I have responded preivously to this allegation by explaining that millions of (multiracial) White Americans proudly acknowledge fractional African ancestry. This includes not only Hispanics and Muslims, but members of the many maroon communities. Indeed, even the great majority of the 35,000 or so Black youngsters per year who switch to self-identifying as (multiracial) White do so without losing contact with their families.
Triguy's repeated claim that anyone who self-identifies as (multiracial) White must abandon his extended family prompts me to ask his sources. I would be grateful to learn the source of this information.
Triguy's repeated claim that anyone who self-identifies as (multiracial) White must abandon his extended family prompts me to ask his sources. I would be grateful to learn the source of this information.
No where do I say that a modern day person can't, hasn't, or shouldn't claim to be white or be able to keep his extended family after crossing over. My bestfriend has done that for her children. She's brown but her kids blond. In fact, I say quite the opposite.
Triguy:
Quote:
If a mixed-race person chooses to call himself black, white, mixed, biracial, multiracial, hapa, mestizo, Eurasian, Amerasian, Afropean, Afro-Asian, why shouldn't she have that right? I don't recall Jackson leading a protest against Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, Lenny Kravitz, Lisa Bonet, Mariah Carey or others who call themselves bi- or multiracial being protested against by Jackson.
I can't see how much clearer I can be on a person being able to self-identify with whatever term he feels suits him best.
Our discussion was in reference to Walter White. I did question people of his day, the early to mid 20th century, having to abandon family members but that was his milieu not mine. In deed my exact words were "White's milieu." Not sure how much clearer I can be. (See also The Sweeter the Juice: A Family Memoir in Black and White by Shirlee Taylor Haizlip. I would also cite Otis Graham's book in which he relates the story of a multiracial white family that ships off its too black looking daughter to boarding school. )
For instance, Anatole Broyard left his family and friends behind. Broyard never introduced his children to their relatives. I contrast Broyard against people who have crossed over and self-identified as white (multiracial) and kept their extended families together. Walter White did not choose to cross over. I simply stated that there was nothing wrong with his behavior. Do you think it was wrong?
So, in summary, I have never claimed that it is wrong for someone to claim to be a multiracial Caucasian, nor do I believe that if she did so in our modern age they would or should have to leave their family behind.
(However, I do think it's wrong to slap a label like white mulatto on someone who chooses to identify otherwise. To me, that smacks of as much cultural imperialism as labeling Native Americans "Indians.")
Now, if you are talking with this comment:
Quote:
To paraphrase what someone wrote, the evil of the one drop rule is that steals one's ancestry. Because someone looks white does that mean he or she must adopt the label of white? What if that person doesn't want it, not because of any kind of inferiority complex but because that person is proud of his/her mixed-race background and would prefer to be a "hyphenated" person?
Should an individual have the right to self-identify anyway that she pleases? One of my good friends does this. She's biracial but has a primary white phenotype. However, given the racism she's experienced in life, she rejects white privilege and choose to call her mixed. That's her choice. If she wanted to call herself white, I would care. She's my friend. It's her life and her decision.
No where do I say that a modern day person can't, hasn't, or shouldn't claim to be white or be able to keep his extended family after crossing over.
I am confused. Someone posted the following:
? wrote:
Doesn't that further explain his reluctance/refusal to classify himself as "white." Why would he want to be other than his family or lose them? It's understandable for someone who was abused to leave abusive family members behind, but leaving a loving family is near impossible. ... How many people would do so easily today?
triguy wrote:
Do you think it was wrong?
I do not express moral or ethical judgment in this forum. I see expressions of moral judgment as irrelevant to this forum. I have considered banning discussions of morality (right or wrong, good or bad). This is not because such discussions are unimportant, but because there are dozens or hundreds of other groups that welcome such debate, while this forum is one of a very few that sticks to factual, verifiable reality. I continue (with some impatience) to tolerate such expressions of dudgeon. Nevertheless, I will not participate in them.
Doesn't that further explain his reluctance/refusal to classify himself as "white." Why would he want to be other than his family or lose them? It's understandable for someone who was abused to leave abusive family members behind, but leaving a loving family is near impossible. ... How many people would do so easily today?
Again, this is talking about Walter White, his choice, in the context of his milieu.
Quote:
How many people would do so easily today?
Someone today would not cross over and have to or want to leave their family. In White's era, many people did leave their family behind. (Not all, for instance, the film Lost Boundaries shows a family crossing over strictly for economic and professional reasons, not for a desire for white privilege:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0041600/plotsummary .
Quote:
How many people would do so easily today?
As I said,
Quote:
It's understandable for someone who was abused to leave abusive family members behind, but leaving a loving family is near impossible.
So, a modern person would not leave family behind unless it was abusive. I say this in general, a child who's been physically , emotionally, or sexually abused by a parent(s) will leave his/her parents behind in a heart beat. Nothing wrong with that!
Furthermore, given that White's family was almost slaughtered by a lynch mob of racist whites, I find it hard to believe that White would embrace the label of "white American" so easily. Would a blonde and blue-eyed German Jew who escaped a train ride to Auschwitz suddenly toss away his Jewish background and embrace his German-ness? Why is it so wrong for a multiracial person to embrace both sides of his identity? In particular, why is it wrong for mixed-race person with a European phenotype to embrace his African ancestry? I don't think White embraced, albeit at times uncomfortably, his African ancestry as a hair shirt to prove his saintliness.
The first two sentences explain the motivations of most people people like White behind embracing a Negro or Colored (using the terminology of the times) identity.
Although it was obvious that White was of predominant European ancestry and phenotype, he did see himself as a Negro. Aknowledging his obvious European ancestry didn't mean, in his eyes and others, that he was not black.
But they embraced the Negro or Colored- identity before that incident. Colored actually doesn't have the same (1 drop) affect that Negro does, many people during that time up until the 60's actually prefered it. But both terms were still pet names given by white america
Posted: Tue 21 Jun 2005 15:15 Post subject: Re: Walter White...Jesse Jackson
Powell wrote:
Quote:
White's feelings of superiority over "purer" blacks is indicative of the brainwashing of the times. To White's credit, he could have lived as a caucasian but chose not to do so. That took a lot of integrity; had he moved a way from his family and friends, he could have had an easy life. However, White chose a more difficult path. He chose to fight for a better world, expressing to all his mixed-race heritage. Given his account of the near lynching of his family, why would he want to fully immerse himself in the culture of his would-be assasins?
What is an "easy life"? By calling himself a "Negro," Walter White became a national celebrity, hobnobbing with U.S. presidents, etc. There is no contradiction between being "white" and fighting racial injustice, but being a "Nordic Negro" was more of a confirmation that "Negro" genes were somehow inferior. By advocating racial equality AND calling himself a "Negro," White was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I would also say that there is no great courage or integrity involved in submitting to forced hypodescent or the "one drop" myth. People who do that are only humbly obeying racist laws, even when they cannot be enforced or have been removed. Those who defy hypodescent and "one drop" are courageous.
Quote:
When the phrase "African American" was created in the late '80s, I recall Jesse Jackson saying that calling the term "black American" was too much of a focus on color and not on ancestry, and that most "blacks" were not black skinned but came in different hues.
By switching to "African American," Jackson said that there should be equal respect of African ancestry as there was for Italian, Irish, etc.
Jesse Jackson has no right to force an "African American" identity on people who are predominately European American, Native American, etc.
Jesse has never done that. He was just dealing with the difference between Black & African American
Last edited by gemini072 on Tue 21 Jun 2005 15:23; edited 1 time in total
That's interesting because I was recently scamming through his autobiography a Man called White!
The entire book he referred to himself as simply Negro, sometimes (rarely) commenting on the 'colored' community of the time!
In another book of him, I even saw photos of his childhood! It kind of shocked me because he looked far more European looking as a child than he did as an adult- I assume its because of how he use to try to wave his hair to copy the style of the time! His entire family looked Multiracial except him!
It happens easily, an ex girlfriend of mine was like 5 shades lighter than her yellow toned father, and her hair was much more loosely curled than his. When I first met her I thougth she may have been 1/2 white. Her mother is a darker smooth brown. She said as far as she new their were no recent white ancestors in her family line.
Joined: 19 Jun 2005 {Posts: 49 } Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Fri 08 Jul 2005 21:56 Post subject: Re: Garvey, mulatto elites, etc.
Powell wrote:
Marcus Garvey, despite his hatred of mulattoes as a group, chose to marry a "light-skinned" wife of elite background. This contradiction is not uncommon, unfortunately. We can still see black-oriented television, movies and corporate ads that see the ideal "black" couple as a black male and a mulatto female.
Quote:
Amy Jacques was raised as a light-skinned child of privilege who identified herself as "brown," rather than "black" like the majority of dark-skinned Jamaicans, who did not share the wealth and education available to Garvey's class. As a child, she was once ashamed of her father because of his darker skin. Yet she married Marcus Garvey, a dark-skinned man, and she embraced his philosophy of Pan-Africanism.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=289401067222153
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
