Just when you thought CNN couldn't get any lower, it plummets to rock bottom, asking:

Screen shot via CNN.

OK, this...is CNN.  Meaning CNN could go even lower, drilling through the rock to fall into some netherworld.  Though the original tweet has been deleted, the question and quote remain in the original article.  (The Daily Show's Amber Ruffin, among others, captured the original in all its unglory.)

This sanctimonious article, "Analysis: Don't use the royal birth to trot out a dangerous myth," contains the oh, so deep, smug thoughts only a liberal could spout — in this instance, CNN producer and writer John Blake (assuming he hasn't been fired...um...offered a "voluntary buyout" in the latest CNN restructuring).

But let's not use the royal birth to trot out a dangerous myth.

Let's not turn this child into another "Great Mixed-Race Hope."

We've seen this story before.  A mixed-race person is elevated to a position of prominence.  They're touted as proof of racial progress, part of a Brown New World in which racism will inevitably collapse in the future because there will be so many interracial relationships.

This anointing is part of what some call the ongoing "fetishization" of interracial children and adults. Remember Obama's "hope and change?" His biracial upbringing was supposed to help him bridge racial differences.

But I no longer believe in the redemptive power of interracial unions, though I am the product of such a relationship. It's a tired story. And it's a dangerous one. We can't "procreate" our way to racial equality.

Blah, blah, blah.  Much of this territory was covered over ten years ago, analyzing the meaning of Barack Hussein Obama (D)'s nomination and presidency.  OK, Blake is also a "product of such a relationship" — i.e., interracial union — and obviously has a personal perspective.  As does Obama.  But the new mother is also a "product of such a relationship" and seems to have done quite well personally, academically, professionally long before her royal marriage despite some gossip over her, uh, problematic (white) father and other relatives.  (News flash: There are always problematic relatives — sometimes we're even that person.  No, not I!)

Meanwhile, the new father, Prince Harry, who is apparently all white, appeared ecstatic at the birth of his healthy son, apparently seeing him not as a "fetish" or "proof of racial progress," but as his child.  So all the best to the three of them.

By the way, the new little boy, by virtue of his mother, is also eligible to become a U.S. citizen should his mother decide to apply.

So let's also ask, how American will the royal baby be?  Hmmm.  Will he speak English with a British or an American accent? Town and Country magazine asks.  Or will he be American enough to run for president of the U.S., as some speculate, since he probably won't be king — which has nothing to do with his race — because his cousins, the children of Harry's older brother William and his wife, Kate Middleton, have priority?  Or something.

Now, to answer Blake's question, "how black will the royal baby be?"  According to my limited knowledge of and interest in the subject plus too long ago elementary school math, the royal baby is 25% black, as one of his grandparents is black, and the other three are white.

And for the unasked question, the royal baby will be 100% human, as are his parents, grandparents, and ancestors.

Image: Matt Brown via Flickr.