This is the one-sided, pro-hypodescent propaganda the Multiracial Movement tried to fight for so many years.
Quote:
Bliss Broyard thought she was white until she found out that her father, the book critic Anatole Broyard, was a black man who passed as white. Now she has a book of her own. Russ Mitchell reports.
Notice that Russ Mitchell, a black-identified dark mulatto-looking "journalist" is able to use the resources of CBS News to promote the "One Drop Rule" as absolute truth. No one who wants to argue against that will ever have access to CBS news.
Mitchell: "For 23 years, Bliss Broyard was white." Above, he says that she "thought she was white." He is promoting invisible blackness to the core.
Mitchell says that Broyard's great-grandparents were "free blacks," when they were in fact free quadroons, mulattoes, etc. One even claimed to be a "pure" white who "passed in reverse."
Voice dripping with contempt, Mitchell accuses Anatole Broyard of "passing" and of being a "black man" (no pretense of journalistic objectivity there).
Mitchell claims that Broyard (as book critic of the New York Times for 18 years) would have "opened doors" and "launched careers" for black authors if he had "come out as a black man." Hell, why did they need a Civil Rights movement then? I've heard this nonsense before. It's a legend and often repeated in Mulatto Elite biographies. The white "Negro" announces to the bigoted "pure" white that he/she is a "Negro." The Negro-hating "pure" white is amazed that someone so intelligent and attractive can possibly be a "Negro." He is so impressed that he quits the Klan and becomes a liberal Democrat. You get the idea. It's a nonsensical guilt trip designed to promote self-policing as a way to enforce the "one drop rule." That's why Mitchell denounces Anatole as "incredibly selfish" for not personally raising up blacks by publicly claiming to be one of them, and the foolish Bliss agrees. (How was he supposed to personally raise up blacks, through the power of "superior" white blood?). The legend I've related seems to suppose that.
Mitchell claims that up to "28 million" Americans identify themselves as "white" despite some "black" ancestry. Note that Mitchell clearly implied that they are not really white. Someone who claims to be black is accepted at his word, with no qualifications or suggestions that he is lying or delusional.
The idiot Russ Mitchell then expresses his amazement that, in 2007, people still "pass." The fact that people want to be who they really are (which isn't black) is an argument that blacks like him will never allow on CBS news. Bliss accepts the lie that her father's white identity was proof of "self-hated." Funny, the lines that blacks usually throw at Euro mixed-bloods (whether white-identified or not) are accusations of arrogance and being too proud of ourselves. THAT is called self-hatred?! Someone who denounces his predominately white ancestry as tainted, slavemaster, rapist blood, however, is promoted as a "proud" hero of blacks.
Mitchell says that Bliss "never stopped loving her father" despite his terrible racial crime against the poor blacks. How generous!
Joined: 02 Oct 2007 {Posts: 226 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Mon 17 Dec 2007 19:56 Post subject: Re: Diane McWhorter's racist description
Powell wrote:
What color? Anatole didn't have the "color" and neither does Bliss. I've seen this many times before, where the alleged "passer" is described as hiding his true "color."
I've found, myself, that RIGHT KNOWLEDGE organically transcends this argument.
Once the alleged "Passer" has internally solidified the reality of her/his Europeaness,
the ENTIRE concept of "Passing" becomes obsolete.
At the end o' the day it's wholly up to the alleged "Passer"
to safeguard her/his TRUE reality from the ignorant.
Last edited by lsgh on Fri 28 Dec 2007 20:59; edited 1 time in total
Bliss Broyard, author of One Drop: My Father's Hidden Life--A Story of Race and Family Secrets (Little, Brown and Company, 2007) learned her father, New York Times Book Review editor Anatole Broyard, was black--just before his death in 1990.
Shocking! Bliss and the media are making it clear that a person with some black ancestry can't be "white." What does that imply if not black genetic inferiority?
If I am not mistaken Frank said that Bliss was 10% or 14% black and Todd Broyard was 18%. I may have read it wrong and if Frank did not say this I will retract it.
but all she needs is 1% to have the ODR put on her, and she has that. Also, she seems to support the ODR too some degree. Also, if you have to keep telling people you are mixed it can across as a sign that you maybe jealous of those who look mixed and get more attention.
I have noticed that there are some biracials and mulattoes who get angry because they have phenotypes that look monoracial. Some have phenotypes that look like Wesley snipes, some look like Arabs, Asians, White, etc but don't look like a mixed race person who does not belong to a monoracial group. Therefore, they become semi irrelevant among mixed race people because they look monoracial.
Vanessa Williams looks mixed and stands out. If you look monoracial even if you are a white looking quadroon or octoroon in phenotype you still look close to monoracial. If you look Arab then you look monoracial. If a person keeps saying they are mixed in public or on the Internet forums this means there maybe some issues about and even jealousy, or feeling inferior, some keep saying I am mixed to feel superior to other who are mixed because they have a secret inferiority complex etc.
I am like this if you are mixed on average you should not have to say voluntarily it reveals some type of unhappiness.
Now if I can only keep people from mistaken me for other ethnic groups.
If I am not mistaken Frank said that Bliss was 10% or 14% black and Todd Broyard was 18%. I may have read it wrong and if Frank did not say this I will retract it.
Yes. That is what she said in her book. The only reason I remember is because by coincidence I happen to have the same SSA admixture as her.
As to her supporting the ODR, I tend to agree with Powell. I suspect that she is paying lip service to the ODR in order to get on the liberal and Black talk circuits, to get more publicity, to sell more books. Where I differ from Powell is that I do not consider such a motivation reprehensible. More power to her. We all want to make a buck and I do not begrudge her success.
Her brother, in contrast, has more SSA than she does, but looks no less White and he has not uttered one word in public about it. His business is security equipment, not books sales, so I imagine that the issue is irrelevant to him.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2008 05:17 Post subject: Bliss Broyard
fwsweet wrote:
MP mulattoprince wrote:
If I am not mistaken Frank said that Bliss was 10% or 14% black and Todd Broyard was 18%. I may have read it wrong and if Frank did not say this I will retract it.
Yes. That is what she said in her book. The only reason I remember is because by coincidence I happen to have the same SSA admixture as her.
As to her supporting the ODR, I tend to agree with Powell. I suspect that she is paying lip service to the ODR in order to get on the liberal and Black talk circuits, to get more publicity, to sell more books. Where I differ from Powell is that I do not consider such a motivation reprehensible. More power to her. We all want to make a buck and I do not begrudge her success.
Her brother, in contrast, has more SSA than she does, but looks no less White and he has not uttered one word in public about it. His business is security equipment, not books sales, so I imagine that the issue is irrelevant to him.
Actually, what I find reprehensible about Bliss Broyard is the fact that she gives legitimacy to the ODR. There are plenty of mixed kids out there trying to make decisions about their lives with very little information to go on. Bliss and her enablers are telling them that they have only ONE option - BLACK. The public crucifixion of Anatole Broyard (now led by his own daughter, who has become the successor to Henry Louis Gates, Jr) tells them that they are evil if they dare to choose any identity other than "black." She could have sold plenty of books without doing that kind of harm.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2008 06:31 Post subject: More ODR Reviews
Note that Anatole NEVER told his children he was "black." He did not believe he was. Indeed, Bliss admits that she can't find any writing from her father in which he identifies with blacks.
Quote:
Review: Broyard's dad tells her he's black. How will she respond?
Martin Rubin
Monday, October 1, 2007
One Drop
My Father's Hidden Life - a Story of Race & Family Secrets
By Bliss Broyard
LITTLE, BROWN; 514 PAGES; $24.99
Shortly before he died in 1990 at 70 of the cancer that had been tormenting him for some time, literary journalist Anatole Broyard finally told his two children, who were in their 20s, what it seems almost everybody else close to him already knew: He was partly black in his ancestry.
When he was growing up in 1920s New Orleans, his family was what was known there as creole, light-complected people of mixed French and what was then called Negro or colored descent. By the time of his death, the classification he was revealing - and thus in a sense bequeathing - to his children would properly be labeled African American. This terminology, altering so markedly within one conventional life span of three score years and 10, is a sign of just what a loaded legacy Bliss Broyard and her brother were unexpectedly receiving.
"One Drop" is Bliss Broyard's attempt to explore and come to terms with what it meant to her father and to her. The title is a reference to the notion, commonly held by both white racists and by black people, that one drop of black "blood" - i.e. one scintilla of ancestry - has been sufficient throughout U.S. history to define someone as African American. This logic, if such it be, cut no ice with Anatole Broyard, who argued that he had many more drops of French "blood." Bliss Broyard is unflinching in her depiction of the emotional cost to her father of shucking his black identity, a process which included cutting off his mother and the darker-complected of his two sisters. She is also, to her credit, bent on understanding the cultural and societal climate in which he came to this decision; and she never stoops to unconsidered, unreflected condemnation. Understanding is what she is after, and the largeness of her spirit and her enterprise alike enable her to achieve some hard-won comprehension of the choice made by a much-loved father.
To do this, Broyard plunges herself into her newfound family, past and present. She travels all over to meet relatives of varying skin hues who regard themselves, unequivocally, as black. In Los Angeles, she meets a cousin who chose a path similar to her father's, with the twist that this woman has convinced herself that the family is not African American at all, ascribing the notations of "colored" on birth certificates to malevolent alterations or forgeries by racist officials. How she squares this theory with the existence across town of dark-skinned relatives whose homes she occasionally visits but whom she will not invite to hers is unclear. But again Broyard is marvelously uncensorious and unjudgmental - although perfectly adept at carefully thought-out judgment - and so presents her readers with a rich mosaic spotlighting varieties of contemporary African American experience. These relatives present a range of reactions to her father's fateful choice and these add to her - and our - understanding of why he made it.
Not content with these discoveries, Broyard delves into her family's past in America, starting in the 18th century. Through French, Spanish and English colonial times, and down through the evolution of the United States and its turbulent currents of racial mixing, Broyard uses the history of her family to typify the African American experience. The War of 1812, the Civil War, even Hurricane Katrina receive Broyard's probing, enlightening attention and contribute to her understanding of her heritage. But in a sense, all this contemporary traveling and historical exegesis is in the end tourism for Broyard: She needs to delve into herself and determine her own sense of identity; and by book's end, she has clearly done so:
"From my father, I inherited a legacy that connected me to the worst and best American traditions: from the racial oppression spawned by slavery to the opportunities created through becoming self-made. Recognizing my forebears' place in the continuum of history has made me appreciate my own responsibilities as a citizen - of my community, my country, and the world - in a way that simply paying my taxes or casting a vote never did. [...] I may never be able to answer the question What am I? yet the fault lies not in me but with the question itself. And with that realization, that letting go, I can finally say good-bye."
That's the best thing about "One Drop." Broyard's necessary preoccupation with race during her exploration has not stopped her from understanding in the end just how important it is - or is not. She understands its scientific limitations, quoting the finding of the Human Genome Project that "the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis." And her experience with DNA testing of herself and her near relatives, which led to differing results on different occasions, leads her to conclude:
"It seemed that the inheritance of Ancestry Information Markers depended on the luck of the draw, which made these genealogical DNA tests feel more like a parlor game than the kind of hard science that I was hoping, against my better judgment, would unlock my family secrets once and for all."
To Broyard's amazement, DNA testing reveals a surprise in the ancestry of her Norwegian American mother: She is 13 percent American Indian, to her "an intriguing but mostly benign revelation." But if she didn't know it before, Broyard's forays into yesterday and today's black America have shown her that, if she can put the question of race behind her, for her father it was not so easy: "History, law, and public opinion made the fact of his black blood matter, whether it was 50 percent, 13 percent, or only one drop."
Anatole Broyard obviously feared telling his children he was black so much that he put it off till the very end of his life, and only did so then when forced by his wife. He need not have been so afraid. Bliss Broyard has offered up a deeply felt and compassionate book, a daughter's gift of true sympathy and understanding.
Martin Rubin is a California biographer and critic.
The public crucifixion of Anatole Broyard (now led by his own daughter, who has become the successor to Henry Louis Gates, Jr) tells them that they are evil if they dare to choose any identity other than "black."
Is this statement really the truth or are you just reacting to what you perceive as her reprehensible behavior?
I'm waiting for my book to arrive so I can't validate this statement independently, but I'm highly suspicious of extreme statements such as the one you've made. Bliss strikes me as someone trying to make sense of her life and readjust her personal identity based on new information about her parent. I happen to know what that feels like. It isn't easy nor is it a linear and predictable process that an outsider (critic in your case) who is politically motivated can necessarily understand. Yes, the political implications are strong, but Bliss isn't responsible for anyone other than herself.
The question I have for Powell is why does her partially African and half-Creole ancestry require her to accept the mantle of mixed race lighting rod anymore than they require her to "become Black?" Lambasting someone for a personal choice is quite counter to the stated goals of the multiracial movement IMO, one of which is MORE and FREE choice in personal identity.
The analogy I keep coming back to with this issue is one of an ardent feminist who becomes irate at the thought of women choosing to become stay-at-home mothers. For them the "traditional" choice is the wrong choice. They do not give two figs about the best choice for an individual woman, only what her actions represent in their political ideology.
I also believe that Bliss, like many people and especially people with cross-color line parents/ancestry, will modify her position on her personal identity. She is a young woman processing relatively new information with profound political significance. What will her position be in 10 years? 20 years? I doubt it will be identical to what it is now.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2008 15:39 Post subject:
Maya wrote:
The analogy I keep coming back to with this issue is one of an ardent feminist who becomes irate at the thought of women choosing to become stay-at-home mothers. For them the "traditional" choice is the wrong choice. They do not give two figs about the best choice for an individual woman, only what her actions represent in their political ideology.
That is right on the money, Maya. It reminds me of some vociferous members of the gay community wanting to "out" someone because they claim this will somehow benefit the gay community at large. They are completely disregarding the individual's personal choice, and his/her reasons for making that choice. They also don't take into account the consequences their actions will have for the individual.
All people should have the choice to identify as they please.
Posted: Wed 09 Jan 2008 03:41 Post subject: Strawman arguments
William wrote:
Maya wrote:
The analogy I keep coming back to with this issue is one of an ardent feminist who becomes irate at the thought of women choosing to become stay-at-home mothers. For them the "traditional" choice is the wrong choice. They do not give two figs about the best choice for an individual woman, only what her actions represent in their political ideology.
That is right on the money, Maya. It reminds me of some vociferous members of the gay community wanting to "out" someone because they claim this will somehow benefit the gay community at large. They are completely disregarding the individual's personal choice, and his/her reasons for making that choice. They also don't take into account the consequences their actions will have for the individual.
No, it is not because there is no truth in it. A truthful analogy would be to compare Bliss Broyard to the professional anti-feminists who denounced as immoral and unnatural any woman who couldn't live like a June Cleaver clone. I would be represented by those feminists who wanted women to have equal opportunities.
All people should have the choice to identify as they please.
Are you claiming that Bliss Broyard is in favor of that? Explain how denouncing your white-identified father as "black" in the national media makes you an advocate of freedom of choice?
Posted: Wed 09 Jan 2008 04:17 Post subject: Strawman arguments
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
The public crucifixion of Anatole Broyard (now led by his own daughter, who has become the successor to Henry Louis Gates, Jr) tells them that they are evil if they dare to choose any identity other than "black."
Is this statement really the truth or are you just reacting to what you perceive as her reprehensible behavior?
What are you saying? Are you trying to claim that I am saying that Bliss used those exact words in the book? Are you unaware that my critique of her is based on both her book AND her numerous media interviews?
I'm waiting for my book to arrive so I can't validate this statement independently, but I'm highly suspicious of extreme statements such as the one you've made. Bliss strikes me as someone trying to make sense of her life and readjust her personal identity based on new information about her parent. I happen to know what that feels like. It isn't easy nor is it a linear and predictable process that an outsider (critic in your case) who is politically motivated can necessarily understand. Yes, the political implications are strong, but Bliss isn't responsible for anyone other than herself.
I've noticed that whenever I criticize a Euro phenotype person who actively promotes the ODR in the media (Gregory Howard Williams, Jill Sim, Bliss Broyard), some people defend their attempts to deny choice to others by projecting their power and their motivation onto me. I think that shows how morally bankrupt their position is. The evil A.D. Powell is denying "choice" to Bliss, Jill, Greg, etc. just by writing a few words on the internet. They deny the harm these people do by legitimizing the ODR to people of good will and other mixed people trying to negotiate their identities with little accurate information to help them.
The question I have for Powell is why does her partially African and half-Creole ancestry require her to accept the mantle of mixed race lighting rod anymore than they require her to "become Black?" Lambasting someone for a personal choice is quite counter to the stated goals of the multiracial movement IMO, one of which is MORE and FREE choice in personal identity.
Again, you create a strawman. No one has asked Bliss to be a "mixed race lightning rod," but she has happily and voluntarily become a "lightning rod" for all ODR advocates. Nor has anyone lambasted Bliss for "personal choice." She is attacked for her public advocacy of the ODR.
The analogy I keep coming back to with this issue is one of an ardent feminist who becomes irate at the thought of women choosing to become stay-at-home mothers. For them the "traditional" choice is the wrong choice. They do not give two figs about the best choice for an individual woman, only what her actions represent in their political ideology.
Your analogy is totally off the wall. I'll give you a better one. Bliss is comparable to the professional anti-feminists who condemned as unnatural and immoral any woman who couldn't manage to live like a June Cleaver clone. I represent the feminists who wanted women to have equal opportunities.
I also believe that Bliss, like many people and especially people with cross-color line parents/ancestry, will modify her position on her personal identity. She is a young woman processing relatively new information with profound political significance. What will her position be in 10 years? 20 years? I doubt it will be identical to what it is now.
Again, anyone who has followed this issue ought to know that it is NOT about Bliss Broyard's "personal identity" but her political advocacy of the ODR. I've posted her interviews here. Have you read or listened to any of them?
This issue has been explained by Charles Michael Byrd, Geroge Winkel and Susanne Heine. Why can't you understand?
What's unsettling about Gregory Howard Williams /(photo right)/ is that
those on this country's political left who have opposed /any/ discussion
of multiraciality from the movement's inception have manipulated him --
with his tacit consent or not -- and employ the /Williams paradigm/ to
further bash both Broyard's memory and those of us who eschew a false
"black" identity. They proudly point to Williams as an example of how a
loyal and obedient "light-skinned black" should act, while decrying
Broyard as the quintessential "race-traitor," running away from
"blackness." (Personally, I believe Broyard made the decision that,
being the intellectual that he was, he was going to do what /he/ wanted
to do in life and was going to travel in those social circles in which
/he/ wanted to travel and to hell with anyone who objected.)
A couple of months before last year's Multiracial Solidarity March in
Washington, D.C., Williams appeared on ABC's Nightline program with Ted
Koppel. In short, Williams stated that he views race as an artificial,
social construct, yet strongly proclaimed that he was "black" primarily
based on the one drop rule. Not once, however, did Williams speak to the
validity of a multiracial identifier that many of us have adopted.
I don't care how Gregory Howard Williams identifies. He can call himself
a Martian, a Venusian or a Jovian, because, after all, that's /his/
business. I submit, though, that he has a moral responsibility -- due to
his high-profile status not only as an Ivory Towers type but as an
author enjoying national attention and notoriety -- to /not/ leave the
impression with those who read his writings, hear him on radio or view
him on television that hypodescent is still the rule of thumb vis-à-vis
identity formation in mixed-race individuals.
*"Throughout history many nations and ethnic groups have tried to
forcibly assimilate others. The English tried to assimilate the Celtic
nations of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Castilians tried to
assimilate the Basques and Catalons. The government of Turkey says there
is no such thing as a Kurd, only another variety of Turk. Black
Americans are one of the few cases of a subordinate ethnic group
thinking it has the 'right' to commit the ethnic 'rape' of conquerors.
American Indians, Asian-Americans and others might inappropriately claim
some mixed people but they do not generally go into a towering rage over
the thought of losing the 'blood' of their 'white' rivals.*
*"The 'one drop' advocates should be told that they have no right to
commit racial or ethnic 'rape,' telling others that they will be taken
against their will. They have no right to 'rape' either the living or
the dead -- 'blackening' the names of people who were not 'black' and
never claimed to be (Jean Toomer, Alexander Dumas, Alexander Pushkin and numerous others subjected to 'kidnapping' when they are dead and unable to defend themselves). Anyone who says he wants to 'unite' with you and will do so whether you like it or not is a rapist. Ethnic rape can be
just as real and demeaning as sexual rape.*
*"The people who are subjected to the 'You just don't want to be black'
accusation should proudly respond in the affirmative and say that they
don't want to pretend to belong to a 'race' that doesn't describe them
merely to ease the inferiority complex of the 'one drop' advocates.
Indeed, let the 'one drop' advocates say to the Hispanics (almost all
mixed race), Jews, Italians, Greeks, etc. that those groups cling to
their various heritages just because they don't want to be 'black.'
That's partly true. They don't want to be something else either. They
want to be who they are."*
*Some thought A.D.'s composition a tad harsh. The June 17 edition of The
New Yorker magazine, however, proved her words prophetic. That edition
included an article by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. entitled "The true lies of
Anatole Broyard," in which Gates sought to trash the reputation of the
late New York Times book critic, a man now six years in his grave. Gates
attacked Broyard as "really black" and only "passing" as white. Gates'
racist article is an extreme example of the devotion to the myth of
white racial "purity" and to the "one drop" mythology that is still so
prevalent amongst minority academicians and politicians. Broyard, of
Louisiana Creole descent, is also victimized by the typical ploy of
claiming that because there are no 100% "pure" whites in his immediate
ancestry, he is really descended from "blacks" and has only a "small
amount" of white ancestry from a "distant" ancestor. Gates and other
"one drop" fanatics know no shame.*
*How is it anyone's business that Broyard did not identify as black? If
it's valid to assert that Broyard was "passing for white," is it also
not valid to say that the likes of Gregory Howard Williams are "passing
for black?" Broyard was and Williams is as light-skinned as any person
who identifies as white that you've ever seen walk down the street, yet
the former is viciously vilified in death because of his refusal to
adhere to the one-drop rule, and the latter is glorified to the hilt
because he embraces it tenaciously. Williams is the author of "Life On
The Color Line," the story of a young lad born in Virginia -- my home
state, too -- who thought he was "white" until he moved to Indiana and
then suddenly found out he was "black." Of course, Williams was "black"
because of hypodescent, and he plays that card at every turn today.
*
*Similarly, consider the case of the late mixed-/race/ New York Times book critic Anatole Broyard who chose not to identify as "black." While Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. now defends himself by saying he was merely "exploring complexity," conventional wisdom --
particularly within the /multiracial/ community -- holds that he "outed"
Broyard in the June 17, 1996 edition of The New Yorker magazine by
accusing him of /passing for "white."/ What Gates, Lowery and other
self-identified "blacks" are ever-so-slowly beginning to realize is that
/their/ choices of identity, philosophy, political affiliation and
religious belief are not necessarily /other/ people's choices. With
respect to Broyard, they need to understand that they are not reacting
to his decision to not identify as "black" but to their own feelings
/about/ that decision. The Anatole Broyards of the world are not
responsible for the feelings of indignation and jealousy that individual
"blacks" experience. When they recognize and understand this completely, they will be ready to take /individual/ responsibility for how they feel and to change it.*
As for what "black" is taken to mean, a journalist called Richard Lim,
a man of -- as far as I know -- oriental background (orientals being
still another of our offshoot families, just like all the other
so-called "races") wrote the following about the editor and renowned
writer, Anatole Broyard:*
*"When I met Broyard at his office canteen, I did not know then that
the 68-year-old man had himself erased his past brutally when he was
in his 20s, and reinvented himself.*
*Neither did his son and daughter, nor his friends and colleagues.
His erasure of the past was so total that he could live the life of
a lie without being caught out by even those nearest to him for
almost five decades.*
*It was a lifelong secret which he refused to unburden to his two
children even when he was dying of prostate cancer in 1990.*
*Broyard was a /black man/ [sic, my italics] who had passed himself
off as a white, a fact which was revealed in 1996 by the eminent
black scholar and writer Henry Louis Gates Junior in an article in
the New Yorker magazine." *
*I am amazed by certain phrases here: "erased his past brutally", for
example; "reinvented himself"; "a lifelong secret which he refused to
unburden"; "could live the life of a lie"; "a black man who passed
himself off as white". Just what in hell are we dealing with here?
Anyone who ever saw or knew Anatole Broyard knows damn well that he was a /white/ man with some negro ancestry, period, and he kept that fact -- for more than obvious reasons, I should think -- to himself. Just what, exactly, does that make him guilty of or a traitor to, if not some kind of Jim-Crow reasoning that is beyond my ken? No, he was not racially "pure"; but is that any reason to hang him out to dry as a liar and a mountebank? A self-immolator?[/
Moreover, arguably /Loving/ has not yet fully /socially/ decriminalized "black blood," or lifted quite all disincentives for treating it as a family secret. The condemnation of Broyard, and the public tarbrushing of Sim’s ancestors is an object lesson not lost on others. Seemingly, the business of closing the deep wounds cut in families by "One-Drop" "race" definitions and "anti-miscegenation" laws is delicate surgery best left to the families themselves. They are the only ones to decide when to disclose to the children. Moralizing outsiders raising a ruckus, as in Broyard’s case, will only drive this sort of family secret back
underground.*
*I think it is tragic each time "black" ancestors are forgotten -- lost
-- as families move into the American mainstream. I enthusiastically
support Sim’s resuscitating her own "black" family roots. I fault only
her action publicly tarring her deceased grandparents socially -- as
dead niggers, guilty of "passing" -- Sim reincarnated hypodescent and
"One Drop." And has Sim not thus imposed an awful consciousness of duty on her own children, such that in good conscience they cannot marry
"white" sweethearts now without first baring this "loathsome family
secret" to their betrotheds?*
A.D. - It might be more comfortable to believe that a person who opposes your point of view doesn't understand it or isn't informed about it, but in my case it is inaccurate. I actually do read what you and others have to say, and if I truly do not understand your point-of-view I welcome the clarification of your views.
Now let me break away from the specific topic for a moment to address the main reason why I usually disagree with what you have to say: You come across as an ideologue and to me, ideologues are too emotionally invested in their "cause," whatever it is, to accept nuance and reasoned positions that are not in line with their own. You demonize your "opposition" - words like "enemy," "evil," "dreaded" run rampant through your posts, either in characterization of their positions/behavior or your interpretation of your own positions through their eyes.
Exhibit A: Your reference to an "evil A.D. Powell" is your own. It is simply made up. I don't know who you are talking to! Neither I nor William directly or indirectly commented on your virtue or morality, yet what you took away from the criticism is that you were being demonized. I've noticed that what you also take away from people like Bliss is that they're demonizing folks who have a different take on racial identity (ODR supporters...and I'm not sure she really is one BTW).
I will quote the text that sparked my response in the hopes that, after reading this, you or anyone else with a similar view understands EXACTLY where I'm coming from with my criticism:
Quote:
Actually, what I find reprehensible about Bliss Broyard is the fact that she gives legitimacy to the ODR.
Obviously a wholly BAD THING from your perspective. What Bliss wants to label herself or her father, since it is "Black," is "reprehensible. Your words. Your interpretation in plain English. You do not have a nuanced position on the application of the ODR. I do. That's the rub from where I am sitting.
Personally I wonder if what she is simply saying in the typical tangled American racial lexicon that he had African ancestry..."Black" and "of African ancestry" are interchageable precisely due to the ODR. I wait to read the book to make up my mind.
Quote:
There are plenty of mixed kids out there trying to make decisions about their lives with very little information to go on.
I totally agree with this statement. I find it unfortunate that celebrities would need to take on the responsibility for providing identity choices for kids that parents or other adults in their lives should be directing. Bliss is responsible for guiding the decisions of her children, not mine or someone else's.
Quote:
Bliss and her enablers are telling them that they have only ONE option - BLACK.
Are they really? Is Bliss's book truly advocating that White people of African ancestry should (have to) become Black? If it isn't I think your statement is highly unfair. We are, after all, not talking about Gates's book.
Quote:
The public crucifixion of Anatole Broyard (now led by his own daughter, who has become the successor to Henry Louis Gates, Jr) tells them that they are evil if they dare to choose any identity other than "black."
Surely you're not serious. Even if she is, let's say critically examining her father's choices, couldn't it be more indicative of the "daddy issues" that she may have? The anger she might feel about being kept from her relatives? I understand that you are putting her personal life in a wider political context due to your own ideology, but to attribute personal motives to her while doing so is something I really do find distasteful.
Quote:
She could have sold plenty of books without doing that kind of harm.
Who is she harming by speaking her truth as she currently understands it? There are a plethora of books written by Afro-Euro mixed people that are accessible to people who need to hear about their perspectives. Danzy Senna's Causcasia, for example, is an excellent book that may resonate with some folks. it does not take a pro- or con ODR stance. It simply tells her story. Zadie Smith is another author who writes books about mixed people that defy the tragic mulatto archetypes.
Posted: Wed 09 Jan 2008 17:56 Post subject: Re: Strawman arguments
Powell wrote:
What are you saying? Are you trying to claim that I am saying that Bliss used those exact words in the book? Are you unaware that my critique of her is based on both her book AND her numerous media interviews?
I think I explained my position in my previous post. I suppose I don't walk away with the mantra "evildoer" after listening to her interviews. But hey maybe the book really is an treatise on the evils of White folks with African ancestry. If it isn't, my criticism stands as far as I'm concerned. For someone who has been so vilified in some circles it seems that you are willing to pay it forward to those you criticize. Why?
Quote:
I've noticed that whenever I criticize a Euro phenotype person who actively promotes the ODR in the media (Gregory Howard Williams, Jill Sim, Bliss Broyard), some people defend their attempts to deny choice to others by projecting their power and their motivation onto me.
This is a interesting strawman if it is my criticism you are referring to. I simply do not believe Bliss is trying to deny choice to anyone. She is certainly critical of her father's choices. So what? Eventually, like most reasonable people do, she'll get over it. Hopefully she writes a book about that part too.
Quote:
I think that shows how morally bankrupt their position is. The evil A.D. Powell is denying "choice" to Bliss, Jill, Greg, etc. just by writing a few words on the internet. They deny the harm these people do by legitimizing the ODR to people of good will and other mixed people trying to negotiate their identities with little accurate information to help them.
I'd challenge you to uncover any previously implemented racial classification system in the U.S. that did not deny freedom of choice for people, mixed or otherwise. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the "reprehensible" aspect of the ODR applied to visibly mixed people is not that it was based on the exhaltation and preservation of whiteness/white privilege but that their partially privileged position was not retained as a result of its ascension. Finally, it seems the most "reprehensible" outcome of all is not the loss of distinct cultures or political clout (the latter of which one can argue such folks actually gained by becoming Black), but that they were forced to hold their noses and associate with people they believed were beneath them. The intraethnic abuses go both ways, A.D. Nevertheless, similarly to discussions of reparations, what's done is truly done. There is no longer "the right" or "the wrong" view to have on the matter if one considers the valid ethnicity that was created, the families and social ties that were forged and the blending/assimilation of cultures that occurred. What was lost is truly tragic. What some people have had to endure is truly heartbreaking. But what was gained and offered to many people as a "refuge" from white supremacy should not be cast aside or portrayed as "evil" simply because of negative outcomes. Else, why stop there? The USA is evil too using that logic. Every non-indigenous nation this side of the Atlantic is fradulent and "reprehensible" given the destruction wrought upon individuals and certain cultures.
Quote:
Again, you create a strawman. No one has asked Bliss to be a "mixed race lightning rod," but she has happily and voluntarily become a "lightning rod" for all ODR advocates. Nor has anyone lambasted Bliss for "personal choice." She is attacked for her public advocacy of the ODR.
You seem to perceive that Bliss has a responsibility to "reject the ODR." You have stated that failure to do so can be considered "reprehensible." Yes, to restate this perception as making Bliss a "lightening rod" is not to directly quote what you said, but is it not a suitable characterization of a "public advocate" that attracts attention for his or her individual choices?
Please provide a direct quote from Bliss (not Gates, Bliss) where she advocates that mixed people who identify other than Black MUST change their identity choice. I've seen no such thing, again, from Bliss.
Quote:
Your analogy is totally off the wall. I'll give you a better one. Bliss is comparable to the professional anti-feminists who condemned as unnatural and immoral any woman who couldn't manage to live like a June Cleaver clone. I represent the feminists who wanted women to have equal opportunities.
I'd reconsider:
Accepted feminist ideological stance = June Cleaver is a archetype for the subjugation of women
Accepted multiracialist ideological stance = The adoption of a Black identity for visibly mixed people is an archetype for the subjugation of bi-/multiracial people
Quote:
Again, anyone who has followed this issue ought to know that it is NOT about Bliss Broyard's "personal identity" but her political advocacy of the ODR. I've posted her interviews here. Have you read or listened to any of them?
I disagree.
This quote says it all for me, and quite nicely points out the pot-calling-the-kettle-black-ness of this entire position (no pun intended):
Quote:
The Anatole Broyards of the world are not
responsible for the feelings of indignation and jealousy that individual
"blacks" experience. When they recognize and understand this completely, they will be ready to take /individual/ responsibility for how they feel and to change it.*
Yet the Bliss Broyards of the world are responsible for the feelings of confusion and resentment towards Blacks that individual Afro-Euro mixed folks have? When will "they" recognize (since we're addressing nebulous theys and them) and understand that such individuals need to take responsibility for how they feel and change it?
An ideologue is an ideolgue is an ideologue. Mark my words, in 50 years, mainstream multiracialists who have solidified their political position will be tearing new ones to mixed people who choose not to label themselves racially at all, or trying to enforce a new colorline to keep the "Blacks" with multiracial ancestry out (but not the "Whites") in a compelling yet predictable reversal of the ODR and retribution for past wrongs. It never stops.
Posted: Wed 09 Jan 2008 18:00 Post subject: Re: Strawman arguments
sagascend wrote:
Mark my words, in 50 years, mainstream multiracialists who have solidified their political position will be tearing new ones to mixed people who choose not to label themselves racially at all, or trying to enforce a new colorline to keep the "Blacks" with multiracial ancestry out (but not the "Whites") in a compelling yet predictable reversal of the ODR and retribution for past wrongs. It never stops.
You really think so? That would be very weird. Colorism run amok as in, say, Chile or Argentina. Weird.
Posted: Wed 09 Jan 2008 20:02 Post subject: Re: Strawman arguments
fwsweet wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Mark my words, in 50 years, mainstream multiracialists who have solidified their political position will be tearing new ones to mixed people who choose not to label themselves racially at all, or trying to enforce a new colorline to keep the "Blacks" with multiracial ancestry out (but not the "Whites") in a compelling yet predictable reversal of the ODR and retribution for past wrongs. It never stops.
You really think so? That would be very weird. Colorism run amok as in, say, Chile or Argentina. Weird.
I really do because, once established, intermediate groups in the U.S. did not object to marriages and procreation with Whites because it was a "step up" in the social hierarchy. Passing over into whiteness was not demonized. It may not have always been desirable but it was understood. Relationships and ties with Whites were cultivated and strengthened through illicit and legitimate practices (la placage for example). In a time where legitimacy of birth and sexual relationships were extremely important in European societies, the promotion of illegitimacy among the South's second-class citizens as perfectly acceptable is striking to me. So I suppose I see "old school" multiracialists as the ideological heirs to this way of thinking.
Also, in every ethnic group impacted by the ODR colorism remains a huge issue. What I perceive is an underlying and persistent orientation towards whiteness among such groups. I do not believe for a second, despite the somewhat romaticized portrayals of such societies that intragroup anti-SSA colorism was lessened because of the dual color line. To look more African is bad, to look more European is good or at least acceptable.
It is the blocked access to whiteness, IMO, that is the central political issue for such multiracialists. It is the experience of being held back or kept in a place that ought to be reserved for "truly," "clearly," "real" Blacks that I believe fuels this world view, the perception of having lost political, social and economic cache (a rightful place) under the ODR.
The wild cards for me are 1) the rate of intermarriage between Black and Whites, particularly between Black females and White males and 2) the possibility that the antiracialist point-of-view might supersede multiracialism as a desirable alternative to racial classification. Since IMO high rates of intermarriage would diminish anti-Black discrimination and only the adoption of #2 as the central paradigm has a prayer of decreasing colorism, I just see us heading towards, as you said, "colorism run amok" no matter how many labels we legitimize.
Well, but by not being clear, Bliss is indirectly supporting the ODR myth (reinforcement) in her interviews. I have seen the aforementioned news segment and at least one other and the term 'secretly' Black, really Black, etc is more often used than mixed, Creole, etc.
I feel any support for the 'Black ancestry only' based ODR (whether it be Blacks, Whites, or "Others') is morally bankrupt and just plain wrong. The ODR is just not right, ever!
Yes, I do understand the historical 'significance', the 'struggle', past genocides, current realities, and the future implications this topic has for American society, especially AAs (who are effected the most), and those interested in the politics of race and privilege ad nauseum... Yeah, I get it. However, by supporting the ODR myth, AAs perpetuate Black inferiority and the singling out of Blacks as 'different', not like all other races.
Quote:
In a time where legitimacy of birth and sexual relationships were extremely important in European societies, the promotion of illegitimacy among the South's second-class citizens as perfectly acceptable is striking to me.
Actually, the feudal system was similar among the stratified class hierarchies. This was more a legacy of that - i.e. knowing and staying in your place, etc. See also Indian Caste System.
What many call Colorism has existed for eons. Few cultures have prized very dark skin color. It has nothing to do with current White Supremacy. As the World stands currently, being dark skinned is just not going to be prized. To them I say: Get over it and love oneself anyway. There is no solution for Colorism. People will always have a preference for such things in life. It is an unfortunate part of human nature.
IMO, either Globalization will end the ODR or it will be taken up as an world standard.
Quote:
To look more African is bad, to look more European is good or at least acceptable.
Previously, the ODR was enforced by ancestry, no matter outward appearance. The ODR of today (i.e Hypodescent) is less about ancestry and more about looks. So, despite the race baiters, looks will be what will enforce the 'color line'. DNA testing will probably help elimiate ODR in favor of looks-based Colorism along.
What I foresee, as we move beyond 18th Century racial theory and into the DNA Age, is that people will probably not have a problem with SSA ancestry, but will have a problem with 'SSA predominate looks', i.e. Colorism. For example, Whites have never really commented/reacted negatively to my looks or color. 'Race', yes, color no.
So, the ODR of the future's 'victims' might be those who posses 'African' features (dark, broad nose, kinky haired, big-lipped, etc) vs. the majority of the population. Ask yourself why other dark races (Samoans, Aborigines, etc) still do not suffer appearance based racism in America. Why Because the ODR myth supports the notion that a separate category of 'Blacks' (AAs) are 'inferior' and that all other 'Blacks' are 'okay'.
I would also like to speak upon this:
Quote:
It is the blocked access to whiteness, IMO, that is the central political issue for such multiracialists. It is the experience of being held back or kept in a place that ought to be reserved for "truly," "clearly," "real" Blacks that I believe fuels this world view, the perception of having lost political, social and economic cache (a rightful place) under the ODR.
This is a main reason why many AAs hold fast to the ODR. Some have even admitted it. They do not want to lose status, power, etc to 'LSBs', Creoles, Mixed-raced peoples of partial SSA descent. In order to not be on the bottom alone, they will hold others down with them (ODR). 'Blocked access to Whiteness' or is it the more common euphamism 'trying to be White'? And why, I ask, should not someone >75% White not claim what is theirs by birthright, hmmm? What is wrong with White people?
So, while maybe some are trying like La Raza to 'improve the race', others 'aspire to Whiteness'? Whatever!
But is it just a power struggle or is it deeper? I think it is deeper and that some people internally feel these LSB types are 'a superior Black'. (IMO, a so-called 'superior Black' is one who first looks Black, lol. ) Just like Whites. See Obama. Whites will humor him/them/us and call him AA. But he is not AA. He is biracal, Afro-descent, and Keyan-American. Do not doubt one moment that their are many, many Whites who think he is great soley because he is mixed-race and raised White. I have even read quotes from AA politicians who have stated such a fear of the mixed types leaving the Black race if given one chance. Now, what does that really say? I do not respect this position because they agree with what the White Supremacists believe: that SSA/Blacks are innately inferior. This is a lie.
Again, any people (all races) who support ODR are supporting 'AA inferiority' by adhering to it. No matter the 'good' intentions.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
past genocides, current realities, and the future implications this topic has for American society, especially AAs (who are effected the most), and those interested in the politics of race and privilege ad nauseum... Yeah, I get it. 
However, by supporting the ODR myth, AAs perpetuate Black inferiority and the singling out of Blacks as 'different', not like all other races.
Because the ODR myth supports the notion that a separate category of 'Blacks' (AAs) are 'inferior' and that all other 'Blacks' are 'okay'.
I think it is deeper and that some people internally feel these LSB types are 'a superior Black'. (IMO, a so-called 'superior Black' is one who first looks Black, lol. ) Just like Whites. See Obama. Whites will humor him/them/us and call him AA. But he is not AA. He is biracal, Afro-descent, and Keyan-American. Do not doubt one moment that their are many, many Whites who think he is great soley because he is mixed-race and raised White.