Posted: Wed 01 Nov 2006 20:22 Post subject: why do people separate light skin African American ,biracial
why do people separate light skin African American and biracials
like where to two separate racial groups ,like light skin african americans are unmix and some how biracial are mixed.
why do people think you can only mixed one time and thats the frist born fristgenation?
People seem to for get about when mulatto/biracial have children there kids are still mixedrace and not fullblood.
I agree. There's almost a sense of superiority that some first generation mixed people have. Also, having "light" skin is only one indication of being mixed-race. "Light" is a relative or subjective term. There are multi-generational mixed-race African-American who are lighter-skinned than first generation. Or, you have, darker-skinned mixed-race people who have children who may look like an ethnic Swede.
Furthermore, there's also the "white mulatto" racial Stalinists who would damn any mixed-race person who identifies as "black"/African-American instead of "white." Some of the hit pieces denounce people who don't conform as race traitors. Think about that. A mixed-race person is called a race-traitor for her/his decision to choose an identity that doesn't please other people. How is that not cynical, playing ruthless racial politics to destroy another person to strictly achieve a political and personal goal. Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung did monstrous things all in the name of politics (and personal gratification).
Posted: Thu 02 Nov 2006 11:15 Post subject: Re: why do people separate light skin African American ,biracial
mymulatto wrote:
why do people think you can only mixed one time and thats the frist born fristgenation?
Was that a rhetorical question or a serious request for historical information? If the latter, the best explanation is in G. Reginald Daniel, More than Black?: Multiracial Identity and the New Racial Order
(Philadelphia: Temple University, 2002), pages 104-106. Why do so many in the multiracial community define "multiracial" as only the offspring of Black/White marriages and specifically exclude folks whose parents and grandparents have enjoyed mixed Afro-European heritage for generations? The answer is that this definition is demanded by traditional Black organizations, who see the multiracial idea as a threat to Black unity. This definition keeps the number of multiracial individuals perpetually insignificant (p. 104-106). Click here for a complete review of this book.
I don't think anyone tries to separate the groups, I think the groups separate each other by sheer ideological difference. Mr. Sweet is absolutely correct in that black organizations demanded the first generation definition, and it caused many generational mixed people to simply tow the party line.
Its also a waste of time to push a mixed-race identity on a person who has spent their entire life embracing black American culture. Most mixed-race groups have moved on, and let the mixed-race people who identify as black do exactly that.
Because its not the same. The looks maybe the same (except hair, ) but the culture, POV, upbringing may be vastly different. Why should I deny (that's really what they are asking) my biracial identity for others who cannot even name a white ancestor? My FAMILY is of two seperate cultures, I have gone to my white FAMILY reunions, have social relations outside of the Black community, etc. How is this the same as someone who might LOOK similar to me, but has no dealings on a family or social level with Whites/non-Blacks? Looks are only part of ones identity. I look Hispanic to many people, but should I then claim a Hispanic identity?
What has having a white great-great grandparent or even several generations of MGM 'Black' people in ones family for some have to do with the fact that others have a non-Black parent (therefore your 'culture') or your grandmother was only 1/2 Black (therefore your looks)? No, it is not the same and those who would like to think so do for political or personal reasons. I think Whites who do this are racists and Blacks who do this are jealous or have a political agenda.
Because its not the same. The looks maybe the same (except hair, ) but the culture, POV, upbringing may be vastly different. Why should I deny (that's really what they are asking) my biracial identity for others who cannot even name a white ancestor? My FAMILY is of two seperate cultures, I have gone to my white FAMILY reunions, have social relations outside of the Black community, etc. How is this the same as someone who might LOOK similar to me, but has no dealings on a family or social level with Whites/non-Blacks? Looks are only part of ones identity. I look Hispanic to many people, but should I then claim a Hispanic identity?
What has having a white great-great grandparent or even several generations of MGM 'Black' people in ones family for some have to do with the fact that others have a non-Black parent (therefore your 'culture') or your grandmother was only 1/2 Black (therefore your looks)? No, it is not the same and those who would like to think so do for political or personal reasons. I think Whites who do this are racists and Blacks who do this are jealous or have a political agenda.
I can certainly understand this perspective as well. In my case, my parents were both mulatto, so they passed their culture onto me. Also having grandparents of white or black heritage definitely made an impact on how I viewed the world.
I don't really think a person who was raised soley as black, and raised around people who soley identified as black with old wive's tales about the "Indian princess" or "slave master raping great-grandma" can really relate.
What has having a white great-great grandparent or even several generations of MGM 'Black' people in ones family for some have to do with the fact that others have a non-Black parent (therefore your 'culture') or your grandmother was only 1/2 Black (therefore your looks)? No, it is not the same and those who would like to think so do for political or personal reasons. I think Whites who do this are racists and Blacks who do this are jealous or have a political agenda.
This is a very American point of view and is, as usual, racialized. When two families come together there can be significant cultural differences no matter what they look like. Hell, some Jewish-Palestinian folks consider themselves legitimately biracial and I think they might have a point!
Having a White parent doesn't mean that you automatically have a different cultural point of view than someone who identifies as Black or is MGM. I probably know more about German culture than some people with a German parent and it's not because I am part German. I was born and raised there, and speak the language. I had friends with a German parent (usually the mother) whose mother did not teach them German, and, who after moving back to the States, basically severed ties with the German side because she wanted to be a "real American." In another case, the German side of the family disowned the mother because she married a Black man. I had another friend who was not American in the least - her American father had become German and did not teach her English or anything meaningful about American culture.
My parents are also culturally different from one another. If it weren't for the military they would probably never have met. My Haitian family is VERY different from my Black family. There are some similarities but these people really have very little in common with one another. The cultural norms are totally different. The food is totally different. In the older generations the music is totally different. They don't even speak the same languages. If I had had more exposure to family members living in Haiti I would come close to thinking of myself as biracial. Yet the only non-White ancestor in 3 generations is my Comanche great-grandmother on my mom's side.
Lastly the "jealousy" comment seems weird. What's there to be jealous of on either side? There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Because its not the same. The looks maybe the same (except hair, ) but the culture, POV, upbringing may be vastly different. Why should I deny (that's really what they are asking) my biracial identity for others who cannot even name a white ancestor? My FAMILY is of two seperate cultures, I have gone to my white FAMILY reunions, have social relations outside of the Black community, etc. How is this the same as someone who might LOOK similar to me, but has no dealings on a family or social level with Whites/non-Blacks? Looks are only part of ones identity.
If you look 'White', or 'Asian', or 'Mexican', or 'Black' that is how you will be treated. Dark mulattos will probably always be considered 'Black, but mixed by heritage only'.
My question is this. Considering there are examples of MGM Black self-identified people that are socially considered (and treated) bi/multiracial and some cases straight up white, and directly (as in one parent is non-black) biracial folks who are socially considered and treated full black - all based on looks alone - which aspect of biraciality/mulattoness "carries the most weight" so to speak in reality. What one personally knows about their black, white, native, etc... family members/ancestors and history & the particular culture they were brought up in, OR ones actual treatment in society away from ones family based on the purely physical.
I know that these may be considered extreme cases but Toi Derricotte and Sofoklis Schortsanitis are good examples of what I'm talking about. Ms. Derricotte has written extesivily about her experiences as a light-skinned black women being mistaken as white. While Mr. Schortsanitis though technically biracial most likely has the lived experience of a black man. And at 6'10" quite possibly a feared one at that.
I agree that looks are only part of ones identity. But, in some cases can ones phenotype (because it so perfectly fits societies defintion of what a biracial/black/white person "really" looks like) - actually supersede ones personal truth/knowledge/self-identity when it comes to actually living a biracial existence? Or, shall I say what most people think of when one hears that term.
Against one's will it seems some biracial people, multigenerationally mixed, & light-skinned blacks are mistaken for each other, full black, and at times full white.
These are just questions/observations I can't help having when the discussion of who truly desearves to be considered biracial/mulatto comes up.
Posted: Thu 02 Nov 2006 17:56 Post subject: biracial person who is raised with there black parent
so if a biracial person who is raised with there black parent and family and never new he was mixedrace but identifies as light skinned black.then find out later in life he`s had a white dad are going to deny him he`s mixedrace background and tell hem to just say hes a light skinned black with a lighter color?
==================
what if a person finds out by there grandparents they have white relatives
and wanted to identify with there white background and become mixedrace/biracial are you going to deny this person there mixedrace background and just tell him to identify as a light skinned black with a lighter color?
==========
so you rather deny there multiracial right to identify as mixedrace/biracial base on generations gone by never takeing in to count they never new they had white relatives and finding out from there grandparents that they are mixedrace?
Last edited by mymulatto on Thu 02 Nov 2006 18:06; edited 1 time in total
In my personal opinion, after hearing those types of things for so long, it can make a "Black" identified person bitter when he/she hears another melanized person who obviously is US born and from the hypodescent African bloodline, say "I'm not "Black", I'm ___and ___, but not Black!". This can be seen as disrespectful to a "Black" identified person because it's always been a "rule", unspoken or not, that here in the US you are seen as "Black" no matter what. The real tragedy is the way that US "Blacks" have historically been made to feel like it's a bad thing being the descendants of enslaved Africans.
What responsibility do individuals have to "toe the hypodescent line?" I don't believe that people of African descent who choose not to identify as Blacks are responsible for the hurt feelings or bitterness of Black people who do not support their choices. What is up with this "disrespect" angle when it comes to following the ODR? What responsibility do Blacks have to stop seeking validation from outside sources, to stop feeling bad about being descendants of African slaves? This last question is one that I hope you will answer.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 228 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Thu 02 Nov 2006 18:38 Post subject:
Quote:
so if a biracial person who is raised with there black parent and family and never new he was mixedrace but identifies as light skinned black.then find out later in life he`s had a white dad are going to deny him he`s mixedrace background and tell hem to just say hes a light skinned black with a lighter color?
No. It's redundant as to why and how the "Black" person and/or family has "light" skin IMO. It's basic knowledge as to how/why the melanized skin was lightened in the first place. Somewhere in the recent/distant past, one of the ancestors had to be or was likely non-"Black". If your mother or father is non-"Black", then it's obvious you're considered "mixed" and it doesn't even have to be discussed. But if your family has traditionally identified as "Black" for the last 100 years or so, but almost everyone is "high yellow", "red-bone" or has dark skin with varying phenotypes that aren't typical of African people, then what's the point in saying you're mixed?? When's the cutoff date for whose considered "mixed"? I know plenty of "Black" identified people who have light complexions and when you look at their past family photos, most of their family has a wide range of hues, as do most "Black" families here in the disapora. Does that make the them all "mixed", as in not "Black", too?
Like I said, as well as others here...almost all "African-Americans"/"Black" Americans have some kind of admixture that isn't native to Africa or our distant ancestors who were enslaved and brought to these shores centuries ago. So what's the point in constantly advertising it to any and everyone who will listen unless it just recently occured (i.e. mom is non-"Black" and dad is "Black" or vice versa)? That's a long time in the "melting pot" when you think about it. You'd have to be quite foolish and naive to believe that "Blacks" do not have European or some other kind of admixture in their bloodlines IMO.
Because its not the same. The looks maybe the same (except hair, ) but the culture, POV, upbringing may be vastly different. Why should I deny (that's really what they are asking) my biracial identity for others who cannot even name a white ancestor? My FAMILY is of two seperate cultures, I have gone to my white FAMILY reunions, have social relations outside of the Black community, etc. How is this the same as someone who might LOOK similar to me, but has no dealings on a family or social level with Whites/non-Blacks? Looks are only part of ones identity. I look Hispanic to many people, but should I then claim a Hispanic identity?
Cosign. Theres a profound difference between genuinely mixed ethnic people with mixed families, that feel part of two different communities, and have reason to identify as multiracial; and the vast majority of African Americans ("light" or "dark") whom only have black family members, no specific knowledge of any non-black ancestors, and could not reasonably identify as "mixed race" in a meaningfull way.
Theres no comparison between the two groups.
Quote:
No, it is not the same and those who would like to think so do for political or personal reasons. I think Whites who do this are racists and Blacks who do this are jealous or have a political agenda.
I think most people who push the idea that "lightskinned" black people, are really "mixed race" are from the new multi-racial movement; the kind that go around repeating that theres "no such thing as lightskinned black people", as so to put people in their place. Like the AD Powell camp and her colorist internet minions, whom would like to see the ethnically uniform afro-american group divided up into to color coded groups, making the "light" people "mixed" , and dark people the "real blacks"....which is the agenda that mymulatto is no doubt pushing.
the AD Powell camp and her colorist internet minions, whom would like to see the ethnically uniform afro-american group divided up into to color coded groups, making the "light" people "mixed" , and dark people the "real blacks"....which is the agenda that mymulatto is no doubt pushing.
Source, please. You are claiming that Powel advocates imposed self-identity, Everything I have read by Powell (and Backintyme is her publisher) advocates freedom of self-identity in general and that White folks should be allowed to call themselves "White" despite having a distant ancestral trace of African ancestry. First warning. You have 24 hours to either come up with a Powell quote advocating involuntary identity or to retract the above claim.
I think most people who push the idea that "lightskinned" black people, are really "mixed race" are from the new multi-racial movement; the kind that go around repeating that theres "no such thing as lightskinned black people", as so to put people in their place.
Can you elaborate here? Are you saying that, in dismantling the ODR, some people in the multiracial movement want to bully LSBs into rejecting affiliation with the Black American ethnic group?
LOL I guess the bullying can go both ways then. It seems to be a common pitfall in human nature to become the very thing that one was victimized by.
Because its not the same. The looks maybe the same (except hair, ) but the culture, POV, upbringing may be vastly different. Why should I deny (that's really what they are asking) my biracial identity for others who cannot even name a white ancestor? My FAMILY is of two seperate cultures, I have gone to my white FAMILY reunions, have social relations outside of the Black community, etc. How is this the same as someone who might LOOK similar to me, but has no dealings on a family or social level with Whites/non-Blacks? Looks are only part of ones identity.
If you look 'White', or 'Asian', or 'Mexican', or 'Black' that is how you will be treated. Dark mulattos will probably always be considered 'Black, but mixed by heritage only'.
My question is this. Considering there are examples of MGM Black self-identified people that are socially considered (and treated) bi/multiracial and some cases straight up white, and directly (as in one parent is non-black) biracial folks who are socially considered and treated full black - all based on looks alone - which aspect of biraciality/mulattoness "carries the most weight" so to speak in reality. What one personally knows about their black, white, native, etc... family members/ancestors and history & the particular culture they were brought up in, OR ones actual treatment in society away from ones family based on the purely physical.
I know that these may be considered extreme cases but Toi Derricotte and Sofoklis Schortsanitis are good examples of what I'm talking about. Ms. Derricotte has written extesivily about her experiences as a light-skinned black women being mistaken as white. While Mr. Schortsanitis though technically biracial most likely has the lived experience of a black man. And at 6'10" quite possibly a feared one at that.
I agree that looks are only part of ones identity. But, in some cases can ones phenotype (because it so perfectly fits societies defintion of what a biracial/black/white person "really" looks like) - actually supersede ones personal truth/knowledge/self-identity when it comes to actually living a biracial existence? Or, shall I say what most people think of when one hears that term.
Against one's will it seems some biracial people, multigenerationally mixed, & light-skinned blacks are mistaken for each other, full black, and at times full white.
These are just questions/observations I can't help having when the discussion of who truly desearves to be considered biracial/mulatto comes up.
Good Points Zsana.
I think looks do for others, but for oneself, heritage plays a far greater role in ones identity. I don't care how 'Black' I look to others, for me I will always be mixed/biracial/mullato. Yes, I have had to assume a 'Black' identity at times, esp when younger, but most of my friends will tell anyone that 'Melani' will say/thinks she is mixed. It matters to me and at the end of the day, 'to thy ownself be true'.
I can see it both ways, it just depends on the situation. For those who know the background of a biracial, they may say 'Oh, they're Black', but you will always hear the qualifyer ("Oh, their mom is white/they are mixed too'. * Halle Berry.
For strangers, looks will also play the dominate role. And if someone really has nothing personally invested (not racist, no political agenda, etc), they really won't care what a stranger calls themselves.
ps. Ms. Derricolette doesn't look white to me, she looks Creole.
I've seen Sofolklis mentined as a mulatto before, is everyone sure his dad is really Greek, w/o admixture? Anyways, African mulattoes are not the same as AAs, biracials, LSB, etc. Let's keep to American dispora only. I would be a Quadroon by comparison (Yannick Noah's Quad son looks like my brother, lol).
Most, if not all, US born "Blacks" are multiracial (recent and/or distant via voluntary and/or involuntary procreation) no matter how you slice it. That's why we look a lot different than our African counterparts worldwide, because our bloodline has other markers in it that are definitely European/Native & Caribbean "Indian"/Asian/etc.
QUESTION: What makes a US born person who is of African descent feel the need to always tell people what other bloodline(s) they have running through their veins to validate themselves, when it's obvious to anyone looking at them they are a descendant of the enslaved Africans brought over during the three-sided transatlantic slave trade, even if there is visible admixture? Also, what has made a number of US Blacks historically feel inferior, socially speaking, to non-"Blacks" here in the US?
How is any of this data equal to >50% ? I see and understand, but historically info is just that - in the past.
My personal view is I am mixed, but will concede that I am part of the Black American racial group. Now, when I have kids, if I marry Black - they will be AAs of mixed heritage. But AAs. But I am mixed period.
If I marry other/non-Black, they will not be part of the US AA group at all.
Personally, I think the Black race line should be drawn behind mulatto. Everyone else is not Black (except Africans, lol).
Posted: Thu 02 Nov 2006 20:01 Post subject: whites who found out they have natvie american mixedrace
why do white people get to be mixedrace no matter what there background ,like if a white person finds out they have navtive american mix why does he get to be mixedrace and not light skinned blacks,
why does the mix have to end with fristgenation but for white people there's no end they can claim whate ever race they want but black.
Last edited by mymulatto on Thu 02 Nov 2006 20:07; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue 14 Nov 2006 06:20 Post subject: Divide-up the "ethnically uniform" Afro-American group
fwsweet wrote:
Phil345 wrote:
the AD Powell camp and her colorist internet minions, whom would like to see the ethnically uniform afro-american group divided up into to color coded groups, making the "light" people "mixed" , and dark people the "real blacks"....which is the agenda that mymulatto is no doubt pushing.
Source, please. You are claiming that Powel advocates imposed self-identity, Everything I have read by Powell (and Backintyme is her publisher) advocates freedom of self-identity in general and that White folks should be allowed to call themselves "White" despite having a distant ancestral trace of African ancestry. First warning. You have 24 hours to either come up with a Powell quote advocating involuntary identity or to retract the above claim.
I am sorry to see Frank slapping the source-ultimatum on Phil345 to substantiate a claim about A.D. Powell that I do not read Phil345 making. To me, his phrase "... would like to see" evokes a desired result, not an involuntary, unfree, imposed means to an end -- i.e., hypodescent ODR-free identity. Moreover, Phil345's criticism of Powell and Mymulatto (criticism that I read as his interpretation & opinion on well-known positions hardly disputed) lays out a pertinent issue that we always have before us -- one we ought to debate fully and resolve.
I, as arguably an A.D. Powell colorist "minion," do not shrink from Phil345's challenge. Without disenfranchising anyone's freedom to self-identify, I would welcome seeing the monolithic polity of hypodescent, ODR "Black race" fraction as Phil345 stated. I want this for a step-wize way to deconstruct the endogamous "races" of the U.S.A. The "color coded groups, making the "light" people "mixed," and dark people the "real blacks," as Phil345 puts it, would support at least three salutary trends I theorize.
First, Americans would be induced to question the need for endogamous, color-line "races" modeled on immutable zoo-subspecies (even species or genus, some have raved), which always has been our U.S. pseudo-scientific belief in essential "difference" on this mesmerizing obsession. Historically, Americans believed this spooky "science," more-or-less, ever since anti-marriage legislation by Virginia Colony in 1691. Hypodescent was first legislated by the same body in 1705. European naturalists circa the Revolutionary War announced "scientific races," which pleased Enlightenment-age U.S. slave owners. The ODR was not legislated until 1910. All these "rules" were legally cut down in 1967 by the Loving v. Virginia Court. But the beat goes on! Checking boxes (2 or more) modernizes America barely past 1705, when hypodescent first resolved the involuntary "race"-assignment quandary. Post-2000 "collapsing" rules of the U.S. OMB expand hypodescent, ODR to all "white" multiracials for civil rights. The multiracial battle now is over whether the color line can be governmentally ruled permeable (i.e., allowing multiracial existence), thereby breaking the ODR?
Second, phenotypically dark, "black," people would gain custody of their own hides. They would have a base for exclusive membership, from which to build up their sense of esteem for being distinctive. Children would stop regarding themselves the ugly black underbelly of a "race" represented by oxymoronic "white blacks." (We ought to see evidence in the increased sales of "black" dolls.) Moreover, the ODR works its most insidious curse here. The ODR imputing "real" Negro-hood to "white" people also imputes "powerful racial toxin" pariah taint to the least "drop" of "black blood." Dark "blacks" suffer the sigma of carrying ghastly reservoirs of "racial toxin" in their gonads. Only good could come from being relieved of that. And "black" aversion surely drives colorism, which ends with the exodus of around 42,000 crossing the color line annually. (F.W. Sweet, The Legal History of the Color Line (Palm Coast, Fla.: Backintyme, 2005), 73-5 [i.e., the mean of two measures].) The ODR apparently makes the endogamous U.S. "black race" phenotype-stable perpetually -- as "white" genes added by interracial marriages are constantly subtracted by the "white" genes removed by absconding "passers" -- by those born "black" who become "white" as adults. (Cf., Susie G. Phipps.) Our whole Planet is learning to abhor "black," and the U.S. ODR is the most likely underlying cause of it.
Third, fractures weakening the Congressional Black Caucus political clout of census-Black -- whom Phil345 called "the ethnically uniform afro-american group" -- will be necessary for stopping the government classifying individuals involuntarily in "races." My position starts from recognizing one human race only -- and our colorful diversity of phenotype is appreciated best in a like mindset as appreciating hair and eye color. We don't have to go blind. But how many EEOC regulations govern hair and eye color? I realize that there are those who give so much importance to subculture barriers of late -- styles almost segregating Afro-Americans into ethnic apartheid from the Mainstream in many locales -- that they would perpetuate ODR "blood"-caste (ancestry, not skin tone) indefinitely for laudable social engineering or for unlimited empowerment of classificatory Black (CBC leadership, anyway), by using census "races." (Maybe to Balkanization?) However, I think we should define the various issues and analyze them separately.
George
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
) but the culture, POV, upbringing may be vastly different. 
Why should I deny (that's really what they are asking) my biracial identity for others who cannot even name a white ancestor? 
Looks are only part of ones identity. I look Hispanic to many people, but should I then claim a Hispanic identity? 
before, is everyone sure his dad is really Greek, w/o admixture? 