Frank, when you ask why AA's deny their European ancestry, what precisely do you mean by denying? I know what the word deny means but within the context of your question, do you mean that AA's claim to be 100% African descended with the few exceptions of an occasional NA ancestor? Or, are you asking why AA's don't connect with or identify in part with known European ancestry?
If your question is reflected by my second question then a most likely answer(my ponderings) is because traditionally in the US, white families would most often refuse to share their cultural identity with black/white biracial children and with this rejection being internalized, the biracial offspring in most cases would share their cultural space and identity with their black family and this would be reinforced by the white community throughout a lot of American history. Of course, there are many exceptions such as the triracial isolates that you've written essays about.
Frank, when you ask why AA's deny their European ancestry, what precisely do you mean by denying? I know what the word deny means but within the context of your question, do you mean that AA's claim to be 100% African descended with the few exceptions of an occasional NA ancestor? Or, are you asking why AA's don't connect with or identify in part with known European ancestry?
Actually, the former is closer to what I was asking about. I was refering specifically to the 2000 census, where very few AAs checked two boxes, in contrast to other "non-white" groups (Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics) who check two boxes much more often.
The phenomenon just seems odd to me. And neither popular explanation is very convincing. That the 98+ percent of AAs who check only one box are unaware of their Euro genetic ancestry is hard to believe. And that it is due to resentment (like the Dominicans in reverse) seems counterproductive. Again, the oddity is that other so-called non-Whites do not hesitate to check two boxes.
I was not asking about the second (dearth of family connections and associations), because its cause (the social ostracism of AAs from mainstream society) is well known.
The phenomenon just seems odd to me. And neither popular explanation is very convincing. That the 98+ percent of AAs who check only one box are unaware of their Euro genetic ancestry is hard to believe. And that it is due to resentment (like the Dominicans in reverse) seems counterproductive. Again, the oddity is that other so-called non-Whites do not hesitate to check two boxes.
IMO, many AA's don't see themselves as biracial despite any (minimal) European admixture. It is my opinion and personal observation that both color identities (black and white) carry a lot of baggage with regard to how each one relates to the other one in the US. White isn't merely just benign European heritage, but an adversary. The choosing of only the black label on the census is a reflection of the ethnic (socially defined identity) choice rather than a reflection of ones actual ancestry.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Wed 22 Nov 2006 20:07 Post subject:
Quote:
f your question is reflected by my second question then a most likely answer(my ponderings) is because traditionally in the US, white families would most often refuse to share their cultural identity with black/white biracial children and with this rejection being internalized, the biracial offspring in most cases would share their cultural space and identity with their black family and this would be reinforced by the white community throughout a lot of American history. Of course, there are many exceptions such as the triracial isolates that you've written essays about.
I agree.
I've often heard black identified Americans with a mixed phenotype make jokes about their white ancestry/ancestors. It's a delicate issue, of course. In the wrong context or with the wrong phrasing, these could be fighting words. I believe that many if not most black Americans know that they have Euro ancestors, but they refuse to acknowledge them.
I tend to see the black/white divide in the US as similar to the Catholic/Protestan divide in Northern Ireland, and Flemand/ Wallon divide in Belgium. Two cultures in conflict with each other for centuries, little or no intermarriage, little willingness to live in the same neighborhoods or send their children to the same schools, and perhaps most importantly, two distinct versions of the same history.
But it is easy to see why most Puerto Ricans in the U.S. do not want to be seen as Black. Like others of dual ancestry (Cape Verdeans, BWI's, African immigrants, and members of most maroon communities of the U.S. Southeast), they know that being classified as U.S. Black condemns them to the oppression, bigotry, lack of opportunity, and wretched earning potential inflicted upon African Americans by U.S. society. It makes sense to avoid this fate if at all possible.
fwsweet wrote:
I was refering specifically to the 2000 census, where very few AAs checked two boxes, in contrast to other "non-white" groups (Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics) who check two boxes much more often.
The phenomenon just seems odd to me. And neither popular explanation is very convincing. That the 98+ percent of AAs who check only one box are unaware of their Euro genetic ancestry is hard to believe. And that it is due to resentment (like the Dominicans in reverse) seems counterproductive. Again, the oddity is that other so-called non-Whites do not hesitate to check two boxes.
let me see if I understand you.
80% of Puerto Ricans who reside in Puerto Rico, (who have on mean an Afro admixture of 45%) check "White" on the census form and nothing else. Its easy for you to understand why they don't want to check "black" on a census form.
98% of African Americans (who have on mean a Euro admixture of 18%)check AA/Black and nothing else on their census forms. You consider this an oddity an counterproductive, even with the U.S. history regarding ODR.
let me see if I understand you. 80% of Puerto Ricans who reside in Puerto Rico, (who have on mean an Afro admixture of 45%) check "White" on the census form and nothing else. Its easy for you to understand why they don't want to check "black" on a census form. 98% of African Americans (who have on mean a Euro admixture of 18%)check AA/Black and nothing else on their census forms. You consider this an oddity an counterproductive, even with the U.S. history regarding ODR.
Not exactly. I never said that 80 percent of PR residents check off White and nothing else. It was you who said that. You err in two ways. First, although the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico administers a periodic census, to my knowledge the local island census has no "race" question. The only data on Puerto Ricans' "racial" choice that I am aware of comes from stateside residents who are subject to the decennial federal census and who check off "yes" on the "Are you Hispanic?" question and check off "Puerto Rican" under the same question.
Second, only about 40 percent of such U.S. residents (who consider themselves "Puerto Rican" in that sense) check off "White" on the "race" question. Another 40-45 percent check off "other" and fill in something nonresponsive (Latino, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, etc.). By Census Bureau policy such nonresponsive choices are recorded as "White" when made by a Hispanic. This may be where your 80-85 percent number comes from.
Still, despite the above corrections--that we are talking only about U.S. residents--you capture my question accurately. One might expect a U.S. resident of mixed ancestry to claim at least partial whiteness in order to avoid the negative consequences of being seen as entirely non-White in a racialist society. This seems to be the practice followed by many U.S. residents who consider themselves Hispanic. And it seems to be the practice followed by those of mixed Euro-Asian ancestry. But it does not seem to be the practice of the great majority of African Americans.
Last edited by fwsweet on Sat 25 Nov 2006 12:15; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 228 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Fri 24 Nov 2006 16:53 Post subject:
Quote:
Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
IMO, I don't think "African Americans" deny their Euro Ancestry as much as we don't know much about it.
When I asked my grandmother why don't we know who the "White" side of our family are or acknowledge them, she responded by stating it wasn't the "Black" side of the family that didn't acknowledge the "Whites", but the exact opposite.
The "White" relatives, I'm sure, didn't want to have anything to do with their "Black" family because that would mean losing their "White-privilage" that America provided for "White-idenitified" people with the Jim Crow laws in the South. It's good to be "White" in America and that had to be preserved by appearing to be of pure "White" genes.
Bottom line is after slavery, how would most "African-Americans" know exactly who and where their true family came from when they didn't have access to the slave records of the plantations of where their ancestors allegedly came from?
It was routine for families to be sold to different plantations in different states or counties so how would the average "African-American", who is descended from enslaved Africans, truly know their past unless the slavemasters were kind enough (yeah, right!) to keep full records of the indigenous birthplace of the fresh slaves he bought or kept extremely good records of his American born slave's birth records (again...yeah, right!) and passed that info along to his newly freed slaves, then most AAs will have an exhausted, almost impossible research project on their hands.
Most of our families weren't so lucky to have good, accurate records of birth because our ancestors weren't counted as people, but property. So most of the births were recorded in the family bible and a lot of the family tree was handed down orally by the elders in the family. If they didn't want you to know something, then you didn't learn about that so a lot of "African-American" families don't know the exact family bloodline because of many situations that were out of our hands.
A lot of "Black" Americans have this experience so I don't think it's a case of denial, but rather a case of really not knowing. Most of us start talking about our family tree beginning with the end of slavery when our great, great, grandparents were about to be freed or were freed, which really doesn't tell us who we are. Unlike every other immigrant group that comes/came to America, many of us don't have the luxury of naming all of our paternal/maternal lineages. It sucks but it is what it is.
Luckily, nowadays more and more "African-Americans" are taking the DNA tests to find out exactly where it is we come from. I'm going to take the test soon because there are a lot of questions I need to have answered before I feel "whole" and truly "free", and this seems to be the best way of doing this.
IMO, I don't think "African Americans" deny their Euro Ancestry as much as we don't know much about it.
Neither do Hispanics, but many have no problem checking off two boxes on the census. Let us not lose sight of the question: "Why do so few African Americans (compared to Hispanics and Asian Americans) check off two boxes on the census?" You do not need to know your genealogy in order to check two boxes on a form.
Sankofa wrote:
When I asked my grandmother why don't we know who the "White" side of our family are or acknowledge them, she responded by stating it wasn't the "Black" side of the family that didn't acknowledge the "Whites", but the exact opposite. The "White" relatives, I'm sure, didn't want to have anything to do with their "Black" family because that would mean losing their "White-privilage" that America provided for "White-idenitified" people with the Jim Crow laws in the South. It's good to be "White" in America and that had to be preserved by appearing to be of pure "White" genes.
Again, you are losing sight of the question. The question is: "Why do so few African Americans (compared to Hispanics and Asian Americans) check off two boxes on the census?" There is nothing that Whites can do or not do that forces a Black grandmother (or anyone else, for that matter) to check or not to check two boxes on a form.
Sankofa wrote:
Luckily, nowadays more and more "African-Americans" are taking the DNA tests to find out exactly where it is we come from.
Judging by the fate of African Ancestry, Inc., many African Americans who ask the question then reject the answer. They become bitter and unhappy when they find that "where we come from" often turns out to be partly or even mostly Europe.
Last edited by fwsweet on Sat 25 Nov 2006 12:17; edited 1 time in total
Not exactly. I never said that 80 percent of PR residents check off White and nothing else. It was you who said that. You err in two ways. First, although the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico administers a periodic census, to my knowledge the local island census has no "race" question. The only data on Puerto Ricans' "racial" choice that I am aware of comes from stateside residents who are subject to the decennial federal census and who check off "yes" on the "Are you Hispanic?" question and check off "Puerto Rican" under the same question.
Second, only about 40 percent of such U.S. residents (who consider themselves "Puerto Rican" in that sense) check off "White" on the "race" question. Another 40-45 percent check off "other" and fill in something nonresponsive (Latino, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, etc.). By Census Bureau policy such nonresponsive choices are recorded as "White" when made by a Hispanic. This may be where your 80-85 percent number comes from.
I will post here a couple of links (both of which are from the United States census bereau's official website) which I hope will clear up any misunderstandings you may have with regards to the statistics I cited.
As the result of revised standards for collecting data on race and
ethnicity issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1997 (see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html), Census 2000 was
the first in which the instructions for respondents said, "Mark one or
more races." Census 2000 also was the first time in which the Puerto Rico
questionnaire content was the same as that used in the United States and
in which data on Hispanic or Latino origin were collected. Data on race
were last previously collected in the decennial census in Puerto Rico in
1950.
Respondents who reported only one race are shown in six groups: the five
groups identified in the OMB standard (White; Black or African American;
American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander) and a "Some other race" category.
Respondents who selected more than one of the six race groups are
included in the "Two or more races" population. There are more than 50
possible combinations of the six race groups.
The Census Bureau included the "Some other race" category for responses
that could not be classified in any of the race categories on the
questionnaire. Data on Hispanics or Latinos, who may be of any race, were
obtained from a separate question on ethnicity.
this link below has a clear breakdown of the racial demographics of Puerto Rico. Distinctions were infact made between "race" and "ethnicity". Respondents that didn't specifically chose "white" themselves were not marked as "white".
I will post here a couple of links (both of which are from the United States census bereau's official website) which I hope will clear up any misunderstandings you may have with regards to the statistics I cited.
That is very interesting. Thank you for posting it. According to the press release, the 2000 census was the first time since 1950 that residents of the island were asked their "race," and the first time ever in history that they were told to use the stateside form.
Regarding the census bureau no longer re-coding as "racially" White those who self-identify as Hispanic and check "other," I see nothing in your sources addressing this point. Where exactly do you see this? For my source that this is policy, see the explanation here, starting at the paragraph that opens "Hispanics/Latinos represent an important exception to this policy."
Regarding the census bureau no longer re-coding as "racially" White those who self-identify as Hispanic and check "other," I see nothing in your sources addressing this point. Where exactly do you see this? For my source that this is policy, see the explanation here, starting at the paragraph that opens "Hispanics/Latinos represent an important exception to this policy."
from the U.S. Census Bureau's official website
here
Quote:
Some other race. Includes all other responses not included in the "White", "Black or African American", "American Indian and Alaska Native", "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" race categories described above. Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, Wesort, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" category are included here.
I also noticed an interesting point from the paragraph that you were refering to in your link.
Quote:
Hispanics/Latinos represent an important exception to this policy of assigning a race to "other race" respondents. The race(s) of people of Hispanic/Latino origin have been coded in a variety of ways because the Census Bureau does not consider Hispanic/Latino to be a race group (for more discussion see HISPAN and HISPHIST) and because "other race" is a very common response for Hispanics in recent years. In most years before 1970, the majority of Hispanics were probably classified as white by enumerators, as was specified in the enumerator instructions for 1940 and 1950. Mexicans in 1930 had their own category and thus were an exception to this rule. In 1970, "Mexican" and "Puerto Rican" write-in responses to "other race" were recoded to "white". In 1980, the Census Bureau noted whether an "other race" response indicated Hispanic origin but did not recode Hispanic "other race" responses. Other details of the "other race" write-in responses have not been included in the census samples.
... from the U.S. Census Bureau's official website ... I also noticed an interesting point from the paragraph that you were refering to in your link.
So you are suggesting that the Bureau recoded Hispanic "other" as "White" before 1980, but that they stopped doing this in 1980 and that they no longer do it?
You may be right. The U of Minn IPUMS group's saying that they did not recode in 1980 is persuasive, since IPUMS are the experts on past and present census coding policies. We know that the Bureau recoded Hispanics in 1970 and before, and I am willing to accept the IPUMS statement that they did not do this in 1980. The problem in my mind comes down to 1990 and and 2000. Did they revert to recoding as before 1980 or did they end it altogether?
That the official census website claims to record "other" exactly as written by the respondents means nothing, since they have always claimed this--even before 1980. They lied then, just as they continue to lie now that whatever you put down is confidential and will not be revealed to other agencies. (Recall that it was precisely individual census data that enabled the feds to round up American citizens of Japanese descent in WWII.) It is useful the remember that the Bureau is subject to the political whims of Congress, after all.
All in all, for the purposes of debate I am willing to postulate that they stopped recoding Hispanics in 1980 and have not restarted. But I have my skeptic's doubts on this point. I would like to see something more explicit from an independent source (like the IPUMS group).
Still, despite the above corrections--that we are talking only about U.S. residents--you capture my question accurately. One might expect a U.S. resident of mixed ancestry to claim at least partial whiteness in order to avoid the negative consequences of being seen as entirely non-White in a racialist society. This seems to be the practice followed by many U.S. residents who consider themselves Hispanic. And it seems to be the practice followed by those of mixed Euro-Asian ancestry. But it does not seem to be the practice of the great majority of African Americans.
Frank I think your approach to this question is very much indicative of the difference between the Latin appearance-based declaration of identity and the North American ancestry-based declaration of identity, and that may be why it is difficult to accept. The acceptance of the ODR ensures that mixed race people of African descent in the U.S. cannot simply change their "race" to escape the stigma of blackness because the ODR is more concerned with (perhaps even solely based on) ancestry rather than appearance or cultural assimilation.
My father speaks of the Carribean saying "Money bleaches." What this deceptively simple phrase means to me is that Carribean cultures "forgive" strong African appearance, provided certain social conditions are met. In these cultures one is likely encouraged to "breed out" a too-African appearance with intermarriage, and money/success greases these wheels. A similar approach has been taken with all of the ethnic groups included under the "White" umbrella in the U.S. - we'll forgive your non-White Jewish/Italian/Irish ancestry and bleach you "White" if you assimilate and act like WASPs.
When you are of African ancestry but do not have a strong African appearance, what's to forgive using the Carribean model? There is little to no importance put on African ancestry.
The goal of the ODR is to seek and destroy all connections to blackness within the White race, whether visible ancestral or genetic, in all socio-economic classes. When you are considered either 100% White or Black, mixed race ancestry is immaterial. No one has to see a mixed race person as entirely of African ancestry to hold that person at arms length socially speaking. The "taint" is already there "in the blood." No other "race" carries this stigma in the U.S., not even Native Americans.
The way I see it, Hispanic (and many BWI/Carribean Afro-descended) immigrants are behaving as they would "at home," buying and behaving their way into whiteness as European/Asian ethnic immigrant groups did in the U.S. You can be what box you check, what you act like and you appear to be in other words. That's not the way it works for African Americans, or they way they perceive reality. There is no social mobility in checking a different box when you have visible African ancestry in a country operating under the ODR. It is virtually impossible to buy and behave your way into whiteness unless you cut all ties to your Africanness, your blackness. Money doesn't bleach in the U.S. in the minds of African Americans, so when they check that box they are likely accepting that reality.
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 22:34 Post subject: Re: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
fwsweet wrote:
BlackHaze wrote:
do you know how many have more than 25 percent Euro DNA admixture?
Answer #1 -- By counting circles on Heather Collins-Schramm's chart, it looks like four out of 264 (1.5 percent).
Let me rephrase the question. How many have 25% OR more euro dna? I'm only asking because some older studies reported that mean admixture was around 25-27%. Does it vary by geographic location?
Posted: Wed 20 Dec 2006 01:14 Post subject: Re: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
BlackHaze wrote:
Let me rephrase the question. How many have 25% OR more euro dna?
Sorry. I misunderstood. A quick count shows about 50 dots at or above the 25 percent Euro line. This comes to about 20 percent of the A-A population.
The latest measurements that I have seen of mean Euro admixture in the A-A population is around 17 percent.
BlackHaze wrote:
I'm only asking because some older studies reported that mean admixture was around 25-27%.
Yes, the current consensus of about 17 percent is less than had been thought prior to Shiver's (and colleagues') development of admixture mapping using ancestry-informative autosomal markers. Cavalli-Sforza, for example, published the 25-27 percent number. I think that those older studies used mainly blood proteins plus a few autosomal markers (FY-null, HbS). The problem was that since they are adaptive, their frequency is not a reliable indicator. Consequently the numbers derived from them were relatively crude estimates, compared to what we now know.
BlackHaze wrote:
Does it vary by geographic location?
It varies dramatically by location. A-As in Philadelphia and Boston have a great deal of Euro admixture. The Geechee/Gullah folk of the Sea Islands, on the other hand, have less Euro in them than today's inhabitants of West Africa. Browse through the Various Admixture Studies (the ones on the United States). I think that several give ranges for different U.S. regions.
Last edited by fwsweet on Sun 04 Feb 2007 12:09; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Sat 03 Feb 2007 17:01 Post subject: What is there to gain?
sagascend writes,
Quote:
There is no social mobility in checking a different box when you have visible African ancestry in a country operating under the ODR. It is virtually impossible to buy and behave your way into whiteness unless you cut all ties to your Africanness, your blackness. Money doesn't bleach in the U.S. in the minds of African Americans, so when they check that box they are likely accepting that reality.
Although I don't completely understand the distinction between an appearance-based versus ancestry-based approach to racial identification, your point that Blackamericans may not see the benefit of checking the "White" box is a good one. I'm inclined to take it one step further by postulating that many Blackamericans see diluting their numbers as potentially dangerous, politically, in a society still operating under ODR.
By checking only one box we are not subscribing to 100% African ancestry notion, but rather to the notion that the alternative would be political suicide.
Posted: Sat 10 Feb 2007 13:11 Post subject: Re: What is there to gain?
High School Teacher wrote:
By checking only one box we are not subscribing to 100% African ancestry notion, but rather to the notion that the alternative would be political suicide.
I may not have made my question clear. I understand that many who self-identify as African American are able to introspect why they personally check only one box on the census. But I am suspicious of rationalization and cognitive dissonance when it comes to introspecting a reason for doing something that seems externally strange. I was seeking more an objective appraisal of cultural motives, rather than introspection.
In this light, the above answer ("political suicide") catches your attention. Surely, no one seriously thinks that his/her right to register with the local elections office and vote would be jeopardized by his/her checking two boxes (as do other citizens of part non-Euro ancestry). Is High School Teacher suggesting that the overwhelming majority (over 97 percent) of African Americans check only one box because they believe that their right to vote would be taken away otherwise? This seems unlikely.
What am I missing here?
Last edited by fwsweet on Sat 10 Feb 2007 14:20; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 10 Feb 2007 14:06 Post subject: Re: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
fwsweet wrote:
...The Geechee/Gullah folk of the Sea Islands, on the other hand, have less Euro in them than today's inhabitants of West Africa....
That's interesting. Do you have the admixture figures for the people of West Africa? I guess people from Ghana and other northern subsaharan countries , must have some degree of admixture with North Africans, Arabs and Europeans, because of the trans-saharan trade, the Islamic conquest and the contact with Europeans.
Posted: Sat 10 Feb 2007 14:18 Post subject: Re: Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry?
oevega wrote:
Do you have the admixture figures for the people of West Africa? I guess people from Ghana and other northern subsaharan countries , must have some degree of admixture with North Africans, Arabs and Europeans, because of the trans-saharan trade, the Islamic conquest and the contact with Europeans.
Scroll up a couple of messages to Heather Collins-Schramm's scatter diagrams. The two clusters on the right are of interest. The "135 AFZ" are subjects residing in Zaire (Congo). The "159 AFN" are subjects in Nigeria. Notice that Nigerians have more Euro than Congolese do. Although the original report does not suggest an explanation for the discrepancy, I believe that it reflects traces of the Almoravid empire, which stretched from Dakar, Senegambia to Barcelona, Spain.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
