Skip to comments.He's Not Black
Posted on 11/30/2008 4:21:44 AM PST by Nick Thimmesch
He is also half white.
Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.
We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between.
That was my reaction when I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: "Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A better but certainly not asked question by this columnist's opinion piece would be: "Is Obamba a natural born United States citizen?"
Fat chance we'll see an opinion piece in the Wash Obama's Feet Post.
How disgusting is it that Ms. Arana states:
"But Obama's ascent to the presidency is more than a triumph for blacks. It is the signal of a broad change with broad ramifications. The world has become too fused, too interdependent to ignore this emerging reality: Just as banks, earthly resources and human disease form an intricate global web, so do racial ties. No one appreciates this more, perhaps, than the American Hispanic."
He’s the new black. Think Mariah Carey, Halle Berry and so on.
Mulatto as I understand it.
No, he’s not black. He’s about the same color as my Khaki BDU Parade Shorts...
...hey yeah, THAT’S the ticket! America has just elected its first Khaki President!
Well if the slave owners did not make the rule, it would not be used today. Slave owners have really messed up America in many ways. Thank God the North had the sense to fix the travesty.
It is ironic that the first ‘black’ to become President happens to be Kenyan and therefore no legitimate ties to American slavery and the ‘American’ ties he inherited were from a white woman. 0bama will do a disservice in that he is going to be a bad example of a ‘President’. One we will not recover from. That’s what you get from people who are obsessed with race and build their lives on it.
A lot of blood was shed to right the wrongs and has gone unappreciated. The United States is responsible for 89 yrs. of it, but if 0bama and his cronies push for reparations maybe they ought to look England’s way as well as 0bama hails from Kenya-what part did his ancestors play in selling those to American slavery?
Ray Nagin said that New Orleans was a “Chocolate City”. Does that mean Obama is “Milk Chocolate”?
Thank God the North had the sense to fix the travesty.
Your ignorance regarding the War of Northern Aggression is astounding.
Proof that dunb comes in all colors.
I had a buddy when I was stationed in Germany who was black,Japanese and Irish.He was a loon,fun guy to get drunk with.
Who ended slavery? The North. Nothing ignorant about that fact. Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery. Over and out.
Oh! I get it! He went 'up nawth' and 'passed'.
” He is our first biracial, bicultural president.”
“Racial heritage of six former presidents is questioned”
What ports did the slave ships use? Who made money when a slave was sold to a Southerner? Why was slavery OK until the South started exporting cotton to England because of the low prices the Northern textile mills were willing to pay?
They did the same with Tiger Woods, who is only 1/4 th black. I think he is is actually 3/4 Asian (Thai) or is that 1/4 white, 1/4 black and 1/2 Asian? Well, you can see how silly this is getting!
The case is clearly outlined in the great black myth of former royalty in Africa that is the movie Coming To America. Eddie Murphy portrays a prince, a ruler who throws away his past to find something new.
The big eared one is from Africa. He is new. He is different. He is not black. He is not Sharpton. He is not Jessee. He is not any of those old men who marched with Martin.
He is not black.
Dear Leader is Mulatto.
I have a friend who is from Johannesburg, South Africa and White. We were at a party and she announced that she had become a citizen along with her sister. A very lefty friend quipped “So, how does it feel to be an African-American?.
Well if the
slave owners democrat slavers did not make the rule, it would not be used today. Slave owners KKK democrats have really messed up America in many ways. Thank God the North Republicans had the sense to fix the travesty.
More proof that libs/progressives are REALLY reactionaries
Barky the Mutt!
“They did the same with Tiger Woods, who is only 1/4 th black. I think he is is actually 3/4 Asian (Thai) or is that 1/4 white, 1/4 black and 1/2 Asian? Well, you can see how silly this is getting!”
Tiger used to refer to himself as “Cablinasian”. Some years ago on a Sunday talk show, General Colin Powell was being interviewed regarding presidential aspirations and referred to Tiger’s racial designation but said he preferred himself to be regarded as an “African-American”.
How old are ... 10?
You're an idiot.
Just another Obama voter.
If I remember my history correctly, Lincoln only freed the slaves in the states which had seceded, not in the states that remained in the union. His concern was for politics, not for freeing the slaves.
You are correct.
Humblegunner was for slavery? Gee, that would require him to be...what... 150 years old?
Congratulations on a long life, HG!
Over and out.
Effective way to back out of an argument when you know that you're fixing to get your a$$ handed to you for a hat.
Silly, but effective.
The author, whose name I can't recall, claimed the current president was part black, but wouldn't name him. I assumed he was referring to LBJ based on the age of this little pamphlet. The claims sound a lot like those in your links . . . particularly the stuff on Harding. It's all very interesting but not very scholarly.
You make some good points. If true emancipation was really Lincoln’s aim, why were the slaves in non-secessionist states EXEMPTED-?! Lincoln’s war of Northern Agression was really the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution. The Second American Revolution was unsuccesful.
Caucasian may refer to:
Caucasian, an adjective describing anything from the Caucasus region
Peoples of the Caucasus, humans from the Caucasus region
Languages of the Caucasus, languages spoken in the Caucasus region
Caucasian race, a racial classification of human beings
Brown Caucasian (cattle), a cattle breed
North Caucasian (pig), a pig breed
Caucasian Snowcock, a type of bird
Caucasian Shepherd Dog, a dog breed
The Caucasian Chalk Circle, a play by Bertolt Brecht
Caucasian, a nickname for a White Russian (cocktail)The Caucasian race, sometimes the Caucasoid race, is a term of racial classification, coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for the "white" race of mankind, which he derived from the region of the Caucasus. It was thus in use as denoting populations of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Central and South Asia, or more narrowly people of European origin. The concept's existence is based on the now obsolete typological method of racial classification.
The term Caucasian originated as one of the racial categories recognized by 19th century craniology and is derived from the region of the Caucasus mountains.The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia was first proposed under those names by the German scientist and classical anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840). His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Caucasian Peoples...
19th century classifications of the peoples of India considered the Dravidians of non-Caucasoid stock, as "Australoid" (Thomas Huxley 1865) or a separate "Dravida" race (Edgar Thurston) and assumed a gradient of miscegenation of high-caste Caucasoid "Aryans" and indigenous Dravidians. Carleton S. Coon in his 1939 The Races of Europe classifies the Dravidians as Caucasoid as well, due to their "Caucasiod skull structure" and other physical traits (e.g. noses, eyes, hair), in his 1969 The Living Races of Man stating that "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasian racial region".
With the turn away from racial theory in the late 20th century, the term Caucasian as a racial classification fell into disuse in Europe. Thus, in the United Kingdom, Caucasian is more likely than in the United States to describe people from the Caucasus, although it may still be used as a racial classification...
According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has been all but completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology...
In the United States, Caucasian has been mainly a distinction, based on skin color, for a group commonly called White Americans, as defined by the government and Census Bureau.
Between 1917 and 1965, immigration to the USA was restricted by "national origins quota". The Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) decided Indians unlike Europeans and Middle Easterners were Caucasian but not 'white', because most common people did not consider them to be white.
A fine point is being missed.
Is he being regarded as BLACK, or black?
ny good books that you would recommend on the subject?
I don’t care what color he is on the outside. It’s his RED inner-core that bothers me.
You Sir, are an idiot.
“How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk and it becomes a delicious drink. That’s the chocolate I’m talking about.” Backpeddlin’ Ray Nagin, Democrat bigot.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if he is green. It makes no difference what his skin color is.
He is 100% racist, socialist and marxist.
He is racist because he was a member of the Trinity “church”. Flip that around, and that white candidate would probably never even have got elected to the senate.
He is socialist because of the policies he proposes.
He is Marxist because he is a devotee of class warfare.
Watch. The left is going to make EVERY issue into a race issue. Someone disagrees with him? Racist. Someone says something bad about him? Racist. They have already done so.
During the campaign, Obama tried to play the “I’m down with the struggle” card by claiming that “his family” was descended from slaves (by way of his wife and through him, his wife’s children).
He was not descended from American slaves, he grew up in Indonesia where he didn’t even experience “racism” from American “imperialism”. He eventually got tired of moving around with “wandering mama” and moved to Hawaii to live with his grandmother who worked as the VP of a bank.
But don’t question his authority.
You said — “Who ended slavery? The North. Nothing ignorant about that fact. Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery. Over and out.”
Well, the war started because of secession of states from the Union (which, actually and technically, should have been allowed, although it would have definitely destroyed the U.S. as we know it now). These states left the Union as a result of “state’s rights” issues, and not primarily because of slavery.
There are still state’s rights issues today and some think that the Federal Government has encroached way too much on states rights issues. Some have been affirmed for the states (against the Federal Government) by the Supreme Court, but it’s still a viable issue, even today. There are state’s rights issue with the Federal Government encroaching way too much upon the sovereignty of the individual states of the United States. The Federal Government (thanks to the “liberals” have enforced their agendas by means of taking away “state’s rights issues” from the states and transferring them over to the Federal Government where they can control things *centrally*.
So, in the Civil War, slavery was a secondary issue, and the South was going to end slavery anyway, but it wasn’t on the same timetable as some others wanted. Slavery would have ended soon, too, with automation and mechanization, since the economy would have shifted to machines instead of slavery for much of their work. And there were also people in the South who wanted to end slavery. Everyone knew that its time was limited and would be over soon.
As far as the Civil War being primarily for ending slavery, that’s very far from the truth. The war that Lincoln launched had nothing to do with that. His *primary purpose* was to preserve the Union and not allow those states to leave (although, as I said, they did have the right to do so...). Lincoln took a *military position* to force those states to stay in the Union, even though they had the right to leave.
Now, I’m not saying that we aren’t better off — in regards to the “Union” with everyone staying as part of the Union, but our “states rights issues” suffered as a result of Lincoln, even though he preserved the Union.
However, the North (the people of the North) did not want a prolonged war and they would have given up on Lincoln’s idea, soon — and he knew it. In order to shift gears, somewhat and as a matter of military strategy, Lincoln decided to give slaves freedom, as the Emancipation Proclamation declares. It’s looked upon as a fine and noble document — but at the same time, one must realize that it was *an instrument of war* and had a military objective, which was to gain support by a certain segment of people in the South and also to disrupt the economy of the South as much as possible.
I would say that a significant part of the North did not care if the South left and if they took all their slaves with them. Their attitude would be “let them leave and let them have their slaves...”
BUT, it was Lincoln’s war and it was something that he struggled to maintain, *primarily* for the purpose of *maintaining the Union* and not so much because of slavery. The slavery issue became a means to an end (the “end” being “winning the war”).
So, neither side really held a good “high ground” on the issue, from each side’s behavior and reasoning.
In fact, today, I see that the (so-called) “North” is probably more prejudiced against blacks and them being integrated fully into society than is true in the “South”. I’ve seen this for a long time. Many in the South do quite well living together with blacks, fully integrated and functioning in the South, while in the North, people seem to “spout off platitudes” about inequality of blacks, until blacks come into *their* neighborhoods... LOL... (it’s very true..., in the North). People in the North also seem to be afraid of blacks, more so than people in the South are. It’s a curious thing.
I did ride on those segregated busses (in the South) and grew up “knowing” where I was supposed to sit — and wondered about it. I laugh at a time when I was a kid and decided I was going to sit in the back of the bus (because I thought it was weird that we each sat in different parts of the bus). Well..., when I went back there, I sure got a lot of dirty looks from the blacks, back there..., like “what are you doing back here? The blacks definitely did not want me in “their territory”.
And likewise, the blacks didn’t sit in the front of the bus, either, getting equally dirty looks from whites and the bus driver telling them to go to the back of the bus...
However, into the future, when that changed, it was no problem. I didn’t have a problem and a lot of others didn’t have a problem. There were people that did have a problem with it, just like we have others that don’t abide by the right thing to do, today, either.
So, regardless of what you think the Civil War was about, it wasn’t about slavery — but rather — it was about *preserving the Union*. The slavery issue because a means to an end for winning the war, a simple “tool of war” — more or less..., just like the U.S. uses the Shia population of Iraq against the Sunni population, in order to further progress the U.S. aims and goals in the war.
It’s only in “retrospect” that we (of today) make the slavery issue to be more of a romantic ideal for the Civil War, which it wasn’t.
"Tonto can you believe what this guy just said?"
"No kemosobi, can you find out if he is goofy, or just idiot?"
Your an idiot. Got back to the 3d grade and start again.
“Obviously your from the South so no use arguuing about with a person that was for slavery”.
What an incoherent statement. When did Humblegunner state that he was “for slavery”? He merely stated that you were ignorant of the facts concerning the War of Northern Aggresion which is true. You are.
Do you think that Southerners went to Africa and chased Natives through the Jungle to capture Slaves? No. They were bought from New England Slave Traders who did go to Africa and bought them from other Native African Slave Trading Tribes and brought them to the U.S.in ships flying the American Flag.
You said to the other poster — “You Sir, are an idiot.”
He’s definitely showing his ignorance of the Civil War and has a “romanticized idea” (typical of liberals of today) of what the Civil War was about (like it was about slavery... LOL..).
He doesn’t know that the slavery issue is about as related to the Civil War, as us going to war with Iraq because we believe in Shias over Sunnis... LOL...
We had our own reasons for going to war there, and he had a name of Saddam Hussein...
Some people don’t know about “states rights” issue and don’t even realize that the liberals take away states rights issues (away from the sovereign states of the United States) in order to *consolidate control* in Washington DC, where they figure it’s easier to do (and to control everyone, through the Federal Government).
This is a person who is severely ignorant about what went on before and what is going on today....
LINCOLN DID NOT START THE WAR TO END SLAVERY. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He would have kept slavery if it would have preserved the Union. Both R.E. Lee and Jefferson Davis both thought slavery would simply die out on its own in time. Lee fought for the south because he fought for Virginia. He fought for the rights of his state. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. Try reading some of the books on this. I was looking at one in the book store just the other day and it was covering this subject in detail. Lincoln did not want the USA to break up into two countries, maybe three if the western US did something even different.
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.