For many light-skin blacks, identity is more than skin-deep
Recently, Ebony Magazine featured an article in its August Edition entitled “I am Not White”. It explores the challenges “light-skin” (no, not light skinneded) black people encounter in today’s society. It suggests that black people who have fair skin and “look white” experience far more racism than one would imagine.
There are two points the article focused on. The first is the idea that many light-skin, “white looking,” blacks have to deal with proving their own blackness to those who feel they’re benefiting from the privileges of having fair skin. Lighter complected blacks have to deal with their own culture criticizing them of not being “black enough.” Melody Cofield, a 52 year old black women told her story to Ebony magazine. She said she always felt like an orphan, “white people didn’t want me and black people didn’t want me.” When she wanted to join an African-American organization, they told her she wasn’t “black enough” to represent it. She felt her color had resulted in an inability to lead in her own community.
The second concept, which contributes to the theory light-skin black people are at a disadvantage, is the “blatant racism” they encounter from white people. Because often times white people mistake light skin blacks for being white they make the most racist remarks about black people not even realizing the person standing right next to them is black.
George C. Fraser, 62, a black man who is often mistaken for being Jewish or Italian also shared his story. He reveals how others assume he’s white and carry offensive conversations about Blacks amongst other whites at conferences, seminars, even the elevator. His findings are that “many, not all white people, do not think highly of Blacks with frequent jokes about our lack of business prowess, our lack of support for one another, our inability to recycle our money in our community.”
George C. Fraser (l) often hears whites talk negatively about black people because they mistake him for being Jewish or Italian
Research shows that some light-skin blacks have such a hard time dealing with the challenges of not being accepted by either race they go 'pass' for white and change their identity completely.
So the questions remains…is it a privilege to be black but look white? Some people don’t understand what the big deal is. Even Fraser admitted, “Any black person who looks white cannot deny that there are advantages to that. Whites are more comfortable; we can operate in two worlds without being stereotyped and prejudged, whereas our African American Sisters with African features are prejudged, and 95% wrongly."
In my opinion based on what I’ve seen in today’s society it does seem to me that light-skin blacks have it better. They are classified as prettier, smarter, and overall more successful. Personally, I know a few dark-skin women who have tried to get ahead in their professions but don’t make it because they are too dark (and they were told that). Also, in reflecting on some of our leaders today society it’s ironic how most of them have fair-skin from politicians like Barack Obama, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice to actors/actresses Halle Berry and Will Smith…and let’s not forget about the models/dancer we see onscreen and off-screen. Whenever I’ve turned to BET to get a quick glimpse of the newest video it’s rare that I see a dark-skin woman. The girls are light-skin.
This includes the fashion industry as well. Even though Naomi Campbell and Beverly Johnson have defied the norms, some models still admit that it’s harder for blacks if you are dark.
So what’s your opinion? Do you think it’s a privilege to be black but look white? Let us know what you think by leaving a comment below.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Tue 07 Aug 2007 12:49 Post subject:
Could some of the success of "light-skinned blacks" be the result of many of them descending from free "black" families? They have a different historical foundation than people who may have a more recent slavery history.
Condolezza Rice is lightskinned?? I've never met a single person who's referred to her as light.
Privileges are a fact of human life, even unearned privileges granted on the basis of appearance. But do Black-identified whites have it "better?" Probably not if they are deeply identified with their ethnicity/race. I read this article and the author is expressing a lot of frustration and pain at being questioned about her chosen ethnicity.
Could some of the success of "light-skinned blacks" be the result of many of them descending from free "black" families? They have a different historical foundation than people who may have a more recent slavery history.
Two major genealogical streams have merged into today's biracial African-American elite.
The first stream, as Patience suggests, comes from upper-class Black Yankees who created most of what we label today as African-American ethnicity (distinct ethnic identity, church-centered neighborhoods, Prince Hall Masons, NAACP, etc.). Their Euro genetic fraction comes mostly from marriages between upper- or middle-class African-American males and working-class females (mainly domestic servants) of European (specifically, Irish) origin. For more on this, I recommend Elizabeth Rauh Bethel, The Roots of African-American Identity (New York: St. Martin's, 1997) or Adelaide M. Cromwell, The Other Brahmins: Boston's Black Upper Class, 1750-1950 (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, 1994).
The second stream comes from land-owning (and formerly slaveowning) biracial American southerners. Their Euro genetic fraction comes mostly from extramarital relations between Euro male slaveowners and Afro female slaves. It was routine for the offspring of such unions to be emancipated and granted landholdings by their fathers. Indeed, it has been shown that this was the origin of most of today's well-to-do landowning African American families in the former slave states. For more on this I recommend Mark R. Schultz, “Interracial Kinship Ties and the Emergence of a Rural Black Middle Class,” in Georgia in Black and White: Explorations in the Race Relations of a Southern State, 1865-1950, ed. John C. Inscoe` (Athens GA: University of Georgia, 1994), 141-72.
Posted: Tue 07 Aug 2007 15:27 Post subject: white/black
Consider the attraction of being a big fish in a little pond. Based on years of readings and observations, I have come to believe that both the carrot and stick are important in persuading people of European phenotype to maintain a "black" identity.
Sticks
1) The evil whites will all reject you.
2) You will always be an "inferior" white since there will always be whites who are prettier, smarter, etc.
3) You will "fail" at whatever you do (all evidence to the contrary) because of guilt at "abandoning" your family/people/race, etc. (Examples: Claims that Anatole Broyard never wrote a novel because he was trying to "hide" his "real self" - despite a very successful professional and personal life by most objective standards).
Carrots
1) You will nearly always be the prettiest "black" in the group. If most of the blacks are less educated, you will probably be the "smartest," too.
2) You will be valued for affirmative action purposes, especially by employers who want to meet their "minority" hiring goals but don't care for the "real" blacks.
3) You will receive special consideration for schools and jobs by competing only with "blacks" and not against competitive whites.
4) The best way to get attention for your white color and other features in a predominately "white" country is to call yourself the very opposite of "white." ("YOU are BLACK?!" - open-mouthed surprise). In other words, if you are blond and want attention just for being blond, do you head for Sweden or Mexico?
In reference to Frank's historical references, we should also remember that the Jim Crow system forced Mulatto Elite professionals to become financially dependent on the black community because they were forbidden to seek whites as clients. Tri-racial isolates, however, seemed to be mainly farmers who were not financially dependent upon blacks and did not need their good will. I would love to see some serious studies comparing the "tri-racial isolates" whose descendants did not become part of the "black" community with descendants of Mulatto Elites. I suspect that financial ties and dependence played a critical role in determining public identity.
Joined: 10 May 2007 {Posts: 138 } Location: Oklahoma City
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 00:13 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
The second stream comes from land-owning (and formerly slaveowning) biracial American southerners. Their Euro genetic fraction comes mostly from extramarital relations between Euro male slaveowners and Afro female slaves. It was routine for the offspring of such unions to be emancipated and granted landholdings by their fathers. Indeed, it has been shown that this was the origin of most of today's well-to-do landowning African American families in the former slave states.
According to my mother's family, this is where our family's wealth originated. (my mother's family is very well to do and all identify black)
This article sounds like a guilt-trip for any Caucasian who has black heritage. Overtly racist white people, the inability to fit into the black community, and sinister benefits because you "unfortunately" look like a "white" person.
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 19:50 Post subject: "ligt-skinned" and identity
Hanzou wrote:
This article sounds like a guilt-trip for any Caucasian who has black heritage. Overtly racist white people, the inability to fit into the black community, and sinister benefits because you "unfortunately" look like a "white" person.
The article is very contradictory. Two people of European phenotype are held up as the "unfortunate light-skinned blacks" while others of clearly sub-Saharan phenotype (Will Smith, Condi Rice, etc.) are ALSO described as "light-skinned blacks." No wonder Judy Scales Trent and others started using the term "white-skinned blacks" to describe a reality far different from that of people who look like Smith and Rice.
Notes of a White Black Woman: Race Color Community (Paperback)
by Judy Scales-Trent (Author)
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 20:11 Post subject: Thoughts On Ethnicity
I think that too often "black" is the default identity (There are no standards for it other than "blood," supposedly, and no one could accuse a person of getting above himself by claiming it) of people with Mulatto Elite heritage who are ignorant of their group's past and are trying to reconcile THEIR "blacks" (multi-hued with a white middle class culture) with the OTHER (majority) "blacks" who do not have families filled with different phenotypes and are culturally very different from both "whites" and "Mulatto Elites." That is also why (as in the article below), many Mulatto Elites try to make themselves "black" or learn to be "black." Their white-identified counterparts don't have to "learn to be white." They just stop denying it.
Claiming American Indian ancestry and heritage seems to be a bit more acceptable to Mulatto Elites than claiming a "white" heritage (which is too often presented as white = godlike).
Quote:
Kaleidoscope Of Life
Thoughts On Ethnicity
Jarrin Kendall
(Copyright 1996)
Imagine your parents: your father, a Blackwell, one of five children in a strong, blue-collar family who left school after the tenth grade to go to work to help his family. Although your father did not finish high school, he was a very wise man whose strong work ethic shaped the very backbone of your being. He and his father before him always stressed the importance of family and heritage. Your father constantly drilled into you that work equals reward.
Your mother, a Craig, was raised as an only child, had the best of everything and was educated at private schools. Her grandfather worked his way through college and was the first black doctor in his town. Her family has instilled in you steadfastness, humor and unselfishness. Your mother always stressed community and family responsibility. Although you strongly resemble your mother physically, your temperament is more that of your father's. If you're like most folks, you are a combination, a beautiful combination of both your parents. You love and are proud of them both.
Now imagine being forced to choose what your were, a Blackwell or a Craig. Which would you be? A Blackwell or a Craig? Would you feel angry or resentful at having to choose? Would you feel somewhat apprehensive about slighting the parent you did not choose? Would you worry that other people might feel that you were somehow ashamed of the parent you did not choose? Would the Craigs spurn you if you chose to be a Blackwell? Would the Blackwells despise you if you chose to be a Craig? Would the family you chose embrace you as a member or would they repudiate your choice?
Nearly two years ago, a law professor from New York, Judy Scales-Trent visited for one term the university where I am employed While here, Judy was putting the final touches on her book "Notes of A White/Black Woman". The book is a series of essays about Judy's experiences as a "black" woman whose skin is white. Judy speaks in her book of her many experiences and observations about appearing to be white when, indeed, she was black. Judy and I had several lively, thought-provoking conversations about what being black really meant.
One of the topics which arose was the African (slave) Native American connection. I, like most black people, have a lot of Native American ancestry. My father's maternal and paternal grandmothers were full Cherokee Indians. My father's paternal grandfather was from Haiti, which I understand means he was originally from Africa. My father's maternal grandfather was "nearly white." Following one of these conversations, Judy recommended the book "Black Indians" by Katz. I devoured "Black Indians" and highly recommend it. The book whetted my appetite for learning more about the Native-American/African-American connection.
My Uncle Chuck has old sepia colored pictures of my great- grandmother, Mary Ellen Brown and great-great-grandmother, Evangeline Payne. When I first saw these pictures nearly fifteen years ago, I was surprised at the appearance of these ladies. Both were burnt-copper colored and their hair, while long, was crinkly. I grew up and was schooled during a time when black people were only slaves and "Indians" only savages in the history books taught from in school, though I knew that not all "Indians" had fair skin and straight hair. Still, I was quite surprised to see the dark skin, "kinky" hair and broad features of my ancestors. In "Black Indians", I saw many photographs of Native Americans who had African features. I learned that many of the famous and in some cases, infamous, Native Americans were "Black Indians." Black slaves and Native Americans were natural allies. Thousands of runaway slaves found safe havens in Native American tribal groups. This depletion of the "cash crop" caused severe financial losses to Southern planters, in addition to the "indignation" felt about successful slave flight. After many losses to combined runaway slaves/Native American gangs, white Americans devised a plan to split the two groups. While they despised both groups, they despised the Native American less. They attempted (and were successful in some cases) to create a fission between the two groups by telling Native Americans that they were better than the black man and offered incentives, some monetary, to Native Americans who would turn in runaway slaves. Once again, blacks were at the bottom of the pile. Being an Indian was of course, worse than being white, but being a black man was equivalent to being an animal.
The friendship of Native Americans and black slaves is glossed over, if mentioned at all, in American history books. Sadly, I've encountered some Native Americans who, although they smiled in a friendly manner when discussing the subject, were not very interested in pursuing the matter, nor did they seem eager to embrace a "sister."
After reading "Black Indians", I began to seek out whatever information I could about the connection between Native-Americans and African-Americans. I should mention that several years ago I discontinued using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans. I learned that Indian was a term given to Native Americans by Columbus who mistakenly believed he was in East India when he "discovered" their land. I also learned that many of the words associated with Native Americans were derogatory terms given to them by the white invaders. "Squaw", for example, does not refer to a young Native American woman. Squaw means vagina. Since black female slaves were later raped by descendants of these white invaders, I can only imagine the origin of the term "Squaw". As children we were not permitted to use expressions such as, "Honest Injun" and "running around like a wild Indian."
After reading "Black Indians" and several other pieces, I had a strong urge to acknowledge all of my ancestry, or rather all that I knew about. I discussed this with several close friends, one of whom was my younger sister. My sister's first reaction was surprise. She told me that I had "black" features, not Indian ones. I then asked her, what do "Indians" look like? When she visited my home a short while later, I shared with her the pictures in Katz' book. She was quite surprised at the features and skin color of the Native Americans illustrated there. This led to a lively conversation that concluded with the comment that these Native Americans must not have been "full" Native Americans. While some have eagerly discussed black ethnicity with me, others have given me that skeptical look that says, "oh no, here we go. Another black person who doesn't want to be black."
I must admit I was apprehensive at first about claiming my Native American ancestry in addition to my African American ancestry I did not want anyone to think I was ashamed of my "being black." Growing up in a time when lighter skinned blacks were called yellow and half-breed, I fought long and hard to be black. I grew and wore an Afro; I bought and wore a dashiki. I learned to say "Salaam Alakim". After giving it some thought, however, I decided that anyone who knows and cares about me knows that being black is such a large part of my life that any shame in that blackness can not honestly be considered. The opinions of others who either do not know or care about me matters little, if at all.
I've begun learning more about the African connection to many races. Since moving to San Antonio, Texas nearly twelve years ago, I have come to know the Mexican-American culture and community. When I first moved here from Pittsburgh, which at the time had no visible Mexican-American community, I was quite surprised at the many hues of Mexican-American skin color. My only exposure to Mexican-Americans had been a former sister-in-law who was light complexioned and had straight hair. In Texas, I've encountered Mexican-Americans who range from the very white complexioned to ebony-hued, from keen-featured to very broad featured. On a trip to nearby Mexico ten years ago, I encountered Mexicans who looked more Native American than Mexican. I encountered others who looked like black folk. I wondered then about the Mexican-Native American-African connection. I've discussed ethnicity with many Mexican-Americans. While many would eagerly discuss their Spanish and/or Native American ancestry, I have met none who would acknowledge any African heritage, despite historical evidence that such a connection exists.
While I was absorbing my newfound knowledge about the Native American connection and pondering embracing my multi-heritage ancestry, I recalled several anecdotes from the past. I remember the celebrity, Jayne Kennedy being interviewed by John Davidson a number of years ago. John commented on her beauty and followed the compliment by asking Jayne what else she was besides black. Jayne told him, and I'm paraphrasing here, that although she did have other ancestry besides black (some Native American) she resented the implication that because she was attractive, there had to be other genes involved beside her black ancestry. I also recalled the singer Sade being interviewed a few years ago for an article in a black magazine. Sade's mother is a white Englishwoman and her father was, I believe, Nigerian. She was asked the infamous question, "Do you consider yourself Black?" Although Sade stated that she does see herself as a black woman, she also added. "To state that I am simply black, totally denies the existence of my mother, whom I love dearly." I must honestly admit that until I read that statement, I never thought about it from that perspective.
Too often we as black people anxiously wait to see if someone will identify themselves as black. We want to see if "they think they're white" or conversely will state, "they don't act black." I must confess to being guilty of "looking for blackness" in people that I've encountered who, while they appeared to be something other than black, had some characteristic or habit that made me "check for signs." Most of us have these discreet (we think) ways of checking. We look at the hair at the nape of the neck (the kitchen). We check the broadness of the nose, the thickness of the lips, the texture of the hair, etc. We might even ask, in a subtle way, where they went to college. A graduate of Clark or Tuskeegee is usually a dead giveaway. Often, once someone has "discovered" that someone is black, we hold them to this "black test." They must act a certain way, be involved in certain causes, hold certain views on particular topics.
I remember when Vanessa Williams was crowned Miss America. I heard several black woman comment, "she doesn't really look black," or "they would pick someone who doesn't look black", as if all black people really do look alike. I recognize there are many reasons for this. I realize that for so many years, we were brainwashed into thinking that "white and light were all right" and "if you're black, get back." Then, during the sixties, we began to be proud of being black. I, too, grew up in a time when there were few blacks on television. A book I read recently talked about a time in the fifties when a young son yelled "colored folks on t.v.,"alerting the entire neighborhood. It was then indeed a rarity. The lack of blacks in prominent view caused us to want to embrace any public person with "even a drop of black blood." If this person for whatever reason did not totally embrace his blackness, we grew indignant. We heard comments such as, "He thinks he's too good; she thinks she's white," and on and on. Why is it that other races can act a certain way, talk a certain way, even dress a certain way, and it does not detract from their ethnicity, but black people are held to a certain "black standard" by their own? Just as we come in hues ranging from vanilla to deep, dark chocolate, our personalities, our interests, our activities, are just as varied.
Thinking about all this, I've come to realize lately how silly, how inane, this all is. I've asked myself, what does it really matter? Once we discover someone is black, what is gained by that knowledge? Do we now have an instant kinship? Can we then say to this stranger, "hey Sista?" Do we, should we, feel that we have met an ally? If you meet someone you thought to be white and whom you later find out is black, do you change how you act around that person? Do you treat them differently now that you know they are black? Conversely, what if you met a person you assumed to be black and you later found out they were white? Would your relationship with that person change? Would you feel differently toward them? How much sense does this all make? What really is race, ethnicity, after all? Is it how someone looks? Is it how a person acts? Do we determine a person's race by what activities they are involved in coupled with how they look?
Why is it that other ethnicities get to chose what ethnicity they claim, be it one or many? I've met Anglos who are Irish/Italian American, Austrian/Jewish American, even Korean/Mexican American. Why are blacks who claim all known ethnicities looked down upon by many? Why do other ethnic groups not have to prove their ethnicity but people who "look black" but acknowledge also other heritages, (unless their natural language is other than English, e.g., black Puerto Ricans) must "prove" that other heritage.. One friend suggested that perhaps someone way back might have anticipated that African-Americans would at some point want to also claim their Native American ancestry. If not, why must you be "affiliated with a tribal group" in order to claim Native American ancestry? I've seen this qualifier on many forms, ranging from Census forms to employment applications. Perhaps, someone worried that we would not only want our forty acres and a mule, but that we would also want back some of the land that was stolen from our Native American ancestors.
There's a debate currently raging about creating another racial category: biracial. This category purportedly would be primarily for those of white and black ancestry. Why stop there? Could not those of African/Native American ancestry, Korean/Mexican ancestry, African/Asian ancestry, etc. also fit there. What about those from three different racial groups? Should there also be another new category: tri-racial? I can see how this could really get ridiculous. Again I ask: What really is race, ethnicity? Why is it so important after all?
Recently, I decided to look up the word "ethnicity" and see how Webster defined it. Webster's Collegiate published in 1949 defined ethnic as: 1. Neither Jewish nor Christian. 2. Of, pertaining to, or designating races or groups of race discriminated on the basis of common traits, customs, etc. Webster Ninth New Collegiate published in 1983 defined ethnic as: 1. Heathen. 2. Of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic or cultural origin or background. No wonder there is much confusion about a person's ethnicity. For example, what would be the ethnicity of a Black Jew, based upon Webster's definition? Judy suggests in her book that since life originated in Africa, all who are living in this country are African Americans.
A friend told me recently that he thought this ethnicity crap (his words) was all garbage. He felt that most blacks knew very little of their heritage and since it was just about impossible to trace our ancestry, we should just be satisfied with being black.
I'm proud of my black heritage. Our people have proven to be a strong, enduring people. What other race could have survived slavery? We have accomplished much, often with very little. I am also proud of my other heritage, my Native American heritage. My red ancestors were also strong, enduring, proud. They too were survivors. I am a combination of those who came before me.
Would you choose to be a Blackwell or a Craig? Or, would you be a Blackwell-Craig?
...people with Mulatto Elite heritage who are ignorant of their group's past and are trying to reconcile THEIR "blacks" (multi-hued with a white middle class culture) with the OTHER (majority) "blacks" who do not have families filled with different phenotypes and are culturally very different from both "whites" and "Mulatto Elites."
I know many Black people, myself among them, who do not have an "either/or" heritage or family as Powell has outlined. The existence and perpetuation of the ODR, immigration of Afrodescended people as well as Jim Crow/de facto segregation has produced internal mixture between admixed Afro-Euros with an upper class heritage and less/non-admixed people from middle/lower class backgrounds. The line is not as clear as it may have been once upon a time. I'll use myself as an example:
My maternal grandmother came from landowning Blacks (former slaves) on her father's side and Native Americans (some native, some African runaways) on her mother's side. My grandmother married "beneath" her in class and due to her personal life choices, raised her children in poor or working class environments. Her children, one of them my mother, either finished high school, put themselves through college or started successful businesses (okay one is a lazy degenerate bum and another is living as grandma did, but 2 out of 11 ain't bad). There's lots of diversity in phenotype but very few would be mistaken for White.
Contrast that situation with my father's, a Haitian mulatto immigrant who came to the U.S. following Duvalier's (Papa Doc) rise to power and persecution of upper class Haitians. My paternal grandmother comes from old mulatto stock as well as French immigrants. My paternal grandfather emigrated to Haiti from Cuba, and married a man of similar class but inferior character, so she ended up living in lower standards than her siblings, all doctorate-level professionals. Her children, one of them my father, are all doing well except for one (my degenerate bum of an uncle). Another uncle is running the family business in Haiti, my father and aunt are nurses, and my youngest uncle is an actor. There is lots of diversity in phenotype, with many being mistaken for White.
My parents probably would have never met if it wasn't for the great equalizer, the military. Their families, cultures and personalities are very different. They have difference class sensibilities (but both are very classy people ). Their features are very different. But they are still both Black.
People are more socially and geographically mobile now so I doubt that older archetypes should apply across the board. Or maybe there are regional differences within the U.S.
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 22:18 Post subject: Mulatto Elites
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
...people with Mulatto Elite heritage who are ignorant of their group's past and are trying to reconcile THEIR "blacks" (multi-hued with a white middle class culture) with the OTHER (majority) "blacks" who do not have families filled with different phenotypes and are culturally very different from both "whites" and "Mulatto Elites."
I know many Black people, myself among them, who do not have an "either/or" heritage or family as Powell has outlined. The existence and perpetuation of the ODR, immigration of Afrodescended people as well as Jim Crow/de facto segregation has produced internal mixture between admixed Afro-Euros with an upper class heritage and less/non-admixed people from middle/lower class backgrounds. The line is not as clear as it may have been once upon a time. I'll use myself as an example:
My maternal grandmother came from landowning Blacks (former slaves) on her father's side and Native Americans (some native, some African runaways) on her mother's side. My grandmother married "beneath" her in class and due to her personal life choices, raised her children in poor or working class environments. Her children, one of them my mother, either finished high school, put themselves through college or started successful businesses (okay one is a lazy degenerate bum and another is living as grandma did, but 2 out of 11 ain't bad). There's lots of diversity in phenotype but very few would be mistaken for White.
Contrast that situation with my father's, a Haitian mulatto immigrant who came to the U.S. following Duvalier's (Papa Doc) rise to power and persecution of upper class Haitians. My paternal grandmother comes from old mulatto stock as well as French immigrants. My paternal grandfather emigrated to Haiti from Cuba, and married a man of similar class but inferior character, so she ended up living in lower standards than her siblings, all doctorate-level professionals. Her children, one of them my father, are all doing well except for one (my degenerate bum of an uncle). Another uncle is running the family business in Haiti, my father and aunt are nurses, and my youngest uncle is an actor. There is lots of diversity in phenotype, with many being mistaken for White.
My parents probably would have never met if it wasn't for the great equalizer, the military. Their families, cultures and personalities are very different. They have difference class sensibilities (but both are very classy people ). Their features are very different. But they are still both Black.
People are more socially and geographically mobile now so I doubt that older archetypes should apply across the board. Or maybe there are regional differences within the U.S.
I never said that the border between the two groups was not porous. However, can you truly say that the vast MAJORITY of people called "blacks" in America have such a variety of racial phenotypes in the family? If they did, then the average "black" would look more like the average "Latino." When the members of the majority "black" group tell others who consider themselves "black" that they aren't really black or not black at all because they don't share the same phenotypes ("That a white boy!") and/or culture ("You talk white!"), then obviously the two groups have different definitions of "black."
This is an observation of reality. It is not telling people what they should do or how they should feel.
However, can you truly say that the vast MAJORITY of people called "blacks" in America have such a variety of racial phenotypes in the family?
What is "such a variety?" Every Black American family that I know is multi-hued. Is every Black family representing alabaster to mahogany skin tones? Of course not and that is not what I said. Most Black people in the U.S. have 18-20% European admixture. That means that most of the people who look like "pure blacks" to racialist eyeballers are nothing of the sort. There is not some behemoth of pure blackness juxtaposed with a minority of whiteness and/or mixedness within the Black population to separate like oil and water.
Quote:
If they did, then the average "black" would look more like the average "Latino."
What does the average Latino look like? Is there a standard Latino look? I doubt it sincerely. It's clear that Latin populations with African-European admixture have members with much higher admixture percentages, but does that make phenotypic diversity in the same family more likely, less likely or not a factor? I suspect skin color is the only variable under scrutiny here.
Quote:
When the members of the majority "black" group tell others who consider themselves "black" that they aren't really black or not black at all because they don't share the same phenotypes ("That a white boy!") and/or culture ("You talk white!"), then obviously the two groups have different definitions of "black."
Since Powell articulates that the so-called Soul Patrol has standards for blackness based on appearance as well as culture/behavior, how are "two groups" in opposition to one another? Card carrying members of the Soul Patrol include Harry Belafonte, Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young. All have phenotypes that would pass the paper bag test for inclusion in the mulatto elite. There clearly isn't one definition of Black that is ONLY racial or ONLY cultural, else no one would ever call Clarence Thomas a "White man" without the slightest irony.
Does Powell believe in biological races? Does she believe that there is a Black race in which visibly admixed Afro-Euro people do not belong to? If so where does she draw the line between "black" and "not black" on the Bantu - Nordic phenotype spectrum? If not what are her standards for blackness and on what grounds are they made?
Posted: Thu 09 Aug 2007 15:43 Post subject: Re: racial standards
Powell wrote:
The "Soul Patrol" refers to political behavior in opposition to those who reject forced hypodescent.
The cultural behavior by which different kinds of "blacks" express very different views on how "black" may be defined is another matter altogether.
The issue is is NOT how I define "black," but how the "blacks" themselves define it.
Perhaps not, but I suspect that Powell's personal views on the matter (which she is free to share or hold close to the vest) have a lot to do with the oppositional context set between the mulatto elite ("blacks" to Powell in her text) and blacks (no quotes used, which is puzzling to me and why I asked for some clarity...are there fake Blacks and real Blacks?). Blacks define blackness in what appears to be 187,000 ways. I am being facetious, but Powell would likely agree that there is a political and social expediency to a lot of this who or who isn't Black to John Q. Public, hence the inconsistency even with the ODR as a standard.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
). Their features are very different. But they are still both Black.