In college, one of my spanish professors was from Puerto Rico. Here he was lecturing in this redneck, backwater, majority white college in Texas and had the NERVE to mention in class that he had black relatives. "Where do you think I got this dark curly hair from? My grandmother!" he said. You could have heard a pin drop. I just nodded and grinned this big ol' toothy grin. Because WE know, you know? But here he was ADMITTING it!
Anyway, after he dropped that bombshell, he then said: "I never understood why people here call Vanessa Williams the first black Miss America! Anyone can look at her and tell she's not black!" Again, stunned silence. He looked at me and shrugged. I cracked up. :rofl:
He gave, in a nutshell, pretty much the definition of how Latin America has defined blackness. It was an enlightening lesson on the differences between the One Drop Rule in the U.S. versus Latin America, but I doubt anyone in that class understood the nuance to get it.
I might be stepping out on a limb here, but it may be that one of the contributing factors why the average white person can't differentiate between light and dark skinned brothers and sisters is because for so long, society has elevated light skin and eurocentric features as the epitome of what is considered beautiful and acceptable. White people saw that and used THAT as the standard of the "acceptable" black person, meant to be emulated by black people everywhere. They didn't care about the light/dark implications behind it. Naturally this has had subconscious ramifications and consequences, as we are all too aware of the tacit approval from whites of blacks who promote white standards of conformity in dress, speech and demeanor, especially in "corporate" America. We don't want a black person marketing a product, or representing a good or service, that will "scare off" potential white customers or make them "uncomfortable" by being "too black," in appearance or demeanor. I'm willing to bet most don't know they are doing it. And the ones who do can't give good reasons or excuses for why they do it; it's "just the way it is." This is basically the logic behind Harry Reid's comment. Light skinned blacks have usually been the "acceptable" ones, so by that logic, it isn't hard to jump to the conclusion that Obama is a light skinned black person; that's been the default for what's been acceptable for so long.
I have to wonder about the white person who can't see the difference between Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte, though! I think that may be more of a case of not WANTING to acknowledge the difference out of fear of being considered racist for acknowledging it. Acknowledging it isn't racist or colorist; ascribing perceived value to the difference IS.
Michael Eric Dyson needs to get it together. I hate to say it but I unsubscribed to Cornel West's page on Facebook because I got tired of the Obama bashing between him, Tavis Smiley and Dyson. Perhaps Tim Wise is the white guy that other white people will listen to (when they aren't accusing him of being a self-hating white person). Unfortunately he doesn't have the reach or "power" that Reid (or any other politico) would have. Jimmy Carter has tried...I don't think anyone's accused him of being a self-hating white person (yet).
Oh, and here's another political light-skinned brother for you:
