Let me ask you a serious question.
Why is Obama black?
No doubt, you're thinking two things: that the answer is obvious, and that I am an idiot for asking that.
Let's see where I go with that, first, hmmm?
Barack Obama was born to TWO parents, you know, not one: a black man, and a white woman. So why is he automatically able to identify with the plight and trauma of the black people, and unable to keep from dealing with white people with contempt and arrogance?
Why is he identified by only half his genetic heritage?
Why is it that of his two parents, only the black one counts?
He is lauded, oddly enough, as the "post-racial" president, which seems inherently ridiculous to me; how can a man who intentionally, often, and openly tries to deny half his racial heritage, be "post-racial?"
In fact, we have begun a process, over the last few years, that is ridiculous and damaging.
We are destroying our language.
Words, you see, have meanings. Denotative meantings, as well as connotative meanings.
For those of you whose vocabularies are sending you running for Dictionary.com, denotative meaning is the actual, literal meaning of the word, and the only one valid for communication. Connotative meaning is the associations you personally have developed regarding a particular word, and using that meaning to attempt communication makes the silly assumption that your listener has the same associations.
Since humans are unique, this is never true, and thus connotative meanings are useless.
So.
Words have meanings. But in recent years, that notion has been replaced by the idea that words can, and should, be banned based on their connotative meanings, regardless of their actual denotative meanings.
I'll provide an example or two, shall I?
It has become common to refer to people like Vern Troyer - "Mini-Me" - as "little people." Why? Because terms like "midget" and "dwarf" are somehow derogatory.
Wrong.
Midget is a word referring to a specific medical condition in which the sufferer retains normal bodily proportions, but is very, very short - less than 3 1/2 feet tall.
Dwarf is a term referring to a specific medical condition in which the sufferer does not retain normal bodily proportions, and is often very short.
These are not derogatory; they are descriptive and - if used correctly - the correct terms for their respective conditions.
How does this apply to race?
Well, originally, the term used in the United States to refer to people of dark skin tone was "nigger," which derived from "negro," which means "black."
Denoting skin tone.
Now, thanks to its persistent usage by dumb asshats, it has become so tarred by its derogatory connotative meaning as to render it essentially unspeakable, at least in public; so we replaced it.
By calling those people of dark skin tone, "Negro," which means "black."
Since Negro SOUNDS like "nigger," that one became unacceptable as well, and was replaced.
By calling those people of dark skin tone "black," the meaning of which though inaccurate should remain obvious.
How that one - directly descriptive - became offensive, I'm not sure, but at elast through those three stages, essentially the same descriptive term was being used.
Now, we've replaced the descriptive term with one that's often totally inaccurate, which is "African-American," in theory referring to someone of African ethnic ancestry who is an American, but in fact referring to people who just got off the boat and switched citizenship; this term does not accurately apply to most people in the United States.
By virtue of the same process, we replaced the inaccurate term "Indian" with the accurate but misleading term "Native American," which isn't an improvement.
Words have meanings; "native" means "born in," which makes me as "native" as any Cherokee, thanks; I was born in Houston. An accurate description would be "Aboriginal Americans," because "aboriginal" refers to people who were present when the now-dominant culture arrived.
A less accurate descriptor would be "Indiginous Americans," but that's slightly misleading, in that it implies that the people described originated here, when in fact they emigrated from Russia over the Bering Strait land bridge in prehistoric times and are thus more accurately - haha - "Russo-Americans."
My point being, when you demonize descriptive terms, you don't change - or affect - racism. All you do is disguise it; prejudice is not resident in your terminology, it is resident in your decision-making.
That's because "prejudice" means "making decisions without information, relying solely on the stereotypical behavior of a class."
Kinda like what Obama does when he pretends that his mother didn't exist.
So. How can you actually be "post-racial," hmmm?
That's a serious question; how does one accomplish it?
Could it be by avoiding confederates who say things like "we have to make sure this stimulus money doesn't go to white male construction workers?"
Or by avoiding preachers who blame all the ills of the world on whites?
Or by acknowledging both sides of your own personal heritage?
Maybe.
You want to know why Obama is black?
Because racism is considered - connotative meaning strikes again - to be something white people do to everybody who's not white.
But racism, as a word, means "prejudice based on race," and guess what?
Saying "racism is something white people do," is a racist statement.
Maybe the way Obama could become the "post-racial" President, is by ending his own racism.
That's what I would try, in his shoes.
