Why is it when "black" people excell in something they tend to be actually mix raced

Edit to be more specific: I MEANT WHY ARE THEY AUTOMATICALLY CALLED BLACK AS OPPOSED TO BEING WHITE? THEY'RE 50-50 IN GENES AFTER ALL.

Just a random observation. Like every now and then in history this person will be the "first black" person to achieve so and so, and then they tend to be actually mix raced.

For example:

Best Golfer - Tiger woods - mix race (except it wasn't white mixed in).

First black guy to win racing tournament - Lewis Hamilton - Mix race.

First black president - barack obama - mix race.

First black MP - forget her name - but she was mixrace.

I mean wtf? Do white people just cast out their own as soon as their diluted?

It's the "one-drop" rule. If you're a little bit black, you're black. A lot of black people in the USA (and in the UK probably) have significant white parentage. I think this is stupid, it doesn't really matter whether you're black or white. What's wrong with just saying "One of my parents has dark skin, my other parent has light skin"? But I guess people are still to some extent culturally segregated by the colour of their skin so they feel a need to pick one of them.

It wasn't just a nose job - he changed colour, FFS!

You really want to bring a person who wanted to be white into a debate about black v. white people?

You really want to bring a person who wanted to be white into a debate about black v. white people?

There are about 1 billion more black people in the world than mixed race people... So numerically maybe there have been more successful black people, but percentage wise perhaps not.

Oh come on. You only need to take a look around. Retarded comments about Obama not being black enough seem to spring around. The fact is there are people in both races who wouldn't consider mixed-race people as one of them.

I think the OP was referring to the retardedness of blacks claiming him as their own because they have such extremely limited achievement in any field that isn't entertainment or sport. The fact is calling him black is the same as calling him white - except if you called him white it might be more appropriate because the black parent he had ran off and left the whites to raise him.

which Barrack Obama himself

Despite your correcting OP over his spelling of "Barrack" Obama, it is in fact you who is wrong.

Despite your correcting OP over his spelling of "Barrack" Obama, it is in fact you who is wrong.

He lightened his skin too, possibly to even out the effects of vitiligo or because he wanted to. So what? Plenty of black people who are self concious about their blickness do it. Tyra Banks had an entire show on it with all these black women trying to whiten their skin and the skin of their children.
I've seen loadsa white people continuously tan their skin too.

He had vitiligo. He didn't choose to become white, he had a disease which made him lose his skin pigmentation. It got to the point where his body was mostly white, so it made more sense to use make up to cover up the brown patches rather than paint his entire body brown.

That's not what this 'debate' is. Well, it wasn't until you came along.

Lol, I think it's so funny that some of the 'Black' people mentioned in this thread are actually mixed race, e.g. Malcolm X and Mohammed Ali

I think the One drop rule still very much exists. I find it much easier to describe myself as Black rather than mixed race, as a lot of people, Black, White, whatever seem to have a problem with it...

So having 3 of the biggest selling albums of all time, winning the most number of Grammy Awards of any artist/band, being one of the first major Black/African-American artists to have their music/videos played on mainstream radio/tv, pretty much a celebrity all over the world. There isn't a corner of the world that doesn't know who Michael Jackson is. The same could be said of the Beatles. Not so much the Stones but The Beatles and The Stones certainly didn't hold the sort of popularity and appeal in South America, Africa, parts of Asia and the rest of the world that Michael Jackson did.

The Beatles didn't really create a decade. Defined it perhaps. I would say more contributed to it.

The 60s were created and defined by so many people and events; JFK and his asassination, moon landing, Beatles, Stones, Civil Rights movement (and figures like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King), 1966 World Cup (from an English perspective), Muhammad Ali's rise to boxing fame.

Michael Jackson was one of the defining artists of the 80s.

I'm not saying the Beatles and Stones didn't make a lasting contribution but I couldn't say they had as much lasting and enduring appeal as Michael Jackson. Well the Stones certainly not. The Beatles have managed to stay at the forefront and seeing as Michael Jackson only just passed away in 2009, time will only tell if his music will stand the test of time.

...

eh?

P.S. You spelt Barrack Obama wrong.