If Obama’s mother was Jewish and he identified himself that way, would you create a thread asking, “Why is Obama Jewish?”
The question bugs me because white people encounter people like Obama on a daily basis and yet have no problems identifying them as “black”. If Obama had not told anyone that his mother was white, people would have no problem calling him black. And if Obama said he was white, there would be even more confusion.
The biracial American can’t win. If he identifies as “black”, he confuses the whites. If he identifies as “white”, he offends the blacks. If he identifies as “biracial”, then he’s accused of being politically correct. No wonder so many of them are “tragic” (tongue-in-cheek).
There is no scientific formula here. He’s black because that’s the way he self-identifies and because he has recent African ancestry. Telling him he’s wrong to identify this way is just as ignorant as telling a person with a Jewish mother and a gentile father that they aren’t Jewish. The half-gentile Jew doesn’t make any more sense than a half-white black guy. But we don’t see a million threads questioning this particular rule. Why is that?
Sorry if I’m coming across as exasperated and pissy, but I’ve been annoyed about this for a while. A few weeks ago, I’m talking to my doctor about some symptoms I’ve been experiencing and he asks–apropos of nothing, mind you–about Obama and why it makes no sense to call him him black. Mind you, I’m seeing this guy because I’m depressed and need a prescription, and he’s giving me the third degree about another person’s self-identity. As I attempt to defend Obama, he interupts by asking, “You look like you’re biracial too. Do you think of yourself as black?” I bet when I gave my answer he wrote in his notes, “Patient irrationally identifies with the dreaded negro. Clearly psychotic.”
Why do people care so much, is what I want to know.
I don’t know if this is true in other parts of the country, but out here in CA where I live, if someone says he is “biracial”, no one would bat an eye. There are so many mixed-race people living around here that it’s just no big deal. Santa Clara County (pop. ~2M), which is pretty much all of Silicon Valley, is less than 50% White.
I understand your point here, however, it is germane to mention that in the Jewish culture, if your mother is Jewish you are considered Jewish. You can argue whether it makes sense, but that’s the culture and it’s very consistent.
Good point, and I agree with what you’ve said, but my question is why does the press put such a focus on his race? Now, I know that there has never been a black candidate for president in a major party, so even a half-black candidate is a big deal, but they press doesn’t call him half-black.
I agree completely with your first two points but am baffled by the third. Is there a real example of a biracial public figure who was openly accused of political correctness (in the most negative sense) by saying he/she was biracial? Tiger Woods has been quoted as saying he’s “Cablinasian” (Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian).
Whoa, I never said he was wrong. I asked a question. I have not researched his background so I don’t know what his experiences have been growing up or as an adult with regard to racial identification, so I don’t have a judgement as to whether he is justified in being characterized as black. I am trying to understand what tips the balance one way or the other.
I’m with you on this. That’s appalling. I’d find a new doctor.
In American culture, you are considered black (or at least non-white) if you have visible African ancestry. Historically, you did not even have to have visible African ancestry–hence the “one-drop rule”. Perhaps it does not make sense, but hey, “that’s the culture”.
The “one-drop rule” was odious not because being black is inherently bad, but because there used to be terrible consequences to being black. That we still sometimes harken back to the “one-drop rule” should only be bothersome when it’s being applied to people unwillingly. I see no problem with calling people “black” arbitrarily. All racial categories are arbitrary.
Again, if Obama identified as a Jew only based on his mother’s heritage, do you think the press would call him “half-Jew”? His father wasn’t an American citizen; how come Obama isn’t called “half-American”? Because these aren’t real identities. You’re either a American or you’re not. You’re either Jewish or not. And in a political sense, you’re either white or non-white (black).
Anyway, I disagree that the media focuses heavily on Obama’s race. I think people in general focus on his race and the media just exposes it.
I have heard biracials disparaged when they choose “biracial”, mostly by politically conscious black people who feel that biracials who take this route are deluding themselves into thinking we’re living in some kind of racial utopia. For instance, such critics would call “Cablinasian” indicative of extreme naivety, since the racial harrassment Tiger received growing up stemmed not from his mixed-ness or his whiteness or his Asianness, but from his blackness. In a political sense, these critics would argue that Tiger is a black guy and thus that should be his sole identity.
It just seems strange to me that you would not bother to research Obama’s stance before asking the question in the OP. Do you really think the media would be calling Obama a black guy if he self-identified strictly as biracial? The media is teh evil, but I think the mainstream press would at least call the guy what he wants to be called. And for the most part, it has. So there is no “justification” needed for his “characterization”. He’s not being characterized any more than John McCain is.
I asked a question, I didn’t stake out a position or issue a dare. One shouldn’t need to do research as a prerequisite to initiate a discussion where one seeks information.
Unless you’re saying you don’t understand how the racial classification scheme works in the US–and in such a case, a good sociology or history class might be of interest to you–then I don’t really understand why you’re so confused. I admit our rules don’t make a lot of sense, but it’s really not that difficult a system to grasp.
I don’t recall saying that I was confused. In the year 2008 there is no racial classfication “scheme” in the US. People have their opinions and prejudices but there is hardly consistency on this across geography or socio-economic classes.
I’ll grant you some variations, but in the US for the most part, it seems like folks with at least one black parent still tend to be identified as black. If most Americans didn’t know who Obama was and were pressed as to his racial identity, I bet well over 75% would call him “black” rather than “multiracial.”
Never in my life have I turned on the news and seen a suspect described as “multiracial”, “half-black”, or “half-white”.
That suggests to me that most of us are on the same page when it comes to pegging people–at least people of African descent–racially.
Not trying to be snarky, but you indeed said you were confused in your OP. That is, unless there’s an alternative meaning to the word “perplexed” that I don’t know about.
The short answer is that Obama is “black” because that’s the way white Americans want it. Accepting people of partial African ancestry into their families and communities would lead to caste pollution. This is batshit fucking insane, of course, but it’s also what most white Americans believe.
Obama, being raised by his white mom and white grandparents, and being an eager to please, get along to go along guy, accepts this absurd notion.
Actually, the fact that he moved to a predominantly black area of Chicago, became active in primarily black neghborhood community work, married a black woman, etc. would seem to indicate that his motivation is based more on an accepted identity than on some need to be “eager to please.” Can you point to the place in his autobiography where he speaks of moving in to black society based on a need to “please” white society? Or are you just making that up?
I’m not arguing that he didn’t accept the black identity. Of course he did. The question is, why?
I’m arguing that Obama accepted a black identity because white American society said that he should. The idea that anyone with visible African ancestry is automatically a black American is an idea held by the majority of white Americans. It’s not an idea that makes any kind of sense, and a rational person not inclined towards social conformity would reject it.
It’s a concession to white America’s fear of caste pollution. If he’d married a white woman, (you know, like his mom and grandmom, the women who raised him) white Americans would look on him much less favorably. They’d speak, absurdly, about how they didn’t really approve of interracial relationships, how “black” people like Obama shouldn’t marry white.
Sure, Obama’s a black American, even though he wasn’t raised in a black American family, never lived in a black American community, and had very little contact with black Americans growing up.
Imagine, for example, if Arnold Schwarzeneggers kid’s were told that they were really Austrians, and on adulthood, they should move to Austria, start speaking German, and marry into Austrian families.
You mean like Tiger Woods? He seems to be well thought of. He recognizes his Black ancestry, but emphasized his mixed race reality and he married a White woman.
Well, if Obama were being told he had to move to Kenya and marry a Kenyan, then that analogy might be apt.
A more apt analogy would be if Arnie’s kids were told that because their dad was Austrian, and Austrians and Russians are white, they should now identify as Russians, speak Russian, move to Russia, marry Russians, etc.
I think that the way in which these analogies are being stretched past the breaking point indicates that your initial observation was defective.
I return to my question: have you seen anything in his autobiography (or any statements attributed to him in college, during his community service years, or during his early period in politics), that seems to indicate that he was bowing to social pressure to go hang out with black folks and leave his “natural” white associations behind?
(Given that he spent his earliest years outside the country in a “non-white” environment and that he spent his later elementary and then high school education years in Hawaii (potentially amid an ethncally diverse population, although I have no information regarding how diverse it actually was), what is the basis for asserting that he has bowed to white pressure to act black?
The real question is, why not? Is it that hard to believe that he could identify as black for the same reason that most black people do: because that’s what he is, as far as social constructs go? Like monstro, I’m bothered by what seems this assumption that it’s wrong, unfair, and crazy that Obama is called black either by himself or by others. To even ask why he calls himself black suggests that it’s at least somewhat unexpected or unreasonable for him to do so. Do you think it is?
Since he and the media has hardly made his pedigree a secret (again, I’m struck by how little I know about McCain’s parents and grandparents in comparison to how much I know about the Obama family tree…it’s very odd that biracial people can’t just exist on their own without their parents being made into mini-celebrities) what else can be said about Obama’s heritage that is necessary? Yes, he calls himself black, but he also has stated the obvious: that he’s biracial. Likewise, the media may call him black, but they also state the obvious enough that just about everyone who knows who Obama is also knows that he has a white mother. Meanwhile, McCain’s mother is off somewhere selling WMDs to Botswana and no one gives a damn. j/k
It’s also an idea held by a majority of black Americans, so what does this do to your argument?