If I may be politically incorrect momentarily, and I may, I would like someone to explain to me just what it means to be black.

This is a releavant question for many reasons, the most of obvious being the regular criticism of certain blacks in the political spotlight who are said to be “not black enough”.

For instance,  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was criticized in an editorial written by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They suggested that Clarence Thomas should have an asterisk (*) by his name because “he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America”.

By this definition, one is black (or not black) because of the political views they espouse (or do not espouse).

But of course it wouldn’t be that easy.

Senator Barack Obama, who is second only to Hillary Clinton in the race to be the Democratic presidential nominee, has been criticized endlessly that he also is “not black enough.”  Debra J. Dickerson of Salon.com writes “‘Black,’ in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics.”

I cannot help but think that by “markedly different outlooks on the role of race int heir lives and in politics”, Dickerson is trying to say that a “real” black person is not only descended from slaves, but still resents what is essentially an issue they have not ever had to deal with.  Presumably, if Barack were black enough he would be demanding reparations and giving the one finger salute to racist, white America.

So, blackness is not just holding a certain set of political views, it’s having an attitude that harkens back to the suffering of your ancestors. Something that voluntary african imigrants just cannot understand.

Even more confusing, we must recall that Bill Clinton has been christened the “first black president” by more than a few. Toni Morrison in the New York Observer wrote in a 1998 editorial that “Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas”.  At a 2001 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) dinner, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), explained to listeners that Clinton “took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.”

So here again, we have someone’s blackness being defined by something other than the color of their skin.

Senator Joe Biden came under intense scrutiny for telling the New York Observer “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

What Senator Biden said without tact, is actually instructive. It is the “articulate, bright, and clean” who are most often maligned for lacking blackness.

I have seen these inconsistent, unwritten rules applied to friends in my distinctly conservative, Christian university as well.  A friend of mine, who I shall not name on the chance that it may create more controversy for her, was ostracized by many of the black girls on her dorm for not being “black enough”. She was accused of being a racist and discriminating against blacks.

Even worse is how the situation was handled. So-called “diversity coaches” were called into assist. They lined up students and asked them to step forward if they fell into certain criteria. Among these criteria were questions like “Have you ever been followed by security at the mall?” When my friend refrained from stepping forward, she was patronizingly told “It’s ok, you don’t have to be embarassed.”

Here again we are presented with additional, disturbing, and divisive definitions of what makes a person black.

It is my contention that those eager to define blackness, usually choose negative criteria.  When they malign those who stray from the normative black political stance, they are saying that a primary characteristic of black Americans is that they all think alike. When they criticize someone for being “too white”, they are really making a statement about good traits that all productive citizens should seek to be (articulate, clean, bright) and promote the stereotype that to be “black” is to speak in “ebonics” and live in the projects.

It’s hypocritical. It’s destructive. It’s divisive.  It’s just how democrats wanted it.

Democrats realized a long time ago, that by pitting people against each other and identifying them by race, gender, sexual “orientation”, religion, creed, age, and social class they would be able to make huge political gains.

It works every election.  Conservatives want to put seniors out on the street, they want to persecute non-whites, they want to imprison homosexuals, they want to keep women in the kitchen, they want to the rich to get richer while the middle class dwindles away into non-existence.

Only when the good people of this country stand up and realize that they are more than a race, a sex, an orientation, or a religion will we be able to erradicate these idiosynchroncies in our cultural vocabulary.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776