I understand your concern. One of my favorite people in the world is a bi-racial girl I grew up with. She was as fun as anybody and kinder than most. I was surprised to see, at our 10 year reunion, that she said she'd never had a boyfriend. I couldn't understand because she was very attractive and a wonderful person. She looked quite white, with an olive skin tone. (I only say this because she didn't look mixed -- whatever that may look like.)

So I wondered, for the first time since meeting her in the 4th grade, if the bi-racial thing was why.

only one question, Why do you speak about one judge and then say "I wanted to believe AMERICA had handled its race problems" This judge may or may not have an issue with blacks, even you say it, yet you drag all of america into it. how is this fair.

Someone educate me - I'm from Australia. Is this 'bi racial' thing only about African Americans and white people, or any other mixing of the so-called 'races'? I'm half English and half Sri Lankan, my kids have that plus Australian thrown in, my sister-in-law is married to an Italian, my brother is Vietnamese (adopted) and married an Australian woman. What do they count as?

The thing about the "bi-racial" category in the U.S. is customarily referring to African-American/White people. This is most likely because in the U.S., there has been the "one drop of blood" concept, that if a person has even "one drop" of African-American ancestry, then that person is considered "Black" or "African-American." This comes from slavery times, when White slave owners would frequently have sex with (mostly unwilling) Black female slaves and children would result. It is suspected that the great abolitionist, Frederick Douglass came from such an encounter. At any rate, the offspring were considered to be "Black" rather than "White" and therefore they were slaves, not free. So it was legally considered that if a person were (I believe it was) one-eighth Black, then that person would be considered "Black" and therefore would be a slave.

Most African-Americans in the U.S. are of mixed ancestry, but they are all considered "African-American." At the same time, there have been taboos against inter-racial couples until relatively recently (and some taboos still exist). Once the taboos (and laws) against inter-racial marriages began to fall, the offspring would frequently be termed "bi-racial" rather than "African-American." Though most bi-racials, including President Obama, are still considered to be African-American; it's as if "bi-racial" is a sub-category of African-American. Though some would consider "bi-racial" to be a separate category.

Even if the term "bi-racial" is normally used within an African-American/White context, there are other bi-racial people. Two of my cousins are of Caucasian-American/Japanese ancestry. One of them talked to me about some of the prejudice she sometimes faced as a mixed-race child growing up in a mostly White community. And she later ran up against more prejudice (fortunately not from her own family) because she is Lesbian.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not going to say that Australia is without it's share of racist attitudes, but the concept of 'race' seems to be quite fixed in the US. Our attitudes are mainly to do with ethnic background and can be traced to the different waves of immigration. For example, once it was the Greeks and Italians who bore the brunt of the insults, but now they are much loved. Then it was the Vietnamese who came after the war, some Eastern Europeans and now people of 'middle eastern' background cop it. I guess the beauty of white Australians is that they are willing to insult anyone, not just restrict it to one 'race'.

As I recall, Australia had some very racist laws. Wasn't there a law that prohibited non-Whites from immigrating to Australia?

Then there was the Australian government's round-up of Aborigines who were considered to be of "mixed-race". Have you seen the film "Rabbit-Proof Fence?" This film is based upon a true account (a book) about about how two Aboriginal girls escaped from this enforced round-up when they were torn away from their families.

Yep. All true unfortunately. Saw the movie which was good. Luckily, official policy has changed but unfortunately individual attitudes take longer.

We get tagged as a racist country, but one nice thing we do is have a 'welcome to country' at the start of official Government functions. It asks people to recognise the original owners of the land (Ngunnawal country is where I live) and to pay respects to their elders, past and present.

First of all, let me say that I am, by any reasonable definition, bi-racial. My mother is of Eastern European Jewish descent, while my father comes from a Western European Protestant background. In many cultures more traditional, both geographically and historically, than the US, they would not have been allowed to marry, or at least would have been ostracized from their families for doing so. The fact that this was not a problem for them is largely a reflection of the fact that neither family was particularly religious.

I can honestly say that I have never suffered any disadvantage for being half Jewish. In fact, I could be fully accepted into any Jewish religious community solely on the basis of the fact that my mother is Jewish. Neither have I felt the slightest resistance from any Christian group with whom I have associated to the fact that my background is "mixed."

I am tempted to say that I did suffer from being brought up without a religion. All I need to do, though, is remind myself of how many people I know who grew up in religious homes who have become completely alienated from their religious backgrounds (much as my grandparents were). I have no doubt that my Christian faith is much stronger due to the fact that I have had to forge it from scratch - or maybe I should say I have had to let God forge it for me - without having to break through the dross of previous misconceptions and bad experiences.

For all of these reasons, it deeply bothers me that there should be any reason to think that being bi-racial could be an issue for anybody. After all, a bi-racial couple can share a faith tradition in ways that my parents could not. The fact that this has even come up is a reflection of the unfortunate fact that many people still apparently consider skin color to be of determining importance in defining somebody's social and personal identity: far more so, in fact, than religion, economic class, or other factors that probably affect that person's prospects for marital happiness and for raising happy children for more deeply.

It seems to me there's only one solution: Let's have more bi-racial couples, until we finally get to the point where this is no longer the case.

When I was at the National Equality March in Washington D.C. I saw plenty of Gay families with children. Many of the Gay/Lesbian families have adopted inter-racially or else will adopt "hard-to-place" children that no one else wants, such as HIV positive children.

Now I'm wondering if I've opened up a whole different can of worms with this comment. There are people who would eagerly accept inter-racial or inter-religious marriages. But they stop at accepting Gay marriages; in these peoples' minds, race/nationality isn't important, however gender is. Which makes me confused, but what would I know? For whatever reasons, for some people, physical gender is important although physical race/color/nationality isn't important. Not really sure why, though I've read the rationalizations. These rationalizations resemble the rationalizations I used to hear and read about inter-racial marriages.

I am openly gay and I don't have a problem with what you wrote. I had a close friend and his male partner adopt a boy that was both African-American and European-American.

I haven't corresponded with them in quite a few years; but, they did send me a photo of the three of them. The boy was very handsome and perfect shade of "cafe au lait" in my opinion.

They adopted the boy after I moved back to Tulsa, Oklahoma from North Hollywood, CA.

I’m a little confused. This “grain of truth” in the judge’s concerns- Is it that biracial children often face unique stresses and pressures in addition to the ones we all face growing up? If so, …you just now started to think about it? Seems odd to me, but then- maybe I’ve thought about it more than most because I’m in an interracial marriage. Or is the “grain of truth” to be found in his opinion that biracial children are better off not existing because they potentially face this stress and pressure? If that’s the case, it completely changes things. But I won’t subject you to how I feel about that if it’s not what you meant.

Also, I couldn’t help but notice that the judge isn’t the only one showing a preference for things to be presented as either black or white: How can America still have a race problem when it elected a biracial President? How can one judge still make an issue of race, when America has handled its race problem? (Shocking.) How can biracial people face a lack of acceptance when some biracial individuals "don’t seem to have suffered at all, but have prospered instead?"

Things aren’t always conveniently One or The Other. I bet all the folks you mentioned could tell stories of how they’ve personally been hurt at times by others’ attitudes and actions. It’s not a question of whether they’ve suffered OR succeeded. They’ve done both. It’s such an odd statement in the first place, it suggests that they “don’t seem to have suffered at all, but have prospered instead” due to being biracial. I doubt that their success is due to their biraciality, hopefully it has more to do with being smart, talented, in some cases beautiful, and having worked really hard to get where they are.

Everything isn’t always Either/Or. Sometimes it’s a bit of both. Hey, kinda like some people are. Why is that so terribly inconvenient for our minds to grasp?

While I do often select, "Native American" as my ethnic group on questionnaire forms, I could claim to be tri-racial, since I also have European and Jewish ancestry in addition to my Cherokee Ancestry.

Although my English ancestor, Edward Doty, came over on the Mayflower, the US Government doesn't issue documents that I can carry in my wallet to prove that. But, I have a card issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs stating that I have Cherokee Blood and I also have a card from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that has my membership roll number on it.

When it comes to people, in my opinion, there is only one race, the human race.

I would suggest that there is an original sin in the cultures which seems to have originated in NW Europe including the UK. This is the concept that unless a child was born from a recognized marriage union, that child did not have any significant inheritance both as a member of the usually father’s family, or obligations to that family.

Consequently, a child sired by the owner of a slave women, could be regarded as non family and sold on.

This attitude also extended to children born out of wedlock, and hence some of the historical demand for abortion as such children had a very poor future, and the attitude to their mothers were and are (?) stigmatised.

At least the children of extended Chinese families, ie from concubines etc, were and still probably are, regarded as family with some rights and privileges including preferential acceptance into the family business where provided they have the ability, are highly trusted, as the are ‘family’. Outsiders will not be easily included into he core of the family business.

While I have focused on the issue of who is ‘family’. I feel that this attitude is equally applied to any outsider, so that the other has not significance at all. Bit harsh, but how else does one explain institutionalized or cultural discrimination of any form. ‘Not one of us, so have no obligations, tough!”

Time to question attitudes and challenge these concepts, uncomfortable they may be. These are cultural concepts which should be seen as inconsistent with the basic message of Christianity.

Time for a bit of constructive deconstruction.

I am in the midst of teaching my bi-racial children the social categories of 'black' and 'white'. It saddens my heart to see them journey from a free and open acceptance of their lives to taking on the weight of history and constraining language. "Sweetie, you are no longer just you--now you are black--and white--and mixed--and Blackfoot--and
English--and Swedish--and Norwegian; and adopted child--we don't know who the father was--rumor has it he was black. So now in this black and white city--you must know you are black--and white--and neither. Let me explain to you why what is so meaningless is so important...........(Long silence)"

Some very interesting viewpoints here. from people of all kinds of heritages and situations. What the judge doesn't seem to get is that children of all kinds of families experience stresses. Whether it is a problem or not depends on how good the parents are at parenting.

Personally I don't know anyone that didn't have problems grrowing up, even the ones who seemed to come right of a Leave-it-to-Beaver home. And racial "purity" certainly is no indicator of
a blissful childhood. My family is as pure as it gets, both sides from the same part of the Old Country. You could write a steamey mini-series on the dysfuntions in just one generation.

As others have pointed out, our attitudes toward family and children have changed over the last few decades and those attitudes are still evolving. It was less than a hundred years ago that children were deemed property under the law, as were wives.Laws regarding inheritance and property rights reflected what we now consider to be very archaic views. Perhaps this incident will get people thinking a little more about acceptance and how silly some of the old ways really were and how silly it is to hang on to ignorant old habits.

Despite all of the racial progress that has been realized over my lifetime, there still exists men like this judge with an antiquated view of equality. One wonders, for example, whether his concern extends to couples from vastly different economic backgrounds or to large age differences.

But his refusal to marry this couple could be the result of his conditioning as a Bible literalist in fundamentalist churches. Because I myself heard that teaching, I will briefly relate them here.

The first theory is that God divided the races at the Tower of Babel and those who were determined to build a tower that stretched all the way to heaven suddenly looked around and discovered that some of their fellow-workers were Black, some were Chinese, etc. The second theory is that Blackness is literally the "Curse of Ham."

Though I reject both of these, it becomes easier to understand how someone who embraces either of these theories could arrive at the decision of this judge.

this race issue keeps coming up for some reason. if we are christians it saved or unsaved. If we are in america its I am an american. Obama was in the black KKK (black liberal theology)for 20 years and not a word from any of you. if it was the other way around it would be completly different. Thats funny and sad.

its neither funny nor sad. theres no such thing as the black KKK.

Obama was not in a "black KKK" and I don't see how this is relevant except to change the subject, which is that despite what people like to think, racism still exists in America.

And incidentally, if you're talking about Jeremiah Wright, I assume you're doing so as a white man. Guess what, I'm a white man, too, and it just does not bother me. So why do you have a problem with it and I don't? Toughen up and stop whining.

the reason i bring it up is that she is speaking about a race issue. seeing how the black liberal theology is rather racist, it is merely the kkk idealogy backwords, i thought it should be an issue with obama. I never said obama was in a black KKK i said that reverend wright and his ideology is the same thing just in the color black. Since obama was in this church for 20 years and he said wright was is mentor I thought it would and should be an issue. I also did not say race wasnt an issue, though it certainly is as big a one as it is being spouted recently, that is all polotics, and slander to avoid discussions. also, why did my post get deleated, and where do you go to see why, do we not get a warning or reguest too at least change the wording if it offends someone. And why would it matter one way or the other if i am white or not, such a comment is a bit racist isnt it, at least to the moments standards. your insistance on ignoring it is wrong. Like i said if it was the other way around it would be different.

Just like it's an issue how sad Obama was over some of the Rev. Wright's statements, how often he spoke against them, how he tried to make good out of the bad by making one of the finest speeches on race seen in this country in the last generation, and how he ultimately completely disassociated from the Rev. Wright because of the Reverend's statements?

Or are you picking and choosing which things you feel should be an issue?

well when your there 20 years I doubt you disagree a whole lot. He said at first he would never disassociate himself. He was like a brother, he was his MENTOR, kind of odd to say if you dont like what he says. And as soon as his rev. became more of an issue then he wanted , only then did he disassociate himself from him. Well it would be politicoly prudent to make such a speech when your exsposed to being in such a type church. Would you think the same way if a white man was in the KKK for 20 years and only left AFTER it became an issue. SO no I dont make issue AFTER THE FACTS. I think you might being doing this. Nothing rev wright said was an issue for obama untill AFTER it was exposed, true or false.

Peter from MI

Just a sentence of (friendly) advice. Some entries do not merit responses and we dignify them only when we respond (not referring to any specific blog).