Today marks another sad yet ironic chapter in the history of American racism. Firstly because I believe Barack Obama was our first presidential ‘affirmative action hire’ and, secondly, and most importantly, because of the black/white dichotomy present in the minds of all Americans of every race. Granted, the United States has come a long way in defeating institutionalized racism (minus affirmative action) although blacks really only achieved equality in the last forty years. Nevertheless, the mindset in the US and indeed most former European colonies is still affected by their twisted, outdated and outright racist ideas. Allow me to elaborate.
“White” and “Black”
The United States, like other settler colonies, is a mix of people from many countries. However, for much of its history, it was not the melting pot people like to call it. It was a destination mostly for Europeans. Thus, initial immigrants came from places like England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Holland, France and so forth. As the last sentence shows you, these people have little in common in terms of religion, culture, language and so forth. Yet, what they do have in common is “white” skin and all coming from the same continent. Yet, to be clear, they were not ‘white.’ The word and ethnic designation ‘white’ was invented and has no real meaning. After all, there are just as many differences between someone from Scotland and say Lithuania than Kenya and Angola. My point is that once these European immigrants became ‘American’ a new in-group was formed that anywhere else in the world is meaningless.
With the mass importation of African slaves, all from very different countries with different cultures, languages, religions and so forth, a new overarching term was created: ‘black.’ Yet, someone from Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Liberia and Nigeria do not have much in common. They were just as different as neighbors like France and Germany. Yet, in the context of America, they were all ‘black’. In short, because the US was a settler colony with no indigenous people (for all intents and purposes), the primary way of differentiating people was skin color. In Africa or Europe, it would have no useful meaning whatsoever.
Lastly, on that point, I will never use the term African-American because it is misused. Only someone who is actually African (say from Nigeria, Malawi etc) and immigrated to the US could MAYBE be called so. But honestly, if you’ve immigrated, you are American now, and nothing else. Blacks are not African in any sense of the word. They’ve never visited Africa, speak no African language, know nothing of their “real” home or its culture and in fact are the product of many mixed African countries. Similarly, there is no such thing European-American for whites. Most everyone who claims to be Scottish, English, German or Italian couldn’t point out that country on a map or name its capital, much less argue they have anything at all in common with those countries culturally, linguistically and so forth.
Black Inferiority
Given the creation of these two new ‘racial’ groups, it is important to remember the sense of superiority Europeans possessed during the centuries of colonization. American Indians, Indians, Africans, Latin American Indians and so forth were all seen as lower, uncivilized cultures full of non-Christian heathens who needed to be converted and civilized. Let us not forget the British slogan “Christianity, Commerce and Civilization.” Other non-European peoples were seen as inferior. In the United States, contact between the two was frowned upon and in fact forbidden by law. Blacks were treated as property, not even human. The Euro-centric idea of white superiority extended to mixed people as well. Even one-drop of so-called “black blood” made you black. Therefore, not only was interracial marriage illegal, the offspring were automatically seen as ‘black’ and therefore inferior. No room was left for mixed because such a concept had not yet come into existence. The mental framework of the time allowed for only A or B, black or white, superior for inferior.
Meaningless Definitions
Thus, we see “white” is short-hand for of general mixed European descent. Yet, it would be hard to argue a Russian and Swede are the same in any way. “Black” means of general mixed African descent, which also means nothing. And most importantly, BOTH terms mean mixed. This blogger could be called “white” although he like most of you, is merely a mish-mash of Europeans mixing for many generations. Yet, mentally, I would not be designated as being from an inferior race. Over time, as the legal and mental pillars of racism were brought down, interaction between the two has increased and we have realized they are equal. Moreover, as immigrants to the United States have come from an increasingly diverse set of countries, we have all possible combination of white, black, Asian, Latin and more.
So “what” is an American whose parents are say Latin and Asian or Asian and White? The answer is mixed. Yet, as a country, we have apparently not moved away from the dichotomy of the past yet. Thus, those who allege that Obama is the first black President classify him with the racist framework they claim to hate. In fact, it not only perpetuates a racist way of thinking, but also does so at the expense of many Americans who are also mixed. “Mixed Race” or “2 or more races” have slowly started appearing on questionnaires, which is a start.
And as long as there remain large cultural, economic and social differences between groups, they will be divided into such. Martin Luther King looked forward to the day when people were judged by their merits not skin color. It seems we aren’t there yet and Obama’s being called black merely proves it once again.

Comments to this entry
Bob Morris
January 20, 2009
7:22 pm
Someone I knew who was half-Native American and half-Anglo said, we're all half-breeds, it's just more obvious with some of us.
Chirol
January 20, 2009
7:43 pm
TS
January 20, 2009
7:57 pm
You can cry "affirmative action" all you want if you really think he's unqualified for the job, but regardless, his presidency is still a huge deal in this country -- a country that within living memory has encouraged despicable treatment of dark-skinned people of African ancestry.
jim
January 20, 2009
8:39 pm
Humanity started in Africa and stayed there a long time, evolving into many different sub-population (all of which would be considered "black" today). It's fairly recently that small bands of humans left Africa and colonized the rest of the world, evolving into more sub-populations as they did so.
Broadly speaking, there are more sub-populations among "blacks" than "whites" or "asians". There's just been much more time for different sub-populations to evolve.
Interestingly, the Pygmies are thought of as "black" even though a Nigerian is more closely related to a Swede than to a Pygmy. The Pygmies split off early from the rest of humanity.
So, yes, terms like "white" and "black" mask many important difference. But they don't do so equally. "Black" glosses over much greater variety than "white" does.
mihnea
January 20, 2009
8:47 pm
Peter
January 20, 2009
9:14 pm
Joe Jones
January 20, 2009
11:16 pm
I would also argue the notion that African-American is a bad label. It is certainly a vast culture as well as a social identity distinct from being simply "American," and it arose over time from the mishmash of West African and Western European culture during the days of slavery in the South. But the point which many people miss is that Obama does not have this heritage and was not brought up in this culture--he is an African-American in the sense that you've described above, and of East African blood at that. He can perhaps be seen more simply as a carpetbagger who pushed his way into the traditional "African-American" community in the US to get political support.
Still I liked his defense of this argument, which was something to the effect of "The cab drivers don't care where my ancestors came from." And it echoes an argument made by Samuel Huntington once that "one might be an Ibo in Lagos, a Nigerian in London and an African in New York." Labels are made to be relevant in the community where they're discussed. Probably 1% of Americans, if that, know where Malawi is or can say anything about it, and the number is probably only slightly better for Kenya. But everyone has a notion of what Africa is and who African people are.
Curzon
January 21, 2009
1:44 am
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/rollins.inauguration/index.html?eref=rss_latest
No, I didn't vote for him, but I'm pretty happy with him as president, and have pretty high expectations and hopes for his presidency.
Eddie
January 21, 2009
3:23 am
"However, I do think he intentionally downplayed that to take advantage of the many people voting solely based on race."
is to ignore the rise of identity politics in America (evangelicals voting their faith with Bush, women voting for HRC) that has been nationalized after being honed and practiced for so long to near-perfection by past politicians.
What do you think the Sarah Palin was about? That was a blatant attempt to grab HRC supporters and add novelty/change to the ticket.
Most would argue that Obama's race hurt him in every other way in the election campaign, aside from the increased black vote in key states. It took a top-notch organizational effort, an economic recession, a deeply unpopular president and party and a series of miscues on his opponent's part for Obama to win.
I see no evidence people in Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, etc. who had no reason to support a black candidate based on his race, did so.
I do see substantial evidence both in the primaries and the general that a considerable number of whites voted against him for his skin color.
Now that he has won, his story becomes America's and can be used to soothe all types of personal needs and wounds.
In a year of O.J., R. Kelly, Jesse Jackson, etc., not to mention more personal problems such as massive numbers of black families losing their homes and jobs, dozens of black children being gunned down at school and in front yards, did you not expect black Americans to vote en masse for one of their own to push back decades of being told they were not good enough for equality, let alone the Presidency?
Or for Republicans like Rollins, Huckabee, McCain, Cheney, Bush, etc. to not express with believable joy in their voices what a historic moment this is and what it says about America?
People tend to try to look on the bright side of things, especially right now.
Chirol
January 21, 2009
3:45 am
Curzon: That article didn't say much. Merely that because people like Obama so much, it must be a great thing. We'll see how that pans out in 6 months, or when a major catastrophe hits.
Eddie: I don't accuse Obama of being the only one to practice identity politics, just that he did it at the expensive of fighting a real and deeper racism. As for Palin, swimsuit contest aside, she was a retard and a blatant and pathetic attempt to bring so-called joe sixpack on board. It's one bad McCain decision.
Eddie
January 21, 2009
4:01 am
He may yet. He needs to be watched closely on AA. There seems to be some open-mindedness there with him. Perhaps he will oversee a shift to class-based AA as is being seen increasingly in states?
Chirol
January 21, 2009
4:17 am
I'm definitely willing to give him a chance on many things. It's hard to know what exactly to believe. At times I don't trust him and loathe his ideas while at others he seems to demonstrate his awareness of the difficulties that lie ahead and realize Bush made many good moves with the information he had at the time.
However, if he brings back the "assault weapons" ban, or any other anti-gun legislation, that's it for me.
Our Man in Abiko
January 21, 2009
5:24 am
Rommel
January 21, 2009
6:51 am
Now that he is elected it is time to stop calling him our first black president and call him our President with no qualifier.
Oliver
January 21, 2009
9:35 am
Even hispanic is considered a race. Which makes little sense. From a distance race seems to be a euphemism for what multiethnic countries call ethnicity.
American Mutt
January 21, 2009
10:15 am
A lot of Americans are of mixed race as well, including yours truly to a small degree (1/32nd Cherokee). I have read of studies suggesting that "black" americans have on average 1/4 European Ancestry. Henry Louis Gates has found that he may have as much European Ancestry as African. So this just goes further to demonstrate the way race is a man-made system for sorting people. I also think that you are going to see more and more Americans of mixed racial groups as immigration picks up and taboos on interracial marriage get tossed away. Speaking as someone in my 20s, I see this happening among my friends, a large proportion of whom are marrying across racial categories.
Joe Jones
January 21, 2009
1:55 pm
The US is at least sensible enough to officially consider "Hispanic" or "Latino" a separate classification from race, since every country in Latin America has white, black and Native American Hispanic/Latinos in varying proportions. Heck, there are even a lot of Asians down there. Calling Hispanic a race is like calling American a race.
My high school in Florida was statistically "90% black," but still had incredible cultural diversity between its Americans, Jamaicans, Bahamians, Dominicans, Cubans, Haitians, a smattering of other Afro-Caribbean people and even a few "real" Africans. Many people who had never been there were surprised that a white kid like me could survive there. But skin color is ultimately little more than what people make it to be. (Not that I wouldn't mind more melanin when I go to the beach...)
Skippy-san
January 21, 2009
5:19 pm
However there are two parallel cultures at work now. Those that want to move beyond skin color and those who want to use it to enhance preferred customer status.
Eddie
January 21, 2009
6:28 pm
AA= affirmative action.
Obama will not try any gun control moves. Way too many Blue Dog democrats to kill that, especially Jim Webb.
Chirol
January 21, 2009
8:16 pm
Joe: I agree culture is better way to describe it. Perhaps that will be the trend in the future, away from skin color and towards different types of subcultures.
Ralph Hitchens
January 22, 2009
8:33 pm
Roy Berman
January 23, 2009
4:08 am
ron patterson
January 23, 2009
9:20 am
Thomas Jackson
January 23, 2009
10:54 pm
People who focus on their diffferences do so because they can't focus on talent or excellence.
Witness the truly great figures in history. They do not play on gender, race or creed. Losers do. Obama and his Obamabots are racists.
Sonagi
January 24, 2009
12:10 am
Alfred Russel Wallace
January 24, 2009
1:55 am
Jay
January 24, 2009
9:03 pm
ron patterson
January 26, 2009
8:42 am
Sonagi
January 27, 2009
12:22 pm
@Jay:
What is a "hefty portion"? Do you have poll data to support your gut feeling? My 68-year-old mother still recounts bitterly how she lost a great job opportunity with the state government owing to affirmative action, yet for the first time since 1964, she cast a vote for a democratic presidential candidate. Obama's supporters are a diverse demographic. Obama's race won him some votes but cost him others. A fellow employee whom I had never considered racist cracked a joke about an Obama White House replacing the Rose Garden with a watermelon patch. I don't think anyone can accurately quantify whether Obama's race was a net gain or loss, but it certainly was not the overriding factor in his win.
Chirol
January 27, 2009
11:02 pm
Also, I find it personally impossible to believe that a white freshman senator with virtually no experience would have been even a candidate for the nomination, much less the nominee and actually president. There is no case to be made Obama had the requisite experience to run. He even used running as 'experience.'
Again, this is my personal impression and opinion and my point is that it was a factor when it shouldn't have been one. Nevertheless, I can understand why it was one.
Jay
January 28, 2009
12:05 am
My stance was based on conjecture. Hence the "I find it hard to believe..." Have you got some poll data to back your assertion that race wasn't a decisive factor in his victory?
Were his policy stances (oblique as they were) so different from those of John Kerry?
I don't begrudge Obama being elected but I do believe his race and the historical nature of a first black president acted in tandem with his rhetoric to get him elected. A promise of "Change" coming from, as Chirol states, a white freshman congressman wouldn't resonate with the same force by my measure.
Sonagi
January 31, 2009
2:33 am
Race has always been a hidden factor. It's that in the past, being a person of color was a net minus; that is, there were more people who would vote against than for owing to race. In short, race was one factor among many, and it is nothing but conjecture, as you say, to weigh race as the deciding factor.
Roy Berman
January 31, 2009
3:22 pm
Well, being kind of insane and not very bright certainly sealed the deal for Keyes. Look up his "debates" with Barack Obama to see how different their leagues are. Alan Keyes is simply a pathetic figure.
I suppose that a tiny number of white people may have been more likely to vote for Obama due to his race but let's be honest-being black has historically been a HUGE negative in getting elected in the US and your assertion that Obama was an "affirmative action" hire strikes me as extremely wrong, and based on some kind of caricature. Did you see the campaign that McCain ran against him? Did you see the campaign that Clinton ran? The only way I can see that race may have really worked in his favor is that some of his opponents added so much racist subtext that it made THEM look bad and ruin their OWN campaign. That makes race a factor in a roundabout way, but it's certainly not affirmative action.