Is Kamala Harris Whyte, Blach, or Something Else?

Sometime ago I was sitting with a friend and his mother. We enjoyed lunch, and had great conversations about marriage, the role of women, and travel the Caribbean. The lady reminded me of my grandmother. My abuela was the daughter of a Spaniard and an indegenous Dominican. My great grandfather was very light skinned, blond, blue eyed man, who still spoke with a bit of a Spaniard accent, learned from his parents. He was the son of immigrants. My great grandmother had beautiful Taino-red skin and very long, thick hair with little or no waves. Her fingers will slim, like the rest of her body. Together, they had four children, two women and two men, all who were very light skinned. My grandmother had six children with my grandfather, who was dark skinned, being the son of a very dark man and a very light woman, both possibly of French descent.

Sitting at this restaurant, i couldn't help asking my friend's mom if she was Whyte or Blach. The curiosity was killing me - because my friend absolutely calls himself Blach, but I could not for the life of me figure her out. She confirmed it: She is Blach. This very light-skinned, white-haired, European-looking woman who reminded me of my grandmother identified as Black - not even my definition of Blach, but the American understanding of Black. Fascinating.

Under the working definition for Whyte and Blach previously established (see article here), Vice President Kamala Harris is Blach. Is she African American? No. Is she Black? I don't know. But let's discuss the similarities:

• She is of Jamaican and Indian ancestry.
• Jamaicans have their own history with African slavery through British colonization. It looked different than in the USA, but nonetheless the country's economic, cultural and social development was shaped by African slavery at the hands of European colonizers.
• India also experienced slavery at the hands of British colonizers, and this also shaped the country's economic, cultural and social development.
• Upon settling in the USA, her parents might not have identified as African Americans nor Black, but they were definitively not Whyte.
• Someone like Kamala Harris can therefore comfortably claim to be Jamaican, Indian, American and yes, Blach. The mainstream word used today to define this however is "Black", and as previously stated in another article, this is misleading because the word focuses on color rather than shared experience.

Why is this important? I'm not sure it is lol. But people in my world are talking about it, wondering if she "was Indian" and is now "black", as if the two are mutually exclusive, or as if she can only belong to one group at a time. Perhaps this exploration for me adds validity to the need for another word (i.e. Blach) that can group someone like Kamala (cough cough...me) with the general group of non-white without making me part of the American Black experience. I myself have had to have this conversation with my Hispanic daughters, when they felt like they were not black enough for braids, or that their Spanish skills were too raw to be Latina. Some friends of mine go as far as arguing that she is not Black, just like Barack Obama was not Black, by virtue of them being something else - either half "white", or Indian, or whatever. Yes nobody seems to question the degree of white that a Whyte candidate is, especially because they don't present as having any Global South ancestry. I am super curious what would come back if the Bush or Clinton families did genetic testing - why don't we care how Whyte they "truly" are?

First and foremost Kamala along with my three daughters are Americans. This might seem obvious, but it is not, at least it is not to all people. Children of immigrants born in this country are Americans, by both law and experience. My children have not been outside this country longer than a couple of weeks at a time. Their understanding of the world has been shaped through an American education, which excludes any other perspective by design. I am not suggesting that we have done something wrong by excluding other perspectives. On the contrary, I am highlighting the role that public education plays in creating a common American experience, and how those result in a society that is more homogeneous than it would be otherwise. I might go as far as saying that, if you are educated in this country K-12, you are an American regardless of immigration status. You have been shaped by the values, norms and socio-economic forces of this country.

Enter identity politics to the scene. Just like nobody is blue or red, nobody is black nor white. People can self-select into the political party of their choice, and to the degree of their choice. Furthermore, people can also self-select into being American to the degree of their choice, such as becoming naturalized US Citizens if you are an immigrant, or being a US-born citizen who chooses to live in another country. Interestingly enough, although our political system thrives on the two-party system, you can be an Independent, along with a small list of optional political parties. This enriches your identity by creating space to be both American and either non-partisan or non-majority or something else. You can "belong" to the American family on your own terms. You can be from Appalachia, be Blach, and Mexican, and a Libertarian, and an American.

What you cannot choose is the color of your skin. Unfortunately, not everyone sees skin color as a harmless result of melanin production. There are many both Whytes and Blachs, who have bought the lie that "race" exists, and have believed that race is defined by the level of melanin in the skin. Some go as far as teaching that the skin color can predict character flaws or virtues, and base their position on what they call factual evidence. Whytes will claim that Blachs are generally intellectually inferior, less prone to hard work, violent, disrespectful of authority, even savages. Blachs will claim that Whytes are morally deficient, paranoid, full of greed and envy, even murderous and psychopathic. There is zero evidence to support any of this, and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary - that our skin color does not predict character flaws nor virtues, although it does have a predictive effect on quality of life both in the United States and the rest of the world. This is where Global South and Global North provide more context, since Whyte and Black are the direct results of colonization and the industrial revolution. More on that topic in a separate article. (Subscribe if you want to be notified).

Why do we care if Kamala is Black, Indian, Jamaican, or otherwise? Ah, because we as a country are wanting to prove to ourselves that we are bigger than the racist theories that shaped us up to this point, and we want to prove that we are not a slave to the global patriarchal system that seems to permeate all cultures. These are good reasons to ask these questions. We are caught between the symbolic selection of the Old Whyte Man (minus the beard and the clouds) and New Goddess Venus, and trying to decide which of these symbols best represents us. I intentionally make reference to our cultural description of God as an old Whyte male, and anything else being a pagan symbol of the devil himself. Therefore, highlighting Kamala's non-Whyteness, by inclusion in the Indian group, or by exclusion from the Black group, or by weakening her gender, will help reinforce American values related to Whyteness. And this is the conversation we are really having - do we choose someone simply because they defy the stereotypes? Is that defiance enough reason to choose a leader? Is the office of president somehow meant to be an aspirational self-representation? Do they have to embody who are as a people? If so, do I want an Indian, a Black, an older Whyte man, to represent me? This is a question of representation - not about aptitude, skill, nor experience. We are more likely to vote for someone that we identify with, that somehow leads to believe that they will represent our own personal interests. We want to know that "we can have a beer with him" or her. (Can't miss the chance to reference Hamilton!)

If it sounds like I am pro-Kamala, or anti-Whyteness, then you are missing my point. I am not defending Kamala's candidacy for the POTUS role, I am not even saying that she is qualified. I'm exploring the social priority we give to her being part of a particular group, and how much time we spend defining it, while we seem to clearly know where all the other candidates fall. Barack Obama had to endure questions on the authenticity of his birth certificate due to having a clearly Muslim name and Kenyan ascendancy, while Trump's Whyteness (along with every other American President in history) has bought him an automatic pass at also being fully American without question. If you want to vote for Trump, go right ahead - this article is not about that.

Our current obsession with race is actually encouraging for me, and I see it as positive. It will take a while before we land on something that feels right to enough people to call it "consensus" and the journey might be long...but I'm looking forward to the deconstruction of America's definition of race. As we ask these questions, we inevitably realize how useless those labels are, how ill-fitting they are to real human migration exercise, which we have been engaging in since the beginning of time. Every single Whyte person in the United States today is the descendant of an immigrant - 100% of them. So the idea that somehow only members of the Blach community have to struggle with a cultural affiliation is in and of itself the topic at hand.

What do you think?