Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 23:34 Post subject: Re: while i have a sec
davidmatthews wrote:
my lament was imprecise ... so i apologize.
Apology accepted. Given that the fraction of African-Americans with a White spouse quintupled from 1970 to 2000, and given that this represents a drop as a fraction of "interracial" marriages overall, it seems safe to conclude that the other "interracial" marriages (White/Hispanic, Hispanic/Asian, White/Indian, Indian/Polynesian, etc. etc.) have skyrocketed. Many scholars have noticed this phenomenon. Most suggest that it shows the ongoing acceptance of populations once considered separate non-white "races" (as the Germans, Irish, and Jews once were) under the ever-stretching blanket of U.S. whiteness. If you wish to pursue this, I strongly recommend Jonathan W. Warren and France Winddance Twine, “White Americans, the New Minority?,” Journal of Black Studies 28, no. 2 (1997): 200-218. You can download a copy or read it online by clicking here.
One other thing, David. Someone else already brought this up. It would really make your messages easier to read if you used normal capitalization. As I recall, we once suspended e.e. cummings for violating rule C.7.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 25 Jan 2007 01:50; edited 3 times in total
What is the rate of intermarriage compared to all marriages in between both years compared.
I am not sure that I understand. [The following section was edited on 1/25/07 as explained in message 18342, below.]There were 3,168,800 married couples within the A-A community reported to the census in 1970. Of those marriages, 56,500 had one White spouse and one Black spouse. In 2000, 3,461,500 Black or partly Black married couples filled out census forms. Of those marriages, 256,900 had one White spouse and one Black spouse. [The preceding section was edited on 1/25/07 as explained in message 18342, below.] Is that what you were asking? If so, just download http://backintyme.com/rawdata/intermarriage.zip for the same numbers from 1850 to 2000. If you are asking about other "interracial" marriages than B/W, I cannot help you. The definition of who is White and who is a non-White "race" (Germans, Irish, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans) has varied too much from census to census.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 25 Jan 2007 15:02; edited 2 times in total
What is the rate of intermarriage compared to all marriages in between both years compared.
I am not sure that I understand. There were 31,688.000 married couples reported to the census in 1970. Of those marriages, 565,000 had one White spouse and one Black spouse. In 2000, 34,615,000 married couples filled out census forms. Of those marriages, 2,569,000 had one White spouse and one Black spouse. Is that what you were asking? If so, just download http://backintyme.com/rawdata/intermarriage.zip for the same numbers from 1850 to 2000.
Yup that is what I was asking. So 1.78% increased to 7.4%
Yup that is what I was asking. So 1.78% increased to 7.4%
Yes, that is one way of looking at it. There are two ways of expressing exogamy rate as a fraction. Here is an explanation from Appendix A of Legal History of the Color Line.
Appendix A wrote:
Exogamy rate was computed as C/(2*B-C), where C is the number of exogamous marriages and B is the number of marriages. There are two common ways of expressing exogamy mathematically. The first defines it as the fraction of married individuals who have an out-group spouse. The second defines it as the number of exogamous marriages as a fraction of total group marriages (both endogamous and exogamous). A simple algebraic formula translates between these two definitions. The present text uses the first definition. [footnote: The formula may be found in Stephan Thernstrom, Ann Orlov, and Oscar Handlin, eds. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge MA, 1980), 516.]
There were 31,688.000 married couples reported to the census in 1970. Of those marriages, 565,000 had one White spouse and one Black spouse. In 2000, 34,615,000 married couples filled out census forms. Of those marriages, 2,569,000 had one White spouse and one Black spouse.
Correction, there are two possible errors in the above wording.
The first is a possible misunderstanding as to what we are seeking. The numbers of married couples cited above tally only marrriages involving African Americans. The total number of U.S. marriages in all is about eight times higher than that, most of which have nothing to do with the A-A community. This is logical because, in measuring B/W outmarriage within the Black community, we are interested only in number of interracial marriages as a fraction of all Black marriages.
Second, the raw numbers cited above (not the percentages) are inflated by a factor of ten because, when I wrote it yesterday, I misremembered the original sample as a a one-in-one-thousand sample; in fact, it was a one-in-one-hundred sample. The percentage results, of course, remain unchanged.
[Note to William: You might be interested to know that I spotted the discrepancy when I noticed that the 95% confidence intervals shown as tick-marks on the graph were tighter than justified by a one-in-one-thousand sample. But I knew that the tick-marks were right because they had been reviewed by others. This caused me to dig out the original data, showing that it was a one-percent sample, thus yielding the tight confidence interval depicted, but showing that I misremembered the original sampling rate. It was one more lesson on the importance of computing the 95% confidence interval.]
Please consider the above message to be re-worded as follows:
There were 3,168,800 married couples within the A-A community reported to the census in 1970. Of those marriages, 56,500 had one White spouse and one Black spouse. In 2000, 3,461,500 Black or partly Black married couples filled out census forms. Of those marriages, 256,900 had one White spouse and one Black spouse.
The "offical" explanation of how the B/W exogamy rate is measured is:
Appendix A wrote:
Exogamy of All U.S. Groups
Data on the exogamy of all U.S. “racial” groups was obtained by downloading a one-percent sample (about 745,000 records) of the 2000 census. Each record describes an individual, his or her relationship to the head of household, his or her “race,” and whether he or she was Hispanic. The records were tabulated using the following logic: The entire household was skipped unless both the head-of-household and the spouse of the head-of-household were present in the household’s census record. The household was skipped if both head-of-household and spouse were White. Each individual was assigned a group number in accordance with his or her answer to the census question (1=White, 2=Black, 3=Amerind, 4=Japanese, 5=Chinese, 6=Other Asian). Anyone who claimed to be Hispanic was coded with group number 7=Hispanic, regardless of how they answered the “race” question. Every non-skipped couple was counted as one marriage. If one spouse was of group 1 (White) and the other spouse was of any group other than White, the couple was counted as one exogamous marriage. Exogamy rate was computed as C/(2*B-C), where C is the number of exogamous marriages and B is the number of marriages. There are two common ways of expressing exogamy mathematically. The first defines it as the fraction of married individuals who have an out-group spouse. The second defines it as the number of exogamous marriages as a fraction of total group marriages (both endogamous and exogamous). A simple algebraic formula translates between these two definitions. The present text uses the first definition. The ninety-fifth percentile confidence interval was computed as plus or minus 1.96*SQRT(D*(1-D)/(2*B)), where D is the exogamy rate as computed above and B is the number of marriages. It reflects, to 95 percent certainty, the range within which reality must lie. The original downloaded intermarriage census data set, code book, SPSS parameters file, and the Excel spreadsheet that tabulates the results are all contained in a 3 MB compressed file, which may be downloaded from <http>.
Black/White Intermarriage
Data on Black/White intermarriage was obtained by downloading a one-percent sample (well over two million records) covering all available census decades from 1850 through 2000. Each record describes an individual, his or her relationship to the head of household, his or her “race,” and whether he or she was Hispanic. The records were tabulated using the following logic: The entire household was skipped unless both the head-of-household and the spouse of the head-of-household were present in the household’s census record. The household was skipped if either the head-of-household or spouse was Hispanic. The household was skipped if neither head nor spouse had a Black racial designation. The household was skipped if either the head or spouse had a racial designation of anything other than Black or White. Every non-skipped couple was counted as one marriage. If one spouse was racially labeled as White and the other as Black, the couple was counted as one interracial marriage. Exogamy rate was computed as C/(2*B-C), where C is the number of interracial marriages and B is the number of marriages. The same definition of exogamy rate was used as in the previous item, “Exogamy of All U.S. Groups.” The ninety-fifth percentile confidence interval was also computed as in the previous item. The original downloaded intermarriage census data set, code book, SPSS parameters file, and the Excel spreadsheet that tabulates the results are all contained in a 6MB compressed file, which may be downloaded from <http>.
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 08:51 Post subject: Hazlip and interracial marriage
Triguy:
Quote:
Look at how you attacked Shirley Hazlip and her husband on Amazon. You implied that they were trying to deceive people to the fact they were a mixed couple. It didn't matter that both people considered themselves ethnically black, you felt that you had a right to call into question their identification. You cast aspersions on the integrity and honor of two people who had a loving marriage. You did so for your racially motivated politics.
When Hazlip and her husband go out in public, people see a "white" woman with a "black" man.
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 09:02 Post subject: Danzy Senna
Triguy:
Quote:
Why don't they have a right to write and sell their memoirs as anyone else? Good grief, you are always talking about liberals and communists, but here you are inveighing against the free market of ideas, angered whenever someone who doesn't share your opinion is able to sell her memoirs or ideas and achieves success--commercial or otherwise.
What was your response to Danzi Senna's works and success? Did you offer competing ideas for the intellectual market to compare?
I think your responses to Senna on Salon.com speaks volumes about your lack of confidence in intellectual capitalism: You questioned whether Danzy Senna's parents weren't guilty of child abuse for raising her as ethnically black. You also questioned her mental health, calling Senna sick, a technique that the Soviets often used to squelch dissent-. Some people are more equal to give their opinions than others: Quite Orwellian
Let's examine the great Danzy Senna and her contempt for those who DON'T choose a "black" identity:
_______________________________
Quote:
The Mulatto Millennium
September/October 1998
By Danzy Senna
Waking up in an age of radical ambiguity
Strange to wake up and realize you're in style. That's what happened to me just the other morning. It was the first day of the new millennium, and I woke to find that mulattos had taken over. They were everywhere. Playing golf, running the airwaves, opening restaurants, modeling clothes, starring in musicals with names like Show Me the Miscegenation! The radio played a steady stream of Lenny Kravitz, Sade, and Mariah Carey. I thought I'd died and gone to Berkeley. But then I realized that, according to the racial zodiac, 2000 is the official Year of the Mulatto. Pure breeds (at least black ones) are out; hybridity is in. America loves us in all of our half-caste glory. The president announced on Friday that beige will be the official color of the millennium.
Before all of this radical ambiguity, I considered myself a black girl. Not your ordinary black girl, if such a thing exists. But rather, a black girl with a WASP mother and black-Mexican father, and a face that harks back to Andalusia, not Africa. I was born in 1970, when black described a people bonded not by shared complexion or hair texture but by shared history.
Not only was I black, but I sneered at those by-products of miscegenation who chose to identify as mixed, not black. I thought it wishy-washy, an act of flagrant assimilation, treason-passing, even. I was an enemy of the mulatto people.
My parents made me this way. In Boston circa 1975, mixed wasn't an option. "A fight, a fight, a nigga and a white!" echoed from schoolyards during recess. You were either white or black. No checking "Other." No halvsies. No in between. Black people, the bottom of Boston's social totem pole, were inevitably the most accepting of difference; they were the only race to come in all colors, and so there I found myself. Sure, I got strange reactions from all quarters when I called myself black. But black people usually got over their initial surprise and welcomed me into the ranks. White folks were the most uncomfortable with the dissonance between the face they saw and the race they didn't. Upon learning who I was, they grew paralyzed with fear that they might have "slipped up" in my presence, that is, said something racist, not knowing there was a Negro in their midst. Often, they had.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let it be clear-my parents' decision to raise us as black wasn't based on any one-drop-of-blood rule from the days of slavery, and it certainly wasn't based on our appearance, that crude reasoning many black-identified mixed people use: If the world sees me as black, I must be black. If it had been based on appearance, my sister would have been black and my brother Mexican, and I Jewish. Instead, my parents' decision arose out of the black power movement, which made identifying as black not a pseudoscientific rule but a conscious choice. Now that we don't have to anymore, we choose to. Because black is beautiful. Because black is not a burden, but a privilege.
Some might say my parents went too far. I remember my father schooling me and my siblings on our racial identity. He would grill us over a greasy linoleum kitchen table, a single bright lightbulb swinging overhead: "Do you have any black friends? How many? Who? And we, his obedient children, his soldiers in the battle for negritude, would rattle off the names of the black kids we called friends.
Something must have sunk in, because my sister and I grew up with disdain for those who identified as mulatto. A very particular breed got under my skin: the kind who answered, meekly, "Everything" to that incessant question, "What are you?" I veered away from groups of them-children, like myself, who had been born of interracial minglings after dark. Instead, I surrounded myself with bodies darker than my own, hoping the color might rub off on me.
One year, while working as an investigative journalist in Hollywood, I made up a list, evidence I've long since burned. Luckily for my career, it was never published. It was an expos» of who is passing in Hollywood, called "And You Thought It Was Just a Tan?" There were three categories:
Black Folks You May Not Have Known Are Black
Mariah Carey
Jennifer Beals
Tom Hanks
Carly Simon
Slash
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Johnny Depp
Michael Jackson
Kevin Bacon
Robin Quivers
Elizabeth Berkeley
Paula Abdul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Folks Who May Not Know They Are Black
Mariah Carey
Jennifer Beals
Tom Hanks
Carly Simon
Slash
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Johnny Depp
Michael Jackson
Kevin Bacon
Robin Quivers
Elizabeth Berkeley
Paula Abdul
Black Folks You Kinda Wish Weren't Black
O.J. Simpson
Michael Jackson
Gary Coleman
Robin Quivers
Needless to say, my list wouldn't have gone over too well with the Mulatto Nation posse (M.N. to those in the know). It was nearly published in a local newsweekly, but the editors balked at the last minute. I bet they're thanking their lucky stars now; in this age of fluidity, it doesn't pay to be blacker than thou.
These days, M.N. folks in Washington have their own census category-multiracial-but the extremist wing of the Mulatto Nation finds it inadequate. They want to take things a step further. I guess they have a point. Why lump us all together? Eskimos have 40 different words for snow. In South Africa, during apartheid, they had 14 different types of coloreds. But we've decided on one word, multiracial, to describe a whole nation of diverse people who have absolutely no relation, cultural or otherwise, to one another. In light of this deficiency, I propose the following coinages:
Standard Mulatto: White mother, black father. Half-nappy hair, skin described as "pasty yellow" in winter but turns caramel tan in summer. Germanic-Afro features. Often raised in isolation from others of its kind. Does not discover "black identity" till college, when there is usually some change in hair, clothing, or speech, so that the parents don't recognize the child who arrives home for Christmas vacation ("Honey, there's a black kid at the door").
African American: The most common form of mulatto in North America, this breed, seldom described as mixed, is a combination of African, European, and Native American. May come in any skin tone, from any cultural background. Often believe themselves to be "pure" due to historical distance from the original mixture, which was most often achieved through rape.
Jewlatto: The second most prevalent form, this breed is made in the commingling of Jews and blacks who met when they were registering voters down South during Freedom Summer or at a CORE meeting. Jewlattos often, though not necessarily, have a white father and black mother (as opposed to the more common black father and white mother). They are likely to be raised in a diverse setting (New York City, Berkeley), around others of their kind. Jewlattos are most easily spotted amid the flora and fauna of Brown University. Famous Jewlattos include Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet (and we can't forget Zoe, their love child).
Mestizo: A more complicated mixture: Either the black or the white parent claims a third race (Native American, Latino) in the parent's background and thus confuses the child more. The mestizo is likely to be mistaken for some other, totally distinct ethnicity (Italian, Arab, Mexican, Jewish, East Indian, Native American, Puerto Rican) and in fact will be touted by strangers as a perfect representative of that totally new race ("Your face brings me right back to Calcutta").
Cultural Mulatto: Any American born after 1967.
Blulatto: A highly rare breed of "blue-blooded" mulattos who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower. Females are legally entitled to membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution. Blulattos have been spotted in Cambridge and Berkeley but should not be confused with Jewlattos. The Blulatto's mother is almost always the white one, and is either a poet or a painter who disdains her WASP heritage. The father is almost always the black one, is highly educated, and disdains his black heritage.
Cablinasian: An exotic breed found mostly in California, the mother of all mixtures: Asian, American Indian, black, and Caucasian. These show mulattos have great performance skills; they will be whoever the crowd wants them to be, and can switch at the drop of a hat. They do not, however, answer to the name black. If you spot a Cablinasian, contact the Benetton promotions bureau.
Tomatto: A mixed or black person who behaves in an Uncle Tom-ish fashion. The Tomatto may be found in positions of power touted as a symbol of diversity in otherwise all-white settings. Even if the Tomatto has two black parents, his skin is light and his features mixed. If we ever see a first black president, he will most likely be a Tomatto.
Fauxlatto: A person impersonating a mulatto. Can be of white, black, or other heritage, but for inexplicable reasons claims to be of mixed heritage. See Jamiroquai.
The categories could go on and on, and perhaps, indeed, they will. Where do I fit? That's the strange thing. I fit into none and all of the above. I have been each of the above, or at least mistaken for them, at different moments in my life. But somehow, none feels right. Maybe that makes me a Postlatto.
I've learned to flaunt my mixedness at dinner parties, where the guests (most of them white) ooh and aaah about my flavorful background. I've found it's not so bad being a fetishized object, an exotic bird soaring above the racial landscape. And when they start talking about black people, pure breeds, in that way that before the millennium used to make me squirm, I let them know that I'm neutral, nothing to be afraid of. Sometimes I feel it, that remnant of my old self (the angry black girl with the big mouth) creeping out, but most of the time I don't feel anything at all. Most of the time, I just serve up the asparagus, chimichangas, and fried chicken with a bright, white smile.
From the book Half and Half, edited by Claudine O'Hearn. "The Mulatto Millennium," copyright (c) 1998 by Danzy Senna. Used with permission of Pantheon Books.
I've learned to flaunt my mixedness at dinner parties, where the guests (most of them white) ooh and aaah about my flavorful background. I've found it's not so bad being a fetishized object, an exotic bird soaring above the racial landscape. And when they start talking about black people, pure breeds, in that way that before the millennium used to make me squirm, I let them know that I'm neutral, nothing to be afraid of. Sometimes I feel it, that remnant of my old self (the angry black girl with the big mouth) creeping out, but most of the time I don't feel anything at all. Most of the time, I just serve up the asparagus, chimichangas, and fried chicken with a bright, white smile.
Contempt? I question that assessment. I haven't read her book, but I did read the entire excerpt that you posted. This quote above, not highlighted and at the end (as the gems usually are in a writer's prose), sums up her perspective quite well. She doesn't strike me as crazy or confused. She writes in a sardonic, self-deprecating style. I see a person who is well aware of the racialist quagmire she finds herself within. What I don't see, based on this excerpt, is a person who truly believes that a Tom Hanks or a Kevin Bacon ARE and SHOULD be Black people. I mean, come on, Robin Quivers and Michael Jackson were on that list too.
Senna is remarking on her journey and contemplating her current stance in the matter. She is not, from what I can see, sick or the victim of child abuse. Nor more so than any of us who were raised by racialists or racists in this country.
I just posted those for emphasis for David and to show that not everyone believes in ODR, White 'Blacks' are not treatred as such, Blacks mix just like other races, etc. (i.e. I doubt they are being called Black or are/will be like Gregory H. Williams in stating they are Black because they have no choice but to be Black', lol.)
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Tue 30 Jan 2007 01:34 Post subject:
Melani23:
I thought your posted picture was for reference initially. Then I thought, let me check this one out; just need to be sure on somethings.
So you resemble Alicia Keyes. Well now, you've upped the ante, even for an old geezer like me. Ok Frank, I'll knock it off.
David Matthews: you would have a hard time making beige babies with your looks and with reference to the above mentioned (picture). You'd be home free. Did I say that. Guess I'll have a verbal whuppin' comin' up shortly.
Melani23:
I thought your posted picture was for reference initially. Then I thought, let me check this one out; just need to be sure on somethings.
So you resemble Alicia Keyes. Well now, you've upped the ante, even for an old geezer like me. Ok Frank, I'll knock it off.
David Matthews: you would have a hard time making beige babies with your looks and with reference to the above mentioned (picture). You'd be home free. Did I say that. Guess I'll have a verbal whuppin' comin' up shortly.
I don't 'look' like AK, but resemble her on the 'mulatto scale'. Mulatto Scale Spectrum
David >Mariah Carey >Dereck Jeter> Alicia Keyes>Slash (Guns n' Roses)>Lisa Bonet>Halle Berry>Lenny Kravtitz>Boris Kajoe
Yeah David, you can only make 'beige babies' if you married a dark Black person and even then, they might turn out 'high yellow'. Or they'd be darker but look 'Indian'.
Posted: Tue 30 Jan 2007 16:32 Post subject: baby making
oddly, my light skinned father married a jewish (brunette, dark featured) woman and had me; and then married a blond, blue-eyed german woman, and had a much more typically "african american" son, one who was never able to pass. so... there may be a surprise in these old genes yet. anyone got danzy's number??
I've learned to flaunt my mixedness at dinner parties, where the guests (most of them white) ooh and aaah about my flavorful background. I've found it's not so bad being a fetishized object, an exotic bird soaring above the racial landscape. And when they start talking about black people, pure breeds, in that way that before the millennium used to make me squirm, I let them know that I'm neutral, nothing to be afraid of. Sometimes I feel it, that remnant of my old self (the angry black girl with the big mouth) creeping out, but most of the time I don't feel anything at all. Most of the time, I just serve up the asparagus, chimichangas, and fried chicken with a bright, white smile.
Contempt? I question that assessment. I haven't read her book, but I did read the entire excerpt that you posted. This quote above, not highlighted and at the end (as the gems usually are in a writer's prose), sums up her perspective quite well. She doesn't strike me as crazy or confused. She writes in a sardonic, self-deprecating style. I see a person who is well aware of the racialist quagmire she finds herself within. What I don't see, based on this excerpt, is a person who truly believes that a Tom Hanks or a Kevin Bacon ARE and SHOULD be Black people. I mean, come on, Robin Quivers and Michael Jackson were on that list too.
Senna is remarking on her journey and contemplating her current stance in the matter. She is not, from what I can see, sick or the victim of child abuse. Nor more so than any of us who were raised by racialists or racists in this country.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Then I thought, let me check this one out; just need to be sure on somethings.
