October 30, 2008, 12:07 pm
Should we call Obama ‘black’ or ‘biracial’?
By Nicholas Kristof
After I had written a draft of my column last night, I asked my assistant, Natasha Yefimov, to look over it and offer suggestions, as she always does. She did so and then said something like: You refer to Obama as “a black man,” but whenever you refer to him that way, people always write in and ask why he should be considered black when his mother is white. I wonder if you should call him something like biracial, instead?”
I didn’t make the change, but this morning I noticed that my colleague in columny, Roger Cohen, referred in his column to Obama being biracial.
Traditionally, of course, the convention in America has been that someone who is biracial is considered black, and that’s the standard that we in the news media generally hew to. The exception comes when someone has a different preference; if Tiger Woods wants to be considered multiracial, he is. Since Obama considers himself black and refers to himself as black, we generally call him black.
In any case, it’s not just a question of Obama’s identity. The majority of African-Americans are in fact biracial; the majority have some white ancestry, which DNA studies have shown not surprisingly comes from the male line (presumably, slave-owners impregnating slaves). Obama is unusual in that his African heritage is on the paternal line and his European heritage on the maternal side.
I dispute this propaganda about "African Americans" being "biracial" because most of them might have some distant white or Indian ancestry. By failing to mention the mixed ancestry in whites, Indians, and especially Latinos, the author is telling to audience to assume that the other groups are "pure" or at least without "black" ancestry.
I generally think we should defer to a person’s own preferred self-identity, but Natasha’s question does make me wonder. Presumably the origin of the convention of referring to anyone of part black ancestry as black was rooted in racism and economics: the child of a slave woman would be a slave, whoever the father might be, because a slave child had value and also because anyone partly black would be stigmatized and looked down upon by white society. If a convention has such unsavory origins, should we still adhere to it?
Kristof is totally ignorant of history here and accepts the myth that the "one drop rule" was invented during slavery to increase the number of slaves. He needs to read Legal History of the Color Line.
So what do you think: is it time to revise the convention? If Obama is elected, should we refer to him as black or as biracial? Would using the term biracial be more accurate and inclusive? I don’t have any particular views on this and am thinking out loud. So weigh in with your views.
Whatever someone self identifies as, that is how they should be referred racially. Personally I feel people should start creating their own races, especially since the previous ones are fairly weak identifiers in this day and age.
If races were applied to people of the same profession or of the same hobby that makes more sense than the current one.
If we must refer to race then biracial is how we should refer to Obama. I think when people refer to him as Black; it's because they are looking at his phenotype or color. Some biracials can pass as White(Mariah Carey comes to mind) but Obama can't. In any case, a person should be proud of all their ancestries(whether European, Native-American or African) because without them they wouldn't be alive.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 03 Dec 2008 11:26 Post subject:
Sadie wrote:
If we must refer to race then biracial is how we should refer to Obama. I think when people refer to him as Black; it's because they are looking at his phenotype or color. Some biracials can pass as White(Mariah Carey comes to mind) but Obama can't. In any case, a person should be proud of all their ancestries(whether European, Native-American or African) because without them they wouldn't be alive.
So you are not going to respect Obama's choice, is that what you are saying?
Should I be able to start a thread called "What do we call Powell" and argue why I think she is black?
I would say "no." According to the rules:
"2.5 The “racial” or ethnic self-identity of other members is off-limits. 2.5.1 Do not discuss another member’s ethnicity or “race” without their permission. 2.5.2 Do not “racially” or ethnically label a member against their wishes."
Dragon Horse wrote:
This thread is a rule violation is it not?
I could be persuaded either way on this point. Obama is not a member of this site, so the applicable rule is 2.6, not 2.5.
"2.6 Do not criticize anyone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity. — If you disagree with someone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity, keep it to yourself. This applies whether they are individuals or groups, and whether they are site members or not."
As far as I can tell, nobody has yet criticized Obama's choice of self-identity. As you suggested earlier, it appears that some have suggested that they reject Obama's choice and will not follow it, but whether this refusal is criticism under the rules is iffy. On the other hand, they have definitely not "kept their disagreement to themselves" I would defer to the moderator on this point.
My own leaning is to allow the thread to proceed. This is because the clash between Obama's avowed self-identity (Black) and the way his non-Black supporters want to portray him (biracial) is fascinating.
The post-election Obama is encouraging every faction to accept him as one of them (which is what politicians do, after all). His pre-election claim to be solely Black is conveniently ignored by his non-Black supporters who want to see him as biracial. His refusal to correct his non-Black supporters who claim that he is biracial rubs his Black supporters (like DH) the wrong way. They seem to want him to "side with them" regarding ethno-political self-identity and, when he does not take a strong stand, take it upon themselves to do so. The poor guy is walking a tightrope because, like all politicians, he wants to come across as "feeling everyone's pain."
All in all, although I would certainly defer to the forum moderator, I think that the thread should continue since it illuminates U.S. identity politics.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 03 Dec 2008 19:27; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 03 Dec 2008 19:16 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Should I be able to start a thread called "What do we call Powell" and argue why I think she is black?
I would say "no." According to the rules:
"2.5 The “racial” or ethnic self-identity of other members is off-limits. 2.5.1 Do not discuss another member’s ethnicity or “race” without their permission. 2.5.2 Do not “racially” or ethnically label a member against their wishes."
Dragon Horse wrote:
This thread is a rule violation is it not?
I could be persuaded either way on this point. Obama is not a member of this site, so the applicable rule is 2.6, not 2.5.
"2.6 Do not criticize anyone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity. — If you disagree with someone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity, keep it to yourself. This applies whether they are individuals or groups, and whether they are site members or not."
As far as I can tell, nobody has yet criticized Obama's choice of self-identity. As you suggested earlier, it appears that some have suggested that they reject Obama's choice and will not follow it, but whether this refusal is criticism under the rules is iffy. On the other hand, they have definitely not "kept their disagreement to themselves" I would defer to the moderator on this point.
My own leaning is to allow the thread to proceed. This is because the clash between Obama's avowed self-identity (Black) and the way his non-Black supporters want to portray him (biracial) is fascinating.
The post-election Obama is encouraging every faction to accept him as one of them (which is what politicians do, after all). His pre-election claim to be solely Black is conveniently ignored by his non-Black supporters who want to see him as biracial. His refusal to correct his non-Black supporters who claim that he is biracial rubs his Black supporters (like DH) the wrong way. They seem to want him to "side with them" regarding ethno-political self-identity and, when he does not take a strong stand, take it upon themselves to do so. The poor guy is walking a tightrope because, like all politicians, he wants to come across as "feeling everyone's pain."
All in all, although I would certainly defer to the forum moderator, I think that the thread should continue since it illuminates U.S. identity politics.
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that.
Obama has said he is a multiracial black man. I have heard him use this phrase, which is a complex nuanced position....but it helps him walk the tight rope.
If he called himself biracial that is fine with me actually. It won't change anything for me personally or how I see him. I was one of the people on this site arguing that Obama was not "black like me" during the primaries...and I still don't see him as "African American" (culturally) although he says he is black (racially).
My rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish.
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
Posted: Wed 03 Dec 2008 20:54 Post subject: Identity
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that....
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
I agree.
Who exactly is doing that? Dragon Horse attacked my white racial identity; he did not attack anyone else's racial identity, even though they were critical of Obama's "choice." I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 03 Dec 2008 21:43 Post subject: Re: Identity
Powell wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that....
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
I agree.
Who exactly is doing that? Dragon Horse attacked my white racial identity; he did not attack anyone else's racial identity, even though they were critical of Obama's "choice." I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
I was referring to Sadies post more than the topic of this post. But still I asked Frank was this within the bounds.
he said the post is, but appears to feel it is close to the edge, but will leave it to the moderator.
I did not attack your identity.
I asked if I made a post with a similar title concerning you would that be in bounds. At no point did I criticize your identity.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 03 Dec 2008 21:51 Post subject: Re: Identity
Powell wrote:
I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
Uhm...could have helped if you bothered to explain that from the beginning instead of dumping an article, could have cleared up some confusion.
If we must refer to race then biracial is how we should refer to Obama. I think when people refer to him as Black; it's because they are looking at his phenotype or color. Some biracials can pass as White(Mariah Carey comes to mind) but Obama can't. In any case, a person should be proud of all their ancestries(whether European, Native-American or African) because without them they wouldn't be alive.
So you are not going to respect Obama's choice, is that what you are saying?
Dragon Horse, I could care less about how people want to define themselves racially. I'm just saying that Obama is technically biracial so that would probably be the most correct term. If Obama wants to call himself Black that's fine with me.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 03 Dec 2008 22:51 Post subject:
Sadie wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Sadie wrote:
If we must refer to race then biracial is how we should refer to Obama. I think when people refer to him as Black; it's because they are looking at his phenotype or color. Some biracials can pass as White(Mariah Carey comes to mind) but Obama can't. In any case, a person should be proud of all their ancestries(whether European, Native-American or African) because without them they wouldn't be alive.
So you are not going to respect Obama's choice, is that what you are saying?
Dragon Horse, I could care less about how people want to define themselves racially. I'm just saying that Obama is technically biracial so that would probably be the most correct term. If Obama wants to call himself Black that's fine with me.
Uhm you said:
Quote:
If we must refer to race then biracial is how we should refer to Obama. I think when people refer to him as Black; it's because they are looking at his phenotype or color.
The correct term is what he how he identifies, because that is his choice.
I'm not sure why you commented if you could "care less".
Would you like it if you said you were "'X' AND i SAID..." OH NO, THE CORRECT WORD FOR YOU IS 'Y'??
I think your making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't care what people classify themselves racially is all I said. When I say I don't care, I mean to say that it is not important to me, that's all.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said I don't care as it sounds somewhat harsh. I was probably responding to your criticism of my previous post. Your criticism and response to my previous post surprised me because I didn't think I had said anything anyone would take the wrong way. If Obama or anyone else wants to define themselves as Black, I said it was fine with me. But Obama is biracial although the term can apply to anyone of two different races not necessarily Black & White. In the case of being of two different cultures, I really can't give an opinion because I've never had to choose how to define myself. I can only guess. What I have observed is that daughters usually follow their mother's culture more. For example, if your half-Dominican on your mother's side and half Puerto-Rican on your father's side, you might be more into your Dominican side. I know it probably isn't a good example because both sides are Hispanic.
Who knows which side my niece will identify more with since she is half-Syrian and half-Puerto Rican.
Another example is Alicia Keys. If her myspace page is accurate, she defines herself as African-American and I'm fine with it. But the correct term would be multiracial since she is a mix of Jamaican-Italian-Irish-Puerto Rican. What I'm saying is that how a person's chooses to define themselves sometimes is not what they really are. But do I tell them how to define themselves? No way. Alicia chooses to identify her African-American side, that is her choice and her right.
Posted: Thu 04 Dec 2008 05:11 Post subject: Re: Identity
Dragon Horse wrote:
Powell wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that....
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
I agree.
Who exactly is doing that? Dragon Horse attacked my white racial identity; he did not attack anyone else's racial identity, even though they were critical of Obama's "choice." I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
I was referring to Sadies post more than the topic of this post. But still I asked Frank was this within the bounds.
he said the post is, but appears to feel it is close to the edge, but will leave it to the moderator.
I did not attack your identity.
I asked if I made a post with a similar title concerning you would that be in bounds. At no point did I criticize your identity.
You could have referred to a "member" instead of "Powell."
Posted: Thu 04 Dec 2008 05:15 Post subject: Re: Identity
Dragon Horse wrote:
Powell wrote:
I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
Uhm...could have helped if you bothered to explain that from the beginning instead of dumping an article, could have cleared up some confusion. :roll:
Where on this site are members required to say whether they agree or disagree with everything in a posted article? Most members don't do that.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 04 Dec 2008 12:56 Post subject: Re: Identity
Powell wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Powell wrote:
I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
Uhm...could have helped if you bothered to explain that from the beginning instead of dumping an article, could have cleared up some confusion.
Where on this site are members required to say whether they agree or disagree with everything in a posted article? Most members don't do that.
You are not, but if you are not, then people will be free to interpret or ask about the meaning of the article. If you are questioned about your opinion or if the title is in bounds of the rules...that should not be surprising.
If you feel it is in your interest to avoid these situations then you will make yourself clear.
Posted: Fri 05 Dec 2008 01:30 Post subject: Re: Identity
Powell wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Powell wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that....
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
I agree.
Who exactly is doing that? Dragon Horse attacked my white racial identity; he did not attack anyone else's racial identity, even though they were critical of Obama's "choice." I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
I was referring to Sadies post more than the topic of this post. But still I asked Frank was this within the bounds.
he said the post is, but appears to feel it is close to the edge, but will leave it to the moderator.
I did not attack your identity.
I asked if I made a post with a similar title concerning you would that be in bounds. At no point did I criticize your identity.
You could have referred to a "member" instead of "Powell."
I agree.
It seems to me like DragonHorse was viewing the question - "Should we call Obama ‘black’ or ‘biracial’?" as coming FROM Powell, but it was just the title of the article she posted. I think quite a few of us have posted an article and used the article's title as the title of the thread. I could be wrong, but I think even DragonHorse has done this.
So, I agree that Powell's racial identity should never have been brought up. As Frank stated, she did not violate any rule. DragonHorse, on the other hand, did.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 05 Dec 2008 02:40 Post subject: Re: Identity
OTHER wrote:
Powell wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Powell wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that....
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
I agree.
Who exactly is doing that? Dragon Horse attacked my white racial identity; he did not attack anyone else's racial identity, even though they were critical of Obama's "choice." I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
I was referring to Sadies post more than the topic of this post. But still I asked Frank was this within the bounds.
he said the post is, but appears to feel it is close to the edge, but will leave it to the moderator.
I did not attack your identity.
I asked if I made a post with a similar title concerning you would that be in bounds. At no point did I criticize your identity.
You could have referred to a "member" instead of "Powell."
I agree.
It seems to me like DragonHorse was viewing the question - "Should we call Obama ‘black’ or ‘biracial’?" as coming FROM Powell, but it was just the title of the article she posted. I think quite a few of us have posted an article and used the article's title as the title of the thread. I could be wrong, but I think even DragonHorse has done this.
So, I agree that Powell's racial identity should never have been brought up. As Frank stated, she did not violate any rule. DragonHorse, on the other hand, did.
Yes I have made posts with the title of articles in the thread but I also tend to comment on the article somewhat...so it is kind of obvious if that post represents my views or if it does not. I can think of a few examples (maybe one or two) where I have not, but this would be over a period of years...in any case, the rule change I proposed, I would also intend to follow myself.
Are you a moderator? I was not aware of your status being changed.
Posted: Fri 05 Dec 2008 05:21 Post subject: Re: Identity
Dragon Horse wrote:
OTHER wrote:
Powell wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Powell wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I am not rubbed the wrong way by that....
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that Obama should be called "Black" (only) because that was how he presented himself about 9 months ago.
Dragon Horse wrote:
[What] rubs me the wrong way is people who jump up and down claiming oppression, especially by blacks, but deny others the same right they themselves demand...to define themselves racially/ethnically how they wish. That to me is hypocritical to say the least.
I agree.
Who exactly is doing that? Dragon Horse attacked my white racial identity; he did not attack anyone else's racial identity, even though they were critical of Obama's "choice." I did not criticize Obama's "choice" but only posted the Kristof column and pointed out the hypocrisy of publicly defending alleged "choices" to be "black" but NOT choices to be "white" or any other nonblack "race."
I was referring to Sadies post more than the topic of this post. But still I asked Frank was this within the bounds.
he said the post is, but appears to feel it is close to the edge, but will leave it to the moderator.
I did not attack your identity.
I asked if I made a post with a similar title concerning you would that be in bounds. At no point did I criticize your identity.
You could have referred to a "member" instead of "Powell."
I agree.
It seems to me like DragonHorse was viewing the question - "Should we call Obama ‘black’ or ‘biracial’?" as coming FROM Powell, but it was just the title of the article she posted. I think quite a few of us have posted an article and used the article's title as the title of the thread. I could be wrong, but I think even DragonHorse has done this.
So, I agree that Powell's racial identity should never have been brought up. As Frank stated, she did not violate any rule. DragonHorse, on the other hand, did.
Yes I have made posts with the title of articles in the thread but I also tend to comment on the article somewhat...so it is kind of obvious if that post represents my views or if it does not. I can think of a few examples (maybe one or two) where I have not, but this would be over a period of years...in any case, the rule change I proposed, I would also intend to follow myself.
Are you a moderator? I was not aware of your status being changed.
Yeah, I've been a moderator for a good little while. I guess what I have to go back to in my mind, DragonHorse, is the mission of this site - to inform or become informed. Some things speak for themselves: studies, articles, graphs, tables, etc. I'll say more in the proposed rule change thread you started.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
