Wow, after reading ALL of the posts, I can see that this thread has officially gone to hell. Fuck shit fuck.
Yes. Obama is a black man.
The question to ask, though, is, “is he a black man in the same sense that most black men in America are black men?” The answer to that is no.
He is not the descendent of slaves. Nobody in his family was ever forcibly transported across the Atlantic. None of his relatives were ever whipped by a white foreman on a tobacco plantation, nor chased by bloodhounds through a swamp with broken chains around their ankles. None of his ancestors were ever spit on in a public street, or forced to drink from a different faucet, go to a different school, swim at a different beach, or ride at the back of the bus. None of his family ever lived in a sharecropper’s shack, a tenement, or a ghetto. None of his family ever died in a gang shooting, nor were they ever falsely arrested or beaten by white police.
His skin is… well, not black so much as khaki, but at least as dark as, say, Jesse Jackson’s. He is well and truly African-American, being equal parts of each, but his African side is from a different side of Africa than that of 99 percent of black Americans. In short, he doesn’t share the culture of the vast majority of black Americans, any more than the son of an aristocrat from Madrid shares the same culture of the vast majority of Hispanic Americans. This is not a criticism of the man. It is merely an observation.
Does it matter? I don’t know. Should it? Or is black only skin deep?
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
In Brazil Barack Obama would be Pardo.
Jeremiah Wright would be Branco.
[quote]etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black. [/quote]
Probably because “the Indian-African-Samoan mixed looking fella, standing next to the Irish-French-Greek mixed looking fella” is excessively long. I know when I overhear “He’s the white guy standing over there,” that I’m not actually “white.” Well, I’ve never actually met a white guy, in fact. Nor, do I worry about the fact that someone said “white guy” (which has happened many many times in my life), instead of “He’s the Irish guy who has features you would assocatiate with Italians.” It’s just, “the white guy.” That’s what I would refer to as black and white, with a lower case “b” and “w.” Most everyone realizes the terms aren’t actual refrences to the person’s complete ethnic background. Or, the actual hue of their skin.
Now, maybe Obama isn’t a Black man (with a capital B), but it sure is odd that he would attend a church saturated in self described “BLACK” theology.
Hey, Sloth, is that a red man on your avatar?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey, Sloth, is that a red man on your avatar?
[/quote]
Yep. And horned (though routinely cropped).
[quote]etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black. [/quote]
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes. Obama is a black man.
The question to ask, though, is, “is he a black man in the same sense that most black men in America are black men?” The answer to that is no.
He is not the descendent of slaves. Nobody in his family was ever forcibly transported across the Atlantic. None of his relatives were ever whipped by a white foreman on a tobacco plantation, nor chased by bloodhounds through a swamp with broken chains around their ankles. None of his ancestors were ever spit on in a public street, or forced to drink from a different faucet, go to a different school, swim at a different beach, or ride at the back of the bus. None of his family ever lived in a sharecropper’s shack, a tenement, or a ghetto. None of his family ever died in a gang shooting, nor were they ever falsely arrested or beaten by white police.
His skin is… well, not black so much as khaki, but at least as dark as, say, Jesse Jackson’s. He is well and truly African-American, being equal parts of each, but his African side is from a different side of Africa than that of 99 percent of black Americans. In short, he doesn’t share the culture of the vast majority of black Americans, any more than the son of an aristocrat from Madrid shares the same culture of the vast majority of Hispanic Americans. This is not a criticism of the man. It is merely an observation.
Does it matter? I don’t know. Should it? Or is black only skin deep? [/quote]
This is an excellent observation, Varq, and I am not sure that it should matter, but most likely it does.
After all, we often hear about the importance of authenticity of experience - as in, “you have no idea what it is like to be a [minority] in this country, so you have no moral authority to [criticize, suggest remedies, etc.]”.
If that be true, then by those lights, Obama lacks the authentic experience as much as the rest of the “majority”. In fact, Obama has less of it than most of the majority, given his privileged background.
And yet. Obama - by sheer virtue of blood quantum - gets a pass on the authentic experience test, while everyone else must be measured by it. It’s an odd - and hypocritical - phenomenon.
In this election, there will be two sub-groups among the general electorate: those who will vote for Obama because he is black, and those who will vote against him because he is black. These two camps couldn’t last five minutes in a room together - on paper, they likely hate each other - but, in fact, they are both guilty of the same, stupid crime and have very similar mindsets. They have more in common than they want to admit, and they drag the rest of us down.
Obama’s candidacy has done one good thing - it has educated us to the ignorance of the race-obsessed on both sides of the transaction. 2008 is a perfect opportunity to cast a pox on both houses.
Good thoughts Thunderbolt. I think the media fuels the race obsession also. They need a pox cast on them also.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In this election, there will be two sub-groups among the general electorate: those who will vote for Obama because he is black, and those who will vote against him because he is black. These two camps couldn’t last five minutes in a room together - on paper, they likely hate each other - but, in fact, they are both guilty of the same, stupid crime and have very similar mindsets. They have more in common than they want to admit, and they drag the rest of us down.
Obama’s candidacy has done one good thing - it has educated us to the ignorance of the race-obsessed on both sides of the transaction. 2008 is a perfect opportunity to cast a pox on both houses.[/quote]
Good shit. The “black power” and “KKK” sides are both equally fucked. If they had the same skin color, they would eat barbecue at a picnic together. But since they happen to have different levels of melanin in their skin, they hate each other. I love how some people let chance and genetics determine their feelings for other people.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…[/quote]
LOL!
Because if you didn’t know his heritage, you would think he was a white man?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…
LOL!
Because if you didn’t know his heritage, you would think he was a white man?
[/quote]
If I had never seen Obama and I heard a tape of him speaking, I would definitely think he was a white man.
I guess I would also not know his name in that case. Obama is clearly not a European name.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…
LOL!
Because if you didn’t know his heritage, you would think he was a white man?
If I had never seen Obama and I heard a tape of him speaking, I would definitely think he was a white man.
I guess I would also not know his name in that case. Obama is clearly not a European name.[/quote]
I didn’t ask you if you heard him speaking. Not only that, but he speaks no differently than I do.
Why not answer the question asked?
Further, are you saying speaking properly defines “speaking like a white man”?
Definitely not the point of my response (this is the point of my response: now it’s about legally separating people by race for eligibility of affirmative action/quotas and other benefits; previously it was about legally separating people by race under Jim Crow segregation; in both cases it’s about governmental discrimination based on race) - or were you trying to respond to etaco?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…
Professor X wrote:
LOL!
Because if you didn’t know his heritage, you would think he was a white man?
Definitely not the point of my response [/quote]
It is the point of mine since the discussion from the very beginning has been PERCEPTION…even though so many of you seem to not be able to understand that.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Definitely not the point of my response …
Professor X wrote:
It is the point of mine since the discussion from the very beginning has been PERCEPTION…even though so many of you seem to not be able to understand that.[/quote]
Yes, but I was making an independent point, and responded to etaco. You quoted my response as if your post was responding to me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…
Professor X wrote:
LOL!
Because if you didn’t know his heritage, you would think he was a white man?
Definitely not the point of my response
It is the point of mine since the discussion from the very beginning has been PERCEPTION…even though so many of you seem to not be able to understand that.[/quote]
Actually my point for starting the thread was to figure out what you call someone when you know their ethnic background is mixed. I agree that if I saw Obama walking down the street I would not know that he was half white. He doesn’t look pure black either, I would think he was half black/half Latino or half something else, but I would probably refer to him that way for simplicity’s sake.
However, since we DO know his ethnicity is mixed, then why is he still thought of as “only” black?
I don’t think it matters, I’m just curious.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I didn’t ask you if you heard him speaking. Not only that, but he speaks no differently than I do.
Why not answer the question asked?
Further, are you saying speaking properly defines “speaking like a white man”?[/quote]
I answered your first question in my last post. I definitely would not think he had any European blood in him, but I wouldn’t think he was pure black either.
I meant that his voice does not tell me what race he is. With most people, you can tell what race they are or where they are from by hearing them speak, whether by voice or by manner of speaking. Lots of black people speak properly but still sound like black people. I speak properly (I think) but still speak like a meathead from western PA. My boss speaks properly but he still sounds like an Indian. Maybe it’s an accent, I don’t know, but it’s definitely something that can be recognized.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s interesting to me that the one rule in race identification that has remained essentially unchanged in our culture is the use of the “one-drop” rule to classify black vs non black people. Like Varq points out, he’s not really an heir to the culture of mainstream black America, but we still apply the same label even with all of it’s implications beyond melanin concentrations. He’s half white American, half old world. In our culture though, an octaroon is considered black.
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s really interesting on the “one-drop rule” is how it’s flipped in terms of who is interested in enforcing it…
Professor X wrote:
LOL!
Because if you didn’t know his heritage, you would think he was a white man?
Definitely not the point of my response
It is the point of mine since the discussion from the very beginning has been PERCEPTION…even though so many of you seem to not be able to understand that.
Actually my point for starting the thread was to figure out what you call someone when you know their ethnic background is mixed. I agree that if I saw Obama walking down the street I would not know that he was half white. He doesn’t look pure black either, I would think he was half black/half Latino or half something else, but I would probably refer to him that way for simplicity’s sake.
However, since we DO know his ethnicity is mixed, then why is he still thought of as “only” black?
I don’t think it matters, I’m just curious.[/quote]
…and this point was answered early on, even though many of you seemed to not be able to comprehend the response at the time. It doesn’t matter if his background doesn’t directly involve slavery. By appearance alone, he has had to deal with every single issue that every other Black male has in this country. He is not thought of as ONLY black. However, every black person in this country knows that he has been treated just like a black man just like the rest of us. That was WHY I mentioned my own “racial background”.
Why did it take this many pages to get us back to the beginning? Honestly, why do so many of YOU have such a hard time understanding this?