Finding a Comfort Zone in Obama Interview

I am offended and disappointed by the superficial and racially uninclusive viewpoint presented by Sandy Banks in her piece, “He’s Comfortable in His Skin -- Now It’s Our Turn,” (March 13) on Barak Obama. Here’s the part: “Obama, after all, is no Tiger Woods, cobbling together a treacly amalgam to represent each strain of his heritage.” So, the fact that Woods acknowledges the contribution and the cultural relevance of half of his genetic and social background -- that is, of his mother’s Asian heritage -- is “treacly” and Obama is to be congratulated for, by contrast, calling himself “black” and not biracial? I’m appalled at Bank’s stale and condescending view of racial inclusiveness.

There is no question but that an African ancestry has a complex sociopolitical resonance in our country because of the appalling history of slavery and all of its horrible residual effects on our collective psyche.

But since when should your mother’s heritage not count a whit? It shouldn’t be the litmus test of whether someone is complex enough to be able to celebrate all of his or her history, or must be politically pressured into favoring one side of oneself over another. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to have that view of his own personal history, without someone in undue possession of media power passing unnecessary and uninformed judgment on him?

Blacks don’t have a monopoly on pride. And mothers count.

Paula Daniels

Los Angeles

*

Of all the coverage in the March 13 Opinion on race relations, the interview excerpts of Banks with Sen. Barak Obama is outstanding. More than being a credit to his race, he is a credit to the human race.

Obama points out the generalities whites are obsessed with, but says most are decent. He also takes to task the parenting of blacks as a major failure. Both observations truly apply equally reversed. As a member of the human race, I would be proud to have Obama in a decision-making position.

Ted Lepon

Los Angeles