just out of curiosity..

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

-oh, just forget it -

[Woody]

I was going to repond to this ...

But oh ... JUST FORGET IT. Ha Ha

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Hey! I tried to delete it, but it was too late... now I'm left with a topic of no return....

[Gail]

I think you're getting a pretty good return on a topic with no return!

[Woody]

Continue Continue

I am going to Continue by returning to what I was doing before this thread appeared.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Okay, here's what I was wondering, since Obama's mother was white, Obama is only 50% black. How much black do you need to be in order to call yourself black?

[Woody]

Good Question Pam.

I am sure the qualifications must be spelled out somewhere on the internet.

[John317]

Ever read Mark Twain's book, Puddnhead Wilson?

In this story-- written, of course, by a Southerner-- a man who looks all white was "sold down the river" as a Negro slave because people discover he is one thirty-second (1/32) black.

Seems like people should have said he was white but he was black because of the high labor value placed on the slave, even if he looked white.

Frightening book for what it says about man's inhumanity to man.

Wikipedia--

Quote:

The novel focuses on the mistaken identity of a young man who thinks he is white but is in reality one thirty-second black, and who is heir to wealth without initially knowing his claim is false. He lives as a free man, but is legally a slave, and when he learns the truth about himself, he comes to ruin not through the temporarily shattering knowledge of his actual status, but because of weaknesses common to white or black, slave or free. The young man thinks his name is Thomas à Becket Driscoll, but it is really Valet de Chambre, a name used for twenty-three years by another who is held as a slave in his stead, but who, unknown to himself, is white, and therefore legally free. Puddn’head Wilson is the man who in the end sets things to rights. But for whom? Seemingly for the spectators only, not for the principals involved, for by that time to them right is wrong, wrong is right, and happiness has gone by the board. The slaves system has taken its toll on all three concerned - mommy, mammy, ward and child - for mother and mammy, Roxana, matriarch and slave, are one.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

For legal purposes, Native Americans must be able to prove they are at least 1/8 American Indian to be privy to government aid. But that has no bearing on Black Americans, unless I'm mistaken.

[phkrause]

Have a friend that lives in NYC, who's father is black and mother is white. He considers himself white, so those his sister. But there are those that see themselves as black. I guess its up to the individual.

pk

[Woody]

Yes. But we need to know the legal requirement.

The question is .... Is Obama a legal black man?

Is he also a legal white man?

Where's a good lawyer when you need one?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

[phkrause]

I don't believe that a good lawyer is going to solve that. I believe we should allow each to claim who they are. As for me I accept all as human beings and God's children. We are all equal in Gods site no matter what.

pk

[Bravus]

Won't be too long, praise the Lord, when travel and intermarriage will make these pointless race distinctions entirely meaningless. I give it three or four generations, so maybe 100 years.

In the mean time, yeah, let people define themselves. Tiger Woods, for example, coined some sort of term of his own to define his racial mix, and proudly claimed all his ancestry. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnston went back to his Samoan (or Tongan?) roots and supported a village there. Why do people have to choose? I think Obama honours both parts of his background - it's others who define him simplistically.

But does having someone of his hue and background in the White House make the 'any American boy can become President' tale a lot closer to reality? I reckon so. And the fact that Hillary and (gulp) Sarah got so close is starting to expand that to 'every American girl' too. It's a good thing.

(As a side note, I think probably a good female candidate who *wasn't* a Clinton may well have won the Democrat nomination.)

[Liz]

Hmmm, I thought the mixed marriages that the Bible were against were between believers and non-believers; not between nationalities.

[Bravus]

Nope, the Bible says something about different faiths but nothing about different races. And perhaps the reason mixed-race marriages struggled in the past was exactly those attitudes of outrage? I know of quite a few successful ones now, including those of several regular posters here.

Edit: Liz beat me to it! And more accurately too - it's believers and unbelievers, not just different faiths.

[phkrause]

that's the way I have always read it. But different culture's do have there problems also.

pk

[Woody]

What do you think 'equally yoked' means. To me it means to be united in the most ways as possible. Granted ... I may be stretchin it a bit. And I am not saying that mixed races won't work. But it is an added stress potential.

[Tom Wetmore]

Answering the original question you might find an answer, perhaps more than you bargained for, here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

The answer brings up an ugly and disturbing history of racism. For the racial purists in the Jim Crow era, you were "Negro" if you had one drop of blood from African ancestry.

[Bravus]

Quote:

What do you think 'equally yoked' means. To me it means to be united in the most ways as possible.

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus

[Liz]

Not quite sure what it means in marriage, but I was confused about it when Jesus says "take my yoke upon you and learn from me"--something like that it is in Matthew--I just couldn't understand that one at all. Then one day in Sabbath School there was a guy that had actually worked with oxen. He said that you always put a more experienced ox with a less experienced one, the older experienced ox will actually shoulder more of the weight of the yoke and will teach the younger ox on what to do and how to walk and how to turn and so forth. Which makes this verse take on all kinds of new meaning.

[aldona]

Hmmm, I thought the mixed marriages that the Bible were against were between believers and non-believers; not between nationalities.

Correct. The example that comes to mind is Moses and Zipporah. The Bible is very clear that Zipporah was a dark-skinned woman, but she was a worshipper of the One True God even though she came from a tribe outside Israel.

We are also told that Miriam hated her sister-in-law because of her dark skin, and that God punished Miriam for her attitude by striking her skin white with leprosy.

(a way of saying "you like white skin? here, have some white skin!")

The only time that marriages with people of other races are condemned is when the foreigners are also unbelievers or worshippers of other gods.

aldona

[Nan]

In response to no one in particular.....I think culture is more important than colour (given a commonality of faith). In that way I could see a mixed race marriage of a couple of similar background and education having a much greater chance than a union between a couple with differing goals and expectations in life.

(Yes I am in one of those mixed race marriages to which I hope Bravus is referring, but as a second marriage there are no young children to consider.)

[Dottie]

Many years ago in Louisiana, before a birth certificate was issued, it had to be determined what race a person belonged to. There was a special office dedicated to make that determination. If a person was 1/32 black, they were deemed to be a black person. That would be having one great-great-great grandparent being black.

I read a story about a lady who needed a passport to travel. When she got her passport, it listed her lineage as black, even though she was blonde and blue-eyed. She had to research to find out where the information had been obtained. She had been born in Louisiana, and someone way back when had married a black person!