I’m a little put off by a clip I saw on CNN of Kamala Harris giving an interview to a radio host. The African American interviewer asked the question of Harris, did she think she was “black enough”.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/kamala-harris-prosecutor-breakfast-club/index.html
Harris received the question well, citing her Oakland birthplace and opined that this line of questioning surfaced with ‘Barack’ in the past, and that it’s a staple of the right to sow disunity among minorities. Both talking heads back at the studio expressed their approval of how Kamala handled the question.
As we dance around the elephant in the room, namely, is Kamala Harris “culturally appropriating” African-American ethnicity, let us point out that Wikipedia lists Harris among the ten African Americans elected to the US Senate, as does the official US Senate website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_United_States_Senators
Merely being born in Oakland does not make one an African American, though this was her first reply to the radio program host when asked if she was “black enough”. As though Oakland has the distinction of being a place that can confer “birthright blackness” on those born there. There must be a test of lineage. Her father was Jamaican-born and emigrated from the island nation to the US in 1961; her mother was born in India and immigrated to the US in 1960. Both are highly educated and distinguished professionals, she in medicine, he in academia. Neither was born in Africa.
Oakland is not in Africa either. So I am perplexed both by Harris’ tacit acceptance of African-American ethnicity when it is so attributed, and the media’s artful dodging of this apparent discrepancy. When taken in light of how Sen. Elizabeth Warren is repeatedly skewered for her claim to Native American ancestry, I am at a loss as to the interviewer’s readily acceptance of “Oakland-born”, coupled with the obligatory homage to Obama, to thereby determine Harris is indeed, “black enough”. If “cheekbones” are insufficient for Warren, why would “Oakland” be sufficient for Harris? Why can she not be hailed simply as a woman of color, a bi-racial candidate of accomplishment in both the private sector and public service? Why would she allow herself to be mis-identified as African American, especially in this era of identity politics? Why would the US Senate official website mischaracterize her as such?
Perhaps her father claims African ancestry, given the bonds between Jamaica and the African slave trade centuries ago. Perhaps her mother claims African ancestry, given the tribal migrations of prehistoric peoples along the sub-continent. And if it were the case that either parent claimed African ancestry, would this not be the truthful answer when asked?
No, I think this is all about the making of a candidate. It simply plays better to the gullible and uncurious. If media outlets repeatedly say someone is African-American, and the person gives such pronouncements her nuanced affirmation, supported by government websites that say it is so, then by golly, I guess she is “black enough”.