Why do Progressives follow the racist Jim Crow One-Drop rule

[JimR-OCDS]

Obama was the first of six or seven serious black candidates who actually got the black vote. And Obama was not getting black votes until white Iowans voted for him.

I don't recall the other black candidates when Obama ran for president.

Everyone was sure Hillary was going to be the Democrat Nominee, but she lost.

In the general election, Obama got both white and black votes over McCain and Sarah Palin.

Myself, I read Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," before the primaries to try and understand who he was. I liked
him, so I voted for him.

However, it was clear that during his 2nd term, Washington got to him and I wasn't impressed with him after
he didn't uphold the promise he made to Cardinal Dolan, three weeks before.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't recall the other black candidates when Obama ran for president.

Everyone was sure Hillary was going to be the Democrat Nominee, but she lost.

In the general election, Obama got both white and black votes over McCain and Sarah Palin.

Myself, I read Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," before the primaries to try and understand who he was. I liked
him, so I voted for him.

However, it was clear that during his 2nd term, Washington got to him and I wasn't impressed with him after
he didn't uphold the promise he made to Cardinal Dolan, three weeks before.

Other blacks had run before Obama. Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Herman Cain, and Alan Keyes have run since I've been voting. None of them got the black vote.

My point is that black people don't vote for black people just because they're black people. That seems to be something the Republican party cannot understand.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Other blacks had run before Obama. Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Herman Cain, and Alan Keyes have run since I've been voting. None of them got the black vote.

My point is that black people don't vote for black people just because they're black people. That seems to be something the Republican party cannot understand.

Oh yeah, but they were never considered as having a chance at being nominated in the Democrat Primary.

Obama was not only considered to win, but he was actually talked into running for president when he first
refused.

Like all people in government, Washington does something to change them. Obama went off the rails
in his second term. He saved the US Economy in the 1st term.

 

[RDKirk]

I have been confused as to why in America people like Barak Obama, Alicia Keys, Halle Berry, and Meghan Markle are considered black. It seems the racist one-drop rule is still in effect. I was raised by Cubans in a Cuban community and to Cubans, a person who is mixed with black and white do not just disregard their whiteness. Obama, Keys, and Berry were all raised by their single white mothers, yet they and the country consider them black. Just the other day, I was watching Django Unchained (Great Movie) and I noticed the Christoph Waltz character inform Leonardo Dicaprio that Alexandre Dumas (author of the Three Musketeers) was black. The fact is that Dumas had one grandmother that was black. He certainly was proud of his black ancestry, but he also considered himself French. But Quentin Tarantino seems to go by the racist one-drop rule and considers Dumas to have been black.

I just think it's ironic that the so-called "Anti-Racists" are continuing this Jim Crow tradition.

Through American history, it has been the prerogative of the dominant race, Caucasians, to determine what everyone else is called. White people think of the terms they call everyone else, and because white people have controlled the media and the social discourse, those names have stuck. If we have ever been able to determine our own names, it's only been when white people have acquiesced to it.

I recall back in the late 80s when the white mothers of biracial children first started pressing for the term "biracial" in order not to label their children "black," one biracial man made the specific remark, "We will be whatever white people decide to call us."

So, now....white people have decided to abandon the "one drop" rule that they have lived by all the way up until the 1980s...and have something to say because black people now find it useful.

To be honest, the question itself is disingenuous. You're still trying to dictate what we call ourselves.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Through American history, it has been the prerogative of the dominant race, Caucasians, to determine what everyone else is called. White people think of the terms they call everyone else, and because white people have controlled the media and the social discourse, those names have stuck. If we have ever been able to determine our own names, it's only been when white people have acquiesced to it.

I recall back in the late 80s when the white mothers of biracial children first started pressing for the term "biracial" in order not to label their children "black," one biracial man made the specific remark, "We will be whatever white people decide to call us."

So, now....white people have decided to abandon the "one drop" rule that they have lived by all the way up until the 1980s...and have something to say because black people now find it useful.

To be honest, the question itself is disingenuous. You're still trying to dictate what we call ourselves.

It’s not disingenuous. I just don’t think black DNA should be looked at like a stain that removes white DNA.

 

[RDKirk]

It’s not disingenuous. I just don’t think black DNA should be looked at like a stain that removes white DNA.

Young black people who follow the one-drop rule today follow the rule in an opposite sense: One drop of Caucasion blood makes a person non-black.

I personally follow the same rule as I do with gender: I presume people present themselves the way they want to be identified. I "calls 'em as I sees 'em."

 

[Daniel Peres]

Young black people who follow the one-drop rule today follow the rule in an opposite sense: One drop of Caucasion blood makes a person non-black.

I personally follow the same rule as I do with gender: I presume people present themselves the way they want to be identified. I "calls 'em as I sees 'em."

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want. However, your mentality of reliance on “identity” ignores reality. You are obviously one of the people who believe we all have our own version of the truth. The reality is that there is only one truth.

Furthermore, I am often told that I am not a Caucasian. Apparently, I belong to this race called Hispanic or Latino, which is silly because those are not races. Nevertheless, the left insists on calling me Hispanic, Latino, and recently, white-adjacent. Don’t get me wrong, I am Hispanic, but that’s not my race. Also, my son has Filipino ancestry and I teach him to be proud of that too.

 

[RDKirk]

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want. However, your mentality of reliance on “identity” ignores reality. You are obviously one of the people who believe we all have our own version of the truth. The reality is that there is only one truth.

[/QUOTE]

Wrong. You don't know me well enough to make that kind of judgment about me.

In most day-to-day personal transactions, it's not worth getting into an existential debate over another person's identity.

Furthermore, I am often told that I am not a Caucasian. Apparently, I belong to this race called Hispanic or Latino, which is silly because those are not races. Nevertheless, the left insists on calling me Hispanic, Latino, and recently, white-adjacent. Don’t get me wrong, I am Hispanic, but that’s not my race. Also, my son has Filipino ancestry and I teach him to be proud of that too.

You have pointed that out more than once in this thread. How you characterize your own identity appears to be important to you, yet you are dismissive of how others report their own identity.

I don't care--my interaction with you is not significant enough to remain engaged in an existential debate. You be you.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Wrong. You don't know me well enough to make that kind of judgment about me.

In most day-to-day personal transactions, it's not worth getting into an existential debate over another person's identity.


You have pointed that out more than once in this thread. How you characterize your own identity appears to be important to you, yet you are dismissive of how others report their own identity.

I don't care--my interaction with you is not significant enough to remain engaged in an existential debate. You be you.
[/QUOTE]

The point is I classify myself in all the ways that are possible. I don’t ignore truth. You believe it is rational to ignore aspects of the truth. This attitude is very popular today, so it’s not surprising. So have a nice identity in any way you choose rather than all the ways reality identifies you with. Have a nice life!