But keep in mind that “Africans” are the most genetically diverse group on the planet. Most of the Blacks in the US come from some smaller subset of “Africans”, and virtually all have some European admixture. Someone who was part Black and part White was more likely to stay in the Black community, so there has always been a stead stream of European genes into that community. (People who could pass would bring African genes into the White community, but that would be a smaller set of people.) However, the studies I have seen show that the % admixture varies substantially, but the average is around 20%. The corresponding figure for White Americans (ie, the amount of African admixture) is pretty low-- somewhere in the single digits. That is not to say that there aren’t plenty of White Americans with 20% African heritage or more.
No doubt there are many Blacks in the US who are more genetically similar to Europeans than to Africans, but not “on average”-- you’d need to get the average admixture to somewhere close to 50% for that to be true.
I plead fuzzy memories of a Physical Anthro 101 course from 22 years ago. I can recall a diagram of a triangle, the sides representing relative distances between the populations in some genetic fashion (it may have been genes for blood type – that sounds more likely given the mid 80’s timeframe than more complex genetic sampling), and an assertion that the two US populations were closer than the black US pop and the African pop (which I think was west coast, but could be wrong).
But you may very well be right, and my memory (or long-ago Professor) wrong.
22 years ago would make it 1986, and I doubt we had a good DNA data base then. For reference, L. LucaCavelli-Sforza’s Genes, Peoples, and Languages was published in 1994. Now, there may be some odd way your professor was measuring genetic relatedness, but simple math tells you Blacks can’t be more closely related to Whites in the US unless the average Black person gets at least 50% of his genetic heritage from Europe (or the average White person gets enough genetic heritage from Africa to make up the difference).
There may indeed be populations in Africa that are more distantly related to US Blacks than US Blacks are to US Whites, but that would be true of the ancestral populations (in Africa) of US Blacks, too.
Actually, a lot of US “blacks” are heavily descended from indigenous peoples. I know a woman who’s black as night, with extremely kinky hair, & is pretty serious about her Cherokee heritage. And most US “blacks” are less African-looking than she is. There are also genetic contributions from Chinese laborers, & of course a lot of Europeans. Also, the genetic makeup from any given point in Africa doesn’t quite match the mixture of strands from different parts of Africa with slave trade whence American blacks’ African blood came. And some American whites are part indigenous &/or part black, but appear superficially white.
I’m sure Obama has had the black experience. But how can you be sure that he hasn’t also had biracial experiences that blacks with two black parents * haven’t *had. My kids are biracial (white-Asian), and they’ve had experiences that
I’m certain non- mixed kids wouldn’t have had. For example, people frequently didn’t think my kids were mine. I don’t mean they called the police ,but at the parent-child ski lesson, only my daughter was asked where her mother was. The kids with the matching-race parents weren’t. If my kids wanted to point me out in a group, they had to include my race- if they just said the short lady in the red shirt, people were looking for a short Asian lady in a red shirt. I couldn’t even count all the times that complete strangers came up to me and started on what a wonderful thing I was doing by adopting these Asian children. Then there was the whole “don’t really fit in with the Asian kids, but don’t really fit in with the white kids either” Somehow, I suspect Obama has had those experiences ,too.
Actually, there is a lot of misinformation about the amount of Native American admixture in US Blacks. Studies have shown there is considerably less than the folk knowledge implied there was.
So let’s see if I have this right (I love this identity stuff!):
He “looks” Black enough - to most Americans. He has no doubt had experiences that were the result of those looks. He was raised in a White household with a highly secular mother, as well as in a variety of other locales not traditionally associated with the American Black experience (Hawaii, Indonesia, Kansas) but in his adult life associated himself more with traditionally Black American experiences. He no doubt had experiences that were very specific to his mixed heritage and to his White heritage. Genetically and by looks he is no more “mixed” than many others who are sociologically Black in America.
We seem to all agree that he is entitled to self-identify as “Black” and that such an identity would likely be imposed upon him by most even if he wanted to call himself “biracial” - which he would also be entitled to use nevertheless. But he couldn’t get away calling himself “White” with a Black father in America, no matter how strongly he identified with that heritage, even though he can easily call himself Black with a White mother.
I’m not saying that he hasn’t had a “biracial” experience. My point is that the “biracial” experience is included in the African-American experience because that’s basically how it’s always been. When people discuss how black folks were enslaved, no one pipes up with “mulattos and quandroons were in chains too!” as if somehow we’re overlooking something by not having this pointed out. I view Obama and his having a white mother the same way.
Yes, he has, according to his books. I don’t see this as part and parcel of being biracial, though. It’s an experience that many mixed people have, but having those experiences don’t make you more “biracial” than those who don’t, if that makes any sense. I mean, if you look at my life, you’d probably see very little that makes me different than a white person. But that doesn’t make me any less black. I don’t believe someone has to have certain experiences in order to be racially classifed a certain way.
because he has recent African ancestry (meaning the “one drop” rule)
historically speaking, he would have been subjected to Jim Crow and the black codes just like any other black person.
He’s biracial because
his parents belonged to two different racial groups
I don’t know why people are acting as it’s inaccurate to describe him in either way, when both are true.
I was listening to Tell Me More on NPR today, and they were talking about this very subject. One of the biracial panelist said something very poignant. He said that in the past, there was pressure for biracials to identify with one race rather than straddle the fence. But nowadays, there seems to be equally obnoxious pressure to choose “biracial”–regardless how the individual feels about it. I have to echo you with the face; there seems to be an assumption here that Obama is wrong for choosing black not just because it’s semantically inaccurate, but because there’s something fundamentally wrong with identifying as black when you have a choice (which, I assert, Obama does not. Jessica Beals maybe, but Barak isn’t ready to pass quite yet). Or in other words, people are acting as if it’s an insult to call Obama a black man–as if we’re somehow pigeonholing him into an ill-fitting box. I don’t like that.
To me, it would be like if we had a guy running for president whose mother was a Jew but his father wasn’t. Would it be incorrect to say he was Jewish? Wouldn’t it be kinda bold to assert otherwise if he self-identified as such and the Jewish community accepted him as one of theirs? Does saying you’re Jewish in such a situation mean denying the other half of your make-up?
Actually the point of one of the articles linked to in this discussion is that it is difficult for a public figure to not choose “Black” out of fear that some would read that as disrespecting the Black heritage, but by so doing another important part of who that individual is is disregarded or at least diminished.
Jewish is a faith and a culture. As an identity it is manifold. A Catholic can become Jewish; a White cannot become Black. There are laws over “who is a Jew?” But even in this example complexities arise. What does he practice, if anything? Whose rules? The Orthodox? Reform? If Reform then how was he raised? Popular media who attribute any Jewish “blood” as Jewish? He certainly isn’t Jewish and say Baptist or “bireligious.”
And an American black person can become white, if you drop him or her into another country (like Brazil).
I’d also argue that culture is also important for racial identification. We’ve all had encounters with people who are racially ambiguous until we hear their speech patterns or see their style of dress. And if Obama self-identified as a white guy, you better believe many, if not most, black people who NOT be claiming him as one of their own.
(Mostly in jest, but – to someone less rooted in US culture – the term seems to imply descent from those Africans forcibly brought to the Americas in the past).
Interesting. From my reading of the thread I’m learning a lot here…and it seems that there IS a debate. I’ve seen reference by other posters to this topic being debated elsewhere (other than the original linked article you never bothered to read).
shrug If it’s no debate to you then you should wander off. Myself, I’m learning a lot…and having a lot of my assumptions and preconceptions challenged. It’s causing me to think of several things in a completely new light…especially posts from monstro, Apollyon, you with the face and several others.
What I THOUGHT I knew seems to be wrong…and several things I thought and even subconsciously resented in the past I now see in a totally different light.
C’est la vie. Sorry you didn’t get anything out of it. I did…I absolutely LOVE this board and the people (with a few exceptions) that post here. Always something new to learn.
Has anyone noticed that it is only mixed people who are expected to give props to their parents in conversations, interviews, and public persona storylines? I was just thinking about this the other day: I know nothing about Hillary’s parents. She could have been hatched from a platypus egg for all I know and care. Few of us know anything about the Rodhams, but no one (that I know of) takes this lack of knowledge as evidence that her parents were of zero importance to her life. For some reason, we aren’t able to do this with Obama. He has to make frequent reference to his parents in order for us to know him and gauge how well he was raised.
I think people read way too much into racial tags (myself included). I read the article you linked to earlier and found the pleas for Obama’s mother a bit melodramatic. Just because people call Obama black doesn’t mean they are ignoring his mother or considering her an irrelevant entity; it just means he’s got African ancestry. Making it out to be more than that suggests that the biracial label is an emotion-driven pursuit, not a rational one.
As far as I am concerned skin color does not make a difference (or lable) for some one.
My daughter once dated a man from India and he was blacker than most black people I have met.
I hope I live to see the day that we do not judge a person by it’s skin color,etc. Just accept the fact that all of us are different in many ways as well as the same.
A very complicated subject. We had a 5+ page thread in GQ on the subject once. There are many people who would say he isn’t A-A, although he does self-identify that way. Also, we tend to use “Black” and “African-American” interchangeably in American English. If Obama Sr. had stayed in the US, he probably wouldn’t be referred to as African-American, but as Kenyan (or Kenyan-American). But most Americans would certainly consider him “Black”. Language just isn’t always that cut and dried.
I can recall a diagram of a triangle, the sides representing relative distances between the populations in some genetic fashion (it may have been genes for blood type – that sounds more likely given the mid 80’s timeframe than more complex genetic sampling), and an assertion that the two US populations were closer than the black US pop and the African pop (which I think was west coast, but could be wrong).