Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

    Oh dear. Does anybody feel a little sick with the way people are going on about Obama? I understand the significance of a black/mixed race president of the united states-- its momentous, and I feel proud to have that happen even though im not American or black-- and I have also been very moved by his speeches and mannerisms... I was excited when he was elected. BUT, how Americans are taken over by political rhetoric is amazing. That clip with the song? Are you foreal? Hes still a politician, he hasnt saved humanity (yet?). and we must always be sceptical of politicians and not be so taken over by emotion. This whole election has made me aware of how much emotion, rhetoric and superficiality has a place in the persuasion of American voters. I cant help but feel a little sick, so much propaganda! British politics seems a little more sane and more stomach-able.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Newsflash - Obama is not black! He never has been. He's certainly non-white though, but there's nothing momentous about that (most people have some ethnic mixing in their blood line in the past 8 generations). I'm not sure where all the idiocy and media confusion came from, but it's embarassing. They can't even get a basic fact like that right and people are relying on them to convey the news.
    Offline

    2
    look at the results, the UK and the rest of the world in general are SO much more hysterical over him than americans are
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...uses_obsessive
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
    Newsflash - Obama is not black! He never has been. He's certainly non-white though, but there's nothing momentous about that (most people have some ethnic mixing in their blood line in the past 8 generations). I'm not sure where all the idiocy and media confusion came from, but it's embarassing. They can't even get a basic fact like that right and people are relying on them to convey the news.
    Well, he's black in that he's mixed race at a very close level (one parent white, the other black). I don't understand the separation - he is coloured - he is not a white man - this is momentous in a nation like America's, surely? Bearing in mind that race is based on little other than skin-colouring, one could surely claim that Obama is black?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    Well, he's black in that he's mixed race at a very close level (one parent white, the other black). I don't understand the separation - he is coloured - he is not a white man - this is momentous in a nation like America's, surely? Bearing in mind that race is based on little other than skin-colouring, one could surely claim that Obama is black?
    Does it matter what his exact ethnicity is? Regardless, for once in a non-white person has been elected as president which is a sign to many that everything is possible if you put your mind towards it.

    (Original post by gemstonezz)
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

    Oh dear. Does anybody feel a little sick with the way people are going on about Obama? I understand the significance of a black/mixed race president of the united states-- its momentous, and I feel proud to have that happen even though im not American or black-- and I have also been very moved by his speeches and mannerisms... I was excited when he was elected. BUT, how Americans are taken over by political rhetoric is amazing. That clip with the song? Are you foreal? Hes still a politician, he hasnt saved humanity (yet?). and we must always be sceptical of politicians and not be so taken over by emotion. This whole election has made me aware of how much emotion, rhetoric and superficiality has a place in the persuasion of American voters. I cant help but feel a little sick, so much propaganda! British politics seems a little more sane and more stomach-able.
    gemstonezz, do i sense some hatred? Instead of spearheading those who celebrate his success why can't you just applause and be quiet? =] Jokes aside.

    The reason why many Americans are so happy is that the Demoncrates have been known to create many jobs and make life so much easier for the working families. I've got relatives in the America and they've told me in numerous occasions that when Bill Clinton was in power jobs where every and tax wasn't so high. However, when George W.(******. (Okay no more jokes)) Bush came into power it seemed like he reversed it. They are happy because of the possibility of life being so much better then it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    Brilliant!:yep:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    Well, he's black in that he's mixed race at a very close level (one parent white, the other black). I don't understand the separation - he is coloured - he is not a white man - this is momentous in a nation like America's, surely? Bearing in mind that race is based on little other than skin-colouring, one could surely claim that Obama is black?
    The answer to that is no. Black is not the same as non-white, that's insulting to the various self-defined races e.g. chinese, south asian, arab, jewish, etc. None of those would term themselves black, so why should this man be termed so? If one is going to bother to separate people into 'races' or 'ethnic groups', would be sensible to at least be accurate, right? It's rather insulting to say "it doesn't matter, he's not white therefore he's black", as in-so-doing, you imply some sort of identification between black persons and categorise him into this group. Lingually, culturally and phenotypically, there's a strong case to be argued that he's more 'white' than 'black', so why can I not call him white (using your argument that race is more than skin-colouring)?

    And for your objective information, having one white parent and one black parent does not you any more black than it does white. There is no bias in nature, only those induced by human logic, which in this case is highly skewed by ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding. It's not a complex point, it's rather stating a simple fact. If we're going to bother classifying people into races, Obama certainly isn't black. Shame much of the media is confused, or written by those with poor deductive/analytical skills.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
    The answer to that is no. Black is not the same as non-white, that's insulting to the various self-defined races e.g. chinese, south asian, arab, jewish, etc. None of those would term themselves black, so why should this man be termed so? If one is going to bother to separate people into 'races' or 'ethnic groups', would be sensible to at least be accurate, right? It's rather insulting to say "it doesn't matter, he's not white therefore he's black", as in-so-doing, you imply some sort of identification between black persons and categorise him into this group. Lingually, culturally and phenotypically, there's a strong case to be argued that he's more 'white' than 'black', so why can I not call him white (using your argument that race is more than skin-colouring)?

    And for your objective information, having one white parent and one black parent does not you any more black than it does white. There is no bias in nature, only those induced by human logic, which in this case is highly skewed by ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding. It's not a complex point, it's rather stating a simple fact. If we're going to bother classifying people into races, Obama certainly isn't black. Shame much of the media is confused, or written by those with poor deductive/analytical skills.
    On your first paragraph - I actually said that race isn't much more than skin colouring. I also did not claim that all non-whites were black...I assume you made up that straw man in order to knock it down. I did say that anyone who was not white being in the White House was a momentous occassion, but that is different.
    Race cannot be defined by language or culture (if that were so there are practically no black people in America), and I would say that phenotypically he is certainly more black than white. No, there is nothing to say he is more black than white according to his parentage other than the fact that the genes to make his skin dark are more dominant than those that do not, and as such he is treated as a black man - regardless of his parentage. Race is nothing more than the way people are treated according to the colour of their skin.

    As you've said, race is self-defined more than anything. As far as I know, Obama has never made any secret of considering himself black.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    On your first paragraph - I actually said that race isn't much more than skin colouring. I also did not claim that all non-whites were black...I assume you made up that straw man in order to knock it down. I did say that anyone who was not white being in the White House was a momentous occassion, but that is different.
    Race cannot be defined by language or culture (if that were so there are practically no black people in America), and I would say that phenotypically he is certainly more black than white. No, there is nothing to say he is more black than white according to his parentage other than the fact that the genes to make his skin dark are more dominant than those that do not, and as such he is treated as a black man - regardless of his parentage. Race is nothing more than the way people are treated according to the colour of their skin.

    As you've said, race is self-defined more than anything. As far as I know, Obama has never made any secret of considering himself black.
    Ah, sorry I misunderstood you with your first paragraph. The problem with saying race isn't much more than skin colouring is two-fold: race descriptors don't actually relate to skin colour and skin colour does not help categorisation where it is intermediate between two extremes (e.g. obama). There are no 'black' people - just different shades of brown (and those with so little brown pigment, they appear peach-coloured). The problem with this approach is I would then be forced to conclude all south asians, africans and most from the middle east constitute the 'brown' race. Even with this approach, Obama is not black, if anything he's brown and more specifically, light brown. Doesn't really hold much for identifying with a 'black' race or being the first 'black' president...

    About the 'momentous occasion' of having a non-white head of the White House. Surely such a race-related 'occasion' would be most momentous to the half-kenyan half-white-american populace, followed switfly by their half-black half-white-american counterparts and further by other races. Eventually, I'd expect (assuming heriditary race is being considered important), the chinese and jewish 'races' to have as much cause for celebration as the blacks. Why single one 'race' out?

    With regards to his heritage and his 'blackness'. Having more pigment than his 'white' mother and less than his 'black' father does not argue either way for his racial identity. The fact he is of intermediate pigmentation to his parents does not mean one set of genes are dominant to the other - it implies co-expression and is itself evidence that neither phenotype is dominant. Whether you think he appears more 'brown' than 'white' is a complex interaction of optics, human visual processing and any psychological biases you may have, and nothing to do with his inheritance which is self-evident.

    Finally, you refer him being treated as a 'black' man, which I feel is the crux of your argument (and also its greatest weakness). By this I imply you mean that 'black' persons feel a racial identity with him and thus are less likely to treat him as they would people of different 'racial' phenotype. Are you therefore telling me that if you dumped him in the middle of Kenya tomorrow (many people there are dark brown with broad noses), they would racially identify with him? I'd suspect if they racially identified with anyone, it would be someone who didn't stand-out because of light skin and didn't have narrower features than they. If black people in this context wouldn't deem him black, how is it correct to identify him as such?

    And finally, race can be considered self-defined, but not at the individual level. I could claim to be jewish/chinese all I wanted, but that would not make it correct for 'objective' media to report me as such. I don't know what the man's opinion of racial stereotype is, but it certainly isn't relevant to how he should be categorised.

    The point I make is simple one. I'm just stunned at the amount of bias in the world, and how unaware people are of their own biases/prejudice.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    After Jan 20 things will calm down. It's just the jovility of seeing the back of Duyba that people are hyper about.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well dominant alleles can be considered "bias in nature". His skin is not white, therefore he is not white. Whether he is black is another question.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree. I'm sick to death of him already. He's being treated like some sort of black Jesus come to save the world.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    CHANGE, OBAMA, CHANGE, WOOOOOO, CHANGEEEEE OBAMA, YAY WOOOOOOOOO

    [/south park]

    Also, I found this rather amusing:

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemstonezz)
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

    Oh dear. Does anybody feel a little sick with the way people are going on about Obama? I understand the significance of a black/mixed race president of the united states-- its momentous, and I feel proud to have that happen even though im not American or black-- and I have also been very moved by his speeches and mannerisms... I was excited when he was elected. BUT, how Americans are taken over by political rhetoric is amazing. That clip with the song? Are you foreal? Hes still a politician, he hasnt saved humanity (yet?). and we must always be sceptical of politicians and not be so taken over by emotion. This whole election has made me aware of how much emotion, rhetoric and superficiality has a place in the persuasion of American voters. I cant help but feel a little sick, so much propaganda! British politics seems a little more sane and more stomach-able.
    I thought it was the Europeans who were going crazy over Obama. Didn't 200,000 Germans gather to listen to that lame speech he gave in Berlin? Only 52% of Americans voted for Obama. If the election were held in some parts of Europe, he would have gotten 75% percent of the vote.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm. Just checking in.

    Do Chickens Fly, Poica: "black" is the informal word , in the USA, and it's surrounding culture, for someone with any noticable African decent. The arguments you put forward, and the terms you might use...mixed race, coloured, .... are not terms that we use...and when they are used, it is basically considered old terms from the "bad old days"..... and is considered insulting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for that, it was verry funny!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello all. I think i accept your dissatisfaction with the generalisation of the term black. You are correct in your analysis of race and on the 'blackness' of Obama which is technically wrong

    However, and I think you know this anyway, the obviousness that the president elect, Mr Obama, has some african heritage IS momentous. I think it is momentous for more than just the african-american population. I think it is momentous for other types of ethinic and religious minorities. I think your intellectualisation is allowing you to distract yourself from the overall point that the OP was trying to make, and that most people understand intuitively. The fact is that white people who look white (lets not get too techincal) have been the only people in power in the US, and most other powerful countries in the world, and historically the supression through slavery, colonialism etc. has left a bitter residue of their dominance. (Actually theres more than a residue, their dominance is still very blatant in the world.) Ultimately Obamas victory is an example or symbol of that being reverted, somewhat. And this is why people generalise him being black, in my opinion.

    Having said that, any logical person should not call him simply black, I agree with you.

    Also I agree that people should not be so overcome by Obama. Hence, the reason why the OP posted this to begin with. It would be nicer if politics stayed more neutral and not so emotive. Fervour and hysteria are not good for politics, reminds me a little of a love for Big Brother. Lets hope he DOES do truly great things for the world and people, but we'll see. He doesnt deserve the same kind of love as Gandhi, King or Mandela who are the true heroes and world leaders.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skoolsux67)
    Hello all. I think i accept your dissatisfaction with the generalisation of the term black. You are correct in your analysis of race and on the 'blackness' of Obama which is technically wrong

    However, and I think you know this anyway, the obviousness that the president elect, Mr Obama, has some african heritage IS momentous. I think it is momentous for more than just the african-american population. I think it is momentous for other types of ethinic and religious minorities. I think your intellectualisation is allowing you to distract yourself from the overall point that the OP was trying to make, and that most people understand intuitively. The fact is that white people who look white (lets not get too techincal) have been the only people in power in the US, and most other powerful countries in the world, and historically the supression through slavery, colonialism etc. has left a bitter residue of their dominance. (Actually theres more than a residue, their dominance is still very blatant in the world.) Ultimately Obamas victory is an example or symbol of that being reverted, somewhat. And this is why people generalise him being black, in my opinion.

    Having said that, any logical person should not call him simply black, I agree with you.

    Also I agree that people should not be so overcome by Obama. Hence, the reason why the OP posted this to begin with. It would be nicer if politics stayed more neutral and not so emotive. Fervour and hysteria are not good for politics, reminds me a little of a love for Big Brother. Lets hope he DOES do truly great things for the world and people, but we'll see. He doesnt deserve the same kind of love as Gandhi, King or Mandela who are the true heroes and world leaders.
    Glad to see a sensible perspective, appreciating Obama isn't black. As you said, I do understand the other viewpoints, I just also see the (quite significant) errors in them. I'm glad the new American president has a more heterogenous genetic origin than the former ones. If this is inspiring for, and inspires others of similar/different heredity, then I'm happy for them too.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.