Thread: "The First African-American President"

I think the term is kind of dumb. First off, what's the point. Secondly, African isn't even an ethnicity, that's like saying "Yeah, Athens is somewhere on the Eurasian continent". Now for Obama it's true he was born in Africa but why does it even fuckin' matter if quite obviously he's American in his language, mannerisms and everything else. All that matters is the color of his skin, not the country of his origin. He might as well be born to black Russians. (That sounds like an awesome drink.)

Why would you even use the term if you're talking about an average American who has some hair-thin remote connection to Africa that's basically irrelevant to that person's life. That's like making him less American for no purpose whatsoever, or calling all white Americans European-Americans because they descended from Europeans. Who cares.

Also it seems to be incomprehensible to people that white people inhabit Africa so African-American is a misleading term at best. Why not just take a skin sample of everybody and analyze the darkness percentage and then just put that into the files so we can just say "Obama is the first president with over 60% melamin pigments in his untanned skin" and instead focus on the "oh noes 1984"-whining and bitching. Also we would have to ban tanning salons (dipshit toasters).

He wasn't born in Africa, he was born in Hawaii. Anyone who was born in another country can't run for President here in the US.

Lol wow I need to get my facts straight, thanks.

Anyway, then that's just one more point for the fact that calling him African-American is dubious.

Wow. Frist he's muslim, now he's born in Africa.
I agree,(with what I think Serkat was saying) Why call some one African-American, even if they are not rooted back to Africa?

I really don't see why its such a problem...

He's a good speaker (Which is apparently all we put merit in), and should be a fine president.

Wait, it went from" Obama is African, even if his mother is white," to "I think he is going to be a good president"

As in, race doesn't matter for the type of president...

Originally Posted by guitarboy

Wait, it went from" Obama is African, even if his mother is white," to "I think he is going to be a good president"

It didn't "go" anywhere, there was just one guy saying that as a side-opinion.

It means that America is sloooooooooooowwwwwwllllyyyyy overcoming it's racism problem. Considering where this country was at one point in the past, I'd say it's a step forward. Especially considering that every president before Obama was Caucasian.

How dare a country 90% white elect white presidents.

/ban

Originally Posted by guitarboy

Wow. Frist he's muslim, now he's born in Africa.
I agree,(with what I think Serkat was saying) Why call some one African-American, even if they are not rooted back to Africa?

Because our lineage, for the most part, traces back to Africa.

Any culture who began outside of America has their original culture tacked on to "American"

Except, of course, the European Americans, probably because the settlers didn't want it to seem like they were "different" and that they were "just Americans." So calling a Caucasian a "European American," while just as accurate as any other culture's label, seems redundant.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

How dare a country 90% white elect white presidents.

/ban

This country is 90% white?

I really didin't want him to win, But i'd rather have him in the white house then Hilary.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This country is 90% white?

Oh, sorry, 80% white. Like it makes a difference to my point.

CIA:

white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Oh, sorry, 80% white. Like it makes a difference to my point.

CIA:

I'd say that, unless your point was that it would be stupid to expect for that 80% not to be entirely racist, it was doomed from the start.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'd say that, unless your point was that it would be stupid to expect for that 80% not to be entirely racist, it was doomed from the start.

My point is that even in a completely non-racist society that was 80% white, there should be an 80% chance for any given politician to be white. So it should not be seen as some sort of national mark of shame to elect whites.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

My point is that even in a completely non-racist society that was 80% white, there should be an 80% chance for any given politician to be white. So it should not be seen as some sort of national mark of shame to elect whites.

I believe that might be an over-simplification. Would it not depend on other variables, such as which percentage of those races were actually running, which are qualified, and which had policies that the majority of the people would agree with?

And I don't believe that anyone has considered it a mark of shame that there had been only whites elected. I believe, more, that there is just overwhelming elation over proof that the "80%" chance hadn't been boosted to closer to 100% because of racist ideals which do exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Because our lineage, for the most part, traces back to Africa.

Any culture who began outside of America has their original culture tacked on to "American"

Yeah but if, as is the case with almost all black Americans, you are fully a cultural American and have never even set foot on Africa, there's no point in using an oversimplifying label that misses the point. As I said, "African" isn't even an ethnicity or culture or anything like that. Africa is probably one of the most or even the single most diverse continent in terms of cultures, societies and languages so the only thing that really makes people African is their genetic ancestry and even so, indigenous black people are all over the globe, so it's really a mundane exercise in superfluous labeling when you could just say "black".

Also, why would anybody even care about their genetic ancestry? That seems like a waste of time to me since it has virtually no relevance to the present times. I'm probably genetically more Scandinavian than French or German but why would it matter? What, should I call myself Norwegian-German? That makes no sense at all.

Nobody honestly cares about whether someone has their genetic roots in Jamaica or Sudan, it's simply just about identification of racial traits.

And that's leaving out the fact that genetic differences along national and cultural borders are quite notable, to the point where it's a gross oversimplification to consider "black African" a shared genetic group. So you might as well go all the way and label by the color of the skin which has no political or cultural implications so it's all good.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I believe that might be an over-simplification. Would it not depend on other variables, such as which percentage of those races were actually running, which are qualified, and which had policies that the majority of the people would agree with?

All else being equal.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And I don't believe that anyone has considered it a mark of shame that there had been only whites elected. I believe, more, that there is just overwhelming elation over proof that the "80%" chance hadn't been boosted to closer to 100% because of racist ideals which do exist.

I don't think that's even remotely true, when I consider all the black and white commentators, after the election, talking about the black man getting in. They made it sound, and very unambiguously I might add, that if McCain had won, it would have been a racist election.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Yeah but if, as is the case with almost all black Americans, you are fully a cultural American and have never even set foot on Africa, there's no point in using an oversimplifying label that misses the point. As I said, "African" isn't even an ethnicity or culture or anything like that. Africa is probably one of the most or even the single most diverse continent in terms of cultures, societies and languages so the only thing that really makes people African is their genetic ancestry and even so, indigenous black people are all over the globe, so it's really a mundane exercise in superfluous labeling when you could just say "black".

I think there's a cultural notion that black people are economically disadvantaged in the US, which they may be. But when they say "African American", they really mean in terms of economic heritage, not ethnic. There is, of course, a correlation, due to the fact that most blacks began as slaves rather than rich Europeans. However, there is an interesting double standard here, as whites and hispanics or any other race that are equally disadvantaged do not get special treatment.

it is sooo significant that obama is the first black, skin colored, chocolate, what ever you want to call the oreo president. why? HELLO. Because every president before him was a white male.

if you cant understand the historical significance...I mean..come on! ITS MLK DAY! Why are you shitting over a term? The point is simple, its clear, its understood

Originally Posted by juroara

it is sooo significant that obama is the first black, skin colored, chocolate, what ever you want to call the oreo president. why? HELLO. Because every president before him was a white male.

But you're insinuating that anyone who didn't vote for him is a racist, or at the very least, is wrong for voting on issues instead of skin colour.

I think he has darker skin, a different cultural perspective, and may or may not have a bigger penis (as the stereotype goes). Not that any of that would affect his presidency, but alright.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I don't think that's even remotely true, when I consider all the black and white commentators, after the election, talking about the black man getting in. They made it sound, and very unambiguously I might add, that if McCain had won, it would have been a racist election.

...Wow....I haven't gotten that feeling at all. All I've seen was celebration (for the most part) that we have our first black President - not that, if he hadn't gotten in it would have been because of racism.

To be honest I don't really buy the whole 'you are your father's race' idea. As far as I'm concerned he's half black.

I don't care either way, but it's a good sign that America has become quite socially mobile with regards to race. I'm glad about it, but it's nothing to celebrate in itself.

More than anything though I'm happy Obama as a person is about to become President. I agree with the large majority of what he stands for, and it's a huge relief after Bush. I've been particularly impressed by his plans to fund major research into alternate energy sources, and his removal of stem cell research prohibition... alongside quite a few other things.

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest I don't really buy the whole 'you are your father's race' idea. As far as I'm concerned he's half black.

Now that I actually agree with. That is just the way the beans are counted in America. I believe that people should be counted as what they actually are, not just because one trait happens to be dominant over the other. I was just trying to offer up an explanation to something that people seem to find so confusing.