The One-Drop Tyranny
Usually-- and even almost always -- if something is more of one thing than it is of another, then, if one finds it inconvenient, or impolitic, to denote the mixed derivation, it is called by the name of the larger ingredient and not by the smaller one. That only stands to reason. But when one has an ax to grind, which happens often when it comes to human relationships, that kind of making sense drops by the wayside, and instead the contempt factor sets in, and the truth of the matter is made to stand on its head, for as long as that awry situation can be made to last.
So you have the long-practiced policy of considering a person to be something called "black"even if as little as one drop of his blood can be shown to be of that nature, amd even if the many other gallons of it are clearly something called "white" or some other ancestry but especially European or"white."
I always wondered why people, falling into that bogus convention so easily, never stop to think that, by holding on so tightly to it, they are actually saying that so-called "white" blood, in comparson, is so weak and dilute that it gives way and defers bigtime whenever -- in their eyes -- stronger, so-called "black" blood is present.
By now you've guessed where I'm headed with all this.
B. Obama is always referred to as the "first black U.S. President," but actually, if one can find it in him- or herself to look at it reasonably and dispassionately, he is much more "white" than he is "black," and thus the milestone that he is supposed to represent in that respect is not anywhere near as great as it is commonly supposed to be.
It's true that Obama's father was Kenyan and therefore mostly and maybe even all "black," but his mother was "American" and therefore mostly or even maybe all "white," though all that could be debatable, considering how often people got around in the old days though not that long ago, especially on the American frontier.
That would seem to make B. Obama no better than 50-50, but that leaves out the other big factor that makes up a person, and that is the environment in which he is raised and educated, and that ends up counting for much more than one's blood content. In Obama's case that environment was heavily "white," despite his having attended J. Wright's church for 20 years, and I would say that the several other "churches" that he also attended, for much longer periods and with greater concentration, especially the circumstance of having been raised almost entirely by his mother and his grandmother, both "white," seriously outweighed anything else that went to make him the person that he is.
That's why I've never understood all the fuss made, by his supporters as well as by his detractors, over that "black" thing, when that is clearly only one of his minor components at best And I think that, deep down, B; Obama would admit that it isn't anywhere near as uppermost in his mind as many other things are -- and it can't be, in the job he's holding. So in light of the importance of all those other matters, I don't know why it should count so much in the minds of others either.
Well, I do know why....
So you have the long-practiced policy of considering a person to be something called "black"even if as little as one drop of his blood can be shown to be of that nature, amd even if the many other gallons of it are clearly something called "white" or some other ancestry but especially European or"white."
I always wondered why people, falling into that bogus convention so easily, never stop to think that, by holding on so tightly to it, they are actually saying that so-called "white" blood, in comparson, is so weak and dilute that it gives way and defers bigtime whenever -- in their eyes -- stronger, so-called "black" blood is present.
By now you've guessed where I'm headed with all this.
B. Obama is always referred to as the "first black U.S. President," but actually, if one can find it in him- or herself to look at it reasonably and dispassionately, he is much more "white" than he is "black," and thus the milestone that he is supposed to represent in that respect is not anywhere near as great as it is commonly supposed to be.
It's true that Obama's father was Kenyan and therefore mostly and maybe even all "black," but his mother was "American" and therefore mostly or even maybe all "white," though all that could be debatable, considering how often people got around in the old days though not that long ago, especially on the American frontier.
That would seem to make B. Obama no better than 50-50, but that leaves out the other big factor that makes up a person, and that is the environment in which he is raised and educated, and that ends up counting for much more than one's blood content. In Obama's case that environment was heavily "white," despite his having attended J. Wright's church for 20 years, and I would say that the several other "churches" that he also attended, for much longer periods and with greater concentration, especially the circumstance of having been raised almost entirely by his mother and his grandmother, both "white," seriously outweighed anything else that went to make him the person that he is.
That's why I've never understood all the fuss made, by his supporters as well as by his detractors, over that "black" thing, when that is clearly only one of his minor components at best And I think that, deep down, B; Obama would admit that it isn't anywhere near as uppermost in his mind as many other things are -- and it can't be, in the job he's holding. So in light of the importance of all those other matters, I don't know why it should count so much in the minds of others either.
Well, I do know why....
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 7:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home