If you’ve recently encountered the name Dr. Umar Johnson circulating online, particularly in meme formats, you’re not alone. Like many, my introduction to Dr. Umar Johnson came through the internet’s meme culture, specifically on platforms like TikTok. It’s undeniable that he’s a figure who captures attention, having become a recurring subject of viral memes. One prominent example is the livestream where he appealed for donations for his envisioned pan-Africanist school, the Frederick Douglass Marcus Garvey Academy. The now-infamous moment of him “thanking” a donor, sister Avanti, for a $10 contribution while subtly urging her to increase it to $20, sparked my deeper curiosity about Johnson and his perspectives.
Driven by his undeniably flamboyant online persona, I delved into numerous interviews and discussions featuring Johnson over the past week. As I navigated deeper into what some call the “Umarverse,” I encountered a series of viewpoints that, despite his compelling delivery, proved to be quite troubling.
One of Johnson’s central tenets is his self-proclaimed “unapologetically African” identity and his staunch advocacy for pan-Africanism. While respecting the underlying motivations of cultural pride and self-determination, his articulation of these beliefs often seems to reject the multicultural reality that defines contemporary societies, particularly in places like America.
It’s important to acknowledge the validity in Johnson’s reaction to systemic racism and his commitment to Black liberation and the defense of Black culture. These concerns resonate with many who recognize the ongoing disparities and injustices faced by Black communities. His focus on the treatment of Black Americans by power structures is a crucial aspect of his ideology and a significant driver of his pronouncements.
However, a particularly contentious and widely discussed aspect of Johnson’s ideology is his stance on interracial relationships, framed within his broader concept of defending the “African family.” In essence, Johnson voices strong disapproval of interracial marriage, a viewpoint that has fueled considerable debate and further cemented his meme status.
Johnson frequently refers to the phenomenon of Black men choosing white women as partners as the “snow bunny” crisis. In a notable interview with the Breakfast Club, he critiqued the extramarital affair of then-Boston Celtics head coach Ime Udoka with a white female Celtics staff member. His criticism operated on two levels. Firstly, he made a universally applicable point about the ethical implications of adultery, regardless of race. Secondly, and more controversially, he concentrated on the racial identities of those involved. Johnson argued that engaging in such relationships “outside of your community” is particularly problematic. He proceeded to suggest that Black men in mixed-race relationships are settling for “leftover” white women and bizarrely claimed that the white power structure was against Udoka’s affair because a “well-established white Mormon woman” was supposedly “stolen” by a Black man.
The reality of Udoka’s suspension and subsequent firing was far removed from Johnson’s racialized narrative. Udoka was penalized for violating professional conduct standards expected of a head coach, failing to maintain a healthy team environment, and bringing unwelcome scrutiny to the Celtics organization. Race was not cited as the determining factor in his dismissal.
Furthermore, Johnson’s perspective implies a disempowering view of women, suggesting they lack agency in their relationships, and promotes the demeaning notion of “leftover” white women. His assertion that Black men only have access to “leftover” white women completely disregards the widespread acceptance of interracial marriage in contemporary society. Polls consistently show that the vast majority of the American public supports interracial marriage, indicating a significant erosion of historical social barriers. The “leftover” women argument appears to be a tactic to diminish the value of interracial unions and, by extension, the women within them.
In stark contrast to Johnson’s views, interracial marriage can be seen as a challenge to white supremacy. While he might argue it weakens the “Black family,” these relationships offer opportunities for white partners to gain firsthand understanding, or at least empathy, for the experience of being marginalized or “othered.”
Interracial marriage is also inherently an act of cultural exchange. While Johnson champions a singular African identity, it’s crucial to remember that African identity itself is a product of centuries of interactions and influences, predating European colonialism. As historical studies of Africa reveal, the continent has a long history of migration and interaction with people from beyond its borders. For example, the Malagasy people of Madagascar trace their ancestry to Southeast Asian migrants from Indonesia. Even staple crops like bananas were transported from Asia to Africa through early Indian Ocean trade routes.
Increased multiracial and intercultural interaction serves as a powerful antidote to intolerance. While Johnson posits that interracial marriage undermines the Black family, it can be argued that focusing on such issues distracts from the larger battle against structural racism. Opposition to interracial marriage echoes the discriminatory ideologies of the Jim Crow era.
A more constructive approach to pan-Africanism would emphasize empowering the diverse communities within the African diaspora, regardless of background. If the Malagasy people, with their Indonesian origins, are considered African, then pan-Africanism should embrace such complexities and interconnected histories.
Pan-Africanism emerged as a response to European colonial exploitation and as a unifying force for the African diaspora facing racism globally. In this context, fixating on “snow bunnies” seems a misplaced priority, diverting attention from the more pressing issues of systemic inequality and racial justice that pan-Africanism was initially conceived to address.
