Maritza Baptiste, Staff Writer
I did not know about motivational speaker Dr. Umar Johnson until a couple of years ago when he made plans to do a talk on campus. I briefly researched him, and for a while, “Black queens forever, snowbunnies never” became a staple of my vocabulary.
While Dr. Umar was fairly new to me, his rhetoric and talking points were ingrained in my upbringing. I am used to references to pop culture figures going over my mother’s head, but she met my mention of Dr. Umar with “Oh yes, I love what he has to say.”
The deeper I delved into Dr. Umar and his talking points, the more perturbed I became by his stances on Black women and queer people. He preaches that Black men must uplift Black women by choosing us as romantic partners and having Black children. While I cannot condone Dr. Umar’s homophobic or patriarchal rhetoric, he does spark conversations around pro-Blackness being in opposition to interracial dating.
Recently, Ziwe, a satirical talk show host, released an interview with Black and lesbian comedian Wanda Sykes. Throughout the interview, Ziwe uses Sykes’ white wife and children as a springboard for questions about race, wealth and inheritance. She points out the whiteness of Sykes’ family several times and the fact that all of her wealth and success — success that she built for herself in opposition to white supremacy — will go to her white family. At one point, Ziwe even questioned if Sykes’ children owe her reparations.
Ziwe exposed an uncomfortable contradiction. Black families have historically been denied the opportunity to accumulate and pass down wealth as white people have. Sykes has found success in spite of the systems of oppression actively working against her, so allowing her children to benefit from her labor in addition to their whiteness may feel disheartening to the Black community. Sykes’ children may very well deserve everything that she is willing to give them, but that does not make the picture less troubling.
Interracial relationships are not inherent betrayals, but they do bring forth a feeling of rejection for the Black community. We do not feel chosen by our own people in a society where we are constantly fed our lack of desirability amongst whiteness.
Sykes has no responsibility to justify her family or to prove her commitment to the Black community simply because she married a white woman. Dr. Umar would not claim Sykes even if she had a Black partner, because to him, the only sin greater than laying down with an “Anglo-Saxon” is being queer.
If pro-Blackness can only come in one form, are we not just policing and excluding ourselves? Are we not politicizing love and setting standards that are framed by white supremacy instead of just allowing ourselves to exist?
That does not mean we should not uplift each other more in the Black community. We should encourage Black love and center each other. We should devalue Eurocentric beauty standards and dismantle white supremacy. But can that be done while having a white partner? To that I say: It depends.
It depends on if we can understand pro-Blackness as a commitment to liberation without constantly framing ourselves with white supremacy in mind. I want to see more Black love. I want to see us choosing and investing in one another. However, as a “swirler” myself, I would like to think that having a white partner does not erase my own commitments to Black liberation. I want to believe that we can stand on picket lines alongside our white partners instead of hiding them away. My visions for progress within the Black community include swirlers and non-swirlers alike. They do not include Dr. Umar.