Aside from the fact that women are literally being objectified in the above post–i.e. compared to objects owned by men–the logic itself is illogical. It’s like saying one cannot be against drunk-driving if one drinks.
Drunk-driving is the problem, not drinking [responsibly]. Likewise, being anti-white power does not mean anti-White people by default. There may be 99 reasons to question Nate Parker’s “brand loyalty” to pro-Blackness (not that pro-Blackness is a monolith), but having a wife who isn’t Black isn’t one of them.
James Baldwin, Josephine Baker, Bayard Rustin, Frederick Douglass, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas all had White partners, but only one is widely regarded in Black spaces as a “coon” (literally a Tom). It’s the work they put in for Blackness and content of character, not color of their lover, that separates the four from that one.
Racial fetishization, “color struck,” white supremacist conditioning of Blacks to favor European beauty, derision of Black women by Black men with White women, even colorism and a host of relevant issues are all valid. So, it’s understandable why B/W interracial relationships may trigger some type of visceral response for many Black people. It’s much more complicated than color-by-number rationale.
Let’s be clear: This is NOT a defense for or deflection from Nate Parker’s past or present problematic remarks regarding rape, women, gays anything of a sort. This is solely addressing the “brand loyalty” logic itself as it pertains to interracial coupling and not dismissing the aforementioned “visceral response” as “reverse racism.” (*side eye* @ the latter.)
There may indeed be a number of Black “sellouts” who choose White partners due to “self-hate” and so on, but that doesn’t make a Black person with a White (or non-Black) partner a sellout or self-hater by default. To know that about them you would actually have to know who they are, not just who they’re with. #dontBSyourself