This is not written to cast an opinion, good or bad, on Barack Obama. Rather, it seems that, in general and especially in the media, he is continually referred to as "black". I would venture a guess that almost everyone knows he is the offspring of a white (Caucasian) mother and a black (Negro) man. Why does this make him "black"? And, it may well be a mischaracterization to refer to Obama as "our first black president".
Morgan Freeman echos this as evidenced in his interview on NPR: "First thing that always pops into my head regarding our president is that all of the people who are setting up this barrier for him ... they just conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white — very white American, Kansas, middle of America," Freeman said. "There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America's first black president hasn't arisen yet. He's not America's first black president — he's America's first mixed-race president."
This missive is offered in response to the (mainly progressive) attacks on any objection of Obama’s actions/policies as being motivated by race. I submit that any such assertion is, in fact, racist. Why? Let me explain.
In the not too distant past in this country any child born of a "mixed marriage" (for the purposes of this discussion one black parent and one white parent) was uniquely identified thusly: Any amount of "black blood" in a child would render the child Negro – even one drop. Any such child would be at serious disadvantage – legally and culturally. Property ownership, voting rights, and many other such were denied a child of a "mixed marriage". Fortunately in this country, this view of persons has passed – at least legally. As we all are aware there are persons who still hold views more ignorant.
However, this old and ignorant view still seems to persist in the media. How else can one explain the media’s constant assertion that anyone disagreeing with Obama must be "racist"?
Just because Obama is "of color" does not mean that all who disagree are doing so from a racist perspective. It means they disagree. The media, therefore, must view Obama as did people in our past who believed (and acted) that "any drop of Negro blood rendered the child a Negro"; and, therefore, "to right old wrongs" he must be treated differently and/or protected. That is racist to me.
There are many that disagreed with the actions/policies of George Bush. I can not remember anyone claiming that such disagreements were due solely to his being white. So why does the racism charge only work one way in the mind of the media?
One definition of racism is:
"A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Clearly there is no scientific evidence to support such a definition. A person is the result, mainly, of the environment in which they were raised and the values instilled within them. Genetics play too small a role to even be considered as far as values are considered.
So, what would one call a person of mixed ethnic heritage? How about "a person"! If you really need to find a specific label for such a person, click on this link and choose one.