http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081214/ap_on_re_us/obama_s_not_black;_ylt=AtmLcu5jqQKkhdJh3BQAaxBvzwcF
The official race that President-Elect, Barack Obama, represents with should not be as definitive as people are demanding it to be. I think that he can both acknowledge his black self and his white self if he wishes and call himself by whatever he sees fit. Mixed, mutt, biracial, half-black, or half-white should all be acceptable because all are true. I understand where they are coming from but the biggest separation in our country seems to be these dividing lines of race. They aren't necessary and in the end don't matter to the issue at hand.
It's amazing that the words "black" and "white" can have so much history connected to them. For example, in this article one person associates the label "black" as being warranted through the fact that one's ancestors can be traced back to slavery. In this case, I understand that there is a certain struggle that is attributed. On the other hand, being labeled "white" should then have the same historical references too. But, it seems that there is no general idea that "white" equals being of ancestors who lived in America with fair skin. Anyone, who has fair skin will be called "white". So, making such a bold statement creates interesting discussion on the topic because majority of the population, black or white, are being grouped into something they may not agree with in the first place.
Do words have history? Should it matter what word he chooses to represent himself? I say no, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with you. It's interesting that you can only be one race - half black - half white is not really in the public mindset. It seems like most people, sadly, can only see that a person belongs to one ethnicity even though America is supposed to be a melting pot of races.
Post a Comment