Because Barak Obama is a Mulatto man, not an African-American, would history books have to state that the forty-fourth President of the United States was the first African-American President, a statement accompanied by an asterisks denoting that he is actually a Mulatto?

12 Jan


Why don’t people accept the fact that Barak Obama had an African-American (Kenyan) father, and a Caucasian mother, making him a Mulatto (a very honorable “mixed race”,) and not an African American?

Insisting that Obama is the first African-American elected President of the United States, would eventually cause a dilemma. What would happen when the first full blooded African-American is elected President, how would that person be described? The “First full blooded Africa-American?” Or, What?


21 Responses to “Because Barak Obama is a Mulatto man, not an African-American, would history books have to state that the forty-fourth President of the United States was the first African-American President, a statement accompanied by an asterisks denoting that he is actually a Mulatto?”

  1. cy September 8, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    very stupid and bigeoted…we will not be labeled by you so called pure blooded people, us mixed folks are both races, not some new breed, Obama, like myself is is just as much a black man as a white man, thats is a dual identity which u single raced people do not understand and will never fathom, so stick to your own exeriences and stop trying to judge a group of people in order to fulfill your agenda…how pretentious

    • dangoor September 8, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

      How can words be twisted!

      All I was dealing with was technicality. What if, for example, a Jesse Jackson, Jr., was to be elected President; would race not be mentioned? Or, would he be referred to as the first African American to be elected President (since he would be,) or what?

      I have no agenda, I just hope that when a full blooded African American is elected, credit would be given where it’s due.

  2. real estate mutual funds October 6, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    Your site was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last Thursday. 🙂

    • dangoor March 2, 2010 at 5:28 am #

      Well said! None of us are of pure blood, Hitler attempted to get pure Aryans to run the world, but, of course, failed in a big way. No one, not even those Jews of priestly prigin are trult pure! Mulattos are as goos, and as pure as anyone.

  3. swandiver March 2, 2010 at 5:17 am #

    To find the answer to your question, you would just have to look at American history. It was white people, not African-Americans who came up with the “one-drop” rule, meaning that if you had one drop of African blood, you were black thus condeming even their own children to a life of slavery generation after generation for the sake of profit. It was white people who came up the convoluted classifications that include mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, etc. These classifications were even made into law throughout most of the southern US up through most of the 20th century.

    Mulattos (like myself) throughout American history have recognized that our shared white heritage does not save us from the institutional racial oppression that is woven into the fabric of American culture. I don’t get pulled over only half the time on a DWB (driving while black) because my mother is white. I don’t get the better interest rate or my choice of housing either.

    That’s why so many “black” leaders were actually mulatto or had significant white heritage. Fredrick Douglass (mulatto), Malcolm X (quadroon, grandfather was a red-headed Irishman) and Adam Clayton Powell just to name a few.

    What I find so confusing on the part of most white Americans is this: How come African-Americans get to claim mulattos as their own to share in the injustice and oppression but are not allowed to do the same when that mulatto excels at their chosen endeavor whether it be golf like Tiger Woods, or the presidency like Barack Obama?

  4. thetalentedmrbentley March 10, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    I have to agree with swandiver. If Obama were just another man, his race would be of no consequence. But because he is the president, of course, the question of his authenticity comes into play. And it is important to say that it isn’t just white America who is guilty of questioning his authenticity. To be honest, no one will remember that Barack Obama is mixed race. The fact remains, he does not look like the overwhelming majority of his political peers. If he didn’t tell anyone would they know that he had a white mither? No. There are many “full-blooded” African Americans that are of much lighter complexion than President Obama. I think much more important than his color is the fact that he is not a descendant of African slaves bought to America. I think that he is as black as any other black man in America, but true enough, he is not the descendant of slaves. I think that it will be of greateer signifigance when there is actually someone in the presidential seat whose lineage can be traced back to slavery. Unlike, President Obama. But his accomplishment is still important. He is possibly the first black person evr elected to be president in a country that is majority white, and has a history of opressing people of color, no matter where they are from.

  5. Ms. Kameisha Jerae February 5, 2011 at 9:47 pm #

    mulatto is a very offensive term. i understand your the point you’re trying to make, but you should be well aware that mulatto is just as racist as saying that he adheres to the one drop rule; mulatto is used to refer to biracial (mainly those mixed with a white parent and a black one) children who are incapable of reproducing a fully white or fully black child. this originated around the late 1500s / early 1600s in reference to the fact that mules are infertile. that’s all i have to say, but other than that, very good point about authenticity and race.

    • dangoor February 5, 2011 at 10:14 pm #

      Sorry if I offended you, in “my world” a mulato is an honorable term reserved for people of mixed races. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

    • swandiver March 9, 2011 at 5:10 am #

      Actually, much like other offensive terms, “mulatto” has been reclaimed by people such as myself. This is to address the specific cultural/social/political issues faced by those of black/white heritage and not be drowned out by the generic term, “biracial” which could be a mixture of any two races.

      May I suggest you check out the site for more information on the issue.

      • moreniqua September 4, 2011 at 2:21 am #

        Definitely find that word insulting. Why would you EVER “re-claim” such a horrendous word?? And I clicked that link and it does not work, but I have been on that site before, and it is about showcasing multiple celebrities of mixed race, not the empowerment of them through that disparaging word. I would never call myself mulata or allow anyone to address me thus. Even in the Latino community, I am constantly checking anyone who uses that word to address myself or others.

      • dangoor September 4, 2011 at 2:42 am #

        I respect your opinion, but it yours and yours alone! To me the word mulato has no negative connotation, it simply means a person of mixed races…
        Sorry we don’t agree!

  6. moreniqua September 6, 2011 at 2:38 am #

    As the previous person posted, it refers to the person being incapable of producing a “pure” race, and stems from the word “Mule” so HOW could that EVER be positive? Secondly, NO African American in the USA is “Pure” Black; ALL are mixed with Native American, white or something else due to the systematic rape, displacement, migration, and of course miscegenation that occurred all throughout US history. Barak is a BLACK president as defined by the BINARY racial code created by WHITES in the USA whereby race is seen as solely a BLACK and WHITE thing (excluding recognition of other races). By the “one-drop” rule, (which has been upheld by the Supreme court up until as recent as the late 80’s), Obama is a Black male.

    And coming from both an American and Latino point of view, I will ALWAYS disagree with the word mulatto being imposed on people of mixed descent. From where I sit, your avatar looks white, and that is where I draw the conclusion that you will not understand the effects this label (the same as the word “nigga” in my opinion) and also, labels such as these were meant to DIVIDE the Black community and establish lines of inferiority and superiority amongst us. “Mulatto” was meant to bestow a sense of higher ranking on certain Blacks while simultaneously reminding them that they were not as “superior” as whites but could thank white blood for their intelligence, physical “beauty”, and fortune.

    I’ll refer you to this book, “Skin deep: how race and complexion matter in the “color-blind” era By Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, Hayward Derrick Horton

    • dangoor September 6, 2011 at 4:15 am #

      My gradfather used mules in his orange groves, they were highly respected and desired animals! To me being mulato does not bring any shame, it only suggest a fact of birth. Sorry, my use of the word is rather positive, I am sorry that you don’t see it that way!

  7. moreniqua September 6, 2011 at 5:06 am #

    Did you REALLY just draw that comparison? That is unbelievable, because you feel it is positive, does not negate nor invalidate the fact that it is a NEGATIVE word in origin—or can you not comprehend the origin of mulatto as it was explained above? The way you describe “mulatto is an honorable state” suggests that Mulattoes, due to their mixed raced, are more desirable than other Blacks who are not mixed–that other races are not as “honorable” can easily be intoned.

    I am not arguing against what you in err “feel” is positive but letting you know the consequences that this very REAL racial stratification has caused due to that word.
    I am giving you historical FACT on how that word was created in colonial times to classify and separate a group of people in a very NEGATIVE way. I am telling you, most mixed race people DO NOT classify themselves using “mulatto” which is an OUTDATED and negative term. Do you still call people “Negro” and “Colored” as well? And are other people of different “pure” races honorable?

    No one is denying the beauty of miscegenation or of ethnic pride. But I am certain Obama does not self-identify as “Mulatto” nor does he assign more importance or significant importance to him being “Mixed” over him being a Black male. I come from a long line of multicultural Americans and have many mixed race friends, none of whom identify as Mulattoes.

    I am not trying to attack you, merely trying to show you that this term is indeed Negative and that you, in your attempt to argue against the imposition of a “false” identity on our President, are doing the EXACT SAME THING when you classify him as “Mulatto”.

    • dangoor September 6, 2011 at 6:21 am #

      We still disagree, even though you make it sound as if you were there when the word was “invented.” When I said that Mulato is an honorable term, I did not say that a Mulato was better than an African-American, or worse; both are creatures under G-d, both can be honorable people. Sorry, honest people can have honest disagreements!
      You entirely miss the point of my blog! All I am trying to say is that Barak Hussein Obama is clearly of mixed race, and that sometime, SOON in the future, a more pure blooded African- American will be elected President of the United States! Who will history consider to be the FIRST African-American President, Obabam, or the more pure blooded (both parents African-Americans) future President?

      • moreniqua September 6, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

        And I already explained that, according to current US racial stratification/ethics, Obama is a Black man, whether he be mixed or not, and IS the FIRST Black president (that history will acknowledge) of the USA, specifically according to the “one-drop rule”, his own self-identification of a Black male, and his obvious phenotypical appearance.

        I will write no more on this subject as it is going nowhere, and is pointless. Good day.

  8. dangoor September 7, 2011 at 1:48 am #

    I am glad to hear that you’ll stop writing since you simply mix apples and oranges:
    !) There is no formal classification, except that the United Staes Government recognize member of a minority group if they onr has 1/16 blood relationship to a given minority group. Would you have been satified and willing to call a person with1/16 AfricaAmerican blood-line, an African-American President.
    2) when an African-Amerrican with both parents African-Americans becomes a United States President, the issue will surely come up, and historian will be called upon to resolve ther conflict.
    3) I used the term Mulato to simply speak of a person born to two different races, nothing either deragatory, or otherwise, was intended.
    Thank you for your thoughts and comments, I must say that I am glad our discussion is now over!

    • moreniqua September 10, 2011 at 3:12 am #

      Now you’re confused…the “1/16th” recognization of a person’s racial/ethnic group IS THE “ONE-DROP RULE”, please learn history before you speak on it! And as he is HALF Black, and VISIBLY Black, and I’m pretty sure he identifies as Black, I WILL be content calling him the first BLACK president. Your blog is counterintuitive to ANYTHING Black people have done positively in this country as you seem to be trying to STRIP him from our midst.

      • moreniqua September 10, 2011 at 3:13 am #

        *recognition, not recognization.

  9. dangoor September 10, 2011 at 3:45 am #

    I thought you are going to stop writing; what happened? And again, you are wrong; check your facts regarding who the US Government consider minorties. Unlike your promise, I’ll keep mine and not response to any more of your comments..

    • moreniqua September 10, 2011 at 4:04 am #

      I did check my facts, I happened to have graduated in Latin American Studies, International Studies, and Spanish, not the least of which required anything less than a GREAT deal of “fact-checking” on race, culture, social stratification and the likes. Don’t be upset that someone has easily challenged your faulty POV. My question: why are you being JUST like US society and trying to remove Obama from Black society through a veritable hyperdescent?
      He is Black. Period point blank. Black is not just a race, it is also a collection of experiences, a culture, and one’s personal sentiments as a result. I am CERTAIN Obamas’s experiences in CHICAGO have been those of a TYPICAL black male, even if afforded a few more privileges due to his lighter skin tone. You are doing nothing but imposing your imperialist colorist views and segregating him from the Black population.
      Yes, please DO stop writing. Your replies answer no questions, your topic holds really nothing to be gained in debating Obama’s race and, as a “historian”, one would presume you’d have a better HISTORY of the US and race (not to mention better punctuation and grammar).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: