Posted: Sat 26 Feb 2005 14:04 Post subject: "Passing" For Who You Really Are -- by A.D. Powell
“Passing” For Who You Really Are by A.D. Powell
Trade Paperback, 136 pages, ISBN 0-939479-22-2, $11.95
Twelve Essays in Support of Multiracial Whiteness
The Multiracial Movement
Self-Identity
Ethnic Choice
A.D. Powell has been honored as an "unsung heroine" of American history in a Proclamation by the governor of Arkansas, dated August 24, 2005!
No spokesperson of the movement to abolish government sponsorship of the “race” notion has been more eloquent than A.D. Powell. And none has been more harshly criticized. It is not that she in error or that she does not describe reality. To the contrary, she writes with crystalline precision and merciless accuracy. But she writes of Things Best Left Unsaid in America.
Powell aims her barbs at liberals of all complexions who preach the one-drop rule. She is the nemesis of those who advocate the uniquely American notion that there is no such thing as a White person with African ancestry—that such a person is, at best, a “light-skinned Black.” Powell believes that the one-drop rule ignores science, crushes tolerance, and mocks the American Dream. And yet it is preached by liberals, and its enforcement is demanded by most Black leaders. She argues that coercing someone’s ethnic choice is tyranny.
This collection of essays on multiracialism originally appeared in Interracial Voice magazine.
What others say:
I found this book to be a fascinating treatise on race and ethnicity, or more accurately our perceptions on race and ethnicity. A.D. Powell takes a stand that, in essence, argues for each human being's innate right to identify with the ethnic culture and heritage, or heritages, that he or she chooses. While this may ruffle the feathers of some, it is a common sense approach to the outdated and oftentimes harmful American tradition of assigning all people to strict racial categories (that may or may not coincide with their own view of themselves). As Wayne Winkler points out, whether you agree with her or not, A.D. Powell's Passing for Who You Really Are will make you think long and hard about our long held disjointed notions of race. -- Brent Kennedy, author of The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People : An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America.
A. D. Powell’s book of essays on the odious “one drop rule” is one of those rare works that will make you examine America’s—and your own—assumptions and attitudes about race. Whether you agree with these thoughtful pieces or not, they will make you think about some things you may have never considered before. Passing For Who You Really Are presents ideas that will stay in your mind for a long time to come. — Wayne Winkler, author of Walking Toward the Sunset: The Melungeons of Appalachia.
Should be required reading for “blacks,” academicians, “white” liberals and especially Latinos. – William Javier Nelson, sociologist and author of The Racial Definition Handbook.
I am glad someone is [publishing A.D. Powell], because there is so much crap being published by the university presses about the multiracial issue! – Francis Wardle, executive director of the Center for the Study of Biracial Children and author of the textbook Introduction to Early Childhood Education: A Multidimensional Approach to Child-Centered Care and Learning.
She reminds you of H.L. Menken, driving intellectual midgets into frenzies of outrage, a spectacle that entertains her fans. – Frank W. Sweet, historian and author of the series Paths Not Taken.
There are four ways to obtain a copy of the book:
1. You can buy the book from Allbook by clicking here:
2. You can buy it online from Barnes and Noble by clicking here:
3. You can buy it online from Powells Books by clicking here:
4. You can order it at any bookstore (including Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, and Borders). It is carried by bookstore wholesaler, Ingram, and by school and library wholesaler, Baker and Taylor.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 11 Jun 2009 03:01; edited 23 times in total
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Sat 21 Apr 2007 23:20 Post subject:
A.D. Powell, I just finished your book and did go over a couple of chapters again but I cannot determine exactly what your position is.
How do political views of liberal and conservatives factor into this equation? By liberals and conservatives do you mean the Democrat and Republican divide?
What do you want to see for the future and how would Americans move in that direction?
Also, in the second last chapter, you say that "You will never hear the truth about "race".... but I'm usure what you view as truth. How do you see the truth?
Posted: Sun 22 Apr 2007 14:36 Post subject: "Passing for Who You Really Are"
Patience, the book does not address the issues you raised. It advocates an end to the doctrine of white racial purity and its replacement by the concept of multiracial whiteness (which exists in reality but is officially denied). It advocates an end to forced hypodescent and the "one drop" myth, as well as an end to the demonization of part-black whites accused of "passing." The book expresses outrage at the fact that white racial purity and forced hypodescent are, NOWADAYS, pushed on society by people (primarily black organizations and their allies) who present themselves to the public as the judges of what and who is or is not "racist."
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Mon 23 Apr 2007 00:32 Post subject:
Thank you A.D. I think this gives me more of an understanding of what your concerns are.
Basically you advocate the right to self-identity? And your concern mainly focuses around those with some relatively recent African ancestry who would be socially designated as "white" (based on physical appearance), and who want to be recognized in the records as "white"?
So you do not advocate abandoning a racialist system including the categories of "black" and "white" but merely reworking it?
Posted: Mon 23 Apr 2007 13:23 Post subject: "Racial" Definitions
Patience said:
Quote:
Thank you A.D. I think this gives me more of an understanding of what your concerns are.
Basically you advocate the right to self-identity? And your concern mainly focuses around those with some relatively recent African ancestry who would be socially designated as "white" (based on physical appearance), and who want to be recognized in the records as "white"?
So you do not advocate abandoning a racialist system including the categories of "black" and "white" but merely reworking it?
Thanks for the "When did you stop beating your spouse?" question, Patience.
It should be obvious that you will NEVER get rid of racialist systems or the categories "white" and "black" unless you constantly embarrass those who advocate such a system - and the people you have to embarrass are mostly those professional so-called anti-racists who benefit from it. That is why I constantly point out the black ancestry in Latinos. If "one drop" makes you "black," why aren't Latinos "black"? And don't give me this crap about a "different culture." None of those state constitutions that define "white" give a damn about "culture." Nigerians have a different culture. If you ask about this Latino exception to anyone advocating the "one drop" myth, you silence them. They have no answer. The purpose of this is not to make Latinos "black" but to destroy the white purity assumptions that white supremacy is based on AND unmask the lie that the "one drop" myth is enforced by "whites" as a group rather than blacks elites and their allies. After all, if you really believe that even small amounts of "black blood" are super-inferior, why would you give a dispensation to someone just because he's Latino or Arab?
My very first essay in the book compares the myth that one can "look white" and yet be "black" to the racialization of Jews in Nazi Germany. A German Jew was told that he was unfit to call himself German even though his culture and language were German. How is that different from being told that an otherwise white person is "really black"? Do you see the racism in the attack on Anatole Broyard, for example? Do you see the racism in saying that he was not "white" but really "black"? If not, why don't you?
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Mon 23 Apr 2007 16:27 Post subject:
I'm not playing with you A.D., I'm trying to understand your perspective.
I'm coming from a society that does have "white" and "black" social contructs but they are not as intense nor as political as they are in your community. There is more of a emphasis on ethnicity than "race."
I don't fully comprehend the contruct of "Latinos" because this category doesn't really exist in Canada.
Another reason, I think we are having trouble understanding each other's perspective is indicated in your belief, "you will NEVER get rid of racialist systems."
I believe just the opposite. I don't think a racial system can continue because it is based on a complete lie, and lies can only be sustained for a limited time. Already this lie is showing major signs of deterioration.
Just to answer your questions:
Quote:
A German Jew was told that he was unfit to call himself German even though his culture and language were German. How is that different from being told that an otherwise white person is "really black"?
Although the German Jew would have some identity as German, he would likely have a deeper pride and identity in being Jewish. That is different from the "white" person who likely does not have a deep pride and identity in "black." Also, I really don't believe that "white" and "black" are cultural categories such as German and Jewish.
Quote:
Do you see the racism in the attack on Anatole Broyard, for example?
I see this story told from within an existing racial framework, but I don't see it as an personal attack, (at least in anything I found to read.) Ultimately it will be Broyard's children and grandchildren who will have to determine if he did the wrong thing because they are the ones who live with the consequences----not us. I agree that racialist concepts are often reinforced in the way these types of stories are told.
Quote:
Do you see the racism in saying that he was not "white" but really "black"? If not, why don't you?
The very terms "white" and "black" are to me racist. To use these terms at all means that there is a systematic categorization of people. Whether you want to call Broyard "white", "black" or "purple with pink stripes" it's all the same---it's all racist, racial, racialist, or racialism
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2007 14:03 Post subject: Distorting the argument
Patience
Quote:
Another reason, I think we are having trouble understanding each other's perspective is indicated in your belief, "you will NEVER get rid of racialist systems."
I believe just the opposite. I don't think a racial system can continue because it is based on a complete lie, and lies can only be sustained for a limited time. Already this lie is showing major signs of deterioration.
I notice how you edited my quote to make it appear that I said the opposite of what I actually said.
You don't understand the concept of "Latinos" in American race relations and you apparently think the Holocaust had nothing to do with "race." You need far more education on this subject of "race" than I can provide.
A German Jew was told that he was unfit to call himself German even though his culture and language were German. How is that different from being told that an otherwise white person is "really black"?
Although the German Jew would have some identity as German, he would likely have a deeper pride and identity in being Jewish. That is different from the "white" person who likely does not have a deep pride and identity in "black." Also, I really don't believe that "white" and "black" are cultural categories such as German and Jewish.
I was reluctant to participate in this thread, since the forum was meant as one-on-one between readers and authors. But Patience misunderstands the Holocaust.
Patience apparently thinks that the Nazi holocaust was inflicted upon people who worshiped in synagogues, conducted passover rituals, etc. Not so. The Holocaust targeted people who were "racially" Jewish, no matter what was their religion or culture. It did not target Aryans who were merely of of the Jewish religion. The Berlin synagogue remained in operation throughout the Nazi period. The authorities saw its surviving members as "racially Aryans," who were Jews only in a religious sense. And millions of practicing Christians went to the gas chambers because they were seen as "racially Jewish," no matter how they worshipped. I just wanted to clear that up.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2007 16:43 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Patience wrote:
Powell wrote:
A German Jew was told that he was unfit to call himself German even though his culture and language were German. How is that different from being told that an otherwise white person is "really black"?
Although the German Jew would have some identity as German, he would likely have a deeper pride and identity in being Jewish. That is different from the "white" person who likely does not have a deep pride and identity in "black." Also, I really don't believe that "white" and "black" are cultural categories such as German and Jewish.
I was reluctant to participate in this thread, since the forum was meant as one-on-one between readers and authors. But Patience misunderstands the Holocaust.
Patience apparently thinks that the Nazi holocaust was inflicted upon people who worshiped in synagogues, conducted passover rituals, etc. Not so. The Holocaust targeted people who were "racially" Jewish, no matter what was their religion or culture. It did not target Aryans who were merely of of the Jewish religion. The Berlin synagogue remained in operation throughout the Nazi period. The authorities saw its surviving members as "racially Aryans," who were Jews only in a religious sense. And millions of practicing Christians went to the gas chambers because they were seen as "racially Jewish," no matter how they worshipped. I just wanted to clear that up.
Not wishing to digress further, I would like to point out that "German" and "Jewish" are not mutually exclusive terms. I'm not suggesting Patience believes they are, but I'd like to clear this up for those reading the thread who aren't certain or aware of this. According to a series of documentaries I saw long ago, most German Jews were fiercely proud of their German heritage. They could not understand why the Nazis singled out "Semitic-looking" Jews (and, indeed, Christians) and considered them as non-Germans. In one documentary, a 97-year-old German Jew declared (as near as I can recall), "For the Nazis, I wasn't a German. But I have always been a German, am a German now, and will continue to be a German, and a very proud one. It is my culture and my nationality. This is independent of my being Jewish."
It should be obvious that you will NEVER get rid of racialist systems or the categories "white" and "black" unless you constantly embarrass those who advocate such a system - and the people you have to embarrass are mostly those professional so-called anti-racists who benefit from it. That is why I constantly point out the black ancestry in Latinos. If "one drop" makes you "black," why aren't Latinos "black"?
Because Latinos weren't in the American racialism system, nor do all Latinos have African Ancestry, quite simple.
Quote:
And don't give me this crap about a "different culture." None of those state constitutions that define "white" give a damn about "culture."
Sure they do. It has to do with polities and how ethnc groups associate with each other so self identification is prime.
Quote:
Nigerians have a different culture. If you ask about this Latino exception to anyone advocating the "one drop" myth, you silence them. They have no answer. The purpose of this is not to make Latinos "black" but to destroy the white purity assumptions that white supremacy is based on AND unmask the lie that the "one drop" myth is enforced by "whites" as a group rather than blacks elites and their allies. After all, if you really believe that even small amounts of "black blood" are super-inferior, why would you give a dispensation to someone just because he's Latino or Arab?
Because most people really don't classify by racial one droppism as much as cultural ones. I have had plenty of mixed friends who have said they had people act really interested in them when they thought they were Latino, but then when they found out they were only a mixed American they were disenchanted. Their admixture is probably very similar to that of a Latino, so why would these Whites do that about face if it was not something they cared about?
Last edited by Salsassin on Sat 28 Apr 2007 00:03; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri 27 Apr 2007 23:54 Post subject: "Racial" Definitions
Salsassin only proves my point. If the supposedly dreaded "black blood" is acceptable as long as it comes from a Latino, Arab, or other "foreigner," then white fear of the supposed physical inferiority of "black" genes isn't the problem, is it?
This issue cannot be discussed in the mainstream media. Reporters and lazy scholars who haven't studied the issue will repeat the myth that anybody with "black blood" is or has been "black" in the United States. That's not true, even for the much maligned Anglos and Creoles of mixed ancestry. However, the people who say this know about the "black blood" in Latinos and Arabs. Once you bring this up when they cite the "one drop" myth, they respond with real fear. Why? They don't want to insult Latinos and Arabs by pointing out their connection to such a socially inferior people as "blacks."
Posted: Sat 28 Apr 2007 00:05 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
Powell wrote:
Salsassin only proves my point. If the supposedly dreaded "black blood" is acceptable as long as it comes from a Latino, Arab, or other "foreigner," then white fear of the supposed physical inferiority of "black" genes isn't the problem, is it?
This issue cannot be discussed in the mainstream media. Reporters and lazy scholars who haven't studied the issue will repeat the myth that anybody with "black blood" is or has been "black" in the United States. That's not true, even for the much maligned Anglos and Creoles of mixed ancestry. However, the people who say this know about the "black blood" in Latinos and Arabs. Once you bring this up when they cite the "one drop" myth, they respond with real fear. Why? They don't want to insult Latinos and Arabs by pointing out their connection to such a socially inferior people as "blacks."
Has nothing to do with insulting Latinos or Arabs. It is just that they have serious aversion to AfroAmericana. Notice that a lot of people who are averse to Afro Americans get along with Africans. O doubt they are trying to deny Africans' African ancestry either.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 28 Apr 2007 15:54 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
Powell wrote:
Salsassin only proves my point. If the supposedly dreaded "black blood" is acceptable as long as it comes from a Latino, Arab, or other "foreigner," then white fear of the supposed physical inferiority of "black" genes isn't the problem, is it?
This issue cannot be discussed in the mainstream media. Reporters and lazy scholars who haven't studied the issue will repeat the myth that anybody with "black blood" is or has been "black" in the United States. That's not true, even for the much maligned Anglos and Creoles of mixed ancestry. However, the people who say this know about the "black blood" in Latinos and Arabs. Once you bring this up when they cite the "one drop" myth, they respond with real fear. Why? They don't want to insult Latinos and Arabs by pointing out their connection to such a socially inferior people as "blacks."
I see your point.
Latinos don't worry that much about the Black blood of some of theirs members. Yes, it is known that in many countries of Latin America and particularly in the Caribbean, Black minorities exist and admixture is common. That does not mean that ALL latinos descend from Africans, but it is undeniable that some do. In the same line, MOST latinos have both Indian and European admixtures in several degrees, but NOT ALL Latinos are mixed either: some are pure Europeans, some are pure Indians and some are pure Blacks; although "pures" are minoritary. Complicated, isn't?
Now, accussing a particular Latino of "passing" as other, I believe is wrong. First, because many Latinos don't even know if they have Black, Indian or Chinese or any other exotic ancestry. And second, because Latinos don't thing Whiteness is anything particularly special or important at all. They grew up in a Western culture and they assume that's what they are, but they don't associate Western with Blondism at all. And third, Latinos distinguish clearly between race and culture, and between phenotype and social status, and they don't confusse things easily. They know that if a person has some phenotype is because there was an ancestor that carried it.
If some Anglos get confussed is theirs faults, not of the individuals they analyze. Is not a Latino conspiration at all. Believing so it could be offensive, indeed. Particularly when Latinos pride themselves of theirs particular mixtures and countries of origin.
Certainly, some mixtures of Black and Whites produce phenotypes common in countries like Cuba, Brazil or Colombia. It is also quite well known that mixtures between East Asians and White also produce phenotypes that can be confussed with mestizos.
But what that it means? It means nothing, because people is not a phenotype only, but an history and culture associated to that phenotype.
Latinos are not offended easily. Anglosaxons have always called us "mongrels" and things like that, but that does not matter at all. That's why we invented the world "gringo" to strike back. We are just humans like anyone else, and we know our roots are across the globe. However, we appreciate our own lands more than anything else.
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 01:05 Post subject: Latinos
Oevega, the point is not to change Latinos or make them do anything. The point is to use the example of the Latino exemption in ANGLO society to discredit black and white liberal support of forced hypodescent for Anglos and other non-Latinos of mixed ancestry.
Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 17:17 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
Salsassin wrote:
Because most people really don't classify by racial one droppism as much as cultural ones. I have had plenty of mixed friends who have said they had people act really interested in them when they thought they were Latino, but then when they found out they were only a mixed American they were disenchanted. Their admixture is probably very similar to that of a Latino, so why would these Whites do that about face if it was not something they cared about?
They were interested in mixedness. But they clearly knew that Latinos were more open to this than Americans. The one-drop rule in America rejects the idea of mixedness. So their interest could never be satisfied by Americans. So it makes sense to turn away.
I remember, a long time ago, watching the Real World show on television, and one white girl addressing a fair-complexioned African American, asked her (quite innocently, I thought) if she was mixed. The African-American girl got so upset she started to cry. You understand why, of course? Her identity, a product of the one-drop rule, was based on the denial of whiteness and mixedness.
Strangely enough, Latinos do have a one-drop rule. But unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
Just as "mixedness" alienated the American girl (above) from her African-American identity, so purity (other than Spanish ancestry) alienates Hispanics from their Hispanic identity and is likely to get them just as upset.
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 17:39 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
LMartin wrote:
Unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
That is very wise and insightful. My only quibble, based on my own family and friends, is that while purity of Spanish language and cultural traits is revered, purity of Spanish blood is disdained. My grandparents, uncles and aunts vehemently hated Spaniards (at least, they said they did).
Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 17:55 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
fwsweet wrote:
LMartin wrote:
Unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
That is very wise and insightful. My only quibble, based on my own family and friends, is that while purity of Spanish language and cultural traits is revered, purity of Spanish blood is disdained. My grandparents, uncles and aunts vehemently hated Spaniards (at least, they said they did).
Frank, what about your mother who you admitted (somewhere on this site) would not even entertain the idea of being mixed? I don't doubt that your uncles hated Spaniards. But did that hatred include unmixed Spanish descended Puerto Ricans? My guess is that purity of Spanish blood would be disdained only when it disdains a Puerto Rican identity.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
