"Can the Black man change his skin,
or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."
— Jeremiah 13:23
No, but a Tiger can become a mixed race multi-millionaire and schmooze with The Speaker of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, a grandmother of six. Pelosi was born Nancy D'Alesandro to Italian-American parents in Baltimore, Maryland.[1] The youngest of six children.
Pelosi voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in May of 2001, which instituted testing to track students' progress and authorized an increase in overall education spending.

Tiger was born Eldrick Woods in Cypress, California, he was nicknamed “Tiger”. Woods became generally known by that name and by the time he had achieved national prominence in junior and amateur golf was simply known as "Tiger Woods."
He affably refers to his ethnic make-up as Cablinasian (a portmanteau of Caucasian, Black, American-Indian, and Asian), a term he coined himself.

Woods' father, Earl Woods, was a Vietnam War veteran and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and was of mixed African American (50 percent), Chinese (25 percent) and Native American (25 percent) ancestry. He was the chairman of his son's charitable foundation (the Tiger Woods Foundation) before his death at age 74 on May 3, 2006, following a lengthy battle with prostate cancer (see section Charity and youth projects below). Woods' mother, Kultida Woods, is originally from Thailand, and is of mixed Thai (50 percent), Chinese (25 percent), and Dutch (25 percent) ancestry. This makes Woods himself one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.[4]

The One-Drop Rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry (however small or invisible) can not be considered white. He is Black.

The One-Drop Rule, invented and imposed by white racists until the middle of the 20th century. As with so many other areas of ethno-racial relations, African Americans turned this racist doctrine to their own ends. What to racist whites was a stain of impurity became a badge of pride. More significantly, what for whites was a means of exclusion was transformed by blacks into a glorious principle of inclusion. The absurdity of defining someone as black who to all appearances was white was turned on its head by blacks who used the one-drop rule to enlarge both the black group and its leadership with light-skinned persons who, elsewhere in the Americas, would never dream of identifying with blacks
Despite the One-Drop Rule being illegal (ever since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 overturned the Virginia Racial Integrity Act), as recently as 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ODR by refusing to hear a case against Louisiana’s "racial" classification criteria as applied to Susie Phipps (479 U.S. 1002). In addition, several authors and journalists have found it very profitable to "out" as black famous historical mulattoes and whites, who were regarded as white in their society, who self-identified as such, and who were culturally European-American, merely because they acknowledged having (often slight) African ancestry (Anatole Boyard, Patrick Francis Healy, Michael Morris Healy, Jr., Sir Peter Ustinov, Calvin Clark Davis, John James Audubon, Mother Henriette Delille — a Louisiana Creole).
UNIQUENESS OF THE ONE-DROP RULE.
Not only does the One-Drop Rule apply to no other group than American Blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."
The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in other countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid ancestry with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize that "passing" is much more a social phenomenon than a biological one, reflecting the nation's unique definition of what makes a person black. The concept of "passing" rests on the one-drop rule and on folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on biological or historical fact.
The black experience with passing as white in the United States contrasts with the experience of other ethnic minorities that have features that are clearly non-caucasoid. The concept of passing applies only to blacks--consistent with the nation's unique definition of the group. A person who is one-fourth or less American Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so the minority ancestry need not be hidden. It is often suggested that the key reason for this is that the physical differences between these other groups and whites are less pronounced than the physical differences between AfricanBblacks and whites, and therefore are less threatening to whites. However, keep in mind that the one-drop rule and anxiety about passing originated during slavery and later received powerful reinforcement under the Jim Crow system.
For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation promotes assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and discrimination during two or more generations of racial mixing. As noted above, when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the help of close personal relationships in the dominant community, intermarriage, and ultimately full cultural and social assimilation. Young people tend to marry people they meet in the same informal social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid minorities other than blacks in the United States, this entire route to full assimilation is slow but possible.
For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also factors.
It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the definition of "Negro" (now black) spread and became the nation's social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.
The One-Drop Rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States by whites and Blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken "judicial notice" of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for persons with both Indian and Black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that this definition of Blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group in a similar way. . . .
We must first distinguish racial traits from cultural traits, since they are so often confused with each other. As defined in physical anthropology and biology, races are categories of human beings based on average differences in physical traits that are transmitted by the genes not by blood. Culture is a shared pattern of behavior and beliefs that are learned and transmitted through social communication. An ethnic group is a group with a sense of cultural identity, such as Czech or Jewish Americans, but it may also be a racially distinctive group. A group that is racially distinctive in society may be an ethnic group as well, but not necessarily. Although racially mixed, most blacks in the United States are physically distinguishable from whites, but they are also an ethnic group because of the distinctive culture they have developed within the general American framework.

The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) refers to reform movements in the United States aimed at abolishing racial discrimination of African Americans.
President John F. Kennedy's record of voting on issues of racial discrimination had been, during the years preceding his election to the presidency, scant at best. Kennedy openly confessed to his closest advisors that during the first months of his presidency his knowledge of the civil rights movement was "lacking".

Although it has become common place to assert the phrase "The Kennedy Administration" or even, "President Kennedy" when discussing the legislative and executive support of the Civil Rights movement, between 1960 and 1963, a great many of the initiatives which occurred during President Kennedy's tenure were as a result of the passion and determination of an emboldened Robert Kennedy, who through his rapid education in the realities of racism, underwent a thorough conversion of purpose as Attorney-General.
From squaring off against Governor George Wallace to "tearing into" Vice-President Johnson (for failing to desegregate areas of the administration) to threatening corrupt white Southern judges with disbarment, to desegregating interstate transport, Robert Kennedy came to be consumed by the Civil Rights movement to such an extent that he was to carry it forward into his own bid for the Presidency in 1968. On the night of Governor Wallace's capitulation, President Kennedy gave an address to the nation which marked the changing tide, an address which was to become a landmark for the change in political policy which ensued. In it President Kennedy spoke of the need to act decisively and to act now:
"We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes? Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them."

Assassination was to cut short the life and careers of both of the Kennedy brothers and that of Martin Luther King, Jr. But not before the essential groundwork of the Civil Rights Act 1964 had been initiated, and a greater sense of the dire need for political and administrative reform had been driven home on Capitol Hill by the combined efforts of the Kennedy administration together with Dr King.
After the Assassination of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy undertook a 1966 tour of South Africa in which he championed the cause of the anti-Apartheid movement.



Throughout the Civil Rights Movement, many acts were signed into legislation guaranteeing equality for black citizens. Enforcement of these acts, especially in Northern cities was another issue altogether. After World War II, more than half of the country's black population lived in Northern and Western cities rather than Southern rural areas. Coming to these cities for better job opportunities and a lack of legal segregation, blacks often did not receive the lifestyle that they had come for.
While blacks were free from segregation and terror at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, other problems often presided. Urban black neighborhoods were in fact amongst the worst and poorest in any major city. These neighborhoods were ghettos rampant with unemployment and crime. Blacks rarely owned any neighborhood stores or businesses, and often worked menial or blue-collar jobs for a fraction of the pay that their white co-workers received. Blacks often made only enough money to live in the most dilapidated housing or public housing. Blacks often also were eligible for welfare, being unable to find a well paying job. The use of illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin was out of control in black neighborhoods before large-scale numbers of whites ever began experimenting with them.





Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail," is one of the great political declarations of the 20th century.
King, a Baptist minister, looked for inspiration not only to the Founding Fathers, but also to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Roman Catholic saints whom he believed embraced the same understanding of the law the Founding Fathers did.
"I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all,'" wrote King. "Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
King argued, as did our Founders, that men have a moral obligation to obey just laws and to resist unjust laws. Quite plainly, the racist laws of Alabama and other states in the decades preceding the civil rights movement violated the God-given rights of black Americans, and needed to be resisted.
In the four decades since the Selma march, many liberals have abandoned the belief that a just law is a law that is consistent with God's law.
I unabashedly affirmed that this moral principle was rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage, which they insisted formed the foundation of American democracy.
"One day, the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," King said in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail."
















Civil Rights Movement in America 1955 to 1968.

Two States to Issue Apology for Slavery.



Both chambers of the Commonwealth of Virginia's General Assembly passed a resolution in February 2007 saying government-sanctioned slavery "ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation's history; and . . . the abolition of slavery was followed by . . . systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding." The General Assembly also expressed regret for the "exploitation of Native Americans."
The state at the hub of U.S. slave trade is first to say sorry.
VIRGINIA, ONE of the American states most closely associated with slavery has become the first in the US to issue a formal apology.
The Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery, the latest in a series of strides taken in an attempt to overcome its segregationist past.
The motion also expressed regret for "the exploitation of native Americans".
Sponsors of the resolution said they knew of no other US state that had apologised for slavery, although Missouri is considering doing so.
The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.
"This session will be remembered for a lot of things, but 20 years hence, I suspect one of those things will be the fact that we came together and passed this resolution," said Donald McEachin, a Democrat who sponsored it in the state's House of Delegates.
The resolution passed the house 96-0 and also cleared the 40-member senate on a unanimous vote. It does not require the approval of the governor, Timothy Kaine.
The resolution was introduced as Virginia begins its celebration of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, where the first Africans arrived in 1619.