Why won’t America let me be both?
Multiracial Americans struggle to find an ethnic identity
Leah Boyd
Contributing Writer
She said she had never even thought about it until now. It was the first time Megan Whalen, a multiracial 18-year-old college student, didn’t have an immediate answer for one of my interview questions.
Why does she find it offensive to be called a ‘white girl’?
Her light skin, pointy nose and blue eyes would, for many, suggest she had no problem with the title. But to Whalen, the label has been a problem as long as she can remember.
Her initial response to the question was: “Probably because I have more Puerto Rican in me than white.” But when I pointed out that her white father and half-Puerto Rican, half-black mother actually made her mostly white, she was stumped.
After what had to have been a minute-long pause, Whalen released the wrinkles from her forehead as if she was done concentrating on the question and came to a conclusion.
“I experienced a lot more racism from white people when I was growing up,” she said. “And I know my mother experienced a lot of racism as one of the few ‘colored’ students at her high school. But also, my grandfather used to always tell me I wasn’t a stupid gringa, that I was Puerto Rican.”
A “gringa,” of course, is the feminine form of the Spanish word “gringo,” usually used as a derogatory term to describe a foreigner in Latin America, particularly a white person.
Racism among ethnic groups in this country has created a society based on racial division that pressures multiracial people, like Whalen, to make a decision when it comes to their ethnic identity.
The more Whalen thought, the more she could recount memories of identity pressures she felt growing up in Romulus.
“In elementary and middle school I always felt like I had to be one race or the other,” she said. “If I said I was black or Hispanic, then I could hang with the black or Hispanic kids. If I said I was white, then I could hang with the white kids. They didn’t understand that I was both.”
In the case of race, we may really be able to see the world through the eyes of a child. Whalen’s experiences, much like some of my own being that I am also multiracial, were not simply the result of childhood ignorance; they were the result of learned behavior.
Take the media’s current attention on Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as an example. Obama is half black, so it is not surprising that his announcement to run in the 2008 presidential election has the media labeling him as potentially the first African-American president.
But it brings up an interesting question: since Obama is also half white through his mother, why doesn’t America equally label him as white?
Is it simply because Obama has brown skin, or does it go deeper than appearance? History tells us it’s deeper, much deeper.
Slavery in the United States created several racial taboos that still exist today when it comes to identifying people of mixed race, especially when dealing with people of both African-American and white European descent.
I’ve heard people on numerous occasions talk about the “one drop rule” — the idea that if you have one drop of “black blood” in your ethnic background, you are black.
This idea, said historian and Wayne State University Professor Denver Brunsman, came from a long legacy of racial division in the U.S. “History shows that it has been this way for so long that it’s hard for the American public to think of it any other way,” he said.
In the 1600s, racial mixing, typically between white males or slave masters and African-American slave women, was a threat to the institution of slavery. If the government allowed mixed children of slaves to identify themselves as white, then it couldn’t stop them from declaring their freedom from slavery.
A 1662 Virginia colonial law decided that multiracial people would be identified by the race of their mother, and since most mixed children were born to black female slaves, most mixed people were considered black.
Brunsman said this law set a precedent for other colonies in the South to make the mother of mixed-race children determine their official status, and also set a precedent for society’s current “you can’t be both races” way of thinking.
“In this case, it was an invented fabrication,” Brunsman said. “There is no reason why it has to be that way.”
But it is “that way,” and being pressured to identify with one race is something multiracial people have to deal with and ultimately has left them, us, without a truly socially accepted ethnic identity.
“I feel like I don’t really have an identity,” Rebekah Moore, a 21-year-old multiracial University of Michigan student, said. “It’s hard to say because even though I do orient myself more with white people and white culture, I’m still a black woman to society because my skin is brown.”
I learned to deal with racial identity pressures by accepting myself as a person and taking pride in being both black and white. But I find it interesting that if I were living in Virginia in the late 1600s, I would have been legally considered a white woman.
Now, I am socially considered a black woman. Why won’t America let me be both?
Posted: Mon 08 Oct 2007 11:31 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
LSGH wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting how Megan carefully separates Puerto Rican ancestry from "black" ancestry (as if Puerto Ricans were not mixed with "black").
Not ALL of us are mixed w/Black! Carribean/Latino colour standards DIFFER GREATLY from the U.S. One-Drop Madness!
I think that Powell may have chosen her words carelessly. As per rule 3.3.11, if she meant, "as if Puerto Ricans were not mixed with African-American," then she errs. Hardly any natives of the island have African-American ancestry. But if she meant, "as if Puerto Ricans did not have sub-saharan ancestry," then she is correct. Virtually all natives of the island have sub-saharan ancestry from the transatlantic slave trade.
I make a point of it because some U.S. racialists see "racial" membership as an ethnopolitical thing, like belonging to a political party. To them, Puerto Ricans are not African Americans because they are not members of the African-American ethnopolitical group. Other U.S. racialists see it as a genetic thing and believe that one can be involuntarily Black. They do consider Puerto Ricans to be Black. Finally, many (probably most) USAmerican racialists who write about it have never really thought about what they mean, and switch denotations in mid-sentence (a practice that would get them suspended here). Their muddled thinking is not taken seriously by anyone of intelligence, although it does sell among the foolish (including foolish academics).
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 14 Nov 2007 15:36; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon 08 Oct 2007 14:44 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
fwsweet wrote:
LSGH wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting how Megan carefully separates Puerto Rican ancestry from "black" ancestry (as if Puerto Ricans were not mixed with "black").
Not ALL of us are mixed w/Black! Carribean/Latino colour standards DIFFER GREATLY from the U.S. One-Drop Madness!
I think that Powell may have chosen her words carelessly. As per rule 3.3.11, if she meant, "as if Puerto Ricans were not mixed with African-American," then she is errs. Hardly any natives of the island have African-American ancestry. But if she meant, "as if Puerto Ricans did not have sub-saharan ancestry," then she is correct. Virtually all natives of the island have sub-saharan ancestry from the transatlantic slave trade.
I make a point of it because some U.S. racialists see "racial" membership as an ethnopolitical thing, like belonging to a political party. To them, Puerto Ricans are not African Americans because they are not members of the African-American ethnopolitical group. Other U.S. racialists see it as a genetic thing and believe that one can be involuntarily Black. They do consider Puerto Ricans to be Black. Finally, many (probably most) USAmerican racialists who write about it have never really thought about what they mean, and switch denotations in mid-sentence (a practice that would get them suspended here). Their muddled thinking is not taken seriously by anyone of intelligence, although it does sell among the foolish (including foolish academics).
Of course I am referring to sub-Saharan African ancestry. I believe Puerto Ricans are not claimed by black-identified Americans because they are too politically powerful and socially cohesive. It's not an automatic respect for a different culture. God knows, "African Americans" don't respect the Louisiana Creole culture as they respect Puerto Ricans.
Note that people of either full or partial sub-Saharan ancestry who are natives of Europe or Africa may automatically be identified as "African American" or part of the traditional "Negro" racial/ethnic group as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil. Hispanics and Arabs are not subject to this practice.
This idea, said historian and Wayne State University Professor Denver Brunsman, came from a long legacy of racial division in the U.S. “History shows that it has been this way for so long that it’s hard for the American public to think of it any other way,” he said.
In the 1600s, racial mixing, typically between white males or slave masters and African-American slave women, was a threat to the institution of slavery. If the government allowed mixed children of slaves to identify themselves as white, then it couldn’t stop them from declaring their freedom from slavery.
A 1662 Virginia colonial law decided that multiracial people would be identified by the race of their mother, and since most mixed children were born to black female slaves, most mixed people were considered black.
Brunsman said this law set a precedent for other colonies in the South to make the mother of mixed-race children determine their official status, and also set a precedent for society’s current “you can’t be both races” way of thinking.
It would confuse anybody. Leah Boyd is trying to summarize her superficial understanding (or lack of it) of events 350 years ago. She is conflating rules about slave status with rules about "racial" membership. Those were two very different things. I would encourage you to read The Invention of the Color Line: 1691. Then come back and ask specific questions and I shall try my best to answer them (or to tell you where you can find the answers).
Joined: 02 Oct 2007 {Posts: 226 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Tue 09 Oct 2007 03:19 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
Quote:
God knows, "African Americans" don't respect the Louisiana Creole culture as they respect Puerto Ricans.
I believe this goes back to England vs. France. African-Americans are primarily of Colonial Germanic stock whereas Creoles are primarily of Colonial Latin stock. I believe that 'The African-American vs. Creole Conflict' is an extension of the 100 Years War. The most evident example is the fact the African-Americans are predominately Protestant whereas Creoles are primarily Catholic.
Note that people of either full or partial sub-Saharan ancestry who are natives of Europe or Africa may automatically be identified as "African American" or part of the traditional "Negro" racial/ethnic group as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil.
Yes Africans & Haitians [who primarily identify as Kreyol] must always fight African-Americans to maintain their heritage here...Unfortunate.
This guy's from my neighborhood...I had to do the samething.
Quote:
"What I mean is, you're white and Dad's black, so what does that make me?"
"Oh, I see," she said. "Well, you're half-black and you're half-white, so you're the best of both worlds."
The next day, I told my friends that I was neither black nor white. "I'm the best of both worlds," I announced proudly.
"Man, you're crazy," one of the backyard boys said. "You're not even the best of your family. Your sister is. That girl is fine."
Posted: Tue 13 Nov 2007 16:58 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
Powell wrote:
Of course I am referring to sub-Saharan African ancestry. I believe Puerto Ricans are not claimed by black-identified Americans because they are too politically powerful and socially cohesive. It's not an automatic respect for a different culture. God knows, "African Americans" don't respect the Louisiana Creole culture as they respect Puerto Ricans.
Note that people of either full or partial sub-Saharan ancestry who are natives of Europe or Africa may automatically be identified as "African American" or part of the traditional "Negro" racial/ethnic group as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil. Hispanics and Arabs are not subject to this practice.
Relative to African Americans Puerto Ricans aren’t that politically powerful. Based on my own experience growing up the social cohesion of Puerto Ricans partly explains why their African ancestry isn’t brought up by black-identified Americans, at least those who are aware of the rules governing outsiders mentioning African ancestry within that community. In my experience at a young age it is quickly understood that you simply “don’t go there” with Puerto Ricans or Dominicans; going there being mentioning their African ancestry or imposing a black identity on them. I’ve witnessed a few times where someone will be corrected if they either bring up the issue of African ancestry or (especially) if they impose a black identity on Puerto Ricans. In some instances black folks (and white) will correct themselves when they mistakenly assume a Puerto Rican is black, and even apologize to the person for labeling him or her black. Of course in private you can rail all you want about how they are “confused” or what have you, and many black folks (and I assume white folks) do, but you simply don’t do that openly in mixed company.
Interestingly, when Puerto Ricans acknowledge their African ancestry in the context of being mixed, many black people will applaud them for identifying with their blackness and “their totality.” I’ve seen this a few times even with friends of mine. However, this is not extended to non-Latinos who do the same. A biracial person or someone from some other society with different racial rules will be taken to task if they do the same thing and dismissed as someone who is “running away from blackness” or “denying who they really are.”
Posted: Tue 13 Nov 2007 20:39 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
Quote:
Note that people of either full or partial sub-Saharan ancestry who are natives of Europe or Africa may automatically be identified as "African American" or part of the traditional "Negro" racial/ethnic group as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil. Hispanics and Arabs are not subject to this practice.
People identify as part of their cultural heritage as opposed to a 'race' , which to me is at odds with what I believe but wotever!
There is no such thing as Hispanic race or Arab race! Most of this stuff is USA manufactured to attempt to categorize and otherwise create division so please do not take this US inspired sociological mierda (PC translation=fragrance) as gospel.
Quote:
Relative to African Americans, Puerto Ricans aren’t that politically powerful. Based on my own experience growing up the social cohesion of Puerto Ricans partly explains why their African ancestry isn’t brought up by black-identified Americans, at least those who are aware of the rules governing outsiders mentioning African ancestry within that community
Why should any non African American groups identify with African American? This not a 'sine qua non' for membership in American society.
Many groups have partial sub Saharan identity but the African American psyche has adoped a kind of Afro-Saxon Germanic rigid mentality that at times seesk to convert others to that thinking which is only specific to North America!
I am not trying to be judgemental but this is what I see so I apologize beforehand.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 01:45 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
It's interesting how Megan carefully separates Puerto Rican ancestry from "black" ancestry (as if Puerto Ricans were not mixed with "black").
All Puerto Ricans do not have African ancestry. (Not talking about Prehistoric)
Do you deny that the vast majority do? According to Frank, studies have been done showing that some "African Americans" don't have any African ancestry. Based on your logic, maybe it's wrong to assume that "African Americans" have any African ancestry.
Perhaps those omnipresent "race" boxes should say "regardless of race" after ALL the classifications, not just the "Hispanic" one.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 02:00 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
[quote="G-Man"]
Powell wrote:
Of course I am referring to sub-Saharan African ancestry. I believe Puerto Ricans are not claimed by black-identified Americans because they are too politically powerful and socially cohesive. It's not an automatic respect for a different culture. God knows, "African Americans" don't respect the Louisiana Creole culture as they respect Puerto Ricans.
Note that people of either full or partial sub-Saharan ancestry who are natives of Europe or Africa may automatically be identified as "African American" or part of the traditional "Negro" racial/ethnic group as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil. Hispanics and Arabs are not subject to this practice.quote]
Relative to African Americans Puerto Ricans aren’t that politically powerful. Based on my own experience growing up the social cohesion of Puerto Ricans partly explains why their African ancestry isn’t brought up by black-identified Americans, at least those who are aware of the rules governing outsiders mentioning African ancestry within that community. In my experience at a young age it is quickly understood that you simply “don’t go there” with Puerto Ricans or Dominicans; going there being mentioning their African ancestry or imposing a black identity on them. I’ve witnessed a few times where someone will be corrected if they either bring up the issue of African ancestry or (especially) if they impose a black identity on Puerto Ricans. In some instances black folks (and white) will [b]correct themselveswhen they mistakenly assume a Puerto Rican is black, and even apologize to the person for labeling him or her black. Of course in private you can rail all you want about how they are “confused” or what have you, and many black folks (and I assume white folks) do, but you simply don’t do that openly in mixed company.
Interestingly, when Puerto Ricans acknowledge their African ancestry in the context of being mixed, many black people will applaud them for identifying with their blackness and “their totality.” I’ve seen this a few times even with friends of mine. However, this is not extended to non-Latinos who do the same. A biracial person or someone from some other society with different racial rules will be taken to task if they do the same thing and dismissed as someone who is “running away from blackness” or “denying who they really are.”
[/b]
EXACTLY! You've just cited one of the many UNWRITTEN or unacknowledged rules of "race" that you won't find mentioned in either classrooms or the media. To the best of my knowledge, NO ONE has studied these unwritten rules. How is it communicated to us that the "one drop" rule we are taught is to be ignored in some circumstances? How is it communicated that the rhetoric of claiming "pride" in being "black" is really masking a stigma, and we are to avoid "insulting" Latinos, Arabs, Italians, etc. by calling them "black" (even by "mistake")? How do people internalize these contradictory messages and what are the social signals used to determine who may be called "black" and who may not be? Who tells us that is is permissible to complain publicly and loudly about the "passing" of a Creole like Anatole Broyard, but don't dare "insult" Latinos and others by even suggesting in public that they are part black?
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 03:40 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
It's interesting how Megan carefully separates Puerto Rican ancestry from "black" ancestry (as if Puerto Ricans were not mixed with "black").
All Puerto Ricans do not have African ancestry. (Not talking about Prehistoric)
Do you deny that the vast majority do? According to Frank, studies have been done showing that some "African Americans" don't have any African ancestry. Based on your logic, maybe it's wrong to assume that "African Americans" have any African ancestry.
Perhaps those omnipresent "race" boxes should say "regardless of race" after ALL the classifications, not just the "Hispanic" one.
Nice try. There are entire populations of Puerto Ricans that don't. Feel free to tell me what entire populations of African Americans do not have African ancestry.
Thousands of Spanish settlers also immigrated to Puerto Rico from the Canary Islands during the 18th and 19th centuries, so many so that whole Puerto Rican villages and towns were founded by Canarian immigrants, and their descendants would later form a majority of the Spanish population on the island.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 15:10 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
Salsassin wrote:
Nice try. There are entire populations of Puerto Ricans that don't [have African ancestry]. ... [A summary of European immigrants to PR, buttressed by ideologically corrupted Wikipedia links.]
Salsassin seems to be suggesting that the various immigrants to PR have remained genetically separate. This is a formal request for clarification.
If Salsassin is indeed suggesting (as it appears) that the various immigrant groups to PR have continued to retain separate genetic identities, and have not freely intermarried with prior inhabitants, then we definitely need a source for this. Note: I am not asking for a source that Europeans immigrated to PR--everyone already knows this. I am asking for a source that distinct genetic populations exist in PR today. To my knowledge, Purto Rico exhibits a a normal (unimodal) distribution of Euro-Afro admixture with no evidence whatsoever of endogamous barriers.
If, on the other hand, Salsassin is suggesting (as the evidence shows) that immigrants groups to PR in fact intermarried on the island to produce today's genetically continuous population, then he is supporting AD's contention, not opposing it.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 15:29 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
punjabtrini wrote:
Quote:
Note that people of either full or partial sub-Saharan ancestry who are natives of Europe or Africa may automatically be identified as "African American" or part of the traditional "Negro" racial/ethnic group as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil. Hispanics and Arabs are not subject to this practice.
People identify as part of their cultural heritage as opposed to a 'race' , which to me is at odds with what I believe but wotever!
There is no such thing as Hispanic race or Arab race! Most of this stuff is USA manufactured to attempt to categorize and otherwise create division so please do not take this US inspired sociological mierda (PC translation=fragrance) as gospel.
Many people here in the U.S. do in fact identify themselves racially and assume that their cultural heritage is a part of their biological inheritance. Many black and white Americans do this all the time. What Powell is saying, as I see it, is that people with African ancestry (excluding Hispanics usually) from parts foreign are automatically labeled African American upon arrival in the U.S. (by both blacks and whites), African American being a synonym for black.
BTW, many Hispanics do see themselves and are seen as a kind of pseudo race distinguished by language.
punjabtrini wrote:
Quote:
Relative to African Americans, Puerto Ricans aren’t that politically powerful. Based on my own experience growing up the social cohesion of Puerto Ricans partly explains why their African ancestry isn’t brought up by black-identified Americans, at least those who are aware of the rules governing outsiders mentioning African ancestry within that community
Why should any non African American groups identify with African American? This not a 'sine qua non' for membership in American society.
Many groups have partial sub Saharan identity but the African American psyche has adoped a kind of Afro-Saxon Germanic rigid mentality that at times seesk to convert others to that thinking which is only specific to North America!
I am not trying to be judgemental but this is what I see so I apologize beforehand.
Many Americans believe that the one drop rule is an axiom for which there are no exceptions. Anyone with any “drop” of “black blood” is necessarily black without exception. Many blacks and whites deem people in either here or in other countries who reject this as confused; the most obvious example being black/non-black biracial people who reject this publicly. The difference as I see it is that black folks have far more invested in how people identify than whites, but both in the main accept this concept of blackness.
The case of Puerto Ricans is relevant because as a group their African ancestry is often blatantly obvious. It’s also obvious in aspects of their culture. So, why aren’t they black? Why in places like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc., aren’t they “called out” for denying their blackness (read: rejecting U.S. notions of blackness)? Why isn’t their relatively congenial relationship with African Americans (compared to other Hispanic ethnicities) called into question and seen as insincere because they reject U.S. notions of blackness? The same can be said about Dominicans who as a group are more obviously African descended. Often, many people I encountered in New York really didn’t think about this inconsistency all that much, including many white people.
When I got into the habit or querying people about this inconsistency, I usually got evasions or answers that reflected tortured mental gymnastics. For example, a friend of mine from school defended imposing a black identity on a Coloured South African student because, “In this country she is black and she looks like most African Americans.” She didn’t by the way. She also felt obliged to make baseless, negative assumptions about this person’s personality based on her adherence to seeing herself as a Coloured South African instead of a black one. But when it came to a Dominican acquaintance of ours, she defended his refusal to see himself as black because black was an ethnicity not a race and Latinos have their own community with their own standards that we are obliged to respect, even though he was born and bred in the U.S. I don’t think she was even aware of how inconsistent and silly she sounded, but that isn’t atypical based on my experience.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 20:02 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
fwsweet wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Nice try. There are entire populations of Puerto Ricans that don't [have African ancestry]. ... [A summary of European immigrants to PR, buttressed by ideologically corrupted Wikipedia links.]
Salsassin seems to be suggesting that the various immigrants to PR have remained genetically separate. This is a formal request for clarification.
If Salsassin is indeed suggesting (as it appears) that the various immigrant groups to PR have continued to retain separate genetic identities, and have not freely intermarried with prior inhabitants, then we definitely need a source for this. Note: I am not asking for a source that Europeans immigrated to PR--everyone already knows this. I am asking for a source that distinct genetic populations exist in PR today. To my knowledge, Purto Rico exhibits a a normal (unimodal) distribution of Euro-Afro admixture with no evidence whatsoever of endogamous barriers.
If, on the other hand, Salsassin is suggesting (as the evidence shows) that immigrants groups to PR in fact intermarried on the island to produce today's genetically continuous population, then he is supporting AD's contention, not opposing it.
I am suggesting that certain populations showed levels of admixture but that does not mean all admixture was unimodal or that all populations outmixed. I await the evidence that all Puerto Ricans show same levels of admixture.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 21:24 Post subject: Re: Why won’t America let me be both?
fwsweet wrote:
This is a formal request for clarification. If Salsassin is indeed suggesting (as it appears) that the various immigrant groups to PR have continued to retain separate genetic identities, and have not freely intermarried with prior inhabitants, then we definitely need a source for this.
Salsassin wrote:
I am suggesting that certain populations showed levels of admixture but that does not mean all admixture was unimodal or that all populations outmixed.
Thank you for clarifying. Strike one. Salsassin now has 24 hours to produce evidence that that population of Puerto Rico displays a bimodal Euro/Afro admixture distribution. The reality is that the population of PR does in fact display a unimodal Afro/Euro admixture distribution. The only nation in this hemisphere that displays a bimodal Afro/Euro admixture distribution is the United States. This is because only the United States has an endogamous barrier. (See Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States).
Salsassin wrote:
I await the evidence that all Puerto Ricans show same levels of admixture.
No one has implied that all Puerto Ricans show the same levels of admixture, merely that their admixture distribution is unimodal. This is a straw man. Strike two.
Salsassin wrote:
All those Jews in Puerto Rico must have African Admixture, if not, they are not Puerto Rican.
Salsassin is being frivolous. The link provided explains that those Jews began arriving in PR in the 1950s and 1960s. Since they came from Cuba, however, they probably do have African admixture, just like many other Jews. In any event, no one suggested that a person lacking African admixture is not allowed to become a resident of the island. This is a straw man. Strike three.
Salsassin's next post in this forum will either provide evidence for a bimodal Afro/Euro admixture distribution in PR, or it will retract one or both of his straw men. The alternative, since his recent suspension was for one month, is two months' suspension.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
