16923: Delayed WTF 63—Washington NFL Team Rumored Reverting To Redskins.

 

MultiCultClassics is often occupied with real work. As a result, a handful of events occur without the expected blog commentary. This limited series—Delayed WTF—seeks to make belated amends for the absence of malice.

 

In December 2024, Newsweek reported the Washington Commanders are considering changing the team’s name back to the Washington Redskins.

 

If it comes to fruition, expect a celebratory breakfast with Aunt Jemima pancakes and Rastus-rebranded Cream of Wheat—in addition to plenty of Land O’Lakes butter featuring the Native American maiden mascot.

 

MultiCultClassics recommends team officials halt any renaming announcements for the time being, as the Commanders’ playoff progress could be thwarted by Offensive Karma.

 

Indeed, the team’s decisively dominating win over the Detroit Lions proves the revised name re-energized the franchise—along with new ownership including NBA Legend Magic Johnson. Spirited players—led by breakthrough Quarterback Jayden Daniels—have established the Commanders as championship contenders.

 

Cultural competence and diversity lead to victory.

 

Washington Commanders Rumored to Change Their Name Back to Redskins

 

The NFL’s Redskins became the Washington Football Team in 2020, then the Commanders in 2022, but the team may return to the identity it previously held for 87 years.

 

Commanders owner Josh Harris has expressed support for a name reversal since he took over the team last year. Harris and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell visited Capitol Hill on Monday to lobby for a bill that would help revitalize Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. A senior Senate staffer told Newsweek that U.S. Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota was among the lawmakers who met with Harris and Goodell.

 

Newsweek reached out to the NFL and Harris’ representatives for comment Tuesday morning.

 

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources recently passed the D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act, which would transfer the land with the former stadium and its vicinity to the D.C. government for up to 99 years. The bill now moves to the Senate floor for a full vote.

 

There is no guarantee that the Commanders would build their next stadium at the site, but it’s possible that the football team returns to its home from 1961 to 1996.

 

A name reversal would be “a win against this woke mindset / sensitivity we’ve seen the last couple of years,” conservative influencer Amir Odom told Newsweek.

 

“Why are we politicizing sports team names?” he asked. “There’s more to worry about in this country than grown men fondling balls on a field and what name we refer to them as.”

 

“Let’s let this be a cultural and community thing. It’s one thing for politicians to share their opinion but to get this involved is a bit much.”

 

Is the Redskins Name Coming Back?

 

Harris, who bought the football team from longtime owner Dan Snyder last year for $6.05 billion, had previously said the old Redskins name, originating in 1933, would not return.

 

But Harris’ group includes NBA legend Magic Johnson, who told NBC News otherwise.

 

“Everything’s on the table, especially after this year,” Johnson told journalist Craig Melvin last year. “We’ll see where we are with the name.”

 

Some fans have even urged President-elect Donald Trump to change the team’s name back when he returns to office.

 

Do Native Americans Want the Redskins Name Back?

 

In September, ML Football, the credentialed media for everything football related, announced that the family of the Blackfeet chief featured in the logo wants the team to change its name back to Redskins.

 

“90 percent of Native Americans supported the Redskins name,” the post reads.

 

“People are fed up with everything being offensive,” Odom said. “If they change the name back it’s definitely a cultural win for keeping things how they are no matter the origin since context has changed. I feel like this could be a nod to keeping historic statues up despite the origins.”

 

Why Did the Washington Redskins Change Their Name?

 

“Redskin” is sometimes used as a discriminatory slang term against Indigenous people in the United States.

 

Amid the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the death of George Floyd, Snyder faced growing pressure from sponsors, including Nike, FedEx and PepsiCo, to change the team’s name. The league and team announced in July 2020 that it was “undergoing a thorough review of the team name.”

 

Snyder had insisted for over two decades, however, that he was not going to abandon the Redskins name, even as Indigenous advocacy groups fought to get rid of it. In 2020, more than a dozen tribal leaders and organizations sent a letter to Goodell calling for the league to force Snyder into changing the team’s name.

 

Criticism surrounding the name started in the 1960s and gained larger public traction in the 1990s. The team rebranded itself as the Washington Football Team in 2020 before becoming the Commanders in 2022.

 

But another name change could hurt the team, Jim Rocco, author of the coming book, Sports Crisis Communications: Cases & Controversies, told Newsweek.

 

“It’s always bad for a sports brand to sway this way and that in the face of changing political winds. You tend to make your fans dizzy,” he said. “In this case, the idea is actually a little crazy. What’s going to happen if the Democrats retake control of Congress? Will they change the name again?”

 

David Aaker, known as the “father of modern branding,” agreed that the team is in “a lose-lose situation.”

 

“Whatever route will upset some people and cause their support of the team to be reduced and that will not be offset by those that ‘won,’” Aaker told Newsweek. “If the name change is made I would not make a big deal out of it.”

 

Will the Original Redskins Logo Be Used?

 

Republican U.S. Senator Steve Daines of Montana previously threatened to block legislation pertaining to the RFK stadium site until the NFL and Commanders agreed to honor the old Redskins logo.

 

In a letter to Fox 5 WTTG, Daines said that the former logo, which depicted Blackfeet Chief Two Guns White Calf, acted as “a symbol of pride, strength and honor” and that it should not be censored.

 

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Daines leads, approved legislation last week that would fund revitalization of the D.C. football stadium site.

 

Who Is the Face of the Original Redskins Logo?

 

Daines told Newsweek he is now in favor of the bill because the Indigenous family credited with designing the original logo is now satisfied with the team’s efforts to honor Walter “Blackie” Wetzel’s work. There seems to be “good faith negotiations” with the league around the old logo. It is expected to be included on alumni shirts for those who played while sporting the Redskins logo.

 

“My goal has always been to support the Wetzel family and tribal stakeholders in their goal to bring the iconic Blackfeet logo back to a place of prominence,” Daines told Newsweek. “Native Americans in Montana have diverse views on the Redskins nickname but they overwhelmingly agree that the Blackfeet logo is a symbol of pride, strength and honor. I’ve insisted that the NFL, Commanders and their corporate sponsors celebrate it, not censor it.”

 

A Commanders team spokesperson on Monday told Newsweek that there are no plans to bring the logo back. It was developed in 1971 by Wetzel, a former leader of Blackfeet Nation. The Redskins image is a composite of Native American photographs, including one featuring a Blackfeet chief.

14368: Holding Holding Company CEOs Accountable…?

Newsweek reported on workers at a Chinese home improvement company being whipped with belts—as well as ordered to eat cockroaches and drink urine—for failing to meet sales goals. Imagine if the CEOS of White holding companies were held to similarly rigorous standards of performance and faced such punishments for financial flops? The Big 4 could change their names to WPeePee, Omnicockroach, Pubeltcis Groupe and IPeeG.

Managers Caught on Video Whipping Staff and Forcing Them to Drink Urine for Missing Sales Targets

By David Brennan

Three managers at a home improvement company in China have been jailed after reportedly forcing employees to eat cockroaches and drink urine as punishment for missing sales targets.

According to the South China Morning Post, the abusive behavior came to light after videos emerged on social media showing workers being whipped with a belt and drinking an unidentified yellow liquid while holding their noses.

Though the footage has now been taken down, local media sites were able to capture screenshots of the videos showing abuse. The employees were working for a home renovation company in the southwestern province of Guizhou, the BBC noted.

The footage prompted a wave of outrage as it spread on social media site Weibo. Additional posts allegedly showed screenshots of messages from managers threatening a host of other punishments for workers, including eating cockroaches.

The revelations sparked the hashtag “employees who failed to meet their goals forced to drink urine,” which has now been viewed almost 540,000 times.

The punishments were apparently part of a wider culture of abuse at the company, which included forcing underperforming employees to sell condoms and sanitary pads on the street, drink toilet water or vinegar and have their heads shaved.

Others were forced to eat large amounts of wasabi mustard, China’s Global Times reported. One screengrab translated by the newspaper explained: “If employees couldn’t sign enough orders by the end of the month, their team leader had to eat three cockroaches for every order their team was short.”

Police from the Honghuagang district released a statement describing the incidents “humiliating corporal punishment,” ABC News noted.

The company had also withheld workers’ salaries for the past two months, with employees scared to complain in fear of losing their jobs. One staff member said the managers threatened to reduce their severance pay if they resigned.

Police in Zunyi county arrested three managers, two of whom were sentenced to 10 days in jail and one to five days. The culprits were only identified by their last names—Guo, Cai, and Huang.

The Post suggested that reports of abuse in the workplace are becoming more common as slowing economic growth in China prompts labor unrest and demands for improved worker rights.

Previous reports have detailed workers slapping each other at a company event to improve motivation, or crawling around public roads and kissing dumpsters as punishments or in team-building exercises, the BBC added.

9904: Newsweek Salutes Mad Men & White Men.

Newsweek published a special edition commemorating AMC series Mad Men, complete with retro ads in the content of the magazine. Of course, the special ads feature zero non-Whites—unless you count Smokey Bear and the GEICO Gecko.

9175: Judging a Kook By Its Cover.

Supporters of Rep. Michele Bachmann were upset with the portrait selected for a recent Newsweek cover; however, the image appears to be totally fair and balanced based on a survey of other photos.

8723: White Male Still Strong On Mad Ave.

The cover story headline for the latest issue of Newsweek reads: The Beached White Male. He Had a Big Job, a Big Office, a Big Bonus. Now He’s All Washed Up and Doesn’t Have a Freakin’ Prayer. Um, unless he’s working on Madison Avenue.

7982: Just Happy To Be Here.

From the latest issue of Newsweek.

7537: More On Mayer.

From Newsweek…

John Mayer Is Not Alone
The worst part of his deplorable Playboy interview? He’s just saying what others are thinking.

By Allison Samuels | Newsweek Web Exclusive

I think I can honestly say I speak for a large sector of African-American women when I admit that I’ve never given singer John Mayer more than a half a second of thought over the years. Sure, I can vaguely remember thumbing through some tabloid magazines that detailed his romances with various Hollywood starlets and the drama that came with that, but really, who cares? I sure didn’t. On some level I did appreciate him performing at Michael Jackson’s memorial last year, signaling the diversity of the King of Pop’s influence. But as soon as he left the stage that day, he pretty much left my mind.

But it seems I really should have been paying more attention to Mayer and his very telling thoughts. If I had, I’d have been more familiar with his propensity for immature, salacious banter and outrageous antics. If I had, I’d have known that somewhere along the line, Mayer imagined he’d received an invitation-only entry into the African-American inner circle. You know that invitation that allows you to say anything that comes to your mind about black people without fear that Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton will be picketing outside your door the next day.

So imagine my surprise last week when Mayer’s controversial Playboy magazine interview hit the airwaves and newspapers. The 32-year-old singer decided to freely let loose his thoughts on blacks, the “hood” and African-American women. He also felt free enough to use the N-word like he’d been saying it to make a point all his life.

His entire interview left me seething, but his comments about African-American woman sent me through the roof. For those who aren’t familiar with Mayer’s incendiary quotes, just know he essentially said that he wasn’t interested in black women—because his male sex organ was like David Duke (a former Klan member). He causally mentioned one or two black actresses that he thought were OK, and that actress Kerry Washington was “hot,” but would probably break his heart like a “white girl.” He made a few other comments regarding Washington that were so degrading and offensive I won’t even try to paraphrase them. And for record, his references to Jessica Simpson were insulting and degrading to all women as well.

I can only assume what Mayer meant by “like a white girl” was that Kerry Washington is the only black woman that even comes close to being on a white woman’s level of desirability.

Wow! Really, John?

Imagine if you will: America’s sweetheart Beyoncé doing a major interview where she explained that her interest in men leaned more toward the Malcolm X way of thinking and that Brad Pitt or George Clooney couldn’t make the cut if they tried.

Mainstream America would be so angry and appalled with Beyoncé and her 16 Grammys that she’d have to take serious cover for years. Only a very teary-eyed Oprah interview and months in some kind of racial rehab would even begin to allow her a moment back on the national and international scene. (Though rumor has it that talk-show queen Oprah was so upset by Mayer’s interview that she’s made it clear he won’t be sitting on her couch anytime soon.)

Sadly, even though an initial public outrage had Mayer apologizing via his Twitter account and found him crying on stage during an apology, my guess is Mayer will suffer little for his comments. And the reason is very simple. He clearly said out loud what a large majority of mainstream men in power feel in private. I’m referring to those invisible men in the corner offices with the influence and power to put women in movies, on magazine covers, and television shows. The ones who decide what beauty looks like, how much it weighs, and what age it should be. The ones who, just like John Mayer, have deemed black women as just not good enough.

Sure, Beyoncé gets her due attention as does Rihanna, but one has only to look at the most recent Vanity Fair magazine cover to see what a lot of America really thinks of the combination of beauty and brown skin. There isn’t a darker hue to be found, not even in the fold. Earlier this year, pictures altered to fuse first lady Michelle Obama’s face with an ape flooded the Internet, while actor Scott Baio posted on picture of the first lady with a frown on her face and a caption asking if this was what President Obama had to wake up to every morning.

All of this has left me to wonder: Is it open season on black women? Are we in a time where openly disrespecting and insulting women of color is OK and without consequence?

Yes, there will be those who will rightly point to rap music and its demeaning lyrics and videos depicting black women—all made primarily by black men. Without doubt this has been a heated topic discussed for years by black women’s groups and leaders with little resolve. But one fact remains: most black men end up loving and marrying black women, so the words, while hurtful and offensive, don’t ultimately match their actions.

Unfortunately, Mayer’s do. He and his peers’ lack of interest in African-American women doesn’t just impact us on date night, it impacts important decisions about how we are viewed all over the world. And it determines whether those sightings are balanced and diverse.

In the end, I have no idea if Mayer is the racist some have suggested, but I do know the power of words and how painful ones aren’t easily retracted. Here’s hoping that the next time Mayer sees Kerry Washington, she rips him apart—just like a black girl.

7536: Diversity And Diplomas.

From Newsweek…

Minority Report
American universities are accepting more minorities than ever. Graduating them is another matter.

By Evan Thomas and Pat Wingert | NEWSWEEK

Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, was justifiably proud of Bowdoin’s efforts to recruit minority students. Since 2003 the small, elite liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, has boosted the proportion of so-called underrepresented minority students (blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, about 30 percent of the U.S. population) in entering freshman classes from 8 percent to 13 percent. “It is our responsibility, given our place in the world, to reach out and attract students to come to our kinds of places,” he told a NEWSWEEK reporter. But Bowdoin has not done quite as well when it comes to actually graduating minorities. While nine out of 10 white students routinely get their diplomas within six years, only seven out of 10 black students made it to graduation day in several recent classes.

The picture of diversity—black, white, and brown students cavorting or studying together out on the quad—is a stock shot in college catalogs. The picture on graduation day is a good deal more monochromatic. “If you look at who enters college, it now looks like America,” says Hilary Pennington, director of postsecondary programs for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has closely studied enrollment patterns in higher education. “But if you look at who walks across the stage for a diploma, it’s still largely the white, upper-income population.”

The United States once had the highest graduation rate of any nation. Now it stands 10th. For the first time in American history, there is the risk that the rising generation will be less well educated than the previous one. The graduation rate among 25- to 34-year-olds is no better than the rate for the 55- to 64-year-olds who were going to college more than 30 years ago. Studies show that more and more poor and nonwhite students aspire to graduate from college—but their graduation rates fall far short of their dreams. The graduation rates for blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans lag far behind the graduation rates for whites and Asians. As the minority population grows in the United States, low college-graduation rates become a threat to national prosperity.

The problem is pronounced at public universities. In 2007 (the last year for which Education Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group, has comparative statistics) the University of Wisconsin-Madison—one of the top five or so “public Ivies”—graduated 81 percent of its white students within six years, but only 56 percent of its blacks. At less-selective state schools, the numbers get worse. During the same time frame, the University of Northern Iowa graduated 67 percent of its white students, but only 39 percent of its blacks. Community colleges have low graduation rates generally—but rock-bottom rates for minorities. A recent review of California community colleges found that while a third of the Asian students picked up their degrees, only 15 percent of African-Americans did so as well.

Private colleges and universities generally do better, partly because they offer smaller classes and more personal attention. But when it comes to a significant graduation gap, Bowdoin has company. Nearby Colby College logged an 18-point difference between white and black graduates in 2007 and 25 points in 2006. Middlebury College in Vermont, another topnotch school, had a 19-point gap in 2007 and a 22-point gap in 2006. The most selective private schools—Harvard, Yale, and Princeton—show almost no gap between black and white graduation rates. But that may have more to do with their ability to cherry-pick the best students. According to data gathered by Harvard Law School professor Lani Guinier, the most selective schools are more likely to choose blacks who have at least one immigrant parent from Africa or the Caribbean than black students who are descendants of American slaves. According to Guinier’s data, the latter perform less well academically.

“Higher education has been able to duck this issue for years, particularly the more selective schools, by saying the onus is on the individual student,” says Pennington of the Gates Foundation. “If they fail, it’s their fault.” Some critics blame affirmative action—students admitted with lower test scores and grades from shaky high schools often struggle at elite schools. But a bigger problem may be that poor high schools often send their students to colleges for which they are, in educators’ jargon, “undermatched”: they could get into more elite, richer schools, but instead go to community colleges and low-rated state schools that lack the resources to help them. Some schools out for profit cynically jack up tuitions and count on student loans and federal aid to foot the bill—knowing full well that the students won’t make it. “Colleges know that a lot of kids they take will end up in remedial classes, for which they’ll get no college credit and then they’ll flunk out,” says Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust. “The school gets to keep the money, but the kid leaves with loads of debt and no degree and no ability to get a better job. Colleges are not holding up their end.”

A college education is getting ever more expensive. Since 1982 tuitions have been rising at roughly twice the rate of inflation. University administrators insist that most of those hikes are matched by increased scholarship grants or loans, but the recession has slashed private endowments and cut into state spending on higher education. In 2008 the net cost of attending a four-year public university—after financial aid—equaled 28 percent of median family income, while a four-year private university cost 76 percent of median family income. More and more scholarships are based on merit, not need. Poorer students are not always the best-informed consumers. Often they wind up deeply in debt or simply unable to pay after a year or two and must drop out.

There once was a time when universities took a perverse pride in their attrition rates. Professors would begin the year by saying, “Look to the right and look to the left. One of you is not going to be here by the end of the year.” But such a Darwinian spirit is beginning to give way as at least a few colleges face up to the graduation gap. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the gap has been roughly halved over the last three years. The university has poured resources into peer counseling to help students from inner-city schools adjust to the rigor and faster pace of a university classroom—and also to help minority students overcome the stereotype that they are less qualified. Wisconsin has a “laserlike focus” on building up student skills in the first three months, according to vice provost Damon Williams.

State and federal governments could sharpen that focus everywhere by broadly publishing minority graduation rates. (For now students and counselors must find their way to the Web site of the Educational Trust, which compares data obtained from schools by the federal government.) For years private colleges such as Princeton and MIT have had success bringing minorities onto campus in the summer before freshman year to give them a head start on college-level courses. The newer trend is to start recruiting poor and nonwhite students as early as the seventh grade, using innovative tools like hip-hop competitions to identify kids with sophisticated verbal finesse. Such programs can be expensive, of course, but cheap compared with the millions already invested in scholarships and grants for kids who have little chance to graduate without special support.

With effort and money, the graduation gap can be closed. Washington and Lee is a small, selective school with a preppy feel in Lexington, Va. Its student body is less than 5 percent black and less than 2 percent Latino. While the school usually graduated about 90 percent of its whites, the graduation rate of its blacks and Latinos had dipped to 63 percent by 2007. “We went through a dramatic shift,” says Dawn Watkins, the vice president for student affairs. The school aggressively pushed mentoring of minorities by other students and “partnering” with parents at a special pre-enrollment session. The school had its first-ever black homecoming. Last spring the school graduated the same proportion of minorities as it did whites. If the United States wants to keep up in the global economic race, it will have to pay systematic attention to graduating minorities, not just enrolling them.

7117: Hiding The Race Card.

From the September 28, 2009 issue of Newsweek.

7085: Racist Baby—Or Clueless Parents?

Can’t help but think the authors of this long-winded Newsweek report might have exposed their own confusion on racial matters. But read it and decide for yourself. On the one hand, it’s cool that someone is examining these topics at all. Yet it’s a lot like Madison Avenue. That is, Whites will struggle to embrace diversity—and pass it along to future generations—if they remain culturally clueless themselves.

6187: Bringing New Meanings To First Lady.

Via Newsweek, Allison Samuels presents a provocative perspective on future First Lady Michelle Obama…

What Michelle Means to Us

We’ve never had a First Lady quite like Michelle Obama. How she’ll change the world’s image of African-American women—and the way we see ourselves.

By Allison Samuels

At a recent Sunday brunch after church, my “sista friends” and I sat on the patio of a Los Angeles restaurant gabbing about the election of Barack Obama. Sure, we were caught up in the history of the moment. Most of us never thought we’d see an African-American president. But as a group of six black women in our 30s and 40s, we were equally excited by who is coming along with Obama to the White House—his wife, Michelle, and their two young daughters. We all praised—OK, maybe even envied—Michelle’s double Ivy League pedigree, her style, her cool but friendly demeanor. And yet we’re all aware of how much we have riding on her. At 44, Michelle Obama will be the youngest First Lady since Jacqueline Kennedy. And many are expecting her to usher in a similarly glamorous era in Washington. (“Bamelot,” as some are already calling it.) But Michelle’s influence could go far beyond the superficial. When her husband raises his hand to take the oath of office, Michelle will become the world’s most visible African-American woman. The new First Lady will have the chance to knock down ugly stereotypes about black women and educate the world about American black culture more generally. But perhaps more important—even apart from what her husband can do—Michelle has the power to change the way African-Americans see ourselves, our lives and our possibilities.

It’s an amazing opportunity—and a huge responsibility. “I think she’s always going to be classy, because she knows she’s not just representing herself,” said my friend Gertrude Justin, 40, a nurse from Houston. “She knows she’s fighting stereotypes of black people that have been around for decades and that her every move will be watched. I’m sure she’s been just as insulted by the lack of true depictions of African-American women as any other black woman.” Michelle will be a daily reminder that we’re not all hotheaded, foaming-at-the-mouth drug addicts, always ready with a quick one-liner and a roll of the eyes.

Like many African-American women I know, Michelle has had a lot of practice at the delicate tap dance of getting along in the mainstream white world. During all those years in boardrooms and a topnotch law firm—not to mention the exclusive clubs of Princeton and Harvard Law School—she’s had to learn to blend in. Now she’ll have to go even further in convincing two very different constituencies—African-Americans and everyone else—that they can trust her as their First Lady. And she’ll have to do it all while remaining true to her authentic self.

Michelle has already shown she understands how universal her appeal must be. Early on in the primaries, after she was labeled too forward and too loud, Michelle demonstrated self-restraint and discipline by dialing back. She stopped making harmless jokes about Obama’s morning breath and other breaches of hygiene. Her remark about being “proud of my country” for the first time was another rare misstep. But she quickly learned to play the adoring and uncontroversial wife, talking up her husband on shows like “The View.”

She showed she could calibrate her remarks for predominantly black audiences too, opening up a bit more about what Obama’s election would mean for them—and what it would also mean for her, referring to herself as “the little black girl from the South Side of Chicago.” Yet when The New Yorker caricatured the Obamas in July doing a “terrorist fist bump” in the Oval Office, the image stung. It was Michelle who came across as the domineering one—the angry black woman. She toned it down and took to wearing pearls and reassuring J.Crew cardigans.

Will that softer side win out now that she’s headed to the East Wing? When I met Michelle earlier this year for an interview in Atlanta, I was taken by her warmth and eagerness to chat about everything—fashion designers she’d like to wear, her girls’ taste in clothes, even dogs. (On a follow-up phone call, she greeted me with “Hey, girlfriend,” like she was a long-lost sorority sister.) There was no pretense—no second-guessing her next word or move the way she seemed to do after the campaign became a mudfest.

I personally hope that she will let more of that true, colorful personality seep through. There are some good hints she might. Her daring election-night red-speckled dress, designed by Narciso Rodriguez, was hardly a cautious choice. It wasn’t altogether flattering, but it showed that Michelle is searching for her own style. Other clues come from her winning, if still demure, performance during the recent “60 Minutes” interview. Looking chic and relaxed—and genuinely affectionate with her husband—she poked fun at the president-elect’s professed affinity for doing the dishes and told him she wouldn’t accompany him on a walk on a cold Chicago day.

That easy warmth between the Obamas as a couple was another thing that my girlfriends and I fixated on at our brunch. Nearly 50 percent of all African-American women are single. And, “The Cosby Show” aside, there are still woefully few public examples of solid, stable black marriages. What can this handsome first couple do for the future of the black family, we wondered? “I want my son to see first-hand what two people can do when they work together and respect each other,” said Janese Sinclair, an executive assistant and 34-year-old single mother of a 12-year-old son. “His father and I divorced when he was 2—so he never had the chance to see the way a relationship works. Many of his friends have single moms too, so the Obamas are going to teach us that love and happiness is not just for others but us too. It’s easy to forget when you look at TV or movies.”

Making her young daughters, Malia and Sasha, her top priority is heartfelt, but it could also help Michelle broaden her appeal. Taking lessons from the Carters and the Clintons—Amy was 9 and Chelsea was 12 when their fathers took office—Michelle is creating a protective cordon around the girls. What parent can’t relate to wanting to shield young children from the glare of the national spotlight?

But Michelle’s declaration that she plans to be the “Mom in Chief” has already ignited a minor flare-up in the ongoing white mommy wars between stay-at-home mothers and working women. (Don’t all moms put their kids first, even if they’re working? Is such an accomplished woman going to be content with Mom in Chief?) Still, most African-American women I know are thrilled she’s in a position to make that choice. The average African-American family can’t survive without two incomes—the poverty level among black families hovers above 30 percent, according to 2006 U.S. Census figures. And for single moms, that can mean working two jobs, leaving precious little time with the children. Michelle has already survived the working-mom juggling act, getting her law degree and working in government and administration before leaving during Obama’s campaign.

I’m hoping the whole Mom in Chief role will leave plenty of room for Michelle to tackle significant, meaty issues even if she’s not clamoring for a West Wing office. That’s a tricky balancing act for any First Lady—think Hillary Clinton and health-care reform. Most follow the path of Laura Bush in choosing non controversial interests like literacy. So far, Michelle has listed popular causes—military families and the struggles of working parents—that are hard to find fault with. But she’ll have another dimension to worry about: if she focuses on the black community—helping urban schools, say—will her interests be viewed as too parochial? And while every First Lady—and plenty of professional women—walk the line between being confident and seeming like a bitch, African-American women are especially wary that being called “strong” is just another word for “angry.”

Appearance could be another minefield for Michelle. First Ladies are always scrutinized—how else did Hillary end up in those black pant-suits? Though Michelle has shown a penchant for sleek hair and form-fitting dresses, her style is still evolving and wide-ranging. She’s gone from $148 off-the-rack outfits to Dolce & Gabbana. When she showed up for her first tour of the White House wearing a striking red dress, she indicated she’s willing to be daring. But will she retreat if critics slam her for bad hair days or talk too intimately about her shape?

She has one advantage over many of her predecessors—she’s got the lean, tall build of an athlete. That could have serious implications far beyond the style pages. A self-proclaimed fitness junkie who works out every morning, Michelle could actually encourage women of color to take better care of themselves. African-American women face alarmingly high rates of high blood pressure and obesity. And like everyone else, we have plenty of excuses for being sedentary, including the always-present fear of messing up our carefully done hair. “I look at her and think, I have two kids and she has two kids,” said my friend Tamara Rhodes, a 37-year-old public-safety officer in Long Beach, Calif. “If she can find time in the day to do her thing to look good—why can’t I? She looks good and in a way that I can see myself looking—not a size zero—but really healthy.”

As my brunch friends and I continued talking about Michelle, our conversation wandered into one area we seldom discuss, even among our families and closest confidantes. Michelle is not only African-American, but brown. Real brown. In an era when beauty is often defined on television, in magazines and in movies as fair or white skin, long straight hair and keen features, Michelle looks nothing like the supermodels who rule the catwalks or the porcelain-faced actresses who hawk must-have cosmetics. Yet now she’s going to grace the March cover of Vogue magazine—the ultimate affirmation of beauty.

Who and what is beautiful has long been a source of pain, anger and frustration in the African-American community. In too many cases, beauty for black women (and even black men) has meant fair skin, “good hair” and dainty facial features. Over the years, African-American icons like Lena Horne, Dorothy Dandridge, Halle Berry and Beyoncé—while beautiful and talented—haven’t exactly represented the diversity of complexions and features of most black women in this country.

That limited scope has had a profound effect on the self-esteem of many African-American women, including me. “When I see Michelle Obama on the cover of magazines and on TV shows, I think, Wow, look at her and her brown skin,” said Charisse Hollands, a 30-year-old mail carrier from Inglewood, Calif., with flawless ebony skin. “And I don’t mean any disrespect to my sisters who aren’t dark brown, but gee, it’s nice to see a brown girl get some attention and be called beautiful by the world. That just doesn’t happen a lot, and our little girls need to see that—my little girl needs to see it.”

In Africa, skin-lightening creams are all the rage even though the chemical they contain, hydroquinone, has been shown to cause harm in high doses. Visit any beauty-supply shop in an American inner city and you’ll find an entire aisle dedicated to less-potent forms of these products. “It’s a truth that’s long been with us,” says comic and television host Whoopi Goldberg, who came to fame with a one-woman stage show featuring her longing for straight blond hair and blue eyes. “In society and in the black community, the lighter you are and the more European your features, the more you are desired. Now many of us want to deny that’s true or say it’s changed, but it hasn’t. The darker you are makes you less than ideal. Plain and simple. And that messes with your mind something awful.”

If you’re an actress, it can also keep you from appearing in a hip-hop video or getting the juiciest movie role. But it affects regular girls and women too. On a recent episode of the nationally syndicated “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” the host asked listeners if the president-elect’s choice of a wife and her look had in any way influenced their vote. The answer was a resounding yes, followed by comments like “She’s a regular sister,” and “I love the fact that she looks like the woman next door or like my cousin or niece.”

Michelle has accomplished so much even before moving into the White House. Imagine what she can do if she decides to tackle substantive problems—perhaps even just a single one she’s mused about, like helping the local Washington, D.C., community. Now that’s the kind of influence that could reach far beyond my friends at the brunch table.

5704: Generation Rap.

From the latest issue of Newsweek, Allison Samuels presents a concise, insightful and thoughtful take on Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama.