Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists The horrid face of a Racist Republican Party that threatens America

Writers choose their words carefully, and I have a thing about words as well, so I noticed that Doug refers to the Veep as a woman of color, and to President Obama as a man of mixed. race.

Honest question here, no trap - is there a difference between those two phrases, or was Doug simply trying to avoid repetition?

I ask because I haven’t heard “mixed race” in a long time.

That's odd because there are so many mixed-race people these days and almost all identify as people of color. I don't think Harris identifies as Black, even though others might see her that way.

Obama on the other hand seems to identify as Black even though he is mixed and raised mostly by his white family.

In the greater scheme of things, it makes less and less difference every year as the stigma around inter-racial breeding/fraternizing has mostly gone away. As time goes on there will be less and less need to define folks by race as well as by name.

I agree that the actuality becomes less and less of an issue. I also know that a large number of American black people have white and/or Native American family history, so “mixed” ( a phrase I admit rankles me a little bit) is the norm.

The stigma, however, continues to be of real importance as Americans struggle with our language and our history. Things are going to be prickly for a while as we all come to terms.

We are a "mixed race" society, and always have been. Unfortunately, there have also always been those who see "race" as a distinguishing characteristic of humanity. It is a social construct, usually with an economic/political effect/purpose.

In the past, "racists" were not specifically associated with a particular party or platform. Ironically, that changed with the advent of the Republican party. At that time, Republicans were the champions of racial equality, and Democrats were (generally) the ones resisting that change. That condition prevailed well into the 20th Century - Woodrow Wilson was one of the most overt about it, but there were members on both sides of the aisle that took either view on the issues of race and equality.

It was the advent of the the Civil Rights movement of the 60s that changed the matrix. As a result, the racists were concentrated into one party. By the time Nixon ran, the consolidation was complete. Over the intervening years, we progressed from the soft racism of Reagan (and boy was he bigoted), to the overt racism of Trump, but the underlying policy was the same, as Doug points out.

Trump, though, released the bigotry and made it acceptable, rather than talked about in low voices. Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham just blast it out without constraint.

We're all mixed! I have no idea how to describe "race" anyway, although I'm about as "European" as one might find - yet, I have, according to DNA testing, about 1% "Cameroon/Bantu" DNA. I guess I've been "passing" all of my life...

What is good about "mixed" descriptor is that it is ambiguous. I like that ambiguity. I think it presages the obsolescence of the concept of "race" altogether.

There is another way to talk about Indians (feather). I had a stepmother who insisted that there were a lot of bands of Indians who looked just like White People. Her feeling was that these people may think they were Indians, and their band/tribe thinks they are Indians they are really white people!

I always thought that was kinda interesting. I can also remember a time when there were people of color passing as white people as well. So, when one takes it all in, and makes a judgement on race based on how a person looks one can only wonder. Is, for instance, a black person who looks white really black or are they white?

I should add that I literally don't give a damn when it comes to somebody's skin color. Seems to be a complete and utter waste of time to me. On the other hand, folks that are concerned about it all are dealing with some pretty tricky stuff. I may have told this but, my son (going on 60 years old) told me that I taught him to treat everybody with different skin color the same (just like anybody else). He does but, now, when he does he has had black people insisting that he treat them as whatever their skin color is. I told him to just keep treating them like everybody else and they can deal with it. I think my problem is that I haven't ever figured out what the hell everybody is so upset about. If somebody doesn't want to hurt me or mine I, literally, don't care what their skin color, religion, or the size of their nose is. Never has made any sense to me.

Gentlemen: pardon me but - my question ain’t about you.

It isn’t about you genetic makeup, it’ isn’t about how you treat people who are different from you. It isn’t about you at all.

It’s about the phrases “woman of color” and “man of mixed race,” whether they are equal or different, and if they are different, why or how.

It ain’t about you. It’s about th3 Veep and the Presidentand what they are called.

With respect, that is what I was responding to. It's why I said "What is good about "mixed" descriptor is that it is ambiguous. I like that ambiguity. I think it presages the obsolescence of the concept of "race" altogether."

But you are not alone in this dilemma: The Kamala Harris identity debate shows how America still struggles to talk about multiracial people Identity is complicated, and she shouldn’t have to choose just one. (Vox) "For multiracial people, defining their racial identity in America can be a complex and fraught issue because of other people’s assumptions and expectations. And what the energy expended on debating Harris’s identity tells us is that we still have a long way to go when it comes to talking about multiracial people in America."

I would never insult anyone for their heritage. Indeed, I'm quite sensitive to others' preferences about themselves. I usually ask what they prefer, whether it is a racial, gender, heritage or any other preference (as an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, it is an absolute necessity). It is a particularly salient topic in the Latinx/Hispanic community as well. In this case, the particular descriptors Doug used in his commentary were also explicitly used by those two individuals in their descriptions of themselves, so I personally wouldn't sweat it.

Although I prefer the "bi- or multi-racial" approach, as less pejorative in connotation, this is a fairly new issue "The 2000 Census was the first time the government provided mixed-race Americans the opportunity to claim all aspects of their heritage. That year, only 2.4 percent of the population checked multiple boxes, but in California (true to its bell-weather status), 4.7 percent of the total population embraced their mixed racial heritage. More remarkable in that data was the finding that among children under age five in California, 8.4 percent were multi-racial." Mixed Like Me: Obama’s Speech Hits Mixed-Race ChordMixed (American Progress)

In our not-so-distant history (my lifetime), literal segregation by arbitrary racial designation was still legal, so I'd be particularly mindful of which aspects of an individual's heritage they prefer to accentuate.

To answer the question then, no, I don't think the terms are different. If they are rearranged in the other order. a man of color and a woman of mixed race it works just as well.

Sorry; my hands aren’t working so a response is taking awhile.

Here’s what I don’t like about “mixed race.”
* White people are generally not referred to as “mixed race.” I am Scottish, Irish, and Bohemian, but no one has ever referred to me as “mixed.”
* Use of the word “race” to describe a person will put you on generally very sticky ground, as races do not exist scientifically and a permanent definition doesn’t seem to be generally achieved.
* I read both links, and did not see the phrase mixed race used by anyone but the author.

One last note (sorry, I had a new dental crown today) - if you want to refer to Native Americans, I suggest you toss the “Indian (feather)” approach.