M

any of Americans are not unaware that Barack Obama's mother was a white woman from Kansas. Nor do I think that Americans need a wake up call, with the invasive ring tone "Obama is not black!"

Obama's victory is worthy of being referred to as "historical." Moreover, not only is his achievement novel, it is also significant because of the fact that the United States of America is a country wherein just decades ago, the color of one's skin, determines whether one is inferior/superior to another.

The fact is that skin color is salient, and it used to be of consequence in the history of the United States. So when the day came that I saw a man of a color moving beyond the impasse, proving that humanity can progress, my heart was moved.

And forgive me if I rushed and bought newspapers and magazines the morning after the election to get myself a piece of history. I do not think anyone consciously intends to repeat racial stereotypes by referring to Barack Obama as the first "black" president.

Nor do I think that in referring to Barack Obama as such, Martin Luther King's dream is at risk. When King dreamed of a day where "the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood" he did indeed dream of the day where we can see pass the color of our skins into the persons we are?

But how this links to Obama's duty to show his "mixed colors," and his duty to "eliminate racism" by "shedding" the racial identity "assigned" to him, is unclear. Has not Obama's victory demonstrated that the American people has the capacity to look at a candidate beyond his/her skin color - he did win Iowa, a largely Caucasian state, by a large margin?

And as I have said above, I don't think anyone is assigning Obama any racial identity. And if Obama's task is to transcend racial identity, why should he show his "mixed-color"?