Is Barack Obama really black?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@magellan01

I think that’s a pretty big deal. It might not seem that big a deal to some of us, but for the millions of black kids, the world looks different. This is a wonderful shift.

This pretty much takes care of it. Black parents will no longer have to feel like they’re stretching the truth when they tell their kids they can be whatever they want. That is huge, and it will remain huge even if we never have another black President.

Anyway, if you thought it was bad yesterday, just wait 'til next month.

[Little_Nemo]

Nevertheless, I’m relatively sure that whatever ragtag honchos guided the ship of state in the years intervening between 1776 and 1789 were also not black, so I humbly consider my point to be pretty safe.

Actually there was an issue over this. Under the Articles of Confederation (which governed the United States prior to the Constitution) there was an office called the President of the United States, even though it was nothing like the current office. As you note, the holders of that office were a bunch of non-entities that most people couldn’t name. One of these non-entities was John Hanson. Hanson was white. But there was another politician named John Hanson who was black (and who lived a hundred years later). Due to the fact that both men are pretty obscure some people saw pictures of the latter and thought it was the former so they concluded that President Hanson was black.

[Skywatcher]

@Jettboy

His mother was white; doesn’t that mean that the honkies can claim him, too?

In know one person, unless she’s changed her mind in the past decade, who’d say he’s white because that’s his mother’s race. According to her, the father’s race has nothing to do with it.

FTR, and AFAIK, this person is the product of two black parents.

[Sigmagirl]

I think a lot of people voted for the white half and now are really surprised!

[Ponder_Stibbons]

@Jettboy

His mother was white; doesn’t that mean that the honkies can claim him, too?

Only if they’re Irish.

[Fish]

I can’t say I’m shocked that the media is mentioning his blacknicity at every opportunity. It’s what most viewers want: part self-satisfaction for a job well done (“look at us, we elected a President with blackage”), part historic adulation (“this is the dawn of a new blackness”), but also partly the typical Presploitation you get when democracy has a bright new [del]shine[/del] appeal.

After all, this is the same media that invents a reason to put Princess Diana on the cover of magazines nearly 12 years after her death. “Great Weddings of the 20th Century.” “People of the Decade.” “Looking Back at the 90s.” “Famous White Princesses.” “Where Were You When…?” “People Who Died in France But Were Nevertheless Famous.” And so on.

[Wile_E]

I think he’s really more of a warm cocoa.

[Tuckerfan]

@matt_mcl

In an unforgivable lapse of academic judgment quite unworthy of a poster on an Internet message board, I foolishly went by the traditional date of 1776 (you know, the one they celebrated with that bicentennial about 33 years ago).

However, Wikipedia, source of all good things, gives us two alternative dates of which this unworthy foreigner was formerly unaware: September 3, 1783 (the Treaty of Paris, at which the independence declared in 1776 was recognized), and June 21, 1788 (the ratification of the current Constitution).

Any of these would be a plausible date for the United States’ having come into existence, but none of them are 1789, so I’m not sure what you meant.

A bit of digging tells us that George Washington assumed office in 1789. Nevertheless, I’m relatively sure that whatever ragtag honchos guided the ship of state in the years intervening between 1776 and 1789 were also not black, so I humbly consider my point to be pretty safe.

For the rest of my historiographical inexactitudes (I mean really, who considers the United States to have been founded in 1776?) I can only fling myself, quivering with remorse, into the dust.

Yes, but if we’re going to engage in nitpickery (which many people claim that’s what “fighting ignorance” really means), then it behooves us to recognize that fact that entity of which Obama is currently the president of, did not come into being until significantly later than 1776. There were significant differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution which we adopted several years later. For one thing, the Articles allowed Canada to join the Confederation as a “state” (which were more akin to an independent nation than what we have today), if they so chose.

Nor, is anyone here saying that the election of Obama isn’t significant, what they’re bitching about is the constantly flogging of that fact, which tends to diminish the actual importance of Obama being elected.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Tuckerfan

Yes, but if we’re going to engage in nitpickery (which many people claim that’s what “fighting ignorance” really means), then it behooves us to recognize that fact that entity of which Obama is currently the president of, did not come into being until significantly later than 1776.

The entity which Obama is currently President of did not come into being until 1948, when Hawai’i became a state…

[puppygod]

It’s funny how race conscious people in US are. In my mental database I had Obama stored under “guy with funny ears and goofy smile” - his shade hardly registered.

But overall, I think that all that continuous reminding about his skin color is a good thing. People - like OP, for example - soon got fed up with this and within couple of months it’ll become stale news. “OMG, he/she is black!” “So fucking what? POTUS is also, who cares?”

[matt_mcl]

@Tuckerfan

Yes, but if we’re going to engage in nitpickery (which many people claim that’s what “fighting ignorance” really means), then it behooves us to recognize that fact that entity of which Obama is currently the president of, did not come into being until significantly later than 1776.

But it didn’t come into existence in 1789, either, so I guess we’re at a state of Mutually Assured Nitpicking.

Nor, is anyone here saying that the election of Obama isn’t significant, what they’re bitching about is the constantly flogging of that fact, which tends to diminish the actual importance of Obama being elected.

I am interested to hear about how saying that something is important makes it unimportant, especially in this case.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@matt_mcl

I am interested to hear about how saying that something is important makes it unimportant, especially in this case.

[Humphrey Appleby] Law of Inverse Relevance: In politics, the less you intend to do about something, the more you must talk about doing something about it. [/HA]

[Ethilrist]

@Jettboy

His mother was white; doesn’t that mean that the honkies can claim him, too?

Hell, yeah! He’s the first white presi… oh.

Okay, he’s the first white male pr… damn.

First white male president under 50 years old…

umm…

first white male president under 50 years old who’s a democrat, has a gorgeous wife, and some kids…

huh.

Ah-hah! He’s one of the first white, male presidents under 50 who’s a democrat, has a gorgeous wife, kids, and no dog!!!

what’s that, you say?

blast.

[Tuckerfan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

[Humphrey Appleby] Law of Inverse Relevance: In politics, the less you intend to do about something, the more you must talk about doing something about it. [/HA]

There was also Newt Gingrich saying, “This is the most important vote in the history of this nation” (or something similar) before nearly every vote in the House.

There’s also the whole “outrage fatigue” that Americans began to feel after every announcement of the Bush Administration doing something wrong.

[matt_mcl]

@Tuckerfan

There was also Newt Gingrich saying, “This is the most important vote in the history of this nation” (or something similar) before nearly every vote in the House.

There’s also the whole “outrage fatigue” that Americans began to feel after every announcement of the Bush Administration doing something wrong.

Ah, I understand: we should only reiterate that he’s the first black president on special occasions, so that it maintains its impact. Very well. Does the Inauguration not qualify?

[Moirai]

@Princhester

I’m reminded of that comedy sketch by the English comic, Dawn French.

She starts the sketch sobbing dreadfully about something terrible to do with her husband, how she hadn’t realised, and nobody, not even her best friends had told her before the marriage, and why hadn’t someone said something, she had no idea etc. Finally she blurts out the problem:

“He’s black”.

Of course it is only a funny and not an appalling sketch if you know that she is married to Lenny Henry, who is black.

Dawn French is married to Lenny Henry? Chef! is one of my all-time favorite shows. Awesome! This board is always teaching me something…

[Tuckerfan]

@matt_mcl

Ah, I understand: we should only reiterate that he’s the first black president on special occasions, so that it maintains its impact. Very well. Does the Inauguration not qualify?

Not if you’re saying it every five minutes, as some of the commentators seemed to.

[matt_mcl]

@Tuckerfan

Not if you’re saying it every five minutes, as some of the commentators seemed to.

So, just to be clear, you would have liked commentators at the inauguration of the first black president to be more discreet about the fact that it was the inauguration of the first black president.

Other than the simple annoyance of repetition of anything by talking heads trying to fill airtime (Wolf Blitzer, at one point, commented favourably upon Obama’s penmanship), I don’t get this sentiment.

[Tuckerfan]

@matt_mcl

So, just to be clear, you would have liked commentators at the inauguration of the first black president to be more discreet about the fact that it was the inauguration of the first black president.

You forgot a few "first black president"s there. It should be “The commentators at the inauguration fo the first black president, commenting on the inauguration of the first black president, about how it was the inauguration of the first black president, to be a bit more discreet about how it was the inauguration of the first black president, when they were commenting on the inauguration of the first black president, at the inauguration of the first black president.”

Other than the simple annoyance of repetition of anything by talking heads trying to fill airtime (Wolf Blitzer, at one point, commented favourably upon Obama’s penmanship), I don’t get this sentiment.

Yes, well, I don’t get Canadian politics, but you don’t see me taking you to task over them.

[suranyi]

The only thing that annoyed me a little bit about the coverage was that the only people I saw being interviewed were African-Americans and civil rights pioneers. The rest of us are happy and proud of this moment as well!

Ed