Who decided to call Obama black? - 'Mixed race' isn't seen as identity

Sen. Barack Obama is the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. So why is he "black"?

He is, to be accurate, biracial, equally black and white. Mr. Obama could choose to identify himself in a way similar to golfer Tiger Woods, who describes himself as "Cablinasian" — a mix of his Caucasian, black and American Indian father and his Asian mother (although "Kensan" or "Kanyan" don't have the same ring).

Or Mr. Obama could label himself with obvious legitimacy as white - he was, after all, raised by his white mother and white grandparents after his father abandoned the family when he was 2 years old.

Yet he describes himself as black, and news organizations around the world have followed suit.

The Associated Press said June 3, when the Democratic candidate secured enough delegates to win the nomination, that the biracial senator is "the first African-American to lead a major party ticket" as he seeks to become "the nation's first black president."

But a debate over the topic of race has been raging since he entered the presidential race a year ago. Throughout the primary campaign, political pundits have addressed the question of whether Mr. Obama is "black enough." (A Google search of the candidate's name and the phrase pulls down 152,000 hits.)

If you didn’t know a thing about Obama and saw him on the street, how would you describe him?

He’s black.

Only because you're so used to seeing mixed race folks who are called black. Take him over to Sudan (or many other places in Africa or in comparison with his own dad) and look at him and you'll say "mostly white".

I only used the word to designate the color of a Caucasian person's skin, which is not white but pinkish beige. And that was in response to another poster who quibbled about the fact that black people are not really black but brown. Personally, I don't like the term "white." Given the huge range of skin shades that this term includes, and given the equally great range of skin shades included in the term "black," the only real difference is that on average, "white" skin is a little lighter than "black" skin.

I just think it's insulting and demeaning to designate someone as "white" or "black." What purpose does it serve? If it's for descriptive identification, such as eye color or height, then wouldn't it make more sense to designate someone's actual color? Instead of "white," we could use "bisque" or "tan" or "beige" or "peach." Instead of "black," one could be "bronze" or "walnut" or "coffee" or "nutmeg." In fact, to eliminate any word associations, instead of color names, hexadecimal RGB values could be used. So tan would be D2B48C. Nutmeg would be 81422C.

Race distinctions are pointless. Race is a concept that in reality does not exist. Why do we keep humoring the opportunists who make their living from it?

Or maybe burnt sienna, or raw umber. What difference does it make what precise shade he is? The fact is that strangers perceive him as "not white." He grew up with that and knows what it feels like to be treated like a black person. I'm not saying that he's not capitalizing on his skin color. I'm just saying that in terms of his life experience, he's a black man.

Could you please provide the pigmentation pallet that qualifies someone as "black"? Or is it all in the perception of the person? And what is it to be "treated like a black person"? What does that mean? How does someone know that they are being treated a certain way due to something in particular?

This victimology crap has got to stop.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.