Obama was half-black, and there is no serious dispute in society that he was the first black president. But what if he had been only 1/4 or 1/8 black instead, would that still have counted? At what point does a candidate fail to meet the threshold? (Nobody would seriously consider Elizabeth Warren to be a Native American president, for instance)
(Not about anything legal, but just your own opinion)
50%
Ethnicity is cultural. It doesn’t really come in fractions like that. You are a part of the ethnicity / ethnicities that your family are from. Some ancestors don’t pass on their culture. Obama was clearly of both black and white America. Kamala Harris is multi-ethnic, too. Elizabeth Warren is 1/whatevereth Native American by ancestry, but is not ethnically Native American even though some ancestors were.
Like many things, it’s up to the voter. However, when a politician makes a false claim, there should be some repercussions. For example, Warren kept saying she was Native American and may have used the status to advance her career. When the DNA test came back showing nothing, she rightly took a credibility hit.
Being part Mexican didn’t help Mitt Romney win the Latino vote. Maybe because he was too tall and white.
Being the first <whatever> is about overcoming prejudice. So if you’re <whatever> enough for people to be prejudiced against you, that’s enough. Exactly how much this would need to be would vary from case to case, and may depend on factors other than just percentage (for instance, skin color).
She said she was part, a very tiny part. She made no secret or misrepresentation of that. There is no evidence that she uused or tried to use that to advance her career.
As far as Romney, since when did he claim to be Mexican? He was born in Detroit. His father was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico. Being born in a country doesn’t make you that ethnicity though depending on the laws, it may confer citizenship.
Yes, there was. The Republicans tried to float the idea to black voters that they shouldn’t support Obama in 2008 because he wasn’t really black. They only dropped it because it wasn’t working.
Well, aside from the idea, floated by Toni Morrison, that Bill Clinton was the “first black President” despite having no black ancestry, due to his life story, or something.
It didn’t get a lot of traction.
There was the time he used dark makeup for a Univision interview. They forgot his hands, though.
I think the example that makes it easiest to understand how this question would be answered is Tiger Woods.
Tiger Woods is a true mixture of all sorts of ethnicity. He has referred to himself as Cablinasian. But even if we simplify things, his mother was Thai, and his father was not 100% “black”. But he was/is constantly referred to as the “first black golfer to ___________”. Mind you, he was the first Asian golfer to do quite a bit of that stuff, too, but that got absolutely no traction.
So it will depend upon what the ethnicity is, and, probably, what they look like, which, of course, is a silly way of looking at it.
I *think *we’re past the one-drop rule that used to be the American definition, but still, there are a lot of people with a lot less African ancestry than Obama who unquestionably qualify as black. I suggest that, if you self-identify as black AND are seen by whites as not white, then you’re black. Still a lot of work to do, of course.
I think the the important firsts for president are:
After that first anything else decreases in importance.
An argument could be made that JFK as the first catholic or non-protestant was very important.
Obama achieved the first one and Harris could tick off 2 and 3. A Native American president (not Warren) would be a big deal.
He was born in Mexico, but is only “Mexican” in the same context that Charlize Theron is “African-American”.
There is a saying in the South to the effect that your cat may have kittens in the oven but that don’t make them biscuits.
*George *Romney was born in Mexico (and yes, that was a question when he ran in 1968). His *son *Mitt was born in Detroit.
It’s really a stupid question. Before we had stuff like 23andme, how would you have even measured this? It’s not like a black person can go back and identify all the individuals in their family tree that were the offspring of a female slave who was raped by her owner or one of his sons, or the overseer.
Taken from the Washington Examiner.
**
Warren did however, change her ethnicity from white to Native American after she was hired at UPenn and Harvard, documents show.
Critics of the progressive lawmaker have repeatedly accused her of using her heritage to advance her academic career, including President Trump, who calls her “Pocahontas.” Warren has said she is a distant descendant of the Cherokee and Delaware tribes, but she has little hard evidence to back her claims up.**
Why would someone with less than 1% Native American DNA do this? Universities and colleges jump at minorities candidates that are underrepresented. We both know this coach.
People can make up their own mind. I think she did it to give herself the best chance of advancement. Warren handled this very badly once the truth came out.
Are your brilliant thoughts backed up by any evidence? Or is your post your cite?
That would be John Adams.
The first gay President was likely James Buchanan, but you did say “open”.
How about a source devoted to the truth?
And just to head off your cherry picking tactics: Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test: What it can and can’t tell us