Spread the love


by John Charlton

(Nov. 11, 2009) — There is a sort of mental sickness or frenzy, into which those brainwashed for more than a generation have fallen, which mental disease is a certain sort of short-circuiting of the faculty of reason.  It evinces itself whenever the topic of race is discussed; and its symptoms are a violent outburst of insults and denegratory language against those who speak using racial categories.  But being that it is a sort of madness, it spurs behavior which is illogical and irrational, and thus inconsistent.

Take for example, if I say, “Obama is the first Black President.”  I have, in the mind of those so afflicted, said nothing wrong; indeed for these I have praised the man for his achievement, and exalted his race.

However, if I say, “That black man is ruining our country!”, then to this same group, I have uttered an unforgiveable racial slur, and shown myself to be a racist, if I who say this am a white man.  However, if I who say this am a black man, there is nothing racist about it!

This would be comical if it were not real; the sad truth is that this kind of mental sickness affects hundreds of millions throughout those countries targeted by Marxist infiltrators, who aim to bolster minorities to foster social divisions and the breakdown of Western Civilization, which, in all truth, was created by individuals who were regularly identified as “white” men and women, just a generation ago.

But let’s move away from the inane, the stupid, and the Marxist word games and consider some facts of  history and science.

The Historical Basis of Racial Categories

That there exists a notion of “racial categories” is undeniable; in fact it is a truth of history and of Anthropology.

The notion is based on a generalized categorization of human beings by their physical or visual characteristics.

According to the Columbia Encyclopedia (Columbia University Press, 2007):

Attempts have been made to classify humans since the 17th cent., when scholars first began to separate types of flora and fauna. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was the first to divide humanity according to skin color.

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was a pioneer in the application of the categorical analysis being employed by the emerging science of biology to human beings.  That his work would be viewed as unscientific, overly simplistic and often wrong, is not to be unexpected, seeing that modern sciences all began with pioneers who were often right in one regard and wrong in nearly everything else.  Isaac Newton is an example (his theory of gravity was brilliant; his work on Mathematics, Principia Mathematica, likewise; his theories of alchemy, utterly bunk!).

The Encyclopedia Britannica (2009) has this to say about Blumenbach:

German anthropologist, physiologist, and comparative anatomist, frequently called the father of physical anthropology, who proposed one of the earliest classifications of the races of mankind.

He joined the faculty of the University of Göttingen in 1776, publishing Institutiones Physiologicae (1787; Institutes of Physiology) and a handbook of comparative anatomy and physiology (1824). Blumenbach was the first to show the value of comparative anatomy in the study of man’s history. His research in the measurement of craniums led him to divide mankind into five great families—Caucasian, Mongolian, Malayan, Ethiopian, and American. His most important anthropological work was a collection of 60 human craniums described in his Collectionis suae Craniorum Diversarum Gentium Illustratae Decades (1790–1828; “Illustrated Parts of His Collection of Craniums of Various Races”).

Modern racial categories are defined by the U.S. government as follows (according to sheoo.org):

How are the five racial categories defined?

1) American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment.
2) Asian A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
3) Black or African American A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
5) White A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

But as we can see, these categories are scientifically inadequate, because not every human person has both parents who fit the same category.  Hence there are many individuals who are, what is popularly called, “bi-racial” or “multi-racial” in their ancestry and physical appearance.

Obama is not a White man

It is obvious from a consideration of  U.S. government categories, that Obama would not be adequately identified as a white man, since only his mother was white.  Some might call Obama a white man, to markedly distinguish that his mother was white, but this would be a rhetorical exaggeration, as most would agree.

Obama is not a Black man

If we apply the same logical standard for dismissing the charge that “Obama is a white man”, we are forced to likewise admit that “Obama is not a black man”, because only his father, whom he claims, was of an African lineage with black skin.  Yet, on account of the mental sickness or indoctrination, which was discussed at the beginning of this study, we can see that such a statement would be considered by many as “racist,” even though at the same time one would have to objectively admit that they are being irrational in such a charge.

What race is, Obama, then?

In English we normally do not categorize racial mixtures; and so often borrow words from other languages, when we discuss such topics.  Spanish has no such inhibitions and regularly names children whose parents are one each, black and white, “mulattoes”.

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2009) defines “mulatto” thus:

Main Entry: mu·lat·to
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈla-(ˌ)tō, mu̇-, myu̇-, -ˈlä-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mu·lat·toes or mu·lat·tos
Etymology: Spanish mulato, from mulo mule, from Latin mulus
Date: 1593

1 : the first-generation offspring of a black person and a white person
2 : a person of mixed white and black ancestry

It does not, however, indicate that this term in English is considered a racial category. In fact the word’s origin shows that it has nothing to do with race, but rather refers to the cross breeding of horses and donkeys;  because mules, their offspring, give no indication of themselves of an intermediary color to white and black, being of various colors.

However, using the English meaning of the word, should we not, then, say, that “Obama is the first Mulatto President”? — This would be perfectly, consistent, logical, and dictionary approved.

Obama’s race in public estimation

While Google’s search engine has been often criticized for its bias, it can be used to test in an unscientific manner what public opinion holds about a question.

For example, here are the numerical results for searches referring to Obama’s race:

1. “Obama is black” — 5, 590,000 results

2. “Obama is white” — 4,080,000 results

3. “Obama is mulatto” — 92,400 results

4. “Obama is asian” — 44,200 results

5. “Obama is an american indian” — 2 results

6. “Obama is an aborigine” — 0 results

If there is any scientific value to such results, it would have to be interpreted at least in the public perception of a debate on the racial category of the man.

What is strange about these results, is that the Main Stream Media always refer to Obama as a “black” man; but the popular results on Google, show that the public expresses itself just as equally in affirming that he is a “white” man; while only a minority refer to him as a “mulatto” — perhaps on account of the rarity of the use of this term in American English; and others as an “asian”, which might be understood also as a reference to his place of birth.

So, the next time an Obama supporter says you are a racist for opposing “the first Black President,” you can rightly retort that they are a racist for calling him “black;” the correct term is seemingly “mulatto.”

Finally, if Obama is correctly identified as a “mulatto,” when one considers his racial categorization, then it must be logically and dispassionately inferred that he himself is a racist for identifying himself as a “black.”

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. What is really pathetic is that Obama has been portrayed as representing the African-American tradition, which has always been regarding as having its roots in American slavery and as involving a struggle for civil rights for underprivileged people of color.

    Obama has not a drop of African-American blood in his veins and has shared nothing of the heritage of African-American people. He has led a privileged life and was largely raised by his white grandparents. That Obama is credited with being an African-American success story is just another of the great many deceptions he embodies.

    Some who support Obama out of knee-jerk sympathy for his skin color may be doing so on a racist basis. That would seem to be just as irrational as those who oppose Obama because of his skin color.

    What really matters about Obama is not his race but his character, values, leadership ability, and his qualifications for office–in all of which he is sorely lacking.