I find it interesting that whenever somebody describes Barack Obamas heritage, he is a "black man with a white mother". He is never called a white man with a black father. Do you think that is an American way of thinking, or is it the same everywhere? Do Africans call him white? I'd like to hear some other peoples thoughts on this, as I think it says a lot about the way we, as Americans in general, think.

Re: Americanized descriptions?

1. In this age, it is a huge political asset for Obama to personally identify with the black community while stressing stress his diverse heritage.

2. [I]Look[/I] at the guy. Does he look white to you?? :lol: Even though he is technically half white by descendancy, people would find it thoroughly bizarre if he went around saying he is a white man.

Re: Americanized descriptions?

[quote=Miroslav;593433]1. In this age, it is a huge political asset for Obama to personally identify with the black community while stressing stress his diverse heritage.

2. [B][I]Look[/I] at the guy. Does he look white to you?? :lol: Even though he is technically half white by descendancy, people would find it thoroughly bizarre if he went around saying he is a white man[/B].[/quote]

Michael Jackson is supposedly black...

Re: Americanized descriptions?

[QUOTE=Miroslav;593433] 2. [I]Look[/I] at the guy. Does he look white to you?? :lol: Even though he is technically half white by descendancy, people would find it thoroughly bizarre if he went around saying he is a white man.[/QUOTE]

True as to Obama's appearance, but I think the thrust of the question -- and I think it's an interesting question -- is why is it that if you have any African blood at all, you're black.

Put it this way -- Obama is half black, half white, but he's still considered "black." If he were to marry a white woman, their children would be 3/4 white, 1/4 black, and would probably have pretty pale skin, but would still be considered "black." And if that child were to marry a white person, their children would be 7/8 white -- and would probably look white apart from having "black features" -- but still considered "black."

I saw a documentary that discussed this once, and some scholar hypothesized that it was a holdover from pre-civil rights era, where discrimination was open and invidious, people openly discriminated against people who were black, and to be black was to be a second-class citizen. Biracial relationships were not kosher, so perhaps labeling someone with any amount of African blood -- i.e., the child of an interracial relationship -- as "black" was society's way of "punishing" those who would dare to engage in such taboo behavior. So the argument went, anyway.

Kinda interesting, I think. I don't know that I have a better explanation, but there's no question that there is an imbalance it what means to be "white" or "black."

On an unrelated note, that documentary also pointed out that society's perception of beauty has adapted to favor people of mixed racial background. Agree/disagree?

Re: Americanized descriptions?

I think that is a good point about the pre-civil war "leftovers" While people may not intentionally label a light skinned mixed person "black" to punish them, it's certainly plausible that the word usage stems from just that attitude. And thats the sort of thing that goes unnoticed. Words are powerful, and the way we use them makes a difference. If you can call Barack a black son of a white mother, why can't the opposite be said? It's obviously true, but for some reason it doesn't "sound right". I propose that it doesn't sound right because of the words that have been, and are currently used in America in connection with race issues. We need a new way of thinking about race, and I think that starts with a new way of describing it. Words help shape the way we think, any linguist will tell you that.

[quote=toasty;593461] On an unrelated note, that documentary also pointed out that society's perception of beauty has adapted to favor people of mixed racial background. Agree/disagree?[/quote]

I very much agree with this statement of beauty. It's a natural progression. If you think about it, the only way people will be able to maintain their racial heritage in the future is to be elitist, separatist and only marry in their line, which will get smaller and smaller until it that particular race dies out or brings in new blood, changing the line forever. Genetically speaking, even if every race on the planet mixes together to form a "generic" breed of humans that all have brownish skin and slightly slanted eyes, there will still be throwbacks. You could get a pale redheaded baby from a mexican looking couple if all the genes were combined. DNA is tricky like that :-p

Re: Americanized descriptions?

[quote=Miroslav;593433]1. In this age, it is a huge political asset for Obama to personally identify with the black community while stressing stress his diverse heritage.

2. [I]Look[/I] at the guy. Does he look white to you?? :lol: Even though he is technically half white by descendancy, people would find it thoroughly bizarre if he went around saying he is a white man.[/quote]

3. I agree with you on that, but he has really tried to make his candidacy about everything BUT race, and for that I applaud him. He's not playing the race card, because thats not why he wants to win, to be the first black president. He wants to win to make a difference. Also, it's not like he has a lockdown on the black vote.

4. That's the problem though. Preconceived notions of color that are fucking with peoples heads. If he went around saying he was white, he'd be right! I know Italian dudes who are darker than him. My grandpa has kinky hair that fro's if it gets long, and he's white. What's so strange about that? Would people find it bizarre if we went around just calling him a [I]man[/I]?

Re: Americanized descriptions?

[QUOTE=Dj Lunchtray;593473]I think that is a good point about the pre-civil war "leftovers" While people may not intentionally label a light skinned mixed person "black" to punish them, it's certainly plausible that the word usage stems from just that attitude. [/QUOTE]

I think this was clear, and I think you understood this as well, but I wanted to clarify that I [B]don't[/B] think that people today refer to mixed race people as "black" to punish them -- intentionally or unintentionally -- nor do I think that would be "punishment." The point is more that its a linguistic relic from a different era that has persevered for whatever reason.

Re: Americanized descriptions?

exactly :)

Re: Americanized descriptions?

Haha, I had to share this. I was talking with a friend about this whole issue, and she says: "I agree with you about the race issue. It's so twisted. If you have a drop of black in you ...you are labeled black.

Why not blackish? lol"

So my brain starts playing with the word association. blackish sounds like brackish, and in this context has the same general meaning of "mixed together" (taking liberties with definitions, but you see what I mean) So the next place my mind ends up at is: Barackish Obama..... hahahahahaha! holy shit, thats funny. I just pooped a little I laughed so hard.

Re: Americanized descriptions?

[quote=toasty;593461]True as to Obama's appearance, but I think the thrust of the question -- and I think it's an interesting question -- is why is it that if you have any African blood at all, you're black.[/quote]

yeah good point...I kinda missed that, makes sense though. I know that back in the day there used to be laws that very bluntly expressed this sentiment of society - i.e., if you had a drop of "black" blood in you, the state saw you as black with respect to a variety of rights, etc. But wouldn't you think that today, save for a handful of dedicated racists, people are probably [I]more likely[/I] to form their assumptions (for better or for worse) around what they [I]directly[/I] perceive? i.e., your appearance, mannerisms, social peer groups, etc. In other words, let's say that Obama thoroughly [I]appeared[/I] white - in every sense of the word, from looks to speech to social circles - even though he was actually 1/2 African-American. Would people perceive him differently - especially if they didn't know his heritage? I suspect most would... dunno, just my suspicion.

[quote=Dj Lunchtray;593476]1. I agree with you on that, but he has really tried to make his candidacy about everything BUT race, and for that I applaud him. He's not playing the race card, because thats not why he wants to win, to be the first black president. He wants to win to make a difference. Also, it's not like he has a lockdown on the black vote.[/quote]

Well...I guess I would just say that the man is very smart I knows how to "play" the race card ;) He knows he doesn't have to get up there and talk at length about his skin color and his heritage (he's already put that out there). But I gotta think that he is thoroughly aware of the tremendous "street cred" advantage that comes from the fact that he can directly lay claim to a [I]deep and personal[/I] understanding of what it means to be both African-American and White-American in the USA - and what that might imply for unifying the country and addressing long-standing racial disparities. In my mind, that has to make a tangible impression on voters. It's not something McCain or Hillary can showcase nearly as easily.

And - let's be honest - you know he has a team of people in his campaign who are carefully assessing (among other things) how the perception of his ethnicity is impacting the perception of his message among various constituencies.

So, it isn't about race......and yet, it is (not that this is necessarily a bad thing btw).

Re: Americanized descriptions?

If there is such a thing as a "national consciousness" I would say it is Euro-centric or white-centric. Since in this "consciousness" the default is white, then anything other than white becomes significant simply because it's different.

Similarly with the labelling of people with 1/16th African American as "black," some states have even defined how much Native American blood one must have in order to be counted as a Native American for legal purposes such as eligibility for casino gambling profits. Where I live I believe it is 1/8th minimum.

All this is socially derived and has no real basis in science. When I have to fill out a form that asks me what race I am, I make my own circle and put "human, of course."

I think if institutions want and/or need to classify people, perhaps they should use "cultural affiliation" rather than race, because that seems to be what we are really talking about. Race, to me implies a scientific basis when in reality the only race is really the "human race."

Re: Americanized descriptions?

From what I hear in his speeches He is an American and a Christian that's all that matters to plenty of the US voters he could glow in the dark, those two attributes supercede plenty. As far as race is concerned there really is no mixed catagory in the census besides other, even though that might have changed maybe you should ask Tiger Woods.