Did you ever wonder why Buckwheat was one of the Little Rascals? Was it emblematic of the racial animus of the 1930’s? Or was it an early attempt at desegregation, making Billie “Buckwheat” Thomas something of an early civil rights pioneer?

To the extent that there were unflattering racial stereotypes in Our Gang, I was oblivious. Similarly, was I oblivious to any racial insensitivities promulgated by Eddie Murphy for his parodies of black icons, most memorably, of Buckwheat. I was becoming an adolescent and just thought it was funny.

Then came college in New Orleans where race took on a whole new aura of gravity. My journalism professor asked whether or not “African-American” ought to be the new standard when referring to people of color, something Jesse Jackson had recently suggested. To my ears, ever since, the term has always smacked of political correctness. At the heart of Jesse Jackson’s suggestion, though, is the question of definition.

So too is definition, self-definition, at the heart man’s search for meaning. And as difficult as it is for an individual to define him- or herself, it is impossible for an entire race, class, or constituency to define itself. The danger comes when another attempts to do it for them.

When Toni Morrison celebrated Bill Clinton, calling him the “first black president,” she did so citing the fact that he came from a poor, fatherless household—tropes of “blackness” that are, to say the least, unfortunate. The moniker is seldom regarded as a pejorative, and is commonly thought to refer to Clinton’s comfort with African Americans. I would suggest that any politician, guaranteed 95% of a given audience’s vote, would be comfortable.

Then along came Barack Obama who stands a good chance of becoming America’s first real black president, and suddenly the Clintons are not so comfortable.

Accusations of racism, lying, voter intimidation, and ballot fraud (maybe some actual ballot fraud) have begun to fly, and suddenly we have a race . . . er, make that contest.

Unbelievably, the contest has become a test to determine who is blacker. Consider the view of civil rights icon, Andy Young, who, while endorsing Hillary, said “Bill [being behind Hillary] is every bit as black as Barack. . . He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.” The comment, breathtakingly offensive for a multitude of reasons, was only laughed at.

Given the problems of illegitimacy and poverty plaguing black communities, is this something to laugh at? Given the hurt Hillary supposedly felt because of Bill’s infidelities, is this something to laugh at? Consider the women targeted by Hillary’s 1992’s “Defense Committee,” which was established to suppress the “bimbo eruptions.” How many of these women, perhaps black women, were victims of sexual assault. Who’s laughing? What if Monica Lewinsky had been black? Would it have still been consensual (non)sex, or would she have been the 20th century’s Sally Hemings?

Meanwhile, legendary funnyman Bill Cosby is less concerned with making people laugh than he is making them mad. He has dared to call aberrant and destructive behavior aberrant and destructive, exercising his moral authority while the Rev. Jesse Jackson sits beside him, squeamishly quiet.

After Hillary’s defeat in the South Carolina primary, her husband /running mate noted that Jesse Jackson had once won a SC primary, the implication being Jesse went nowhere and neither will Barack. The ulterior motive (and does anyone honestly doubt that Clintons have them) is to label Obama as the “black candidate,” implying that blacks will automatically vote based on color—something the “first black president” didn’t used to have a problem with. I think I can speak for all conservatives when I say to Bill, “I feel your pain.”

So now the strategy appears to be advancing the notion that since all blacks will vote for the black guy, whites had better turn out to vote for the white girl. While Obama has made an effort to present himself as a president for everyone (who happens to be black), Clintons are trying to distort this, hoping to inspire whites to save the country from the likes of Jesse Jackson.

So the loss in South Carolina, now said to be inevitable, was to be used as a rallying cry for Super Tuesday, calling on the latent bigotry that resides next to the condescending racial policies that usually secure votes for Democrats. This theory might be purely conjecture had Dick Morris, Clinton’s former advisor, not predicted as much weeks ago after Hillary’s questionable comments about Martin Luther King’s lesser role in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

To hear Hillary tell it, the Act would not have passed were in not for Democrat President being there to sign it into law. Never mind the fact that Republicans voted for the Act in greater percentages than did Democrats, thereby ensuring passage.

In terms of how legislation becomes law, Mrs. Clinton’s statement is an uncontroversial fact. MLK had no legislative role. However, Hillary’s view does suggest that she understands rights to come from government, not from the Creator as was expressed in our Declaration of Independence. Government cannot grant freedom; the most it can do is protect it. This is why the Reverend Martin Luther King intoned, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are Free at last!”

Still, if blacks choose to vote for Mrs. Clinton, should she become the nominee of her party, it seems as the freedom for which King had been fighting may have been for naught.