He's Not Black

"He's Not Black" is a short article written by Marie Arana on being bicultural/biracial. It mostly

discusses the issues that are at hand in our society involving race and how we assume a person is a certain race by looking at the color of the skin(or physical features) or by knowing that someone is part of a specific race and just categorizing them as that one race only.
The article starts off with an example of Obama and how he is part black but not full black and yet people see him as only black. The article starts off with a strong statement by saying bluntly

"He is also half wife. Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black"

The article then transitions into the authors own experience of finding out what she actual is by taking a DNA test. She starts by giving her knowledge before she too the DNA test then her new found knowledge after she takes the DNA test. She uses her own experience and the Latino race to prove that not everyone is just one race.
She goes on to talk about different writers who have written or said things about being biracial. One quote she uses his Langston Hughes where he states:

"I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word 'Negro' is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins....I am brown"

I believe that by using not just her own experience but also those of others is a good way to incorporate evidence to validate her opinion.
She then ends the article by talking about Obama again. Her very last sentence is

"Isn't it time for the language to move on?"

I think the reason she ended the article with this sentence is because she has a vision that maybe one day America will be able to not just assume that a person is just one race, but rather mulitple making them not just black, or just asian, or just white, but actually biracial. I feel this was a good way to end the article because even if you didn't agree with her article it still makes you think. It makes you think about, do you agree with her the language should move on or is the language fine the way it is.
I noticed that when I read it the first time I myself even thought about that last question. I thought of answers in my own head on why I disagree the language shouldn't move on. My reason being if there is not a significant amount of that race in you (like your 1/700 of that race) then what's the point in even addressing it. To me, that is what this paper sounds like. The author sounds like she wants people to address every single race that is within you and if her point is that everyone has a whole bunch of different races in them then why even mention it? Although I don't agree with the paper itself, I do find that the way it was written was good because it got me to think and ask myself questions.