I was wondering if you could help me with direct quotes Frank.
I do not want to get involved in this debate for two reasons. First, the people quoted are uninformed about the past. Second, the issue under debate has not been nailed down.
The people quoted are uninformed about the past. Leslie wrote, "I wonder how that could be since these marriages were illegal, not recognized." In fact, intermarriage did not become illegal in Alabama until the 1850s. It did not become illegal in South Carolina until 1895. Intermarriage was legal in Massachusetts throughout the late antebellum period and Frederick Douglass's second wife was a White woman. Leslie wrote," Many people were freemen? When, during what period?" Again, any A-A history textbook or almanac shows half a million free Blacks in the U.S. in 1860. Leslie wrote, "Huge Creole population? In what states? How huge? What do you mean by creole?" Louisiana and Alabama census statistics are widely available. To bring Leslie and Yassa people up to speed on the fundamentals of American History would require several semesters of reading, which they are apparently unwilling to do. This would not be a good use of my time. Sorry.
The issue under debate has not been nailed down. You wrote that not all Euro admixture in U.S. Blacks was due to male White slaveowners raping female Black slaves. The straw man answer depicted this as saying that none were. You wrote that Malcom X's grandmother had a consensual relationship with a White man. The tangential answer was that 20th-century Grenadian Whites are omnipotent evildoers and 20th-century Grenadian Blacks are helpless victims. The disputants now seek appeals to authority with studies citing mtDNA versus Y DNA as. But such studies are few, regional, and with small samples (so far). The disputants focus on tiny differences between different studies using different methods in different regions with different sample densities. (The Kayser study you cited explained in detail that they discarded all of the data that they had collected about Whites in Louisiana and East Texas because, according to the authors, such Whites are "anomalous".) The 95% confidence intervals in these studies are huge. It is too soon to use this data conclusively. Even if it were not too soon, DNA cannot tell whether slave owners raped their slaves. First, many slave owners were biracial as were their slaves. Second, half of the slaveowners were females. DNA simply cannot spot female-on-male rape in this context because any sexual relationship between a powerful person and a weak one is "rape" by the definition presented above, even if consensual. Again, this would not be a good use of my time.
I am convinced from their writing that neither Leslie nor Yassa are interested in learning the facts of America's past and that they merely want to advocate a moral position. But, if I am wrong, then I would suggest that they carefully read the late Gary B. Mills's Miscegenation and the Free Negro in Antebellum "Anglo" Alabama: A Reexamination of Southern Race Relations, The Journal of American History (June m1981) 68(1): 16-34. As always, I urge students to look carefully at the raw data--the actual numbers. Only then can they form their own conclusions. Once they have digested this work, I would be happy to recommend other antebellum studies of other regions of the nation.
Posted: Wed 28 Jun 2006 21:19 Post subject: Re: Legally Speaking
ParagonEos wrote:
If one is bi-racial (white father, black mother) what race is she by law? How do they determine these things in the census, etc... ??
The U.S. federal census "race" question is entirely voluntary. As it says on the form, you check off whatever you consider yourself to be. It is entirely up to you.
Joined: 28 Jun 2006 {Posts: 2 } Location: Midland, TX
Posted: Sun 06 Aug 2006 04:17 Post subject:
Thank you.. I asked because we had this discussion in another forum. I remember years ago when I was on govt assistance I rememeber one of the woman at the window told a woman to mark the child as the race of the father. I wondered if that was widely accepted. Thanks again.
I rememeber one of the woman at the window told a woman to mark the child as the race of the father. I wondered if that was widely accepted.
In the United States every agency, indeed every bureaucrat, makes up his/her own rules. Other racialist governments (like apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany) were or are more rigid. In the U.S., I usually check off whatever the specific bureaucrat wants me to check off. Nevertheless, I would advise caution in claiming a minority label in order to get a "race"-based entitlement unless you know a local politician. Read Features of Today’s One-Drop Rule for examples of what can happen otherwise.
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:29 Post subject: Re: Turning My Back
mjw82704 wrote:
I am Black. My mother was White and my father is Black. I choose to define myself in these terms because I see the world through a Black woman's eyes. I am a woman of color. My mother being White does not change that. I still feel oppression. I don't have White privileges. I love my mother nonetheless, but I am not biracial.
I find it interesting how people who have not lived my life choose to define me as turning my back or worse yet give me a racial category such as biracial. I think that the census has not changed the category for this because people from a Black and White background can still be oppressed. We should be a part of a group that is now being protected somewhat through Affirmative Action etc.
I cling to those who I understand and have the most in common with. Black people. People from this mixed parentage background were slaves as well. They fought to end slavery as well. Just because someone is a light skinned Black person does not mean that they are mixed. My husband is as light as I am. Both of his parents are Black. Every Black American is mixed due to slavery. But we are all Black. If someone is from a Black and White background and chooses to define themselves as White or Biracial that this their choice. I tried these definitions out myself, but they just did not work for me. We all transition and grow in life. But thank goodness for choices.
How beautifully, honestly, and accurately you said that! My mother and sisters are the same as you (products of White women and Black men) and I see them the same way you see yourself...
Almost ALL Black Americans have a White and/or indigenous ancestor within the past 200 years, so what is the difference whether it was one generation ago or ten? Is your culture affected by having a White mother? Did she pass down the same amount of ethnic identity/ethnic culture that your father's side did? If not, what is the difference? I don't understand the need for people with the same background as you to use this term "biracial" (and I won't get into the fact that subraces don't exist since that was covered in the first post to this thread)....I understand it when applied to people of two different background of color (i.e., Native American and Black, Asian and Black, etc.,) who come from two separate cultures and communities, but I don't understand it when it comes to a person of color with one White parent??
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:37 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
mjw82704 wrote:
From what I have heard through out the years from others is that I look like I could be Mexican, Puerto Rican, Multiracial, or Black. Usually Mexican or Puerto Rican. I have had many Puerto Rican people upset that I would not identify with that race. They thought that I was trying to kid them and I was not. My husband and I look similar and he is from two Black parents. He would obviously never consider himself multiracial, and he is not trying to kid anyone, but some may think he is. I think that it is unfair to say that people from one Black parent and one White one are trying to kid anyone by saying that they are Black, or light skinned Black. There are plenty of Black folks with two Black parents that look ambiguous as well. They don’t fit people’s stereotypes. You can’t please everyone.
Are you saying that many Puerto Ricans you encounter are upset that you do not identify as Puerto Rican or that you do not identify as a mixed race person? Further Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are not a race of people; they are a ethnic group or nationality.
Puerto Ricans, of course, have African ancestry, and that is more likely why they think you are one of them. But then, wouldn't this make them black as well?
Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are nationalities of people, but let me remind you that "White" and "Black" aren't "racial" terms either. Furthermore, since you are identifying people by their nationality when referring to "Puerto Ricans" and "Mexicans" using a blanket color-coded term like "Black" or "White" is ineffective in and of itself since there are Black, White, and Asian people in those countries and most are a mixture of the above. It would be the same as saying, "wouldn't that make them [Americans] black as well?"...it doesn't work that way because anyone of any color/ethnicity can be a citizen of those countries.
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:40 Post subject: Re: Puerto rican
oevega wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Puerto Ricans, of course, have African ancestry, and that is more likely why they think you are one of them. But then, wouldn't this make them black as well?
Hi,
It seems to me here we have a problem of meaning.
To the question "Are you Puerto Rican?" the most logical answer seems to be "No, I am not. I am American". Because Puerto Rico is a country, not a race. And "Black" is not a country, but a phenotype.
Now, to the idea that Puerto Ricans are descendents of Africans, I would say everyone of us is descendent of Africans. Some leave Africa 60.000 years ago and others followed later.
Perhaps the best is to use the "some-but-not-all" rule.
Some Puerto Ricans are Blacks, but not all are Blacks.
Some Puerto Ricans are African descendents, but not all are African descendents.
Some Puerto Ricans look "Puerto Ricans", but not all of them do.
Moreover. Not all Black persons came from Africa, some come from India, Australia, New Guinea, etc. Because "Black" is only a skin color.
Finally, Puerto Ricans, I believe, don't identify with the culture of Black Americans, because they have their own culture: the Hispanic culture of Puerto Rico.
Gemini072 wrote:That depends, subcultrures exist that could be seen as 'black culture' and Puerto Ricans do identify with it, as their own.
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:47 Post subject: Re: Turning My Back
DomPortiaBird wrote:
mjw82704 wrote:
I am Black. My mother was White and my father is Black. I choose to define myself in these terms because I see the world through a Black woman's eyes. I am a woman of color. My mother being White does not change that. I still feel oppression. I don't have White privileges. I love my mother nonetheless, but I am not biracial.
I find it interesting how people who have not lived my life choose to define me as turning my back or worse yet give me a racial category such as biracial. I think that the census has not changed the category for this because people from a Black and White background can still be oppressed. We should be a part of a group that is now being protected somewhat through Affirmative Action etc.
I cling to those who I understand and have the most in common with. Black people. People from this mixed parentage background were slaves as well. They fought to end slavery as well. Just because someone is a light skinned Black person does not mean that they are mixed. My husband is as light as I am. Both of his parents are Black. Every Black American is mixed due to slavery. But we are all Black. If someone is from a Black and White background and chooses to define themselves as White or Biracial that this their choice. I tried these definitions out myself, but they just did not work for me. We all transition and grow in life. But thank goodness for choices.
How beautifully, honestly, and accurately you said that! My mother and sisters are the same as you (products of White women and Black men) and I see them the same way you see yourself...
Almost ALL Black Americans have a White and/or indigenous ancestor within the past 200 years, so what is the difference whether it was one generation ago or ten? Is your culture affected by having a White mother? Did she pass down the same amount of ethnic identity/ethnic culture that your father's side did? If not, what is the difference? I don't understand the need for people with the same background as you to use this term "biracial" (and I won't get into the fact that subraces don't exist since that was covered in the first post to this thread)....I understand it when applied to people of two different background of color (i.e., Native American and Black, Asian and Black, etc.,) who come from two separate cultures and communities, but I don't understand it when it comes to a person of color with one White parent??
Again Portia, you assume that all people of biethnic ancestry have the same experience. Some will identify more with one side. Others will not.
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:50 Post subject: Re: Welcome to Issues for Biracial Americans
fwsweet wrote:
Phil345 wrote:
How do Franks stats disprove the assertion that assumptions of sexual exploition would more often be accurate? ... In no circumstance, can a slave (somebody's property) give consent. Whether that person resisted or not, they dont have a choice in the matter.
Phil345 is correct. The genetic data that overall U.S. admixture is sexually symmetrical (that BM/WF was nearly as common as WM/BF) does not disprove White slaveowner rape of unwilling Black slaves.
There is no genetic data that can determine whether a person's ancestry comes from a male or female, meaning that if genetic tests were done to GUESS a person's percentage of Black/African heritage, those tests couldn't determine if the heritage came from a male or female. Furthermore, those tests are VERY inaccurate due to the fact that you can't distinguish between "White DNA" and "Black DNA", so those tests are based on similar genetic markers found in certain areas of the globe...HOWEVER, the fact that humans are 99.9% the same on a genetic level and 85% of that .1% difference is found WITHIN so-called "racial" groups.
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:52 Post subject: Re: antebellum "rape"
Powell wrote:
I think we've all heard that power is an aphrodisiac. There is great logic in a slave woman seeking a liaison with her master or another white male. He could give her and their children protection (and often freedom). It is wrong to label those white ancestors as rapists without specific evidence against individuals.
We also know that antebellun "slave breeding" existed. Why is it assumed that a slave woman's mating with another slave was never rape?
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 04:58 Post subject: Re: Turning My Back
Salsassin wrote:
DomPortiaBird wrote:
mjw82704 wrote:
I am Black. My mother was White and my father is Black. I choose to define myself in these terms because I see the world through a Black woman's eyes. I am a woman of color. My mother being White does not change that. I still feel oppression. I don't have White privileges. I love my mother nonetheless, but I am not biracial.
I find it interesting how people who have not lived my life choose to define me as turning my back or worse yet give me a racial category such as biracial. I think that the census has not changed the category for this because people from a Black and White background can still be oppressed. We should be a part of a group that is now being protected somewhat through Affirmative Action etc.
I cling to those who I understand and have the most in common with. Black people. People from this mixed parentage background were slaves as well. They fought to end slavery as well. Just because someone is a light skinned Black person does not mean that they are mixed. My husband is as light as I am. Both of his parents are Black. Every Black American is mixed due to slavery. But we are all Black. If someone is from a Black and White background and chooses to define themselves as White or Biracial that this their choice. I tried these definitions out myself, but they just did not work for me. We all transition and grow in life. But thank goodness for choices.
How beautifully, honestly, and accurately you said that! My mother and sisters are the same as you (products of White women and Black men) and I see them the same way you see yourself...
Almost ALL Black Americans have a White and/or indigenous ancestor within the past 200 years, so what is the difference whether it was one generation ago or ten? Is your culture affected by having a White mother? Did she pass down the same amount of ethnic identity/ethnic culture that your father's side did? If not, what is the difference? I don't understand the need for people with the same background as you to use this term "biracial" (and I won't get into the fact that subraces don't exist since that was covered in the first post to this thread)....I understand it when applied to people of two different background of color (i.e., Native American and Black, Asian and Black, etc.,) who come from two separate cultures and communities, but I don't understand it when it comes to a person of color with one White parent??
Again Portia, you assume that all people of biethnic ancestry have the same experience. Some will identify more with one side. Others will not.
How and what exactly does one identify with when they "identify" with the "White side"? There is no collective White culture/community, therefore what would one identify with that was "White"? Also, the majority of White parents, from my experience and education, never "identified" with their Whiteness before they had a child of color, so it seems to me that those wanting/insisting that their children claim some vague, undefined "whiteness" are just trying to separate them from other Blacks or compete with the other parent for a part in their child's ethnic identity/cultural identity even though they have nothing to offer in that department.
Joined: 29 Nov 2005 {Posts: 7 } Location: Takoma Park, Maryland
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 05:05 Post subject: Re: definition of "multiracial"
Powell wrote:
MJW82704 said:
Quote:
From what I have heard through out the years from others is that I look like I could be Mexican, Puerto Rican, Multiracial, or Black. Usually Mexican or Puerto Rican. I have had many Puerto Rican people upset that I would not identify with that race. They thought that I was trying to kid them and I was not. My husband and I look similar and he is from two Black parents. He would obviously never consider himself multiracial, and he is not trying to kid anyone, but some may think he is. I think that it is unfair to say that people from one Black parent and one White one are trying to kid anyone by saying that they are Black, or light skinned Black. There are plenty of Black folks with two Black parents that look ambiguous as well. They don’t fit people’s stereotypes. You can’t please everyone.
If you have a child who later expresses dissatisfaction with a "black" identity, are you going to try to convince him that he has two totally "black" parents and little or no white ancestry? What if he has a European phenotype? Whom should he believe, the mirror or you?
No one said anything about "totally Black"...saying that you are Black doesn't mean that you are claiming 100% sub-Saharan African ancestry especially since the VAST MAJORITY of Black Americans can't claim that and they are a group of people who are descended from American slaves brought over from Africa AND/OR indigenous ancestors and European ancestors, which in and of itself is mixture. So, saying that you are a "mixed Black" is redundant unless you are saying that you are "Blasian" or "Latino/Black" (but, that would signal a biethnic and bicultural person, respectively, since indigenous Americans came over on the Bering Strait from the continent of Asian and Latinos are not an ethnic group but a group of people united by the fact that they were all colonized by the Spanish and now know that as their first language)
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 10:43 Post subject: Re: Welcome to Issues for Biracial Americans
DomPortiaBird wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
The genetic data that overall U.S. admixture is sexually symmetrical (that BM/WF was nearly as common as WM/BF) does not disprove White slaveowner rape of unwilling Black slaves. It simply says that, if it was rape, then half of the cases were White female slaveowners forcing themselves upon unwilling Black male slaves.
There is no genetic data that can determine whether a person's ancestry comes from a male or female, meaning that if genetic tests were done to GUESS a person's percentage of Black/African heritage, those tests couldn't determine if the heritage came from a male or female.
The above claim is a half-truth. It is true about autosomal markers (which we WERE NOT talking about). It is false about mtDNA and Y chromosomes (which we WERE talking about).
Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes identify matrilineal continent of ancestry with great precision, as do Y chromosome patrilineal haplotypes. Many Americans have a matrilineal haplotype from Europe and a patrilineal haplotype from Africa, or vice-versa. This means that one of their ancestors was a first-generation offspring of parents from each of the two continents. Such cases of U.S. admixture do not show a relatively overwhelming preponderance of Euro male-Afro female over vice-versa. It is true that one cannot "determine whether a person's ancestry comes from a male or female." But one can most certainly determine the patrilineal versus matrilineal sources of admixture in a population. We have many papers on this topic in the Molecular Anthropology forum.
DomPortiaBird wrote:
Furthermore, those tests are VERY inaccurate due to the fact that you can't distinguish between "White DNA" and "Black DNA"...
The above is dead wrong and displays ignorance. I suggest that the poster spend some time reading the technical papers in the Molecular Anthropology forum before posting any more uninformed opinions about DNA. Y chromosome and mtDNA haplotypes are conclusive as to patrilineal or matrilineal continental origins, respectively. They cannot identify a modern person's ethno-political loyalties, of course. But, again, that was not the topic.
Last edited by fwsweet on Sat 06 Jan 2007 11:58; edited 6 times in total
From what I have heard through out the years from others is that I look like I could be Mexican, Puerto Rican, Multiracial, or Black. Usually Mexican or Puerto Rican. I have had many Puerto Rican people upset that I would not identify with that race. They thought that I was trying to kid them and I was not. My husband and I look similar and he is from two Black parents. He would obviously never consider himself multiracial, and he is not trying to kid anyone, but some may think he is. I think that it is unfair to say that people from one Black parent and one White one are trying to kid anyone by saying that they are Black, or light skinned Black. There are plenty of Black folks with two Black parents that look ambiguous as well. They don’t fit people’s stereotypes. You can’t please everyone.
Are you saying that many Puerto Ricans you encounter are upset that you do not identify as Puerto Rican or that you do not identify as a mixed race person? Further Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are not a race of people; they are a ethnic group or nationality.
Puerto Ricans, of course, have African ancestry, and that is more likely why they think you are one of them. But then, wouldn't this make them black as well?
Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are nationalities of people, but let me remind you that "White" and "Black" aren't "racial" terms either.
Who taught you that? WHITE BLACK RED YELLOW are RACIAL terms, that is were the idea of race originated ie Negroid, Mongoloid & Caucasoid. Non of these are biological truths. Race is a social construction.
Furthermore, since you are identifying people by their nationality when referring to "Puerto Ricans" and "Mexicans" using a blanket color-coded term like "Black" or "White" is ineffective in and of itself since there are Black, White, and Asian people in those countries and most are a mixture of the above. It would be the same as saying, "wouldn't that make them [Americans] black as well?"...it doesn't work that way because anyone of any color/ethnicity can be a citizen of those countries.
Posted: Tue 15 Aug 2006 14:14 Post subject: Re: Turning My Back
DomPortiaBird wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
DomPortiaBird wrote:
mjw82704 wrote:
I am Black. My mother was White and my father is Black. I choose to define myself in these terms because I see the world through a Black woman's eyes. I am a woman of color. My mother being White does not change that. I still feel oppression. I don't have White privileges. I love my mother nonetheless, but I am not biracial.
I find it interesting how people who have not lived my life choose to define me as turning my back or worse yet give me a racial category such as biracial. I think that the census has not changed the category for this because people from a Black and White background can still be oppressed. We should be a part of a group that is now being protected somewhat through Affirmative Action etc.
I cling to those who I understand and have the most in common with. Black people. People from this mixed parentage background were slaves as well. They fought to end slavery as well. Just because someone is a light skinned Black person does not mean that they are mixed. My husband is as light as I am. Both of his parents are Black. Every Black American is mixed due to slavery. But we are all Black. If someone is from a Black and White background and chooses to define themselves as White or Biracial that this their choice. I tried these definitions out myself, but they just did not work for me. We all transition and grow in life. But thank goodness for choices.
How beautifully, honestly, and accurately you said that! My mother and sisters are the same as you (products of White women and Black men) and I see them the same way you see yourself...
Almost ALL Black Americans have a White and/or indigenous ancestor within the past 200 years, so what is the difference whether it was one generation ago or ten? Is your culture affected by having a White mother? Did she pass down the same amount of ethnic identity/ethnic culture that your father's side did? If not, what is the difference? I don't understand the need for people with the same background as you to use this term "biracial" (and I won't get into the fact that subraces don't exist since that was covered in the first post to this thread)....I understand it when applied to people of two different background of color (i.e., Native American and Black, Asian and Black, etc.,) who come from two separate cultures and communities, but I don't understand it when it comes to a person of color with one White parent??
Again Portia, you assume that all people of biethnic ancestry have the same experience. Some will identify more with one side. Others will not.
How and what exactly does one identify with when they "identify" with the "White side"? There is no collective White culture/community, therefore what would one identify with that was "White"? Also, the majority of White parents, from my experience and education, never "identified" with their Whiteness before they had a child of color, so it seems to me that those wanting/insisting that their children claim some vague, undefined "whiteness" are just trying to separate them from otherBlacks or compete with the other parent for a part in their child's ethnic identity/cultural identity even though they have nothing to offer in that department.
Nothing to offer? I beg to differ as my white family has done and given me much. My parents are also still married. Again, playing the victim card (i.e you will be discrimiated against) is so pathetic. Blacks have contributed too much to this country to base your identity soley on what 'what white people will do/say/think'. Everything in life is not about race and it is sorry individuals who make it an excuse for their problems in life. Yes discrimination exists, but leaders and the successful rise above it. And still I rise......
Other races as AD Powell has documented, 'get away with Black ancestry' it because they do not REJECT/OUT their members over having some Black admixture. They do not REJECT/OUT these family members and they DO NOT ALLOW Whites to treat them differently.
Thats why some Black ancestry does not apply, when speaking of NAs, some Asians, Hispanics, Mexicans, PR and Arab identities. But many American Blacks are too jealous, full of self-hate and/or politically motivated to make a change in this society. However, I really do not care as the Hipanics are on their way and the 1-drop (as far as Blacks/liberals) are concerned will be history as the Hispanic/Mexicans gain political power. They DO NOT REJECT their part-Black members and retain them inside of their community - (Blaxicans and after that just regular Mexican ) unlike many whites.
What about the numerous bi/mutli-racial children who are raised soley by their white parent/family? They give nothing too, eh? What about those who 'don't look Black'? Sorry but MANY whites will give them a free pass, unless KKKers. I look part-Black (IMO) and many whites have misidentified me and some even after knowing my ancestry, suggested I call, myself something else. Only Blacks (for political/family purposes) and KKKers (hate) are the one pushing the 1-drop rule. Those who reject it and don't look Black really won't have a problem. As I said, I am noticeably part-Black, but really do not face discrimiation day to day. And I live in the South. I DO NOT make RACE my focus in life so I am FREE to carry on with LIFE.
So, it depends on looks and family in ther local community. I have met noticeable part-Black parents and grandparents of white/non-Black people. And I've lived in the South my entire life.
P.S. IMO, Barak Obama is just playing the race card for political gain as he was raised by a white mother and Asian step-father. But oh no, his accomplishments and strong male identity/work ethic was still shaped by an absent African father,
P.S. IMO, Barak Obama is just playing the race card for political gain as he was raised by a white mother and Asian step-father. But oh no, his accomplishments and strong male identity/work ethic was still shaped by an absent African father
It doesn't sound like you have really listened to him or read his book, Dreams For My Father. He says no such things! He gives his grandparents (mother's parents) a lot of credit for raising him. They were around more than any other adults in his life. Indeed, his grandparents are on the cover of his book, and one clearly sees how much he resembles the man. He was not raised by his Malaysian stepfather but his mother was married to this man for a few years and his sister was the product of this marriage if I am not mistaken. He also specifically points out in his book that this man is one of his role models. He has complex feelings about his father, as anyone in his situation would, but he was not raised to "take sides" as so many children of divorce are. His mother and her parents respected his father.
Many children idealize an absent parent and go looking for the truth of "the other side" as adults, which Barack did. He is not an opportunist but a sincere person if one really pays attention.
P.S. IMO, Barak Obama is just playing the race card for political gain as he was raised by a white mother and Asian step-father. But oh no, his accomplishments and strong male identity/work ethic was still shaped by an absent African father
It doesn't sound like you have really listened to him or read his book, Dreams For My Father. He says no such things! He gives his grandparents (mother's parents) a lot of credit for raising him. They were around more than any other adults in his life. Indeed, his grandparents are on the cover of his book, and one clearly sees how much he resembles the man. He was not raised by his Malaysian stepfather but his mother was married to this man for a few years and his sister was the product of this marriage if I am not mistaken. He also specifically points out in his book that this man is one of his role models. He has complex feelings about his father, as anyone in his situation would, but he was not raised to "take sides" as so many children of divorce are. His mother and her parents respected his father.
Many children idealize an absent parent and go looking for the truth of "the other side" as adults, which Barack did. He is not an opportunist but a sincere person if one really pays attention.
Even though this was a minor point in my post......
I am familar with his story. However if he was truly honest and really wanted to prove his loyalty/family kin ties he would have titled his book 'Dreams from my Mother' or 'Dreams from my Grandparents', etc. But as you well know, he was marketing his book to Blacks/politics and it probably would not have sold as much. And if he had married White, would we even know his name??? Please!
Here is a review in part from Amazon.com on the book -
"...as he gained political prominence in Illinois, so that we understand more why his time in the spotlight has come at this moment. Perhaps that will be Volume 2. I was also disappointed he spent so little time writing about his mother and the influence her side of the family has had on him, a narrative gap Obama acknowledges and over which he expresses regret in the preface. Perhaps inclusion of such details would have made for a less compelling story from his originally intended Afro-centric perspective; but at the same time, I think a more balanced look at his own racial dichotomy would have made his story resonate all the more given where he is now.
My goodness - are people allowed to have growth??? Especially when they acknowledge themselves how they have grown since writing something at a younger age? That impressed me even more. How many politicians would ever have the courage to do so at the beginning of their careers? Hell how many writers have re-read things they have written years ago and cringed or dissolved in laughter? I don't see Barack's annotations in his preface any differently or as devious. He's a typical writer - always revising and looking backward with "new" eyes. This is actually such a basic human characteristic that it seems silly to politicize it because the writer has a White American mother and a Kenyan father.
Without having the racial breakdown of readers of his book, who is to say what resonated with readers and why? From what moral high ground does a reader on Amazon.com proclaim that a person's perceptions of their own life isn't good enough or isn't balanced? Balanced according to whom? Now we're talking politics.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
