The movement among Obama dissenters to question his American citizenship is motivated by racism and needs to stop.
Tyler Bilbo, Staff Writer
Ideology: Democrat | Writing From: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. He has the birth certificate to prove it and a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser confirms the official account of his birth. Yet a disturbing number of Americans cannot accept that a black man can legitimately be elected President. Concocted from the ugliest depths of American racism, the campaign to render Obama’s election illegitimate insists that the President is a natural-born citizen of Kenya. Unlike other equally atrocious conspiracy theories, however, mainstream culture does not automatically discard skepticism of Obama’s birth as the craziness that it is.
From a small town hall meeting in Delaware to the Halls of the United States Congress, Americans from a wide array of backgrounds have challenged the official account of Obama’s birth. In a widely circulated youtube video, a constituent of Delaware Congressman Michael Castle appeared at his town hall meeting to yell about how “Obama is a citizen of Kenya” to which a majority of the crowd applauded (to the Republican Congressman’s credit, he readily dismissed the woman’s racist claim). Roy Blunt, the second highest ranking member of the Republican leadership until this current Congress, remarked that he couldn’t understand “why the president can’t produce a birth certificate.” In addition to comments from Representatives like Blunt, eleven Republicans are sponsoring legislation that would require future Presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate. The seemingly innocuous attempt to validate a constitutional requirement, however, only perpetuates conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth.
The racist nature of this movement to delegitimize Obama’s American citizenship parallels the anti-Semitic structure of holocaust denial. Conspiracy theorists who insist that the holocaust never happened refuse to accept the reality that upwards of six million Jews died at the hands of a fiercely anti-Semitic despot. In the same way that their anti-Semitism disables them from accepting that reality, Obama’s skeptics are blinded by racism. While some Holocaust deniers are open about their anti-Semitism, many of Obama’s skeptics follow the lead of the woman in Delaware in rambunctiously expressing their racism. On the other hand, many holocaust deniers cloak their anti-Semitism as mere historical revisionism in a more marketable pseudo-scholarly package. That more attractive message corresponds to the approach of the members of Congress who issue statements and craft legislation that perpetuates conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth without the blunt tenor of Congressman Castle’s constituent.
The type of racism in the Obama conspiracy theories is not as outwardly hateful as the anti-Semitism of Holocaust denial. Like most contemporary racism, it is largely subtle and outside of our nation’s cultural conscience. Tim Wise, the author of Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama, describes the racism in these conspiracy theories as the natural product of a White-dominated culture:
“ to wake up every day and see a man of color basically running the country … is psychologically debilitating to white folks who all their lives weren’t necessarily bigots or racists in any overt sense, but had simply gotten complacent with the way things were. They had internalized these notions of entitlement and superiority.”
Those internalized notions of white privilege define the structural makeup of the movement to delegitimize Obama’s election. The irrational suspicion that Obama is not a legitimate American is bourn of the same attitude in American law enforcement officers that are three times more likely to search the car of a black driver. This suspicion of black people is precisely why such a large segment of the American populace has subjected the official account of Obama’s birth to so much scrutiny. Such biases, however, easily slip away from our national conscience because of the false notion that society is increasingly post-racial. If Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan, was Barry O’Brien, the son of an Irishman, conspiracy theories about his birth would be appropriately marginalized. A black man in contemporary America, however, is not afforded with the same privileges of a white man.
While it is nauseating to dignify the anti-Obama conspiracy theorists with the attention they have received, it is absolutely critical that their racism is exposed. The notion that Obama is not a natural born American has already gone mainstream. A Reasearch 2000 poll conducted last month indicates that upwards of one in ten Americans believe Obama was not born in the United States (in the South, that percentage is doubled). To extinguish this conspiracy theory from the mainstream, however, is to fundamentally reverse the type of racism that manifests itself in a White-dominated society. That requires a comprehensive confrontation of contemporary racism in general. Only then will we be able to prevent the type of attitudes that give rise to these conspiracy theories in the first place.

Most of the “birthers” I have listened to aren’t necessarily racist. They’re just looking for an excuse to invalidate an election in which their guy lost.
However, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be somewhat skeptical when you have the son of a foreigner running for President of the United States and he doesn’t produce a copy of an original birth certificate.
People like you create a problem though by automatically dismissing any such claims as racism. Just like Jews automatically play the anti-Semite card on anybody who questions the official historical account of the Holocaust or opposes Israel.
We need to ask these questions. Can you say we truly live in a free society when we can’t ask reasonable questions without being called “racists,” “anti-semites,” or what have you?
From Paul Krugman’s blog:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/birthers-of-a-nation/
This nifty bar graph shows that the McCain supporters in the North, Midwest and West had no problem with the validity of Obama’s election, but Southerners for some reason were pressed to find an “excuse.”
“Most of the “birthers” I have listened to aren’t necessarily racist. They’re just looking for an excuse to invalidate an election in which their guy lost.”
I have to agree with John. The “birthers” are the Obama version of the Bush v. Gore/”Recount” types. People were still talking about the 2000 election drama and the legitimacy of his election through 2008. It’s the same thing going on.
The “birthers” are the Obama version of the Bush v. Gore/”Recount” types.
That’s absolutely ridiculous and downright offensive. Obama was born in Hawaii and that constitutes objective truth. Those who deny this reality are delusional.
Bush v. Gore was a controversial Supreme Court decision that effectively halted the Florida recount. It was controversial enough for four justices to dissent from the ruling. The complex myriad of circumstances that the ruling confronted, however, cannot be reduced to the objective truth of someone’s birth.
Yes, critics of the Bush v. Gore ruling questioned the legitimacy of Bush’s Presidency but that is the only parallel between them and the “birthers.” The birthers are declaring our President an illegitimate American and subsequently, an illegitimately elected President. The illegitimacy of Bush’s election that Bush v Gore critics cited came out of a perceived mistake in our judicial process. The type of illegitimacy ascribed to Bush does not have a thing in common with what the birthers are trying to do to Obama.
Tyler – those who disagree with you are delusional? Nice, now you’re really starting to sound like Obama.
Anyway, the point I was making is that in our era of supremely partisan politics, the other side is left bitter and scrambles for reasons to discredit the winning candidate. Bush v. Gore is much more legitimate than the birthers’ claim, and does deal with an entirely different issue; however, it’s still along the same line of thought. Furthermore, I really don’t see how it’s “offensive” to say that. I admit I STILL don’t think Bush was legally elected in 2000, and I find absolutely no offense in equating that the birthers. Some people get very upset when their candidate loses, and hang on to ways to discredit their election – period.
“Those who disagree with you are delusional? Nice, now you’re really starting to sound like Obama.”
How are the birthers not delusional? Amidst a mountain of irrefutable evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, they remain so deluded by their hatred of the man that they cannot accept that he is an American citizen. To suggest that they are somehow not deluded by that hatred tacitly implies that they have a valid case and I really don’t think you believe that.
“Some people get very upset when their candidate loses, and hang on to ways to discredit their election”
This claim is totally irrelevant to the birthers. Conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth certificate surfaced well before the election. Moreover, the recent resurgence of those theories cannot be attributed to frustration with November’s election. If that was the case, far more members of the “supremely partisan” chorus that you decry would be jumping on the birther bandwagon. While plenty of them are, for reasons that I explored in my article, you still have some of the most conservative figures in the media (like Ann Coulter) condemning the birthers in conjunction with conservative politicians like Congressman Trent Franks in the House.
I still maintain that it is offensive to draw any kind of comparison between the birthers and the Florida recount. Beyond the issue of legitimacy, an issue that is still drastically different in both examples you describe, they share absolutely nothing in common. It’s the analogical equivalent of establishing a comparison between a man guilty of killing one person with Adolph Hitler because both men are “murderers.”
For proof that I’m not the only one saying that the “birthers” are just this year’s conspiracy theory about the President, I turn to liberal Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby:
See? There are fringe nutjobs on both sides, and it’s nothing new to have people looking for a crazy reason to throw out a President they dislike.
Of course the birthers don’t have a monopoly on crazy conspiracy theories. After all, they derive their moniker from the 9/11 ‘truthers.’ The anatomy of the conspiracy theories cited in that column differ drastically from what motivates the birthers’ craziness. Nonetheless, I’d absolutely agree that they are of the same despicable nature.
Still, however, I maintain that Bush v. Gore has no place in this discussion.
Tyler, would you still consider this “racism” if Obama’s father were Caucasian and from, say, Portugal?
More than anything, it sounds a better name for the like the argument you’re trying to make would be “xenophobia” and not racism.
Michele, I think his point is that this wouldn’t have been an issue if Obama’s father were Caucasian and from, say, Portugal.
My point was that he’s talking about xenophobia, not racism.
My greater point is that regardless of what his ancestry is, the vehemently anti-Obama Americans would find a way no matter what to discredit his election. Happens every time.
I think the birthers largely blur the distinction between xenophobia and racism. If you take race out of the equation, however, I don’t think the virulence of their hatred would be nearly as troubling.
Xenophobia and racism are hand in hand in this case. The important thing, I think, to remember is that race is a social construct. This part is not what I think, but fact: Race does not exist in any species other than homo sapiens sapiens. Race is a social hierarchy that divides people into groups and levels based on skin color (and some physical characteristics) and then assigns a social value to that color. There is the rare exception, but globally a lighter skin color is considered and actually is more valuable. Racism is the practice of reenforcing this social order, whether or not it was done intentionally. A racist is someone whose actions reenforce this social order.
I think that some people use xenophobia as a proxy for racism in this and many other cases, and the question isn’t which one is it in this case, but how are they related in America? If someone is xenophobic and protests the legitimacy of the President’s holding office, the question we must ask is not merely about the motive of the individual, but also about the affect that their actions will have on other individuals in society, namely, will those actions reenforce the social hierarchy of skin color that is race? The answer is simply that their actions play upon the xenophobia and racism within other people, using those beliefs to motivate people to action.
I think that the birthers are delusional. And Xenophobic. And racist.
Very insightful comment, Isiah. Your description of race as a social construct is something I should have examined in my article and I appreciate you providing that extremely pertinent perspective.