Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Stop the finger-wagging about Obama's Census form

It’s tough being president. In the last year, pretty much every constituency has expressed disappointment in some facet of Barack Obama’s work or play.

Now, apparently, the president is even letting down biracial children with his choice of Census categories. Elizabeth Chang writes in a Post op-ed that the president shouldn’t have identified as “black” on the Census given that he is mixed race. She even goes so far as to say that it is “disingenuous” and that “there is an important consequence when our president does not acknowledge half of his heritage, or, more basically, the mother and grandparents who raised him, or even his commonality with his sister, who is also biracial, though with a different mix.”

Let me start by suggesting this may slightly over-value the deep personal meaning of the Census form. I viewed the form as a seven-minute exercise in ensuring that the District of Columbia gets to count my whole family as residents. Maybe we can even get enough funding to fix the Metro escalators. I hadn’t realized the need to express solidarity with my relatives and ancestors, living and dead.

Anyway, like Chang, my kids are half Asian and half white, which led me to identify them on the Census as… Asian. My brother is half black and half white. He went with biracial. Somehow neither of these decisions has resulted in meaningfully different personal connections for my family.

The question of race as biological or sociological construct is complex. While Chang may wish Obama took a more literalist perspective and identified as biracial, I’m quite sure she doesn’t have the right to judge.

Growing up with my biracial brother and now raising biracial kids has given me a couple of insights. First, the world today is very different than the world was 30 to 40 years ago. Second, there is a difference in this country (still) between being biracial/half black and biracial/half Asian.

I remember back in the fifth grade when a kid called my brother the N-word, right there on the Montrose Elementary School playground. I can assure you that my brother’s response was not, “That young man is mistaken. Biologically, I’m half part of the dominant racial hegemony in this small town.” No, the N-word was a marker, a line in the sand about what race meant in the starkest and most subjective of terms. (The other kid left with a busted nose and his own lesson in social etiquette).

My oldest daughter, on the other hand, has made it through elementary school in two different regions of the country without enduring a single disparaging remark about her race. Do I think this is because the country is in a better place on issues of race today? Yes. Do I think it’s because she is half Asian rather than half black? Yep.

So what does all this say about racial identification and the Census? Not much. My brother went with biracial but feels -- strongly -- that it’s out of line to question how the president, or anyone else, self-identifies. My kids say they are “Asian,” so I went with that. I’m not interested in hearing anyone else’s opinion on how they should think of themselves.

Chang is right, of course, that old racial categories don’t capture the shifting tapestry of the country. But it’s a bit much to say that the president should follow a biologically literal approach to self-definition. All you have to do is troll the comments section of this website to see that for a loud, ugly minority of the populace, the president’s blackness still defines him.

So let’s park the judgmental finger-wagging and let him decide.

By Kevin Huffman  | April 29, 2010; 12:18 PM ET
Categories:  Huffman  | Tags:  Kevin Huffman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's political woes: made in Greece?
Next: Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law

Comments

I agree.

Not to mention that most US blacks have some level of white ancestry, some more than the president, some less. Black/African American is empirically a biracial category.

Posted by: j2hess | April 29, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

As the mother of biracial children and grandchildren, I say, AMEN!

Posted by: AverageJane | April 29, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for the voice of reason. Surely the entire point of adding biracial to the Census form was so that people who self-identify (note the word "self"?) as biracial did not feel labeled, excluded, ignored, etc., as they had in the past. It was a form of empowerment and respect for a group that didn't neatly fit the old categories, not the top-down, dictatorial stance ("just who are you to claim you are black?") implied by the other op-ed.

Unless the president capriciously chooses to say he is Hispanic or Aleutian Islander or something else that is inarguably false, he has every right to the same modest but entirely personal choice as millions of other African Americans and biracial people.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | April 29, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Amen.
Not everything is everyone else's business.

Posted by: KJR1 | April 29, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Jeepers. The President's decision to identify himself as black on the census form and then tell everyone under the sun is purely a self-interested political decision. It has no deeper meaning to him than that.

One FIFTH of his political base is African-Americans. They voted for him PRIMARILY because he claims to be one of them. So... when the census form arrives, he checks the box for "African-American" and then tells everyone that he did.

Duh. It means nothing more than that. Yet another tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: ZZim | April 29, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Like the author, I'm white with a half-black brother. Both of us check both "white" and "African American" on the census. He does it for obvious reasons.

I do it because, really, if you go back far enough in ANYONE'S background, we're all ultimately decended from Africans.

Posted by: cferenschak | April 29, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

What is so ironic over all this non-sense is that White people are ignorant of the fact that they are the mutants. The original people of the world were black and whites mutated to a lighter skin color when they moved north because they needed to absorb more vitamin D from less sunshine.

Posted by: areyousaying | April 29, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

AMEN!!!

Posted by: rlj1 | April 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

This is such a stupid discussion. Everyone knows he lies all the time.

Posted by: annnort | April 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

This is why it is inappropriate for the Census form to ask people their "race". It is subjective and therefore inaccurate.

I hope everyone checks the "other" box. Maybe we can even form clubs and congressional caucuses.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | April 29, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I agree - for those fine with changing sexual identity, gender and names, it should also be perfectly acceptable to change your ethnicity.

Let's just eliminate this whole area of questioning and the gov't needs to be color blind.

Posted by: sarno | April 29, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Bravo

Posted by: kmurray1 | April 29, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

As the father of a biracial child, I disagree with this opinion. I checked both white/black. And I expect my daughter to always feel that way, especially if the whole world was looking at her. Which is what happens with Obama. He wanted everyone to see what he did. And that people are critiquing him, it's his own mistake.

Finally, Huffman, that your kids identify only as Asian is a failure on your part to make them proud of you.

Posted by: trumeau | April 29, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Bear with me,I am about to say somethnig that is true,but it will probably cause you to say,is this guy a racist?I am from the south and in the south under Jim Crow law,anyone with one drop of Black blood is Black.To say that President Obama is Black is to agree with Jim Crow Law.President Obama and many other may be take pride in their Black heritage,but if he truily want to change the old racist think,he should hold fast his White Heritage.But,Obama is a politician,he is gone to do what gets him the most votes or money.BUT UNDER JIM CROW LAW.HE IS BLACK

Posted by: apez54 | April 29, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

What I don't get is why some white people are getting all bent out of shape because he didn't check the box half white.. Then to say it is somehow disrepectful to his white family! Really? I guess because they are somehow NOT being acknowledged, well just how do you think that black people felt when they COULDN'T check the half white box, AND THEY WERE?? Please spare us your righteous indignation!!

Posted by: Angryman | April 29, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Well. . .race IS an identity phenomenon--NOT a biological category. Ask any social psychologist or biologist worth his/her salt and they'll get y'all up to speed on this. In the not-too-distant future, we may abandon these categorical niches in favor of "human" in response to that question. Hallelujah!!

Posted by: wwIIbaby | April 29, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

What a wonderful article? I too read and responded to a number of posts on the op ed piece. I still can't believe how the president classifies himself is such a big issue. I doubt that he started selecting black just since he because president so I don't think there are any political motivations. But whatever his motivations, if he identifies himself as black, so be it. That's the choice that he made and it was his to make alone.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | April 29, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Good opt-ed Mr. Huffman. Good grief, do we have to complain and whine about every little detail? Whew! Get a life!!!!!

Posted by: ajackson3 | April 29, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

From the column: "All you have to do is troll the comments section of this website to see that for a loud, ugly minority of the populace, the president’s blackness still defines him."
====================

...or, if we were really not racists, we could listen to the number times Tea Partiers, among others, are referred to as "rednecks", or "crackers" to know that for a loud, ugly minority, another color is supposed to define them. And thank goodness we can actually print those words; we don't have to let our imaginations do the work as with the so-called, "n-word", or the "c-word", or so many other politically incorrect words that are auto-blocked by the WaPo's message board software.

Posted by: srb2 | April 29, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse


Double Amen!

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | April 29, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time it is to pour criticism onto the president on this account. Everyone is proud of his/her identity. Don't question why one person chooses to identify the way he or she wants to. Wake up America, we're "Americans" whatever the percentage of X Y or Z in our blood is.

Posted by: stefanpugh | April 29, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

From the column: "All you have to do is troll the comments section of this website to see that for a loud, ugly minority of the populace, the president’s blackness still defines him."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=---=

Interestingly enough, most of the posts in the comments that I have seen referring to his alleged race seem to be supporters of Mr. Obama. I suppose those particular Obama supporters COULD be characterized and a “loud, ugly minority”, but I don’t think it would be polite to do so.

Obama made an entirely reasonable POLITICAL decision to check “black” on his census form and then tell everyone about it. It’s smart politics. African-Americans provided him with 23% of his support in the election, PRIMARILY because they view him as “one of us”.

Given the facts, he couldn’t possibly have done anything else.

Posted by: ZZim | April 29, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Stop the finger-wagging about Obama's Census form ... So let’s park the judgmental finger-wagging and let him decide."
==================================

It is funny that Democrats and Liberals alike see no problem wagging their finger at everyone else, but as soon as someone dares do it to them they have a problem!

The point of capturing race as part of the census form is for us to understand the racial makeup of our country, and understand how our population is changing. By your reasoning, as long as I identify with one race over another it is ok for me to "check that box". So what happens if I, a caucasian, felt I identified more with African Americans for growing up in a neighborhood that was predominately African American. Would that be OK too?

By president Obama, and youself, misrepresenting your race the data will now be skewed and not accurate. Calling into question the entire Census process. through your obvious misrepresentation how can validate the numbers entered in by other families? Especially considering Congressional seats depend on them. What is to stop this administration from falsifying the numbers to change congressional districts to suit their election needs. How can we trust a president that will not even honestly fill in a simple form as the Census. How can we trust his judgement moving forward...

But then again, isn't that what Obama has done throughout his Presidency, skew and misrepresent data (i.e. Jobs Created or Saved!!) LOL!! Just another example of Obama's poor leadership.


Posted by: sanmateo1850 | April 29, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

One must keep in mind, as well, that for decades, in much of the country, laws defined anyone with "one drop of Negro blood" (whatever that might actually mean) as black. However, as science seems to suggest, all of us have a black ancestor from somewhere in Africa, so, by that standard, Mr. Obama's "white" parent and grandparents were in fact, "blacc", at least as defined by the South until after the middle of the past century. So all of us could have checked "black" and been accurate.

The mess created by the social concept of race is ridiculous and we need to move beyond it, including getting it off of the census. All are created equal and we need to leave it at that.

Posted by: Arce1 | April 29, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"One must keep in mind, as well, that for decades, in much of the country, laws defined anyone with "one drop of Negro blood" (whatever that might actually mean) as black." Posted by: Arce1
==========================================

You know, for a party that claims they want to move forward, and dwell on the past, they sure do like to "remind" people of the way things used to be! LOL!!!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | April 29, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I think the bloggers are hammering the author and Prez. Obama for nothing. What does it matter which race box you check? How dare you slam the man because his daughters check "Asian" on the Census! My racial background is part African(Unknown), European(English), Latino (Puerto Rico) and Native American Cherokee) and I choose race "Afican-American" on my Census form because of my appearance and how I was treated by "White" Americans in my 39 years on this planet. Do I think less of Whites, Latinos or Native Americans? No, but it race that I identify with. If you chose bi-racial or other , fine but don't judge someone base what race they chose to be. Tiger Woods calls himself bi-racial and I think his life is pretty sweet!

Posted by: twindog4@yahoo.com | April 29, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I love the fact that for a number of nitwits on this site the fact that a Black President (who everyone on Earth considers to be Black) identified himself as such on a census form and then when asked what he put on the census form, replied, "Uh, Black!", this is a sure sign for these cretins that he's (a) trying to score political points, (b) lying, or (c) [insert some other nonsensical and insane rationale]. Ah, America. What a country.

Posted by: chert | April 29, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Chang simply took the NeoCon WP NEVER say anything good about Obama. Seriously, now that Obama is doing well the NeoCons are upset he won't claim he is White.

Thanks for your personal perspective Kevin, that of one who has observed and has a brain.

Posted by: chucky-el | April 29, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Thank you! Also, race is not genetic. Not genetic. You can't like, test him for blackness. His phenotype is, more or less, black. So yeah. Everyone needs to get over it.

Posted by: JGini | April 29, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Deity" was not on the list, so Obama opted for the next best thing.

Posted by: Wallenstein | April 29, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for a rationale piece in response to the OpEd. People are allowed to SELF identify however they'd like. Why do so many people hang so much of their personal baggage on Obama. He's a man, he's just a man. He can't be responsible for repairing all that is wrong with this nation. At best he'll only get 8 years to do what he can. Be grateful.

Posted by: Reader4 | April 29, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm.

Another way to look at it is this: he picked African-American and yet neither of his parents and none of his grandparents were African-American. None.

On top of that, he was raised entirely by whites--mom and grandparents--in communities that had few who qualified or self-identified as black OR African American.

So where, when and how did he become African-American, or come to see himself as African American? Was it perhaps politically obligatory for him to be black in order to succeed politically from modern Chicago?

Did being black, or self-describing as black, expedite his ascendancy in the Democratic Party? Sure seems so.....

It really is odd, though, how, in making this unilateral choice, he appears to disregard the folks who parented him.

But it's his choice. Wonder if his mom was still alive if the choice would be different?

Posted by: RealityCheckerInEffect | April 29, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Where was all of this criticism when the ex-alcoholic, cocaine snorting loser George Bush started a war for no reason, destroyed the economy, and lost a US city?? Talk about hypocrites!

Posted by: joecoppo | April 29, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Thank You!!!

Posted by: CathyDawkins | April 29, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure that this is an issue only in the Washington Post newsroom -- where race and race-baiting trump everything else -- and nowhere else in America.

Seriously.

You guys are the only ones talking about it. No one else is.

I think it says a lot more about you than it does about America or the President.

Posted by: etpietro | April 29, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure that this is an issue only in the Washington Post newsroom -- where race and race-baiting trump everything else -- and nowhere else in America.

Seriously.

You guys are the only ones talking about it. No one else is. No one.

I think it says a lot more about you than it does about America or the President.

Posted by: etpietro | April 29, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

...It really is odd, though, how, in making this unilateral choice, he appears to disregard the folks who *raised* him....

Posted by: RealityCheckerInEffect | April 29, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: joecoppo | April 29, 2010 4:50 PM

"Where was all of this criticism when the ex-alcoholic, cocaine snorting loser George Bush started a war for no reason, destroyed the economy, and lost a US city?? Talk about hypocrites!"
====================


You're seriously suggesting Bush-Cheney and their Gang of UnPatriots (Wolfowitz, Feith, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Powell, Greenspan, etc) didn't get criticized?! That's supposed to be taken seriously?!

Posted by: srb2 | April 29, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I agree with Chang.

But, really, these absurd categories that everyone is supposed to fit into is a ridiculous anachronism.

For example, the categories don't capture the very important difference between someone descended from African slaves brought to the United States against their will hundreds of years ago versus someone descended from a voluntary immigrant from Africa a generation or two ago.

Posted by: AnonymousBE1 | April 29, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm Caucasian, my wife is Japanese and my daughter is biracial. But whether SHE chooses to claim the Asian or the Caucasian identity for herself is HER decision.

Choosing "biracial" is like choosing "none of the above."

What's the point of registering a person's race in the Census anyway? Won't we all soon have computer chips embedded in our skulls, forcing us to do the bidding of our alien overlords and having gay sex with human animal hybrids?

Just kidding, T-baggers.

Americans have such an amazing habit of posturing over issues that DON'T matter while ignoring the things that DO matter. What box do we check when our race is "Stupid?" Where do all these tattletales come from anyway, trying to get someone in trouble. I'm tired of phony hall monitors trying to ruin everyone's fun.

So... I agree with the writer. Ms. Chang needs to Get. A. Life. And please stop picking on Obama for every tiny thing... buncha haters.

Posted by: Zino | April 29, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Wonderful, Kevin. You have proven your worth as a writer and your depth as a human being with just this one article. And I agree with you--naturally.

Posted by: martymar123 | April 29, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The Racial bigots who are upset with Obama's personal choice of label are throwbacks to the first half of the 20th Century when people were arbitrarily labeled "Black" at the slightest trace of black ancestry.

JUST TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT TCM's Movie, “PINKY”, starring Jeanne Crain. Poor Pinky had to settle for becoming a black kids’ nursery school teacher because cross-racial marriage was socially AND RELIGIOUSLY taboo.
(Oh well, religion is the last element of society to ever progress, look at Franklin Graham’s hatred of Islam).
Jeeze! Won’t we ever grow out of that disgraceful period?

Posted by: lufrank1 | April 29, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

This is so tacky. First of all, Elizabeth Chang's comments about genuine colorblindness were right on. This response is just adolescent identity politics. Grow up.

Moreover, if you think your idol of a president should not be criticized for how he fills in his census form, maybe he shouldn't have done it in front of cameras. It's just stunning how grownups have so childishly sought their own reflection in this president.

Posted by: CaughtInAMosh | April 29, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Kevin.
First did anyway notice that you don't have an option to comment on Ms. Chang's page? She wrote a stupid article and was afraid of the comments she might get hence she did not provide an option for people to comment on her article like Kevin did.
I don't how long Ms. Chang has been living in the US but there is a difference between being half-black and being half-asian. Also she should know that a lot of those "white" people checking "white" on the census form has black blood in them but they kept on identifying themselves as white. Should they be checking biracial or even black? As matter of fact, I think only thing earlier white people in power got right is - when you have one drop of black blood in you, you are black. Everybody is black, whether you like it or not because everybody has a drop of black blood in them!!!

Posted by: stan7000 | April 29, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Thank you! Every sentence that you wrote was completely on point.

Posted by: k_jinx | April 29, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Mr Huffman, we need to hear more sane voices like yours. With all due respect to Ms Chang, we all have an inalienable right to (the) liberty to self-identify.

Posted by: Jose5 | April 29, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Chang. I'm white, and if I had kids with a black person, I would not obliterate myself and call them black on a census form. Maybe I'd boycott that section altogether, but that's another matter. I'd call them biracial. If that is interpreted as "none of the above", so much the better. We don't need the concept of race, we are individuals.

Posted by: asoders22 | April 29, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr Huffman, we need to hear more sane voices like yours. With all due respect to Ms Chang, we all have an inalienable right to (the) liberty to self-identify.

Posted by: Jose5

******************************************

No, you do not have an inalienable right to lie on a census form, and 20 bucks says you don't know what "inalienable" means.

Posted by: CaughtInAMosh | April 29, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Mr. Huffman. Well said.

Posted by: yeswecan3 | April 29, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

If I had to choose a race, I'd pick Talladega.

Posted by: steveboyington | April 29, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

to all,

as "a person other than white", who despises BHO as an amoral LIAR, a cheap CROOK & a person who is supremely UNqualified to be POTUS, i could NOT care less what he calls himself racially/ethnicly/anything else.
(that "label" is a personal decision, that's NOBODY'S business but his.)

i just want him OUT of the WH on 20JAN13.
(and he WILL be leaving that day, if not before.)

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | April 29, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

The author says, "So let’s park the judgmental finger-wagging and let him decide." Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the president should let the American public decide if they want to purchase health insurance or not without sending the IRS after them. The bottom line is that our first mulatto president lies. That is not news.

Posted by: oldno7 | April 29, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

RealityCheckerInEffect: You are clearly living entirely divorced from reality. You suggest that he cannot claim to be African-American because "neither of his parents and none of his grandparents were African-American. None."

Ahem. You are aware, maybe, that one of his parents and half of his grand-parents were 100% African. (Kenya is in Africa, in case you are not aware of this.) And he is American. So he's clearly more qualified to claim to be African-American than many others who claim the category.

What he claimed on the form is "black" - which is a color, not a race, anyway. And, in case you've never seen a picture of the man, he can actually lay claim to that as well, if he chooses. Is he closer to my shade of white than say the black of asphalt? Well, maybe.

As far as needing to self-identify as black to succeed in Chicago politics, well one can hardly argue with that when one considers the famous African-American families of the Daleys and the Blagoyovichs. I'll have to concede your very insightful point there, Mr. Reality etc.

I'm not entirely certain how much "reality" and how much "effect" are evident in your post. You may well be checkered though.

Posted by: milo13 | April 29, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

oldno7: Perhaps if you would get your head out of Glen Beck's rear, you would know that there is no provision for sending the IRS after people who do not purchase health ins. If stupid people are going to site/vilify the bill, at least read it. Low- information klown.

Posted by: dirktazer | April 29, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

So if Obama had lived in the days of spatial segregation would he had used the "Colored Only" or the "Whites Only" water fountain? Or both since he is both colored and white? After which he could logically explained to the racist authorities that he is both.

Posted by: cestadire | April 29, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

this president is an adult black man and does not need ms. chang or any one else to assist or advise him on completing the census form.
the "say no" to everything repugs, the tea baggers and birthers hate this president because he is black, not biracial.
how you are perceived usually dictates how you identify yourself.
i'm sure this president would never suggest to anyone how they should complete their form, give him that same courtesy.

Posted by: ninnafaye | April 29, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

"To say that President Obama is Black is to agree with Jim Crow Law"

...in your opinion.

Funny how I don't see it that way. I also don't think that have some opinions in common with a stone-cold Jew-hating Nazi means that I agree with Anti-Semitism.

But maybe that's just me.
...maybe it's the anti-semite in me just whitewashing all my opinions. I don't really know anymore, I'm so confused by all these opinions about my opinions!!!!

Not really, I'm just humoring you. Just helping you make a fool of yourself.

Posted by: dubya1938 | April 30, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

do the editors at the wapoop ever read the s h i t that you idiots write ???

you've got a fool named chang writing a stupid article about which box Obama checked on his census form

and now we have another stupid person writing in the wapoop about how Obama's check marks don't really matter

where the f*** did you people go to college ???

what clown told you that you are journalists ???

what is WRONG with you people

you CAN'T be this stupid

Posted by: nada85484 | April 30, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

I propose that we contrast Obama with the late New York Times book critic Anatole Broyard. Obama was born into and reared in a Hawaii-based white-identified family and had no ties of blood or culture to the native "African American" community. Broyard was born in New Orleans to a Creole family falsely labeled as "Negro" by the racist government of Louisiana, which was determined to subject its mixed-race Creole population to a documentary genocide of forced assimilation into the "black" Anglo population/caste. Obama left Hawaii with the intention, according to his autobiography, of finding a "racial community" of people who looked like himself. Broyard, whose family moved to New York City when he was a small child, refused to self-police himself and accept a "Negro" or "colored" classification. In the free environment of New York, he chose to be identified as white. Indeed, his parents had themselves moved back and forth across the color line because they also had European phenotypes. Obama married a woman "blacker" than himself and produced two children who look "black" to most Americans. Broyard married a woman "whiter" than himself (Norwegian-American) and produced two children who look totally white to most Americans. Why is Obama praised for moving toward "blackness" while Broyard is demonized by the black and white liberal intellectual elites for moving toward "whiteness"? How about some equal rights here? I would be far more impressed by an open defense of Broyard's whiteness than I am by Obama's election. White racism has always rested on the assumption of white racial purity. Obama claims that he is "black" because he "looks black." Why wasn't Broyard "white" because he "looked white"?

Liberal columnists like Huffman should be defending the Broyards of this country and other victims of "ethnic rape" from a powerful "black elite" who want to force others into their "race" and blame whites for it.

A.D. Powell, former columnist for the web sites "Interracial Voice" and "The Multiracial Activist," is the author of "Passing" for Who You Really Are: Essays in Support of Multiracial Whiteness.

Posted by: padpowell | April 30, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

ninnafaye,

WHEN are you going to figure out that, despite the howling of DIMocRAT racebaiters, morons & leftists, that virtually NOBODY CARES that BHO is black/multi-racial?

instead, we despise BHO & "his motley crew of bigots, cheap shyster lawyers, Daley-machine thugs & common criminals" because all of them are CORRUPT & are destroying the American economy, with their wasteful, lunatic agenda.

WHY are those simple facts so hard for people like you to understand?

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | April 30, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse


Huffman, you and your colleagues certainly know that there is no "law" forcing people with partial black ancestry to be "black." If there were, every Hispanic and Arab would be "black." Ask yourselves why your black colleagues are so hate-filled at the thought of anyone escaping their "race" that they are prepared to endorse ideas based on the assumption of their genetic inferiority?

I despise these people "defending" Obama's "choice" (which they also claim is NOT a "choice) to be "black." None of them defended Anatole Broyard's choice to be white.


A.D. Powell, former columnist for the web sites "Interracial Voice" and "The Multiracial Activist," is the author of "Passing" for Who You Really Are: Essays in Support of Multiracial Whiteness.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A281OV0SU2M0IL/ref=cm_pdp_blog_post_title_3#postPMCA281OV0SU2M0ILat122

Posted by: padpowell | April 30, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Where was all of this criticism when the ex-alcoholic, cocaine snorting loser George Bush started a war for no reason, destroyed the economy, and lost a US city?? Talk about hypocrites!

Posted by: joecoppo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

GWB is a white as they come, there’s really no controversy to be stirred up by leftist race-baiters.

Posted by: ZZim | April 30, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

joecoppo,

are you REALLY clue-LESS enough to believe that IGNORANT nonsense OR are you just being a little, brain-DEAD, troll?

laughing AT you.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | April 30, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

If it isn't important how we answer the question, what's the point of asking it? And if it is important, it's important to answer it correctly, not emotionally.

Posted by: msnovember | April 30, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

dirktazer wrote:
oldno7: Perhaps if you would get your head out of Glen Beck's rear, you would know that there is no provision for sending the IRS after people who do not purchase health ins. If stupid people are going to site/vilify the bill, at least read it. Low- information klown.
----------
You libs are really funny. Exercise your now illegal right to choose not to purchase Obamacare and see how fast the IRS snaps up your refund check. Perhaps you should have asked your elected representatives to read the bill before they voted for it or Obama to read it before he signed it. Just FYI lefty, it is "cite", not "site". Pick up a dictionary and try to learn something before you call other people "stupid". Look up "socialist" while your're at it and admire Obama's picture.

Posted by: oldno7 | April 30, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

oldno7,

at least at one point (the pages were RE-numered numerous times) the reference to the IRS being the ENFORCEMENT AGENCY to "assure compliance with the purchase of health insurance, under civil & criminal statute" was on page 814.
(the DIMocRATS messed about with the bill to the point that i NOW do not know if that was it's final location or not.)

interestingly, NOBODY has read the completed bill that voted it into LAW. - NOBODY! = the DIMocRATS, who voted YES, have little or no idea what is IN the bill, any more than the moron, who said that the IRS provision wasn't there, does.

one thing that is "interesting" about "the DIMocRAT Healthcare Reform Plan" is that the MORE voters KNOW about it, the LESS they approve of it.
(at this point, according to the NYT polling people, 2/3 of Americans OPPOSE the "reforms". that's why the DIMocRATS will LOSE both houses of congress this Nov.)

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | April 30, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company