I am CONFIDENT that Barack Obama would have been publicly blasted had he identified himself as "White", in spite of the fact that he was raised by three "White" people. In fact, I firmly believe the same would have happened even if his physical features had people typically mistaking him for having no African ancestry.

To go one step further, I believe his political career would have suffered had he simply identified as mixed/mulatto/biracial/multicultural/etc. If he insisted that people recognize that he is Black AND White, there would have been issues. There most definitely still exists a double standard.

I used to subscribe to that age-old brainwashing that ONLY allowed a mixed person to call themselves either mixed or Black. I understood why some mixed people would call themselves Black based on their upbringing, appearance, etc. BUT, I thought it was shameful for a mixed person to pass themselves off for White. I believed the lie that this was always done out of self-loathing, hatred of Blackness, etc. Well, the more mixed people I have met of various phenotypes and upbringings, and the more I have learned about mixed folks historically, and the more I have pondered this age old double standard, the more convinced I became that a whole bunch of wool has been pulled over a whole bunch of eyes.

Some mixed/mulatto/biracial folks are Black (regardless of their appearance) and that is why they identify as such. Some mixed/mulatto/biracial folks are White (regardless of their appearance) and I think it's high time that they be afforded the same courtesy of being able to identify as what they are. Me? I am mixed in every way and have always identified as such. I don't get too much flak for that, because of how I look. Yet, it's 2009 and some mixed folks with more obvious African ancestry still get harassed for identifying as mixed. Sad

Worse yet is that society and government records tend to just consider us all Black anyway, no matter what we say. Rudeness!

Guest Author Sonia, Chameleon

There’s been a question in my mind since Barack Obama, an Afro-white, mixed-race American who is primarily “seen” as African American to the majority of the American population, all major American media outlets (including YOU Wikipedia) and seems to identify as so on most occasions, had been elected the next president of the United States of America and the first minority to ascend to the position, and that is: what is everyone else waiting for?

African American author and academic Ali Mazrui asks for the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS why hasn't there been a Jewish president yet? We can continue to follow his line of thought and ask the same about why there hasn't been an East Asian American president, Hispanic, Atheist, Muslim, woman, South Asian, Arab, Persian, North African, homosexual, or (insert minority group here).

Many different minorities have held high offices in government, but not the highest office in the U.S.: Gary Locke was the first East Asian American to be elected governor of one of the 48 contiguous United States and has been seen as a potential candidate for president; Bobby Jindal, a South Asian American is currently the governor of Louisiana; Bill Richardson, a Hispanic, is governor of New Mexico, and a few women have been elected to govern states. Is everyone waiting for a sign? Is Obama’s election that sign? Will his election change this trend? More importantly if it does, why? Granted, Obama is not the first minority to run under a major party, (those honors go to Shirley Chisholm D-NY in 1972, a West Indian American, as best I’ve been able to find) but he's the first to be elected.

Why not run for president before Obama's election? It seems like minorities use blacks or people thought of as black by the majority as a litmus test for racial climate here in the United States. The notion seems to be among minorities, “if a black person, or a person ‘perceived’ to be black, can do it, so can I, but if they can’t, then no other minority can”

Why are non-black minorities not pioneers in racial diversity as often as blacks? We could argue that African-Americans have the longest history in America and the injustices they have faced for so long have motivated them to strive to be the champions of diversity and defenders against racial injustice. But this is not true, the often forgotten Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians are the only true Americans and were the first to settle this land. However, when it comes to non-Native Americans, there were other minorities with a history in this country for as long as or nearly as long as African Americans, contrary to popular belief.

Francis C. Assisi writes South Asians have a history dating back to Colonial Virginia. Court records from the time referred to people from the Indian Subcontinent as “East Indians” or “Asiatic Indians.” They were later identified as “Mulatto,” “Negro,” and “Colored,” and gradually merged with the African American community at the time, thus being lost to the annals of history until relatively recently.

In addition, there are others as well that share in the early history of this country. Though not actually a part of America until the Louisiana Purchase, some of the first Southeast Asians on the American continent were Filipino sailors on the Manila/Acapulco Galleon trade route aboard Spanish vessels. Enduring low pay, disease, and starvation after supplies ran out, they jumped ship at ports in western Mexico, such as Acapulco and traveled to then New France. Dubbed the “Manila men,” they settled in Saint Malo, a village in the bayous outside of New Orleans in present day Louisiana. Evidence supports Filipinos participated in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812 but this is still in question. Filipinos were also involved in the settling of Spanish California, dating back to the late 16th century, much earlier than the Manila men. In this same sense, one could say the immigrants of Hawaii, who were primarily East and Southeast Asian, have been here for a considerably long time, as they began moving to Hawaii after the end of the Colonial Era in the New World, which experienced its own version of colonialism due to the Europeans.

Opponents will argue that African Americans have made their voice heard louder than others in the country, as would be exemplified through the civil rights movement. Their efforts therefore, garnering them more attention from the majority. The black community has united under a cause shared by nearly every member and share a single identity through the atrocities of slavery and the curse of Jim Crow; the Hispanics have a shared identity by means of a common language for the most part, whereas Asian Americans as a whole (the whole continent) do not share or do not largely share any one language, script, ethnicity, tragedy, atrocity, etc. and historically, have strived to maintain their individuality but at the costly price of solidarity.

However, there is also the more sinister explanation akin to conspiracy theorists that things have been orchestrated by the white majority in a divide and conquer effort to keep the various minority groups from uniting under a single cause. This is highly unlikely in an intentional sense. As the saying goes, “never account for malice that which you can account for ignorance.”

A more likely culprit is substandard education. What can anyone expect when in history class, we learn mostly about the atrocities committed against African Americans and struggles they have faced throughout American history when other groups and events are only mentioned in passing such as the Chinese role in building the Trans-American railroad and their treatment, Angel Island’s role in immigration from Asia, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Caesar Chavez fighting for farm workers’ rights, minorities’ roles in the women’s rights movement or various acts of unwarranted persecution against every minority group that has ever settled on American soil and if they’re lucky, something about the wrongs done to them, like the American Japanese concentration camps during World War II or the treatment of Native Americans throughout the history of the nation (at least until the 20th century). One thing is for sure, there is certainly no shortage of European history taught.

The effects of this have rippled throughout society, with those groups that get more attention in the history books also getting more attention in society, as is the case with mass media. One only needs to turn on the TV (even commercials) go to a movie, open a magazine (ads included) or come across a billboard to see this in action. How many blacks are featured compared to how many whites, are represented actively (not in passing) and how many other minorities are compared to blacks in media? More importantly how often are minorities in general portrayed and how so? Stereotypes of minorities are still largely portrayed in media. Physical presence is only scratching the surface of this problem, as it’s very easy to side-step this and add in a non-descript minority into for instance, a workplace environment instead of a role with any depth to it.

Whites seem to feel guilty over the oppression of African Americans throughout the history of America but not so much towards other groups, and it reflects in our culture. This is not an argument to say we should take attention away from black history in this country nor is this a comparison of who had it “worse.” Those types of discussions only serve to drive a wedge between minorities. The history of African Americans is an important part of our nation’s history, but more attention needs to be given to other groups as well or we have an extremely skewed outlook on our history. We need to set the record straight and level the playing field among all groups. Otherwise, we are saying that certain peoples' histories are more important than others'.

The result of our basic education speaks for itself. However, maybe the higher history classes learned more in depth. I can’t say since I was in a college-prep (see: low) course like most others, for the majority of my compulsory education. Perhaps there should be an entire year dedicated to the history of minorities in America in public school curriculum, or everyone should be required to take a _____ Studies course every year or maybe somehow incorporate it into the standard history curriculum. Whatever way, it needs a major overhaul to break this cycle.

To sum things up, if the election of our first multiracial president is a sign of anything, he’s a sign that all minorities need to stop competing against one another, unite, and fight for each other’s causes aside from their own. We have all been oppressed at one time or another and still are being to a certain point, despite gains we have made, both of which aren’t always highlighted in our textbooks or history classes. Comparing our struggles only serves to divide us and competing against one another only distracts us from our true goal, but hiding people’s contributions to this nation and struggles hurts everyone. Imagine the kind of progress that could’ve been made if all minorities worked together during the civil rights movement and what we can accomplish if we set aside our petty differences, childish grudges, and join together now. For separate, it will be an even more difficult and longer battle; we might even fail. But if we unite and work together for a common cause, triumph over adversity is just a matter of time. Only together can our true potential be recognized and only then will justice be served, and we can live in true harmony with one another.

This is just my argument. It is meant to provoke thought. Should you disagree with anything I have said, I strongly encourage you to publish your own piece on the subject attempting to refute my claims. The truth can only be determined after hearing all sides of a story. There are far too few voices out there expressing their points of view in the mediascape.

Joe, Chameleon

Links
• Imagine if Obama’s wife was white, asks African-American author, Thaindian News - http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/imagine-if-obamas-wife-was-white-asks-african-american-author_100122795.html
• South Asians in Colonial America - From the very beginning, they sought freedom., SPAN - http://span.state.gov/wwwhspmayjune076.html
• The Manila Men (The ManilaMen) - http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.manilamaildc.net%2Farticle1896.html
• Manilamen: The Filipino Roots in America - http://www.filipinoamericans.net/manilamen.shtml
• When did Filipinos first come to America?, Americans of Filipino Descent - FAQs - http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/eloisa.borah/filfaqs.htm#history

I would first like to point out that anybody parading around in blackface should be censured because it is utterly demeaning and should not be "performed" by anybody at anytime. But, one must ask the question, "How does a foreign country such as Turkey come to portray President Barack as solely black?" It is no secret that our president has a white mother. So why? In a country with a relatively small black population, it is impossible for Turkey to have a similar black/white racial history as America does. In particular, the history I speak of is the convolution of mulattoes and African Americans. Since countries such as Turkey do not have the same kind of history that America has had, why would this man even consider regarding mulattoes and blacks as the same "race?" Now, I do not know what this particular video means to the masses of Turks or how it was perceived there, but here in America such behavior would result in quick ostracization. But this recent occurrence has not been the only public demonstration of blackface aimed at a prominent multiracial. Remember this:

Now, even though Spain does have a larger black population than Turkey, it still does not have the type of history America has with the one drop rule. So, again, it is unfathomable for the Spanish to consider mulattoes and blacks as the same thing.

So, the question is, "Why are these outside countries considering President Obama as solely black?" It's because that's how he has been constantly portrayed by the various news sources around America. Right after Barack Obama was elected as "the first black president," there was a survey conducted in Britain regarding the prospects of the citizens voting for a black president. 93% of Britons said they would endorse a black candidate. Britons, known for their multiracial categories on their census, even consider the president black. The American media is to blame for this discrepancy of "racial classifications." Again, I must say that blackface is wrong in every aspect; however, if you are going to insult a multiracial at least do it right.

Mulatto, we all know what it means. If you're not big on multiracial issues, then I suppose I can give you the Merriam-Webster definition and etymology:

Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mu·lat·toes or mu·lat·tos
Etymology:
Spanish mulato, from mulo mule, from Latin mulus
Date:
1593

1 : the first-generation offspring of a black person and a white person \
2 : a person of mixed white and black ancestry

As to be expected, Webster only reports the term's meaning (duh, it's a dictionary). So, I suppose we'll derive how this word may even be considered offensive to some today by starting with the etymology of mulatto.

The Spanish mulato is derived from mulo/mule. This mule, produced from a male donkey (62 chromosomes) and a female horse (64 chromosomes) has 63 chromosomes. This resulting number of chromosomes inhibits sterility in mules over 99.99% of the time (there have been a few documented cases of sterile female mules). Back during slavery times, many people operated around the paradigm that black people and white people were different species to say the least. Thus, when a mulatto was born to a black parent and white parent it was believed to be sterile like mules. It is hard for me to believe that people actually believed this phenom after the first couple of decades of its inception, because naturally mulattoes would go on to produce children with white, black, and other mulatto people. So, was it used as a constant reminder that these children spawned from two diametric forces were too different to be accepted anywhere or did bad habits just die hard?

While some people did harbor these absurdities that mulattoes were sterile, it's hard to believe that the majority of the people (whether they were racist or not) would continue believing a proven falsity. Mulatto was continually used as a description for black/white biracials until the 1930 census. By this time, mulattoes were already "successfully forced" into a Negro identity thus restoring the black-white "color" line. Now that we know the history of mulatto, is it socially acceptable to be used? It is the most accurate description of a half-white/half-black person; however, its history does carry a lot of weight.

I think that if a person wants to be empowered through the description mulatto, then that person should be respected. Just take a look at the word nigga. Many African-Americans have turned the most heinous of words into a term of endearment. Quite naturally, I don't see why mulattoes cannot do the same. Opponents would suggest just calling these individuals solely biracial. But what does biracial even mean? Exactly, it can mean a myriad of things. Again, if someone wants to be called a mulatto then more power to him/her. Or they can be solely called black.

Daimian, Chameleon

Do you ever feel pressured to always stand up for your non-white part?

Before we answer this question, let us take a look at the life of Shelton. Shelton grew up in a majority white suburb somewhere in California. He was raised primarily by his white mother, considering his black father left her when he found out that she was preganant. From the onset of his education, Shelton was immersed into a community of only white people. One day, during his high school experience, Shelton was hanging out with a group of his friends. He was the only multiricial person present. All of a sudden, John cracks a joke about black people. Silence falls upon the crowd as everyone fixates their vision upon Shelton. Now, on the surface of this scenario you may be thinking that this was an appropriate response from Shelton's friends to look at him considering he was indeed part black. But two main questions run through my mind when I analyze this common occurence; why aren't his friends scolding the offender, and is it really Shelton's job to defend the non-white group being offended?

***As a note, feel free to juxtapose yourself with Shelton***

Let's address the first question, why aren't Shelton's friends looking at the offender instead of him? --We've all done it before; when someone makes a Jewish joke in the room, we look towards the Jew for his response while disregarding the perpetrator as if he hasn't done anything wrong.-- It's safe to assume that his friends knew that the joke was offensive, so why aren't they trying to defend him instead of waiting for his response? Furthermore, is it ultimately Shelton's job to defend black people more so than all of the other people around? Now, before we answer these questions, let us remember Shelton's communal upbringing; he is virtually a part of this group of people. Despite that he may look a little different than them, they share a common taste in music, cltohing style, phonectic speech, and everything else you can think of that would be "required" for a person to be accepted into a community. By now you're probably asking yourself, "Why is it my responsibilty to stand up against racism and not everybody elses?" Even though you are on the right pathological track, I must digress from the topic for a moment to state that "I" consider it imperative that everyone stand up against all acts of racial injustice. This article is simply here to point out that you as an individual do not deserve to be pressured into defending any group of people. So, back to my first question; why aren't Shelton's friends looking at John. The reasoning can diverge into two possibilites: his friends say these types of things when he isn't around or they care more about seeing his response and whether or not he has been offended than the severity of the joke. We can generally rule out the first scenario considering that these people are his friends that he has interacted with for the majority of his life. Therefore, we remain with just the second scenario. To address this problem, we must confront it openly. The next time this occurs, Shelton should query his friends about why they are looking at him rather than the person that said the joke.

As for the second question, "Is it really Shelton's job to defend the non-white group being offended?" Obviously his friends think it is since they ogled him after the joke was made. However, they are sadly mistaken in their belief. Next time a racist remark is made and your friends watch and wait for your response, bring to their attention that you grew up with them and are a part of their community; emphasize that the only thing that marginally separates you from them is the color of your skin. Point out that the same "differences" can be applied to blonds and brunnettes, the overweight and underweight, the tall and short, etc. So ask them, why the importance of race when you are all a homogenous commmunity.

In closing, I know that I may have posed more questions than I gave clear answers to, but it is your job to apply Shelton's situation to your life and educate your friends on the importance of community rather than race.

Daimian, Chameleon