Who will be the first non White President?

[ag]

Obama. I don't even know how Richardson is on US soil let along even thinking about getting the nomination. Yet more proof the INS isn't doing it's job.

The original Richardson to immigrate to the U.S. was his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Thomas Richardson, who died in Woburn, Mass. in 1651. On his masculine line he has only U.S. citizens since the country was created. Unless you either believe only Native Americans have citizenship rights, or, else, that Mass has been expelled from the Union some time in the past, or, at least, that working for U.S. companies abroad and marriage to a foreigner disqualifies one's children from U.S. citizenship, I do not think you have a consistent argument there

1. Thomas Richardson, b. England 1608, d. Woburn Mass 1651
2. Nathaniel Richardson, b. Woburn Mass 1650/1, d. Woburn Mass 1714
3. James Richardson, b. Woburn Mass 1675/6 d. Woburn Mass 1722
4. James Richardson, b. Woburn Mass 1703/4, d. (unknown, before 1761)
5. William Richardson, b. Woburn Mass 1731, d. Princeton Mass 1814
6. Samuel Richardson, b. Lancaster Mass 1760, d. Princeton Mass 1814
7. Peter Richardson, b Princeton Mass 1798, d. Brookline Mass 1878
8. William Everett Richardson, b. Princeton Mass 1825, d. Cambridge Mass 1902
9. William Blaney Richardson, b. Boston Mass 1868, d. Matagalpa Nicaragua 1927 (collector for various U.S. museums)
10. William Blaney Richardson, b. Chinandega Nicaragua 1891, graduated from HS in Vermont, BS Tufts U, MA Tufts U, manager of the Mexico City branch of First National City Bank of New York, d. Mexico DF, Mexico 1972
11. William Blaine Richardson, b. Pasadena CA 1947, HS Concord MA, BA Tufts, MA Tufts, Hon. Dr. Tufts,

[ag]

I was just kidding.

Good to hear

Anyway, what is particularly funny is that anybody can think of Richardson as "non-white". I am not sure of his paternal grandmother (she comes from a rather native-dominated part of Mexico), but even on his maternal side he seems to be as white as the King of Spain. In Mexico he would be, unquestionably, "white".  Looking at his pictures, it would seem he'd be considered "white" in pretty much every country southwest of Germany (ok, true, he'd be "black" in Russia - so would be Giuliani)   That a white politician of Mexican origin is considered "Hispanic", while an equally white politician of Spanish origin would not be, is what makes me really smile.  Of course, as we all know, if we go by the standards of the late 19th/early 20th century, the U.S. has already had a "non-white" president: JFK

[ag]

Other:  Some hispanic who is either under 18 or not even born yet.  There will probably never be a black president.

You really think a hispanic will be elected before a black? Americans seem far more hostile towards hispanics than blacks. I can't see a hispanic being elected President any time soon.

There is a reasonable argument that within 30-50 years Hispanics (or, at least, those of them who are not visibly "not European") could be white, in the same way that Jews, Catholics and the rest of the riff-raff are white today (something that no self-respecting white American would have believed true or even possible a century ago).  Thus,  an election of such a "Hispanic" might not even be too controversial at that point - but it would hardly qualify as an election of a "not white" President.

I would make the following (provocative) statement: an election of a "not white" president is impossible (by the definition of what "not white" means).  The very fact of an election would, almost certainly, imply that a certain (perhaps, narrowly defined) group of people has become white, or, at least, is getting whiter.  Thus, if they elect a President John Wang (or Michael Rodriguez), this would still not mean an election of a non-white. It would simply mean that the Chinese (resp., Hispanics) have become white.