Barack Obama and Kamala Harris as black

[Toni]

Yeah well... I propose a requirement that any candidate for President must be of mixed race descent.
That would guarantee at least some minimal level of recognition of the humanity of persons of other races. Plus, it would let me off the hook. As a pure honky, people would stop bugging me to become President.

Dude, you're screwed. The Caucasoid race formed in the first place from admixture between Asians and more recent emigrants from Africa. To be pure honky is to be mixed race. Now get your lily white ass into the next presidential debate where it belongs!

Alternately, I'd accept a requirement that presidential candidates must demonstrate that they are of at least 50% native American descent. They were here first, after all.

So, no Navajo or Apache need apply? Those guys are native Canadians.

Navajo and Apache pre-date all Europeans in what is now South western USA by some hundreds of years.

 

[SimpleDon]

Race is genetic. Most just refuse to accept the science. But ultimately it's who your ancestors were. Who is your extended family? Under that rubric, neither Obama or Harris are Black Americans as understood to be descended from American slaves. But so what? Didn't affect Obama.

American slaves were from West Africa. Obama's father was from Kenya in East Africa. I remember discussions that Obama didn't represent the American Black experience because of this. That his ancestors weren't slaves in America. It is not surprising to me that the people who suffered under racism consider the concept of racism to be valid because it has been for them. But it doesn't prove the scientific validity of the concept.

Of course, the characteristics that are used to define the races are genetic; skin color, the shape of the nose, eye hoods, etc. It is using these characteristics to define different so-called races that are social constructs. There are many different physical characteristics that are different between different people, many of which aren't used to define different types of human beings. What is so special about the physical characteristics used to define race?

If you divided human beings by eye color and said that people with blue eyes were inferior to the majority of brown-eyed people, that blue-eyed people were lazy and shiftless and weren't worth educating, were only suitable for manual labor, and weren't worth studying by science, it wouldn't take many generations acting on these beliefs before you could prove the concept of the inferiority of the blue-eyed people in the same "scientific" way as you propose proves the validity of racism. The blue-eyed people would be adept physically but not intellectually and prone to many diseases not understood by modern science.

We don't define people with different colored eyes as different types of people like we do people with different skin tones. What is different about skin tones that they define so many different behaviors?

As to your link above about misclassifying cancer cells, it isn't surprising that susceptibility to certain diseases is genetically based too. You imply that this proves that the concept of race has a basis in genetics and therefore in science. This is turning logic onto itself. You are defining race and then assuming the definition is true to prove that it is true.

All that the study is saying is that we have to collect a wider genetic sample of cancer cells to be assured of covering all of the existing susceptibilities to cancer in humans. The concept of race is what prevented the required range of sampling so that it is not surprising they use the language of race to correct the problem. But it doesn't prove the concept. Once again, this is circular reasoning.

 

[SimpleDon]

Bottom line: In the US, if Kamala Harris and Barack Obama were not famous, every traffic cop would immediately identify either individual as black. Not speaking with an accent that is readily identifiable, they would be identified as Black Americans. If Jim Crow laws were still in effect, they would be targeted under Jim Crow and restricted to certain hotels, hospitals, schools, neighborhoods, drinking fountains, parts of the movie theater, etc.

I would wager a guess that most Europeans seeing either (assuming non-famous) would see them as Black as well.

But that can only be true in the US. In Brazil, both would be considered to be "European" instead of being considered to be "African." They have a different concept of race than in the US.

Jim Crow laws were the height of racism in the US. They considered black to be a taint that poisoned people no matter what part was involved and their laws reflected this. Are you suggesting that it is the same now? I don't think so.

 

[Bomb#20]

Alternately, I'd accept a requirement that presidential candidates must demonstrate that they are of at least 50% native American descent. They were here first, after all.

So, no Navajo or Apache need apply? Those guys are native Canadians.

Navajo and Apache pre-date all Europeans in what is now South western USA by some hundreds of years.

What's your point? Native Americans pre-date all Navajo and Apache in what is now South western USA by some thousands of years. What, having ancestors who arrived in the 1600s disqualifies you from being here first but having ancestors who arrived in the 1300s doesn't? What, is Obama more a Native American than me because his ancestors came to Plymouth on the Mayflower and mine came to New York in steerage on a steamship? If that's how we decide who was here first, why should Navajos and Apaches be counted as Native Americans?

Native Americans were not here first. Alelia Murphy was here first. There are no Native Americans who were already here when she was born.

 

[Toni]

Bottom line: In the US, if Kamala Harris and Barack Obama were not famous, every traffic cop would immediately identify either individual as black. Not speaking with an accent that is readily identifiable, they would be identified as Black Americans. If Jim Crow laws were still in effect, they would be targeted under Jim Crow and restricted to certain hotels, hospitals, schools, neighborhoods, drinking fountains, parts of the movie theater, etc.

I would wager a guess that most Europeans seeing either (assuming non-famous) would see them as Black as well.

But that can only be true in the US. In Brazil, both would be considered to be "European" instead of being considered to be "African." They have a different concept of race than in the US.

Jim Crow laws were the height of racism in the US. They considered black to be a taint that poisoned people no matter what part was involved and their laws reflected this. Are you suggesting that it is the same now? I don't think so.

Obama was POTUS of the US and Kamal Harris is running for that honor. It does not matter that Brazil would see either differently than they are seen in the US. Brazil is neither the US nor in Europe. I deliberately excluded south and Central America.

Slavery was the height of racism in the US, followed narrowly by the reconstruction era and Jim Crow, as difficult as it is to even consider that Jim Crow wasn’t the worst.

We’ve come a long way from Jim Crow but not far enough. All I need to do is to talk to some of my family or read some of the Facebook posts by my old high school classmates to know that there are a lot of people who consider one drop to be too many. It is not lost on me that our first black president did not descend from slaves in America. I know too many people who were quick to point out that his mother was white....

Does anybody else think it's weird that a bunch of (mostly) white people on the internet are writing about whether Obama and Harris are black enough? What does that mean, anyway? That they are more acceptable as candidates because they did not descend from US slaves??????? I mean seriously, WTF?

 

[bilby]

Race is genetic. Most just refuse to accept the science. But ultimately it's who your ancestors were. Who is your extended family? Under that rubric, neither Obama or Harris are Black Americans as understood to be descend from American slaves. But so what? Didn't affect Obama.

Your last sentence contradicts your first.

Race is exactly the craziness that tells everyone that a man with a Kenyan father and an Anglo-Irish mother shares a common cause and identity with people who are the grandchildren of slaves whose ancestors came from West Africa.

It's wrong as often as it's right - so it's a totally valueless hypothesis.

Genetics is genetic. Race isn't about genetics at all. It's about appearances - which are of very little value in assessing genetics.

Genetics is Dunning-Kruger central, particularly for racists. It's all far more complex than most people realise.

Liberal Creationism is still Creationism.

Conservative Dunning-Kruger is still Dunning-Kruger.

Your insistence that the ultra-simplified, and as a result practically valueless, concept of 'race' is somehow supported by the highly complex science of genetics would be hilarious, if it didn't lead to such tragic consequences.

You clearly don't know enough about genetics to be useful; While knowing just enough to be dangerous.

 

[bilby]

Jamaica had plantation slavery, mostly for growing sugar cane. So KH's black ancestors would have been enslaved ones also. Even so, they formed a community separate from American blacks.

But no more so than slaves in Alabama formed a community separate from those in Georgia.

Slave owners weren't in the habit of allowing their property to go on vacation a couple of weeks a year; As far as the slaves were concerned, everywhere on the western side of the Atlantic was much the same. They saw whichever patch they worked, and not much else.

 

[bilby]

Yeah well... I propose a requirement that any candidate for President must be of mixed race descent.
That would guarantee at least some minimal level of recognition of the humanity of persons of other races. Plus, it would let me off the hook. As a pure honky, people would stop bugging me to become President.

Dude, you're screwed. The Caucasoid race formed in the first place from admixture between Asians and more recent emigrants from Africa. To be pure honky is to be mixed race. Now get your lily white ass into the next presidential debate where it belongs!

Alternately, I'd accept a requirement that presidential candidates must demonstrate that they are of at least 50% native American descent. They were here first, after all.

So, no Navajo or Apache need apply? Those guys are native Canadians.

All the so-called 'native americans' and 'indigenous people' from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego are Siberians. And you guys were worried about Trump being influenced by the Russians

 

[Keith&Co.]

And you guys were worried about Trump being influenced by the Russians

Well, yeah, we wouldn't worry at all if it took 20,000 years and a herd of camels to get his instructions from Putin.

 

[Mumbles]

American slaves were from West Africa. Obama's father was from Kenya in East Africa. I remember discussions that Obama didn't represent the American Black experience because of this. That his ancestors weren't slaves in America. It is not surprising to me that the people who suffered under racism consider the concept of racism to be valid because it has been for them. But it doesn't prove the scientific validity of the concept.

Of course, the characteristics that are used to define the races are genetic; skin color, the shape of the nose, eye hoods, etc. It is using these characteristics to define different so-called races that are social constructs. There are many different physical characteristics that are different between different people, many of which aren't used to define different types of human beings. What is so special about the physical characteristics used to define race?

If you divided human beings by eye color and said that people with blue eyes were inferior to the majority of brown-eyed people, that blue-eyed people were lazy and shiftless and weren't worth educating, were only suitable for manual labor, and weren't worth studying by science, it wouldn't take many generations acting on these beliefs before you could prove the concept of the inferiority of the blue-eyed people in the same "scientific" way as you propose proves the validity of racism. The blue-eyed people would be adept physically but not intellectually and prone to many diseases not understood by modern science.

The major problem to the idea of race as genetic is actually simple - the idea predates the discovery of DNA or evolution in any Darwinian sense, and fairly few of us have any real idea of our genetic makeup. The idea is very clearly sociopolitical in nature, and makes no sense at all outside of the idea of creating a caste system. Southern whites in the US once considered themselves to be a superior race to northern white people, many people insist that "Hispanic" is a race - yet there's discrimination among Hispanic people (with George Zimmerman being a perfect example of a guy who considered himself "white" right up until he needed help), and as you've noted, these change according to country. And that's before we even attempt to discuss Native Americans - or worse, Australian aboriginal people.

In any case, the main discussion among black Americans in 2007-8 concerning Obama was could he convince white people to vote for him, and would someone kill him. Likewise, as I said before, this "ADOS" stuff against Harris seems to be largely driven by a small group of US black people, and repeated incessantly by troll farms who often just pick up and send out the exact same message.

Slavery was the height of racism in the US, followed narrowly by the reconstruction era and Jim Crow, as difficult as it is to even consider that Jim Crow wasn’t the worst.

Actually, historians generally consider 1900-1940 to be the low point. Widespread violence against black Americans (I'll note that this is the 100-year anniversary of the Red Summer), Asian exclusion laws, vicious racism still ongoing against Native Americans, the second incarnation of the KKK, eugenics, phrenology, widespread sympathy for the Nazi party - hell, I'm pretty sure we were even running concentration camps for German-Americans during WW1.

 

[lpetrich]

ADOS = American Descendants of Slavery

Available numbers for US lynchings start in 1880 at around 100/year, and peak around 1890 at 200/year. The numbers then decline roughly linearly until around 1940. Though most states had at least one black victim of lynching, the biggest states for lynching were the ex-Confederate ones.