Race is a touchy subject. How a person views race is based on the environment that person grew up in, his/her personal opinion about race and how the society portrays it.

Genetically speaking, Obama ISN'T black, he IS biracial. As is true about most of African Americans (in fact some are multiracial). It is unfortunate that the black genes are more dominant than other genes and thus resulting in a person being categorized based on their DNA (and this applies to Asian genes as well). So visually, he IS black.

So where do we draw the line? Or where SHOULD we draw the line? If you think about how the human civilization has been developed up to this point I think you will notice that everything is based on what people SEE. As the common saying goes "Seeing is believing", if people don't see it people don't believe it.

Now, seeing Obama, immediately you will say he is black because his skin color says so. No one will question whether he has any European blood, Asian blood etc. If you look at a stranger who's LOOKS white, without knowing that person you immediately say he is white. But what you don't know is he is part Asian, but why should you when he is only a stranger on the street to you?

What I am trying to get at is without knowing Obama's life anyone will immediately think he is black. Will all this "racial" nonsense matter? Our eyes are only skin deep. But as people, we are more than that aren't we? We don't just see, we want to KNOW and from KNOWING we form our own opinions. Then this is where opinions distinguish the way people SEE things. And thus different people have their own way to determine what they see. Some people just KNOW that if you're skin is black or white or whatnot you ARE the color of skin regardless of what's in your blood. Other people KNOW that if you have a mix in you then you ARE a mix and not just a SINGLE skin color - this all comes down to what people KNOW.

My point is, it's easy to say that "Oh let's move on with the whole race label thing because people are more than that." But that's also trying to say "Hey let's build Rome overnight!"

With that said, I see the comments are moving towards "Oh minorities are voting for Obama because he is black and nothing else." You know what, I don't blame them. I don't even see why that is a problem. Look at the way the US is right now. If a person from the American-defined minority community can run for President of the United States, don't you think it is a BIG DEAL?! And to the people that think Obama's win is based on his skin color, don't you think this assumption is also pretty superficial?

Back to being a minority running for President is a big deal. IT IS A BIG DEAL. It's a big deal to the country as a whole and it's a big deal to the minorities who constantly feel they are pushed into the dark. I saw a news channel interview an African American voter and although he made a joke I think it will be a huge impact on the minority community in the United States. He said something along the lines of "Now I don't have an excuse of saying I can only be a basketball player or a rapper (or some stereotypical African American career)."

And honestly, it doesn't matter if the minority votes or not, the majority of votes decides the win. And the majority of the population is what? White. Now do we say the white people are voting for a black President because um...they don't want to be racist? If you've actually been watching the Presidential race, you wouldn't think so.

ok, i have been thinking about this issue for a few months now. i was one of those black people who didn't think obama would win, i was shocked when he beat hilary and amazed when he beat mccain. i didn't think americans were ready, because that is who voted obama in: americans, a white majority, so why do folks keep saying he won because the blacks came out to vote? let's also keep in mind that obama is not the first african american (and while i absolutely recognise the fact that he's biracial, and bi cultural, and 3rd culture, i also know he lives in the states where colour lines are not as open. the fact is the "one drop rule" racist and stupid as it is, still counts there. so as far as everyone there is concerned, he's black. look at tiger woods! anyway...) to run for president. i know there have been at least 3 others, i can't remember the first two but jesse jackson ran in the 80's and none of them had won.

listen, i am not blind, and i lived in the states for 5 years, so yes, i know that obama's race played a HUGE part. i am black and it touched the hell out of me. so my other thing is, so what? so what if black folks came out and voted for this man because he was the closest thing they've seen that looks like real hope in their lives? white people have had that privilage for years, white men forever; never having to think about whether they were voting for the candidate because of their race/sex/sexual preferences etc due to a sheer lack of choice. i say that the fact that this is all such a big deal now shows that for all these years people have been voting due to race. look at the hispanic population, its huge in the states, but it is seemingly even less represented than the black population, a smaller minority in the states.

anyway, i know that i am black, but if i were able to vote, i would have voted for obama, first for what he says to stand for, secondly because i thought he was a better leader and thirdly because he's tck. i LOVE the fact that he is black, it rocks my socks, and i a not going to shy away from that because folks think this man won because black people got together and conspired. no, they, and millions of other people of other races, because even if he got the entire black population, what is that? 20%, yeah, even if he got every black person to vote for him, he's still have to win over a shit load of other folks. which he did, so was everybody voting only because he was black?

you know, i know everyone has their issues. but as a black person in this world, i feel as though the message is always that if we accomplish anything, its due to some sort of affirmative action. something to so with white guilt allowing, always steering away from you, and your accomplishment. like as black people we can't do anything without some sort of help or unfair advantage when the fact is, in a country like the states, sweetie, you're at a shameless disadvantage. so i like to give big ups where they are due. obama won, he sees like a good guy, let's please give him a chance before we start prosecuting him and also, give black people some credit, we' don't just come out and vote blindly like sheep or something, there are still plenty of black republicans.

ugh. i hate this conversation because i hate labels, but what can i say? i live in this world, so yeah, it socializes me, even when i fight it. i wish we could just see people as people, as individuals, without the stuff we bring to it from however we grew up, but that's not where we are right now, we are all in some sort of a minority, us as tcks, others as immigrants, others as handicapped, you name it. and we are still in the stages of firsts, and this is what has to happen to get to that place where we can all really sit equally in each others eyes, so let's let it happen, i say. i hope one day to encounter a female candidate that makes sense to me, as a woman i would love to see a female president. but not just any, i didn't feel hilary....

so anyway, that is my 2 thebe, i guess. mmmm, thanks for the topic, that felt good.


p.s. sunny! love what you said! ugh, i hate the that whole "white guilt" thing, its not about guilt! anyway, made sense...

Race is race. Like language is Language. Sorry that I sound insensitive but there is nothing insensitive about using race. It's an identifier. People who get sensitive have to move on. When I came back to the U.S.A I was embarrassed to be white colored. Was that right? No. I didn't have a choice but I was. I got over it eventually and embraced my color though not my heritage. Do I have a choice about having epilepsy and about being able to drive? No! Its challenging. But I deal with it, we don't get to chose the cards we are dealt with but we can chose to climb the mountains and flag them!

That's a great point, Kari.

According to CNN.com in the past presidential elections, African Americans voted-
1992-83% Clinton
1996-84% Clinton
2000-90% Gore
2004-88% Kerry
I think if you look at the statistics historically, the African American vote for Obama is only a few percentage points higher than other Democratic nominees received in previous elections. Why did Gore get 90% of the African American vote in 2000? Was that about race? I don't think so! How do you explain that? Well, I think its because they continually show a pattern of voting for the person who addresses the issues that affect them-its all about politics and character, not race!

I love this thread because I'm one of those "Obama is just as white as he is black and being biracial is a different social experience" kind of people. I understand both sides.

Finally, I have time to elaborate on the above. I think we need to also be very critical of what the media says. I have heard the 'reverse discrimination/racism' argument quite a bit in the media, and it bothers me. The media loves playing the race card for the sensation value. If Obama loses, it's because (white) Americans are racist. If Obama wins, it's because (African) Americans are racist. Either way, the media wins because it creates sensation (i.e. more people read their papers).

Another example: I watched an Australian reporter interview an African American evangelical Christian about the election. The guy said he's for Obama because Obama seems highly qualified for the job. (That's all he said in the clip - no mention of 'race' or 'religion'.) But the reporter turns to the camera and says something like, "It is true. For many African Americans race comes before religion." Huh?

Also, when African Americans or other minority groups voted for Obama, I'd be more inclined to think that on the most part it's because they felt that Obama could relate with their experiences, and is therefore likely to promote healing from the scars of history. The fact that Obama is black has much to do with this. But I'm not sure if that's reverse racism. For me (at present at least), racism is when you think of someone else as inferior based on skin color, ethnicity, or culture. Reverse racism is when you either a) think of someone as superior based on skin color, ethnicity, etc. and hence put them on a pedestal; or b) hate someone based on their skin color, ethnicity, or culture because they are seen as oppressors (from the past). In Obama's case, I think it was more about Obama being able to relate to people and that he brought hope for healing. (Plus all there's all the other issues such as the financial crisis, etc. etc. etc.)

Anyway, I'm just really frustrated with the media of late. They are so good at twisting things and creating anger. One day they'll say 'the sky is blue', and the next they'll say 'the sky is green'. They switch positions on an issue with a day's notice without a sweat.

(ps. and the global financial crisis happened the way it did too. So, the sole difference is the skin color. Would McCain have won then?)

This is a very interesting thread. And in response to C West's comment of how shallow we might have been, I'm curious...I have a question (for everyone):

Had McCain been black and Obama been white, would McCain have won? (i.e. All other personality, qualifications, etc is the same, the only difference is the skin color.)

I was disappointed in this presidential race not so much because Barak Obama won but because of why he won. Let's face it, when 95% of the African American vote goes to a man of color, the race is no longer about politics and character, it's about the color of one's skin. In essence, this was an election of reverse discrimination. How shallow we are as a nation to vote for someone because they are either black or not. If the Republicans decided to bring a candidate from Hispanic background to the 2012 election, would the larger minority lean that direction?

President-Elect Barack Obama is a US citizen of African and White/Caucasian American genetics with Indonesian, African, African-American, and American (e.g., Hawaii, Chicago/Illinois, Kansas) cultural backgrounds. He is an adult TCK.

In US politics, groups with the largest population have potentially more influence so it is beneficial to minority groups to find as many members as possible. Thus, being biracial or multiracial is not an option on government forms. Since persons of Hispanic or Latino ancestry do not form a single racial category, then they've asked the forms to include ethnicity; however, only Hispanic/Latino ethnicity is included on US gov't forms, not other ethnicities. Persons who are White/Caucasian and another race and/or Hispanic/Latino are encouraged to not mark White/Caucasian, although some do anyway. The difficulty with this premise is that some people would like to acknowledge their entire being and mark more than one racial category. When ethnicity is viewed, they'd like to add their own specific ethnicities if they are more than or are not Hispanic/Latino. If one is Asian-American/Pacific Islander, then some feel that this group is too diverse and is really a heterogenous group. For example, some Asian Indians have lobbied on some government forms to include a category for Asian Indians; however, even this category creates difficulties when other South Asians do not feel included.

Historically, the US used to categorize anyone who was "one drop" African ancestry as "Black" as a way to maintain purity with the White/Caucasian race. It was a racist idea. While others view people based on skin color, it does not mean that people have to conform to the view of others. For example, many South Asians are mistakened for other people based on their appearance. I don't think South Asians in the USA would like to conform to the expectations of those who view them incorrectly.

What it means is that children and adults who are members of groups who are low in numbers (population) in their area of residence, work, or school may need to learn how to deal with the idea of being a minority (maybe not a minority in the sense of the traditional sense of oppression, but of being someone who is different than the others). Keep in mind that a White/Caucasian person may be in this position. For those who are members of groups who have less power/status than the other groups around them, then learning to cope with and interact peacefully and assertively with "oppression" will be vitally important.

I do not view Barack Obama as "Black." I view him as an adult TCK. Average Americans tend to be very narrow in their view of race, culture, and ethnicity. If one examines the details, there is so much more diversity out there in this world in places where Americans tend to view as monocultural and monolingual. Actually, the diversity has been around since ancient times. Just look at the history of Italy, for example, an ancient country and people; however, some people were actually court martialed and shot for disobeying in the Italian Army during WWI but later it was determined after the fact that these people didn't know Italian. You see, Italy was not unified until the late 1800s. Italian was not really a language of the people until the era of WWII. The people of Italy are very diverse in cultures and languages in addition the many influences of other peoples such as Spain on Naples, for example. Today, what constitutes an Italian has changed from the days of thousands of Italians emigrating from Italy to escape the poverty and devastation of WWII. For example, Italy is a popular destination for immigrants from Sri Lanka. In Italy, they do not typically identify themselves as Sri Lankan and instead identify themselves as Singhalese or Tamil. Most importantly, you will want to note that Sri Lankans are only one of the new faces of Italy.

I would like to add that culture needs to be addressed with regards to Barack Obama and all adult TCK's. Remember, we are the products of our family, schooling, societies where we lived, friends, and life experiences. While Barack Obama is an American, a US citizen, I would venture a guess that he is quite complicated culture wise given his unique childhood and family makeup. As adult TCKs, we can all relate.

You know what, I don't even live in the states, never been there, but still I have that stereotype of what it means to be black thrown at me from all directions. There is the white people, who just see African (as in a generic race of ignorant brown skinned people).

But if one of your parents happens to be of African decent, there is no bi-racial. You're black. Maybe with a "white side," but black. I don't say I agree with this. I don't care where you're from, I see people not color. But when race is pointed out, it is to differentiate "us" from "them." The thing with Barack Obama is, the question is the government "us" or "them" has becoming more defined for some people.

I'm sorry to generalize, but I guess white people just aren't used to the idea of someone who doesn't look like them making decisions for them, and representing them. Guess it's time to get used to it!

I think aradhana is right about the fact that Barack has likely lived forever in the "hidden immigrant" experiences of looking the same externally but not being the same in the deeper places of culture or in the "adopted" experience of looking different externally in the places where culturally he has been shaped more in 'Likeness"...

I also agree with all who say that even if race "doesn't matter" in some theoretical place, it still matters practically. A month ago our Liberian son drove to a garage sale in a northern state and stayed in the car to finish a phone call to his wife. Before he knew it, a policeman was at outside his car and, bottom line, the woman whose house the sale was at had called the police in fear. If my white husband had been sitting in the car, I doubt that would have happened.

On the other hand (is this a complex issue or what?!)I found myself angered throughout the campaigns at the demographic splitting into this group and that of the pollsters...for a land that says it wants to see past these things to the persons involved, it seemed to me we were all put into neat boxes and whenI didn't fit the box prescribed for "63 year old white women", well, once more I was who? what?...an old TCK feeling!

So is there an answer? Maybe not theoretically that will fit all political and national situations, but I think one of the gifts many of us received in life was growing up among a multiplicity of race and cultures so that we saw the persons first...that doesn't mean we are without our own prejudices...many times we can be rather prejudiced against those of our own cultures who may not have had the good fortune we had known to experience so much of the world (think about that!)but hopefully we can proceed, as I believe Barack is doing, to live out the fullerness of working and relating and socializing with people of all backgrounds. In that way we can be little pieces of salt and light in our changing world and quietly show the beauty of meeting others in the deeper places of who they are rather than be put off (or on) by the color of their skin. One thing I have learned in life...if I wait for others to "do it right," nothing much seems to happen. If I simply proceed in the smallest places I see opportunity to do what I can to make even the tiniest of changes, I look back and see that a few seeds have grown...even if I didn't fix the wworld yet!

yes, we can, as individuals, and as a community, make a difference...thanks for all the great thoughts here

I think that whole "slave legacy" black think shows how deep racism is in America. The implcation is that he's black but "speacial" not like regular "plantation grown" black. It's very sad, but many black immigrants from the Africa and the Caribbean often think that they are superior than African-Americans (I've hearn my own parents talking down about African-Americans)

To bring this back to a TCK angle, even AA are somewhat TCK in that many live with one foot in AA culture and mainstream white culture. For example an AA child that grows up in a the suburbs and goes to predominntly AA enviroment can find themself in the same situation that many TCKs find themself. Their external appearance often leads to assumptions about their cultural details that may not be correct and they may also have feeling of not belonging -- LOOK THE SAME BUT THINKS DIFFERENTLY. On the other end in they might not fit in where they live because they look different -- LOOK DIFFERENT BUT THINKS THE SAME

I am 100% sure that Barack Obama was criticized at some point in his life by another black people who told him he wasn't "black enough" or that he "acted white".

Obama is so TCK. Interesting how he has risen above the limitations and labels put on us by standard American culture. However, if we must, back to the issue of what/who is "Black" - in the American context, Obama is not "slave legacy" which I believe a lot of people are trying to say but haven't quite thought deeply enough about. What does this mean exactly? It means Obama has to be accepted for who he IS, an educated, cosmopolitan,global-visioned, TCKid...new experience for a lot of America, old news to us TCKids.

Is this a "not" joke? :P

Official documents like that *do* segregate people. I'm reminded of the case in Pakistan where they used to make no difference between Sunni and Shiite. It was just generally "Muslim" and "Hindu" and the like. I think it was during one of the military dictatorships of the 80s that they started making a deal of it, which has had a domino effect in the sectarian violence you see in Iraq today. Even in Pakistan during the equivalent of pogroms against Shiites, there were mothers saying they kept their children inside because the Shiites would eat them. Traditionally, both sides have got along fine. The Iran-Iraq war was not religious in nature, though Saddam tried to call it that to get more support.

I think the reason they place categories for race is to try to judge the different behavior of races. They want to be able to say "50% of African-Americans do this" which is some way to judge the preferences of people. That isn't a bad thing, as the government likes to know things, but it might be a good step forward to stop dividing people into these racial groups.

When I fill out Asian/Pacific Islander on American forms, I don't feel that I'm representing them as a racial group.

Besides, often culture is most easily perceived along lines of race. It's simplistic to do so, but not uncommon.

For a long time now, before I ever heard of Barack Obama, I've refused to check off the race/color box on surveys, applications, and even the US Census. If skin color doesn't matter, and discrimination is wrong, then why do the authorities keep asking, keep sorting, keep - well - segregating?

If color is irrelevant, then mind your own business and focus on things that matter.

Even before it became apparent that Senator Obama could indeed win this election, I thought, the argument is over, turn the page. He is all of us. (Of course he isn't really all of us, but since he comes from the two most dominant races in the country, I thought it the moral equivalent.) I was naive. We are still so far from letting this nonsense about race go. I'm beginning to fear we will never get out of the diapers of racism.

Here are the arguments against the author's point:

"While I agree with the author's assessment that winning the presidency should transcend race, it cannot, however, be left out. Most Americans are biracial, if not multiracial. However, we live in a world, where the color of our skin is seen before the content of our character is judged. Therefore, when you "look" black, then you are black. It's really as simple as that. In order to transcend race, then people should first learn to transcend color. The truth of the matter is, when Barack Obama walked outside pre-presidency, pre-senate, pre-state senate, he was just another black dude. No one cared to even think that he was biracial. Until people can learn to truly live out Dr. King's creed of not judging by the color of the skin, but by the content of the character, we'll never achieve race transcendency."



--


"I have news for the author of this article.
All African-Americans are bi-racial at a minimum. Even so, we are and always will be viewed as being black. Barack Obama has been treated as a Black man all of his life... even after he became a Senator. Why point out that he's bi-racial now? I guess now that he's the leader of the free world... we all want to see the Barack in us. I guess it's easier to do... if we define him as bi-racial."



--

"Race probably isn't meaningful in the scientific sense. There isn't a consensus amongst antropologists as to what black, white, asian or indian is or means. However, race, no matter how complicated it is to explain or categorize, is real. The "black" man in Times Square who can't get a taxi to stop for him doesn't get a time-out with the cab driver to explain his complicated geneology of African, European and Asian ancestors. He's black to that cab driver. The black driver who gets profiled by the cops doesn't get to explain what percentage of his lineage is white. Race is a real, even if its a social construct. To the question, "isn't it time we stopped using labels that validate the separation of races" I counter with the question is there something wrong with the label? The author, by asking us to embrace the European in (most of) us, implies that there's something wrong with what's African, Native American, Asian, Latino, etc. in us. So I ask you, is there something wrong with being black? Is there something wrong, despite the White Kansas geneology, with Barack Obama being Black?"