To whom?

Okay, well let's take a different tack: why is it important?

I guess because a lot of people have co-opted his blackness for their own purposes and to his credit he has generally resisted. But yet I rarely hear of him refered to as half-black, multi-racial would be more accurate. By rarely identifying the other part of his background he ignores it, with the rare exception of pandering to to the crowd when required. Again, to his credit he has done a good job of generally staying out of it, with a few exceptions.

In this context, race doesn't have a scientific definition; only a societal one. The definition of who is black is a legacy of our racist past, and generally means, as mentioned in post four, having any known black ancestors. Otherwise, the concept of "passing" as white would be meaningless.

I'm not sure that a move to "biracial" is necessarily any better. Is the black parent black by historical definition, the child is biracial, and from then on any decendants they have are biracial by the same rule with a new label that labeled their parent black? Is that better?

Not really better. Because it contributes to the notion of the "One Drop Rule". And I can't support that.

I suspect it's a lot simpler than that. He has met the world, and the world met him as a 'black' man because that is what he looks like, if we accept the general usage of the word 'black' to describe people who appear to be of African descent.

There is also a wider sense in which anybody who is not white, is met by the world as black.

That's identity level stuff. I say let the man figure out his own identity. It's one of the things people from a multi racial background have to get to grips with in a way the rest of us simply do not.

Yes, I'm still having trouble coming to grips with the Irish in me. :rolleyes:

He does not have that choice anymore. He became President of the United States.

That is why we call your people IA's and give you extra special treatment for the great care you got in the work houses of Boston.:3eye:

I know. Which ...as a black man was one hell of a forward step.

Which brings us full circle, is he black or half-black?

And again: it isnt that simple. 'Black' isn't actually an accurate description for anybody. But as we know it is far more then a simple visual description.

According to my understanding of the term 'black' when applied to people, Obama looks like a black man to me. And that's the thing about looking black: the one thing it absolutely means is that you don't look white. he could stand there and say he is a white man: and nobody wuold see a white man. He can stand there and say he is a black man: and his appearance matches that. To say he is half-black carries with it the idea that he is half white: but it doesn't work like that. Never has.

Fair enough. If he would make an attempt to say that he is half white I think it would go a long way in bringing much of our country together on the issue of race. The thing is he rarely says it.

*nods* I can see how a more open recognition of that dual heritage might be a good thing.

Use a little less lube next time.