Raised white

Nope, not to my understanding.

One of the vestiges we have left of segregation is the old government policy that anyone who wasn't "pure" white was black. I'm old enough that I can remember reading articles about just this sort of thing during the late 70's.

It seems that you were considered black if one of your parents was considered black. Now get how this works. Dad A is black, Mom A is white so child A is black.

Child A who is considered black marries Child B who is white and they have a child "C". Guess what C is considered? Yep, black, because one of his parents was black.

But it got even worse: "C" who is still considered black because his GRANDFATHER was black has a child who will still be considered black even though he is three generations away from his African American roots.

At least back in the 70's there was no way to change one's cultural identity. What you can do about it now, I don't know.

 

That's not relevant any more. I wonder if the OP is speaking to a nagging question I've had about Obama - is he an African American if the only thing African about him is the tint of his skin? He was raised in a middle class white family and neighborhood and had the best college education that can be afforded. How can he relate to the average black person by any means other than the color of his skin?

 

If you'll remember, some African-Americans were asking essentially the same question: Is Obama black enough? The vote demographics show that they concluded that he is.

 

Let's see if the logic works:

Dad is black (A), Mom is white (B), Therefore, Child (AB) is Black (A)

All persons identical to Dad are A
All persons identical to Mom are B
______________________________

All persons identical to child AB are only A

Maybe:

All D are A
All M are B
All DM are AB
____________

Therefore, All AB are can only make A

Eh... nevermind... long day... my brain is tired... not sure how to write this one up yet, looks to be an invalid argument though. I'm almost there, maybe after this weekend...I'll work on it and get back to you.

:tonofbricks:

 

No matter what the semantics here - 50 years ago he would not have been served at many lunch counters all over America.

Everyone knows the name he would have been called then.

 

These racial discussions are hot and charged,
Your use of letters reminds me of blood types: lets use a blood type example instead.

My blood type is B+
My wife is O+

My first daughter is O-

This shows that we are not all that we see.

Full disclosure is that I'm B+ with an O- recessive trait (but to simplify things we just say B+).
My wife is O+ with an O- recessive trait.
The two recessive traits combine to produce an O- child.
And she carries her own recessive trait (which would be another O-).

She's of us but not like us.

Rob

 

Yes, this is true but lets not forget, Roger, that on the other side of the globe where you live----along the same time-----there were signs out that read

Juden verbidden

Blacks over here----had a different water fountain they were to drink from--one that was not refrigerated like the one that whites used

Juden---over there---didn't even HAVE a seperate fountain

Funny thing about race----Hitler had removed two names from his Jewish hate list-------himself and Jesus Christ----I guess he felt justified by eraseing Jesus' name off that list

 

Thats not my point - my point is that we are squabbling over semantics and not recognising the tremendous steps that have been made. Like him or hate him, the US has come a LONG way from the 1950s and ignoring that is missing an important point.

Black, mulatto, 'half breed,' or worse - this was a tremendous accomplishment for America.

 

You are so, so, so right on this one. Most people on the board are probably not old enough to remember the "separate but equal" facilities. When I was a kid, growing up in Virginia there was separate rest rooms ... if there was any for African Americans at all, separate water fountains. Restaurants would serve only white people unless they were for African Americans only. African Americans could stay at black rooming houses only, if there were any. And of course, they had to ride in the back of the bus.

Virginia and many states in the South had a poll tax, the purpose of which was primarily to keep Black people from voting, though it did keep many poor whites from voting ... my mother-in-law for one. African Americans lived in fear ... to be accused was to be guilty.

My wife worked with a very light skinned African American. She and her mother were both very fair. Her father was quit dark. She and her mother rode in the back seat of the car to protect both her mother and her father. If they rode in the front seat with the father they ran the danger of being beaten and her father lynched for fratinizing with a white woman.


There have been huge changes and for the better.

 

Cultural identity in America has much to do with what you call and consider yourself. Does Obama consider himself black? I think he does. That being said he will do things that help other blacks. Of course the greatest thing he will do for blacks he already has. His example and achievement becoming president will inspire many black children to follow their dreams.

Yes a generation ago we had segregated schools and restaurants. Now we have Black Americans sitting on the supreme court, serving as Secretary of State, and now even as President. We have come a long way as a nation and while I disagree with most of Obama's policies I think it is great how far we have grown as a nation.

Here in Western NC much is made about membership on the Cherokee tribal rolls. Years ago people hid their Native American heritage because they were persecuted for it. Now they can get benefits for it so it is now desirable. So you have people scouring the rolls for ancestors and getting dna tests to try to prove they are Cherokee.

One of our tribal leaders made the point a few years ago that bloodline should really have nothing to do with it. He pointed to the centuries old tradition of the Cherokee people to adopt others outside of the tribe. Whether they were captured in combat or simply immigrated, outsiders were frequently adopted into the tribe. And those adopted members were full members regardless of their bloodline. He made the point that the Cherokee people adopted others who lived with them and were like them. People who adopted their customs, lived like them, thought like them, these were the kinds of people that were adopted into the tribe. His point was that if you live among them and like them then you become one of them regardless of your blood. Conversely, if you live white, think white, and act white, you are white no matter what your ancestry.

Now apply this same standard to Obama. Does he live "black" act "black" and think "black?" I don't know him well enough to answer that question for certain but from what I know I would say yes. He attends black majority churches, married a black woman. Historically black issues seem dear to his heat.

 

What would have happened if Obama had walked into a Birmingham lunch counter in 1958.

'Excuse me sir, are you white or black?'

I don't think so - no matter he called himself there would have been one word for him.

I don't care how he was raised, white, black, mulatto, or something else. America has elected a man who could not even vote in most places if he had been there 50 years ago.

I despise his stand and his political views. but there is no denying that this election was historic and it should silence the world's critics of America as a racist nation.

 

Being a born and bred African of white skin, I doubt that will ever happen, i.e., that the world will now not see America as a racist nation, in fact I personally think it will intensify the racial divide. I speak from experience wrt what happened in South Africa - 14 years after the fact. Over in this part of the world they would however call Obama a "coloured" - it's not seen as slanderous, it's an actual term used here for people of black and white heritage.

The Bible says that in the latter days ethnic wars will increase (Matthew 24) - nation will rise against nation - Greek word : ethnos - ethnic.

I don't look at Obama wrt the colour of his skin, when I look at him I see the most liberal president-elect ever - one who believes in gay marriage (unscriptural), abortion and partial birth abortin (unscriptural), etc, etc. And the fact that he's good friends with a famous New Ager, doesn't help matters either. Then there are his social policies. It's a known fact that the majority of people who voted for him (apart from African Americans), were young people under 30, who basically don't know what socialism/marxism is, and have obviously not experienced it as they were born in the 80's when the Berlin wall came down. They don't see China as overtly dangerous either as it is basically very subtle, especially as it holds to capitalistic tendencies/ideals when it comes to it's economy. The dragon is still slumbering.

 

I certainly understand your thoughts, and I appreciate your comment about being a white skinned African.

There is a difference between the US and South Africa. As you understand far more than I do, SA has always had a black and coloured majority. The white minority government used apartheid to suppress the majority.

I don't think the transfer of power to majority rule was handled well there, but don't See Obama's election in the same light as some one like Mandela rising to power. In the US a majority white population chose Obama.

I pray for SA regularly. I understand your concerns, but don't see the US in the same situation.

I am as opposed as anyone to Obama's policies, I agree with your political assesment of him. But that does not detract from the fact that a white majority elected a man who is dark skinned. It would be similar to a black (or coloured) having been elected under minority rule in South Africa.

 

I personally think that one thing that has aided the acceptance of other races, especially blacks in the US has been the TV.

Racism is a combination of mans sinfulness and familiarity.
Certainly man has not gotten less sinful in the last few decades but our culture, through TV and especially sports has gotten us familiar with seeing blacks and whites playing side by side on the ball field.

Now we se blacks and whites working side by side in politics.

Now it would just be nice if we could see more blacks and white (and Hispanics) working together in the Church.

 

That my friend would be truly historic.

But why are we in this "Can't we all just get along?" attitude when it was God who separated us into races at Babel? Why are we so bent to end what God has ordained?

I know the reason for getting along but what many are attempting is to undermine God's purpose for Racial division. For those that don't know what that is then go back to the Bible and read that it was for preventing man from thinking that all things were possible for him, even the thought of becoming like or even God.

 

Um, that was not racial divides, that was linguistic.

And when we begin to teach (unbiblically) that the Bible promotes racial separation, we are not far from some mighty unhealthy views...

 

I think many of the white votes cast that helped elect Obama were cast not so much as a vote for Obama, but as a vote against Bush if we consider that even traditionally Republican states (as reported by some in Media) turned Obama.

What I see now, is the Obama apologists and the media starting to condition the minds of the American people that Obama may not really be able to untangle the economic knots with one term not to mention the bringing home of the troops, etc.

So, I guess they're looking forward to a re-election already ?

 

Thanks for that post, it was an interesting read and provoked thought.