Unless you’ve been living under a rock buried in a cave on another planet (or if you’re DMX), you’ve probably heard that there’s a US election coming up, and that there’s someone named Barack Obama running for Democratic candidacy. The thing about Barack Obama is that – gasp! – he’s black.

You heard me right: A black man is taking a shot at the big house. And people are pissed.

Well, not outwardly pissed, anyway. The dull (and sometimes not-so-dull) roar of overt racism is mostly drowned out by cascades of support that roll towards Obama on a daily basis bathing him a healthy, humid glow. Fortunately, it’s not just America’s collective guilt about the whole slavery thing that seems to be the motivation, either. Obama seems to be a pretty with it politician, as far as politicians go. He’s got a good rhetorical angle, and actually seems to inspire people.

Hillary Clinton has had a bit of a tougher time. Hilary is the heritage choice, someone with a known track-record and a history with the press. Did I mention that she’s a woman? Yup. A (white) woman and a black man running for the democratic presidential candidacy in the same year. Crazy times.

Though many political contests are battles of charisma and character, this particular race has been particularly focused on personality, no doubt due to the identity positions of the candidates. The contest of personalities has been particularly divisive due to competing (?) issues of race and gender, and for the past few months it has seemed less like democratic primaries and more like a referendum on whether America is more racist or misogynist. The preliminary results from the press seem to indicate that America is BOTH racist and misogynist, and which one wins out is kind of irrelevant.

On a personal level, I am very glad that both Obama and Clinton are running, because the Washington White Boys Club (WWBC) has been running the show for way too long. Obama and Clinton are right when they say that people want change. In fact, the desire for change is probably a bit understated. It’s gotten to a point that a lot of people would rather have a blueberry pie for president than elect another Bush-like automaton to the WWBC.

Still, when I watched Obama’s recent speech on the subject of race in America, I was more than a bit disappointed. Yes, the fact that he made the speech was important, and the way that he described his and his family’s experiences as blacks in America was a vital addition to what had been a mostly two-dimensional debate about race up to that point. Obama’s efforts to put the comments of Reverend Wright in their proper context are the kind of thing that American politics – and politics in general, needs more of. Because discussing the racial “elephant in the room” is going to require a shitload of nuance if anything’s going to get figured out.

But the racial elephant in the room of America is not the issue of Blackness, though that is indeed an important issue that affects a great many people. In fact, I believe that part of the reason that the African-American experience is such a huge issue in the US is partly because of demographics. When race is talked about in US politics it means three thing: Black, White, and Hispanic. But the REAL racial elephant in the room of America is the issue of Aboriginal genocide. In no uncertain terms, it’s what the country was built on.

The “original sin” of America is not slavery, as Obama mentions within the first two paragraphs of his speech. The original sin of America – it’s continuing sin – is the systematic elimination of First Nations, people who continue to this day to find themselves compartmentalized on reserves, subjugated through culturally and economically destructive “treaties” and generally treated as nothing more than drunken caricatures of themselves. Why did Obama make the reference to “original sin,” and why did he not include the oppression of First Nations once in his speech? Why has the entire debate over “Race in America” been so focused on the triad of Black, White, and Hispanic?

A friend of mine recently suggested that the debate about race in America cannot include a discussion of colonialism, quite simply because it challenges the integrity of the American story. You can talk about slavery without having to question America itself. America can continue to exist. But to discuss colonialism means to unravel the story of America, to put it in a broader context than just “We were running away from our cruel British fathers and trying to assert our independence.” Acknowledging the damage done by colonialism means, at the very least, acknowledging that “America” itself is built on the shaky ground of an ongoing genocide. In this sense, it’s understandable that no mainstream politician – Obama or otherwise – wants to come within a mile of the issue. America begins with the writing of the constitution, and that’s all there is to it.

Obama’s speech was important. Again, my point is not to take away from what he said, but to highlight what seemed to be intentionally left out. America is currently in the process of reckoning with it’s past as a nation built on the backs of African slaves, and this is a very good thing. Still, the ignorance of First Nations issues persists, and so the conclusions reached from this debate and this reckoning are necessarily incomplete. Only when America is willing to reckon with itself as a colonial nation, a nation whose soil was fertilized with the blood of first nations, will there actually be a debate about “Race in America.” Until then, it’s a good start.