Debates about where the limits of a race lie are always heated and seldom resolved. Readers of this website may have encountered such debates, only almost certainly they have always involved determining where White ends and coloured begins.
But—what about the other side? Where does Black end and something other begin?
And, more importantly, should that something other, if a multiracial person, enjoy the same breaks given to Blacks on account of so-called ‘historical injustices’?
The answer to this question has legal, economic, and moral consequences.
Didier Aplogan, Benin's Minister of Sports
The Problem of Blackness
In a country like the United States, where Blackness was and is still traditionally defined according to a ‘one drop rule’, Blackness is problematic.
The problem of Blackness is perhaps emblematically highlighted by the case of Barack Obama. Because of his White mother, the latter is technically a mulatto, but is regarded, as he regards himself, a Black man.
Some, including Black columnist Debra Dickerson, do not regard him as Black at all. For the likes of Dickerson, being Black in America—being an African American—means being descended from West African slaves brought to America.
- Laurant Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire
The problem has also been recognised in education. Lani Guinier and Henry Louis Gates once noted during a panel discussion at Harvard University’s reunion for African American alumni that approximately only one third of Black Harvard undergraduates were from families where all four grandparents were African American. The rest were West Indian immigrants, their children, or mixed race. The result is that Affirmative Action has come mostly to benefit individuals for whom it was not originally intended, and who, as per the logic of the policy, do not deserve special provisions.
In the context of Affirmative Action and the reasons for it, the situation becomes particularly problematic when it comes to mixed-race individuals, particularly those who have one Black and one White parent.
The White parent could well have descended from a White slaveholder, while the Black parent could have descended from slaves—even from slaves owned by the White slaveholder. What then? Is this mixed-race individual eligible for Affirmative Action or reparations for slavery?
It is worth asking, because then the White man within, who, by modern definitions, harbours historical guilt, and, according to many Blacks, ought to be atoning and paying reparations for the crimes of his ancestors, is effectively being rewarded by those crimes, denying the Black man his justice. Injustice—if we accept that there has been such—would be perpetuated this way: within a single individual, the White man robs the Black man of half his due.
Needless to say, I do not accept the premise that the Black man is due or owed anything by us. On the contrary, and as I have stated before, the reverse is true: the Black man owes us, and owes us big, because it was we who freed him, we who banned slavery, and we who gave them rights and access to a standard of living on average far superior to anything he ever had as the slave of his Black masters in West Africa.
This brings us to the other side of question of Affirmative Action with individuals of mixed Black/White ancestry: if the Black man owes us, and we are being forced by politicians to transfer wealth and cede places at universities for the benefit of the Black man, then, within a single individual, the Black man is getting double what he is entitled to, and the White man being doubly penalised for his good deeds.
Either way, affirmative action commits a double injustice where individuals who are of mixed ancestry benefit from it because they are classed as Black.
Then, of course, there is the question of what, or who, is Black? And of exactly how Black is Black?
- Harold Ford, former Congressman from Tennessee
- Jose Eduardo dos Santos, President of Angola
African Americans in the United States have, on average, 18-20% White ancestry.
Does this mean—if we accept the premises of the Left—that, in the event that reparations for slavery are ever paid, automatically one fifth of it needs to be discounted, so as to avoid injustice?
And what about individuals who are classed as Black, but who have seven White great grandparents? Should such a person be eligible for Affirmative Action or reparations for slavery? Or should he, instead, be apologising, atoning, and paying up?
Even more interestingly: What about individuals who are Black for a living? Should individuals in such a position not be the Blackest of Black? I ask because it seems absurd that a man with a non-negligible amount of White ancestry should be campaigning to advance Black ethnic interests. What about the White man within? Why is he denied?
White Deniers
Returning to the case of Obama, some interesting questions arise when one considers that a) he was supposed to unite a post-racial America; and b) he has since presided over a huge transfer of wealth from White tax-payers to Black welfare claimants and affirmative action beneficiaries.
It may make practical sense for Obama to self-identify as Black in a country with a one-drop rule, but this does not mean that the White man inside him is not there, living alongside the Kenyan, a non-African American Black. Thus his affirmation of Blackness is simultaneously a denial of Whiteness. The act has to be racial, because, as is amply documented in Jared Taylor’s White Indentity, Blacks think and act racially as a matter of course.
And, therefore, in as much as Obama denies his White half, and in as much as he does not proportionally serve White ethnic interests, Obama is a race traitor.
Furthermore, since racial ethnic interests often conflict, everything Obama does in terms of race as a political leader is a double act of racial treason, either to his Black half or his White half, and again and in all cases to both simultaneously.
White denial in Blacks is the unintended consequence of a rule whose aim was to preserve Whiteness. The rule no longer seems to serve White interests now that Blacks have the upper hand in their role of righteous victims. Or does it?
- Al Sharpton
Let us imagine for a second that the one-drop rule were reversed, and that, in a country run by Blacks, any person with even one drop of White ancestry was classed as White. This would have made Obama White, and it is conceivable that under such circumstances Obama would have preferred a White identity, denying his Blackness. It is likewise conceivable that he would pander to White interests, instead of Black interests. Or would he?
White people tend to be less ethnocentric than other peoples of the world, and in modern times they have altogether renounced their racial identity, retaining only a vestige for the purposes of apologising for themselves.
In The French Revolution in San Domingo, Lothrop Stoddard highlighted that in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (now Haiti), the mulattoes aggregated into a separate caste. They hated the Blacks, disdaining them as inferior; and they hated the Whites, who in turn disdained them as their inferiors.
Conversely, the Blacks hated the mulattoes, who were higher up socioeconomically, and even a century after the revolution, Hesketh Prichard, a British journalist, observed that the ‘ultra-negro’ Blacks systematically excluded and marginalised the coloured caste.
Among the so-called Hispanics, the same applies. They are by no means a race, even if they adopt silly slogans like ‘Brown power’. Some have White ancestry, which can be considerable and even total.
Perhaps the Blacks and ‘Browns’ deny their Whiteness because the Whites themselves deny their Whiteness. And this denial, this negative identity where Whiteness only exists as a vehicle for apology to Blacks, only fuels the disdain of Blacks and mulattoes, who in turn see Whites and Whiteness as shameful, and thus White pride as the lowest of the low.
The situation is quite different in many countries in Latin America, where populations have experienced a great deal of admixture and where individuals are classed according to ancestry and skin gradations. In Brazil and Venezuela up to ten gradations are recognised by 99% of the population, but a study in Brazil identified up to 143 names for racial types.
Such societies are by no means post-racial. They are, in fact, highly stratified socioeconomically according to race, with pure Whites at the top, and pure Blacks at the bottom.
Phenotypic Whites tend to marry other phenotypic Whites. And even if the boundaries are fuzzy and phenotypes an unreliable marker for racial purity, the fact remains that Whiteness is an asset, and Whites, especially Nordic Whites, are generally considered more attractive than coloured individuals, let alone Blacks. The comments of Gabriela Oviedo, representing Bolivia in the 2004 edition of Miss Universe, are indicative of racial attitudes in her part of the world:
“Unfortunately, people who don’t know Bolivia very much think that we are all just Indian people,” she said, adding that the image typified La Paz, which has “poor people and very short people and Indian people. . . . I’m from the other side of the country. We are tall and we are white people and we know English.” (Tyler Bridges, Knight Ridder, TheState.com (SC), Aug. 13)
All the same, Whites in Latin America do not operate as a self-conscious racial group. When they band together it is by proxy, by implicit means. In political terms they too deny their Whiteness.
Some commentators on the Left have stated that it is the United States’ destiny to become like Brazil. If so, this would mean a dropping of the one-drop rule, much more permeable racial boundaries, and stratification, implicit and/or explicit, according to language, culture, and racial castes.
However, because of the regnant anti-racist ideology dominating the West—originally developed and adopted by Whites during the French Revolution and now at its logical extreme, we can expect the self-denying Whites in the United States not to remain an implicitly White oligarchy, as in Latin America, but to be expelled or exterminated, as in Haiti.
(Jews, who are often perceived as White, even if many have theorised against Whiteness, would also be ‘encouraged’ to emigrate by the very same people they helped enter the United States.)
And no doubt the Whites would see it as either just deserts for their wicked past, or a failure by them successfully to end racism. Those with an explicit racial consciousness would be the same ones who have one now, plus those who have it but have yet to admit to it or go public.
Modern White denial in Blacks and mulattoes is the latter two appropriating a policy designed to benefit Whites and putting it to work to benefit them, with the result that it is now Whites who deny their own Whiteness. The one-drop rule has come back to bite them in the rear.
Thus, one wonders whether Whites’ suddenly adopting a policy of White affirmation would mean Blacks suddenly competing to see who is more blessed with the coveted genes.
Legitimate Claimaint
If we are going to affirm our Whiteness, it seems appropriate, and a logical consequence, to remind Blacks in the United States of their White ancestry. Thus far, it seems, they have refused to deal with this important issue. And it is especially pressing in their case, since they are so explicitly racial in their thinking and their actions.
- Jesse Jackson
Perhaps Blacks, and especially those who are Black for a living, should require racial purity of each other. And, given that the context in the United States is always slavery and its consequences, they should also perhaps require a specifically West African ancestry, and being able to trace their lineage to a slave.
In other words, immigrants from Africa who settled in the United States after the abolition of slavery cannot legitimately partake in any kind of reparations discourse, benefit from affirmative action, or engage in Afro-American political agitation. They cannot even besmirch the United States as a ‘racist’ country, or make demands from the White population and leadership, because it was their choice to immigrate to the United States in the first place.
The term African American should be defined strictly, and, before we hear anything further about Affirmative Action, both we and African Americans should insist on the adoption of this strict definition. What is more, in this context Whites should deal only with correctly defined African Americans.
Anything other is a cynical attempt by professional and amateur ‘Blacks’ to add demographic weight to their outrageous claims—because deep down, those who are only partially African American, or who are African immigrants who immigrated after the abolition of slavery, know those claims are outrageous, being just an effort to get a slice of the White pie, to get freebies out of Whites befuddled by their own moral and philosophical abstractions.
This particularly applies to mulattoes and people of colour. Those who adopt Black identities in the United States, whose partial Black ancestry qualifies as African American, and who parrot the discourse of Affirmative Action and reparations for slavery cannot, and should not be allowed to get away with, the onotological contradiction that automatically renders them bogus claimants. They cannot legitimately claim to be victims when they are also simultaneously guilty, as per their own ideology. And from both their and our perspective, any benefits they receive as a result of Affirmative Action should be handed straight back by them, since they are also the ones owing. In other words, they should neither compensate nor be compensated, and we should expect that they end up no better and no worse than before.
Blackness ought to have a limit.
Facing the Future as a Minority
The “limit” between Black and White was not created by God, but the racist human beings. If one read world history from objective sources – he would be surprised to learn that some African societies were more civilized before the Europe’s Whites came out of their Dark Age. How many American Whites know that many African lived in Americana before it was found ‘accidentally’ by White (or Jewish) Columbus? For Americans, Black mean the descendents of African slaves brought by their European ancestors.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/islam-and-slavery/
Interesting article. It made me think of the contrast between Barack Obama and Herman Cain.
Obama struggles with his racial identity and strives for blackness. Herman Cain does not have to. He is a black man and he knows it. Unlike Barack Obama, who’s entire presidency seems to revolve around race, Herman Cain has not mentioned race EVEN ONCE during all the Presidential debates.
It seems to me that the LIGHT SKINNED blacks are the ones mostly likely to agitate for “black” causes – Al Sharpton, Henry Louis Gates Jr, Malcolm X, Ben Jealous, etc. In addition, these light skinned blacks seem to be just a little smarter than their darker brethren due to the infusion of white genes.
Excellent writing!! Thanks.
Why don’t the European countries demand compensation from Rome when they were made slaves over 2,000 years ago? No, they just sought their freedoms and moved on with their lives without using their past slavery as a crutch in their lives.
There is still slavery in Africa right now (Chad, Sudan, etc.) yet no one seems to make an uproar about that.
Again, great article!
The boundaries to all races are fuzzy. Ultimately it comes down to what someone self-identifies as, but generally speaking I support the one drop rule. I don’t believe it’s possible to be half-White; Barack Obama may have had a White mother but White genes are recessive and get easily knocked out by African genes. Obama certainly does not have any emotional or intellectual connection with his European ancestors.
Of course all this existential confusion could be avoided if we just adopted common-sense eugenic principles like selecting mates of a similar ethnicity and strong intellect, but I guess that’s to “science-y” for most people.
“the Black man owes us, and owes us big, because it was we who freed him, we who banned slavery, and we who gave them rights and access to a standard of living on average far superior to anything he ever had as the slave of his Black masters in West Africa.”
It was Whites who enslaved them to begin with. Freeing them doesn’t make them owe us, it makes us even. No one owes anyone anything.
“And, therefore, in as much as Obama denies his White half, and in as much as he does not proportionally serve White ethnic interests, Obama is a race traitor.”
He doesn’t have a “White half” to betray, so he can’t be a race traitor. There’s no such thing as a White half. A person can be half Irish and half Italian, or half Japanese and half Chinese, but when you get to hardcore race-mixing it’s one or the other.
“If we are going to affirm our Whiteness, it seems appropriate, and a logical consequence, to remind Blacks in the United States of their White ancestry.”
This only plays into the hands of Marxists who insist we’re all the same race and have common interests. Whites should be advocating as much separation from non-Whites as possible, not the opposite.
@fender:
No. Blacks were enslaved by other Blacks in Africa. Slavery in Africa was a hugely profitable industry and African leaders were the first to complain, with great dismay, when the British abolished the institution. I dealt this this in a previous article, The Black Man’s Guilt.
@Bannister:
Obama has to prove his color and religion – because like Herman Cain, he is not a great grandson of an African slave nor a son of a Zionist Christian. Obama’s mother was a White with allegedly Jewish roots and his father was a non-practicing Muslim from Kenya.
Malcolm X was always proud of his Afro-American roots until he converted to Islam. From then on he was proud of his faith not the color of his skin.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/malcolm-x-judged-by-a-christian-and-a-jew/
I am sure that Herman Cain would be a good neighbor. He would keep his lawn mowed, keep his children in tow, and keep the block’s property values up. He has, however, no value whatsoever to the larger interests of any TOO reader, whether that reader is at the militant end of WN or is simply interested in the restoration of the Christian civilization and culture of the West (or even the maintenance of its shards) and of the stolen inheritance of the descendants of the white, largely Christian men and women who founded and built the United States.
Is it not in this context appropriate to regard the overfriendly mention of Herman Cain—a stooge of the Tribally controlled Republican Party—as a delusional act, perhaps even an act of attempted subversion?
I just think the whole “______owes ______” argument plays into the hands of the left. Marxist ideology is based on the idea that someone always owes someone something, and since Whites are always on top in the eyes of the left, it’s always going to be Whites who need to do the giving. The only way to defeat Marxist arguments is to not use their paradigm. Eliminate the very idea of “obligation” and you defeat all of their arguments in one stroke.
@Alex exactly, Europeans aren’t unique in practicing slavery, but they are unique in abolishing it.
@Rehmat: Rehmat is going deep with the fairy tales this time. I’m sure he’ll follow up by telling the blacks who were in America before Whites (who in fact first set foot in N. America before the “Amerindians”) cruised here in huge airships and wondrous gliders.
Rehmat is funny though. He’s an amusing Hasbara agent posing as a muslim. The tribe goes for every angle. lol
I always heard that Negro American soldiers in Britain during WWII, told the British girls they were American Indians?
Does Alex know if the American Negroes did this in Germany too, after WWII?
The Germans had a fairly high opinion of American Indians because of author Karl May—Hitler was a big fan of May. May wrote cowboy-western novels with German heroes.
Kurtagic:
I hear you. What about Whiteness – any limits there?
@fender: I’ve had farmers tell me that “…once a gene goes wild, [it] stays wild”. Every farmer I’ve met is a practical geneticist.
@Jonathan: No good deed goes unpunished.
@Rehmat: Columbus was Jewish? Thanks Rehmat – you are not entirely worthless if you give us credit for white men like him.
Did you know that African tribes discovered electricity first, and that Benjamin Franklin, on a safari to Africa, discovered Africans flying kites with a conductor attached,killed them all with a virus, and secretely brought the kite back to Philadelphia? Shocking, isn’t it?
The crucial thing is, that the Black PHENOTYPE is almost always dominant. That is why the one-drop-rule makes sense, and cannot be reverted. Mulattos usually just look like lighter skinned negroes, but negroes nonetheless. Types that “pass” as White are pretty rare. It is perfectly understandable why Obama rather identifies with his Black ancestry, because he simply looks more like it.
That is also why Black/Asian-White-racemixing harms Blacks and Asians less than Whites. Race-mixing is a win-win situation for them, for us its lose-lose. We are genetically far more vulnerable here, thus we should have a greater need for self-preservation.
As a historical curiosity, famous Russian poet Pushkin had a black great-grandfather, a freed slave. It is said that after so many generations some racial traits were still visible, such as dark curly-ish hair. Otherwise he was as Russian as it gets. Such things are possible, but they are the exception.
Did you hear that UGA just gave one of its ubiquitous Diversity Awards to an Ethiopian girl named Yosan “Negga”? It’s true. But don’t you know the whiteys at “embracing diversity and inclusion” UGA go out of their way to pronounce Ms. “Negga” anyway other than how it sounds?
Farrakhan’s book on the slave-trade is worth a read, too.
http://www.4shared.com/document/MDIIPmmd/The_Secret_Relationship_betwee.htm
Sins of the fathers, in either case. Discrimination should be privatized, and all this agonizing over part-this and part-that could be left to the individual or civil society. Institutionalizing it though Affirmative Action was one of the worst political moves foisted on America. I’d argue that it has harmed blacks, too, to the extent that it has fostered false illusions and denatured merit.
Intra-group discrimination and obsessing, by Schoolly D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v40ainAHkRo
Cutting edge memory of White Humanity, a bit too late, but glorious that the concept can still exist-
http://goo.gl/FF243
@MountainHome:
Slavery is as old profession as prostitution. Slavery has existed in most of the societies and even allowed in Judaism and Christianity. Islam allowed it but promised more rewards for freeing the slaves. the result was that within 100 years of Prophet’s death – slavery totally vanished from Islamic lands. It was reintroduced to Ottoman empire by western Jewish slave traders. Jews also played a major role in African slavery.
Presently, the only country where sex slavery is legal – is Israel. Howevr, the US tops the list when it comes to child sexual abuse.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/americas-child-sex-slaves/
The genes that code for black looks are much older than the genes that code for white looks so mixed-race children will almost always look black and identify as black. This is no secret.
Sailer and other bloggers have noted that even someone who’s only 1/16 black will still often have dominant black features.
The lesson from this is not to point out whatever “whiteness” one can find in Obama, but to show how miscegenation will eventually eradicate the genetic uniqueness of the white race.
From email list:
According to the CIA World Fact Book, Mexico is:
60% mestizo
30% Amerindian
Less than 10% European (mostly Spaniard)
And what is the ancestry of mestizos? Examining genetic ancestral markers, Rubén Lisker has found lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be:
59% Amerindian
34% European [mostly Spaniard]
and 6% black
As Richard Lynn points out in “Pigmentocracy: Racial Hierarchies in the Caribbean and Latin America,” most Latin American countries seem to have a small upper-class of Europeans, and below that very large masses of Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos and blacks.
All too often this sort of discussion tends to get focused on looks. We need to remember that genes affect behavior on far deeper_and more important_levels. And those hidden genes are much more dangerous for the white race.
@ looking for my white privilege
On the upside, you can tell UGA is anything but niggardly when it comes to dispensing such awards to deserving parties.
Harold Ford looks familiar from the days when I’d still catch daily goings-on in D.C. from the Judaic zombie box.
As a politician he used to be about as nimble as a spermatozoa in humid environment.
The reason light-skinned blacks tend to self identify as black is it is no longer preferable or even desirable to be white. Especially if your male…there just no profit in it. If I were black the last thing in the world I would want to be is white.
It is instructive to note that when whites were in power, those blacks who could get away with it tried to “pass” for white. Now that blacks have the power, all the white kids want to “pass” for black..with they’re baggy pants, nose rings, gangsta rap etc. (I think they call them “wiggers”)
The point is, its about power, there is simply nothing to be gained “privilege” or anything else, from claiming your white half
It is depressing to see the general tone of these blogs centers around the false concept of “fairness” (equality) with whites emulating the feminist/Jewish/black mindset of victimhood.
This fine as long as its a stratigy, but I suspect many here actually believe in the false God of equallity. To those I would say there is no such thing as equality. Only relative states of power.
Never forget that no one wants to be equal (with those below them) we all seek power, crying poor me is fine if it works, but when it no longer serves your interests, its time to try something else…Unless of course you LIKE the whole victim act. jmo
I’m mixed myself, but I think we can all agree on striving for racial and ethnic purity among Whites. Not only is it healthier for an individual, psychologically, but for a society as well. We all know, I hope, that these multiracial, multicultural, garbage societies don’t work and lead to war. I have very little faith in Whites in California, though. White women especially. I always see Black women with blacks, Latina women with Latinos and especially Asian women with Asians, but I see White women with everyone else other than Whites. It is demoralizing and pathetic that these women don’t see what they’re getting themselves into.
Miscegenation is unnatural and dangerous for White women, especially. I remember reading an article on American Renaissance about how mixed race children are more genetically different than their parents, so the emotional attachment is less. Of course, it would appear that in areas where Whites are a minority, genetics no longer matters because Whites have adopted the non-White culture, which is usually full of vice.
@fender:
When I say the Black man owes us, I don’t say it in the spirit of victimhood. I say it in the spirit of rejecting his claims. Victimhood is for losers.
@Rehmat: Your ignorance knows no bounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion
@Henry Baxley: It has occurred to me more than once, that the primarily most likely reason why blacks who have some white genes in them tend to favor their black genes and identity, and who appear to be dominated by their black genes – is because of the regressive nature of white genes. Not only are white regressive genes overpowered and easily obliterated from a physical appearance standpoint, but I tend to suspect that this dominance also drives the genetics that control the thinking and behavior of the black-white race mixer. Thus, mulattoes will view themselves as ‘black’ and think and behave accordingly.
“One drop” rules about blackness or racial purity are conventions developed in European colonies to preserve racial character. There was a folk understanding that Europeans had more favorable genetic character than the indigenes, so racial mixing was to be avoided, but obviously it happened to some degree. The key was keeping a clear demarcation between pure and impure blood.
In World on Fire, Amy Chua claims that colonial Spanish plantation owners would prefer their daughters to marry penniless young men who had just arrived from Spain to relatively wealthy men born in South America. Reason? They could be certain the new arrivals from Spain were pure European, of course!
Jews have clearly observed similar injunctions in the past, in order to preserve their genetic character and innate IQ advantage.
Our strategy must be one of genetic preservation, preventing mixing with low IQ groups and “stealing” favorable genes from advantaged groups, such as Jews.
@Rolf Kraki:
Eugenics should mean keeping the phenotype pure and breeding for superior qualities (such as high IQ).If you try to “steal” high IQ from Jews you “sin” against the first part of the rule of eugenics: keeping the phenotype pure.Jews are questionable “Whites” at best,they are mixed with Neanderthal and Negro blood (the latter estimated at 5 to 10%).Jews may possess some hereditary advantages in terms of IQ but those come for a high price: inbreeding with all that it entails (hereditary diseases,neurosis, even a high frequency of psychopathology).White populations are big and varied enough to produce sufficient material for eugenic purposes.No need of “stealing” from the Jews.
@Luke:
You could very well be right…genetics is not my strongest subject.
What’s funny about Obama is he’s not only not descended from African slaves, but natively he’s descended from White slave-owners through his mother. He truly is an abomination or Obamanation.
Some commentators on the Left have stated that it is the United States’ destiny to become like Brazil.
I say to them: You first! Why don’t all of these anti-White big mouths like Tim Wise go ahead and marry a coal-black Congoid and set an example so their exterior can match their rotten interior. Oh wait, they’re despicable hypocrites that still marry White or Jewish.
As to Whites in Latin America you can’t use those reported stats because their definition of White is corrupted, “whites” there average significant non-White ancestry, 10-30+% depending on the region.
Latin America proves that even with mass miscegenation racism and discrimination still exist. Miscegenation solves nothing, it only confuses and destroys.
As in the case of Jews – One is only Jewish if he is born to a Jewish couple – same goes for being Black. The later has nothing to do with being a product of African slavery in the West which was a business like the Holocaust. White slave masters were known to rape their female African slaves to produce more slaves, which they either sold to other or used them as additional slaves on their farms.
Obama is not a Afro for sure. However, Rev. Jackson and Gen. Powell may be. Rev. King Jr. could be added to the Black list, but they’re all considered “good Ns” by the White Establishment. The “bad Ns” include Minister Farakhan – not that he is immoral as Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich – but because his rants are sometime anti-Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/pat-robertson-%e2%80%98divorce-your-terminal-sick-wife%e2%80%99/
Interestingly I just heard tonight of a contretemps vis a vis R Perry to which Cain reacted with emotional racially charged ad hominem. No sooner does one nod in Cain’s direction as to his strict avoidance of race-rhetoric and…well there you are. He is black, he knows it, and he can’t help himself.
I don’t mean any insult, but if it were up to many people, they would be considered White just by looking White. For some reason, this “drop of blood” law treats Non-White blood as a contaminant, which I believe is ridiculous.
As for the Blacks owing Whites for giving them freedom, I believe this notion is ludicrous. Whites should not have ripped Blacks from Africa and brought them here against their will in the first place. As for shipping them back to Africa, it makes no sense since they have already been here for at least 150 years and they would have nowhere else to go. At the very least Blacks deserve credit for building this Country (picking up crops, building infra-structure, etc). If you don’t want to help them with anything, at the very least don’t hurt them.
I believe that if this “Drop of Blood” rule makes Non-European genes contaminants they might as well take advantage of the Affirmative Action since without it they would be denied any opportunity no matter how well they perform.