Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Denigrating Drake, and Kamala Harris, as 'Not Like Us'

Published

on

Opinion: Denigrating Drake, and Kamala Harris, as 'Not Like Us'

On the same day that former President Trump claimed before a national gathering of Black journalists that Vice President Kamala Harris “was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn, and she became a Black person,” his running mate Sen. JD Vance accused Harris of being a “phony” who “grew up in Canada” (she attended high school in Montreal) and used “a fake Southern accent” at a rally.

Both men’s accusations sound eerily like those leveled against the rapper Drake by his fellow hip-hop titan Kendrick Lamar (and many others) in a rap beef whose effects linger. Drake has been accused of being a “colonizer” whose Canadian identity and eager embrace of various aspects and accents of a wide range of Black culture make him racially suspect.

Such arguments, whether made by racially troubled white men or Black icons, deny the complexity and diversity of Blackness.

Trump and Vance have little understanding of and less respect for the multiracial strains and complicated cultural mixtures of Black identity. Harris has from the start acknowledged her Indian heritage and her Jamaican roots. In our national context, biracial Blackness has always covered a multitude of skin types, light or dark, Caucasian or Indian and lots more besides.

Advertisement

Millions of Black Americans, because of the history of slavery conservatives tend to ignore, have all sorts of ethnic blood in their veins and all sorts of figures in their family trees — a grandfather who was Native American rests on one branch, a great grandmother who was Irish on another.

The one-drop rule of Black identity reflects the compulsion to reduction in American racial politics: Each body genetically shaped by white and Black ancestors has been viewed as tainted and inferior and labeled as Black. The same is often true for Black bodies mixed with Latinx and Asian identities.

Nonetheless, many mixed-race folks proudly tout their one-drop Black identity. Harris’ Indian mother understood she was rearing Black daughters, however often they dressed in saris and visited India. Like millions of Black folks, she understood Blackness’ diverse expressions.

Trump’s argument that Harris pivoted from her Indian to her Black identity also flies in the face of the facts of Harris’ biography, her education at Howard University and her affiliation with the Black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha. Trump’s narrative that Black people pimp their race for social gain appeals to those who believe that Black progress comes at the expense of white prosperity. Vance’s vacuous turn of phrase reflects his faux shrill-billy white resentment of Harris’ cosmopolitan Blackness.

Ironically, that cosmopolitan vision of Blackness is at the heart of the Lamar and Drake dustup. Their kerfuffle — playing out fiercely this spring in a series of releases — is a battle over cultural cachet, racial authenticity and group pride. And it exposes a provincialism that undercuts the global currents of hip-hop.

Advertisement

In his hit “Not Like Us,” Lamar accuses Drake of being a “colonizer” because Drake supposedly “run[s]” to Atlanta to partner with some of the paragons of its trap music to bolster his Blackness. Lamar’s argument echoes long-standing criticisms that Drake’s biracial Canadian roots render him suspect as a bona fide Black artist. Drake’s artistic experimentation with different accents and musical genres has prompted many to claim, as Vance did with Harris, that Drake is a phony.

Lamar’s beef with Drake is rooted in a parochial, claustrophobic vision of Blackness.

Drake grew up in Toronto the son of a Jewish Canadian mother; he spent summers in Memphis, Tenn., with his Black American musician father. His artistic tastes were deeply influenced by a wide swath of the Black diaspora — Afro-Caribbeans, Londoners, American Southerners, especially Memphians, and Torontonians. The multicultural makeup of Toronto, with its sizable Italian, Portuguese, Jamaican and Filipino immigrant populations, also fed his musical appetite.

The argument that Drake is somehow a culture vulture who appropriates varieties of Black culture misunderstands not only his influences but hip-hop as an art form with universal reach. Drake’s critics seek to confine it, and Black culture in general, to the United States, which received far fewer Black folks in the slave trade than, say, Peru, Mexico, Brazil and Jamaica.

Oddly enough, the attempt to define him as a colonizer overlooks how Black people in the United States often believe that our Blackness is superior to that of other Black people, itself a colonial view that is far more problematic than anything of which Drake might be accused. And given that Canada offered a prominent pathway to freedom for those who escaped American slavery, it is utterly bizarre to paint Drake as somehow alien or an enemy of hip-hop because he is Canadian and not from Compton or Detroit.

Advertisement

At a Trump rally in Charlotte, N.C., a white female commentator sought to remind Black Americans that Harris “is not one of you.” Lamar’s “Not Like Us” is unfortunately propelled by much the same limiting racial logic. As we fight to expel the racially troubling ideas and mischaracterizations Trump and Vance voice about Kamala Harris, Black folk must be careful not to permit those very same ideas in through the back door of our culture.

Michael Eric Dyson is a professor of African American studies at Vanderbilt University and the author, most recently, of “Entertaining Race: Performing Blackness in America.”

Politics

To ‘run’ Venezuela, Trump presses existing regime to kneel

Published

on

To ‘run’ Venezuela, Trump presses existing regime to kneel

Top officials in the Trump administration clarified their position on “running” Venezuela after seizing its president, Nicolás Maduro, over the weekend, pressuring the government that remains in power there Sunday to acquiesce to U.S. demands on oil access and drug enforcement, or else face further military action.

Their goal appears to be the establishment of a pliant vassal state in Caracas that keeps the current government — led by Maduro for more than a decade — largely in place, but finally defers to the whims of Washington after turning away from the United States for a quarter-century.

It leaves little room for the ascendance of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, which won the country’s last national election, according to the State Department, European capitals and international monitoring bodies.

President Trump and his top aides said they would try to work with Maduro’s handpicked vice president and current interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, to run the country and its oil sector “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” offering no time frame for proposed elections.

Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem underscored the strategy in a series of interviews Sunday morning.

Advertisement

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told the Atlantic magazine, referring to Rodríguez. “Rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”

Rubio said that a U.S. naval quarantine of Venezuelan oil tankers would continue unless and until Rodríguez begins cooperating with the U.S. administration, referring to the blockade — and the lingering threat of additional military action from the fleet off Venezuela’s coast — as “leverage” over the remnants of Maduro’s government.

“That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to when he says that,” Rubio told CBS News. “We continue with that quarantine, and we expect to see that there will be changes — not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN that he had been in touch with the administration since the Saturday night operation that snatched Maduro and his wife from their bedroom, whisking them away to New York to face criminal charges.

Trump’s vow to “run” the country, Cotton said, “means the new leaders of Venezuela need to meet our demands.”

Advertisement

“Delcy Rodríguez, and the other ministers in Venezuela, understand now what the U.S. military is capable of,” Cotton said, adding: “It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned individuals are in Venezuela. They have control of the military and security forces. We have to deal with that fact. But that does not make them the legitimate leaders.”

“What we want is a future Venezuelan government that will be pro-American, that will contribute to stability, order and prosperity, not only in Venezuela but in our own backyard. That probably needs to include new elections,” Cotton said.

Whether Rodríguez will cooperate with the administration is an open question.

Trump said Saturday that she seemed amenable to making “Venezuela great again” in a conversation with Rubio. But the interim president delivered a speech hours later demanding Maduro’s return, and vowing that Venezuela would “never again be a colony of any empire.”

The developments have concerned senior figures in Venezuela’s democratic opposition, led by Maria Corina Machado, last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was ultimately stolen by Maduro.

Advertisement

In his Saturday news conference, Trump dismissed Machado, saying that the revered opposition leader was “a very nice woman,” but “doesn’t have the respect within the country” to lead.

Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela in his first term, said he was skeptical that Rodríguez — an acolyte of Hugo Chávez and avowed supporter of Chavismo throughout the Maduro era — would betray the cause.

“The insult to Machado was bizarre, unfair — and simply ignorant,” Abrams told The Times. “Who told him that there was no respect for her?”

Maduro was booked in New York and flown at night over the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he is in federal custody at a facility that has housed inmates including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried.

He is expected to be arraigned on federal charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices as soon as Monday.

Advertisement

Although few in Washington lamented Maduro’s removal, Democratic lawmakers criticized the operation as another act of ousting a foreign government by a Republican president that could have violated international law.

“The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American security. Venezuela is not a security threat to the U.S.,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut. “This is about making Trump’s oil industry and Wall Street friends rich. Trump’s foreign policy — the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela — is fundamentally corrupt.”

In their Saturday news conference, and in subsequent interviews, Trump and Rubio said that targeting Venezuela was in part about reestablishing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reasserting the philosophy of President Monroe as China and Russia work to enhance their presence in the region. The Trump administration’s national security strategy, published last month, previewed a renewed focus on Latin America after the region faced neglect from Washington over decades.

Trump left unclear whether his military actions in the region would end in Caracas, a long-standing U.S. adversary, or whether he is willing to turn the U.S. armed forces on America’s allies.

In his interview with the Atlantic, Trump suggested that “individual countries” would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. On Saturday, he reiterated a threat to the president of Colombia, a major non-NATO ally, to “watch his ass,” over an ongoing dispute about Bogota’s cooperation on drug enforcement.

Advertisement

On Sunday morning, the United Nations Security Council held an urgent meeting to discuss the legality of the U.S. operation in Venezuela.

It was not Russia or China — permanent members of the council and long-standing competitors — who called the session, nor France, whose government has questioned whether the operation violated international law, but Colombia, a nonpermanent member who joined the council less than a week ago.

Continue Reading

Politics

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

Published

on

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.

Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to “civilian life.”

“It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,” he wrote.

The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.

Advertisement

BONDI, PATEL TAP MISSOURI AG AS ADDITIONAL FBI CO-DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALONGSIDE BONGINO

Dan Bongino speaks with FBI Director Kash Patel as they attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City on Sept. 11, 2025. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.

“Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,” Trump told reporters.

FBI DIRECTOR, TOP DOJ OFFICIAL RESPOND TO ‘FAILING’ NY TIMES ARTICLE CLAIMING ‘DISDAIN’ FOR EACH OTHER

Advertisement

“After his swearing-in ceremony as FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino paid his respects at the Wall of Honor, honoring the brave members of the #FBI who made the ultimate sacrifice and reflecting on the legacy of those who paved the way in the pursuit of justice and security,” the FBI said in a post on X. (@FBI on X)

Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on “Fox & Friends,” saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.

“I gave up everything for this,” he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.

“I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,” he added.

The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover headquarters building in Washington on Nov. 2, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real

Published

on

Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real

California has tried all manner of design in choosing its governor.

Democrat Gray Davis, to name a recent example, had an extensive background in government and politics and a bland demeanor that suggested his first name was also a fitting adjective.

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, was a novice candidate who ran for governor on a whim. His super-sized action hero persona dazzled Californians like the pyrotechnics in one of his Hollywood blockbusters.

In the end, however, their political fates were the same. Both left office humbled, burdened with lousy poll numbers and facing a well of deep voter discontent.

Advertisement

(Schwarzenegger, at least, departed on his own terms. He chased Davis from the Capitol in an extraordinary recall and won reelection before his approval ratings tanked during his second term.)

There are roughly a dozen major candidates for California governor in 2026 and, taken together, they lack even a small fraction of Schwarzenegger’s celebrity wattage.

Nor do any have the extensive Sacramento experience of Davis, who was a gubernatorial chief of staff under Jerry Brown before serving in the Legislature, then winning election as state controller and lieutenant governor.

That’s not, however, to disparage those running.

The contestants include a former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa; three candidates who’ve won statewide office, former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee; two others who gained national recognition during their time in Congress, Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell; and Riverside County’s elected sheriff, Chad Bianco.

Advertisement

The large field offers an ample buffet from which to choose.

The rap on this particular batch of hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, which, honestly, seems a greater concern to those writing and spitballing about the race than a reflection of some great upwelling of citizens clamoring for bread and circuses.

In scores of conversations with voters over the past year, the sentiment that came through, above all, was a sense of practicality and pragmatism. (And, this being a blue bastion, no small amount of horror, fear and loathing directed at the vengeful and belligerent Trump administration.)

It’s never been more challenging and expensive to live in California, a place of great bounty that often exacts in dollars and stress what it offers in opportunity and wondrous beauty.

With a governor seemingly more focused on his personal agenda, a 2028 bid for president, than the people who put him in office, many said they’d like to replace Gavin Newsom with someone who will prioritize California and their needs above his own.

Advertisement

That means a focus on matters such as traffic, crime, fire prevention, housing and homelessness. In other words, pedestrian stuff that doesn’t light up social media or earn an invitation to hold forth on one of the Beltway chat shows.

“Why does it take so long to do simple things?” asked one of those voters, the Bay Area’s Michael Duncan, as he lamented his pothole-ridden, 120-mile round-trip commute between Fairfield and an environmental analyst job in Livermore.

The answer is not a simple one.

Politics are messy, like any human endeavor. Governing is a long and laborious process, requiring study, deliberation and the weighing of competing forces. Frankly, it can be rather dull.

Certainly the humdrum of legislation or bureaucratic rule-marking is nothing like the gossipy speculation about who may or may not bid to lead California as its 41st governor.

Advertisement

Why else was so much coverage devoted to whether Sen. Alex Padilla would jump into the gubernatorial race — he chose not to — and the possible impact his entry would have on the contest, as opposed to, say, his thinking on CEQA or FMAP?

(The former is California’s much-contested Environmental Quality Act; the latter is the formula that determines federal reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the state’s healthcare program for low-income residents.)

Just between us, political reporters tend to be like children in front of a toy shop window. Their bedroom may be cluttered with all manner of diversion and playthings, but what they really want is that shiny, as-yet unattained object — Rick Caruso! — beckoning from behind glass.

Soon enough, once a candidate has entered the race, boredom sets in and the speculation and desire for someone fresh and different starts anew. (Will Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta change his mind and run for governor?)

For their part, many voters always seem to be searching for some idealized candidate who exists only in their imagination.

Advertisement

Someone strong, but not dug in. Willing to compromise, but never caving to the other side. Someone with the virginal purity of a political outsider and the intrinsic capability of an insider who’s spent decades cutting deals and keeping the government wheels spinning.

They look over their choices and ask, in the words of an old song, is that all there is? (Spoiler alert: There are no white knights out there.)

Donald Trump was, foremost, a celebrity before his burst into politics. First as a denizen of New York’s tabloid culture and then as the star of TV’s faux-boardroom drama, “The Apprentice.”

His pizzazz was a large measure of his appeal, along with his manufactured image as a shrewd businessman with a kingly touch and infallible judgment.

His freewheeling political rallies and frothy social media presence were, and continue to be, a source of great glee to his fans and followers.

Advertisement

His performance as president has been altogether different, and far less amusing.

If the candidates for California governor fail to light up a room, that’s not such a bad thing. Fix the roads. Make housing more affordable. Help keep the place from burning to the ground.

Leave the fun and games to the professionals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending