Obama finally proves he’s not an African-American

So after all, Obama proves me right, by releasing the only hope left to prove that he is an African-American. Now that we are all relaxed and have some downtime to gather our minds back to reality, we can concentrate on the the term African-American and all the misinterpretation and all the hype created before and after Obama was elected president of the united States of America. He was born in Hawaii and is now considered to be “American.” I cannot say that I am American because I was born in Cuba and makes me Cuban-American. And with this recent news about Obama, we finally find out that Obama is just an American.  It should also be noted and changed on all the history books that Obama is NOT the first African-American to be elected as president of the United States of America. Here’s a Google Search link that shows all the results for “ Obama is the first African-American president in the history of the United States of America.” Even the White House official website should fix this paragraph:

He went on to attend law school, where he became the first African—American president of the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he returned to Chicago to help lead a voter registration drive, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and remain active in his community….Read More

But then again, he is also the first Black President ever in the history of the USA. Which means that if there were, let’s say, a black skinned man or woman who’s parents were born in India but he or she was born here in America and were running for president, let’s say, the upcoming 2012 presidential election and won, then he or she would considered to be the “Second Black American President” ever in the history of the United States. This proves nothing or does it?  It all depends how much one would go outside of the box to prove to themselves what is more important when voting for any candidate running for office. It also proves how much out of touch and misinformed most people are with the term “Race.” We as Americans should take some time to learn more of the exact definition of the word Race and not the term “Race.” Now, we are getting somewhere or are we?

Traditionally, Race was chiefly determined by physical characteristics. Facial features, skin pigmentation, head shapes and hair texture:

Race, one of the group of populations regarded as constituting humanity. The differences that have historically determined the classification into races are predominantly physical aspects of appearance that are generally hereditary. Genetically a race may be defined as a group with gene frequencies differing from those of the other groups in the human species (see heredity
; genetics
; gene
), but the genes responsible for the hereditary differences between the traditional races are extremely few when compared with the vast number of genes common to all human beings regardless of the race to which they belong. Many physical anthropologists now believe that, because there is as much genetic variation among the members of any given race as there is between the groups identified as different races, the concept of race is unscientific and unsound and racial categories are arbitrary designations. The term race is inappropriate when applied to national, religious, geographic, linguistic, or ethnic groups, nor can the physical appearances associated with race be equated with mental characteristics, such as intelligence, personality, or character.

All human groups belong to the same species (Homo sapiens) and are mutually fertile. Races arose as a result of mutation
, selection, and adaptational changes in human populations. The nature of genetic variation in human beings indicates there has been a common evolution for all races and that racial differentiation occurred relatively late in the history of Homo sapiens. Theories postulating the very early emergence of racial differentiation have been advanced (e.g., C. S. Coon
, The Origin of Races, 1962), but they are now scientifically discredited.

Attempts at Classification

To classify humans on the basis of physical traits is difficult, for the coexistence of races through conquests, invasions, migrations, and mass deportations has produced a heterogeneous world population. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose, most anthropologists historically agreed on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid.

The Caucasoid, found in Europe, N Africa, and the Middle East to N India, is characterized as pale reddish white to olive brown in skin color, of medium to tall stature, with a long or broad head form. The hair is light blond to dark brown in color, of a fine texture, and straight or wavy. The color of the eyes is light blue to dark brown and the nose bridge is usually high.

The Mongoloid race, including most peoples of E Asia and the indigenous peoples of the Americas, has been described as saffron to yellow or reddish brown in skin color, of medium stature, with a broad head form. The hair is dark, straight, and coarse; body hair is sparse. The eyes are black to dark brown. The epicanthic fold, imparting an almond shape to the eye, is common, and the nose bridge is usually low or medium.

The Negroid race is characterized by brown to brown-black skin, usually a long head form, varying stature, and thick, everted lips. The hair is dark and coarse, usually kinky. The eyes are dark, the nose bridge low, and the nostrils broad. To the Negroid race belong the peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia.

Each of these broad groups can be divided into subgroups. General agreement is lacking as to the classification of such people as the aborigines of Australia, the Dravidian people of S India, the Polynesians, and the Ainu of N Japan within the traditional three race system. These exceptions highlight the problems associated with attempting to classify humanity into races and also challenge the validity of the notion of race when applied to human beings…..Read More

But there are other factors that change the traditional, this interesting article is very helpful:

Confusions About Human Races

By R.C. Lewontin

Published on: Jun 07, 2006

R.C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University, has written a number of books and articles on evolution and human variation, including Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA and The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment

Over the last thirty five years a major change has taken place in our biological understanding of the concept of human “race,” largely as a consequence of an immense increase in our knowledge of human genetics. As a biological rather than a social construct, “race” has ceased to be seen as a fundamental reality characterizing the human species. Nevertheless, there appear from time to time claims that racial categories represent not arbitrary socially and historically defined groups but objective biological divisions based on genetic differences. The most recent widely noticed rebirth of such claims is an essay by Armand Marie Leroi on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times (March 14, 2005), an essay that illustrates both the classical confusions about the reality of racial categories and the more recent erroneous conclusions about the relevance of such racial identifications for medical practice.

There are four facts about human variation upon which there is universal agreement. First, the human species as a whole has immense genetic variation from individual to individual. Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants.

Second, by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese. There is diversity from population to population in how much genetic variation each contains, depending upon how much immigration into the population has occurred from a variety of other groups and also on the size of the population. The United States, with a very large population whose ancestors came from all over the earth including the original inhabitants of the New World, is genetically very variable whereas small populations of local Amazonian tribes are less genetically variable, although they are by no means genetically uniform. Despite the differences in amount of genetic variation within local populations, the finding that on the average 85% of all human genetic variation is within local populations has been a remarkably consistent result of independent studies carried out over twenty-five years using data from both proteins and DNA.

Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans. The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape. This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them? Are the Lapps of Finland and the Hazari of Afghanistan really Europeans or Asians? What about Indonesians and Melanesians? Different biologists have made different assignments and the number of “races” assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from 3 to 30.

Third, a small number of genetic traits, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape (traits for which the genes have not actually been identified) and a relatively few proteins like the Rh blood type, vary together so that many populations with very dark skin color will also have dark tightly curled hair, broad noses and a high frequency of the Rh blood type R0. Those who, like Leroi, argue for the objective reality of racial divisions claim that when such covariation is taken into account, clear-cut racial divisions will appear and that these divisions will correspond largely to the classical division of the world into Whites, Blacks, Yellows, Reds and Browns. It is indeed possible to combine the information from covarying traits into weighted averages that take account of the traits’ covariation (technically known as “principal components” of variation). When this has been done, however, the results have not borne out the claims for racial divisions. The geographical maps of principal component values constructed by Cavalli, Menozzi and Piazza in their famous The History and Geography of Human Genes show continuous variation over the whole world with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans! Thus, the classically defined races do not appear from an unprejudiced description of human variation. Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group.

A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental “races” can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are “maximally informative” about group differences. Thus, they tell us what we already knew about the differences between populations of the classical “races” from skin color, face shape, and hair form. They have the added advantage of allowing us to make good estimates of the amount of intermixture that has occurred between populations as a result of migrations and conquests…..Read More

So here we have it. A much better understanding of the human race, how it is determined and the ever growing complexity behind it all. Attempting to determine and classifying a person’s race is becoming almost impossible. And all because of the political and economical migrating occurring from continent to continent. Not only do find out more about races but we learn more about the term race here in America and how it is misinterpreted.

Nowhere was the term “Race” used or better said misused, more than in the 2008 presidential election. The headlines of the “The First African-American” president and “The First Black American President” in the history of the United States. It was an completely false and was the reason why Obama was elected president. The American people in general, fell into the trap of the “Race Card” and the Obama campaign managers really milked it. This irresponsibility of creating a racial divide worked just great, as they were able to praise the poor but at the same time, make them feel degraded and unimportant. That’s when the slogan “Hope” and “Change” came into play. They created a mood of self-conscience incapability within the so-called Black and/or African-Americans. They worked hard on this “concept” of African-American and Black Americans directly and coupled it together with the “guilty” self-conscience concept of the so-called non-African and non-Black Americans. They made everyone guilty of each other and gave them the solution, Obama. He was their “savior.” Meanwhile, Obama’s inexperience was thrown to the side and discarded. A man with no experience at all, in charge of the United States of America in control of a Liberal-Leftist congress with radical Socialist ideals.

So Now, almost three years into the “Obama Administration” we have the release of the “official” birth certificate of Obama which shows him being born in America. Finally proving that Obama is an “American” and not an “African-American” and obviously not a “Black-American.” The ones who voted for Obama because of this were fooled by the “Race Card” agenda created by the Obama campaign and never took the opportunity to analyze the candidates. Now, almost three years into the “Obama Administration” they realize that it’s all politics and they were fooled again. It was all a big “Hoax.”