we could have a chance to vote for people that weren’t Caucasian males.”  Do you catch the difference in thought there? 

From Onyx Cranium’s records, every elected (and official opposing party rival) has been a white male[i].  Coincidence?  Absolutely not. Three times.  Perhaps.  But 43 times?  Come the hell on! As evidenced by Paul Krugman, author of The Conscious of a Liberal, race has consistently been the most prevailing factor in presidential and other political contests since this country’s inception.  This racial bias extends to what “kind of people” are presumed to benefit from the passing of certain propositions as well as other legislative mandates. 

To make it plain, being white has been a qualifier for having a credible run at the White House since George Washington.  The same goes for being born with a penis.  Again, this is not to say that white people who voted for white male candidates would not have looked beyond race to consider other opponents.  But up until now, some 231 years after this country was “founded”, there has not been an opportunity to exercise such an option.  Our point, before we lose the overly impatient reader, is that the question “What if white people thought that way?” makes no sense when comparing the decision of some blacks to enthusiastically vote for a black presidential candidate while considering his race as a positive factor.

The reason so many people, particularly African immigrants, descendents of African immigrants (such as Barack) and descendents of slaves (such as Michelle), are excited to vote for a black president is because it would be SETTING A PRECEDENT along racial lines.  They, or rather we, would view his success as being in spite of his race rather than because of it.  (Obviously a precedent, in some ways more historic and in others less so, would be set by the election of a Lady POTUS, but that’s not the topic of this article.)

What that responding post on Guerilla News Network implies is this: “What if white people felt comfortable voting for a white man for president solely or primarily because he was white?”  For one, that trivializes Obama’s other qualifications, while also glossing over his shortcomings.  But the main point is that white people voting for a white candidate wouldn’t have anything to do with setting a PRECEDENT, now would it? That would just mean they’d want to make it 44 white male presidents in a row rather than 43.  And that is not historic.  It’s not tide changing and it certainly isn’t revolutionary.[ii]  It would merely be an exercise in MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO along racial lines.  You see, when people trivialize the importance of having the first black or female Head of State (they wouldn’t dare attempt both), they simultaneously downplay the importance of white men always securing the position.  Doesn’t that work out nicely for those who enjoy living in a world free of racism, patriarchy and…oh what’s the word…reality? 

The question is NOT, “What if [many] white people [and others] thought that way?”

It’s actually, “What if [many] white people [and others] stopped thinking that way?”