Obama marks "African American" Only on Census

[ProbeX]

Just want to see what some of your opinions on this are, assuming you even care.

I suppose some could argue he threw his White family members under the bus by not marking "White/European" as well, on the census. But then I imagine lots of people are thinking, "Well, he looks Black, and is treated as someone fully Black, so that's just the way he identifies himself." (A spin off on the "One Drop Rule").

[theprestige]

Well, the Census Bureau does recognize multiple choices when answering this question, as well as write-in options with arbitrary values.

I guess Obama felt that "African American" was the only option that legitimately described his race.

[ravdin]

I don't care what Obama or anyone else marked in the census form. Technically, that information is supposed to be private anyway.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ravdin

I don't care what Obama or anyone else marked in the census form. Technically, that information is supposed to be private anyway.

Not when it applies to the census.

[Mirrorglass]

In "Dreams from my Father" Obama clearly shows he has always identified as "black" or "African American", and was viewed as such by the people around him. I've always found it both amusing and sad that a man with one black and one white parent is considered "black", like "white" was the norm and any African heritage mixed in automatically turns the child "black".

[ProbeX]

Mirrorglass, my thoughts too. Actually, I recall a time early in his presidency (he may even have still been President Elect Obama), he jokingly referred to himself as a "mutt" (biracial). My experience as a biracial person seems quite a bit different from Obama's. I'm one of those "what are you?" Black/White people; very ambiguous looking, and identify strongly with both sides, possibly because I've never really been treated "Black" by most people. Either way, it seems strange to me that anyone would deny half the reality of their obviously biracial ancestry.

[Puppycow]

It is private info unless the person himself reveals the information to the public. Obama must have revealed it or given permission for someone to reveal it.

Are there categories for biracial or multiracial?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It is private info unless the person himself reveals the information to the public. Obama must have revealed it or given permission for someone to reveal it.

Are there categories for biracial or multiracial?

.
Here's the whole thing.

[Thunder]

i'd like to know, how its our personal business what he checked on his census form?

isnt this thing supposed to be private?

does Obama not have any right to privacy any more?

...but, if he did release the info, then it is his free choice.

I honestly consider him a black man, myself.

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe he is trying to be accurate within the limits of a census form.

[One Eyed Jack]

Who cares? The entire idea of race is complete crap.

Why does it matter so much that someone has a different skin color or a different slant to their eyes? These traits are meaningless. We are people, period.

The time is long past due when we should stop obsessing with trivial differences and focus on what we all have in common.

[JWideman]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

Who cares? The entire idea of race is complete crap.

Why does it matter so much that someone has a different skin color or a different slant to their eyes? These traits are meaningless. We are people, period.

The time is long past due when we should stop obsessing with trivial differences and focus on what we all have in common.

I think most people would agree with you. However, the numbers are important for many reasons. For instance, sickle cell anemia. This occurs in only 1 in 5000 people in the US. But for blacks in the US, it's 1 in 500. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[LTC8K6]

He is whatever suits him at the time, imo.

[Cactus Wren]

Originally Posted by Mirrorglass

In "Dreams from my Father" Obama clearly shows he has always identified as "black" or "African American", and was viewed as such by the people around him. I've always found it both amusing and sad that a man with one black and one white parent is considered "black", like "white" was the norm and any African heritage mixed in automatically turns the child "black".

I believe the phrase is "one drop".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Society defines Obama as black. That's what happens when people think a tiny % of DNA responsible for skin tone and facial features actually makes a person a different 'race'.
We could call one's blood type the marker of one's race. We could define diabetics as a unique race. It's an arbitrary division genetically speaking.

I assume the OP author has an inkling one is unlikely to find any blacks in the US without at least one European ancestor somewhere in their family history. By that definition, no blacks should mark down their race as anything but mixed. And since all Caucasians have African ancestors, shouldn't we all mark the census as mixed race?

Except I don't recall there was a category for that. Was there?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

He is whatever suits him at the time, imo.

I think it would be what I'd mark if I had 2 kids and a wife who likely identified themselves as black. Seems kind of logical you would identify with your family if you were Obama.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JWideman

I think most people would agree with you. However, the numbers are important for many reasons. For instance, sickle cell anemia. This occurs in only 1 in 5000 people in the US. But for blacks in the US, it's 1 in 500. Do you see where I'm going with this?

So by that logic, we should identify any genetic risk as a separate race. See where I went with that?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

Who cares? The entire idea of race is complete crap.

Why does it matter so much that someone has a different skin color or a different slant to their eyes? These traits are meaningless. We are people, period.

The time is long past due when we should stop obsessing with trivial differences and focus on what we all have in common.

The states need to know where each race lives so they can gerrymander the districts and protect incumbents.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JWideman

I think most people would agree with you. However, the numbers are important for many reasons. For instance, sickle cell anemia. This occurs in only 1 in 5000 people in the US. But for blacks in the US, it's 1 in 500. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Actually it's all about gerrymandering.

[Juniversal]

Originally Posted by JWideman

I think most people would agree with you. However, the numbers are important for many reasons. For instance, sickle cell anemia. This occurs in only 1 in 5000 people in the US. But for blacks in the US, it's 1 in 500. Do you see where I'm going with this?

But the Sickel cell is an environmental adaption as protection against maleria. Not a characteristic defined by race by any means. I'll admit racial designations might have some statistical significance in the sense that it helps find patterns in groups afflicted disproportionately by certain diseases or conditions. And even then, in the case of sickle cell it's geography that's the major factor (since more maleria in a geographical area=more individuals afflicted by sickle cell and lord knows parts of Africa can be a haven for maleria). But not much beyond that.

Quote:

In "Dreams from my Father" Obama clearly shows he has always identified as "black" or "African American", and was viewed as such by the people around him. I've always found it both amusing and sad that a man with one black and one white parent is considered "black", like "white" was the norm and any African heritage mixed in automatically turns the child "black".

Pretty much a useless vestige of our past. America made it important and neccesary to identify people by race. Naturally whites had much at stake when blacks were gaining rights (i.e. politically, socially, economically, ect.). So you could imagine how racial indentity would factor strongly into this. Not much room for ambiguity. Also black America excepted this view. Personally I'd love for us to stop trying fit people comfortably into categories or "boxes".

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by JWideman

I think most people would agree with you. However, the numbers are important for many reasons. For instance, sickle cell anemia. This occurs in only 1 in 5000 people in the US. But for blacks in the US, it's 1 in 500. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I understand where you are trying to go with this, but the example is a bit weak. Sickle cell disorders are very easy to diagnose. Patient comes in, complaining of common anemia symptoms. A standard CBC and differential are ordered. Cells are examined. Sickled cells are observed. Doctor orders the confirmation sickle screen that takes about 10 minutes to run. Race is used as a flag, but it's not necessary. The disorder will be caught regardless.

The point of my post was that differences are minuscule compare to that which we all have in common.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The states need to know where each race lives so they can gerrymander the districts and protect incumbents.

Bingo.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It is private info unless the person himself reveals the information to the public. Obama must have revealed it or given permission for someone to reveal it.

Are there categories for biracial or multiracial?

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Maybe he is trying to be accurate within the limits of a census form.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Society defines Obama as black. That's what happens when people think a tiny % of DNA responsible for skin tone and facial features actually makes a person a different 'race'.
We could call one's blood type the marker of one's race. We could define diabetics as a unique race. It's an arbitrary division genetically speaking.

I assume the OP author has an inkling one is unlikely to find any blacks in the US without at least one European ancestor somewhere in their family history. By that definition, no blacks should mark down their race as anything but mixed. And since all Caucasians have African ancestors, shouldn't we all mark the census as mixed race?

Except I don't recall there was a category for that. Was there?

The Census Bureau recognizes multiple choices, starting with the 2000 census. You can mark as many races as you think are necessary.

The form also includes a write-in option. You can write down whatever racial description you like.

Also, so what if "[s]ociety defines Obama as black"? He can't see past that, on a form that clearly allows him to see past that, to provide information to an agency that is fully prepared to see past that? That doesn't seem to bode well for the Presidency, if the person holding that office sees himself as being whatever society tells him he is. Maybe that's why Bush seemed so stupid all the time.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So by that logic, we should identify any genetic risk as a separate race. See where I went with that?

.
A "pre-existing condition", as it were, and therefore, not insurable!
Brilliant!

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The Census Bureau recognizes multiple choices, starting with the 2000 census. You can mark as many races as you think are necessary.

The form also includes a write-in option. You can write down whatever racial description you like.

Also, so what if "[s]ociety defines Obama as black"? He can't see past that, on a form that clearly allows him to see past that, to provide information to an agency that is fully prepared to see past that? That doesn't seem to bode well for the Presidency, if the person holding that office sees himself as being whatever society tells him he is. Maybe that's why Bush seemed so stupid all the time.

.
There's even an "other", if the menagerie of choices for Hispanic isn't sufficient.

[quadraginta]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I can't shake the feeling that no matter how Obama had filled out that census question the Obama detractors would have found some reason to fault him for the selection.

[Mirrorglass]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So by that logic, we should identify any genetic risk as a separate race. See where I went with that?

Originally Posted by Juniversal

But the Sickel cell is an environmental adaption as protection against maleria. Not a characteristic defined by race by any means. I'll admit racial designations might have some statistical significance in the sense that it helps find patterns in groups afflicted disproportionately by certain diseases or conditions. And even then, in the case of sickle cell it's geography that's the major factor (since more maleria in a geographical area=more individuals afflicted by sickle cell and lord knows parts of Africa can be a haven for maleria). But not much beyond that.

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I understand where you are trying to go with this, but the example is a bit weak. Sickle cell disorders are very easy to diagnose. Patient comes in, complaining of common anemia symptoms. A standard CBC and differential are ordered. Cells are examined. Sickled cells are observed. Doctor orders the confirmation sickle screen that takes about 10 minutes to run. Race is used as a flag, but it's not necessary. The disorder will be caught regardless.

The point of my post was that differences are minuscule compare to that which we all have in common.

Actually, sickle cell anemia is not an adaptation, but a harmful mutation. It generally leads to death before 50 if untreated. It is prevalent in parts of Africa because that's still longer than the average lifespan if you get malaria. For that reason the prevalence is also notably higher in all people for whom large part of their genes come from Africa, essentially, black people.

The example is a poor one, however. Many other diseases, stomach cancer for example, are much more common in black people. The structure of the body and the organs tends to be different for black people, as do many of the proteins in their bodies. There are even some conditions where a different medication is preferred for black and white people. As things stand, the race is still important to the medical profession.

That is changing, of course. We're not so far away from the point where genetic screening becomes routine for diagnosis and choosing the medication. Once the technology is available, it will be much more reliable than choosing them based on skin color, although also more expensive. At that point, there truly will be no reason to consider race, as it will be immediately obvious that every individual is unique.

What this will do to the insurance business, I'm afraid to think of. I'm guessing it'll be Gattaca meets Mad Men.

[Ausmerican]

Maybe he was going for slash instead of dash.
Since his father was African and his mother American he might have wrote it as meaning African/American rather than African-American.











(This is in no way meant to be taken seriously. Half seriously would even be stretching it.)

[Mirrorglass]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Here's the whole thing.

Hold on, it actually says "Black, African-American or Negro"? That's a word that's still used?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I can't shake the feeling that no matter how Obama had filled out that census question the Obama detractors would have found some reason to fault him for the selection.

More to the point: Isn't this exactly why that question ought to be kept off a census form?

I was under the impression we were all of the same race and my ethnicity is probably a complete mystery to everyone including myself.

Time to junk the census anyhow. It's an archaic institution that has no business in determining anything.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by stilicho

More to the point: Isn't this exactly why that question ought to be kept off a census form?

I was under the impression we were all of the same race and my ethnicity is probably a complete mystery to everyone including myself.

Time to junk the census anyhow. It's an archaic institution that has no business in determining anything.

I don't think that's more to the point. I think you're making a different point. More to the point would be that Obama maybe shouldn't have disclosed his responses in the first place, but I have no doubt that an equal amount of hay would have been made of that by his detractors, and with fewer facts to work with they would only have indulged in greater hyperbole. So I guess this was probably the least distasteful option. What's telling is that anyone finds something to make out of it in the first place.

The point I think you're trying to make is that race and ethnicity are no longer a significant factor in the way groups of people are treated in this country, and that no adjustments should be made accordingly. I don't believe this is true. Certainly things are much improved from my youth, but prejudice and bigotry are far from gone or even reduced to insignificance. The people who suggest that they are tend to be from much the same backgrounds as the ones who claimed the issue was unimportant fifty years ago.

But even that is neither here nor there. I see no reason to discard the census, even beyond its constitutional mandate. There are many uses such data can be put to. The relative merit of those applications is not a fundamental characteristic of the data.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by ProbeX

Just want to see what some of your opinions on this are, assuming you even care.

I suppose some could argue he threw his White family members under the bus by not marking "White/European" as well, on the census. But then I imagine lots of people are thinking, "Well, he looks Black, and is treated as someone fully Black, so that's just the way he identifies himself." (A spin off on the "One Drop Rule").

Race is a social construct and it seems that Obama decided to answer based on how he believed most people have treated him most of his life.

There are many people with multi-racial backgrounds at one of my part-time jobs and some of them have said they weren’t sure how they were going to respond. They asked for opinions and mine was that they should answer whatever works best for them politically.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

...
Also, so what if "[s]ociety defines Obama as black"? He can't see past that, on a form that clearly allows him to see past that, to provide information to an agency that is fully prepared to see past that? That doesn't seem to bode well for the Presidency, if the person holding that office sees himself as being whatever society tells him he is. Maybe that's why Bush seemed so stupid all the time.

Since you, like the rest of the human race have black ancestry, did you mark yourself as part black? Or if you are black, did you recognize you likely have European ancestors or Asian or at least one other race besides black?

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by Mirrorglass

Hold on, it actually says "Black, African-American or Negro"? That's a word that's still used?

It may not be politically correct, but “Negro” is the correct word to describe the “black” race, in the same sense that “Caucasian” is the correct term to describe the “white” race.


An interesting irony here, about the politically-correct, but factually incorrect term “African-American”: The majority of those to whom this term is applied have never been to Africa, nor have their parents nor their grandparents nor their great grandparents. There is nothing the least bit “African” about them, other than a connection to their distant ancestors that were forcibly abducted from Africa, and brought here to be used as farm animals.

Barak Obama is not part of this “African-American” heritage at all. He's not in any way connected to the heritage of those in this nation who were descendants of slaves. However, since his father really did come from Africa, and he has, himself, been to Africa and has extant family connections to Kenya, he is much more “African-American” than those to whom this term is deceitfully applied.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Society defines Obama as black. That's what happens when people think a tiny % of DNA responsible for skin tone and facial features actually makes a person a different 'race'.

more importantly he self identifies as black. Remember the whole "point" of analyzing those tiny differences in gene occurrence in different groups is to try and mach to how people self identify. We should therefor go straight to the self identification.

[quarky]

I say he's white.

As a white man myself, he makes me proud of whiteness. or half proud. or whatever.

I find the attention to his blackness as racist. America was very proud to finally elect a black president. Much back-patting.

But wait!
He's half white!

I could care less, of course.
But I can't help but feel that he never would have been elected if he was more 'black' and less white.

That's what annoys me about this. It's disingenuous.
And it works as a cover up for our collective racism.

Almost all of the very successful public figures that we accept as 'black' (Oprah; Bryant Gumble; Denzel Washington, etc, are necessarily light skinned...like our president.
Well, that's fine. Good on them.

But there's a reason for this, and it shouldn't make us so comfortable about our collective minority acceptance.

If and when we elect a black man or woman to the White House; one whom has 2 black parents, Obama's presidency will require an asterisk. A bigger one than Roger Maris's home run record, for sure.

The race card is ugly and stupid, and without scientific merit.
Yet we make such a big deal about it.

Imagine how Barack's mom might feel about his racial identity?
(I'm sure she's cool with it, but imagine how his black ancestry might feel if he chose to call himself 'white'?)

Being of mixed race deserves its own honest racial pride, if such pride is needed.
The notion that a person represents the coming together of formerly non-mixing types is stronger stuff, in a way, than the nonsense of identifying with one type or the other.

Suppose Tiger Woods had become president (before his recent sex scandal, of course)...

Would he also have been referred to as the first black president?
Or would the media be forced to use a different moniker?

Odd thing is, here in cracker land, the whites that hate him hate him as much as if he had been all black...not 50% less. Logic might suggest otherwise.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Not when it applies to the census.

Especially when it applies to the census. We're under a lifetime oath not to reveal any of the personal info we encounter on the job.

A lifetime oath, to protect your privacy.

Thought you ought to know.

[Cavemonster]

Breaking News!

White House staff report that President Obama may have spent an unusual amount of time in the bathroom this morning. What does this signify??!?!?

Is the President constipated? Does that mean he's not eating enough fiber? If he isn't responsible enough to eat a balanced diet how can he be responsible enough to lead our nation? If he is knowingly putting his health at risk, that is exactly equivalent to an attempt at Presidential assassination, an act at least worthy of impeachment, if not permanent detention at Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. This is serious.

Why won't Obama share the TRUTH about his bowel movements with America?

What is he hiding?!?!

(This would be about as relevant as what race he filled in on the census. Get a life America)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by quarky

I say he's white.

As a white man myself, he makes me proud of whiteness. or half proud. or whatever.

I find the attention to his blackness as racist. America was very proud to finally elect a black president. Much back-patting....

As a single mom who also raised a son, Obama's mom makes me proud for the accomplishments of single moms.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Breaking News!

White House staff report that President Obama may have spent an unusual amount of time in the bathroom this morning. What does this signify??!?!?

Is the President constipated? Does that mean he's not eating enough fiber? If he isn't responsible enough to eat a balanced diet how can he be responsible enough to lead our nation? If he is knowingly putting his health at risk, that is exactly equivalent to an attempt at Presidential assassination, an act at least worthy of impeachment.

Why won't Obama share the TRUTH about his bowel movements with America?

What is he hiding?!?!

(This would be about as relevant as what race he filled in on the census. Get a life America)

Listen, with all the lousy diet consumed by Americans we're sure interested if Obama has also mastered the proper fiber balance. We may spew ****, but we prefer to spew it in solid form so as to cause more damage. If he's spent 15 extra minutes squeezing out a superpoop, I want his dietary fiber supplement added as a mandatory purchase alongside medical insurance.

If he's bursting runs and having to use a roll of TP just to clean up after the mess, then I say we hang that sonofabitch in the DC Mall as an example of what a failure socialist **** is.

Either we poop together, or we crumble as a nation. Moar Pupr.

Carry on, comrades.