Well most of you know what transpired at last night’s debate.
I’m keenly aware that the colour of his skin entitles Obama to call himself black. But I’m also aware that his blackness results from Kenyan genetics whereas African Americans generally get there blackness from West Africa several centuries ago.
Its generally agreed that there is more genetic differences among Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans.
Is it possible , if we ignore skin colour, that Clinton on a genetic basis might be more entitled to be called a “bro” than Obama ?
Neither. If I were pushed to answer which race is a “bro,” I would say white frat boys. As in, “Hey bro, this new Nickelback album is totally rad, bro.” By that criteria, George W. Bush is perhaps the bro-iest president.
If anything, Obama would be the first democratic presidential candidate who doesn’t completely ridiculous when he attends a black full-gospel church (media present, naturally). Does Clinton seem “blacker” because he plays the sax or something?
Do you realize how nonsensical that sounds? How can there be more genetic variation within group A than there is between group A and group B. To which part of group A are you comparing group B?
The correct statement is that there is more genetic variation within sub-Sahara African populations than there is within all the non-African populations taken together.
As to the rest of your OP, well it was a stupid question last night and it’s even more stupid here.
After about six readings, I think I’m finally getting what the question means. Obama is descended from the Luo in Kenya, if I remember his book correctly. But even if most African-Americans are descended people in West Africa (I’ve heard that claim before), I’ve never heard anyone say that people with East African heritage are less black. I have never heard the term used geographically before. I’ve heard people make a distinction because Obama isn’t descended from any slaves or freed slaves, but that’s something else again. Not knowing anything about Clinton’s heritage, I can’t think of a way he’d be “more entitled” than Obama. And how would you decide who is more entitled anyway? From that standpoint, this question is fundamentally really silly.
Just judging it on the most obvious non-skin-color basis, Obama is one generation removed from his African ancestry. So it’s not possible for Clinton to be “more of a bro” :rolleyes: in that regard.
Just a hunch, but I’ll bet Obama has been called “nigger” more often than Bill has.
All other discussions aside, when Barack Obama walks into a restaurant or a store, people see a black man. When Bill does it, they see a white guy. They actually have some things in common in their backgrounds – absent fathers, over-acheivers, Ivy League schools – but that first impression of “white guy”/“black guy” is a real and defining, no matter how superficial such impressions may be.
Because they are making jokes–statements which aren’t meant to be taken seriously because they are based on some amount of absurdity. “A white man is really black.” HahaHAhaHA!
But no one will be making jokes like that about Obama, for the same reason no comedian gets laughs by calling the sky blue.
Exactly. No matter how much Clinton may feel the pain of Blacks, he’s never experienced the pain. You can bet Barack has, even if he had a relatively sheltered upbringing (compared to most Blacks in the US).
When he walked into the store as an 18 year old, the clerk didn’t say: Oh, he’s obviously half Kenyan and half White, so I won’t treat him the way I treat regular ol’ African-Americans.
