The blackness of Barack Obama (liberals' hypocrisy, true racism nailed)

Hah, yes, he uses his race with such subtletly, you can't even tell he's doing it. First of all, I tend to think of a race pimp as someone who uses the race of *others* to enhance his position. I.e. "whoring" out people of a certain race for the purpose of political benefit. E.g., Jesse Jackson extorting millions out of corporations in exchange for protection from racism charges.

Obama is not such a guy. If Obama, of all people, is a race pimp, you'd probably have to qualify all black politicians (and white politicians - their race impacts their constituency's demographic!) as race pimps. Obama is liberal and I disagree with his policy positions, but I wouldn't call him a race pimp by any stretch. That term is best reserved for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

The issue of whether Barak Huissen Obama is white or black boils down to this:

1. Under the racist "one drop rule," a person is "black" if he or she has one drop of black African blood (I presume this would include one drop of black Australian blood, but I degress). Obama, having a African father and a white American mother, would therefore, maybe, be black. The question is whether is father is Black African or Arab (i.e., White) Africa. Being as Obama father is Kenyan you might think he must be Black African, but this does not necessarily follow. Most Kenyans are Black Africans, but there are enough Arab Africans in Kenya to make this an interesting question.

2. A scientific, non-racist definition of race would identify Obama as biracial (obviously!).

3. A cultural definition of race would identify him as white since he was raised by his white mother and, to the extent his father imparted any cultural norms to him, it was Arabic, i.e., white African, as indicated by his middle name.

I would now like to comment on the "one drop rule." In the early 19th century, various American courts grappled with the issue of what made a person black and, therefore, subject to discrimination. In Ohio, for example, "blacks" were not allowed to settle in the place.

The first decisions were that people would be "black" if they had more than 50 percent black Arfican ancestry. Well, this didn't work so well, because many whites were as dark or darker than many blacks. It's kind of scary when the rule that allows some people to be discriminated against can be used against you. So, legislatures by statute changed the definition of black to the one drop rule. This made it safe to have laws discriminating against blacks, because as long as you were white those laws couldn't be used against you.

During this time period, all kinds of things were changed. For example, the right to vote. Originally, throughout most of the country, this depended on be a freeholder. A free man of color could own property, pay taxes, serve on a jury and be a witness in a trial, serve in the militia and vote in elections, in states like Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee and most others. But, the constitutions of these states were changed so that a person's race, under the one drop rule, determined these rights.

Even moreso, many slaveowners, including some of the wealthies ones. had children by their female slaves. Some of these men were effectively married to a wife who was their slave, she being his only wife, and their children being his only children. By reason of the "one drop rule," these children would forever be slaves, with no hope of inheriting his property or otherwise becoming a citizen in the community.

Some of these slaveowners sent their children to the north, to people like Salmon P. Chase, known to be friends of black and colored Americans, so they could be free. Chase and other Liberty-men and anti-slave Whigs and Democrats of Ohio eventually was able to abolish the state's so-called Black Laws. But, even by the time of the Civil War, Black Laws remained on the books in several northern states (e.g., Illinois).

If not for the one drop rule, it is possible that we would have long ago evolved into a country of freedom and equality, without a civil war. But, the Democrats are still hanging on to the one drop rule. I don't think they will ever get with the program as spelled out in our Declaration of Independence and, yes, in our Constitution. In our country, our rights aren't supposed to be based on our race, and we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.

George Carlin can clear up this color matter:

"So, let me tell you how I handle some of these speech issues. First of all, I say "black." I say "black" because most black people prefer "black." I don't say "people of color." People of color sounds like something you see when you're on mushrooms. Besides, the use of people of color is dishonest. It means precisely the same as colored people. If you're not willing to say "colored people," you shouldn't be saying "people of color."

Besides, the whole idea of color is [profanity] anyway. What should we call white people? "People of no color?" Isn't pink a color? In fact, white people are not really white at all, they're different shades of pink, olive, and beige. In other words, they're colored. And black people are rarely black. I see mostly different shades of brown and tan. In fact, some light-skinned black people are lighter than the darkest white people. Look how dark the people in India are. They're dark brown, but they're considered white people. What's going on here? May I see the color chart? "People of color" is an awkward, [profanity] liberal-guilt phrase that obscures meaning rather than enhancing it. Shall we call fat people, "people of size?"

By the way, I think the whole reason we're encouraged in this country to think of ourselves as "black and white" (instead of "pink and brown," which is what we are) is that black and white are complete opposites that cannot be reconciled. Black and white can never come together. Pink and brown, on the other hand, might just stand a chance of being blended, might just come together. Can't have that! Doesn't fit the plan.

I also don't say "African-American." I find it completely illogical, and furthermore it's confusing. Which part of Africa are we talking about? What about Egypt? Egypt is in Africa. Egyptians aren't black. They're like the people in India, they're dark brown white people. But they're Africans. So why wouldn't an Egyptian who becomes a U.S. citizen be an African-American? The same thing goes for the Republic of South Africa. Suppose a white racist from South Africa becomes an American citizen? Well, first of all he'd find plenty of company, but couldn't he also be called an African-American? It seems to me that a racist white South-African guy could come here and call himself African-American just to [profanity] off black people. And, by the way, what about a black person born in South Africa who moves here and becomes a citizen? What is he? An African-South-African-American? Or a South-African-African-American?

Alright, back to this hemisphere. How about a black woman who is a citizen of Jamaica? According to P.C. doctrine, she's an African-Jamaican, right? But if she becomes a U.S. citizen, she's a Jamaican-American. And yet if one of these language crusaders saw her on the street, he'd think she was an African-American. Unless he knew her personally in which case he would have to decide between African-Jamaican-American and Jamaican-African-American. Ya know? It's just so much liberal [profanity]. Labels divide people. We need fewer labels, not more.

Although I hate to agree with Chuckie Schumer, he's probably right that the Rats would be in for some tough sledding trying to sell a ticket that's a female/black combo.

Seemingly, certain blacks like Condi and - more so in the past - Colin Powell could conceivably be electable somewhere on a national ballot but, over a long campaign & even in the VP slot, Obama's middle name & related Muslim background are likely at least as much of a problem for him as his 'race'.

Surely if Mitt Romney's Mormon faith - forgetting any of his other drawbacks - is viewed with some degree of suspicion in some quarters ...

Although 2008 is a political lifetime away, if Hillary does win the Rat nomination with Obama as the runner-up, it would appear she could well find herself in a no-win situation with respect to choosing a running mate ... snicker!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.