If you’ve lived under a rock like I have for the past few years, you probably only recently heard of Dr. Umar Johnson.
I randomly encountered him on TikTok, and it’s indisputable that he’s an interesting character. He’s made it as a famous meme several times. Just to name one, he went viral for a livestream where he sought donations for his pan-Africanist school, Frederick Douglass Marcus Garvey Academy. His backhanded statement “thanking” sister Avanti for her $10 Cashapp donation (he urged her to donate $20 next time) was what induced me to research Johnson.
Over the last week, I’ve been meticulously watching interviews of Johnson because of his flamboyant personality. As I’ve gotten deeper into the Umarverse, Johnson has espoused several disappointing views.
First of all, he is “unapologetically African” and a staunch pan-Africanist. While I can respect his intentions, his beliefs are a rejection of the multicultural society that America has developed over time.
I agree with Johnson on the fact that his desire for Black liberation and defense of Black culture is a reasonable reaction to the structural racism of this country. His concerns with the treatment of Black Americans by the ruling class fuels many of his thoughts.
Secondly, this includes his most famous idea on defending the sanctity of the “African family:” anti-miscegenation. In simpler terms, Johnson abhors interracial marriage.
Johnson terms the abandonment of Black women by Black men in favor of white women the “snow bunny” crisis. In an interview with the Breakfast Club, he demonstrated his opposition to the extramarital relationship of then-former Celtics head coach Ime Udoka with a white Celtics staffer for two reasons.
Firstly, he reasonably argued that adultery is wrong regardless of race. Secondly, however, he focused on the identity of the woman Udoka had an affair with. Johnson argues “it’s even more wrong to go out of your community and do it.” He then spent the next few minutes arguing that Black men who enter mixed-race relationships get the “leftover” white women and that the white power structure opposed Udoka’s affair because a well-established white Mormon woman was “stolen” by a Black male.
Udoka was suspended and eventually fired not because the white power structure “determined” that their extramarital affair was egregious to them. It was because Udoka violated his responsibilities as a head coach to maintain a healthy team environment and because he brought unnecessary attention to the organization.
It’s also quite damning to hear him espouse views that infer women have no control over their partners and that a category of “leftover” white women can exist. His argument that Black men are only able to marry (or get into a relationship) with “leftover” white women ignores the fact that interracial marriage is supported by the vast majority of the American public. The strict social barriers of interracial marriage between classes have eroded. The idea that “leftover” white women go into relationships with Black men is a tool to debase the value of interracial marriage (and consequently, the value of those women as well).
Contrary to Johnson, I believe interracial marriage is a useful weapon against white supremacy. While it may be detrimental to the “Black family,” these relationships allow white partners to experience (or at least empathize with) the feeling of being “othered.”
And interracial marriage falls under the umbrella of cultural exchange. Johnson may argue that an African identity can exist, but that identity has been shaped by countless instances prior to the development of an African identity during the era of African colonialism.
As I was taught in my African civilization class, Africa has experienced the immigration of people outside of the African continent. The people of Madagascar are the Malagasy people, who descend from Southeast Asian migrants from Indonesia. Earlier traversers of the Indian Ocean helped transport bananas, a staple crop, from Asia to Africa.
Multiracial and intercultural interaction will always quash intolerance. While Johnson may argue that interracial marriage destroys the Black family, I argue that it’s a diversion from fighting the true monster in the room: structural racism. Intolerance of interracial marriage, after all, harkens back to the days of Jim Crow.
I believe that pan-Africanism should focus on empowering the African community that comes from different backgrounds. If the Malagasy people originally came from Indonesia, would they be considered African.
Pan-Africanism rose as a reaction to the exploitation of Africa by European powers and to unite the African diaspora while they faced discrimination overseas. Snow bunnies should be the least of Johnson’s problems.
Nathaniel Dela Peña is a 21-year-old political science and history senior from Alexandria.
