Why the Persistent Disassociation?

[gdnp]

All viable explanations except that the suspicions and debating's I'm referring to were not about his political ideas but about his being a genuine African American black due to both his biracial heritage, his African Kenyan non American black heritage, and his offbeat cultural heritage. Suddenly these have become irrelevant because it is politically expedient?

I am sure there are as many reasons that he was first viewed with skepticism by the African American community as there are African Americans. These would include that he had a white mother and that his father was Kenyan, not raised in America. Regardless, I doubt these factors dominated. I think his lack of name recognition, his lack of experience, the presence of another candidate (Clinton) with strong ties to the black community, and his Ivy league credentials (they were not convinced he had "paid his dues"). Once they got to know him and once Iowa established him as a viable candidate these factors were overcome. He showed that he was "one of them" by his life story and his work as a (gasp!) community organizer, his membership in a black church, and his marriage to a black woman. Strangely enough, his parentage did not change, and yet their opinions of him did. Go figure.

Actually, I was rather surprised by the reluctance to accept him in the first place in view of the much-vaunted and adhered to one-drop makes you black rule so popular here in the states on planet X. On the other hand, there has always been a reluctance to accept black people with a smattering of foreigner within the African American community. So from that angle it was understandable.

fixed it for you.

No one laughed. Neither was his body language indicative that he was jesting.

Now we know why sitcoms have laugh tracks. So people like Radrook know when to laugh when they don't get the joke.

Calling it a joke is merely a way of keeping the one-drop rule in place so the universe Planet X can continue to function as desired and everyone can go about his racist business as usual.

Fixed this one too.

Strangely enough, Obama seems to be able to embrace both his blackness and his mixed race heritage without a problem, and everyone else here seems to accept it but you, who seem to wish to deny him that choice. Yet you consider the world racist.

I think you need to clean the telescopes on Planet X.

 

[Tricky]

All viable explanations except that the suspicions and debating's I'm referring to were not about his political ideas but about his being a genuine African American black due to both his biracial heritage, his African Kenyan non American black heritage, and his offbeat cultural heritage. Suddenly these have become irrelevant because it is politically expedient?

I remember early in the election a black woman came on The Colbert Report who was saying Obama "hadn't shared in the Black experience" because he hadn't been raised in the ghettos, wasn't the descendant of slaves etc. Maybe there were a few people who bought into this, but my impression was that it was always a small minority of people who felt this way and that they probably supported Hillary Clinton.

So what I'm saying is not that it became irrelevant, but that it never was relevant, other than as a news cycle or two. It never was a big deal to most people.

I suspect most of those people who thought he "wasn't black enough" wound up voting for him against McCain, which doesn't make them hypocrites, but just voters who were choosing their favorite of the remaining candidates.

Though I seem to recall some snide remarks from Jesse Jackson fairly late in the campaign. There probably was (and is) a weak undercurrent of "he's not really black" among the black community. I expect that undercurrent will strengthen, because I do not expect Obama to be the tool of any of the far-left black voices. I expect to hear "sell-out" sometime in the next four years. In fact, I count on it.

True, people change their minds. However, some changes of mind come across as hypocritical and self-serving while others don't.

I find that whether or not one finds another person "hypocritical" depends largely one one's own political bent. But lets face it. All politicians are at least somewhat hypocritical. They have to be to get elected. Though I supported Obama as the better of the two candidates, I have no illusions about him being anything other than a politician. I expect him to disappoint me from time to time.

Actually, I was rather surprised by the reluctance to accept him in the first place in view of the much-vaunted and adhered to one-drop makes you black rule so popular here in the states. On the other hand, there has always been a reluctance to accept black people with a smattering of foreigner within the African American community. So from that angle it was understandable.

Don't forget the strong support for the Clintons. Remember, some people called Bill "The first black President". If you were black and a Clinton fan, then you would be likely to find reasons not to support Obama. Once that became a non-issue, the point wasn't raised again.

No one laughed. Neither was his body language indicative that he was jesting. Calling it a joke is merely a way of keeping the one-drop rule in place so the universe can continue to function as desired and everyone can go about his racist business as usual.

You must have been watching a different clip than me. I distinctly saw a small smile. But since he didn't "stop for applause", but kept on speaking, the opportunity to insert laughter wasn't there. I don't see how anyone could see the comment as anything other than self-deprecating humor, tinged with truth. He IS a mutt. That doesn't bother him. It doesn't bother me. I wish it didn't bother anybody.

Good joke. Made me laugh. Thanks!

Glad you liked it. I find that humor helps build a lot of bridges.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why does the one-drop rule obsess YOU?

I never referenced any such rule, so why do you claim I am obsessed?

It can be.

No it is. There is no scientific or biological basis for the racial classification that americans use.

BTW
The program "Moving On Up" or was it: "The Jeffersons" ? contradicts you. It regularly showed Jefferson mockingly referring to mixed-raced persons as "Oreos" and "Zebras."

So, just because individuals of mixed race can be stigmatized by both sides doesn't effect how people classify them racialy.

The problem is that Obama's black ancestors were not of American stock. They never experienced the tragedies that the American black community experienced. That's one of the reasons why the African American community had trouble accepting him at first. They found it hard to view him as truly theirs. They also had trouble with his mixed heritage. Of course once they saw he had a chance then that was all water under bridge.

So africans are now not black? You are having truely strange ways of classifying people.

BTW
Other blacks had trouble accepting him because they considered Hillary a better choice and only shifted over when pressured by the African American community to do so.

So what? How does his take as a canidate by portions of the black comunity matter to how people react to him?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am sure there are as many reasons that he was first viewed with skepticism by the African American community as there are African Americans. These would include that he had a white mother and that his father was Kenyan, not raised in America. Regardless, I doubt these factors dominated. I think his lack of name recognition, his lack of experience, the presence of another candidate (Clinton) with strong ties to the black community, and his Ivy league credentials (they were not convinced he had "paid his dues"). Once they got to know him and once Iowa established him as a viable candidate these factors were overcome. He showed that he was "one of them" by his life story and his work as a (gasp!) community organizer, his membership in a black church, and his marriage to a black woman. Strangely enough, his parentage did not change, and yet their opinions of him did. Go figure.

Also there was the question was could he get white people to vote for him. When it became clear that he could draw support

 

[Radrook]

I never referenced any such rule, so why do you claim I am obsessed?

Funny! I thought you defended the present clssification of Obama. Sorry if I misunderstood.

No it is. There is no scientific or biological basis for the racial classification that americans use.

Never said there is.

So, just because individuals of mixed race can be stigmatized by both sides doesn't affect how people classify them racially.

I wasn't referring to an affect. I was referring to a fact.

So Africans are now not black? You are having truely strange ways of classifying people.

I never said that all Africans are black, Neither did I say that all Africans aren't black.
Obviously Africa has a diverse racial population. Y

So what? How does his take as a candidate by portions of the black comunity matter to how people react to him?

I was merely responding to the claim of his universal recognition as a 100% bonafide black.
That 100% just doesn't exist. At least it didn't before they thought he had a chance.

.

 

[gdnp]

I was merely responding to the claim of his universal recognition as a 100% bonafide black.

I don't recall any such claim. He himself claims to be a mutt. I and others have simply stated that if he considers himself black we are perfectly willing to accept his preference.

 

[Puppycow]

Why are whites so hell-bent on totally disassociating themselves genetically from Obama by repeatedly and invariably referring to him as black and an Afro American?

1) It's a convention. One which I believe that many or most African-Americans also use. I use it not because it is the most accurate description, but because it is a social convention. If and when the social convention changes, I will change.

2) What word would you have us use? Biracial? Multiracial? Mulatto^WP?

Mulatto is a term used to describe a person with one white parent and one black parent, or a person whose ancestry is a mixture of black and white.[1] Perceived as pejorative and demeaning in some cultures,[2] its current usage varies greatly.

So I guess mulatto is out. I'm fine with "biracial," but that doesn't necessarily indicate half-European-American and half-African. It could be half-European-American and half-Japanese, like my kids.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Funny! I thought you defended the present clssification of Obama. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I do, but not on any sort of one drop rule.

There are no hard and fast rules on this. I remember reading in Scientific American how a person could be viewed as black in the US, white in Brazil and Colored(a classification distinct from white and black) in south africa.

By modern American standards he fits the look of a black man. This is not based on any true measurements or DNA, but it is real because the culture decides it is real.

His close association with the black community strengthens this association.

I never said that all Africans are black, Neither did I say that all Africans aren't black.
Obviously Africa has a diverse racial population.

Yes but none of them are black. They lack the historic black experiance of american slavery.

I was merely responding to the claim of his universal recognition as a 100% bonafide black.
That 100% just doesn't exist. At least it didn't before they thought he had a chance.

In this talk about percentages you are putting so much more focus on race than other are here. The problem is that race being a cultural concept is not something you can ever talk about in percentages or fix with mathematical certainty.

 

[gdnp]

Yes but none of them are black. They lack the historic black experiance of american slavery.

As does the entire black population of the US, as the 13th amendment was repealed in 1865. According to Yahoo answers (I couldn't find a better source) the last American slave died in 1948 at the age of 105. And although I suppose a man born into slavery in 1864 could have fathered a child at the age of 80 in 1944 who would now be only 64 years old, this doesn't happen very often, so if there are any people still alive who had parents who were once slaves, there are probably not many. Most people who are descendants of slaves are going to be great-great-great grandchildren or more by this time. Therefore, most of the effect of slavery on the black population is indirect, based on the legacy of poverty in the freed slaves compounded by racism that affects both descendants of slaves and more recent black immigrants (not only African: Hatian, cuban, west indian, etc.) and their descendants.

 

[Edges]

Yes but none of them are black. They lack the historic black experiance of american slavery.

Eh, I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. While there is a difference between "African-American" and "Dark-skinned African", the difference doesn't mean "African-American"= black and "Dark-skinned African" != black. They are subsets of black culture.

Black culture is not defined soley by American slavery, although that history definately has its influences. As far as I know, I have no American slave ancestors as my family seems to come mainly from the West Indies, but I would still define myself as half-black.

 

[tyr_13]

All people alive today lack the historic black experience of American slavery, they are all dead. Duh. It hurts 'black' people no more than it hurts me. It injures us all.

The only thing that gets to me about this thing is about how some people are going on about how now minorities have someone to finally really look up to. What kind of racist crap is that? Minorities couldn't look up to a white man? Does that mean that I can't look up to Obama? I mean, I'm just a European mix mutt mixed with Native American, but looking like a white guy so I must be white. So I can't look up to a 'black' man if other minorities couldn't look up to a 'white' man.

*disclaimer of the obvious and I really wish I didn't have to say this* Obviously none of this means that I'm not very, very, very pleased that Obama was elected or that 'minorities' don't have any racially motivated problems.

 

[gdnp]

All people alive today lack the historic black experience of American slavery, they are all dead. Duh. It hurts 'black' people no more than it hurts me. It injures us all.

Well, since the victims of racism were hurt more than the perpetrators were, and that racism continues to this day, I would say that black people have been hurt more by slavery than whites. Not to mention the substandard schools, the substandard housing, and the lack of wealth passed on from one generation to the next that gives so many people a head start.

 

[tyr_13]

And that those things happened to other Americans hurts people with dark skin more than light skin because? Race is a stupid way to categorize. Everyone is a victim of racism.

Or am I not supposed to identify with 'black' people because I have white skin?

Lack of wealth happens for a lot of reasons, going back many, many generations.

As for that racism continuing, yes, it does. It does to everyone. Everyone has to deal with racism, and it is all wrong. 'Black' does not equal victim. 'White' does not equal perpetrator. Seeing things through the lens of race will only hamper us.

 

[gdnp]

And that those things happened to other Americans hurts people with dark skin more than light skin because? Race is a stupid way to categorize. Everyone is a victim of racism.

It's a nice platitude, but it's not true. If there are two candidates for a job and the black candidate is more qualified, yet the white candidate gets the job, the the black candidate is the victim of racism and the white candidate has benefited from it.

Or am I not supposed to identify with 'black' people because I have white skin?

I do my best to identify with the victims.

Lack of wealth happens for a lot of reasons, going back many, many generations.

One of those reasons is racism, and it disproportionally affected blacks.

As for that racism continuing, yes, it does. It does to everyone. Everyone has to deal with racism, and it is all wrong. 'Black' does not equal victim. 'White' does not equal perpetrator. Seeing things through the lens of race will only hamper us.

Victim equals victim and perpetrator equals perpetrator. The victims were and continue to be disproportionally black. I have yet to hear of someone pulled over for "driving while white". There are black racists out there as well. They are not excused because they are black. I don't see ignoring racial differences as a solution, however.

By report, 70% of blacks voted for proposition 8 in California, probably enough to have caused its passage. I find it shocking that such a high percentage of an oppressed minority would vote to oppress another minority. More has to be done to teach tolerance and acceptance in all communities.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As does the entire black population of the US, as the 13th amendment was repealed in 1865. According to Yahoo answers (I couldn't find a better source) the last American slave died in 1948 at the age of 105. And although I suppose a man born into slavery in 1864 could have fathered a child at the age of 80 in 1944 who would now be only 64 years old, this doesn't happen very often, so if there are any people still alive who had parents who were once slaves, there are probably not many. Most people who are descendants of slaves are going to be great-great-great grandchildren or more by this time. Therefore, most of the effect of slavery on the black population is indirect, based on the legacy of poverty in the freed slaves compounded by racism that affects both descendants of slaves and more recent black immigrants (not only African: Hatian, cuban, west indian, etc.) and their descendants.

The cultural effect of american slavery was one of the qualifiers Radrook was using to define black.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Eh, I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. While there is a difference between "African-American" and "Dark-skinned African", the difference doesn't mean "African-American"= black and "Dark-skinned African" != black. They are subsets of black culture.

Black culture is not defined soley by American slavery, although that history definately has its influences. As far as I know, I have no American slave ancestors as my family seems to come mainly from the West Indies, but I would still define myself as half-black.

Stop trying to rationalize reducto ad absurdum.

 

[Radrook]

The cultural effect of american slavery was one of the qualifiers Radrook was using to define black.

No, I was merely pointing out that certain African Americans were intitially using it in evaluating Obama's qualifications as an African-American representative until they realized that Obama really stood a chance of winning the presidency.

 

[tyr_13]

It's a nice platitude, but it's not true. If there are two candidates for a job and the black candidate is more qualified, yet the white candidate gets the job, the the black candidate is the victim of racism and the white candidate has benefited from it.

That's remarkably short cited. The co-workers are victims too because they get the less qualified co-worker. The costumers are victims because they are deprived of skills of the more qualified worker. The business itself could become a victim of its own racist policies if they keep hiring less effective employees. Let us not forget that racist policies force many business to hire less qualified 'black' people. So the white person is then the victim and the black one the person benefiting from it.

I do my best to identify with the victims.

One of those reasons is racism, and it disproportionally affected blacks.

And Civil War debt disproportionally affected southerners, dust bowl affected mid-westeners, and Italian mafia theft affected Italians.

Victim equals victim and perpetrator equals perpetrator. The victims were and continue to be disproportionally black. I have yet to hear of someone pulled over for "driving while white". There are black racists out there as well. They are not excused because they are black. I don't see ignoring racial differences as a solution, however.

By report, 70% of blacks voted for proposition 8 in California, probably enough to have caused its passage. I find it shocking that such a high percentage of an oppressed minority would vote to oppress another minority. More has to be done to teach tolerance and acceptance in all communities.

The victims are everyone. The solution can not be with more racist policy, or by continuing the blame game. This idea that the rules apply differently to different people is stupid. Old people voted for Proposition 8 a lot too. I do see the solution of ignoring racial differences. Stop thinking of anyone as a race an just think of them as people.

Self-segregated groups are a slightly different matter, and even more confusing though.

 

[fuelair]

Why are whites so hell-bent on totally disassociating themselves genetically from Obama by repeatedly and invariably referring to him as black and an Afro American? Please forgive my question if it comes across as offensive. It isn't meant to be that way.
I'm simply interested in your explanations.

BTW

He's the product of TWO not one. Shunting him aside like that as if his white side doesn't exist can come accross as an insult. Not that race is the important thing. But if it indeed isn't-then let's at least be fair and decent about it and take what his true feelings might be into consideration by putting ourselves in his place.

Don't know of anyone in the world (may be, but no such group found last I heard) who is not related to that lovely lady, the mother of us all (genetically and proved through Mitochondrial DNA) who lived many thousands of years ago in Africa. Therefore, for whatever it is worth and however much it makes the foul or ignorant upset, we really are all brothers and sisters.

 

[Tricky]

Therefore, for whatever it is worth and however much it makes the foul or ignorant upset, we really are all brothers and sisters.

...and the product of incest!!!