“Black politics”, “African-American” politics, “Minority” politics are no longer terms that can be used in regard to Senator Obama.

What Senator Obama’s run for the Presidency is showing is that the old assumptions are no longer fully applicable. What we now have is a “politics” which starts from the assumption that all have access to the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. What we have now is a “politics” of empowerment and opportunity for the newer generations.

This newer “politics” would not have been possible without the history of suppression, physical and political oppression of minorities — and — the willingness of those who chose to confront, protest and challenge that suppression and oppression.

I found it offensive but thought perhaps initially it was some kind of “double entendre.” But for the Democrats as usual everything is always so divisive. Everyone has a category. Black this, white that, rich, poor, gay, straight, blah blah blah. I am so sick of it all. Why do they feel the need to do that? How many times were we told that Biden is an Irish Catholic with middle class roots. And did you know he is white? Geez. Isn’t it time for these people to grow up? Who gives a rat’s behind about any of that? Tell us what the man has accomplished in Washington and where he stands on the issues.

Did you know that at the DNC convention that each state has to have representives of every type of “group” to represent the state. Sounds more like a Star Wars bar.

Hold on… I’m tired of Obama being called African-American or black. He is neither. The word is mulatto — and it is not derogatory. For all practical purposes, Obama is as white as he is black. Get it right, people.

The term African-American should be jettisoned from the nation’s public vernacular anyway. It’s wrongly applied to certain people. Is a Haitian African-American? What about someone from France who is black? If you want to argue that they or their forbears are originally from Africa, where does it stop? As a white Anglo-Saxon, would it be proper to call me an African-European-American? I mean, last I read, man originally came from Africa.

Sorry, but I disagree with you, A Centrist. Background — or as you write, placing people in a ‘category’ — is important. If someone is an Irish-Catholic, I want to know. If someone is an ex-Marine (despite ex-Marines’ argument there is no such thing), I want to know. If someone once was a card-carrying Socialist, I want to know. These things color the way someone sees the world. It defines their perceptions. Don’t categorize? Blah! Guess it was wrong to categorize the politician David Duke because of his past.

Yes, a journalist writes someone is a billionaire and, yes, I make an assumption, but this assumption is based on history. Research shows that most people who amass great fortunes do so at other’s expense, rather than by hard work, talent, thrift, intelligence, etc. Great fortunes, usually, are amassed by exploitation, treachery, outright theft, veiled theft, guile, tapping into people’s insecurites and/or fears, et al. If someone is a billionaire, this is something I want to know, because it’s possibly an insight into their soul and how they treat other people and deal with the outside world. But, I keep in mind, as with all generalizations, there are exceptions — always.

EJ - I respect your opinion. I prefer to say that OBama is bi-racial and not African American.

That’s a fair term. I respect your opinion too.

“Mulatto” is a fairly archaic term now along with “miscegnation” and a few other choice terms.

It is based on a patently racist formula concocted by supposed “scientific anthropologists” of the late 19th and early 20th cnetury. It is based in the “jim crow” laws which essentially assigned ratios of white:black “blood mixing”.

For a popular and “enjoyable” depiction of this understanding, I refer you to Jerome Kern’s Showboat, or, Richard Rodgers South Pacific.

Sadly, this wrong-headed and racist understanding of “mixed blood” categories led to the adoption of “standards” by certain organizations essentially saying “one drop” of black blood made one “black”. This has affected profoundly the adoption of children in need of homes.

So maybe one of these days we will stop using skin color based “racial identifications” and start using the person’s name as their primary “label”.

I’d love that, RH. I doubt it will ever happen. Society seems to be favoring numbers over names anyway. But I disagree with your assessment of “mulatto” as an archaic term. Maybe in the sphere of The Lou.

Also, I see myself as a Caucasian — even a Caucasoid. Am I being racist against myself? I’m such a close-minded, bigoted jerk to myself. These comments are exactly the reason I was saying that Obama should have picked Richardson for V.P. If he had done that, my guess is McCain would have picked a white male V.P. to draw in the white vote. Then all the racial cards could have been pushed out on the table in an open, frank national discussion. It’s something that’s been needed in this country for decades. But we keep putting it off, and off, and off…

EJ -
“Mulatto” is archaic and derives from at least the 19th century if not earlier. In the present day “biracial” or “multiracial” is used to indicate that someone has two parents of different “racial” background.

However, I prefer using people’s names.