Barack Obama keeps referring to himself as a black man. Indeed he goes out of his way to stress that he is "African American." His parents as well as his friends all called him "Barry" when he was growing up, but Obama insisted on being called by his African given name: Barack. For two decades now he has attended a church which describes itself as authentically"black" and unashamedly "African." If this seems strange when you consider the fact that Obama has one black parent and one white parent, it is.
Obama's racial self-definition is derived from the famous, or infamous, one-drop rule which continues to hold sway in America but nowhere else. In other countries, say the nations of South America or Africa, if you have mixed blood you are considered mixed-race. It would be absurd to call a person who is 50 or even 70 percent white a "black" person. Why then does the United States use this weird rule according to which a single drop (or any visible presence) of blackness makes you automatically "black" and "African American"?
Many people think that the one-drop rule is a product of slavery. Not true. During slavery, the general rule was that slave status passed through the mother. In other words, if a white slave master had sexual relations with a female black slave, the offspring would automatically be considered a slave. By contrast, in the relatively rare case that a black slave produced a child with a free white woman, the offspring would be legally counted as white and therefore free. Obama has a white mother and a black father: in the antebellum South his racial status would pass through his mother.
The one-drop rule was a product of segregation and Jim Crow, not slavery. It developed in the postbellum South as a way to enforce a strict line of demarcation between black and white. Without such a rule an intermediate class of mixed-race mulattoes would make segregation increasingly difficult to enforce. Consequently the Southern ruling class mandated that even a modest trace of African heritage was sufficient to count as "black."
Strangely the one-drop rule has outlived segregation and is today embraced by the very groups the rule was designed to subjugate. Today the NAACP and the Black Caucus live by the one-drop rule, defining as "black" and "African American" anyone who has any discernible evidence of black ancestry. Reading Obama's The Audacity of Hope and his recent speech on race, I see no awareness of these ironies and no attempt to intelligently grapple with them. He is content to maunder about "complexity" and the need to "come together" despite our differences.
The deep question for Obama is not merely "how can America transcend race while continuing to have race-conscious policies?" but also "how can America transcend race as long as the one-drop rule remains intact?" Far from producing answers, Obama shows no recognition that these are even questions that need to be addressed. Meanwhile, Garry Wills in the current New York Review compares Obama's race speech to one of the great speeches of Abraham Lincoln. When I read this on the plane I almost lost my peanuts!
How embarrassing it is to see intellectuals like Wills and sophisticated magazines like the New York Review of Books and the New Republic fawn and grovel over Obama! You can be sure that if a white political candidate mouthed Obama's vague and vacuous nostrums, these liberals would not be issuing such hosannas. In this sense Geraldine Ferraro was right, not so much about Obama as about his white "amen corner." They are giving Obama something he has never asked for as a presidential candidate: intellectual affirmative action.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 37)
31. Obama mama was white, father was black. Mother was Atheist, father was a Muslim.
Since Obama has picked up his race from his father, Black, then he also picks up his religion from his father.
But that logic will keep Obama from getting elected, being a Muslim.
Obama says he is black because of his father, so he is a Muslim because of his father.
Simple
robert okane at 8:50AM on Apr 14th 2008
32. I can see the One-Drop Rule a little bit, but it has been my experience, growing up in Dayton, Ohio, that "Passing Complexion" has more sway, at least among public school kids. Passing complexion means that you look white, or white enough not to obviously be of a non-white ethnic group. I, personally, do NOT have passing complexion, I look Asian.
People don't track your heredity so much as long as you pretty much look like a "white" person, even if you do have parents and grandparents of an obvious ethnic group.
Rev 3:16 at 8:52AM on Apr 14th 2008
33. HE'S JUST MANIPULATING AFRICAN -AMERICANS INTO VOTING FOR HIM. HE SAYS WATHEVER NECESSARY TO WIN THE ELECTION. IT'S THE SAME THAT CHAVEZ DID IN VENEZUELA,COUNTRY IN WHICH RACISM NEVER HAD EXISTED BEFORE. CHAVEZ MADE THEM AWARE OF A HATRED NEVER EXISTED ONLY TO GET THEIR VOTES. AND NOW YOU SEE WHAT HE HAS DONE. I BELIEVE HITLER DID IT ALSO, THE TRICK IS MADE THEM AWARE OF A POSSIBLE SOCIAL RESENTMENT OR INJUSTICE CAUSE EVERYONE HAS ONE OR OTHER, HE KNOWS HOW TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE....I THINK IS HIS ONLY ASSET.
pet at 8:57AM on Apr 14th 2008
34. Chapter One
The Dawn
“The reason why the universe is eternal is that it does not live for itself.
Instead, it gives life to others as it transforms.”
Lao Tzu (600 B.C.) Chinese Taoist Philosopher
Approximately sixty-five million years ago at the beginning of the Paleogene Period, the earth’s landmasses were continuing to break up and move towards their present locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, the continents of Eurasia and North America had already separated from each other and were creating a watery passageway to the North Pole. Along the equator, Africa was rapidly drifting away from South America, thus significantly enlarging the size of the South Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile, a wide variety of coniferous and deciduous trees were growing and prospering in the ice-free Polar Regions, where the temperatures had remained relatively warm. The continents of Australia and Antarctica were still locked together as India was inching its way towards the southern shores of Eurasia. Ultimately, their massive collision would lead to the forming of the Himalayan Mountain ranges.
As the oceans gave rise to an abundance of coral reefs and marine life, the hemispheric currents were slowly changing their course with the shifting of the continents. Incredibly, a multitude of archipelagoes began springing up from the depths of the oceans’ floor as powerful volcanoes exploded and spewed their hot magma and ashes high into the atmosphere. The earth’s fragile climate was generally warm and tropical, thus generating high levels of rainfall that gave sustenance to its diverse plant life.
Within these humid isolated continents an evolutionary explosion or rather a radiation of animal life was just beginning to occur among the dense forests and jungles. Called by many of today’s scientists and scholars as the “Age of Mammals,” the Paleogene Period was also an age of tremendous growth and development for the earth’s birds and marine life. Cranes, hawks, ducks, owls, pelicans, and pigeons began to appear in the open skies as the flowering plants (angiosperms) and the insects that pollinated them continued to multiply. While in the surrounding oceans, the ever-restless sharks had replaced the giant marine reptiles as the top predators of the deep. However just by their sheer numbers and astonishing diversity, it was the mammals that would one day come to dominate the earth’s land surfaces.
Filling the ecological niches left behind by the extinction of the dinosaurs (K-T Boundary Impacts), the once obscure small rodent-like mammals began to flourish in the untamed paradises among the towering trees, thick vines, and dense underbrush. Free to multiply amid an environment of few predators and surrounded by an abundance of food, mammals such as the Periptychus, Dissacus, Pantolambda, Claenodon, and the Psittacotherium existed for millions of years among a bountiful environment of green vegetation and plentiful water without ever having to experience the ecological pressures to adapt.
The overall majority of these warm-blooded creatures weren’t much larger than a modern day weasel. Possessing an elongated furry body, four short legs, and a long narrow snout, they also had a triangular-shaped head with a small brain and a set of oval shaped eyes. As predominately nocturnal animals that fed on insects and a wide range of plants, a number of them lived on the forests’ soggy floor, while many others would maintain their existence by dwelling in the lofty trees.
Born alive (viviparous) and then fed on their mother’s milk, these mammals were extremely resilient and adaptable creatures that over time would thrive in almost every kind of environment. From the frozen tundra of the Arctic regions to the shifting sands of the Sahara Desert, they spend their days either boring into the earth, caring for their offspring, or searching for food. But for the ones in the African rain forests that were fortunate enough to have survived the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a period of extreme global warming (approx. 54 to 55 million years ago), one of their distance descendants would one day rise up from the teeming forests and roam the earth as modern humans.
About thirty million years ago during the Oligocene Epoch, the earth’s climate slowly began to change in unanticipated spurts or waves. With the ascension of the world’s largest mountain ranges (Himalayas, Andes, & Rocky Mountains), which would eventually decrease the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the final separation of the continents of Australia and Antarctica, which would alter the ocean’s southern currents and thus help form the Antarctic ice cap, the earth’s landmasses began to experience a long period of global cooling. Subsequently, the previously giant forests and humid jungles of the tropics would begin to shrink and become surrounded by a sea of golden grasslands.
The expansion and growth of these grasses had a tremendous impact upon our evolution. They not only stabilized the earth’s soil by reducing the effects of erosion, but they would also open up a whole new region for the animals to roam and find nourishment. As a consequence, many of the small mammals began to migrate out of the diminishing deep forests and onto these newly formed grasslands. High in fiber and low in protein, these plants became so abundant over the millenniums that a multitude of hoofed mammals began to multiply in great numbers and eventually form vast herds of grazing herbivores. As predecessors of today’s wildebeests, gazelles, rhinos, giraffes, rhinos, and horses, they had discovered a natural habitat among the ever-expanding prairies. But in response to this remarkable sequence of evolutionary events, a wide range of carnivores, such as the forerunners of the lions, cheetahs, bears, hyenas, and leopards would also appear on the savannas in search of fresh meat, thus helping to establish a new and fully developed eco-system.
Through the processes of natural selection and mutation, this transition of evolving from one species into another species would have taken millions of years. Before they finally became extinct, several of the species that had moved out onto the savannas would eventually grow into incredibly huge and powerful creatures. Besides the domineering presence of the massive Deinotherium (elephant-like) and the Arsinotheres (rhino-like), the Indricotherium was an incredible eighteen feet tall and weighting close to twenty tons.
Yet for the mammals that had stayed behind in the forests, they would also slowly evolve into an assortment of different animals as they adapted to the changing circumstances. These remaining mammals began to diversify into a wide array of new species by filling the vacant niches of those animals that had immigrated out into the savannas. Rodents, porcupines, guinea pigs, a variety of big cats, and of course monkeys would all thrive within an isolated environment that had protected them from the harsh elements.
Towards the beginning of the Miocene Epoch around twenty-four million years ago, the anthropoid apes would spring forth and begin gathering food within the dense tropical rain forests. As a subgroup of the earlier prosimians (primitive primates), which included lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, tree shrews, pottos, and galagos, this new species of primates eventually branched out and developed into a wide variety of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. As robust and comparatively large creatures, they possessed a set of grasping (prehensile) hands and feet, opposable thumbs and toes, a bowed spine, rotating shoulder joints, and stereoscopic vision (depth perception). But besides these unique physical characteristics, they also had a fairly large mammalian brain that consisted of layers of neocortex (gray matter) that made them an extremely shrewd and adaptable species.
It has been surmised by today’s scientists that through the processes of natural selection and multiple mutations, our anthropoid ancestors were able to adapt to the heavily vegetated environment by being able to occupy several different ecological niches that mutually stimulated their distinctive physical and mental abilities. This bilateral stimulation probably occurred as a result of them being forced from the trees and onto the ground in order to look for nourishment. By employing their hands, stereoscopic vision, and their ability to stand erect, they were able to supplement their diets by periodically killing and then consuming the flesh of small animals, which would have coincidently pushed them up the food chain. This new source of protein had not only helped develop their mental capacity, but it also motivated their species to better organize themselves so as to obtain more flesh. Intelligent, aggressive, and group orientated, these extraordinarily restless creatures would stake out their territories and begin laying claim to the forests and jungles.
Unfortunately, we know very little about them. Unlike the more recent Australopithecus (Southern Ape), these anthropoid primates lived exclusively in the dense forests, where fossilization doesn’t readily occur. Hence what information we do have about them has come from the studies of our nearest living relative in the animal kingdom, the chimpanzee.
Up to this point, it isn’t known which of these early anthropoids we actually can call our forefathers and mothers. By using modern genetic techniques, the majority of today’s scientific community now believes that we must have had a common ancestor with the chimpanzee. In fact, the chromosome comparison, between the chimps and ourselves is closer (98% correspondence) than it is with any other creature within the animal kingdom. Yet it still isn’t clear as to which anthropoid we can proclaim as our own. There is ample evidence of several different ancient apes (the Kenyopithecus, Sivapithecus, and the Dryopithecus) existing in between seven to fifteen million years ago. And of course, there is also the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, and the Ardipithecus Ramidus apes that suddenly appeared approximately five to seven million years ago. Since their discoveries, it is believed that they might have been partially erect creatures, and thus possibly one of our ancestors. Although, they are all excellent candidates, there isn’t any direct evidence to indicate that they were a part of our family tree. All that is positively known about our past ascension is that we are related to the chimpanzee and that both of us probably evolved from the same species of anthropoid primate.
Many of today’s scientists and scholars have theorized that our primate ancestors were special types of apes. In that, we started out as creatures quite different from the other apes around us. Some of them believe that we actually came from a group of predominately ultra-violent (killer) apes that had arisen from the shadowy forests of Africa to eventually wreak havoc across the great savannas. While many others believe that we evolved from an extremely intelligent, emotional, and cooperative ape that was eventually forced to become carnivorous in order to survive the open plains.
Then there is another group of researchers that believes our ancestors were actually a combination of the two. In that we were not only instinctively ultra-violent, but that we were also extremely intelligent, emotional, and social creatures.
Without question, all of these very different and distinctive qualities were essential to our evolution. However, it does beg the question as to whether or not our primate ancestors were really all that special? Unbeknownst to the average person, there were several other types of *hominids that also existed
*Besides the Australopithecines, the Kenyanthropus platyops, and the Paranthropus branches, scientists have also discovered the Homo habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. georgicus, H. ergaster, the H. erectus species, (H. e. lantianensis, H. e. palaeojavanicus, H. e. yuanmouensis, H. e. pekinensis, H. e. soloensis), the later day H. cepranensis, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. rhodesiensis, and H. floresiensis species, along with the Homo sapiens species, (H. s. idaltu, and the H. sapiens-sapiens).
long before and even among our own primate ancestors. It is quite possible that many of them were not a part of our family tree. And if this is the case, then our evolution may not have been as drastic or as unique as we would like to assume. Incredibly, we wouldn’t have been the only primates that were forced out of the jungles to eventually become hominids. Until more of their remains are discovered and our DNA can be compared, this controversial question won’t be entirely answered. But whatever the verdict, it would have taken a very aggressive, intelligent, and determined creature to have climbed down from the safety of the trees and altered their eating habits or rather their economy towards a new way of life.
As a result of becoming scavengers and nomads, our primate ancestor’s physical and mental development was strikingly enhanced and even propelled by the change in the way they obtained their sustenance. In the fullness of time, they would become totally erect and mentally superior to the other primates in the forests. Their brains would not only become much larger and more complex as they moved out onto the savannas and became more carnivorous, but their hands would also become so skillful that they would eventually become the creators of symbols, the makers of tools and weapons, and the builders of shelters. But even more significantly, they would have been forced out of pure economic necessity to become increasingly more proficient in their verbal, social, and reasoning skills in order to succeed. Needless to say, the development of these different types of skills would have had a snow ball effect upon our evolution by ultimately enabling our ancestor’s offspring to form other and more productive economies.
Still and all, there are many remaining questions and uncertainties in the scientific and academic communities as to why our species has continued to evolve, while the other primates appear to be locked in time. Other types of apes during the same time period obviously experienced the same environmental changes and yet they have remained physically and mentally the same. Presently, they can be observed all over the world in the zoos and the diminishing forests. So why did our ancestors continue to evolve, while the overwhelming majority of the primates have appeared to remain the same?
Clearly not all of the different species of primates in eastern Africa ventured out of their wooded habitats approximately five to seven million years ago. It was only within the smaller woodlands that various species of primates would find themselves in desperate need to move out onto the savannas, once the climate had begun to change. By their sheer size, the larger woodlands were able to maintain a significant number of primates without disrupting their food chain. Consequently, the primates that had stayed behind in the primordial forests have basically remained the same, because they continued to occupy the same ecological niches as that of their ancestors. Hence, their physical and mental adaptation weren’t stimulated to any great degree by the need to change their eating habits (economy).
Furthermore, the food gathering primates that did venture out of the forests were able to change their eating habits or rather their economy to one of scavenging. In doing so, they abandoned their ancestors’ ecological niches of the forests by becoming even more mobile and carnivorous. However, once they had successfully adapted to scavenging, the environment would begin to change again around two and a half million years ago. In response to these changes, our scavenging descendants would eventually move permanently out onto the savannas to become full time nomads.
Generally speaking, our primate ancestors ended up working their way up to the top of the food chain, while occupying several different ecological niches along the way. Subsequently in the process of changing their economies along with their ecological niches, our ancestors’ were forced to physically, socially, and mentally adapt to living in several different environments in order to survive.
Even though, they became progressively more carnivorous, our primate ancestors’ survival wasn’t based upon which of them was the meanest, the cruelest, or even the most bloodthirsty. Instead, it was based upon which of them were the most adaptable, mobile, organized, and able to reproduce a large number of offspring. Once they had left the forests, their struggle for survival was no longer exclusively based upon the fittest or even the strongest. The rules of the game had unknowingly changed. The primates, who could operate as an efficient cooperative group and were mobile enough to move to greener pastures whenever the need arose, possessed a clear advantage over those that couldn’t.
Essentially, our species’ evolution was initiated by a combination of global events that were directly related to the ever-changing environment. In the absence of any one of these environmental factors, our pre-humanoid ancestors would probably still be living among trees with the chimpanzees. Once the earth’s environment had slowly become cooler and drier, it created a chain reaction of events that would change the face of Africa. Besides the emergence of the various types of grasses on the ever-growing savannas and the eventual appearance of a multitude of gazing mammals, the periodic shrinking of the African forests would drive our ancestors out into the vast savannas in search of food, thus propelling our species into a completely different economy.
But in addition to the changing environment, the physical characteristics of our early ancestors were also very important factors. The possessing of a set of grasping hands and feet, opposable toes and thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a bowed spine would all attribute to our ability to operate on two legs and ultimately free up their hands for other purposes, such as making of tools, shelters, and weapons. Thus without initially possessing these unique physical characteristics, we could have never survived outside the forests, nor could we have become the supreme hunters of world.
And lastly, the inherent mental and social characteristics of our primate ancestors also played a huge role. By nature, they were aggressive, sexually active, creative, curious, and organized, the very traits that would have thrust them onto new horizons. Hence, they were incredibly versatile creatures just waiting for the right circumstances to ignite their adaptation into another species. For better or for worse, they had already evolved into a creature that was totally prepared to forcibly ensure their survival by not only exploiting the other animals around them, but also those of their own species. While possessing the unique qualities needed to change their economy, they were prepared to move on to richer environments and consciously alter their way of life. Undoubtedly, this was an unbeatable and deadly combination for a determined species on the move.
gshort3011 at 9:18AM on Apr 14th 2008
35. robert okane:
How do you know Obama is Muslim? I believe he is a member of the United Church of Christ. You're a little behind the times, my friend. Most of the right-wing fruitcakes moved from "he's a muslim" to he's a "radical black Christian". People are stirred up over the comments of one REVEREND Wright, not Imam Wright.
Btw, how about you go to YouTube and listen to a fuller version of Rev. Wright's speech. I'm not saying I agree with him 100%, but at least get the whole story.
Jacob at 9:20AM on Apr 14th 2008
36. Jacob
Yes, I maybe should have used "was" instead of "is". The is and has been complete denial that Obama was ever Muslim and that was point I was trying to make, he was a Muslim.,
Now to present time. He has two Black Reverends that he has sought spiritual advise from, one being in the church he is a member. Both of these Reverends are anti jew and pro muslim. Rev Wright honored Louis Farrakhan, a Black Muslim, anti Jew, whom Obama knew. Obama's family in Africa has remained Muslim and those friends and press in Indonesia still believe he is Muslim.
So Obama was a Muslim. Is Obama really no longer a Muslim? Did he change to Black Christian Religion for political reasons and chose Rev Wright because he fit that bill and also was pro muslim, anti jew.
robert okane at 9:38AM on Apr 14th 2008
37. Hello, Dinesh,
I do find Obama's oratory quite inspiring and I am pretty sure that he can deliver on his message re: unity. I do find it ironic that you and other neo-cons critique him for his intellectual abilities. This is after y'all pretty much sold the farm to get Bush 2 re-elected, a guy who can't remember how his "fool me once" sentence started, much less write anything intelligible. I mean, what will it mean to have a Bush library? Do you not find that concept amusing? The truth is that any sort of writing skills at all would be a welcome rarity on Penn. Avenue, and I include all recent Democrats in that characterization. Obama might not be another Jefferson, but he would be among the first well-spoken presidents of my entire life.
best,
Michael White
michael white at 9:40AM on Apr 14th 2008
38.
Oak Brain sez:
Obama says he is black because of his father, so he is a Muslim because of his father.
Simple.
No, not at all. The only simple thing here is you. Your ignorance, prejudice, bigotry, etc....all very very simple. Tiny. Petty.
TIM at 9:44AM on Apr 14th 2008
39. The most important thing to remember about Barack Obama is that he is African and American, not African American. The "and" is all important.
Davidg at 9:42AM on Apr 14th 2008
40. All the fears and prejudices that Obama's presence is stirring up in America only proves how we need him. Most attacks against the man are actually attacks on the people he loves. That's what supervillains do. Calling Obama Muslim is like calling the Pope Nazi. Ratzinger was a kid who happened to be forced into the so-called Nazi-youth. Obama had to study Islam as a kid. Big whoop.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:47AM on Apr 14th 2008
41. mo,
would you be defending obama were he white? don't you favor him because of him being a man of color? i hope obama gets the nomination because i think mccain would have an easier time beating him than billary. look at how she's capitalizing on obama's recent rant about bitter issues with voters in pa. yes as time goes on he is getting a little looser with his tongue and he will self-destruct. his bitterness comment will dog him awhile. go obama keep talking!!!!!
brian at 9:59AM on Apr 14th 2008
42. typical left wing tolerance in practice:
Most of the right-wing fruitcakes moved from "he's a muslim" to he's a "radical black Christian".
another fine example of out loving liberal americans who seem intent on destroying our country with their marxist slant. too bad most americans are ill informed of liberals real intent. awful deceptive.
brian at 10:02AM on Apr 14th 2008
43. Yesterday my daughter and I were talking and the subject of Obama's "white side" came up - and why he all but ignores it. It should be all but impossible for Obama to identify with his father, because his father split when he was very young, and had no hand in raising Obama, didn't pay child support, and from all I can tell, didn't send a birthday card or even call the kid. But his white mother stayed on to raise him, and then his white grandmother also raised him and put him through school (yet he comes up with some bs that kennedy's black policies allowed him an education, or something like this, and it was bunk anyway). WHY don't we hear Obama talk about the white family that was there for him the entire time he was growing up? The people who loved him daily, who cared and nurtured him? Why is it this man has ignored his white family in favor of identifying with a father who was basically a deadbeat father? The only time I've heard Obama talk about the white side of his family who raised and supported him and loved him was when he was ragging on his grandmother for admitting that if she was alone and saw a black man she was afraid (this is back in the 60s or early 70s) - not that she hated blacks or blamed blacks for everything wrong with America (as Wright does whites), but that she was "afraid". And somehow, that admission, in Obama's eyes makes her as racist as the shouting and wailing Rev Wright. Some say that they respect that obama didn't kick Wright to the curb - but it was OK to kick his grandmother to the curb? Whatever.
laura at 10:14AM on Apr 14th 2008
44. Denish, how in the hell can you write about this? I get that you are not a supporter of Obama, but to look into the history of what race you are truly concidered to be? You are really reaching. This Gov't for so long has dictated how you claim your race. Now that a certain race has become "mixed", options are given. Try this with the mexican race and go by the medicare guidelines. Hopefully you will get a clue of what race matters in the U.S. of A.
Peni at 10:19AM on Apr 14th 2008
45. First of all DENIECE, screw you! Second, screw you. And...third--oh yeah--screw you again. Like any one needs the approval or opinion of an insignificant racist little bastard like you, about anything. I was done with you when you had the audacity to attempt to tell black people that race in America had "ended." You little punk. Saying behind a computer or in a book what you'd never say to a real black man to his face. Or black woman for that matter! I for one hope Obama doesn't win. I wouldn't wish what's happening to America right now economically, militarily or globally on any black man, least of all a black president. He needs to wait and let what's happening, karma, happen. I'm not sure exactly what YOUR race is, my guess, East Indian. And if that's the case, it explains a lot. East Indian with caucasoid backgrounds, developed a color caste system in India that is remarkably similiar to the slave system set up in America. You actually still have the elitist versus the "untouchables." So someone of this heritage having a fixation on black people and the need to keep us in our place, is not surprising. What you need to get is the tide is turning. No one group stays in power forever. Those on the bottom? Rise to the top. And they tend to remember what it was like and who put them there.
Melaniki at 10:17AM on Apr 14th 2008